To whom it may concern
I have followed all the steps of building a non- rotator type of Grounf station. I have checked the API token numerous times, have set the Satnogs network API URL also. All the information from my side is correct but still the on the ground station page it is showing offline.
API Token - 0ba1db956f995bda1cef57a3e8508c6b184bce3d
ID - 696
I would be really grateful if you can guide me on how to make the offine change to testing.
Thanks and regards.
Hi @prerna,
Welcome to SatNOGS!
API Token is strictly private and you shouldn’t expose it in public. I’ve just removed it for security reasons, so you need to generate a new one by just visiting again your dashboard page and click the API Key button.
Also make sure you have hit Apply in satnogs-setup after changing to the new API Key.
About the issue, please check the client logs with this command for any error:
journalctl -u satnogs-client.service
you can also check them live by this command:
journalctl -f -u satnogs-client.service
Hi @fredy
Can you guide me which network API URL do I have to use?
I have run the command joiurnalctl -u satnogs-client. service
It shows error in one line i.e. apscheduler executors default error.
I am not able to figure out what it means.
https://network.satnogs.org/api/
Is it easy to copy paste the whole error log or take a screenshot of it?
401 response probably means that something is wrong with the API Key, please check it again (size and characters) that is exact the same with the one in network site.
it looks like it works fine now https://network.satnogs.org/stations/696/, please let us know how you fixed the issue or what went wrong for future reference. Thanks!
Hi,
I rescheduled my observations with two satellites and with the satellites, I got the same error.
I am not able to understand the cause of the error because it is showing error in the python code.
i would be grateful if you could look at these 5 pictures and guide me about the problem I am facing.
PFA.
That error fine from what I can tell. I think you just forgot to tell the config you were not using a rotator so it errors when trying to use it. But as you can see at the bottom it continues to run and open the RTLSDR for use.
Also your observations should have been vetted as “Failed” and not “Bad” (i fixed them now) since it is a ground station (and particularly antenna) issue you are facing and not the satellite not transponding (in this case we know that both sats are OK).
Please read carefully the Vetting Guidelines
Yeah it is actually bad. Initially when I did the observation, I did not receive any results. So I thought that it has failed. Then after half an hour or so, the waterfall plots appeared. But I had already sent the message till then.
Do you think using an LNA would help to get better results than the one I am getting now?
@K3RLD and @prerna please read the Vetting Guide carefully 
As you can see here the satellite is active and beaconing. There is no reason to believe that the satellite was inactive (i.e. the observation should be vetted as “Bad”) during the 629583 observation. Thus it is logical to assume that there was a ground station issue (gain? antenna? setup?) and the satellite was not received (i.e. the observation should be vetted as “Failed”).
For clarification:
“Bad” = We know the ground station is functioning well and yet we did not see the satellite
“Failed” = We know the satellite is functioning well and the ground station failed to pick up a signal
Cheers
@pierros, I believe I DID read the Vetting guide carefully.
629583 meets 100% of the listed requirements for a “bad” vet.
629583 meets 0% of the listed requirements for a “failed” vet.
Nowhere in the vetting guide does it discuss opening parallel observations to verify that the satellite was transmitting. I see no failure of the station in that observation. Was the antenna poorly oriented or coax unhooked? Possibly, but the station did what it was supposed to do.
I think that those two potential issues you mention actually refer to a dysfunctional ground station.
@K3RLD you are right there is ambiguity and we need to solve this. I opened a new thread to discuss this thorowly. Feel free to chime in with thoughts and comments.
