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/KQW62IE72LUZBLCBFE73JE7WFATFKFP4/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "KQW62IE72LUZBLCBFE73JE7WFATFKFP4",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/2KHIE6ZWAQEY4Y2AXNLNMMDSGAN4YR7Z/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "ve9qrp (a) gmail.com",
        "mailman_id": "4d6061838db34aba9a1c4722addebfaf",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/4d6061838db34aba9a1c4722addebfaf/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Bruce Robertson",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites",
    "date": "2009-09-26T04:26:36Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/443XT6FAMGEAZW44A3ZRSTLVFYCZ4STK/?format=api",
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/MWVXT22EG6OFK6K3EQGAWDRXZBITWMWJ/?format=api"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "I will attempt a reply to both of these responses.\n\nOn Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Tony Langdon <[email protected]> wrote:\n> At 09:34 AM 9/26/2009, James Craig wrote:\n>>Good point. Not everybody is interested in monitoring the one way\n>>downlinks on the majority of these more recent birds. Why is it that\n>>there is no problem getting large numbers of these types of satellites\n>>into orbit, yet good old fashioned two way linear and FM transponder\n>>birds are relatively far and few between?\n\nThe reason cubesats are being built is because they are seen as an\nexcellent platform for educating space science students at the\nundergraduate level. The amount of money being spent per launch is\npretty doable for many institutions or local granting agencies. These\nagencies and universities are likely simply not interested in\nproviding you or me with a platform for two-way terrestrial\ncommunication if it is going to slow down their project or lower its\nprobability of success.\n\nThe cubesat design is quite constrained moreover, typically 10cm^3 and\nunder one kg, even the milk-carton sized 3U format is pretty small for\nthe power needs of a linear or FM transponder of the sort we are\ntypically using. We owe a debt of gratitude to Delfi, which showed\nthat a linear can be put up as a secondary mission, and to William for\nhis 10cm^2 transponder implementation.\n\nThose are very recent developments, and I'd agree that we should jump\non them as golden opportunities, noting however, that the result will\nstill be very low altitude orbits and therefore small footprints.\nSimilarly, SDX technology might be able to miniaturize the transponder\nfurther and reduce its power needs (while making one circuit a\ndo-everything transponder!), so we're lucky that we're testing that\ntechnology in the near future.\n\nPlease note that there is no contention for resources here: the\nopportunities the universities made use of are not available to us. If\nwe want this phenomenon to work to the advantage of those of us who\nenjoy two-way voice communications, we need to either launch a cubesat\nourselves or offer the university projects a reason that adding this\ncapability will *improve* the time-to-launch or probability of\nsuccess. This might be in the form of a free, tested, reliable\ncommunications board that happens to have two-way voice capability\nintegrated into it. It also could be in the form of increased amateur\nenthusiasm for the transponder-bearing cubesat and the resulting\nincrease in telemetry collection, a bargain which we proved to be good\nfor in Delfi C3.\n\n> I for one was never a SWL, so I tend not to follow the one way\n> satellites, unless there's a compelling reason (e.g. for test\n> signals, or telemetry decoding - had fun decoding telemetry on AO-40\n> when it was first launched).\n\nNor was I, yet I very much enjoy listening to telemetry from cubesats,\nalong with other activities in this corner of the hobby. I can offer\nyou this reason: when I listen to telemetry, I'm listening to\nsomething which is in space and in orbit around the earth, one of the\nmost exotic locales from which you could receive a message. If I talk\nto you on AO-51, I'm talking to you on earth by means of a space-borne\nvehicle. It turns out that what's fun about that for me is not\nnecessarily your voice, but the vehicle. Telemetry tells me about\nthose vehicles: how fast they are moving, how they are tumbling and\nthe contents of the telemetry stream: how much power they're\ncollecting and using. Moreover, with some of the cubesats, the\ndecoding of this is very easy if one knows CW.\n\nTwo more points in my brief  \"apologia pro cubesatibus\"\n\n1. So-called 'telemetry only' birds are not necessarily that. We had\nthe opportunity to control COMPASS during its crisis last year. The\nlow cost of the mission meant that any one of us was solicited to\nenter the appropriate codes. I'll never be a control station for a\nmajor bird, but I thrilled to do this for COMPASS.\n\n2. Given that you admit above that telemetry collection is necessary\nfor the maintenance of communication satellites, shouldn't you be glad\nthat this steady stream of cubesats has allowed some enthusiasts to\ncontinue to hone their skills in this field?\n\nFinally, a truism that probably bears repeating, though not addressing\nthe two comments quoted above: if we call cubesats 'not amateur\nradio', then we should tar OSCAR 1 with that same brush.\n\n73, Bruce\nVE9QRP\n",
    "attachments": []
}