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/YLKWHDWSV2JF2NMR4HNBPWZ7H3OUZOOH/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "YLKWHDWSV2JF2NMR4HNBPWZ7H3OUZOOH",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/MRAXF6XJMXXHOELBDDXQRF46IZFIW7AH/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "broberts (a) mta.ca",
        "mailman_id": null,
        "emails": null
    },
    "sender_name": "Bruce Robertson",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: Eagle Satellite Design",
    "date": "2006-09-09T17:22:02Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/6X57OVKKG6BYRCRFHOZMOUTSVKNZBKNL/?format=api",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Quoting Luc Leblanc VE2DWE <[email protected]>:\n\n> On 9 Sep 2006 at 6:21, Rick Hambly (W2GPS) wrote:\n> \n> .\n> > \n> > If, after considering all the information that is now available, you\n> still\n> > feel strongly that we are doing a bad job then ask yourself not what\n> AMSAT\n> > can do for you, but what you can do for AMSAT. > Subscription\n> settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb\n> \n> Your clients eg:your actual and former members nearly unanimously voices\n> their opinion about \n> maintaining an S band downlink on Eagle as previously planned by you by\n> the way. Do you feel \n> strongly that you are doing your job ignoring them?\n\nThis is a long letter, and though it replies to Luc, it is not specifically\ndirected at him. I respect Luc as a long-standing contributer to this list\n and an experienced satellite radio operator who has dug my lousey signal\nout of the mud many times. However, in my opinion, the statement above is\nnot an accurate description of the situation. Many of us are willing to be\nconvinced by the science, and I, for one, have heard nothing convincing\nfrom the pro S-band group and some pretty discouraging numbers from Bob B.  \n\nWhat the board faces in this discussion is some members who, according to\nthe research of their engineers, want two mutually exclusive things: a\nsatellite design that will support the defined uses; and an s band\ndownlink. To my mind, if the research is right, the Board is making the\nonly sensible choice: to plan to build a working bird without the s band\ndownlink. It seems silly to build a bird that has a S band downlink and\ndoesn't work, that's why there are people who think they'd rather do other\nthings with their lives. (Of course, The horns of this dilemma may be\navoided if the research is wrong.)\n\n> Answer your own question first don't blackmail your membership. You are\n> a grown up and you are able \n> to take you own decision... when you already feel the pressure from your\n> membership it takes only \n> an open mind to adjust the plan not bad faith.\n\nThus as I see them, the statements of other Board members do not constitute\nextorsion (which I assume Luc means when he writes 'blackmail'). In fact,\nI'd say there is good evidence that this board has put together an\nexcellent Design Team: they've focussed well on the purpose of the bird in\nits future use and, in the process, questioned all assumptions. I worry,\nthough, that the reaction on this list will inspire them to delay\nannouncements of partial results. We want an open process, under peer\nreview; let's act like peers.\n\nOne idea came to me this morning as a means of exploring the situation on S\nband right now. Setting aside Eagle for a moment, this will help some of us\nget an idea if our set-ups will work for P3E and ESEO, which, if they both\nwork, will give us plenty of S band linear action.\n\n If we degrade our links to AO-51 by an appropriate amount, we could\nsimulate working a S band HEO satellite (ok, in FM mode :-). I'm not sure\nwhat the gain of the antenna on AO-51 is, and I believe the power out is\n3w, but perhaps that's max and not in use. Based on Bob's formula, the\nimproved path loss will, I think, be on average (40000km /2000km )^2 = 400\nor 26 dB. \n\nSo, assuming that the HEO has higher gain antennas and better power out,\njust for fun, let's put some 20 dB resistor pads in the right place (help\nme here: it would need to be between the antenna and the downconverter,\nright?). Actually, the right amount of RG58 could probably do the trick. We\ncould even have a sim-HEO night on AO-51. Someone in Ohio could pretend\nthey're in New Zealand :-)\n\n73, Bruce VE9QRP\n",
    "attachments": []
}