Email Detail

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/3ZYZ5RDYDVFWUCVXI776ZWIC5V2ZDNCW/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "3ZYZ5RDYDVFWUCVXI776ZWIC5V2ZDNCW",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/5SA7C67UZ2X4Y3BTRKA64GC3H2NFNXEJ/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "kenneth.g.ransom (a) nasa.gov",
        "mailman_id": "7a18787420f848ee95993e164e807c2c",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/7a18787420f848ee95993e164e807c2c/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR]",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: \"PR\" of PcSat2 during spacewalks this week",
    "date": "2006-09-21T14:28:39Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/5SA7C67UZ2X4Y3BTRKA64GC3H2NFNXEJ/?format=api",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "I did not monitor the events you are referring too but it sounds like\nthe announcers did not have any prepared description. One possible\nreason for this is that PCSAT2 was a piggyback  to the primary MISSE 5\nexperiment which was a DOD payload. The DOD is not known for pro-active\nPR. \n\n\nKenneth - N5VHO\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On\nBehalf Of Nate Duehr\nSent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:28 PM\nTo: [email protected]\nSubject: [amsat-bb] \"PR\" of PcSat2 during spacewalks this week\n\nBob will probably have some comment on this, but I wondered if anyone\nelse noticed it.\n\nI've been listening to/watching NASA TV most of the week with the\nShuttle mission going on, and was obviously interested to watch/listen\nduring the spacewalks.\n\nWhat I found especially interesting (or disturbing?) during the\nspacewalks was the announcers descriptions of the external payload boxes\nbeing worked on, like PCSat2.\n\nWhen they worked on removing PCSat2 there was this (almost mumbled) dumb\ndescription of what is was -- something like \"radio experimentation\nequipment\".  And that's about it.  No mention of its name.  No mention\nthat it was built by students at the Naval Academy.  No mention of\nAmateur Radio.\n\nYet, the next day when they were removing the other science experiments,\nthere were long gushing words about all the peace, love, and worldwide\njoy that a box with 20 different pieces of metal stuck to the outside\nwould bring as the scientists of the world, as they would be able to see\nthe effects of being outside in space had on different metalurgical\nalloys.\n\nSorry - ok yes, I'm exaggerating.  But my curiosity is still piqued.\n\nWhy was PCSat2 given such a \"boring\" billing during the announcer's time\nto speak about what the Astronauts were doing, versus all the\nglowing/gushing descriptions of the other scientific experiments?\n\nIs radio science or the word \"Amateur\" in Amateur Radio a source of some\nkind of embarasment for NASA PR people these days?\n\nOr, was there simply no good typed up description for the announcers to\nread from, so they skipped it?  (I'm hoping here...)\n\nIn other words, was there a PR opportunity for Amateur Radio missed\nbecause no one had time to send a good description and make sure it got\ninto the correct hands for reading during the spacewalks?\n\nWas there anything anyone could have done to make the description of\nPCSat2 at least sound more interesting than a mumbled comment about a\nradio black-box the announcer seemed clueless about?  Or at least even\nhave its NAME mentioned so people with a web browser and Google could\nfind the rest of the story?\n\nSomehow I want to give the announcers more credit than that they were\njust \"dumb\" about it -- they all seem to be VERY well versed in what's\ngoing on in almost all aspects of Shuttle operations.\n\nAlong those lines, is there any reason they would be told NOT to say\nwhat it was, perhaps?  (Hey, it's a possibility, right?  I'm not much of\na conspiracy theorist, but you have to consider all possibilities.)\n\nI'm very curious.  Probably more than I should be.  :-)\n\nAnyone else notice this?\n\nNate WY0X\n_______________________________________________\nSent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.\nNot an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite\nprogram!\nSubscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}