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/WES5NEKTFVWI4SEDCNRMP5IZOCMBRFET/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "WES5NEKTFVWI4SEDCNRMP5IZOCMBRFET",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/UPK4RTUGRHTRVDPDYXKITZDIFRCLMXOK/?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: Why do the amsats get more and more complex?",
    "date": "2006-09-20T19:21:57Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/5X2XYD2U3Q5IAMU7TCV2LDDBS4YLVKUS/?format=api",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Hi Bob,\n\nThanks for your response which is starting to focus on the pitch you really\nneed to make, and which you can defend (it's down toward the end!).\n\nYou state another \"what if\" and not a \"fact.\"\n\n\"What will happen if the Galileo goes up is that no European airport will\nallow a commercial jetliner to land without the Galileo system.  This\nwill inevitably lead to this basic system being in world wide use for\nnavigational purposes.\"\n\nBut consider the \"fact\" that all commercial airlines are currently using the\nUS GPS system and a MLS (microwave landing system) that uses around 5 GHz.\nOur GPS system is also going through additional studies regarding issues\nwith potential interference and these are NOT Amateur transmissions. Since\nthe Galileo is intended to focus on \"personal\" and \"for profit\"\napplications, (check out their web site and mission statements), I can't see\ncommercial airlines scraping their current working systems in favor of an\nuncertain Galileo system. If they do - it will be many, many years down the\nroad. So I can't buy your commercial airline \"fear\" scenario. Again an\nargument based on \"fear\" not \"fact\".\n\nAgain, I keep repeating that Galileo recognizes the potential for\ninterference (again - see their web site). We are but one of many potential\nsources of interference. In \"fact\" to date they have not even included us in\ntheir list of potential interfering sources (again see their web site).\n\nYou state \"The receiver manufacturers will not want to build high quality,\nexpensive front ends\nto filter out powerful emissions that could bring an airplane down. They\nwill choose the path of \"clean the bums out\" and they will win.\"\n\nYou can't be serious Bob? You know darn well any airborne receiver used for\naircraft navigation will be designed to be as bullet proof as possible.\nAgain read the Galileo web site for their comments about interference where\nthey state their system will \"detect, identify and mitigate\" potential\ninference. Is this lip service to sell the system or a real desire to build\na solid system?\n\nYou state:\n\n\"So your idea is that we should spend $10,000,000  of donated money on\nthe back of prayer that Galileo will not force us off our band when we\nKNOW it will be viewed as a safety of life service and that we will\noverload the front ends of the receiver in the (admittedly very rare)\ncases where the airplanes are in our emitter beams?  No one can be that\nnaive to believe that even the slightest possibility of interference\nwill be allowed.\"\n\nNo Bob, I'm saying that your reason for dropping L-Band should be based on\ntechnical considerations not \"fear\" of what might happen.\n\n\nYou state:\n\n\"We cannot use L band for the advanced communications package anyway\nbecause we do not want to increase the antenna size for the ground\nuser.  We want to accomodate CC&R restricted users with a 60cm (2 foot)\ndish.   The L band feed required, being dual band with C band (say)\nmakes this infeasible.\"\n\nBob - now you talking the RIGHT ARGUMENT! Given a variety of technical\nconsiderations, available money, available current, space etc., these are\nthe justifications you need to emphasize.\n\nGet this \"weak\" (in my opinion) Galileo argument off the table and focus on\nwe what we know to be the \"real science\" that you are already bringing to\nthe project.\n\nYou stated another good technical \"fact\" when you said:\n\n\"Here is a fact you have not taken into account. The advanced communications\npackage  needs 10 MHz not a few tens of kHz but I have already discussed why\nL band is not usable for the system (ground and\nspace) we are attempting to accomodate.  That has nothing to do with\nGalileo or the loss of L band.   In fact,  if we can fit the antennas on\nthe spacecraft,  I see no reason we shouldn't include an L band receiver\nand we should drop it into the Galileo null.   The issue will be\ncoordination with our AMSAT-DL friends and partners to mitigate\ninterference issues.  These should be rare indeed if we achieve our\ntarget orbit for Eagle and they achieve their target orbit for P3E.  The\nbirds will be many degrees apart almost always when L band will be\nappropriate.\"\n\nWay to go Bob. Technical arguments! That's what I want and your hitting on\nthem now.\n\nBill - N6GHz\nAMSAT #21049\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}