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/G6NY5WBLSFVSUFBM7XXA2CQOAT3ME5MM/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "G6NY5WBLSFVSUFBM7XXA2CQOAT3ME5MM",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/RQX4DLDIYY3MVVVNFRFO357N5UXLTUIQ/?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": "[eagle] Re: CAN-Do-Too!   ??????????",
    "date": "2007-07-10T18:46:37Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/TTAXE4IAMYG3DK62OKWNABJJAHU5UYFR/?format=api",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Hi Chuck,\n\nI really appreciate you explaining the reasoning for the 15 versus 9 \npins. Not having been around when the CAN-Do evolved, I wasn't aware of \nthe thinking behind it but had noticed the currently \"unused\" pins and \nhad to ask the question.\n\nI have used a slightly thiner version of the D-Subs made by AMP but can \nput my hands on the P/N. But it's hard to beat the ubiquitous D-Subs.\n\nRegards...Bill - N6GHz\n\nChuck Green wrote:\n> It has been suggested that a DE-9 would be sufficient.  Technically, \n> this is correct.  But it would require the elimination of five of the \n> six user pins.  Maybe \"require\" is too strong a word.  Note that there \n> are two CAN-H, two CAN-L, two power, and two ground (well, we ended up \n> with three grounds).  Technically, only one of each is needed.  But two \n> each were were provided to simplify the construction of the wiring \n> harness (no small issue).  The six user pins (one of them is named EB) \n> were for special needs a module might have.  Six may be overkill?  The \n> naming of one \"EB\" is a legacy from P3D where the engineering beacon was \n> so pervasive throughout the satellite that it was decided to actually \n> name one of the user pins as such.  Part of this is also driven by \n> P3E/P5A perceived requirements.  P3E has used some of the user pins to \n> input structure thermistor signals to modules that do not otherwise use \n> all of their analog input pins on the 40 pin connector.\n>\n> The sub-miniature D connector series has served us well.  If anyone has \n> *experience* with something they think might be a better choice, we'd \n> love to hear about it.\n>\n>   \n\n",
    "attachments": []
}