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/5HDVWYKGX2MYQ7UATSF3PYGAUILLJ5FU/",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "5HDVWYKGX2MYQ7UATSF3PYGAUILLJ5FU",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/XMR7YDCVY6XPL2ONVUR7UYLGN6BYEDKI/",
    "sender": {
        "address": "andres (a) msu.edu",
        "mailman_id": null,
        "emails": null
    },
    "sender_name": "STeve Andre'",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: Three Words ...",
    "date": "2011-08-03T21:38:57Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/K7CODYBONM55V25C6V7YH7L4OO5JIKJZ/",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "As I think on this more, this is classic diplomacy in action.  We, the \nham community\nare going to need to do a polite dance around issues like roughness, etc.\n\nThe answer about refunding is that no one will.  If we crab loudly \nenough, it will\nnot be possible to do more things like this.  IF we paid full freight, \nthen yes we'd\nhave more of a 'right', but I'll bet that entities who have experiments \ndone have\nsome sort of clause in their agreement which indemnifies the ISS if \nthings go\nwrong.  The effort for this can't be less than $500,000 if you totaled \nit up.\n\nSpace is still a very experimental workplace.  ...How long did the \nvarious US\nastronauts train for Hubble missions?  I'm not excusing rough or really \ncareless\nhanding, but things happen.\n\n--STeve Andre'\nwb8wsf  en72\n\nOn 08/03/11 17:15, Michael Schulz wrote:\n> So let me play devils advocate here for a second or three. When I was watching the stream, it sure looked like\n> they didn't really give a rats ass about the satellite. The fact that these spacewalks don't occur every day tells\n> me that there's some effort behind them. So how can it be that the folks responsible did not have their act together\n> and check something truly obvious like .. uhm .. an antenna? I mean it's not like we're talking about a software bug\n> that only could've been uncovered after it was all done. No, we're talking about an external, visible and physical thing.\n>\n> Now here's the rub. If AMSAT paid for it (to which degree and what percentage doesn't really matter) and the satellite\n> does not have the desired and expected (and paid for) functionality because either it was damaged during the deployment\n> or before (also doesn't really matter) who will refund AMSAT? Even more important what's the follow up to this?\n>\n> I sure did not get the impression that it was a well coordinated mission. The communication between the two seemed a\n> bit .. well let's say unprofessional.\n>\n> Cheers,\n> Mike K5TRI\n>\n>\n> On Aug 3, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Andy Kellner wrote:\n>\n>> No .. Linear .. Transponder !\n>>\n>> Thank you very much Alexander Samokutyaev, Sergei Volkov and Roscosmos for a job well done.\n>>\n>> VK4FHAW\n>>\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}