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/KAV7I6UIA732HOX2VJNX3MM3I3RJYXZ6/",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/",
    "message_id": "007e01c6d66c$78893db0$0b0a0a0a@RICK",
    "message_id_hash": "KAV7I6UIA732HOX2VJNX3MM3I3RJYXZ6",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/OTYTGCXZIN2XPHIPEAYAFQ632QSDABAZ/",
    "sender": {
        "address": "w2gps (a) cnssys.com",
        "mailman_id": "5948a5f4b4c343b5ae370965ac0fc1c2",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/5948a5f4b4c343b5ae370965ac0fc1c2/emails/"
    },
    "sender_name": "Rick Hambly (W2GPS)",
    "subject": "[eagle] Re: Team Speak tomorrow night",
    "date": "2006-09-12T13:07:59Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/3SCKYOOU55CGCCMYDRYHBZMLH2CBWXRF/",
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/MGHOZV4GNOCRW5GZZ7XOARISQDFLGKLY/"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Jim,\n\nI just got off the phone with Graham Shirville in England. He, Howard Long\nand others have been taking note of the controversy on amsat-bb and want to\noffer help, if it would be productive.\n\nBased on that conversation and conversations with you and Bob, I would like\nto make a revised proposal for consideration by the Eagle team.\n\na) Move C-C Rider's primary uplink to the S2-band (3400-3410 MHz) with some\nmodest additional uplink capability on L-band (1260-1270 MHz).\n\nb) Add another separate SDX transponder for mode L/S, essentially identical\nto the U/S SDX transponder. This transponder would use fixed antennas and so\nwill be usable only at apogee. It would also serve as a backup command and\ncontrol access to the IHU. By being separate it would reduce the risk of\ncommon component failures. \n\nGraham will inquire of the local authorities in England about getting\nmatching Amateur Satellite status for their S2 band. \n\nGraham will come to San Francisco prepared to discuss an evolving\ncomprehensive plan to petition the ITU for additional Amateur Satellite\nfrequency allocations. He will need our help with this and we will need\nARRL's help as our ITU representative.\n\nRick\nW2GPS\nAMSAT LM2232\n \n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of\nJim Sanford\nSent: Monday, September 11, 2006 10:35 PM\nTo: Lyle Johnson\nCc: EAGLE\nSubject: [eagle] Re: Team Speak tomorrow night\n\nLyle:\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_______________________________________________\nVia the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA\[email protected]\nhttp://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}