#Future Higher "Min elev" for satellite passes #future
|
Phil Somers <pwsomers@...>
Currently 20 degrees is the highest minimum elevation that can be selected for recording passes. A higher minimum elevation would be useful in several situations:
1. Low gain antennas or low sensitivity receivers may require higher minimum elevations. 2. Maybe only "almost overhead" passes might be desired, for example for weather satellites. 3. Maybe only a short bit of telemetry is required occasionally and it could be best done during short, high elevation passes. 4. Maybe storage size is limited and only a small number of high elevation passes can be stored or are desired.. 5. Probably a change of "Min elev" would be very easy to implement, and it would have no detrimental effect on users who don't want or need a higher value. I suggest that the Min elev be increased from the current 20 degrees to 80 degrees. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Phil Somers <pwsomers@...>
Also, I notice that, even now with 20 degrees set as the minimum elevation for the next pass, the map display shows the next AOS based on the default 10 degrees elevation. The map AOS etc. for the next pass should show the same info as the Automatic Scheduler, based on the same minimum elevation.
|
|
|
|
Simon Brown
Urg,
Let me think about the logic here.
Simon Brown, G4ELI https://www.sdr-radio.com
From: main@SDR-Radio.groups.io <main@SDR-Radio.groups.io> On Behalf Of Phil Somers via Groups.Io
Also, I notice that, even now with 20 degrees set as the minimum elevation for the next pass, the map display shows the next AOS based on the default 10 degrees elevation. The map AOS etc. for the next pass should show the same info as the Automatic Scheduler, based on the same minimum elevation.
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Shaxted
….Or maybe it could also check the minimum elevation angle against a user generated horizon table (1 deg intervals) This could be great help in ensuring compliance with the radiated power limitations
Nick – g4ogi
From: main@SDR-Radio.groups.io
On Behalf Of Simon Brown via Groups.Io
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:58 PM To: main@SDR-Radio.groups.io Subject: Re: [SDR-Radio] #Future Higher "Min elev" for satellite passes
Urg,
Let me think about the logic here.
Simon Brown, G4ELI
From:
main@SDR-Radio.groups.io <main@SDR-Radio.groups.io>
On Behalf Of Phil Somers via Groups.Io
Also, I notice that, even now with 20 degrees set as the minimum elevation for the next pass, the map display shows the next AOS based on the default 10 degrees elevation. The map AOS etc. for the next pass should show the same info as the Automatic Scheduler, based on the same minimum elevation.
|
|
|
|
Simon Brown
Que?
You’ll have to give me the dumbed-down version of this, I wasn’t aware we had any such limitations. Over-exposing neighbours to RF is all part of the fun here.
Simon Brown, G4ELI https://www.sdr-radio.com
From: main@SDR-Radio.groups.io <main@SDR-Radio.groups.io> On Behalf Of Nicholas Shaxted
Sent: 14 March 2020 15:03 To: main@SDR-Radio.groups.io Subject: Re: [SDR-Radio] #Future Higher "Min elev" for satellite passes
….Or maybe it could also check the minimum elevation angle against a user generated horizon table (1 deg intervals) This could be great help in ensuring compliance with the radiated power limitations
Nick – g4ogi
From: main@SDR-Radio.groups.io On Behalf Of Simon Brown via Groups.Io
Urg,
Let me think about the logic here.
Simon Brown, G4ELI
From: main@SDR-Radio.groups.io <main@SDR-Radio.groups.io> On Behalf Of Phil Somers via Groups.Io
Also, I notice that, even now with 20 degrees set as the minimum elevation for the next pass, the map display shows the next AOS based on the default 10 degrees elevation. The map AOS etc. for the next pass should show the same info as the Automatic Scheduler, based on the same minimum elevation.
|
|
|
|
pwsomers@...
It sure would be nice if version 3.1 could raise this "Min elev" from 20 degrees to 80 degrees for all the reasons stated in this thread. It seems like it should be relatively easy, and it would sure reduce the huge amounts of unwanted recorded data from noisy, low-elevation passes. Also, the next AOS should also be based on the selected "Min Elev" so it only shows the upcoming passes of interest. Thanks.
... Phil VE3HST
|
|
|
|
Simon Brown
Phil,
Please add this request to the new forums in the Satellite subforum.
https://forum.sdr-radio.com:4499/viewforum.php?f=50&sid=f9af565951aed21f93c4697b43b53a34
As soon as I see it there I’ll add it.
Simon Brown, G4ELI https://www.sdr-radio.com
From: main@SDR-Radio.groups.io <main@SDR-Radio.groups.io> On Behalf Of pwsomers via groups.io
Sent: 04 October 2020 11:42 To: main@SDR-Radio.groups.io Subject: Re: [SDR-Radio] #Future Higher "Min elev" for satellite passes
It sure would be nice if version 3.1 could raise this "Min elev" from 20 degrees to 80 degrees for all the reasons stated in this thread. It seems like it should be relatively easy, and it would sure reduce the huge amounts of unwanted recorded data from noisy, low-elevation passes. Also, the next AOS should also be based on the selected "Min Elev" so it only shows the upcoming passes of interest. Thanks. -- - + - + -
Please use https://forum.sdr-radio.com:4499/ when posting questions or problems.
|
|
|
|
OK, if I am reading this correctly we are talking about denying other folks who like to use lower elevations? Why? I for one have done well with some low elevation passes that surprised even me. I would say make it selectable, don't fix something that is not broken for everyone.
AL M KF5SMH
|
|
|
|
Siegfried Jackstien
user setable border starting at MINUS 10 degrees (yes below horizon) ... reason is then tracking of frequency starts BEFORE the sat is there min elevation set HIGHER is on the user end (if he does not
receive well below 10 degrees ABOVE horizon he can surpress those
passes and set min elevation to 15 or 20) .. so i second that ... make it selectable by user with "default" setting to 0 degrees (no passes lost) greetz sigi dg9bfc Am 05.10.2020 um 20:48 schrieb Al
Massaro:
OK, if I am reading this correctly we are talking about denying other folks who like to use lower elevations? Why? I for one have done well with some low elevation passes that surprised even me. I would say make it selectable, don't fix something that is not broken for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Max
No, I don't think so Al. I think Phil is asking to be able to optionally set the minimum elevation to a value higher than 20 Deg? Not remove the ability to set it lower than 80 Deg.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
73 Max
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 09:48 PM, Al Massaro wrote:
OK, if I am reading this correctly we are talking about denying other folks who like to use lower elevations? Why? I for one have done well with some low elevation passes that surprised even me. I would say make it selectable, don't fix something that is not broken for everyone.
|
|
|
|
jdow
And the next request would be 15 degrees off to the
South and 30 degrees to the North and more numbers for other
cardinal directions....
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
{O,o} <- Joanne lives where North is almost mythological. The North star barely comes over the mountain.
On 20201006 02:32:34, Max wrote:
No, I don't think so Al. I think Phil is asking to be able to optionally set the minimum elevation to a value higher than 20 Deg? Not remove the ability to set it lower than 80 Deg.
|
|
|