I have had one experience with the high density D connectors.� They were much larger pin count than 9 or 15!� After someone absolutely insisted that we use them I did the board lay out.� Turned out that they were *totally* unavailable!!!� I did the board layout again@#$%&^* using standard Sub-D's.� That was a number of years ago so I would hope things have changed.� If someone is absolutely confident they can obtain the parts we need then I'm not at all opposed to using them (remember, I'm not volunteering to do parts procurement for this project; this is a good time to use someone that's good at parts procurement).
While at Goddard for P3D vib test I noticed NASA satellites using standard Sub-D's.� That was also a few years ago.� Anyone know of High Density Sub-D's being used on other satellites?
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 09:02 -0700, Chuck Green wrote:
��
The sub-miniature D connector series has served us well.� If anyone has *experience* with something they think might be a better choice, we'd love to hear about it.
�� �
At the AMSAT annual meeting that was held near Washington, D.C., a
couple of years ago (three?), someone approached me after the CAN-Do!
talk that Stephen and I gave to ask why we weren't using the
higher-density connectors that put 15 pins in the same shell size as the
9-pin version of the series we have been using... and followed up by
sending me what looked like mil/aero-spec samples of such a part that I
probably still have in my basement somewhere.� I'm sorry that I can't
recall at all who that person was, but it was someone who claimed to be
using such connectors professionally with good results.
At the time, we weren't likely to be redesigning the units any time
soon, so I didn't take any action on this suggestion.� If we're going to
revisit the design and think we need more than 9 pins, it might be worth
investigating higher density connectors like that?
Bdale
��