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/5UFJOHOJFCYXTXCTY7M5JHDCTCU22VMY/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "5UFJOHOJFCYXTXCTY7M5JHDCTCU22VMY",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/V3XGVLPO7AOWXPOYXWFT3YAB5IVPEZH4/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "greencl (a) mindspring.com",
        "mailman_id": "5421c5ff9a12494f8f7bd304db4ac696",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/5421c5ff9a12494f8f7bd304db4ac696/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Chuck Green",
    "subject": "[eagle] Re: 125x180 Module Assembly",
    "date": "2007-10-17T17:10:50Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/4KRG27H5LVC52WX7TIBO5W6RAWASETYO/?format=api",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Hi Dick,\n\nLou raises a good point.  It would be nice to be able to remove the \ncover without removing the entire module.  I've been sitting here trying \nto remember those times when we had to do tests on modules already \nmounted in the P3D satellite.  There were a few times but I don't recall \nall that many.  Further, most of the times I recall, we had to remove \nthe module anyway to get to the bottom of the PCB for probing.  In your \nnew design, not only would the module have to be removed but the PCB \nwould have to be removed from the module to get to the bottom side.  \nStill, the extra rigidity seems worth these restrictions.  And with this \ndesign, there is no chance that the module you want into has another \nmodule stacked on top of it.\n\nAlthough a smaller satellite, AO-51 not only had to have the PCB removed \nfrom the module to get to it's bottom, but you had to completely \ndisassemble the entire satellite to get to the bottom module, something \nI had to do just a couple of days before we transported it to the launch \nsite.  I didn't like it, but in the end it really wasn't all that big a \ndeal.\n\nAnd the more I think about it, the more I like having the PCB extend \nover the sides of the frame.  This would be difficult to do if you \nchange the way the lid is mounted.\n\nFinally, you don't show any measurements.  I need to go out later today \nand buy an electric oven for curing conformal coatings on widgets for \nP3E.  I'd like to get one big enough to hold the proposed maximum board \nsize(s).  I don't need exact measurements, but can you tell me something \nclose?\n\nAnother \"finally,\" did you make any measurements of Sub-D and SMA \nconnectors to see that they can be mounted to the front bracket and into \nthe PCB without their pins shorting to the base plate?  Your drawing \nlooks like this could be a problem.\n\nChuck\n\nLouis McFadin wrote:\n> My comment on this is that the way the housing is fastened on by \n> screws on the side will present a problem and more or less remove most \n> of the advantage of having a removable cover. If the module is mounted \n> in the spacecraft and you need to remove the cover for a test or \n> adjustment, You have to remove the module first since access to the \n> screws on the side is blocked by adjacent boxes.\n> It would be better if you could remove the cover by accessing from the \n> top some way. Perhaps a top hat profile would be better.\n>\n> Lou McFadin\n>\n> W5DID\n>\n> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>\n>\n>\n>\n> On Oct 16, 2007, at 3:46 PM, Dick Jansson-rr wrote:\n>\n>> Bob:\n>>\n>>  \n>>\n>> Attached are three pdf views of the proposed revised Eagle module, \n>> and open view, fully closed view, and a view w/o the PCB. It has been \n>> a lengthy day getting all of the darned 0.5mm cover bends correct and \n>> holes properly placed for full mating of the cover with the baseplate \n>> (such things as 0.581mm hole placement discrepancies – ugh!). If \n>> built from the drawings that can be made from these objects, there \n>> should be a good fit in the real hardware.\n>>\n>>  \n>>\n>> I do not presume as to what the “real” next step wants to be, as I do \n>> not propose to make the 2D drawings until the discussions have \n>> settled down to agree that this is what we collectively like, or at \n>> least collectively accept. Please advise.\n>>\n>>  \n>>\n>> ’73,\n>>\n>> Dick Jansson, KD1K\n>>\n>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>\n>>\n>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>\n>>\n>> <125x180 Module Assembly Open.pdf>\n>> <125x180 Module Assembly Closed.pdf>\n>> <125x180 Module Assembly w-oPCB.pdf>\n>> _______________________________________________\n>> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA\n>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>\n>> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle\n>\n> ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n>\n> _______________________________________________\n> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA\n> [email protected]\n> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle\n>   \n",
    "attachments": []
}