# Some Uplinks may be of interest to HD viewers (Nat Geo, Starz, HGTV, NFL HD)



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

These are not Available:

9429 NTGHD ADDED TO Tp 22 ConUS beam on EchoStar 3 at 61.5w

9429 NTGHD ADDED TO Tp 22 ConUS beam on EchoStar 5 at 129w

9435 STZHD ADDED TO Tp 20 ConUS beam on EchoStar 3 at 61.5w

9435 STZHD ADDED TO Tp 10 ConUS beam on EchoStar 5 at 129w

9461 HGHD ADDED TO Tp 22 ConUS beam on EchoStar 3 at 61.5w

9461 HGHD ADDED TO Tp 22 ConUS beam on EchoStar 5 at 129w

9464 NFLHD MOVED FROM Tp 13 ConUS beam on EchoStar 8 at 110w
TO Tp 20 ConUS beam on EchoStar 3 at 61.5w

9464 NFLHD ADDED TO Tp 10 ConUS beam on EchoStar 5 at 129w

9968 TST43, REMOVED FROM Tp 22 ConUS beam on EchoStar 5 at 129w

9969 TST44, REMOVED FROM Tp 22 ConUS beam on EchoStar 5 at 129w


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

Sweet. Hopefully this isn't just a tease, but these will be soon available. Are they in MPEG2 or MPEG4? I assume MPEG4.


----------



## liferules (Aug 14, 2005)

What would TST be?


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

TST = TEST and they were removed.


----------



## liferules (Aug 14, 2005)

Thanks.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

JohnH said:


> 9429 NTGHD ADDED TO Tp 22 ConUS beam on EchoStar 3 at 61.5w
> 
> 9429 NTGHD ADDED TO Tp 22 ConUS beam on EchoStar 5 at 129w


Righteous! I know this might not go over well with others, but I'd trade National Geographic HD for Food HD.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ebaltz said:


> Sweet. Hopefully this isn't just a tease, but these will be soon available. Are they in MPEG2 or MPEG4? I assume MPEG4.


With the possible exception of NFL HD, these should all be MPEG4.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JohnH said:


> 9464 NFLHD MOVED FROM Tp 13 ConUS beam on EchoStar 8 at 110w
> TO Tp 20 ConUS beam on EchoStar 3 at 61.5w
> 9464 NFLHD ADDED TO Tp 10 ConUS beam on EchoStar 5 at 129w


Hopefully that doesn't upset any old non-Voom subscribers who don't have 61.5° or 129° yet. But it is good to see the channel get it's own bandwidth. Less interruptions to the channels it previously shared space with.


----------



## pdxsam (Jun 20, 2004)

James Long said:


> Hopefully that doesn't upset any old non-Voom subscribers who don't have 61.5° or 129° yet. But it is good to see the channel get it's own bandwidth. Less interruptions to the channels it previously shared space with.


Unfortunately with the state of 129 in the NorthWest and NorthEast Dish just added HD for 3/4 of the country. 129 pixellates so bad here it's virtually unwatchable.

I really wish they would mirror HD on 148 so the west coast has a decent shot.

Sam


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

Thanks for the info. Looks like we have something to look forward to. Let's see if Charlie announces start dates on the next chat.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

harsh said:


> With the possible exception of NFL HD, these should all be MPEG4.


EHH! NFLHD switched. 

All 4 require the Mpeg4 capable, but 2 are listed Mpeg2(NTGHD and HGHD).


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

pdxsam said:


> Unfortunately with the state of 129 in the NorthWest and NorthEast Dish just added HD for 3/4 of the country. 129 pixellates so bad here it's virtually unwatchable.
> 
> I really wish they would mirror HD on 148 so the west coast has a decent shot.
> 
> Sam


Well, the Northeast is covered by 61.5. Don't know where you are, but have you tried shooting 61.5 or a larger dish on 129.

Puerto Rico may see these better than VOOM since these are on EchoStar 3.


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

> Unfortunately with the state of 129 in the NorthWest and NorthEast Dish just added HD for 3/4 of the country. 129 pixellates so bad here it's virtually unwatchable.


I don't understand why people in the northwest think 129 is so out of reach. It's over the pacific!

Seattle: AZ 188 / Elevation 34°

Atlanta: Az 240 / Elevation 28.5

Newyork: Az 245 / Elevation 17.5

Andover ME: Az 246 / Elevation 13.6


----------



## pdxsam (Jun 20, 2004)

JohnH said:


> Well, the Northeast is covered by 61.5. Don't know where you are, but have you tried shooting 61.5 or a larger dish on 129.
> 
> Puerto Rico may see these better than VOOM since these are on EchoStar 3.


I'm out here in Portland, Oregon and I've got a D500 aimed at 129. 61.5 is blocked by a very large hill. How much bigger a dish should I think about?

Thanks,
Sam


----------



## pdxsam (Jun 20, 2004)

ssmith10pn said:


> I don't understand why people in the northwest think 129 is so out of reach. It's over the pacific!
> 
> Seattle: AZ 188 / Elevation 34°
> 
> ...


They're all over the pacific but the angles are not quite high enough to give a consitent signal out here. There's lots of reports of marginal at best signals from 129 out this ways.

Sam


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

pdxsam said:


> I'm out here in Portland, Oregon and I've got a D500 aimed at 129. 61.5 is blocked by a very large hill. How much bigger a dish should I think about?
> 
> Thanks,
> Sam


Well, I have a 30" here for 148.


----------



## Jerry G (Jul 12, 2003)

ssmith10pn said:


> I don't understand why people in the northwest think 129 is so out of reach. It's over the pacific!


That may be true, but for whatever reason, signal strength can be terrible. In some cases it may be related to specific transponders. I have a Dish 500 dedicated to 129 (in LA). Some transponders have a strength of 80 to 85. But transponder 8, which holds three of the four LA locals barely reaches 70 and these channels often pixelate. Charlie needs to move these channels to a better transponder.


----------



## Jerry G (Jul 12, 2003)

harsh said:


> Righteous! I know this might not go over well with others, but I'd trade National Geographic HD for Food HD.


Food HD??? A channel I'll never watch. I'll take NGC HD over Food HD. I'd much rather see Dish dump Food HD and use the space for Cinemax HD or The Movie Channel HD.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

harsh said:


> Righteous! I know this might not go over well with others, but I'd trade National Geographic HD for Food HD.


No need to gripe you'll be getting both. Food will be added sometime after when it comes online


----------



## Stephen J (Mar 26, 2006)

If National Geographic's SD channel is part of AT180, will HD Bronze and Silver subs be able to get it, or will it only be avilable in Gold and Platinum?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

** Threads merged and channels added to title **


----------



## garys (Nov 4, 2005)

Stephen J said:


> If National Geographic's SD channel is part of AT180, will HD Bronze and Silver subs be able to get it, or will it only be avilable in Gold and Platinum?


Discovery and Discovery HD do not follow the same programing schedule. Would expect the same from NG and NGHD.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

It is an interesting question though... I would like to think all Metal packs would get all the HD, as that is how they are currently structured... except for the HBO/SHO/Starz premiums of course where you either have to buy the movie suite OR the Platinum top level.

But it is interesting... if they would let Bronze HD customers have National Geographic HD when they wouldn't get the SD channel (with different programming in SD) unless they bumped up a couple of notches.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

garys said:


> Would expect the same from NG and NGHD.


Wrong NGC HD is a simulcast of NGC and not all of the content is even HD.

It's like a TNT or an ESPN


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Or, from the official site:*Are the programs and schedules the same on both channels?*

Yes! You can enjoy all your favorite NGC shows on the HD channel! The schedule is identical for both channels (HD and SD). Please call 1-877-77-NGCHD for more information.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/hd/questions_answers.html​


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

HDMe said:


> It is an interesting question though... I would like to think all Metal packs would get all the HD, as that is how they are currently structured... except for the HBO/SHO/Starz premiums of course where you either have to buy the movie suite OR the Platinum top level.
> 
> But it is interesting... if they would let Bronze HD customers have National Geographic HD when they wouldn't get the SD channel (with different programming in SD) unless they bumped up a couple of notches.


It seems to me that they designed the Dish HD packages to be able to tier HD channels, but lets just hope we don't have to see that for some time to come


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDMe said:


> But it is interesting... if they would let Bronze HD customers have National Geographic HD when they wouldn't get the SD channel (with different programming in SD) unless they bumped up a couple of notches.


Bronze customers don't need National Geographic SD if they have the HD version - giving them 9429 NTGHD as part of the HD package and not 186 NTGEO doesn't harm them.

If it ticks off AT60 viewers that Bronze customers get a version of National Geographic they need to rember that HD customers are paying $20 more per month to get HD channels.


----------



## nazz (May 4, 2006)

Is it known if these will be broadcast in full resolution like the non-Voom HD channels?


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

nazz said:


> Is it known if these will be broadcast in full resolution like the non-Voom HD channels?


An official statement is not likely and the resolution will not be known until a test is made after the channels become available. Even then, the source may be using a phony resolution.


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

JohnH said:


> An official statement is not likely and the resolution will not be known until a test is made after the channels become available. Even then, the source may be using a phony resolution.


Any thoughts or idea as to when these might become available to subscribers?


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

harsh said:


> Righteous! I know this might not go over well with others, but I'd trade National Geographic HD for Food HD.


I have mixed feelings on that one, I like the Food Network but my wife LOVES it and if they add it in HD I may never be able to watch a different channel when she's around!! 

I'm just excited about more national HD content being added, I know others have said they'd rather see MAXHD or other Premium HD channels but I can't justify the cost of those channels so I'd rather have some more good HD content added to my Gold package. I know that there's no guarantee these channels will ever be "turned on" but it's still a good sign that they will be.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> Bronze customers don't need National Geographic SD if they have the HD version - giving them 9429 NTGHD as part of the HD package and not 186 NTGEO doesn't harm them.
> 
> If it ticks off AT60 viewers that Bronze customers get a version of National Geographic they need to rember that HD customers are paying $20 more per month to get HD channels.


There are several levels of problems... The HD folks will be happy of course...

But, as you mention SD folks will not... and what about Dish? Someone who was on the fence about upgrading to a higher pack might not upgrade if they get an HD channel that they would have to go to AT120 or AT180 equivalent to get (Silver/Gold).

Also... what about the channel providers... NationalGeo doesn't get their SD kickback for a subscriber until the customer is on the higher package... so will that make them ask for even more for the HD channel to compensate?

I hope all HD levels get the channel... but I agree with the other poster who noted that these Metal packs are already setup to be tiered in HD as well as SD... so I know the future is coming where different metals will give you different HD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDMe said:


> Also... what about the channel providers... NationalGeo doesn't get their SD kickback for a subscriber until the customer is on the higher package... so will that make them ask for even more for the HD channel to compensate?


Perhaps, but without seeing the exact contract it would be hard to tell how much they would be losing on SD subs.


----------



## anthonyi (Feb 4, 2006)

When do they plan on turning these new HD channels on?????????????


----------



## dsanbo (Nov 25, 2005)

anthonyi said:


> When do they plan on turning these new HD channels on?????????????


Latest "word" (read: heavy rumor.... ) is on or about 6/1/06......
I just check the "new" channels each day to see if they're up yet (...and you'll hear my primal scream of pleasure when they are.....!!)


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

dsanbo said:


> Latest "word" (read: heavy rumor.... ) is on or about 6/1/06......
> I just check the "new" channels each day to see if they're up yet (...and you'll hear my primal scream of pleasure when they are.....!!)


Can't wait, myself. As far as SD/HD for some of these channels, I am happy that they are putting in more effort into the HD packages and not just VOOM, and if you subscribe to the lowest price package why would you expect, what is considered a Prime channels, in a base low level package?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ssmith10pn said:


> I don't understand why people in the northwest think 129 is so out of reach. It's over the pacific!


The equipment that sends the signal to the Left Coast is very weak. In my area, a perfectly pointed Dish500 will get you signals as high as 82 (out of 125) on good transponders. The Dish1000 seems to run a couple of points lower.

It doesn't take much to knock the signal out and the strength seems to drift up and down regardless of the weather.


----------



## bmcleod (May 13, 2006)

So where can you find what HD programming is included with each package? On the Dish site when you click on the HD "Metal" package it shows you the SD stations but not the HDs (other than "23 HD channels included"). I've poked around and see them broken up by "sports", "movies", etc. but they don't tell you if an individual package gets them or not. Is there a place where you can see that "Bronze" gets this, "Silver" gets this plus that, "Gold" gets this plus that plus these, etc.?


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Everybody gets the same HD channels, the difference in the packages is in how many SD channels you get.

Also, if you subscribe to HBO and Showtime, you get them in HD and if you have the Platinum pack with OLN you get NHLHD during the playoffs.

The extra channel info may not be precisely correct but its close.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

ssmith10pn said:


> I don't understand why people in the northwest think 129 is so out of reach. It's over the pacific!
> 
> Well it's doen't matter where the satellite is if the powers too low or the satellites antennae pattern isn't aimed correctly.
> In my case I don't think 129 is low, I know 129 is low. The best signal strength I can get from 129 is 55-60. I get strengths in the range of 80-90 off 61.5.


----------



## AdamGott (Nov 30, 2005)

harsh said:


> The equipment that sends the signal to the Left Coast is very weak. In my area, a perfectly pointed Dish500 will get you signals as high as 82 (out of 125) on good transponders. The Dish1000 seems to run a couple of points lower.
> 
> It doesn't take much to knock the signal out and the strength seems to drift up and down regardless of the weather.


I don't know what your problem is but I do know that back in the old C-band satellite days a lot of the LNB's were temperature sensitive and drifted a lot more in the summer than the winter. Perhaps this is causing your drifting signal strength?


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Jim5506 said:


> Also, if you subscribe to HBO and Showtime, you get them in HD and if you have the Platinum pack with OLN you get NHLHD during the playoffs.
> 
> The extra channel info may not be precisely correct but its close.


Actually you just need HDGold, not Platinum to get the NHLHD games, I know because they sent me an e-mail about it, not because I watch hockey.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

AdamGott said:


> I don't know what your problem is but I do know that back in the old C-band satellite days a lot of the LNB's were temperature sensitive and drifted a lot more in the summer than the winter. Perhaps this is causing your drifting signal strength?


Look where it got C-band 

I'm not as convinced that the C-band drift wasn't due more to the sun hitting a large piece of aluminum mesh or fiberglass and causing it to deform substantially. Many of those feedhorns used to run pretty hot all of the time.

The drop-out problem seems to be by transponder and not the entire satellite. I had some drop-outs tonight on Kung Fu (shares TP30 with Rave and HD News) and when I did a check of some other transponders, they were mostly running in the mid 70's.


----------



## swissin (May 25, 2006)

When will we see them!!!!!


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

harsh said:


> Look where it got C-band
> 
> I'm not as convinced that the C-band drift wasn't due more to the sun hitting a large piece of aluminum mesh or fiberglass and causing it to deform substantially. Many of those feedhorns used to run pretty hot all of the time.
> 
> The drop-out problem seems to be by transponder and not the entire satellite. I had some drop-outs tonight on Kung Fu (shares TP30 with Rave and HD News) and when I did a check of some other transponders, they were mostly running in the mid 70's.


Only light weight C-band dishes had any problems from deformation due to temp shift. Even most mesh dishes had frames sturdy enough to withstand this problem. The heat at the focal point of the dish only received high heat about 4 days per equinox during the solar transit ( aka as solar outage). All the rest of the time the sun was bouncing off to a different angle than the center of the feedhorn. So the temp shift happened less than 8 days in the entire year. Most LNB's were stable enough to handle the temp change.


----------



## Jeff_R (Jun 11, 2002)

swissin said:


> When will we see them!!!!!


The rumor is that they will be announced and made available during Team Summit. That event runs June 7-10, so towards the end of next week is a good bet.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

whatchel1 said:


> Most LNB's were stable enough to handle the temp change.


This phenomenon is more related to the sun's broadband radiation as opposed to a steamin' LNB. It is still a concern with DBS as evidenced by this entry from the Dish Network FAQ:



Dish Network FAQ said:


> Solar Interference/Outages
> 
> All satellite transmissions are subject to solar interference (sometimes referred to as Solar Conjunction) twice a year. This natural occurrence typically happens in March and September. When the sun passes behind the satellite, the sun's radiation can cause interference with the satellite signal.
> 
> ...


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

harsh said:


> This phenomenon is more related to the sun's broadband radiation as opposed to a steamin' LNB. It is still a concern with DBS as evidenced by this entry from the Dish Network FAQ:


This is all about solar transit. It just means that when the sun passes behing the satellite that the sun puts out more energy in all bands including the one's that satellites operate within. In other words it overloads the RF band that the satellite is transmitting and receiving in and causes loss of signal. Radiation in this case has to do with radiated power in all frequencies of the RF spectrum by the sun.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Yeah. but there were still LNBFs which had heat problems in mid-summer when "sun outage" is not a problem.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

JohnH said:


> Yeah. but there were still LNBFs which had heat problems in mid-summer when "sun outage" is not a problem.


Of course there were and it will happen again sometime in the construction process. Sometimes the designs just are not up to the rigors of the real world and so this produced faulty products.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

"Sometimes" ? Are they live in Alaska ? It's not an excuse - send it to AZ, ppl will happy to help test it for free !


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

P Smith said:


> "Sometimes" ? Are they live in Alaska ? It's not an excuse - send it to AZ, ppl will happy to help test it for free !


I don't understand what you are asking. Is who live in Alaska.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Has anyone heard if the Sci-Fi channel will be going HD. Sure would be good to see Battlestar Galatica, and the Stargate set of series in HD.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

whatchel1 said:


> I don't understand what you are asking. Is who live in Alaska.


those engineers ...


----------



## MYNAMEHERE (Nov 22, 2005)

whatchel1 said:


> Has anyone heard if the Sci-Fi channel will be going HD. Sure would be good to see Battlestar Galatica, and the Stargate set of series in HD.


You can watch BG in HD on the UNIHD channel 9426.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

MYNAMEHERE said:


> You can watch BG in HD on the UNIHD channel 9426.


Thanks but those are re-runs that I have already seen.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

whatchel1 said:


> Thanks but those are re-runs that I have already seen.


Well, UNIHD is supposed to be a mix of Sci-Fi, USA and Bravo. At the time it did not sound as though there would be individual channels anytime soon.


----------



## Mark Strube (May 10, 2006)

whatchel1 said:


> Thanks but those are re-runs that I have already seen.


The way they're doing it now, the new episodes are played on SciFi, then when the season is about 1/2 over, they start playing it on UniversalHD. So, if you just wait a bit, you could watch the entire season "new" on UniversalHD.

(And for now there's no new episodes anywhere until the fall.)


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Mark Strube said:


> The way they're doing it now, the new episodes are played on SciFi, then when the season is about 1/2 over, they start playing it on UniversalHD. So, if you just wait a bit, you could watch the entire season "new" on UniversalHD.
> 
> (And for now there's no new episodes anywhere until the fall.)


The new season for both Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis starts this summer. BTW I've enjoyed the Bond in HD as well.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

garys said:


> Discovery and Discovery HD do not follow the same programing schedule. Would expect the same from NG and NGHD.


Sometimes I wish Discovery HD did follow the SD format. Seems I watch SD content much more 

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

harsh said:


> The equipment that sends the signal to the Left Coast is very weak. In my area, a perfectly pointed Dish500 will get you signals as high as 82 (out of 125) on good transponders. The Dish1000 seems to run a couple of points lower.
> 
> It doesn't take much to knock the signal out and the strength seems to drift up and down regardless of the weather.


Ok I'm a bit confused here.... If I get a perfect signal in Chicago of 129 and the sat is over the pacific then why do people west of me have issues?

Should they not be in an even better position than I?

-JB


----------



## Red Dwarf (Aug 25, 2002)

129 is aimed at the center of the country. The west coast is on the edge of the footprint. Using bigger dishes make up for the lack of signal strength. Dish 1000 is marginal for the west coast.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Red Dwarf said:


> 129 is aimed at the center of the country. The west coast is on the edge of the footprint. Using bigger dishes make up for the lack of signal strength. Dish 1000 is marginal for the west coast.


Ok so Chicago being somewhat in the center means my 1000 is fine. I had thought someone had said that 129 was over the pacific but maybe aimed at the center of the US which might explain my low signal numbers for 129?

The signal is low because of the distance (and power?) from 129 as it is over the Pacific but the signal itself is aimed at the center of the US so the East and West coast get even worse signals than I?

Thanks

-JB

P.S. 110 is over Texas if I rem correctly? Why not move 129 to a similar position or I guess that stuff is highly regulated


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> Ok so Chicago being somewhat in the center means my 1000 is fine. I had thought someone had said that 129 was over the pacific but maybe aimed at the center of the US which might explain my low signal numbers for 129?
> 
> The signal is low because of the distance (and power?) from 129 as it is over the Pacific but the signal itself is aimed at the center of the US so the East and West coast get even worse signals than I?
> 
> ...


110 is over Az. 101 (Directv has this slot) is almost straight above where I live in Lubbock, Tx. 119 is over Grand Coulee, WA. & 129 is above British Columbia, Canada. Although they are all parked straight above the equator in the Clark Belt. Geo-sync satellites are at app. 22.300 miles above the equator. Yes all Conus (contential US) sats are generally pointed at basicly Kansas for beam center. This is one of the reasons for spotbeams to different areas of the states. It boost the power to a limited area of the US.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> P.S. 110 is over Texas if I rem correctly? Why not move 129 to a similar position or I guess that stuff is highly regulated


Actually all the geostationary satellites such as DBS uses are over the equator. 
The 110° west line runs through Arizona (halfway between Tuscon and the New Mexico state line), Utah, Wyoming and Montana and is the dividing line between Alberta and Saskatchewan. (119° west runs through California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington states crossing just east of Oxnard and passing through Bakersfield in California.)

Coverage maps of E7 and E8 (-20db, -15db shaded contours and -10db red contour) and E10, E7 and E8 spots (-10db shaded and -6db shaded and red outline) are attached.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Thanks for the details!

-JB

P.S. So 129 must just be underpowered which is why the signal strength is so low?


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> Thanks for the details!
> 
> -JB
> 
> P.S. So 129 must just be underpowered which is why the signal strength is so low?


It's been up there for 7 years now and here is the general specs on the bird.

http://www.geo-orbit.org/westhemipgs/fecho5specp.html


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

whatchel1 said:


> This is all about solar transit. It just means that when the sun passes behing the satellite that the sun puts out more energy in all bands including the one's that satellites operate within. In other words it overloads the RF band that the satellite is transmitting and receiving in and causes loss of signal. Radiation in this case has to do with radiated power in all frequencies of the RF spectrum by the sun.


This long winded oration is designed to hide the fact that you attributed the drop-out to heat failure?

Please don't bother trying to explain the Clark Belt again. By the time you get tired of that, we'll all be using LEO satellites. We're not all a bunch of neophytes when it comes to physics. Those who are probably don't care to have it explained to them.


----------

