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/6IQOAN4MIDGVV5N7NX7UJ26UNTWJZQFN/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "6IQOAN4MIDGVV5N7NX7UJ26UNTWJZQFN",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/WOSMSP4RMP34JQUFMJA35TYZ5ECYGPZ7/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "lucleblanc6 (a) videotron.ca",
        "mailman_id": "9e00802147284c40880480833e06c230",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/9e00802147284c40880480833e06c230/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Luc Leblanc VE2DWE",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb]  I dont buy that!!",
    "date": "2006-09-08T08:02:01Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/WOSMSP4RMP34JQUFMJA35TYZ5ECYGPZ7/?format=api",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "On 7 Sep 2006 at 21:40, Jim Sanford wrote:\n\n>  The conclusion is that S-band is marginally \n> useful as a downlink today (unusable in many locations), and by the time \n> Eagle is launched, and through it's lifetime, will be unusable. \n> \n> Personally, I do not like this decision.  I have S-band equipment that I \n> was looking forward to using. \n\nAMSAT-NA should step forward here and rule out about EXPERIMENTING VS OPERATING. Nobody will be \nagainst experimenting that's always be the roots of amateur radio. But when \"operating\" need a \nrelay \"satellite\" to achieve communication the first goal is to learn from the past and see what \nthe \"USERS\" wants!\n\n>Your Eagle team is \n> working hard to develop a system that will serve our needs, as well as \n> advance the state of the art.  As promised, we are making decisions \n> based on sound, peer-reviewed science, not anybody's opinions or desires.\n\n*****not anybody's opinions or desires***** Here is the problem The eagle team should not be let \nalone in theses decisions. The AMSAT-NA BOD should have a VETO here. All final decisions regarding \nthe satellite construction should be validated by the BOD. It is a serious decision making flaw as \nthere is no balance between the users desires and the technical builders because all the decisions \nregarding the construction are made by the builders. Its like to be the judge and the lawyer at the \nsame time it is not sound. Remember theses words *****not anybody's opinions or desires***** \n\n\n> As one of you commented this evening, AO-40 wasn't exactly a rock \n> crusher on S-band.  It worked, and adequately, at least on CW, but was \n> not great.  As I reflect on my personal AO-40 experiences.\n\nThose who makes like me more than a 1000 contacts on AO-40 in the U/S mode and they can affirm that \nnear 70% of theses contacts where as good than all what can we hear actually with all the LEO \nincluding ECHO raise your hands. Yes there was problems LEILA RADAR bootleggers taxi fishing boat \nand so on but even with this i learn since 1971 the  beginning of my Ham \"career\" that i should \nalways try to have a station with at least the average equipment to be able to work and enjoy the \n\"communication\" Yes huge HF beam, a kilowatt, preamp and so on.\n\nI am sorry to tell your personal AO-40 experiences are far away with my personnal experiences and \nif the EAGLE team based their reasoning this way it is urgent the BOD start to VETO the eagle team \non their final decision.\n\n> A few have raised the old allegation of the builders doing what they \n> want, without regard to users needs.  This is not true.  While the \n> desire to advance the state of the art (part of amateur radio's \n> justification for existence and allocation of valuable spectrum)\n>We started with requirements and services, and explored what would deliver. \n\nFine but communicating is the ultimate goals for all the users. \"Looking towards the desire to \nadvance the state of the art\" for technically incline amateur should not be done against the users\n\nEG:> Why not also include a (switchable) S-band downlink in parallel with the \n> V-band?  Remember, no switches.\n\nSure if there is an always on S band receiver the only one solution is to get rid of the S band TX \nsimple maths here...and there is no concern about all the existing S band equipment that many of us \nhardly constructed with often very scarce financial ressources. As one said it is a terrible \nmarketing error. Here again the BOD should act on this.\n\n \n\n>A goal of Eagle has always been some kind of hand-held \n> or jump bag portable ground station capability for entry into the \n> emergency area while the tsunami waters are receeding and the hurricane \n> winds are down to gale force.  \n\nIt is an utopy a fixation \"the HT syndrome\" how would you be able to sustain reliable \ncommunications when the power is out and the zone  is devastated? Its good on papers and on the \nmedia but reality is quite different.\n\n\nMode S-U-V are as you said the bread and butter on the downlink and i agree with you. Eagle should \nkeep theses mode but in this forcing the \"experimenting\" leads and the users loose. Will they be \nthere tomorrow? question  ask?\n\n>Please recognize that we're volunteers too, and subject to the realities of day jobs, families, \nand a real life.\n\nYes we all but your involvment is not questionned here.\n\n\n\n\n> \n\"-\"\nThe medium is the message...The content is the audience...;)\n\nLuc Leblanc VE2DWE\nSkype VE2DWE\nwww.qsl.net/ve2dwe \n",
    "attachments": []
}