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/NUF6QQ6X66UL7SR7DAFRWS3S2E6QSFGF/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "NUF6QQ6X66UL7SR7DAFRWS3S2E6QSFGF",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/NIXRGDSU3DRULEMDGRNZH4RAUOJMATIY/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "vk3jed (a) gmail.com",
        "mailman_id": "e049fcabdd4648088cd7ce227ab7c655",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/e049fcabdd4648088cd7ce227ab7c655/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Tony Langdon",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: Keep It Simple Silly",
    "date": "2007-09-30T20:23:56Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/JX6BC63FSHIOOJQ5ONQSGL7D3LN3XYQH/?format=api",
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/G6B53P4D26XVNHKDNWW246TFGZD423BC/?format=api"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "At 05:23 AM 10/1/2007, SV1BSX wrote:\n\n>....hmmm, and its also unfair to don't say that,  the possibility for a\n>malfuction with 20,000 vs\n>20 transistors is ....  1,000 times greater !\n>\n>Simple mathematics... even if  these 20,000 transistors\n>do a better job,  the risk  is too big.\n\nWell, I don't think the risk of failure should be keeping us in the \n1970's.  Sure, the SDX is untested, but so was every other technology \nthat is used in space at one stage.  If you don't take the risk, you \ndon't learn how to enable these things to survive in space either.  I \ncertainly like the idea of a backup analog transponder, so that the \nsatellite can perform some useful function, even if its primary \n\"experiment\" fails.  Having older technology alongside the new also \ngives a benchmark to compare against, in terms of how they degrade \nover time in the space environment.\n\nOh, and we don't seem to get the same complaints about the digital \nbirds that have been flying for over 2 decades, or newer and more \ncomplex IHUs that have flown.  The way I see it, is new technology \nhas to be flown when the risks seem acceptable to make it worth \nputting into space.  I don't have a problem with having backup, in \ncase the experiment fails (obviously, there is a weight penalty \nhere), but my question is whether there is really any value in an am \nAmateur satellite service that does little more than puts \"more of \nthe same old stuff\" in orbit.  Shouldn't be putting some of our \nenergy into finding out how to safely use new technologies in the \nspace environment at an affordable cost?\n\n73 de VK3JED\nhttp://vkradio.com\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}