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/RM4KDBP6S5CCZCIVDV2DU5ARLIK2QEVO/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "RM4KDBP6S5CCZCIVDV2DU5ARLIK2QEVO",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/RQX4DLDIYY3MVVVNFRFO357N5UXLTUIQ/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "wb4gcs (a) amsat.org",
        "mailman_id": "87014499e012476c8198fad186f7f963",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/87014499e012476c8198fad186f7f963/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Jim Sanford",
    "subject": "[eagle] Re: CAN-Do-Too!   ??????????",
    "date": "2007-07-10T02:47:13Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/O7OOEZTG7IS35OKT7SV3B4FP3CHGWLXF/?format=api",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Bill:\nThanks.\n\nI'm exhausted.  More detailed response tomorrow.  YOu make good points, \nwe need to decide how to proceed.\n\nThanks & 73,\nJim\[email protected]\n\n\nBill Ress wrote:\n\n> Jim Sanford wrote:\n>\n>> 4.  EMI Spec:  You put a gun to my head, and I'm going to pull out \n>> the MIL-STD, which is probably overkill, but MAYBE NOT.  I'd really \n>> prefer that one of you guiys current in the INDUSTRIAL world take on \n>> this task and come up with something good enough and reasonable.  In \n>> general, I'd like to eliminate as much mass and extra \"touch\" labor \n>> in the assembly process (multiple shields) as possible.  Bob Davis:  \n>> Please weigh in here, if the possible milled modules simplify this \n>> issue, please enlighten us.\n>\n> Jim, I think an EMI spec pulled out of a MIL-STD would be an over kill \n> effort and likely not representative of \"our\" real world. What we need \n> is not assumptions but data reflecting what the hardware does. The \n> problem is that we don't have the hardware - and that's my issue. The \n> power distribution circuits are what I call a \"top level\" subsystem \n> which feeds \"everyone.\" Instead of working on the circuitry that will \n> run from it and trying to \"imagine\" what we can expect, let's focus on \n> breadboarding the key power distribution circuits and get some hard \n> data so we know what we're working with.\n>\n> I'll again reiterate (as I have several times in the past) the same \n> thing for the satellite's 10 MHz reference. It's another top level \n> \"subsystem\" that will feed \"all\" LO's. Instead of guessing what we'll \n> be working with, let's get it defined too.\n>\n> (I'm proposing we put that one to bed and use the time tested, well \n> defined, high stability, low noise HP (OK - Agilent) 10811 series of \n> reference standards used in most of their test instruments. If that \n> won't cut it - someone please tell me why!)\n>\n>> 7.  Requirements:  Bob McGwier is correct, we really did start with a \n>> very top-level requirements document.  It is not perfect (Bob has \n>> hated it from the word go), but can be found on EaglePedia under \n>> Functional Requirements.  It is also in need of updating, after the \n>> October BoD decision.  On my list to do.  Like you, I have finite \n>> energy and time, but it is on my list.  I think John did an EXCELLENT \n>> job of documenting the UHF Receiver requirements based on what he \n>> knew.  The need for an EMI spec was not obvious, but is now, thanks \n>> to Juan's testing efforts and exceptional documentation.  Lou:  \n>> Functional requirements for power supplies?  Bob Davis:  Functional \n>> requirements for structure and thermal performance?  etc. etc.....we \n>> have much to do, but I think worthwhile effort.  By the way, I'm \n>> reading (in a few spare minutes here and there) an EXCELLENT book on \n>> requirements management.  When I finish, look for a review of it on \n>> my project management page.  I will also be providing suggestions on \n>> writing \"good\" requirements, based on that book and my recent \n>> experiences in the day job.\n>>\n> Yes, we have \"top level requirements\" for desired satellite functions, \n> operating modes and parameters and link budgets. But again, I think \n> we're sorely lacking in key \"system\"  performance requirements based \n> on real data  - - -  which can only be obtained by building and \n> testing these key functions.\n>\n> I'm not a power supply guy, but I'll offer to assist in building and \n> testing the circuits we need to characterize. Lou - point me in the \n> right direction - tell me what you need!\n>\n> Regards...Bill - N6GHz\n>\n>\n",
    "attachments": []
}