Dick,

Following up on my reply, here’s a shot of a right angle SMA connected to the type of PCB mount connectors we’re using:

This happens to be a straight cable-mount SMA connected to a right angle adapter, but the size is the same either way.  It looks like we’ll need about 25 mm of space on the side of the module to get the four RF signals in and out.

73,

Juan – WA6HTP

-----Original Message-----
From: eagle-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of rjansson@cfl.rr.com
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:33 AM
To: eagle@amsat.org
Subject: [eagle] Mocule Connectors

John & Juan:

Your EMI problems certainly do present considerable difficulties. Your

suggestions of placing connectors on multiple faces of a module run

counter to the whole module mounting plan for Eagle. The modules are

mounted with only about 1.5mm clearance at the flanges and only about

16mm clearance on the sides. The "rear end" of the module is also

difficult as there is just not that much space for cabling and

connector access. Mechanical designers in the past have been raked over

the coals for not providing sufficient connector access. The curren

plan allows about 100mm (I don't have the drawings with me at the

moment) of space between facing columns of modules for the cabling and

connector access. This is a plan that is pretty basic to the whole

wiring plan for Eagle, and it is a result of a lot of experience with

P3D.

While the basic module design for Eagle, unlike P3D, does not provide

for the stacking of modules, a small CAN module placed on top of the

URx, could be considered. Wiring to this sub-module would be by means

of jumper leads from its connector face into the URx.

I caution that there currently is not planned for much space above the

rows of modules as the current spaceframe plan has the modules placed

fairly closely under the solar panels. This concept is part of the need

to keep the mass moment of inertia, Izz, high. This is NOT just a

desirable feature, but a necessary, MUST need for the spin stability of

the spacecraft. So any top-mounted sub-module would have to not be very

thick.

All of these issues arise from the practical considerations of the

overall mission of the spacecraft. Unfortunately for the EMI and

other "local" issues, we cannot design the spaceframe only for EMI, but

must solve other mission requirements, too.

I am not trying to be unmovable on the design if the URx, but I am

trying to explain how we can have a successful mission.

'73,

Dick, KD1K

_______________________________________________

Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA

Eagle@amsat.org

http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle