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/ZIQZ3PXCAPVTG7IRC3LLP7FVWVRBLEOA/",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "ZIQZ3PXCAPVTG7IRC3LLP7FVWVRBLEOA",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/ZIQZ3PXCAPVTG7IRC3LLP7FVWVRBLEOA/",
    "sender": {
        "address": "jbrandenburg (a) amsat.org",
        "mailman_id": "fba29bb05aa944e3b759fb437017d01e",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/fba29bb05aa944e3b759fb437017d01e/emails/"
    },
    "sender_name": "Jonathan Brandenburg",
    "subject": "[pacsat-dev] PC-104 \"Standard\"",
    "date": "2023-04-07T14:26:09Z",
    "parent": null,
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Following up on last night's conversation...\n\nWhen there is talk about CubeSats using the PC-104 standard, what that \nreally means is the use of the PC-104 form factor in terms of board \nsize, mounting hole placement, and the 2x2x26 connector. CubeSats don't \nadhere to any of the signalling or protocol aspects of PC-104 standards \n(including additional connectors defined in the PC-104 standard).\n\nThere hasn't been any standards body define this form factor for \nCubesats (as far as I know) so I imagine it just sort of grew \norganically from the first university satellites looking around for \nsomething to copy and noticed the small form-factor computer.\n\nAs correctly noted, CubeSats don't standardize the use of the pins in \nthe PC-104 connector but it seems like component manufacturers looked \naround to see how others had been using pins and followed suit. Thus if \nPACSAT is using I2C, power, and ground pins there will be little \nconflict. What I've seen is CubeSat component manufacturers offer an \noption sheet that allows the customer to select from a set of options. \nAlong the lines of \"put I2C pins here or there or do not connect\" kind \nof options.\n\nI hear the comments about how \"This a large connector!\" and \"How many \npins are really needed?\" and \"How are they used  by different \ncomponents?\" All that is true. At same time it's also true that if \nsomebody is adding a component to their CubeSat it will most likely \nexpecting boards with the PC-104 form factor. AMSAT is an exception but \neven then we had to partially adapt our boards to the PC-104 form factor \nfor use by non-AMSAT organizations.\n\nWhen I'm at CubeSat Developers Workshop later this month, I'll do a \nsurvey. While I will see at least one university eschew the PC-104 form \nfactor (because they're developing ALL the components in-house and \nprefer a plug-in-slot configuration because it simplifies assembly a \nlot) I expect most will have purchased the bus (including structure, \nC&DH, EPS, and any ADCS) which will be in the PC-104 form factor. But I \ncould be surprised and the tide may be turning.\n\nComments?\n\nJonathan\n\n-- \nJonathan Brandenburg, KF5IDY\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}