Do We Shoot for the Moon?
Rick LaBanca (KA1EZE)
on
January 31, 2004
View comments about this article!
Many of you have heard the rumor that the president will announce his attempt at getting a mission to the moon going. Perhaps a base there, and use that to get men to Mars.
Now putting aside disagreement on if/when/should we, and assuming this initiative were to start, would that mean something for ham radio? Should the ARRL pursue this?
Where other modes of communication have made talking around the world an ordinary activity, I was thinking that communication to the moon (not just bouncing off of it) would be a (rare) chance to do something ahead of the curve that would interest non-hams. Especially kids judging from the space station communication success.
I wrote this because I for one would like to see the ARRL/hams get to focus on some more proactive rather than defensive activities. The best defense is a good offense!
I've never done any satellite work or similar, but this really interests me! Anyone else?
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KE2IV on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well if you were a member of AMSAT you would know that DL hams have already proposed placing a digipeater on a Mars probe.
Not sure how far (pun intended) they will get with this idea - espescially since the Beagle II seems to have crash landed.
Not to say we couldn't have put one on each of the Rovers - but unlikely given the crammed on equipment package etc.
But as to sending this appointed president to the Moon ... when?
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KD4TOQ on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think we should shoot for a nuclear powered FM/SSB repeater, what a satellite that would be....Just kidding.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We need to split the Moon into 10 call districts, with the Moon having it’s own prefix.
Each call will ONLY be assigned to a call area (you must sign portable 6 if you have a 1 area call and you are operating in 6 land.)
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KT0DD on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
To heck with the moon! We should send the previously mentioned nuclear powered FM/SSB repeater directly to MARS! That would give everyone a legitimate reason to do the "MARS MOD" to their rigs! 73 :-)
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by W8BYH on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In all seriousness, this issue is a good one to consider! With the state of amateur radio technology today the idea of holding a two-way conversation with astronauts on the moon is perfectly feasible and is an attention gettting idea for children and teenagers. Once the President's vision is well underway and we have a continuous presence on the moon (and regular resupply missions) the idea of 'sneaking' a small transciever and antenna system aboard is not at all far fetched. Imagine telling kids in a science class that they have a scheduled QSO with another planet! I for one think it's an idea that deserves serious consideration and the ARRL should strongly support it.
Now as to the idea of a nuclear powered repeater... Heck yeah!
73,
W8BYH
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KF4VGX on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yes ! Repeater on the moon :) Hams should never stop Experimenting . It adds life and excitment to our hobby. your 5-9 here in Etc just becomes boring after awhile
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yep, Boy George wants those welfare checks to start up again.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by N0FPE on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You bet we should! All the luddites that say no are just living in their past!!!! Onward and upward.....
Dan
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by N2EA on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Absolutely! This topic will be brought up at AMSAT's February board meeting/ strategy development session.
It shouldn't be 'snuck aboard', it should be made a very visible portion of AMSAT's educational outreach program, and should be among the early payloads.
This mission should occupy a visible place on AMSAT's technology roadmap...its plan for future projects.
Join AMSAT. Make it happen.
Jim Jarvis, N2EA
Director of Marketing
AMSAT-NA
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by W7HV on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When I first read the article I thought, what the heck does ham radio have to do with NASA going to the moon or mars. After reading some of the comments, I see there might be some reasonable ways that amateur radio could participate.
However, if you want to be communicating with a Mars expedition or using a Mars repeater, be prepared to build your self a ***BIG*** dish. See the following website for info on the radio stations and antennas NASA is using to communicate with the MARS orbiters and rovers.
http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsn/antennas/index.html
The global collection of stations is refered to as the "Deep Space Network" or DSN for short. The URL for the DSN is
http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsn/index.html
Lou W7HV
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by WR8D on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
No way. by the time the fcc is through dumbing us down with the arrl approval..there wont be a so called ham smart enough to get a signal to the moon. Bubba is gonna turn his moonraker on the moon and talk to the space men. "Yeah right".
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K8LQ on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Usually you see alot of hams shooting part of the moon at hamfests.
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by W5GNB on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think we need to send BUSH and all of his ILLEGAL ALLIEN buddies to the moon with a MOON RAKER REPEATER. That way when he needs MORE MONEY for some FRIVIOLUS project (such as a MOON WAR), he can just get on the GOOD BUDDY box and break into the gang on 14.313 for an imediate response!
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think taxes should increase ninety quabillion trillion percent and everyone should have his own personal warp drive jetpack. Lets do better than a stinking moonraker project.
WE WANT WARP DRIVE NOW MR BUSH.
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KG6GMT on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yes what a great idea I work the satellites often. It would be nice to take something like the ECHO satellite and make changes to it and place it on the moon. A class in England takling to a class in the USA using the moon repeater to make the contact. I am a member of AMSAT it gets my vote. Plus some great Contacts for the bird men.
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by VE7LFN on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If I recall correctly, there was a plan to put a repeater on the moon during the Apollo missions. Don't know how close to reality it came but why not dust it of and try again...
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by CWTITAN on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I HOPE THERE IS A CW REPEATER ON MARS AND THE MOON. BETTER YET, IF THERE IS A STATION ON THE MOON, I VOLUNTEER TO RUN IT, AS LONG AS bush isn't with me.
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by NG1I on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Way I see it, especially with AO-40 now being a really BIG bust, why waste the dollars on any Mars probes that have, for the most part failed after awhile; lets forget about going through the whole hula-balu and that time/money it takes to get something Amatuer Radio going into space.
I can see a repeater on the space station however so I am not considered completely negative on the subject.
I enjoyed getting DXCC CW on OA-13 before it's decaying orbit from it's very start, to prove that I not an Old Timer or crudmunchon with an axe to grind.
Frank
NG1I
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by NG1I on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
P.S. What would a busy astronaut on the moon, already swamped for time and oxygen, and NASA want to take the time, trouble, and , ham equipment to the moon to listen to nothing but crowded QSO pileups. It was bad enough with Mir!
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K6TLA on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why not repeaters, digipeaters, bbs, etc. on Mars. If making all that happen gets too tedious for us lazy Americans remember that there will be at least 50 illegal alien day laborers loitering in their spacesuits outside the Mars branch of Home Depot to help us with all the jobs Americans don't want to do.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K2WH on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This talk of putting a repeater on the moon is ridiculous. It will just be another private repeater for the select few that operate on microwave just like the now defunct and dangerous AO-40. Just imagine if AO-40 was on a NASA flight and it blew up. The only thing it hasn't done yet is crash into this planet killing someone, but stay tuned.
In addition, payload space is at a premium. Why would NASA want to waste space and weight on a mission to the moon so some amateur radio operators can talk to one another. Give me a break. Besides, you want to embarrass NASA when they find out amateur equipment lasts longer and works better then their equipment.
K2WH
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by NG1I on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What on earth (pardon the pun) does tedious have anything to do with anything...We're talking resoucres and efficient use thereof.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K2WH on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
and another thing.......... What about all the now dead amateur satellites up there. How are hams going to be looked at when one of the dead bricks hit the space station or some other quadtrillion dollar satellite. Stay at home and dream. Hey, lets put a repeater down a well hole. Ooohhhhh!!!! Maybe we can work LAVA>
K2WH
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by NG1I on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I only differ with KW2H in that a lot of our space amatuer hasn't survived...at least by the standards from which we are given from AMSAT and ARRL
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by WB4QNG on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I work MARS station every May you have to work split frequencies though. I have cards to prove it. I haven't heard any Moon stations. Even though there must be some up there. I have heard stations talking about working moon-bounce. I don't know why George wants to go to the moon but I would pass a collection basket around if he needs some spending money once he get there.
Terry
WB4QNG
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K2WH on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
and still another thing............. Why not assign districts 1-9 for all the planets. Who's going to be the first to petition the FCC?
1 = Mercury
2 = Venus
3 = Earth
4 = Mars
5 = Jupiter
6 = Saturn
7 = Uranus
8 = Neptune
9 = Pluto
.............................. Truly stupid stuff on this site.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by NG1I on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Would there be any CW on these new planet regions? (:
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KA3RFE on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Before any country does anything with the moom, the internations space station needs to be completeted and a means of getting material to that station must be found. With the shuttles grounded, nothing can be done to complete it. The station already has a man station on board, so that't not an issue.
There are a number of technical problems to get around to go back to the moon that also are not solvable without shuttles. IE: material for a base on the moon must be orbited and a powerful rocket engine must be used to get the stuff to the moon. Right now there is no way to do it and it will take many dollars and years to assemble.
First priority right now is to get the shuttles back and and replacements made for the two that were lost.
73, Pete KA3RFE
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by N9AVY on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Maybe we should consider the authors of all those bad puns as "volunteers" for the first mission ?
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by WA8QNN on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Do you think we could have a CW id'er on this repeater?
Larry
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by G3SEA on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can see where a VHF/UHF/SHF repeater would be put on the moon either on a robot lander or part of a manned mission.Big problem would be congestion although the 2 sec delay should not pose too big a problem.
Mars with it's 20 minute return trip delay is a bigger problem.
In any case any proposed manned missions should be a private enterprise project to save the suffering
tax payers :)
However when one thinks of the current technology compared to the Apollo days then future missions could be put together very quickly.
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by N4QA on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Should the Brits get to the moon before the Americans return there, perhaps they'll activate M0ON.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by G3SEA on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
M0ON
Great call sign ! :)
BUT need to improve on Beagle :(
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by N1OFZ on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I currently enjoy working the sats and think some kind of repeater on the moon would be interesting. I do think that it should be ssb/cw however. The power requirements for FM at a distance as far as the moon would be too much.
I am curious as to how somehting like this would be a 'private repeater' for a 'select few' on the microwaves? Come on, any 'I got my extra ticket the hard way' ham should be able to cobble together a transverter or two out of his junk box in an hour or so. Then a quick stroll out to the garage to throw together a feed for a dish an your on the air right? It can't be more difficult than stringing up a wire and getting on HF can it? If a 'no code' tech can build a 2.4 GHz transverter/antennas and get on the sats how hard can it be?
N1OFZ
'Anything below 50 MHz is DC'
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K1CJS on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Sure. Just make sure our not-so-beloved president goes on the first ship out. Better yet, make it the only ship out--and with only 1/2 load of fuel. We'd finally be rid of him.
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by N0RTU on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Although finding room for anything amateur oriented is always a challenge, many sats have went up and I guess a couple more are in the works for this year. So having said that, an attempt to set up something on the moon is not unreasonable to me.
Finding room for all the present officers of arrl on a flight would be an incredible challenge, but, we hams are known for coming up with some incredible ideas!
My first suggestion would be to simply strap their asses to the OUTSIDE of the rocket and let'r launch! Let's try that first, and if it doesn't work, we'll elect some new ones and try it again! Who knows? After several attempts, we may actually accomplish two things.
1. A manned amateur station on the Moon.(I wonder which brand of equipment would accompany this DXpedition?)
2. A new set of ARRL officers in CT who actually WILL listen to the membership here on Earth!
It will take a huge sacrifice to accomplish this, but, I'm willing to donate generously to the effort!
HOW ABOUT YOU?
73
Mike
N0RTU
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K5XS on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I say it's great idea for an initiative.
And I am grateful for a president with vision enough to return us to serious space exploration.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by N2WEC on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is no need for all the negative commentary here. It is logical to give thought to Amateur Radio equipment on the Moon. What is so far fetched about a repeater through a satellite? All you nay sayers are just short sighted and needlessly getting on the guy who asked a logical question. Did you say the same things when the origional thought about using Amateur Radio from space was suggested? To be who we are as a group of Old Timers and Newbies, basic and technically minded. Boys and girls there will be Amateur radio on the Moon. Just a sure as your next breath. I personally look forward to the day it happens. I will have an antenna pointed up at our first and origional satellite.
Bill - N2WEC FN02rv
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by N6AJR on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would like to see a "stationary " AO-40 type setup on the moon.. it would work well and the batteries could be replaced easier, eventually... and perhaps a large ( several hunderd meters) metal screen dish to use to bounce off signals, and such. there is a great lot of fun to be had with a "moon station" set up.
I am getting really disapointed with the Nay sayers and the sarcasism on this site. I see folks who only contribute negativity to any thread listed.
If you are serious as to not wanting this place to turn into CB then do your part and knock off the "bubba" crap, the critisim of the government, and your mothers shoe size, that you put here, just because you can..
I know I did my 8 years in the military so you could say what you want ( its called freedom) but would your mother be proud of your conduct on this site.. 73 tom N6AJR
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
JCS: Unfortunately, over 50% of the people disagree with you. That's democracy in action.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by WB4QNG on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was just kidding. I am sure if and when we make it back to the moon there will be some kind of ham radio on the moon just like there is ham radio on the space station and the shuttles. My only concern is it seems we will have to have a whole new vehicle to take all the stuff up there that would be needed to build a permanent colony up there. Without a race to beat someone like the Russians I just can't see us spending the kind of money it will take. You younger people might see it but I am afraid I will not make it that long.
Terry
WB4QNG
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KG4VPV on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First of all.....
"However, if you want to be communicating with a Mars expedition or using a Mars repeater, be prepared to build your self a ***BIG*** dish. See the following website for info on the radio stations and antennas NASA is using to communicate with the MARS orbiters and rovers. "
Thats all fine and good. It works for them....Why wouldn't it work for us? Does anyone realize the delay that radio signals would have to and from Mars? A lot. Think about it, it takes only 1.3 seconds for a radio signal to reach the moon.....For Mars:
Radio waves travel at the speed of: 300,000,000 m/s (3 x 10^8)
the Radius of Earth's Orbit:(1.5 X 10^11 m)
the Radius of Mars' Orbit:(2.28 x 10^11 m)
If the Planets are as close as possible in orbit to each other, (which wont happen for a long time, because it just happened), the shortest distance between the two is: (7.8 x 10^10 m)
Given the equation, t=d/c, t being time, d being distance, and c being the constant for the speed of light, the total time it takes to reach mars for a radio wave is:
7.8e10/3e8
equals:
2.6e2
(thats 260 seconds, 4 minutes and 20 seconds)
Do you really want to spend ALL that money on a dish, and THEN wait almost four and a half minutes for a return qso? (Well, longer since someone else will be talking back to you) Think of the pileups, NOOOOOOO!
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by W7HV on January 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Uh, a one way com via a Mars based repeater requires a round trip from earth to mars and back so would be 2x4.5 = 9 minutes. To get a reply from another ham on earth would take two round trips which would be 18 minutes. That's with Mars at the closest.
Right now Mars is ~120 million miles away so one round trip is 24 minutes and an exchange would take 48 minutes. This is slow even by 5wpm CW standards.
Lou W7HV
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KG4VPV on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Good point, forgot about the whole round trip thing....My bad!
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> JCS: Unfortunately, over 50% of the people disagree
> with you. That's democracy in action.
I don't recall there having been a vote on whether or not to send dubya to the moon or Mars.
If your comment was aimed at presidential elections, they don't work by direct democracy, and even if they did that would be 50% of those who bothered to vote.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I am grateful for a president with vision enough to
> return us to serious space exploration.
You've confused serious with spectacular. In fact, in order to accomdate dubya's "vision", NASA has already announced plans that would *reduce* the amount serious space exploration being done over the next 20 years.
NASA's problem, from the early days, has been that the folks wanna see astronuts flyin' but the serious science involves instruments and robotics, (which, of course, bore the average MiTS)
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KD5ALU on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
A repeater on the Moon. Go for it. I read of this possibility years ago and liked the idea. It seems an FM or SSB repeater could be used without a big outlay in equipment for the Earth based operators. Maybe just a Yagi or Quad. EME on 25 watts VHF/UHF FM would be fantastic. I say use VHF/UHF so that an investment in microwave gear is not required and therefore can be used by a greater number of Hams. Nuclear power sounds nice but is that really feasible? Of couse if it is solar powered, we can only use it 14 days out of each 28 day Lunar cycle unless batteries will last the other 14 days.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> JCS: Unfortunately, over 50% of the people disagree
> with you. That's democracy in action.
>>I don't recall there having been a vote on whether or not to send dubya to the moon or Mars.
If your comment was aimed at presidential elections, they don't work by direct democracy, and even if they did that would be 50% of those who bothered to vote.<<
Picky lil bugger, ain't ya? I don't need a lecture on civics either, by the way.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>50 illegal alien day laborers loitering in their spacesuits outside the Mars branch of Home Depot to help us with all the jobs Americans don't want to do. <<<
I have heard much on this message board about "Illegal immigrants" taking jobs away from Americans lately. Some even suggest that even "legal immigrants" are in the same catagory as taking the same jobs away from Americans...
Here's a true story to think about...
I seem to recall a newspaper story of some illegal aliens working in nearby apple orchards picking apples where I used to live in Canada.
As it turns out, some of these illegal aliens were caught and found to be American citizens. One of the American immigrants was married to a Canadian citizen and they had a 1 year old daughter together. But just like the United States demonstrates, immigration does not immediately give them authority to work for a long time.. sometimes this process can quite literally take years.
While his Canadian wife worked a full time job, the American couldn't get a real legal job because he was waiting for the immigration process to give him his legal papers for work authorization in Canada.
In the meantime, his wife was laid off from her job and they needed money to survive, so the American ended up taking a job in an apple orchard and working in Canada as an illegal alien.
Similarly, as many users of these forums often suggest - this American was taking a perfectly good job away from a Canadian citizen who needed a job.
Because of the public outrage about illegal immigrants working at the apple orchard without legal authorization, The illegal American immigrant was deported back to the United States seperating him from his wife and daughter.
The American later tried to return back to his wife and 1 year old daughter after the incident, but was arrested at the border for trying to illegally enter back into Canada.
This wasn't like he was running across a desert under the cover of darkness or anything like that, he was crossing in a car at a Canada Customs checkpoint.
The point of the story? Unless you walk in their shoes, you don't know their stories.
Bush might be doing the right thing...
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K2WH on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By KD5ALU on February 1, 2004:
"Nuclear power sounds nice but is that really feasible? Of couse if it is solar powered, we can only use it 14 days out of each 28 day Lunar cycle unless batteries will last the other 14 days."
Better study your astronomy a little more. The moon does not rotate. One side is always facing the sun. No need for nuclear power. Therefore, solar power with batteries is fine.
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by W7HV on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Uh...One side of the moon always faces earth, and since it orbits earth about once every 28 days it also rotates once every 28 days making a moon day ~28 earth days long.
Nuclear power has been used on many space probes and is entirely feasible, except for overcoming the irrational knee-jerk anti-nuke nuts.
Lou W7HV
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KD5ALU on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
One moon day equals 28 Earth days and since The moon rotational perioed is the same as its orbital period, gven location of the Moon (except its poles I believe) would have 14 Earth days of light and dark in a singal Lunar day. Nuclear could be possible. I am not sure of the cost fesability though. That area I do need to brush op un. As the the Anti-nukes. Send them to the Pluto with all the tree huggers.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KB7YOU on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi,
A month or so ago I read an AMSAT article about a ham in England who picked up the telemetry from one of the Mars probes using nothing but spare parts and homebrew gear. Talking to Mars is not simple but well withing the means of modern amateur practice.
The moon should be easy.
I wonder if anyone has thought of using laser communications for the moon. I know that NASA left some reflectors there and did some (distance?) measuring experiments using ruby lasers. That is something I would not mind trying.
73
Chris
KB7YOU
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K1MKF on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My 2 cents on future sat programs:
I think the VHF up/HF down SSB/CW analog sats are what we need. I started on sats with RS-10/11 and RS-12/13. These birds gave great 10 min passes several times a day and you could work them with a radio, a seperate receiver and fixed antennas. It was within the capability of a novice to compensate for doppler shift and computers were not needed. When I tried to step up to the other birds the technology pushed me away and I bought the needed equipment. I don't want a system that once it's set up only requires me to push to talk. No fun in my book.
All the pacsats, and the Phase 3D project does nothing for me and I'm sure a Moon or Mars repeater won't either. I say if they build a new, robust analog mode A bird and put it in a good orbit my check will be in the mail!
MarkF
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by W6EZ on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If we were to assign a specific band to each of the planets, we could then built a fan dipole to contact each of the planets. We might have to use CW because of the distances and resulting weak siganals.
As far as the moon is goes I see no need to rush to get there. Ralph sent Alice there back in the 50's, and the liberals here in Ca have been contacting the moon for decades as well.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K6TLA on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
We can probably terminate this thread when we realize that the space exploration plans Mr. Bush recently announced will never happen. The money isn't there and there is no practical reason to send people to either the moon or mars. As we learn more about Mars thanks to the rovers and orbiters already there we find that there are fewer reasons to send people to the planet. Oh it would be a grand stunt to be sure but we can learn all we need to learn by going there the faster, better, cheaper way and that is with cost effective automated instruments. There is still plenty of fun to be had for hams by bouncing signals off of earth's ionosphere and in myriad other ways. A year from now we'll have a new president and new priorities.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by WD5L on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nuclear power onboard spacecraft might seem like a good idea at face value but it fails to take into account the unreliable nature of space vehicle technology and the lethality of the nuclear plutonium fuel.
I live in Houston. In Texas we are observing the 1st anniversary of the shuttle Columbia tragegdy. That accident spread contaminated material from New Mexico to East Texas. Outside of Houston in Hemphill they got some substantial pieces of the shuttle. And all the while the media was instructing people not to touch the debris because it contained toxic substances. Mind you this material wasn't even radioactive and we were warned to stay away from it if we sighted it.
According to CUNY Professor of Theoretical Physics Michio Kaku, space shuttles have a 1 in 72 chance of failure either on launch or landing. So the Space Shuttle as space vehicle to lift this nuclear powered repeater into space are nil. The record of unmanned launches either using European Space Agency Ariane rockets or NASA's Titan IV or other payload rockets for piggy back are even less encouraging. An AMSAT OSCAR satellite was lost during a launch back around 1983. A test launch of an un-manned Ariane 5 Rocket was reported destroyed on June 6, 1996 by AMSAT. (SEE: <http://www.amsat.org/amsat/ftp/press-releases/news9603.txt> ) And here's the report an Oscar Satellite reported destroyed in launch on an Ariane back on September 5, 1996. So the safety recored of unmmanned launch vehicles is even worse.
Now a RadioIsotope Thermoelectric Generator would be most likely used as the nuclear power plant. It uses plutonium as it's fuel. An accident with this type of technology would spread plutonium over a several 100 mile square area, not even accounting for wind direction and speed, and contaminate this area. Plutonium is so lethal that a single grain of Plutonium will guarantee death through cancer which would most likely be caused by plutionium inhaled into the lungs.
So launch a Mars space repeater probe if you like but please don't power it with with nuclear generated power
73's,
Rick, WD5L
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Last time I shot a moon I was a teenager. It was cold too, bubba, let me tell you, hanging out the car like that!
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K7FD on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There's a fine line between lunar and lunacy.
73 John K7FD
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K4JSR on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KOE, shooting moons like the last time you did could
get you a couple of painfull bug splats on your cheeks!
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K2WH on February 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by WD5L on February 1, 2004:
"Nuclear power onboard spacecraft might seem like a good idea at face value but it fails to take into account the unreliable nature of space vehicle technology and the lethality of the nuclear plutonium fuel."
Been there done that. Everyone of our deep space probes has been powered by nuclear energy because solar energy is too weak. Pioneer, Voyager, etc....
Nuclear works.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KT8K on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Everything Bush proposes increasing funds for, usually under some stupid positive sounding name, he then turns around and cuts funding for within days, or blocks the very funding he proposed. NASA is in trouble, I think.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by WD5L on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Been there done that. Everyone of our deep space probes has been powered by nuclear energy because solar energy is too weak. Pioneer, Voyager, etc...."
But we're not talking about a deep space probe. We're talking about sending up a nuclear powered repeater. This is a radio hobby not a mission of exploration. Frankly in either case it's beyond irresponsible to advocate sending up satellites, OSCARS or deep space probes powered by Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs)
One of the most reckless uses of nuclear power on board spacecraft was the Cassini space probe. In had onboard 72 lbs of plutonium. As part of its trajectory toward Jupiter it had to be sent back to earth from deep space and using the earth's gravitational pull would swing it out toward that planet. Many scientists actively spoke out against it because it could have missed it's perigee around earth and plunged into our atmosphere and with the winds spread its deadly cargo all over earth for every man, women and child to inhale.
And by the way there is no safe exposure level to plutionium.
Here's a list of how reliable nuclear powered payloads are:
NOVEMBER 1996: Russian Mars ’96 space vehicle disintegrates over Chile and Bolivia, likely spreading its payload of nearly half a pound of plutonium. Searchers found no remains of the spacecraft which was believed to have burned up. Eyewitnesses saw the flaming reentry over the mountains in the region.
FEBRUARY 1983: Soviet Cosmos 1402 crashes into South Atlantic ocean carrying 68 pounds of Uranium-235.
JANUARY 1978: Cosmos 954 blows up over Canada with 68 pounds of Uranium-235 and other nuclear poisons, much of which is thought to have vaporized and spread worldwide.
APRIL 1973: Soviet Rorsat lands in the Pacific Ocean north of Japan. Radiation released from the reactor was detected.
APRIL 1970: Apollo 13 lands near New Zealand with the 8.3 pounds of Plutonium-238 believed to be still in the spacecraft at the bottom of the ocean floor.
1969: Two Cosmos lunar missions fail. Radiation detected as crafts burn up in the atmosphere.
MAY 1968: U.S. Nimbus B-1 lands in the Santa Barbara channel off California with 4.2 pounds of Uranium-238 but was recovered by NASA.
APRIL 1964: U.S. Transit 5BN-3 hits the Indian Ocean with its 2.1 pounds of Plutonium-238 vaporizing in the atmosphere and spreading worldwide.
73,
Rick WD5L
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Picky lil bugger, ain't ya? I don't need a lecture
> on civics either, by the way.
I dunno. I don't find pointing out that someone has utterly misrepresented how presidential elections work as 'picky'.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Nuclear power has been used on many space probes and
> is entirely feasible, except for overcoming the
> irrational knee-jerk anti-nuke nuts.
That would be, I guess, the group that recognized that nuclear power has yet to prove cost effective once the total cost of ownership of a nuke plant has been determined.
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KD7EZE on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well.....considering we have never actually been to the moon, it might be a good thing. It does give us something else to debate.
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by N8WCE on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here we go again. It's profoundly sad really. Someone comes up with an excellent post, and what happens? All the usual crowd comes out of there holes. First, GWB is an appointed Pres. (everyone who counted ALL those butterfly ballots in Fla. came up with the same answer). So not only is that comment hugely off topic, it's also just dead wrong. Then the crowd that thinks we should all keep our food in a root celler, and start our cars by turning the crank on the front, turn the question into a code/nocode debate. So sad I can't put it into words. A repeater on the moon (or a linear transponder for ssb cw fans like me) gets my vote. Good topic, just sorry the least common denominators came out AGAIN.
73 Willie
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K0RGR on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm sure I remember that there was a confirmed plan to leave a ham linear translator on the moon in one of the last planned moon missions. Of course, many of the last missions were cancelled, and this went with it.
Space on the ISS would seem to be a lot more constrained than it would be at a moon base, and there are now two complete ham stations on the ISS.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>And I am grateful for a president with vision enough to return us to serious space exploration.<<<
He's just hot-airing it to try getting elected--not re-elected--see below.
>>>If your comment was aimed at presidential elections, they don't work by direct democracy, and even if they did that would be 50% of those who bothered to vote.<<<
Altogether correct--but not the last election:
Picky lil bugger, ain't ya? I don't need a lecture on civics either, by the way.<<<
Maybe, maybe not, but this president wasn't elected, he was appointed. Or have you forgotten the Florida debacle and the Supreme court decision?
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh, and to set the record straight, I voted for "None of the above" at the last presidential election.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm having new QSL cards printed already, saying...
"Thanks for mooning me on ______ MHz."
I suspect the blank can only be filled in for frqeuencies above 50 MHz, although the ionosphere of late seems occasionally transparent!
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KJ7XJ on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<and still another thing............. Why not assign districts 1-9 for all the planets. Who's going to be the first to petition the FCC?
1 = Mercury
2 = Venus
3 = Earth
4 = Mars
5 = Jupiter
6 = Saturn
7 = Uranus
8 = Neptune
9 = Pluto
.............................. Truly stupid stuff on this site.
K2WH >
Wow... That would mean my call would be of Uranus! HMMM.... DE KJ7XJ
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K4JF on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Come on, guys!! The Supreme Court merely ruled that Florida Election officials are required to follow Florida law. Not an irrational decision, and certainly not "appointing" anybody to anything!!
In any case, comments out of place on this thread.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If the ARRL has its way, anybody that can send in a boxtop will be a ham. No technical expertise required!
So what will be Amateur radio's role?
ZERO. ZIP. NADA. ZILCH. NOTHING. NASA does not need "appliance operators" and at NASA, no whiners are allowed. No so with ham radio!
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KC7MM on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One of the key reasons for having ham radio on the space shuttles, MIR, and ISS, is to provide something fun and educational to do for astronauts during their "free" time. Several years ago, astronauts chatted with kids in a school here in Spokane. Talk about impressing kids in a positive manner! So let's have more of those types of contacts. Hooking kids on something at an early age is the way to go.
I think a repeater on the moon is O.K., but a complete ham station on a moon base is a better idea! Can you envision high speed digital voice and video transmissions to and from the earth and moon? Or even simmple SSB and CW? Let's keep the technology used as modern as the space station itself. I realize that weight is an issue, but look at the 706MKIIG. Surely something similar but more up to date can be transported and setup using existing space technology and experience. Combine that with vertically mounted Log-periodic antennas for both HF and VHF/UHF/SHF pointed toward earth. Whoooieee!
As for the money issue, unfortunately the poor the sick and the needy will always be with us. They were here at the time of the Vikings, of Columbus, of Magellan, and of Apollo. We have to have compassion in our hearts for those we can and do help, but we also were born with exploration in our hearts. Let's do it!
Dale KC7MM
p.s. rather than send humans to Mars at this time, I suggest seeding it's poles with archeobateria and other oxygen generating life forms, and check it back out for human habitation in a millenium or two.
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by WA7H on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with you KA1EZE, you have a great idea and I'm glad to see that there are a few people left in ham radio that dare to dream and be innovative. It should be part of long range planning for AMSAT and ARRL. The people at a Moon base will need some time for relaxation and ham radio could help provide it. There are a number of issues with putting a repeater on the Moon in the near term, not the least of which is a power supply and weight restrictions, but I'm sure those issues could be solved if the right resources and planning were available. There were a lot of people in the 18th and 19th century who said derogatory things about the western wasteland of the United States and the people who wanted to go there. Just like there are many now who question the reasons for exploring space and human settlements on the Moon, Mars and other planets or mining asteroids, etc. The problem with exploration is no one knows what the benefits will be until after they get there. A lot of people are probably unaware of the indirect benefits derived from a strong space program such as technological advances, scientific discoveries, strong industrial base, employment, education, and a strong economy.
Obviously, some of the people who responded to your posting haven't had an original thought since they were born, belittle those who do, and aren't intelligent enough to comment on the original posting without their little brains wandering off onto another subject or obsession.
Steve/wa7h
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KG4GON on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"But as to sending this appointed president to the Moon ... when?"
Good idea, George! How about you going with him and we'll see who we miss the most!
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KB3HON on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think it would be appropriate for an eHam moderator to go and delete all of the replies that say anything about politics, sending politians to the moon, have foul language in them, or post off topic about the cw debate. If these kinds of threads were deleted, eventually, we would put an end to this nonsense-posting. People post articles or topics to bring about a discussion on a specific idea, not to allow for everyone to voice their opinions about everything. Please email the eHam staff and ask them to start moderating all of the junk replies that are all about politics and especially these OFF TOPIC posts about the cw debate. Leave that debate in it's own posts. Thank you. Scott Gilliam, KB3HON
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by N3AIU on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K2WH,
You forgot: 0 (zero) = Sun.
Any volunteers for this DXpedition?
73, Nick N3AIU
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>And I am grateful for a president with vision enough to return us to serious space exploration.<<<
He's just hot-airing it to try getting elected--not re-"elected--see below.
>>>If your comment was aimed at presidential elections, they don't work by direct democracy, and even if they did that would be 50% of those who bothered to vote.<<<
Altogether correct--but not the last election:
Picky lil bugger, ain't ya? I don't need a lecture on civics either, by the way.<<<
Maybe, maybe not, but this president wasn't elected, he was appointed.
-Purely an opinion, not a fact justified by the numbers.
Or have you forgotten the Florida debacle and the Supreme court decision?"
-All sour grapes. Seem to remember it was the Sore-Loserman who was first to file lawsuits. Time to put the past behind you because all the crying and bellaching about the last election will not change the end result in the least.
If you don't like it, throw your support behind one of the dwarves, and lets enjoy watching GW destroy the sacrificial lamb.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on February 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Picky lil bugger, ain't ya? I don't need a lecture
> on civics either, by the way.
I dunno. <that's correct. You don't know me.>
I don't find pointing out that someone has utterly misrepresented how presidential elections work as 'picky'.
<utterly misrepresented? Isn't that a bit strong? You don't know my intent, and you're twisting words around to suit the moment. We live in a republic, not a pure "athenian style democracy" if thats what you mistakenly thought my statement implied. Time to attend the electoral college.>
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> Picky lil bugger, ain't ya? I don't need a lecture
>> on civics either, by the way.
> I dunno. <that's correct. You don't know me.>
that's nice, except the "I dunno" was in response to your question about being picky.
> utterly misrepresented? Isn't that a bit strong?
No. Implying that presidental elections are a popularity contest pretty much completely misrepresents them.
> You don't know my intent, and you're twisting words > around to suit the moment.
Give yourself more credit than that, you made your intent quiet clear. Your intent was to dispute someone who opposed dubya, by making the claim that more than half of americans support him.
> We live in a republic, not a pure "athenian style
> democracy" if thats what you mistakenly thought my
> statement implied.
Your statement implied that you like soundbites and you think dubya's popular. Taste is not disputable. Popularity of bad leaders is.
> Time to attend the electoral college.
sorry, but only people elected to the college get to attend it, and i've never run for the job, let alone been elected to it.
73
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> NASA does not need "appliance operators" and at
> NASA, no whiners are allowed.
I'm guessing you've never worked for NASA. We needs lots of appliance operators and had plenty of whiners.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by G7HEU on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP
Need or needed? Do you work for N.A.S.A? Please clarify.
;-)
Steve
M0HEU
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by G7HEU on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh, and these are for you:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I'm sure you can use them.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K4JSR on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HEU, did you shoot all of those arrows with your
English Long Bow? :-D
Cal K4JSR
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
that's nice, except the "I dunno" was in response to your question about being picky. <yes, you are>
> utterly misrepresented? Isn't that a bit strong?
No. Implying that presidental elections are a popularity contest pretty much completely misrepresents them.
<again, I never said they were popularity contests, so you're misquoting me now.>
> You don't know my intent, and you're twisting words > around to suit the moment.
Give yourself more credit than that, you made your intent quiet clear. Your intent was to dispute someone who opposed dubya, by making the claim that more than half of americans support him.
<Well, then, you give me more credit then.>
> We live in a republic, not a pure "athenian style
> democracy" if thats what you mistakenly thought my
> statement implied.
Your statement implied that you like soundbites and you think dubya's popular. Taste is not disputable. Popularity of bad leaders is.
<Not at all, yet again, you are misquoting me and stating that I said things I never did. Where did I say I liked soundbites? You need to concentrate on the stuff that is written down and not inconsequential minutae in order to confuse the issue. So, we'll leave it at that, its simply your opinion about his worth as our leader. As an alternative, think what boat we'd be in if the opposition had taken the last election, given the turn of world events.>
> Time to attend the electoral college.
sorry, but only people elected to the college get to attend it, and i've never run for the job, let alone been elected to it.
<this was of course a psuedo-pun, meant for minor humorous effect only. I hope you took it as such.>
73
<good day to you too>
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, the next round of arrow quoting is going to really get the length going through the ceiling.
Thanks for the arrows GEU. Marty and I will be needing them.
BTW, the English longbow was made from the yew tree, if memory serves. However, the Mongol bow made from sinews, bone, and glue outclassed it.
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gee we can have a new award. Worked the moon and the 100 or so major asteroids, that could smash into the earth.
To bad the manned trip to MARS for 2020 got scrubed.
The Apollo mission provided many innovations we use today.
NO! TANG is not one of them!(Hi-Hi)
However the integrated circuit made major advances because of Apollo. RF electronics too. Space age polymers and materials as well.
I think all the NASA astronuagts are HAMS.
So maybe Ham radio can get that PR boost that it needs.
So it is very possible the next man/woman on the moon will be a HAM. Setting up a dipole in zero-grav is easy. The dipole elements will just float. No insulators are tie downs needed.
73 DE MIKE
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by G7HEU on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yew trees grow to a great age, certainly over 1,000 years. They are often found in English church yards for reasons I can not remember.
KAO ( well you got mine wrong ) here's some for you:
>
>
>
>
>
>
I think we should have manned amateur stations on the moon and am compiling a list of suggested candidates. So far I can only think of one person :-)
Steve / M0HEU.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Also, the space program gave us Velcro, and televisions that hardly ever needed fixing. I remember as a kid that our Admiral color console tv needed servicing on average of once every year. The guy would come out and change out 2 or 3 tubes.
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
laser diode comm links and LED displays were some of the things devoloped out of the APOLLO mission.
Much Microwave and RF comlink systems benefited from NASA's R&D. The Apollo used many MINI-computers this benefited the did help the personal computer biz.
So before those that say it is wastefull, Apollo to the moon, created so many innovations we take for granted now.
A future trip could also lesd to many new inovations.
Plus it is good TV. The program would expose the young
to technology.
A shoot to the moon, yes
Hope they hve learned much from Apollo. Hopefully they should have many improvements.
Amazing how much of Apollo worked on 1960's electronics!
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K1CJS on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>So maybe Ham radio can get that PR boost that it needs.<<<
Mebbe on the next 'booster' rocket up... hihi
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K4JSR on February 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Speaking of trees, did you hear about the mountain
goat that feel off of the cliff?
He didn't see the ewe turn.
And yew can bank on that!
>>><>^v<>^V^ Rats! I never was any good at archery!
Steve, QRP does not work. Ask JJH.
Cal K4JSR
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> laser diode comm links and LED displays were some of
> the things devoloped out of the APOLLO mission.
Nope. neither of the above.
> Much Microwave and RF comlink systems benefited from
> NASA's R&D.
Nope. Commercial com was developed completely independently of the space program..
> The Apollo used many MINI-computers this benefited
> the did help the personal computer biz.
Nope. The commercial computer revolution owes nothing to NASA.
> So before those that say it is wastefull, Apollo to
> the moon, created so many innovations we take for
> granted now.
We did a study at NASA back in the 80s. The conclusion was rather sobering. If anything, NASA and the defense electronics industry had a detrimental effect on consumer electronics in the US. A case can be made that the military-industrial complex can be held responsible for a large part of the US's loss of superiority in consumer electronics.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Also, the space program gave us Velcro, and
> televisions that hardly ever needed fixing.
Nope. Neither of the above. Velcro predates NASA by nearly 15 years.
None of the transistor development for the space program made it into commercial products. Commercial transistor development was typically one or two "moore's law" jumps ahead of space transistor development.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> However the integrated circuit made major advances
> because of Apollo.
Nope. IC work at TI for consumer usage was always at least one generation of IC work for NASA, because the constraints were widely different.
> RF electronics too.
Nope. Surprisingly there should have been spin-off here, but again, the widely different requirements between the space program and the commercial industry resulted in no real transfer from NASA to industry.
> Space age polymers and materials as well.
The old "teflon" myth. Kinda an emberrassing myth for NASA, as teflon predates the agency by 20 years.
> I think all the NASA astronuagts are HAMS.
Nope. Many are, possibly most, but not all.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Need or needed?
yes.
> Do you work for NASA?
not any more, no.
> Please clarify.
I was a research scientist at NASA for five years in the 80s. I still have many friends there, and am pretty familiar with the ins and outs of the agency.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> No. Implying that presidental elections are a popularity contest
>> pretty much completely misrepresents them.
> again, I never said they were popularity contests, so you're
> misquoting me now.
I could only be misquoting you if I were attempting to quote you.
<Well, then, you give me more credit then.>
> We live in a republic, not a pure "athenian style
> democracy" if thats what you mistakenly thought my
> statement implied.
>> Your statement implied that you like soundbites and you think
>> dubya's popular. Taste is not disputable. Popularity of bad leaders
>> is.
> Not at all, yet again, you are misquoting me and stating that I said
> things I never did.
Please show me where in the above statement I even tried to quote you.
> Where did I say I liked soundbites?
Where did I say you *said* you liked soundbites?
> You need to concentrate on the stuff that is written down and not
> inconsequential minutae in order to confuse the issue.
Here's what you wrote:
>>> JCS: Unfortunately, over 50% of the people disagree
>>> with you. That's democracy in action.
> So, we'll leave it at that, its simply your opinion about his worth
> as our leader.
And it's simply not true that you can know that "50% of the people"
disagree with JCS.
> As an alternative, think what boat we'd be in if the opposition had
> taken the last election, given the turn of world events.
History records no alternatives, but I'm having trouble imagining that
the opposition would have made as big a botch as Iraq, even though I
have no idea how well they'd have handled the "war on terrorism"
(which, by the way, dubya is losing.)
>>> Time to attend the electoral college.
>> sorry, but only people elected to the college get to attend it, and
>> i've never run for the job, let alone been elected to it.
> this was of course a psuedo-pun, meant for minor humorous effect
> only. I hope you took it as such.
I did. I just decided to be pedantic in reply ;)
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by D9AL on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Marty do you like to turn all EHAM post's into a debate?
Also a Apollo did force miniturisation of all electronics. fairchild camera was the first to have an IC. Apollo's unique use computers made great usage of and,or, and other gate chips.
APOLLO DID EFFECT IC MANFCTURING.
YES NASA DID DEVELOP THE l.E.D DISPLAY for Apollo.
I guess that is symantics.
THE microwave LNA were developed by subcontractor of NASA. Also mil.comps like Watkins/Johnson and Varial
made many rf parts in he Apollo.
C band satellite TV is just onyou are on to be consumer technology that benefited from the space program.
We all know you are Picyune with specifics, thats OK.
There is a whole list of items that were developed for the space program, that found it's way into the americsn market place.
I agree with JJH that TANG certainly may have beeen devoloped for NASA, but who cares. TANG is all sugar.
Just loved it when a reporter asked an Apollo astronuat how was the orange stuff(Tang)you are drinking?
The astronnaut snapped bach....ahhh gee it is OK, however nothing beats fresh squeeezed orange juice!
The TANG people were not happy about that!
The products and the fact that group of engineers and scientist were able to mske it happen as planned.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on February 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> No. Implying that presidental elections are a popularity contest
>> pretty much completely misrepresents them.
> again, I never said they were popularity contests, so you're
> misquoting me now.
I could only be misquoting you if I were attempting to quote you.
-Well, your misquoting me now in your attempt to quote me quoting you earlier during the first quote. Aren't we supposed to use " " marks for quotes anyway?
<Well, then, you give me more credit then.>
> We live in a republic, not a pure "athenian style
> democracy" if thats what you mistakenly thought my
> statement implied.
>> Your statement implied that you like soundbites and you think
>> dubya's popular. Taste is not disputable. Popularity of bad leaders
>> is.
> Not at all, yet again, you are misquoting me and stating that I said
> things I never did.
Please show me where in the above statement I even tried to quote you.
-But, you like to quote people, so these little discussions can take up half the page!!!
> Where did I say I liked soundbites?
Where did I say you *said* you liked soundbites?
-Actually, you typed on your keyboard the keystrokes implying that I like soundbites.
> You need to concentrate on the stuff that is written down and not
> inconsequential minutae in order to confuse the issue.
Here's what you wrote:
>>> JCS: Unfortunately, over 50% of the people disagree
>>> with you. That's democracy in action.
> So, we'll leave it at that, its simply your opinion about his worth
> as our leader.
And it's simply not true that you can know that "50% of the people"
disagree with JCS.
-Well, in this instance, its never, ever, ever simple.
> As an alternative, think what boat we'd be in if the opposition had
> taken the last election, given the turn of world events.
History records no alternatives, but I'm having trouble imagining that
the opposition would have made as big a botch as Iraq, even though I
have no idea how well they'd have handled the "war on terrorism"
(which, by the way, dubya is losing.)
-Read some of the reports from the press from Germany right after WW2 ended. They read very similarly to what is going on now. Lots of Nazis running around after Berlin fell.
>>> Time to attend the electoral college.
>> sorry, but only people elected to the college get to attend it, and
>> i've never run for the job, let alone been elected to it.
> this was of course a psuedo-pun, meant for minor humorous effect
> only. I hope you took it as such.
I did. I just decided to be pedantic in reply ;)
-How long can we extend the pain to those reading all this?
Good day.
PAN
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Marty do you like to turn all EHAM post's into a
> debate?
I dislike myths being passed off as facts; especially tech-related myths being passed as facts by people in a technical hobby.
> Also a Apollo did force miniturisation of all
> electronics.
Nope. As I've said before, commercial miinaturization, at any given time, was (and remains by the way) one or more generations *ahead* of minaturization for the space program.
> fairchild camera was the first to have an IC.
Yup. Slightly less than a mile from where I live.
> Apollo's unique use computers made great usage of
> and,or, and other gate chips.
That is correct. Apollo was a heavy user of SSI.
> APOLLO DID EFFECT IC MANFCTURING.
Nope. Apollo program requirements, ie, radiation hardening, were enough different than commercial requirements, that there was no spin off.
> YES NASA DID DEVELOP THE l.E.D DISPLAY for Apollo.
> I guess that is symantics.
The LED was developed by calculator manufactures, as a replacement for Nixie tubes.
> THE microwave LNA were developed by subcontractor of > NASA.
The microwave LNA as used in the communication industry was developed at Bell labs for MaBell. Again, differences in environmental requirements made for almost no transfer between space use and communications use.
> C band satellite TV is just onyou are on to be
> consumer technology that benefited from the space
> program.
Interestingly enough, the entire satellite communications industry was commercially developed *except* for the delivery vehicles. Oddly, it was the Air Force, and not NASA that played a significant role in developing launch vehicles for commercial satellites, because NASA was concentrating on large vehicles for manned launches.
> There is a whole list of items that were developed
> for the space program, that found it's way into the
> americsn market place.
There is a large list of items that people mistakenly believer were spin-off from NASA into commercial industry. It turns out, that upon examination, almost nothing that supposedly came from NASA did.
My own favorite Tang story: When I was a college student, my drink of choice was the screwdriver. After all, vitamin C is good for you. Also, a bar tender can't screw up a screwdriver. It can be too strong or too weak, but that's about it.
Until, one night, I went to a bar that, being out of orange juice, substituted Tang.
Haven't had a screwdriver since that night.
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by D9AL on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Any drink made with tang and bottom shelf vodka is known as a TANGO-N-CASH.
Interesting thng on radiation hardening.
When a N. Korean defected with a MIG-15, the alphabet agencies were interested in the technolgy.
OK I was told this in high school. Same place were our teachers said the space program came up with many innovations. So take it with a grain of salt, if you will.
We were told in electronics that the soviets made little if no progress in IC's.
Instead they would make vacuum tubes that contained the equivalent of many vacuum tubes in the same package.
This made it good for nuclear attack. EMP would destroy every solid state junction for miles.
So planes like the F-16 which is inherently not stable aerodynamicly would fall like a rock with EMP.
The multitube IC's the soviets made would almost ionize, then the could come back to life.
So the tube technology of the old migs were almost EMP proof.
This is what were were told in high school. We were also taught that much came from the Apollo missions.
I guess that was always a rationalisation for a space program.
The manned trip to Mars in 2020 was scrubbed.
I guess 8 months each way is too much radiation, physisologic changes, and just plain bordom.
You never hear about that Xenion ion drive probe, that is supposed to reach speeds in excess of 100,000MPH. It is suppossed to have left our solar system by now.
I would concure that much disinformation is given to children in the U.S.
So shoot for the moon? The only reason would be if there were some elements and chemical process's that work better in almost zero-grav. Crystals tend to grow faster in zero grav. Many chemical reation times change too.
If the moon cauld be used for making new fuel or discovering something we could not find on earth, then go.
Otherwise we have a universe of problems to solve on earth!
Yes the QSL cards from outer space would give you good DX bragging rights!
Is NASA good at getting hams QSL cards from those that work the ISS or space shuttle?
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> We were told in electronics that the soviets made
> little if no progress in IC's.
Very true at the time.
> Instead they would make vacuum tubes that contained
> the equivalent of many vacuum tubes in the same
> package.
Not exactly, but it gets the point across.
> This made it good for nuclear attack. EMP would
> destroy every solid state junction for miles.
The USSR was the first to observe the EMP phenomena. If I recall correctly, it was in one of their high altitude burst tests. They became very obsessed with it. They deliberately stayed with vacuum tube technology in their military communication systems for a long time because of that concern. They got very good at tube design and designing tube based systems.
Pulse-hardening is an interesting problem. NASA's main concern, through the design of the shuttle, wasn't emp, but basic high energy radiation. The most common technique for rad-hardening space gear is to use Gallium-Arsenide (GaAs) semiconductors. Gaas has a few other advantages, but it's difficult to work with and more expensive than the Si based technologies, so that NASA's semiconductor technology was fairly different than prevalent commercial technology.
Most people associate the Japanese take-over of the lead in consumer electronics with the "dumping" of the 80s, but the situation was more complex. The US siphoned much of its electronic expertise into the military industrial complex. Much of what wasn't classified wasn't suitable for commercial use, and much was unavailable due to being classified.
Meanwhile, the Japanese, having been forcefully demilitarized, starting as early as the late 50s, began to concentrate on consumer electronics goods. By the 70s, they were competitive with the US, and then along came Sony. Bang.
When you add the wide-spread technophobia present in the US to the siphoning of talent into the military industrial complex, the results, althougn not obvious at the time, became inevitable.
Something similar is happening now with the PRC. They are being dismissed as 'derivitive' and providers of 'low quality' products, just as Japan was in the 50s. But they have already significantly improved the quality of the product they put on the market.
It has been said, probably correctly, that the 20th century was "The American Century." It will probably be said that the 21st is the Asian, or more like Chinese/Indian century.
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
JJH and I remember a time when all BSEE's were hastled to join the M.I.C. JJH turned down the G-JOBS and the DEFENSE biggies. He was proven correct after the Berlin wall collapsed, all his MIC friends lost their ENGINNERING jobs.
Things have changed since 20 years ago. The young BSEE caanot solder, has no ham ticket, and has very limited hands on.
They are not recruited by the MIC so much. Many stay on for a Masters because of no work.
A trip to the moon could invigorate the U.S., but what about the war on terrorism?
The Apollo missions sure did divert the U.S. public from vIETNAM
tHE WHOLE THING IS WORSE WITH INTERNET OUTSOURCING JOBS TO INDIA.
tHE moon, we been there, done that, got the tee shirt.....now the teeshirt is a rag!
I am sure computer and RF wise we are all set.
However we still have engine issue's. Still have to deal with enough liq hydrogen and Oxygen to put peoples lives at stake.
i still like the old jokes.....We can send a man to the moon, yet I still get bad hair days!!!!!
SAL
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'll second what Mike just says. I know of only one other EE in this area besides myself that is a ham. The rest of them have no clue. Wouldn't know an oscilloscope if they saw one.
PHILIP
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Wouldn't know an oscilloscope if they saw one.<<<
Remember the Outer Limits TV series? ("Do not attempt to adjust your picture--we are controlling the transmission.")
You might know what an oscilloscope is if:
You mix the xFreq with the yFreq and it generates little babies - You might know what an oscilloscope is.
If you remember the Outer Limits TV series? ("Do not attempt to adjust your picture--we are controlling the transmission.") - you might know what an oscilliscope is.
If you ever stuck the probes from an oscilliscope in a turkey dinner in the oven to measure exothermic reaction - You might know what an oscilliscope is.
If you ever thought that you can kill your neighbors with a 9 volt battery - You might know what an oscilliscope is.
If you ever thought Scientists at NASA have developed a gun built specifically to launch dead chickens at the windshields of airliners, military jets and the space shuttle, all traveling at maximum velocity - You might know what an oscilliscope is.
If you ever thought that a theory tells you how a circuit works, not why it does not work - You might know what an oscilliscope is.
If you ever demonstated that not everything works according to the specs in the engineers databook - You might know what an oscilliscope is.
If you think Dilbert is not a comic strip, it's a documentary - You might know what an oscilliscope is.
If you ever said, "Let's convert our potential energy to kinetic energy" as a pickup line at a bar - You might know what an oscilliscope is.
If you ever thought any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable and three parts which are still under development - You might know what an oscilliscope is.
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I know of only one other EE in this area besides
> myself that is a ham.
Come to the Valley of Heart's Delight. You'll find a few here.
> The rest of them have no clue. Wouldn't know an
> oscilloscope if they saw one.
Oscilloscopes are not particularly useful for the vast majority of EE jobs these days. Haven't been for the better part of two decades.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on February 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Oscilloscopes are not particularly useful for the vast majority of EE jobs these days. Haven't been for the better part of two decades."
This is true. I never have used one in my job, where I design electrical systems for commercial buildings...50+ electrical / data / life safety sheets for a really big one. However, what it tells me is that very few are hobbyists like myself who got in it because they love it. They just thought it would be a good major in college. One coworker had no idea how to measure current with a VOM and I had to show him...he had his PE as well.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A mechanical, electrical and computer engineer were riding together to an engineering seminar the car began jerking and shuttering. The mechanical engineer, said, "I think the car has a faulty carburetor."
The electrical engineer said, "no, I think the problem lies with the alternator."
The computer engineer brightened up and said, "I know, let's stop the car, all get out of the car and get back in again!"
:)
YOU MAY BE AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER IF... *
If you stare at an orange juice container because it says CONCENTRATE
If your wrist watch has more computing power than an Alpha 21264 PC.
If your idea of good interpersonal communication means getting the decimal point in the right place
If you look forward to Christmas only to put the kids' toys together
If you ever used a CAD program to design the electrical components of your son's soap box car
If your ideal evening consists of fast-forwarding through the latest sci-fi movie looking for technical inaccuracies
If you are convinced you can build a phaser out of your garage door opener and your camera's flash attachment
If you have modified your can-opener to be microprocessor driven and remote controlled.
If you are currently gathering enough electronic components to build your own nuclear reactor
If you own one or more white short-sleeve dress shirts
If you have ever saved the power cord from any broken appliance
If you still own a slide rule and you know how to work it
If you have more electronic toys than your kids
If you have a habit of destroying things in order to see how they work
If you can type 70 words a minute but can't read your own handwriting
If you thought the real heroes of the "Apollo 13" movie were the mission controllers
If you think that when people around you yawn, it's because they didn't get enough sleep
If you've ever tried to repair a $5.00 radio with $300.00 worth of parts.
If your 4 basic food groups are any of the following: 1. Caffeine 2. Fat 3. Sugar 4. Chocolate, pizza, beer, or chips
:)
KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K4JSR on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Charles, you tell worse jokes than I do!
For that I will email you a moon shot! :-)
73 Cal K4JSR Apprentice Luddite
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on February 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Go down to Moon River in southern Savannah and do the obvious....
Johnny Mercer "Moon River" is one in the same.
Right next to butterbean beach off the Diamond Causeway.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K4JSR on February 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was going to say something.
I am glad that I didn't.
;-P
Cal K4JSR
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K0RGR on February 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP - yes, I think when you separate NASA from the rest of the aerospace industry, including the military space program, it doesn't look like it contributed that much.
I would say that NASA's biggest contribution was as an inspiration for a couple generations of engineers, technicians, and scientists. I was offered a job at NASA half an hour after I accepted the one I still have 30 years later, but I always felt I was somehow part of the team, even though most of what I worked on was military or civilian electronics systems.
I worked for a number of military/space subcontractors in Silicon Valley in the early to mid 70's. A couple of them were in your home town. I got to know the bubble at Sylvania real well during the Yom Kippur war. How many people in Mtn. View remember the jets flying over at treetop level in the middle of the night, testing new radar countermeasures?
As I recall, everything we built at my last military contractor job was space-qualified, even though probably 80% of it ended up in terrestrial microwave systems, and another 10% ended up in the F-15. Our products were designed to meet military and NASA requirements, but we sold the same things commercially - there was really no difference except for the testing and paperwork. All of us techs were NASA trained and certified, however, which had some impact on all future projects we did, including the civilian ones.
Yes, I would have to credit the Defense industry with generating more impact than NASA, just because of its comparative size.
The rise of the Japanese electronic juggernaut is very complex. American companies failed to see the transistor as a threat until it was too late. Japan had a well-documented predatory industrial policy aimed at gaining control of the key automotive and electronics industries. Certainly, competition for engineering talent did not help the American companies.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> AE6IP - yes, I think when you separate NASA from the
> rest of the aerospace industry, including the
> military space program, it doesn't look like it
> contributed that much.
You can toss in the entire military-industrial complex, if you'd like. The picture doesn't get any rosier.
> I worked for a number of military/space
> subcontractors in Silicon Valley in the early to mid > 70's. A couple of them were in your home town.
Not my home town. I'm a Montana boy.
> I got to know the bubble at Sylvania real well
> during the Yom Kippur war.
Oh. now there's an interesting sidelight to the american MIC; what the Israelis managed to do when they were under arms embargo.
> How many people in Mtn. View remember the jets
> flying over at treetop level in the middle of the
> night, testing new radar countermeasures?
Not me. The Air Force nor NASA never flew research flights here (they used Edwards, (Dryden)) and the Navy never flew jets (they flew P3 Orions.)
> As I recall, everything we built at my last military
> contractor job was space-qualified, even though
> probably 80% of it ended up in terrestrial microwave
> systems, and another 10% ended up in the F-15.
That sounds like typical military overdoing.
> Our products were designed to meet military and NASA
> requirements, but we sold the same things
> commercially - there was really no difference except
> for the testing and paperwork.
Interesting. Was there a big market for radar countermeasures in the civilian economy?
> All of us techs were NASA trained and certified,
> however, which had some impact on all future
> projects we did, including the civilian ones.
Interesting. We never had a certification or training program for techs.
> Yes, I would have to credit the Defense industry
> with generating more impact than NASA, just because
> of its comparative size.
Indeed it did. It siphoned even more electrical engineers out of the civilian economy. It also routinely payed the same contractor two or more times for the same work.
> The rise of the Japanese electronic juggernaut is
> very complex. American companies failed to see the
> transistor as a threat until it was too late.
Actually it's more interesting than that. Those companies that had made their fortunes off of the vacuum tube failed to quickly make the transition. For an interesting contrast, read Thomas Watson Jr's autobiography "Father, Son, and Company".
> Japan had a well-documented predatory industrial
> policy aimed at gaining control of the key
> automotive and electronics industries.
Wonder where they learned that?
> Certainly, competition for engineering talent did
> not help the American companies.
Nor did tariffs, but that's waay off topic.
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by K0RGR on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry, you referred to 'Valley of Heart's Delight' and your QRZ listing says Mtn. View, so I assumed you had been in Silicon Gulch long enough to consider it your 'home town'. I have lots of 'home towns' myself. Several in the Gelded State and a couple here in the Midwest.
Actually, the library should have copies of the San Jose Mercury during the Yom Kippur war. I believe you'll find at least one article about the late night test flights. I was on duty at the time, and I happened to be outside watching a strangely animated radar antenna when the first plane flew directly over it, so I know it happened. When you can read the little signs that say 'NO HANDHOLD' from the ground, the plane is very low. There were few complaints. People thought it was an earthquake in the wee hours.
I worked for several companies, not all of whom made radar countermeasures. One was a very popular supplier of general microwave components. They specialized in doubly balanced mixers and Tunnel Diode Amplifiers. Indeed, TDA's were generally considered too fragile for space flight, so this company pioneered some of the GaAsfet amplifiers up through Ka band.
Our non-NASA civilian technicians and assemblers had to complete a certification course. You're right, of course - there wasn't any cert course for technicians, per se. But we had to learn about soldering, assembly, and mechanical testing in order to do our work as technicians. We went someplace over by Lockheed for the classes, I am fairly sure it was sponsored by Lockheed.
I was actually hired because - 1. I knew how to use a scope, 2. I had an Extra Class ham license, so I understood most of the principles I needed to know for the job, 3. I already had the proper security clearance. I ended up breathing Ku band mixers and MMIC phase-locked loops, which oddly enough led to my current job, which has nothing to do with hardware.
In the latter 80's, Mr. Watson's company fought a rear-guard action to maintain a domestic supply of critical components because they foresaw a near future where Japan would take over the computer industry by controlling the components. They kept to this for several years, but it became uneconomical.
I find it particularly disturbing that the site where the disk drive was invented in San Jose now belongs to Hitachi, who was found guilty of stealing IBM's disk drive designs back in the latter 80's. Mr. Watson, of course, was an early champion of transistors, over the objection of his father, as I recall.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Sorry, you referred to 'Valley of Heart's Delight'
> and your QRZ listing says Mtn. View, so I assumed
> you had been in Silicon Gulch long enough to
> consider it your 'home town'.
Only been here 20 years. still consider montana home.
> When you can read the little signs that say 'NO
> HANDHOLD' from the ground, the plane is very low.
In Montana, if they'd been that close, they'd made ya deaf. (SAC B52s, mostly.)
> I was actually hired because 3. I already had the
> proper security clearance.
DoD fs 174/2
>[IBM] kept to this for several years, but it became uneconomical.
IBM still has the largest captive market components business in the world.
> I find it particularly disturbing that the site
> where the disk drive was invented in San Jose now
> belongs to Hitachi, who was found guilty of stealing
> IBM's disk drive designs back in the latter 80's.
The margins on the disk business are almost as thin as the head/platter distances.
> Mr. Watson, of course, was an early champion of
> transistors, over the objection of his father, as I
> recall.
The Sr/Jr battle was earlier than that. Watson senior thought that "computers" weren't going to be a hot market, so he wanted to stay in the punch-card-tabulating business, which was, after all, a major money maker. Jr., on the other hand, was aware of what a few good men from Sperry were doing.
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If ARRL has its way, ham radio will be reduced to CB. If you think CB is going to the moon (and beyond) you need a reality check.
As WR8D suggested, Bubba is going to turn his moonraker to the moon (if he can find it) and yell "breaker breaker" using his roger beep. Yea...now that's an image of ham radio I want the world to see.
W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED by ARRL membership!
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by KA1EZE on February 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess I expected these kind of replies, but I'm an optimist! I remember cranky hams crushing me a bit when I was first licensed (it's a hobby I guess?) but luckily the true hams (optimistic, experimental and welcoming) are worth a hundred fold more.
Let's hope vision wins out over "curmudgeonism!"
Rick
|
| |
|
RE: Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's hope that SANITY wins out over the ARRL proposal!
W9WHE
Supporting the ARRL boycott
|
| |
|
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
|
|
|
by N2EY on February 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Repeater on the moon? Not a new idea.
Way back in the '60s, there was "Project Moonray", which was supposed to be a repeater that would be deployed on the lunar surface by the last Apollo mission. Never became a reality because the requirements were simply too much for the available resources.
A repeater on the lunar surface sounds like a good idea at first, because all you have to do to find it is to point your antenna at the moon on a clear night.
But the problems are many:
1) 2 week long day followed by 2 week long night
2) Daytime temp is about 400 degrees higher than nighttime temp.
3) Anything deployed by a manned mission must be certified for use on a manned mission, and must be deployable either automatically or by an astronaut in a spacesuit.
4) One-way path loss to a lunar repeater is 20 dB worse than to a geosynchronous repeater. This means if
you just take a satellite to the moon, its signals will be 20 dB weaker at your receiver, and your signals will be 20dB weaker to it.
5) Earth rotation makes the moon move across the sky in ~12 hours, so a lunar repeater has to be tracked, *and* will be unavailable for use ~12 hours at a stretch wherever you live.
6) The rocket power requirements to get to the moon are much greater than orbiting, so every pound is that much more precious.
It seems to me that the logical next step isn't a lunar repeater, but a geosynchronous or quasi-geosynchronous ham satellite. A ham satellite that is slightly lower in orbit than geosynchronous will appear to be fixed in relation to the stars, and will *slowly* drift across the sky (we're talking months, not hours.) Path loss is much less, requirements are close to what is needed by LEO satellites and tracking is very easy. Of course it will be below the horizon for half a year at a time, but that is easily solved by sending up two or three of them.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Kids Chat With Space Station Crew Via Amateur Radio
WRC-2000 Reaches Agreement on Galileo
Radio Programs on Ham Radio!
HAM Radio Has No Chance Against BPL
FCC Poised to Release BPL Notice of Proposed Rule Making:
Other Operating Articles
Safety First
My First Date with Olivia
D-STAR/Analog Interference Experience
Using Twitter During Mobile Operation
First HF Contact and Other Stuff
|
