Email Detail
Show an email
GET /hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/OJQ7G2IYUHKR727GGPP32POZYPZAEPCL/?format=api
{ "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/OJQ7G2IYUHKR727GGPP32POZYPZAEPCL/?format=api", "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api", "message_id": "[email protected]", "message_id_hash": "OJQ7G2IYUHKR727GGPP32POZYPZAEPCL", "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/O4CBHCQWIXPB6I76ZE7HLBOT23BUM32U/?format=api", "sender": { "address": "bill (a) hsmicrowave.com", "mailman_id": "d7ecbf0c1df148f289f27dd7a8c37974", "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/d7ecbf0c1df148f289f27dd7a8c37974/emails/?format=api" }, "sender_name": "Bill Ress", "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: Galileo interference on L band", "date": "2006-09-22T18:35:58Z", "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/ONNPOCILEOSAD4VPHWBCDFYOEHOYD3XP/?format=api", "children": [ "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/UHJRL7EWOIOIDKQHLR2YH5FVBBXTNY23/?format=api" ], "votes": { "likes": 0, "dislikes": 0, "status": "neutral" }, "content": "Hi Dave,\n\nThat's a very good valid point! You see, its the technical issues like this\nI'd like to see debated and considered, not considerations made for the\n\"unknown or uncertain.\"\n\nIf the L-Band antenna size needed causes compromises for some other more\nprimary mission requirements, then the decision is easy. L-Band goes and I\ncan live with that.\n\nThe future uncertain state of frequency allocations is one that I would have\ndifficulty designing for today. \"ALL\" of our satellite allocations up to\n24Ghz are on a \"secondary\" basis. That makes them fair game for interference\nfrom and to primary users and changes by regulatory bodies.\n\nWith that \"uncertainty\" in mind, do we jump up to 24GHz for our transponders\nwhere we're primary. Not a real good idea but we'd sure eliminate all this\nWiFi, Galileo discussion - at least until some commercial endeavor jumps on\n24 GHz with a \"killer\" money making application and we're back to the\n\"uncertain\" all over again.\n\nSo when it comes to our below 24 GHz frequency allocations we should design\nfor mitigations (co-existence) not abandonment.\n\nBut, it appears that the Eagle team, according to Rick's last post, will\nhave L and S capabilities consistent with the overall mission requirements\nand that's a positive thing.\n\nRegards...Bill - N6GHz\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: David B. Toth [mailto:[email protected]]\nSent: Friday, September 22, 2006 9:59 AM\nTo: Bill Ress; AMSAT BB\nSubject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Galileo interference on L band\n\n\nAt 02:54 AM 9/22/2006, Bill Ress wrote:\n\n>Yes - those are admirable desires but we can't engineer for \"unknown\"\nfuture\n>events. It just bogs us down with worry that we might not make the right\n>\"guess.\" Instead, as I stated before, base decisions on the engineering\n>facts as we know them today (available technology, size, power, space,\n>resources, user needs, etc.) and let the future bring on whatever it has in\n>store for us.\n>\n>If you can make arguments that L-Band won't work because of system\n>engineering constraints or the mission objectives we have before us today -\n>I can live with that. But lets take this Galileo \"cloud\" off the decision\n>process.\n\nBill: I think one of the problems still is how to get a large enough\nL-band gain antenna on the satellite so that the ground station\nantennas don't end up being huge.\nIf I got that wrong, perhaps Bob McGwier and the team could correct\nme. If we cannot get a high gain system with reasonable beam-width\n(steerable vs. non-steerable) on the satellite, then the ground\nstation antenna might be unwieldy compared to the higher frequencies.\n\nAgain, I may have misunderstood this point, so I could easily stand\ncorrected.\n\nDave\n\n\n", "attachments": [] }