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/VGVRQHLIGQHBNCXCSJUODZXYM4HRUYCH/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "VGVRQHLIGQHBNCXCSJUODZXYM4HRUYCH",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/VGVRQHLIGQHBNCXCSJUODZXYM4HRUYCH/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "ke9v (a) sdf.lonestar.org",
        "mailman_id": null,
        "emails": null
    },
    "sender_name": "Jeff Davis",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)",
    "date": "2009-08-23T18:58:20Z",
    "parent": null,
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/XYX22UD5DLB6LS3TALHUGTSYOFRUCHEW/?format=api"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:58:30PM -0500, Rocky Jones wrote:\n> \n> That is not a flaw in my argument, it was a fact.  As best I understand it, and it has been sometime since I looked at it in any depth, the flaw in the AO-40 rocket motor was that a procedure was missed in preping the motor for flight.  \n\nThis is a deviation from your previous posting where you linked the\ndemise of AO40 to it being a \"super sat which was going to do things \nthat were simply out of reach of all but a very few hams (40ghz? or \nwhatever it was)\".\n\nClearly the kind of mistake that caused the catastrophic failure could\nhave happened on any spacecraft assembled by any organization.\n\n> The folks building /E have figured it out and returned to a rather robust \"simple\" satellite...More then one homebuilder of airplanes (garage planes) has found in someway that their modifications were mistakes (the lucky ones when the DER's shut them down).\n\nYou can call it \"simple\" if you like but a) it remains firmly affixed to\nearth and b) it is being sold to the German government as an adjunct to\na mission to Mars. If you want to call an interplanetary mission\n\"simple\" that's your call, but P3E was scheduled to be launched years\nago to support the P5 mission that was supposed to launch in 2009 and\nI'll buy the first beer whenever either of those fly...\n\n> I dont know this for a fact but would suspect that one reason launches are hard to come by for anything with rocket propulsion in it (ie a hamsat with a rocket engine in it) is what happen with AO-40.  If I owned the rocket that failure would scare me\n\nFor the last time (from me, I promise) we have been told in no uncertain\nterms that the cost for a launch to GTO that would carry a craft of the\nsize required to provide a happy medium of solar panels and antennas\nwill cost no less than $6 million US and maybe as much as $8 million.\n\nYears ago (has it been almost a decade now?) when we first started talking\nabout 'Eagle' it took AMSAT-NA two years to raise $90,000 US. At that\nrate, it would require a century for us to raise enough money to get\nback to GTO.\n\nFacts on the ground have already determined the outcome of this debate.\nWhether or not AMSAT members (and officers for that matter) are willing\nto accept reality is an entirely different matter.\n\nMany actually prefer the blue pill...\n\n-- \nJeff, KE9V\n",
    "attachments": []
}