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/5UP2H4GKM4KWEIIO6TNPLR2IPHXTTP52/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "5UP2H4GKM4KWEIIO6TNPLR2IPHXTTP52",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/5UP2H4GKM4KWEIIO6TNPLR2IPHXTTP52/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "broberts (a) mta.ca",
        "mailman_id": null,
        "emails": null
    },
    "sender_name": "Bruce Robertson",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] S band and Eagle: an appeal for a higher level discussion",
    "date": "2006-09-07T22:06:17Z",
    "parent": null,
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/4T7KEJTNY33EUMQPYGYOE6T7M7BG5STO/?format=api",
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/KN34PYYAXXTBI42BBHKYF2AIB3MGQIPT/?format=api",
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/GFX6KYPSRPXSVBXCXOTNSVC36ZIU46RS/?format=api",
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/PMFDFHWCYJHYBX4ONWVOIVZAZRI62S5Z/?format=api",
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/DI43VR2I6WJDEGNMVUBVWJVVS7NZG2IY/?format=api"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "There has been a recent restatement of disappointment regarding the Eagle\ndesign committee's recent choice to use S band as an uplink not a downlink.\nNote that the next two HEO's scheduled to launch *will* have S band\ndownlinks, so there's no worry that people like I, who live in radio quiet\nareas, will be unable to use our developing S band equipment in the future.\n\nAs I understand it, the Eagle design team have used standard predictions of\n801.11 usage to determine mathematically that by the time of launch the\nradio environment will simply not support reliable communications. I cannot\nimagine that they like these conclusions. Implementing new bands entails\nnew risks, after all. But numbers don't lie (or shouldn't), and it would be\na horrible disservice to all of us if they designed and launched a bird\nthat was effectively mute at launch.\n\nThe design team have said again and again on this list that they would\nwelcome contradicting evidence that is cogent, and I, for one, believe\nthem. They're our volunteers, and they deserve our support. I can't provide\nthat contradicting evidence: I'm not skilled or qualified. But I can assess\nan argument, and the responses so far have not been nearly as rigorous. \nThey have amounted to \"works for me\", which I think misses the point. \n\nPlease, please, those of you who are qualified and competent and hold the\nopposing opinion, take the design committee at their word and assess their\nwork, check their assumptions, present cogent opposing arguments. There is\nsome thought that a dish antenna properly implemented will overcome the\nobstacles described by the design team. Let's model this. Or those who live\nin heavy 802.11b environments, do some experiements with terrestrial links\n(which I suppose could be assumed worse than earth/sky). Who knows? Maybe\nit's all like my last tax return, where a missed decimal point made me\nthink I'd have to take out a second mortgage to pay our taxes :-) This list\nand the wiki exist so that we can undertake that sort of dialogue, and for\nmy part, it is my favorite part of participation in AMSAT.\n\nSome have suggested that Eagle fly with an S-band downlink on the off\nchance that it *does* work despite the theory; others, that we survey the\nmembers to see what they'd like. I fully support the design teams rejection\nof the former approach. Launch weight is very expensive and the kitchen\nsink approach is not to my mind sensible. As to the latter, a survey\npresumably pertains only to *working* bands, not ones that are polluted out\nof existance.\n\nIt's human nature for us more readily to see our misfortunes as caused by\nthe malace of others, but I think we should strongly avoid terms like \"bait\nand switch\". We'll get much further if we all assume the goodwill of\neveryone involved. \n\n73, Bruce\nVE9QRP\n",
    "attachments": []
}