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/QA6XFWOK4NM54ZAYMNQR4WAI7KFP6XWC/",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "QA6XFWOK4NM54ZAYMNQR4WAI7KFP6XWC",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/YKKFD2H42TVHF3JVENWYUPKH6Z63YU2J/",
    "sender": {
        "address": "nate (a) natetech.com",
        "mailman_id": null,
        "emails": null
    },
    "sender_name": "Nate Duehr",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: What happens when you loose a satellite",
    "date": "2008-08-08T23:32:36Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/YKKFD2H42TVHF3JVENWYUPKH6Z63YU2J/",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Keith & Jenny Sloan wrote:\n> With things like the Falcon launch failure you obviously loose the \n> satellite, but do you get\n> another launch having paid you money or is that it. You loose everything \n> if the launch fails\n> \n> If the later then the launch of P3E and P5A could prove very expensive \n> if the launch fails.\n\n From what I've heard, there's insurance for both the loss of the launch \nand the payload.\n\nNeither are cheap, from what I can gather as a casual bystander.\n\nYou can find references to the insurance in news articles about failed \nlaunches of bigger \"stuff\", like the Dish Network failure to attain \norbit earlier this year.\n\nIt was up to Dish, the launcher, the operator, and the insurance company \nas to what they would do when they realized they had a stage fail and \ndidn't get as high as they wanted to.\n\nThere was an option of using a moon-slingshot to get the bird to its \nfinal orbit, but my reading of the articles led to them having two \nproblems:  It would use a LOT of propellant, meaning the bird would have \na lot less useful life on-station than was originally expected, and \nBoeing claims to have a PATENT on the technique.  (Rolls eyes.)\n\nLast I read, the mixture of those two things caused them to decide to \nscrap the bird and take the insurance money.\n\nThen I assume such a bird becomes the property of the Insurance company \nand if possible, I assume they splash the bird, to \"get it out of the \nway\" if possible (depending on the failure).\n\nAll of that can probably take a very long time if there's any variables \nthat might change things... but I don't know.  This is all conjecture on \nmy part.  Maybe it'll spurn some of the experts to come forward and tell \nit like it really is?  :-)\n\nI'm sure those are lovely meetings, full of lots of lawyers.  :-)\n\nNate WY0X\n",
    "attachments": []
}