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/3SCKYOOU55CGCCMYDRYHBZMLH2CBWXRF/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "3SCKYOOU55CGCCMYDRYHBZMLH2CBWXRF",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/OTYTGCXZIN2XPHIPEAYAFQ632QSDABAZ/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "wb4gcs (a) amsat.org",
        "mailman_id": "87014499e012476c8198fad186f7f963",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/87014499e012476c8198fad186f7f963/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Jim Sanford",
    "subject": "[eagle] Re: Team Speak tomorrow night",
    "date": "2006-09-12T02:35:02Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/EUGB7IPAPCP3HDTKOMU732NJBV4E34XE/?format=api",
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/CSI2V2MDYS2MDJTMGJDULU5BTUN3PUAE/?format=api",
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/KAV7I6UIA732HOX2VJNX3MM3I3RJYXZ6/?format=api"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Lyle:\nPer my notes, we did NOT kill the L uplinkfor SDX.  We DID decide not to \nuse it for the digital package.\n\nWe need to decide on whether or not there will be an L-uplink for the \nnarrow band package or a dedicated L/S TSFR package.\n\nI'd like to at least discuss, and maybe decide whethe or not to fly an L \nuplink on the command/analog channel.  Bob and Rick are proposing \nOFFERING a L/S package to be developed by others and flown in a TSFR \nspace if it qualilfies.  I see this as no cost, huge gain in both \nperceptions and capability.\n\nPlease join tomorrow and comment.  I want to hear your thoughts!\n\nThanks & 73,\nJim\[email protected]\n\n\nLyle Johnson wrote:\n\n>>>             We offer that anyone willing can develop and submit for \n>>> testing and qualification a stand-alone L/S transponder to fly in \n>>> one of the TSFR slots, using fixed antennas.  It would be usable \n>>> at/near Apogee, like the microwave packages on AO-13 and A)-40.  \n>>> What do you think?  Les's discuss this.\n>>>  \n>>>\n>> Bad idea.  We discussed having ONE SDX transponder and ONE digital \n>> communications payload.  If for some reason it is decided that the \n>> DCP is on neither S1 nor L (which itself would be a bad idea...), AND \n>> it was decided that there was a desire for old-style transponders on \n>> L/S, then it makes sense to build it as part of the SDX, and not have \n>> a THIRD payload.\n>\n>\n> Like Matt, I am not in favor of this.  We need to design the system \n> for services, not design the spacecraft as a bus for a collection of \n> modules.\n>\n> I recall two SDX payloads, but I'm old and my memory is failing.  The \n> Eagle block diagram from Oct 2005 shows a pair of SDX modules, and the \n> SDX block diagram shows a U and an L uplink, an S1 and a V downlink.  \n> Of course, at that time the digital payload was to be C/C.\n>\n> Did we decide to kill the L uplink for SDX/analog use in San Diego?  I \n> recall that we decided to not use an L uplink for the digital system.\n>\n> 73,\n>\n> Lyle KK7P\n>\n>\n",
    "attachments": []
}