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/SOP5OM2AQHBH3TMNBP63QM32LFNHYS3M/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "SOP5OM2AQHBH3TMNBP63QM32LFNHYS3M",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/5UP2H4GKM4KWEIIO6TNPLR2IPHXTTP52/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "al7eb (a) acsalaska.net",
        "mailman_id": null,
        "emails": null
    },
    "sender_name": "Edward R. Cole",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: S band and Eagle: an appeal for more transparency (was Sband and Eagle: an appeal for a higher level discussion)",
    "date": "2006-09-08T02:33:33Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/4T7KEJTNY33EUMQPYGYOE6T7M7BG5STO/?format=api",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Hi mode-S users:\n\nI've read the comments (and their are quite a few...hint!), before adding\nmy opinions.\n\nFirst of all P3E has a much closer (we hope) launch date and is much\nfurther down the road in construction.  I'm guessing they didnot anticipate\nthat the WiFi generated noise floor posed a significant problem.  Perhaps\nthey can provide a larger mode-S ERP (I haven't compared spec's between the\noriginal Eagle and P3E).  In any case, I am glad that P3E will fly both\nmode-S and Mode-L...and then we will see the \"truth\" in the Eagle\nengineering projections!\n\nI wrote Bob McGwier (N4HY) soon after the referenced presentation was put\nout as a web-link (I believe it was slated to be presented at this years\nsymposium, so was not intended to be pre-released).  But many of us read it\nand discovered the major project changes that have been decided by the\ndesign team (dion't you think major shifts in design ought to have some\npublic comment input ...i.e the users).\n\nI proposed that the mode-S translator (S2) be flown as a contingency module\nto the beacon Tx (S1, I believe) and tested in orbit as a linear\ntransponder.  If the noise floor issue is found to be a problem then the\nmodule would just sit in standby (in case of failure of S1).  Bob rejected\nthat proposal.\n\nNow, I'm hearing folks talk about the C-C Rider project but that has also\nbeen scrapped (at least as a 5-GHz in-band transponder) according to the\npresentation.  What I understood was that mode-C would be used for\ndigital-voice and video downlink with mode-S uplink.\n\nBTW Eaglepedia does not reflect any of the recent design changes.  An\nconsiderable portion is only outline with no content.  The general\nmembership will be challenged to follow the evolution of design (meetings)\nin order to discover what is the current version of the project.  I guess\nwe will see in time how that Eaglepedia works out.\n\nUnless the membership (read this as users...quite a few with recent AO-40\nexperience) can sway the design, I see big issues looming for Amsat-NA\n\"management\".  I for one will use the mode-UV transponder on Eagle and\nmode-LS on P3E.  Since I will be on social security by the time Eagle is\nlaunched, I have little prospects for funding new mw bands.  But we will see!\n\none users opinion,\nEd - KL7UW\n\nAt 06:57 PM 9/7/2006 -0500, Stefan Wagener wrote:\n>\n>I have to agree with Bruce, however I don't take statements made by Bob\n>McGwier (N4HY) (see below) for face value. \n>\n>Quote by Bob(email to Amsat-bb on Tue 25/07/2006): \"In upcoming journal\n>articles and in Eaglepedia documents showing the detailed calculations upon\n>which our statements are based\" \n>Quote End \n>\n>It is important that the data are presented, discussed, accepted or thrown\n>out. \n>\n>The main problem with the whole discussion is that the majority of folks\n>have NOT seen the data. In addition, if the data are as sound as they are\n>portrait, why is AMSAT-DL not believing in them and is including S-band as a\n>downlink. How is the discussion between ANSAT-NA and AMSAT-DL going on this?\n>\n>The lack of transparency is concerning and Eaglepedia is just an empty word\n>if key documents and information is not published especially if it is\n>available. Waiting for journal articles to come does not help. At the same\n>time Eaglepedia still has the now \"old\" mechanical design specs and\n>information on the S-band TX transponder available with no indication that\n>both are obsolete.\n>\n>\n>\n>73, Stefan VE4NSA\n>\n>\n>-----Original Message-----\n>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On\n>Behalf Of Bruce Robertson\n>Sent: September 7, 2006 5:06 PM\n>To: [email protected]\n>Subject: [amsat-bb] S band and Eagle: an appeal for a higher level\n>discussion\n>\n>\n>....As I understand it, the Eagle design team have used standard\n>predictions of\n>801.11 usage to determine mathematically that by the time of launch the\n>radio environment will simply not support reliable communications. I cannot\n>imagine that they like these conclusions. Implementing new bands entails\n>new risks, after all. But numbers don't lie (or shouldn't), and it would be\n>a horrible disservice to all of us if they designed and launched a bird\n>that was effectively mute at launch.....\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>_______________________________________________\n>Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.\n>Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!\n>Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb\n> \n73's,\nEd - KL7UW \n===================================\nBP40iq,  Nikiski, AK      http://www.qsl.net/al7eb\nAmsat #3212\nModes: V - U - L - S\n===================================\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}