I suspect the world would be better if that percentage were even greater.
My tussle on amsat-bb
Today’s example comes from the amsat-bb mailing list. I am a member of AMSAT and a subscriber to the amsat-bb mailing list because it’s an interesting subject that I desire to learn more about and that I enjoy sharing with my fellow hams. But AMSAT is seemingly in a struggle to save itself from extinction, and it seems to be gnawing off its own limbs while doing so. An all-too-typical example came in today. Mike Rupprecht, DK3WN and member of the COMPASS-1 cubesat program wrote a simple, concise message:
Dear all, we are looking for someone to assist us in commanding of our cubesat COMPASS-1 at the West Coast. If someone (or more) is interested in, please contact me. Thanks! 73, on behalf of the COMPASS team, Mike DK3WN
This was a simple, concise plea from help from the amateur committee. You’d think that we as amateurs would be eager to jump at the chance to help. After all, how many of us volunteer to help put up antennas, or fix equipment, or help one another to prepare for license exams, or even help with genuine emergencies, all without any kind of reward beyond our own feeling that we are doing something good.
Here’s one of the first responses that Mike’s plea received:
Hi Mike, DK3WN COMPASS-1 is not an amateur satellite http://www.raumfahrt.fh-aachen.de/ If the COMPASS team is looking for someone (or more) radioamateurs all around the world in assisting with command and telemetry using our amateur ground stations built using our amateur money in my opinion the COMPASS-1 scientific organization should donate contributions to AMSAT in order to buid our communication satellites. Is the COMPASS-1 scientific organization in Germany donating contributions to AMSAT-DL to build P3-E or not ? Tank you for you answere 73" de i8CVS Domenico
First of all, as a matter of practicality, University cubesat programs such as COMPASS-1 are typically funded by grants. The grant money is typically given to perform a given piece of research, and in the case of cubesats, to build, launch and deploy a specific payload. The teams cannot simply give such money away to other programs, no matter how worthwhile or deserving, simply because you or I would like them to. It would be an improper use of their grant money. They simply don’t have that kind of discretion. Even if 100% of their team wanted to split their grant money with P3-E, they couldn’t.
Second of all, cubesat programs are by definition low budget projects. They are low mass, low power objects launched into low earth orbit by begging space on other platforms. A typical cubesat is a 4 inch cube that weighs a kilogram, and is launched into an orbit with an apogee of around 650km. By comparison, P3-E will have an orbital mass of 90kg in a HEO with an apogee of 44,000km. Domenico’s comments make it seem as if they have cash to spare: the reverse is actually the true. A typical cubesat program grant might pay for the satellite, but control stations are typically underfunded if they are funded at all. These cubesat programs are running on very tight budgets, which is one of the reasons why they sometimes seek the cooperation of radio amateurs to gather telemetry, or, in the case of COMPASS-1 to assist with ground control operations. Even if they did have cash to spare, and the discretion to donate it to P3-E, the cost of launching P3-E compared to launching a cubesat is so great that no meaningful fraction of the P3-E’s launch costs could ever be gained by extracting pennies from cubesat launches. We might as well just try funding the launch with bake sales.
Third, one might reasonably ask: why don’t university programs try to work with us to get our satellites launched? Why can’t we compete successfully for the kind of grant money that these cubesat programs tap into? The answer is similar to the answer above: because we don’t offer them anything of any real interest relative to the cost that we would incur to launch P3-E. The cost of launching every cube sat for the last 5 years will not come close to the cost of launching P3-E, and P3-E isn’t carrying any payload that granting agencies are interested in flying anyway.
So, at best Domenico’s criticism is pointless. They can’t do what they ask. Even if they could, it would be a pittance compared to the real costs of launching the satellite that he (and frankly I) would like to see launched.
But it goes well beyond just saying something that is pointless. Domenico is essentially asking for a quid-pro-quo of money in exchange for services. In the United States, all radio amateurs are governed by Part 97, and one of the fundamental principles of this set of regulations is that we are amateurs, and we are prohibited from providing communications for a pecuniary interest. Domenico’s suggestion is that we do precisely that: that we aren’t interested in helping unless they provide us with a financial incentive to do so. It’s a violation of regulations for us to behave this way.
But even more than that: it’s beneath our character as radio amateurs. We have the motto: “When all else fails, amateur radio works.” This isn’t just a statement of technology, it’s a commitment on our part as volunteers to help each other. It’s what we do, and not just when there are lives to be saved. Amateur radio works because generous, thoughtful people give of themselves to make the world a better place. Mike reached out to the ham community for help. Domenico asked for a five spot. That’s not what we are supposed to be about.
I must admit that I lost it when I read Domenico’s letter. I called him a jackass, and while I must admit that might be a bit too harsh, he certainly is acting like a jackass. Nothing he said will help the amateur radio service. It was a pointless, useless attempt to get money from a stone that has no money to give. I also think it was petty and not in the spirit of our service.
Some people disagree or claim that my criticism was uncalled for. They also seemed to use the excuse that Domenico is entitled to his opinion, and that means I should apologize. I wonder why none of them seemed to defend my own entitlement to my own opinion. It’s always easy to defend opinions that you agree with I suppose. But in any case, no apology will be forthcoming.
Mike offered some lucky radio amateurs the opportunity to serve science, to work with a team dedicated to building relationships radio amateurs, and to operate as the control station for an satellite on amateur frequencies. My own resources are too meager to be of any practical use to him, but I suspect he’ll find some with both the equipment and the desire to help.
Addendum: Here is a link to the IARU webpage which outlines the requirements that a satellite needs to go through in order to use amateur radio frequencies. The COMPASS-1 cubesat was coordinated and its use of amateur frequencies was authorized by the International Amateur Radio Union.
Addendum2: While scanning the list of downlink frequencies for cubesats to determine their potential for interference to birds with linear transponders, I came up with this list:
Satellite No. Uplink Downlink Beacon Mode Callsign CO-66 (SEEDS-II) 32791 . 437.485 437.485 FM,CW,Talker JQ1YGU COMPASS-1 32787 . 437.405 . 1200bps AFSK DP0COM COMPASS-1 32787 . . 437.275 CW DP0COM CUTE1.7+APDII 32785 1267.600 437.475 . 9600bps GMSK JQ1YTC CO-65 (APDII) 32785 . 437.475 . 1200bps AFSK JQ1YTC CO-65 (APDII) 32785 . . 437.275 CW JQ1YTC PolySat CP4 31132 . 437.325 437.323 1200bps SSB N6CP CO-58 (XI-V) 28895 . . 437.345 1200bps AFSK JQ1YGW CO-58 (XI-V) 28895 . . 437.345 1200bps AFSK JQ1YGW CO-57 (XI-IV) 27848 . 437.490 . 1200bps AFSK JQ1YCW CO-57 (XI-IV) 27848 . . 436.8475 CW CO-56 (CUTE1.7) 28941 . 437.505 437.382 1200bps AFSK JQ1YPC CO-56 (CUTE1.7) 28941 1268.500 437.505 437.382 9600bps GMSK CO-55 (CUTE-I) 27844 . 437.470 . 1200bps AFSK JQ1YCY CO-55 (CUTE-I) 27844 . . 436.8375 CW
Frequencies cribbed from this link..
An astute observer will note that in virtually every case, these cubesats are using the top 1Mhz of the 435-438Mhz allocation that is internationally recognized as the satellite subband on 70cm. Currently no transponders operate in this section of the band. VO-52 has uplinks on 435.230-435.200. DO-64 has uplinks on 435.570-530. FO-29 has the downlink on 435.900-800. And AO-7? It’s not even in the subband, with an uplink on 432.125-175. The simple fact is that the chance for interference between cubesats and any existing or even forseeable launch is exceedingly low. I was going to run a calculation to demonstrate that even if their frequencies did overlap, the chances of them actually being in the passband of a linear bird was essentially zero, but given that they don’t overlap in frequency at all, the odds aren’t just essentially zero, but are in fact precisely zero.
Comments
Comment from Allan Copland
Time 11/12/2008 at 6:37 am
Hi Mike,
You make the comment…
>(edited) But AMSAT is seemingly in a struggle to save itself from extinction, and it seems to be gnawing off its own limbs while doing so
I couldn’t agree more. Since getting into bed with the Universities and Colleges they now have to compete for both launch opportunities and bandwidth in the Amateur Satellite Allocations. The stable door was thrown open many years ago and the horse long since bolted.
Most of the ‘me-too’ birds (my quote!) IMO offer little of interest to the amateur satellite enthusiast while occupying valuable spectrum space in the lower frequency satellite bands. They certainly don’t interest me in the slightest.
73 Al.
GM1SXX
A-UK 3286
Here’s is a complete reprint of one of John Branegan GM4IHJ’s SATGEN bulletins circulated in May 1994 that raises this very issue..
Satgen268 Altruistic Radio Amateurs by GM4IHJ 14 May 94
BID of this msg is SGEN268 Please use this BID if you retransmit this msg
You do something which is of no great help to yourself, but which helps me
greatly. Typical examples are the two dozen or so Oscar and Radio Sport
satellites, which have allowed thousands of radio amateurs to enjoy the
pleasure of satellite communications. Altruistic behaviour of this kind
has been the corner stone of Amsat achievement to date. But times are
changing .
Many recent satellite launches appear to have very little to do with
amateur radio, except that they use amateur radio frequency bands. These
satellites are built by colleges and universities, apparently with little
regard for the fact that they simple duplicate what college X did last
year , and what very few people are using this year. There are of course
exceptions. The University of Surrey store and forward digital birds have
totally revolutionised international dissemination of amateur radio packet
traffic. The original Uosats were crammed with excellent educational
facilities, and Dove is very close to what the perfect education sat
should be. But most of the rest of these college birds , either in space
or going there shortly, have nothing of any real value to ordinary radio
amateurs.
A typical example has been announced recently. It will , according to one
of its design team ” Give project design and building experience to the
College team “. It will carry Earth picture equipment and Navigation
reporting facilities – items which already exist in other satellites , and
which appear to attract only a very small number of users. There is no
mention of provision of any facilities useful to the ordinary radio
amateur .
This process whereby an original success generates a generally unwanted
stream of unemployed clones, is clearly not a useful way to utilize
amateur radio facilities. I suggest that a good topic for Amsat University
of Surrey 94 Colloquium discussion, should be a proposal that :- Any
satellite using amateur radio frequencies , must in future deploy at least
one mode of amateur voice/cw communications via a transponder, plus at
least one amateur band beacon. These to be available on all orbits.
By all means let College teams build satellites if they wish to. But these
satellites should not use amateur radio frequencies unless they conform to
the above provision of services for radio amateurs.
Amsat must grasp this nettle . We are being taken for a ride, which will
only be welcomed , if the college builders help us, as well as helping
themselves.
I would further recommend that Amsat publish a hit list of priority
facilities which radio amateurs want in sats. Each different sat could
carry a different mode transponder and a different beacon frequency/band.
Anyone listening around the amateur satellite bands should clearly see the
problem. We have very few mode A, K , J and S band transponder facilities.
We have a very useful group of 9.6kB store and forward birds and just one
superb education sat ( Dove). The rest of the spacebourne menagerie
consists of abandonned and neglected college specials. If this situation
continues, we can only blame ourselves. 73 de GM4IHJ @ GB7SAN
Comment from Mark VandeWettering
Time 11/12/2008 at 8:38 am
Alan,
As a practical matter, the COMPASS-1 team sought coordination for the use of amateur frequencies from the IARU, and obtained such authorization from them back in 2006. I’ve provided links to the IARU guidelines in the main article. Some have argued that the IARU aren’t strict enough in their grant of amateur frequencies. I am willing to consider that as a reasonable position, but the COMPASS-1 team aren’t operating illegally. They applied for and were granted the capability to operate their satellite within the amateur band. They did things the right way, and the legal way.
While some of the cubesats don’t offer much of immediate interest to the average amateur enthusiast (most have not included, for instance the ability for amateurs to make two way communication), neither do they offer any competition or consume any significant resources from the amateur service. We aren’t competing for the same grant money to get launched, if for no other reason than granting agencies aren’t willing to fund projects of the scale that we are talking about without a significant scientific (or in the case of Homeland Security) emergency communication payoff. AMSAT as an organization has as yet never been successful in securing funding from these kind of sources, so we obviously can’t be competing there.
As for frequencies, given that essentially all our satellites are in LEO, we don’t really have any competition for frequencies either. Can you provide an instance of harmful interference being caused by a cubesat, even if it was making uncoordinated use of an amateur frequency? If we can’t document such a case, why should we panic and freak out about them using “our frequencies”? This is nothing more than an attempt to create a kind of turf war, and is of no practical significance. Frankly, I wish it was, because if actual interference mitigation was necessary, it would mean that we would be launching enough satellites to make the bands crowded, and that would be great.
Thanks for your comments.
Comment from Allan Copland
Time 11/12/2008 at 9:25 am
IHJ was right…. we are being taken for a ride.
You said….
>neither do they offer any competition or consume any significant resources from the amateur service.
Not true, they consume valuable bandwidth in the most useful amateur satellite sub-bands. Prime territory if you like, for linear transponder birds.
>While most of the cubesats don’t offer much to the amateur enthusiast, neither do they offer any competition or consume any significant resources from the amateur service.
I disagree. Take a look at all the stuff already in orbit plus all the planned cubesats and other University missions and come back and tell me there isn’t any issue with available bandwidth, especially on the lower (most useful to the majority of radio amateurs) allocations.
>As for frequencies, given that essentially all our satellites are in LEO, we don’t really have any competition for frequencies either.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the IARU’s satellite co-ordination website. I’d suggest you take a look there. Most of our satellites are indeed in LEO… among with most of the competition for the amateur satellite sub-band frequencies. Think about it please.
>If we can’t document such a case, why should we panic and freak out about them using “our frequencies”?
Who is freaking out? Where did I mention ‘our frequencies’? I didn’t say any of this stuff. Agreed University grant money is irrelevant to AMSAT, but I didn’t mention that either 🙂
AMSAT have some pretty grand plans for which for the forseeable future, simply cannot be paid for or delivered, in large part because the ‘free rides’ or ‘budget deals’ we benefitted from in the past simply no longer exist.
Perhaps part of this is because SSTL and many other mainly educational University companies (and they are companies) are competing for both launcher space.. and amateur satellite allocations, directly with AMSAT.
Amateur satellite projects.
As a fairly long-term member of AMSAT-UK, #3286, I can only once ever remember being polled on what I’d want. That was so long ago I can’t remember if it was in the 80’s or 90’s! It was conducted by Richard Limebear G3RWL, I believe at his own personal expense!
I appreciate that most amateur satellites take years to design, fund and launch but the means now exists to directly ask the vast majority of paying members what they actually want their hard earned cash spent on…. and it’s not new. It’s called ‘The Internet’. The last time I checked, it had been around for quite a while. Perhaps if AMSAT actually used this valuable and essentially free resource, much of what we see baing argued about on the various boards with such vitriol would go away.
Re the first posting I made….
Perhaps someone could explain to me how a non-amateur satellite can legally use frequencies allocated to the amateur satellite service?
Well….. perhaps someone could explain this conundrum please?
73 Al.
GM1SXX
Comment from Mark VandeWettering
Time 11/12/2008 at 9:45 am
I updated the posting to include links that will hopefully help you with your original question. COMPASS-1 sought and was granted its request to use amateur frequencies by the IARU coordination body in accordance to the current regulations and policy.
Back to your other comment, let’s consider all the birds in orbit which currently carry linear transponders. AO-7 is certainly the oldest, so old that it’s frequencies are not within the modern amateur satellite band. Surely no cubesat provides any competition for those frequencies. By my count, we only have three other birds with transponders (FO-29, VO-52 and DO-64). I’ll run an experiment, since it’s quite easy to do. I’ll find all the downlinks for these birds and every cubesat that I can find. I’ll then run a month’s worth of predictions to find out how often a cubesat’s downlink falls within the space allocated to any of the four birds linear transponders. Any estimates on what the outcome will be? How many times per month do you think that a downlink/linear transponder conflict will be possible?
Expect my posting in the next day or two after I run the experiment.
Comment from Nash
Time 11/12/2008 at 3:53 pm
1. IARU coordinates these frequencies. CubeSats aren’t randomly picking and choosing where they operate in the spectrum. They also pushed for a formal IARU process for coordinating amateur radio satellites, something that had not been around simply because there was not a lot of use on these band.
2. AMSAT and IARU now have the implicit backing of every university and group building satellites that use or hope to use this band. When governments come looking for “unused” bands the amateur community can point to all these groups and maintain control of the frequencies.
3. They ARE pushing the art of radio ahead. AMSAT likes to build these big birds with as many transponders on board as they can. These CubeSats are pushing the limits in terms of miniaturization and optimizing the communication systems. Many are building from the ground up and because they are universities the technology is available for use elsewhere. ITAR is a hindrance in some cases but many groups get around this by publishing non-satellite specific papers. (ie “Miniaturization of a 400MHz Transponder” vs “400MHz Transponder for Small Satellite Use”)
4. This is infusing the amateur satellite community with young and excited people. Rather then being a bunch of grouchy grey-beards, AMSAT should invite them in and talk. The people are only in school for a few years, if AMSAT puts an effort into it they can keep the new people in the hobby/obsession.
I realize that mostly it’s a few outspoken and very opinoinated people that are doing the talking but the rest of the community needs to understand what it looks like to an outsider.
Editor’s note: Well said.
Comment from John KB2HSH
Time 11/12/2008 at 9:34 pm
Mark:
As I said in private to you…the WORLD may disagree with your message, but I for one will always respect a person’s opinion. That is at the basis of our American belief system. It is that most basic of American/Human rights…to speak freely, that is to be appreciated.
Did Domenico act like a jackass? Honestly? He sure did. I’ve been a ham for 20 years. Volunteering to help the hobby, to help and serve others is what we do. I am a member of Erie County ARES. I use the hobby to help others. This year I came down with pneumonia during an event that had TORRENTIAL rain. I neither blamed anyone else, nor expected compensation or reward for my actions. Sadly, though, we are in the midst of a very selfish point in human history. I fear it’s spreading, too.
John KB2HSH
Comment from Allan Copland
Time 11/12/2008 at 5:29 am
Im now totally confused.
Whether or not you agree with Domenico’s comments, Compass is clearly stated *not* to be an amateur satellite, yet it operates on the amateur radio satellite frequency allocations. How can this be?
Frequency hijacking? Freeloading?
Perhaps someone could explain to me how a non-amateur satellite can legally use frequencies allocated to the amateur satellite service?
Surely this is illegal?
73 Al.
GM1SXX
AMSAT UK member 3286.