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/W77GD6B23WPFL4EZF53MQWKZENIHBL6M/",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "W77GD6B23WPFL4EZF53MQWKZENIHBL6M",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/COC3SJAIRCXWYWT5MPZ2FJU2PTG45XLS/",
    "sender": {
        "address": "n0jy (a) n0jy.org",
        "mailman_id": null,
        "emails": null
    },
    "sender_name": "n0jy",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: status",
    "date": "2014-01-26T18:53:51Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/U6STK3FPOOQFFPF4PFJ6BXWZ4VGI7CSF/",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "One thing I overlooked is good old ITAR.  Hell, I'm even afraid to tell \nmy friends around here what I do for a \"living\".  I'm pretty sure that \nAO-73 was a collaboration between AMSAT-UK and AMSAT-NL, a luxury that \nwe don't have.  Plus, we are limited to U.S. launches and some of them \n(i.e. Fox-1A) have a LOT of restrictions and paperwork on them, a whole \n'nother full job of volunteer work.  I spent weeks working on the \npaperwork for the license (yes, we need a license because it flies from \nthe U.S.) for the camera experiment.\n\nThat being said, there are no opportunities to share with other AMSAT \norganizations on development and if coming up for volunteers to build \nthe satellite is so difficult then that also applies to other \nopportunities such as ground station solutions.  Manpower... Can't even \nshare details about \"this is what we would like the satellite to \naccomplish can you (AMSAT-notNA) help with some ground station design \nideas\".\n\nAs has been pointed out if anyone has any ideas go for it, but \nrealistically it should be something that you can offer a solution for.  \nThrowing out ideas is great, maybe some things have not been thought of, \nbut that's just like saying \"and here you go do it\". Get a group of \npeople interested in accomplishing it, at least come up with a conops, \nrequirements... even if you can't build it (and believe me, I am waaay \npast the age of seeing some of them teeny parts much less avoiding \nscattering them to the wind when my allergies kick up a good sneeze) \nthere is something to work with when someone comes along who can build \nit.  And those people are out there, but you need to get every aspect \ntogether, so that you have the people with the plans and the specs and \nthe people who design the circuits and the people who get the parts and \nthe people who put the parts together and the people who test it.  It \nhas to progress in steps.  Start with those who can do the starting \nsteps, build a team, and over time you can do it!\n\nPeople say (quoting you for recency) \"why AMSAT is not...\" but AMSAT is \nnot a being.  We are AMSAT.  Saying \"Why AMSAT is not\" means \"why I am \nnot\" (contributing, building, designing, whatever) \"is a mystery to me.\"\n\nIt doesn't have to be an official AMSAT-NA program I don't believe, look \nat what Mark Spencer WA8SME has done with the ideas based on the Fox \nsatellite.\n\n73\nJerry\nN0JY\n\nOn 1/26/2014 12:16 PM, Michael wrote:\n> HI Jerry,\n>  First of all, thank you for being civil.  Nice change from the last \n> two responses to my post.  Second of all, I apparently stand corrected \n> on one thing.  It was my impression that Fox-2 was also intended to be \n> another FM sat.  If I am wrong in that then I apologize for the \n> previous characterization that all AMSAT seemed to want to do is put \n> up \"flying repeaters\".  However, I will not back off my assertion that \n> there should be more to this hobby than portable ops using  HT's and \n> handheld yagis.    The Funcube bunch showed us not only that linear \n> cubesats are viable but also that fairly inexpensive SDR technology is \n> a great way to go  as one option in receiving them.   The Funcube and \n> Funcube Pro dongles were also a great fundraising idea as near as I \n> can tell.   We should be taking concepts like that one step  or even \n> several steps further  and developing SDR based ground station \n> solutions just as we are developing SDR based transponders.  Why AMSAT \n> is not developing stuff along those lines is a mystery to me.  I know \n> AMSAT is volunteers but so is AMSAT UK and they got it done.  I wish I \n> had the technical expertise to develop stuff like that  but I don't.  \n> I can certainly build with the best of them but circuit development is \n> not my strong suite. It just seems all we ever do anymore is show \n> folks how they can operate an \" easy sat\" with an HT.  That's very \n> frustrating to me. I apologize for the \" idiot at a hamfest\" comment \n> too  but really all I was trying to do was to express my frustration \n> with that same old approach which has grown kind of tired and boring \n> to me.\n> 73,\n> Michael, W4HIJ\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}