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/LJTZHNXOMB2LHUZKFBPTLDXRXIPNFBIV/",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "LJTZHNXOMB2LHUZKFBPTLDXRXIPNFBIV",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/LJTZHNXOMB2LHUZKFBPTLDXRXIPNFBIV/",
    "sender": {
        "address": "rcaron (a) gmail.com",
        "mailman_id": null,
        "emails": null
    },
    "sender_name": "Ryan Caron",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: Questions about use of PC104 connector for CubeSat",
    "date": "2010-11-03T20:23:28Z",
    "parent": null,
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "I'd suggest taking a look at AstroDev's He-100 offering, which uses the \nPC-104 card connector.\n\nhttp://www.astrodev.com/public_html2/downloads/datasheet/HeliumUserManual.pdf\n\nPage 7 has the pinout, Page 20 has placement\n\nI would hesitate to use a board quite as large as that though, as it is \nhighly optimized for the CubeSatKit, making use in other chassis \ndifficult. I would suggest a slightly smaller board in line with \nBoeing's CS82 board factor. Slide 6 from this year's CubeSat Developer's \nConference @ Cal Poly \nhttp://www.cubesat.org/images/cubesat/presentations/DevelopersWorkshop2010/2_1400_cs82_chrisday_v1.pdf\n\nAre either of these the golden standard? Not exactly, but it is the \nclosest thing I've seen to one. Ease of integration and flexibility are \nthe key to getting your transponder flown.\n\n73,\nRyan Caron\nKB1LKI\n\nOn 11/3/10 12:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:\n> Message: 7\n> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 09:30:17 -0700 (PDT)\n> From: William Leijenaar<[email protected]>\n> Subject: [amsat-bb] Questions about use of PC104 connector for CubeSat\n> \tboards\n> To:[email protected]\n> Message-ID:<[email protected]>\n> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\n>\n> Hello AMSATs,\n>\n> Work and home situation kept me away from having any ham time. But recently I\n> had some time to continue with upgrading my LE005 transponder design with a\n> PC104\n> connector (or is it PCI-104 ?), and some other features;-)\n>\n> The PC104 is a good choice for having a standardized inter connection system on\n> CubeSat projects. However, I seen some deviation in the placement standard of\n> this PC104 connector.\n>\n>> From the following website I read:\n> http://www.cubesatkit.com/content/electronics/bus.html\n>\n> \"The CubeSat Kit Bus utilizes the same physical connectors as the\n> industry-proven\n> PC/104 bus, but in an alternate physical location so as to avoid unintentional\n> damage to PC/104 or CubeSat Kit modules.\"\n>\n> With my focus on: \"...in an alternate physical location...\"\n>\n> I would like to know what this position is, and if this is now \"the golden\n> standard\"\n> in CubeSat world ?\n>\n> My next worry will be the pin configurations. Is there any standard for CubeSat\n> boards ?\n>\n> Next I would like to know how modules are controlled by the data bus.\n> Is it like separate pins for PTT, TX, RX etc...\n> Or with more smart communication with lines like: address bus, data bus, Clock,\n> Interrupt lines etc. (similar to old ISA PC cards)\n> Or maybe with I2C.\n>\n> I keep it to these questions for now...\n> Next questions will follow out of the answers hihi...\n>\n> 73 de PE1RAH\n> William Leijenaar\n",
    "attachments": []
}