Bill Ress wrote:
All - -
To add support to Juan's conviction that we need to start developing "top down" specifications versus the bottom up activities we've been involved with, I would add that in order to develop a "realistic" EMI spec for the satellites power distribution system, we really need to know what those circuits will do.
With that in mind, I feel we need to breadboard the key circuits associated with that system and get hard data versus shooting from the hip with assumptions. At some point this power system is needed anyway, so why not focus design attention on that "top level" system now and get that issue settled - or at least better understood?
On the issue of housing panel area, and the possible consideration of a Mark 2 version, I think if I remember correctly, there were comments on wondering why a DB-9 (or even a physically smaller connector series) couldn't be used or are all the 15 pins needed?
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
I also support the breadboarding of primary circuits. And we did develop our specifications for the latest incarnation of Eagle top down. We started with what services we wanted to deliver and moved down from there.
When I rejoined the project, and started the software defined transponder movement, and long before I was leadership, the Can-Do was "in the can". I had almost no input to it. That said, I really do support the goal of the CanDo. Anyone who has heard of the horror stories of Marie Marr and the wiring harness or seen Lou's spreadsheet for interconnections for AO-40 knows that these few words do not do it justice. We have found a gremlin. That is normal in any project of this complexity and is not easily remedied by specifications in a project like this where the work and the tools necessary to make the relevant measurements are spread over the globe.
I look forward to our doing better as a team.
Bob