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/4ACRE2N2YLX6KAJXRAIZN5UE6UMW45UT/",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "4ACRE2N2YLX6KAJXRAIZN5UE6UMW45UT",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/4ACRE2N2YLX6KAJXRAIZN5UE6UMW45UT/",
    "sender": {
        "address": "RaySoifer (a) cs.com",
        "mailman_id": null,
        "emails": null
    },
    "sender_name": "[email protected]",
    "subject": "[eagle] Re: [Advisors] [Fwd: Re: S band and Eagle: an appeal for\tahigher ...",
    "date": "2006-09-19T15:11:55Z",
    "parent": null,
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "In a message dated 9/19/06 5:46:16 AM Greenwich Standard Time, \[email protected] writes: \n> When we are considering L/S and U/S, we should remember the advantages of \n> U/V and V/U. The original choice of U/V for phase 3 satellites allowed for an \n> antenna that would provide 75% orbit coverage. Path loss for L and S is much \n> higher so AO13 and AO-40 had much narrower beams and covered less of the \n> orbit in those modes. So, in addition to the fact that S will be unavailable in \n> many areas due to noise levels that are 20+ dB higher today, the time \n> available in those areas for this mode is much less than for U/V or V/U. The attached \n> document provides a graphical comparison of U and L uplink antenna coverage \n> for the same ground station radiated power level. The V and S downlinks are \n> very similar.\n>   \n> \n\nYes, and we should remember also that uplink QRM levels on 2 meters due to \nillegal high-power cordless phones and the like are much greater than in the \npast, as OZ1MY has documented.  That is why the Surrey Colloquium recommended, a \ncouple of years ago, that U/V be used in preference to V/U.  With U/V, the QRM \naffects only users in immediate proximity to the interference source, not the \nentire footprint as is the case with uplinks.\n\n73,\n\nRay  \n\n\n",
    "attachments": [
        {
            "email": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/4ACRE2N2YLX6KAJXRAIZN5UE6UMW45UT/",
            "counter": 2,
            "name": "attachment.html",
            "content_type": "text/html",
            "encoding": "us-ascii",
            "size": 1826,
            "download": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/4ACRE2N2YLX6KAJXRAIZN5UE6UMW45UT/attachment/2/attachment.html"
        }
    ]
}