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/ITNYOEMMKB6LVLCRXF2Q7KVTRXAN5Q6O/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "ITNYOEMMKB6LVLCRXF2Q7KVTRXAN5Q6O",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/ITNYOEMMKB6LVLCRXF2Q7KVTRXAN5Q6O/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "tosca005 (a) umn.edu",
        "mailman_id": null,
        "emails": null
    },
    "sender_name": "[email protected]",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: The Moon is our Future",
    "date": "2009-07-02T15:52:11Z",
    "parent": null,
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/EMG7CKAABX2TVD6RNH5YNGN54O6TEQWC/?format=api"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "On Jul 2 2009, [email protected] wrote:\n\n> Don't want to get a whole new thing started here but - I don't think we \n> ever went to the moon in 1969 and I don't think we will ever goto the \n> moon - in 2012 or whenever they proposed a \"return\" to the moon\n\nWith that level of disbelief I can certainly see why you are predisposed to \ndiscount the possibility of a moon-based transponder.\n\n> I would love to see an amatuer repeater on the moon thou - from my \n> understanding EME is expensive to do, so I think it would leave most of \n> us out\n\nNot necessarily. Remember, with conventional EME, you send as large a \nsignal as you can muster towards the moon, incur huge path losses along the \nway, then incur a huge loss because the moon is a very imperfect reflector \nof RF energy, then incur the huge path loss back from moon to earth.\n\nWith a moon-based repeater, you send as large a signal as you can muster \ntowards the moon, incur the same path loss from earth to moon; BUT, THEN \nyou enlarge the signal with a gain antenna at the repeater, and then have a \nsensitive receiver that can detect and amplify the signal. The repeater \nthen transponds the signal to a different frequency band, amplifies it as \nmuch as equipment weight and power availability allow, transmit it through \na gain antenna, and only THEN incur the huge path loss from moon to earth.\n\nBecause the path loss is only in a single direction, and instead of an \ninefficient (lossy) passive reflector, you have gain antennas for reception \nand transmission, plus amplification on receive and on transmit, the net \nearth station requirements should be much less than conventional EME.\n\nThat's not to say it would be easy, just that it should be easier than \nconventional EME in terms of station requirements on earth. As has been \nmentioned numerous times already, the station requirements for the space \nend of the system are enormously more difficult than anything we've ever \ntackled so far with either LEO or HEO satellites.\n\nBut there's no harm in DISCUSSING the idea, and learning about the pitfalls \nand possibilities as part of the discussion. Even if it never comes to \npass, we should all be a bit more knowledgeable after having had the \ndiscussion.\n\nAs far as the dreaming goes, wouldn't an L/S transponder be better than a \nV/U or U/V transponder? Granted, the path loss is greater, but the antenna \ngain is easier to produce...\n\nWhile I am a firm believer in the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid!), \nI am getting a little tired of hearing people complain endlessly about the \ndownfall of AO-40 being due to its complexity. Uhh, the downfall of AO-40 \nwas human error, which will ALWAYS be an issue. The only reason that AO-40 \nwas ever usable at all was BECAUSE of its complexity, i.e., the redundancy \nof multiple transponders that could be switched into place after initial \nfailures, etc. OF COURSE, a mission to the moon needs to be as light and \ncompact as it can be made, and therefore much simpler than AO-40, but due \nto the harsh environment in which it would be asked to operate, it needs to \nbe as complex as necessary to get the job done, i.e. not as simple as AO-10 \nor AO-13.\n\n73 de W0JT\nAMSAT-NA LM#2292\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}