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/MGHOZV4GNOCRW5GZZ7XOARISQDFLGKLY/",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "MGHOZV4GNOCRW5GZZ7XOARISQDFLGKLY",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/OTYTGCXZIN2XPHIPEAYAFQ632QSDABAZ/",
    "sender": {
        "address": "wb4gcs (a) amsat.org",
        "mailman_id": "87014499e012476c8198fad186f7f963",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/87014499e012476c8198fad186f7f963/emails/"
    },
    "sender_name": "Jim Sanford",
    "subject": "[eagle] Re: Team Speak tomorrow night",
    "date": "2006-09-13T00:30:19Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/KAV7I6UIA732HOX2VJNX3MM3I3RJYXZ6/",
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/MEYXW6HDVCFHODTPK6XFPVKFEXVQ2HS6/",
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/E323STXEALEEQQMZUSLSJFOBI7LFOC2R/"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Roger.\nLet's discuss tonight.\n\n\nRick Hambly (W2GPS) wrote:\n\n>Jim,\n>\n>I just got off the phone with Graham Shirville in England. He, Howard Long\n>and others have been taking note of the controversy on amsat-bb and want to\n>offer help, if it would be productive.\n>\n>Based on that conversation and conversations with you and Bob, I would like\n>to make a revised proposal for consideration by the Eagle team.\n>\n>a) Move C-C Rider's primary uplink to the S2-band (3400-3410 MHz) with some\n>modest additional uplink capability on L-band (1260-1270 MHz).\n>\n>b) Add another separate SDX transponder for mode L/S, essentially identical\n>to the U/S SDX transponder. This transponder would use fixed antennas and so\n>will be usable only at apogee. It would also serve as a backup command and\n>control access to the IHU. By being separate it would reduce the risk of\n>common component failures. \n>\n>Graham will inquire of the local authorities in England about getting\n>matching Amateur Satellite status for their S2 band. \n>\n>Graham will come to San Francisco prepared to discuss an evolving\n>comprehensive plan to petition the ITU for additional Amateur Satellite\n>frequency allocations. He will need our help with this and we will need\n>ARRL's help as our ITU representative.\n>\n>Rick\n>W2GPS\n>AMSAT LM2232\n> \n>-----Original Message-----\n>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of\n>Jim Sanford\n>Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 10:35 PM\n>To: Lyle Johnson\n>Cc: EAGLE\n>Subject: [eagle] Re: Team Speak tomorrow night\n>\n>Lyle:\n>Per my notes, we did NOT kill the L uplinkfor SDX.  We DID decide not to \n>use it for the digital package.\n>\n>We need to decide on whether or not there will be an L-uplink for the \n>narrow band package or a dedicated L/S TSFR package.\n>\n>I'd like to at least discuss, and maybe decide whethe or not to fly an L \n>uplink on the command/analog channel.  Bob and Rick are proposing \n>OFFERING a L/S package to be developed by others and flown in a TSFR \n>space if it qualilfies.  I see this as no cost, huge gain in both \n>perceptions and capability.\n>\n>Please join tomorrow and comment.  I want to hear your thoughts!\n>\n>Thanks & 73,\n>Jim\n>[email protected]\n>\n>\n>Lyle Johnson wrote:\n>\n>  \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>>>>        \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>>    \n>>\n>_______________________________________________\n>Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA\n>[email protected]\n>http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle\n>\n>\n>  \n>\n\n\n",
    "attachments": [
        {
            "email": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/MGHOZV4GNOCRW5GZZ7XOARISQDFLGKLY/",
            "counter": 2,
            "name": "attachment.html",
            "content_type": "text/html",
            "encoding": "us-ascii",
            "size": 4591,
            "download": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/MGHOZV4GNOCRW5GZZ7XOARISQDFLGKLY/attachment/2/attachment.html"
        }
    ]
}