They don’t speak about “determine” or “abuse”. This is what SatNOGS automatically makes out of it.
The result of the poll shows that the vast majority of this democratic decision wants to make an exception from this automatism in this specific case of QUBE.
There are areas on this planet were one man makes decisions and everyone has to follow them.
And I’m really happy not to live there!
Hans is not willing to contact the satellite team.
The team has already tried twice to get in contact with him, the IARU Satellite Advisor refused to answer.
Given that DO4ROL, vjspace, Lorand and fk1 are new created accounts and without any contribution in the SatNOGS project (if I miss something, please let me know), I think we should ignore their votes.
Thus the result is 6 for N/A and 4 for keeping the current status.
Just to mention here that the sample of people voted, even with the new accounts, is 14 people when there are hundreds of contributors in the project.
I’m adding the above for the transparency of the poll and its results.
Although I understand the reasoning to bring forward multiple coordinations, lets stay with QUBE and the Würzburg university.
They proposed with there previous missions also services towards the ham radio community and in reality never activated a single one of them, currently UWE-4 is still in orbit and being tracked and decoded but the digipeater service wasn’t and isn’t enabled.
It is possible that this practice has influenced the IARU commission and maybe this mission is now also the victim of a more stricter policy. With that in mind I do agree that the whole process needs to be more transparent and equal towards all coordination requests.
Lets look forward and offer our help towards new missions in being representatives and intermediates, and I would suggest that the IARU will also support this way forward.
To be excactly, it’s not University of Würzburg (UWE-4), but the Zentrum für Telematik e.V. (Netsat).
But you are right, (also) on the prior Netsat mission it was missed to activate the digipeater service.
That casts a bad light on QUBE.
However the rejection of frequency coordination was, based on the “QUBE coordination request”, explained by “problems to assign frequencies for a mainly scientific mission” and not because of missing the digipeater service of the Netsats.
I found the comment about “were one man makes decisions” offensive and now you’re starting to behave like a person who wants to be right at all costs.
Lets start working towards a solution that will try to prevent this from happening in the future, and let this situation be a lesson also for the mission team, building and launching satellites is not only about technology.
… sounds to me like we should offer this one man (of course an allusion) a person (representative) to whom he is willing to talk.
Unfortunately, it seems he’s very choosy when it comes to an intermediate.
I tried that. Obviously, I was the wrong one when I got the answer “I will not waste more time on it.”
So, to talk about solutions:
I think, for coordinations in question (both, coordinated and declined) we should find a way within the SatNOGS community and don’t rely on the IARU satellite frequency coordination status.
And offensive to me sounds
I don’t see what the team did wrong. Asking for help?
Just passing the buck to the mission team is not part of any solution.