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/RVCSOSV3EDA6OCBYS4WM4L6KGLORZSBB/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "001401c6d655$b97589d0$643aa8c0@notepad8",
    "message_id_hash": "RVCSOSV3EDA6OCBYS4WM4L6KGLORZSBB",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/OTYTGCXZIN2XPHIPEAYAFQ632QSDABAZ/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "howard (a) howardlong.com",
        "mailman_id": "82a1d3d58c6f48898b755d208f81930e",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/82a1d3d58c6f48898b755d208f81930e/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Howard Long",
    "subject": "[eagle] Re: Team Speak tomorrow night",
    "date": "2006-09-12T10:25:08Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/EUGB7IPAPCP3HDTKOMU732NJBV4E34XE/?format=api",
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/JYBFHUHXVN6MEDJAGJMSNACNJDRYEGYO/?format=api"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Folks\n\n> Like Matt, I am not in favor of this.  We need to design the \n> system for services, not design the spacecraft as a bus for \n> a collection of modules.\n>\n> I recall two SDX payloads, but I'm old and my memory is failing.  \n> The Eagle block diagram from Oct 2005 shows a pair of SDX modules, \n> and the SDX block diagram shows a U and an L uplink, an S1 and a \n> V downlink.  Of course, at that time the digital payload was to \n> be C/C.\n>\n> Did we decide to kill the L uplink for SDX/analog use in San Diego?  \n> I recall that we decided to not use an L uplink for the digital system.\n\nI think Lyle's note sums it up - I am certainly not clear at all at the\nmoment what's been dumped. Right now it looks to me as if at least 70% of\nthe spacecraft was dumped at San Diego, and I am sure that is the view of\nmany others.\n\n>From speaking to the folks on this side of the pond I don't even think most\npeople realise that since San Diego S1 was only ever considered for a wide\nband digital up/downlink, not a conventional narrow band up/downlink. Or\nmaybe I've misunderstood.\n\nI am sure that if Matt doesn't want S1 then I'm absolutely certain that as\nlong as there's space for a five turn helix a la AO-40, connected to the SDX\nas we discussed in Oct 2005, a conventional analog downlink would satisfy\nthe masses, whether or not they can hear it. Add to that the possibility of\nan L band uplink possibly sneaked off the digital SDX rx and everyone's\nhappy. Except for the integration testers, that is.\n\nI also believe that it is particularly important to understand and quantify\nfurther the real 'sewer' issue of S band that Jan King reported. I did my\nown spec an tests over the weekend, including a 360 degree scan at 20 degree\naz intervals at the horizon, and then again at 10 and 20 degree elevations\nusing a 1.2m dish and CP patch that I used for AO-40, and since then AO-51.\nThis opened up more questions than answers. For example, there is plenty of\nWiFi here in Central London, but _none_ of it is between 2400 and 2430MHz. I\nneed to understand why elevation totally resolves some ISM interference but\ndoes not apparently have much effect on WiFi according to the spec an plots.\nPlus, what _real_ qualitative effect does it have on an SSB 3kHz signal,\nboth out of band and in band?\n\nI look forward to seeing you all tonight.\n\n73, Howard G6LVB\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}