Issue #42: Traits of Our Radio Innovators

This is an example of innovation created outside ham radio being tailored for our use. I am not saying its not USEFUL, to us, What I am saying is its a niche, not an innovation. The innovation is already there outside of ham radio.

Frankly, I am very disappointed at what some hams, here, think is 'innovation' originating in ham radio. You are, at least, far closer to the mark. When I here that putting a loading coil on an antenna is 'innovation' (see a few pages back) for example...well, I just cringe. That solution has been around since Oliver Lodge, Tesla.

A true test of 'innovation' is how the niche that creates it leads to use outside of it. All of the technologies you mention are far in use outside of ham radio: individually, and in those combinations.

 

Hi Chip!

Does the answer to your question require a single person? How about an innovation that involved and was spearheaded by a large group of radio amateurs?

CUBE SATS

Okay, perhaps this did not first emerge in the last 5 years, more like 25 years ago, but, pardon the pun, commercially it certainly has "taken off" in more recent times, and has become a disruptive technology.

Does this not count due to it being too connected with academia? Amateur Radio by definition is an important adjunct & extension of education.

On a hunch I did a little searching and found the story being told well in the following biography seen on LinkedIn, text copied below.

73, John WØPV

My Journey to Space - by Jacob Schaffner @W6RWS

As wraps up, in awe of the impressive student, industry, and government projects showcased, I take a moment to reflect on my own journey to space.

I was introduced to space when a friend encouraged me to join the newly formed CubeSat project at Cuesta Community College (San Luis Obispo, CA) in 2001. The project was lead by two amateur radio operators, retired professor Ed English (W6WYQ) and Project OSCAR leader Cliff Buttschardt (K7RR).

We joined meetings of the Cal Poly team, led by Jordi Puig-Suari (Dr. P) and student leader Jeremy Schoos , inspired and promoted by Bob Twiggs KE6QMD, where we observed the success of the Industrial Manufacturing Engineering students (Ryan Connolly) in designing and fabricating the first prototype Poly Picosat Orbital Deployer (P-POD), tested in a KC-135 Vomit Comet flight, and the less successful attempts at building a CubeSat using donated Palm Pilot PDAs (remember Personal Digital Assistants?).

When I transferred to in summer of 2001 for Electrical Engineering, much of the Cal Poly team had just graduated but I, and Aero student Isaac E Nason, KG6JYI, were fortunate to be offered student positions by Dr. P. We worked over the summer and into the following year on further developing the P-POD and setting up the newly-allocated lab space in building 007, the Advanced Technology Laboratory at Cal Poly. I purchased a cleanroom and other equipment on my father's credit card and then waited for the Cal Poly Foundation to reimburse me (my parents still get catalogs from vendors).

Isaac and I studied for our Amateur Radio license exams, and I tested to Amateur Extra (had to copy Morse Code at 5 words per minute) in order to obtain my late grandfather's call sign, W6RWS.

In the Fall we began recruiting, slowly building back up the team, and decided to organize into two projects: Cal Poly to work on the CubeSat standard, deployer development, launch opportunities, and integration facilities, and the project to develop Cal Poly's own CubeSats. Isaac and I straddled both teams, but we were joined by many others (insert long list of distinguished alumni... Roland Coelho WH7BE, Simon Lee , Spencer Studley KG6PGA, Kyle Leveque KG6TXT, Chris Noe KG6YNX, Derek Huerta KG6ZIT, Armen Toorian KG6YNW, Nash Clemens KG6PGG , Nick Johansen , Kalia Crowder KG6ZIS ...too many to list them all) who specialized in one side or the other and made significant contributions to our missions.

At this time, CubeSats were derided by industry as being too small to have value. A CubeSat had never been launched. There was no viable path for a domestic U.S. launch. ITAR was a significant obstacle to international collaboration and effectively blocked most U.S. institutions from obtaining foreign (cheap Russian) launches. SpaceX was merely a twinkle in a PayPal founder's eye.

My eyes were opened to the nascent but coalescing small satellite community when I attended the Small Satellite Conference at Utah State University in 2001.

Starting in 2002, though hindered by ITAR from launching our own CP-1, Cal Poly supported the first ever launch of CubeSats in collaboration with Professor Robert Zee VE3SFL / VE3REZ at University of Toronto. I supported deployer integration in Toronto with Armen Toorian and developed the electronics package used to drive the line cutter used to actuate P-POD deployment. This first CubeSat launch occurred at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome on a Eurockot Rockot vehicle, with no U.S. satellites, in 2003.

I returned to Small Sat in 2002 with a paper of my own describing the development of our first Cal Poly CubeSat, CP-1, and was fortunate to be awarded 1st place in the student competition, the first undergraduate to place and win. This lead to an offer from Jeffrey Ward to join small satellite pioneer Surrey Satellite Technology Limited (SSTL) for a 6-month studentship. I gladly accepted, and moved in to the YMCA in Guildford, England, the only accommodations I could afford on my meager stipend. I stopped in Rome on my way to England to help Armen Toorian , Simon Lee , and Spencer Studley negotiate with representatives of ISC Kosmotras and Yuzhnoe Design Bureau for the first U.S.-led CubeSat launch, a launch that occurred in 2006 but failed to reach orbit, dooming CP-1 and CP-2 to a fiery impact in a desert of Kazakhstan.

Despite the loss of CP-1, I can look back on my time in the project with gratitude for the opportunities it afforded, the relationships that developed, and I can say with pride that "we did a thing." The capable students showcased at and the innovation and entrepreneurism of my peers prove the value of CubeSats. My only regret is never having managed to catch a ride in the Vomit Comet.

Today thousands of CubeSats have launched and the small satellite sector has experienced exponential growth.

After graduation, I was fortunate to join a small, intensely committed, team at Malin Space Science Systems Inc and develop electronics for NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration science missions. After almost 20 years with MSSS, I'm now the Managing Engineer with a growing team of talented engineers, technicians, and production staff designing and building science and navigation instruments for NASA deep space missions to the moon, Mars, Jupiter, Titan, Venus, asteroids Bennu and Psyche... We also provide a growing catalog of space cameras for on-orbit robotic servicing missions, lunar landers, and national security missions. Our Docking Camera (DCAM) will be tested on the Artemis-2 mission and will support docking with the Starship HLS on the Artemis-3 mission to return humans to the surface of the Moon.

What was your journey to space?

 

AMSAT is a very valuable amateur radio asset which has gone through some tough changes in the last decade.

The problem with our 'hoisting the flag for innovation' is that history has no meaning to those who want our valuable spectrum. The best defense is to showcase who we are--what we're doing--in the now.

Thus it is a totally reasonable question to ask: what are 'we' doing that's innovative, as in the present.

Surely there is some hot stuff going on...let's list it

73
Chip W1YW

 

BTW,

I gave a talk at a Smallsat conference at Cal Poly in 2019. They are a very happening place. Integrating the Cubesat efforts with hams, and AMSAT,is a a great path forward and Cal Poly,IMO, is a great player.

 

Chip, I'm finding it hard to think of a single recent person who fits the definition. My thoughts recently have gone to FPGAs as I look at work with DSP and AI programming. This may be a shallow view of innovation, or I'm missing the point.

 

Which is why we continually need to stoke innovation in our area of interest. The ARS was built on advancing the radio art. In our rush to find newcomers to carry us forward, we need to ensure they are imbued with the spirit of innovation and that element of the "art" we're so engaged with, Dave W7DGJ

 

There is likely plenty of ham based innovation happening. But you are correct: many don't want to talk about it. Pretty frustrating.

My query was an invitation for those folks to come out of the shadows and get some recognition.

There is a weird vibe these days for ham radio to be 'enjoyment' and that alone. Almost an anti technology stance, as if such techie pinheads should go somewhere else. But where, pray, is that?

73
Chip W1YW

 

I've noticed this too. And I find it puzzling. Even newer technology, never mind cutting edge technology, is so often ignored, if not outright vilified. I alluded to that in my post #8.

And you see it right here on qrz.com over and over again where someone will start a thread that is in the vein of some more current technology. And every single time there will be numerous posts extolling how wonderful the various radios and other pieces gear was from decades ago. And then not even mentioning anything at all about what the thread's original topic was about. Strange.

Then there is a layer of what I call blind brand loyalty. That is where any type of new tech isn't legitimate until their favorite brand decides to implement it. Then it suddenly becomes the most wonderful "game changing" thing that there is. Prior to that it was as if that technology didn't even exist, - even though competitors to "their brand" had been using that technology for many years prior. The kicker is that "their brand's" implementation of it is often a decade or more behind the curve of where the current state of the technology itself is, and/or their brand's implementation is hobbled by legacy concepts.

 

There are some good thought-provoking comments here. Sometimes the line between invention and innovation seems to be a bit blurred, they can be the same or quite different depending on the situation. The equipment from decades ago, I really enjoy, yet I cannot ignore what is out there now, either, as it does perform better in most cases, though they are a lot more difficult to repair. What is out there now is built upon the knowledge of past technology for the most part I think, but our perceptions and desire to create should not be limited by the past, either. And the past is any day other than today.

That last part I think is important to remember. Even more so now than years ago as innovation occurs at a far more rapid pace than it used to. But I can also say I will not embrace AI. Innovation and invention comes from imagination or a desire to try a new approach to an older idea...or perhaps just a new approach without precedent. These are the ones I admire.

73 Dave
Tony AA7FR

 

Thanks Tony. I appreciate your nice comment.

I'm with you on AI. While a bit unclear yet on where we'll see it implemented, there's enough danger IMHO to warrant a very serious regulatory focus, which will come I'm sure, but probably a decade too late. Dave W7DGJ

PS - I see in your article that you're a major user of Mag Loop antennas. The current issue has an article by Bill W9WRP and I hope you check it out and add your comments to his forum discussion.

 

Actually you are well informed. My fear is that much of the ham-based innovation is SO niche that the people doing it don't want to deal with discussing it on large public forums...

 

Hi Chip, did the team working on digital modes "spread it around" or was it quiet from Joe's lab until they released their first version? I don't remember. Dave, W7DGJ

 

My knowledge on this is limited.

Joe has always been collaborative and public on his developments. FT8 was adopted for HF after a series of other modes he worked on, the original ones designed for UHF and higher for moonbounce.

 

In the bunch of programs, Joe and other teams, were using burst to communicate off meteor tails, but has morphed into interesting modes of information transfer. Does wsjt qualify as innovation?

 

Of course But that's over a decade ago...

Some general comments...

The reason its important to 'call out' the last, say, 5 years, is that FT8 has transformed ham radio into a low bit rate, digital mode, using less than 1% of the allocated MF/HF spectrum but comprising 90% of the QSO's.

The highest SSN's in decades --potentially amazing band conditions--are happening and yet others hear dead ham bands--from lack of use of Part 97 allocated spectrum. This is in general now: not the ephemera of contest weekends and sprints.

IOW we have so bought into an innovation (FT8, first popularized in 2017) that we have created a HUGE GAP --a VOID-- in why we need what we have. We used an innovation and left no new innovations to leverage the spectrum left over. At least so far.

We either 'innovate' to USE that 99% of the allocated spectrum or watch it disappear in 5 years time.

There is a renaissance for HF use happening right now, outside of ham radio, and driven by military needs from sat DNS with GPS, OTH radar, and other concerns. Thinking some greedy stock traders are stealing our spectrum is off the mark-- that is one of 100 types of users eager for new bands below 30 MHz.

If we innovate, we justify allocated bands. If not, we will lose them faster than anyone thought possible with snail paced ITU processes.

Don't be fooled: there are plenty of hams making this renaissance possible, outside of ham radio. Some are reading the mail here. Some don't give a damn about the bands as a whole (yes, some hams actually feel that way). BUT many are well aware of the above and are advocating for trying to stay away from the ham bands. So, give them so ammunition for justification.

They're taking their thumb drive SDR receivers and collecting data, making fancy power points detailing our empty bands.

Roughly 800,000 US hams... let's 'out' the innovations!

I am the canary in the coalmine Don't shoot the messenger. ;-)