Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Remote DXpeditioning  (Read 1386 times)

K4HB

  • Member
  • Posts: 1522
Re: Remote DXpeditioning
« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2023, 10:38:27 AM »

I'm not in to satellites, but would imagine there's just as much enthusiasm in working grids that way as there is in regular VUCC. I've only been thrilled by two satellites, and they were both Russian. Saw the very first one with my own eyes. The times were announced on TV when Sputnik 1 would pass over, and we could see it at night with the naked eye. The second was the MIR, when I spoke to Shannon Lucid and John Blaha via 2M FM. But if you are a rover for a grid I need on 2 or 6 meters and I hear you, I'll give you a shout. (Or a dit on CW or a byte on our lazy text messaging mode)

As for this RIB (Jack in a box) idea for activating islands or whatever, I'm totally traditional and against it.


Logged

 Click 4 pic
K4HB dot com

WO7R

  • Member
  • Posts: 6042
Re: Remote DXpeditioning
« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2023, 01:02:32 PM »

Spoken like a man willing to impose unlimited hardships on someone else.

DXpeditioners are not like the rest of us.  Yes, they hold ham licenses, but activating difficult places is a separate sport.  It is one for the very few.  A different breed.  And, it is a different hobby.

Because we both operate under Amateur Radio and DXCC rules, we can sometimes lull ourselves to sleep and forget that a lot of what goes on in the rules doesn't apply to us -- it applies to them.

Not only that, these guys spend a lot of money -- 10,000 to 20,000 is commonplace -- to activate these places.  They might get maybe 250 dollars of that money back when the "big time" QSL money rolls in at the end.  The contributions from individuals and foundations and so on?  Those monies are all already spent.

So, take your "tradition" and stuff it.  Where I come from, it's bad manners to spend someone else's money.  And that's what you are proposing to do here.

If the DXCC rules approves what they are doing, the rest of us, the ones that are subsidized by the DXpeditioners ought to keep out of it.  It's really between them and DXCC/DXAC.  Once they approve, it is game on.

The is especially true as any reduction in DXpedition costs and to satisfy ever more picky environmental pooh bahs (and that's why this is invented) is to our benefit.  Would you rather these places not get activated at all?

Don't like it?  Don't work them.  But don't spend another's money, OK?
Logged

EI2GLB

  • Member
  • Posts: 1252
Re: Remote DXpeditioning
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2023, 02:12:40 PM »

I think these RIB's are a great idea especially if they get us activation's from rare places that otherwise would not happen,

It would be even better if they went one further and for a fee let someone like me operate one of them from my own QTH on a per hour basis, because due to health and financial concerns I am never going to go anywhere rare to work from,

Trevor
EI2GLB

Logged

W4AMP

  • Member
  • Posts: 164
Re: Remote DXpeditioning
« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2023, 02:54:10 PM »





Hoping to add to my VUCC count this summer for DX and FFMW. Already worked 7 new grids in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Peru with recent openings, and 4 have been confirmed.

Cool, I get a new grid in Spain this AM on that crazy opening.    I really need Peru.   I just need four more for DXCC on 6.

6m has been wild the last few days for this time of year.


Gino

Good job, Gino.
Logged

KB2FCV

  • Member
  • Posts: 3285
    • homeURL
Re: Remote DXpeditioning
« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2023, 02:58:08 PM »

If they are allowed, they could be useful for putting some rare ones on the air. I think though if your operators/crew stay on the boat to operate with the RIB on land - it's gotta be pretty easy to get to in case you need to reset anything, or for fueling the generator, etc. There would probably be some human invervention which in the case of especially difficult-to-reach places you would need perhaps a very small crew to stay.

It would be nice to see things stay the way they are, with groups traditionally going / staying at the location but if it is allowed by the DXAC and it helps lower the costs and get some rare ones on the air a bit easier.. then it might be worth looking into. As long as the antennas / gear is on the island, I suppose it doesn't make a difference if the crew is sitting on a boat operating remotely. I suppose it isn't much different than me sitting on my couch upstairs vnc'ing into my pc to see what's on ft8..
Logged

WO7R

  • Member
  • Posts: 6042
Re: Remote DXpeditioning
« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2023, 03:52:15 PM »

Quote
It would be nice to see things stay the way they are, with groups traditionally going / staying at the location

The RiB folks have not been shy about talking about why they did it.

The Baker expedition rehearsed about half of it.  And, anyone who knows much about remote operation will know that these days, they aren't that hard to do.  A 900 MHz link, a little extra gear and -- bam -- you are operating from the RiB platform as if you are there.

In fact, the only thing that isn't there is your butt if you work it right.  With any sort of remote terminal support (e.g. VNC) the computer and the radio have no idea there isn't a human next to them.  They can't tell the difference whatsoever.

But, those environmental pooh bahs that are increasingly finding reasons to say "no" have at least a few more reasons to say "yes".

1.  No human habitation.  No waste disposal, no litter, no latrines of any kind -- even ones you take back to the ship.

2.  Much smaller radio footprint.  The RiB fits in special rack mounted boxes with a few wires coming out of them.  Once you get the antennas set up and the coax attached, all you have to do is refuel the setup once in a while.

3.  Far less gear to bring ashore.  No food, no water, no bedrolls, no kitchenware, no stoves; a lot of stuff associated with humans camping out.  It just isn't there.  Just the radio, the antenna, and the gasoline to fuel the generator.

All the way around, there's less environmental impact.  And, for a lot of these places, these nature reserves we struggle to get permission for now, the smaller footprint, that demonstrated minimal impact, can be the difference between "yes" and "no".

I seem to recall the Baker team having to convince the authorities that even a few verticals was OK and that there would be minimal to no bird kill by deploying them.

It is really getting that hard.
Logged

K1VSK

  • Member
  • Posts: 1950
Re: Remote DXpeditioning
« Reply #21 on: February 22, 2023, 05:59:06 PM »

Option 1:
I “talked with” another ham on Pitcairn Island, or
Option 2:
I talked with a guy down the street through a remote controlled box located on Pitcairn Island.

There is a difference.
Logged

EI2GLB

  • Member
  • Posts: 1252
Re: Remote DXpeditioning
« Reply #22 on: February 22, 2023, 06:30:01 PM »

Yes there is but not when it comes to what the QSO counts for,

As long as the RF comes from Pitcairn Island who cares where the guy is,

If the Guys had 3 of these RIB's down in Bouvet do you think people would have refused to work them??

Option 1:
I “talked with” another ham on Pitcairn Island, or
Option 2:
I talked with a guy down the street through a remote controlled box located on Pitcairn Island.

There is a difference.
Logged

K1VSK

  • Member
  • Posts: 1950
Re: Remote DXpeditioning
« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2023, 07:42:21 PM »

Yes there is but not when it comes to what the QSO counts for,

As long as the RF comes from Pitcairn Island who cares where the guy is,

If the Guys had 3 of these RIB's down in Bouvet do you think people would have refused to work them??


I expected the “form over substance” argument but that changes nothing about what I wrote.

It’s not merely what you win but also how you win.

Logged

WO7R

  • Member
  • Posts: 6042
Re: Remote DXpeditioning
« Reply #24 on: February 23, 2023, 12:42:21 AM »

Quote
It’s not merely what you win but also how you win.

Really?  What changed on your end?  Did you build a different transmitter?  Use Continental Morse Code instead of International?

What, exactly, was detectably different?  And, why should it bother you what happened on the other end?

As I said, DXpeditioners play a different game than we stay at homes.  None of your business, or mine, in the end, as long as DXCC/DXAC approve.

And, approve they will.  The RiB folks are a subset of the team that did Baker.  They know the score, better than you and I do about the DXpedition game.

It is likely that places like Baker will never be activated again without a RiB and who knows how many to follow?  The USF&W control a lot of DXCC counters, you know.  And they are getting ever fussier.

Why do you think they came up with the idea to start with?  It wasn't to offend you.  It was to run a damn gauntlet that you neither know about or, in your case, apparently, care about.  It's not 1976; time to catch up the DXpeditioning as it is, not as we might wish it to be.

The guys that actually do it are telling anyone who will listen that these things are not luxuries.  They are going to be necessary for certain DXCCs to be activated.  At all.

Don't agree?  Take it up with them.


Logged

W1VT

  • Member
  • Posts: 6071
Re: Remote DXpeditioning
« Reply #25 on: February 23, 2023, 03:28:45 AM »

https://www.wwdxc.org/2021/03/15/reminder-boots-on-the-ground-dxcc-policy-is-gone/

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/DXAC%20List%20-%20August%202022%20(UPDATED).pdf
ARRL DX Advisory Committee

Bill Moore used to run the DXCC department when the change was enacted but he is now a silent key.
Logged

VE3VEE

  • Member
  • Posts: 3030
Re: Remote DXpeditioning
« Reply #26 on: February 23, 2023, 03:32:14 AM »

5 days ago I worked 4U1UN on 20m CW. The station equipment was in the UN building in New York, the antenna on the roof there, but the operator Adrian KO8SCA was thousands of kilometres away on a sail boat somewhere in the Atlantic ocean on his way to South Africa. The QSO was just confirmed via LoTW, uploaded also from the boat.

It's the location of the radio station that matters. It was located in the UN HQ.

The technology changes our hobby.

Marvin VE3VEE
Logged

EI2GLB

  • Member
  • Posts: 1252
Re: Remote DXpeditioning
« Reply #27 on: February 23, 2023, 03:37:57 AM »

Your wasting your time with this lot Marvin most here probably still think SSB ruined the hobby  ;D




5 days ago I worked 4U1UN on 20m CW. The station equipment was in the UN building in New York, the antenna on the roof there, but the operator Adrian KO8SCA was thousands of kilometres away on a sail boat somewhere in the Atlantic ocean on his way to South Africa. The QSO was just confirmed via LoTW, uploaded also from the boat.

It's the location of the radio station that matters. It was located in the UN HQ.

The technology changes our hobby.

Marvin VE3VEE
Logged

N4UFO

  • Member
  • Posts: 1171
Re: Remote DXpeditioning
« Reply #28 on: February 23, 2023, 03:46:15 AM »

Bill Moore used to run the DXCC department when the change was enacted but he is now a silent key.

He was a really nice guy. I was fortunate enough to have a number of long conversations with him trying to talk through some issues that LotW was having and do what I could to help figure it out. (They were without a programmer at the time.) I remember when the car crash happened, I was shocked. Huge reminder to me to enjoy each day to the fullest.

RIP Bill! And welcome home, soldier.  dit dit
« Last Edit: February 23, 2023, 03:53:33 AM by N4UFO »
Logged

K1VSK

  • Member
  • Posts: 1950
Re: Remote DXpeditioning
« Reply #29 on: February 23, 2023, 06:20:25 AM »



Really?  What changed on your end?  Did you build a different transmitter?  Use Continental Morse Code instead of International?


Don’t be asinine. You know that is not what I meant so why insert ludicrous hyperbole?
Quote


It is likely that places like Baker will never be activated again without a RiB ….

Perfect example - That you suggest any means to an end is acceptable. Not surprising…
Quote
Don't agree?  Take it up with them.

Herein you added that final ingredient to your predictable dismissive post - as though this isn’t a discussion forum in which people express opinions but those contrary to yours should go away and instead take it up with whoever you refer to as “them”.

If you feel compelled to respond, why not focus on what I wrote instead of what you twisted it to say?
« Last Edit: February 23, 2023, 06:24:21 AM by K1VSK »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up