[eagle] Re: CAN-Do noise abatement plan and questions

Robert McGwier rwmcgwier at gmail.com
Wed Jun 13 17:00:16 PDT 2007


To the extent that we have the ability to change things based on our 
experience, I agree.  The CAN-Do modules are new to us in using them 
specifically in a spacecraft.  The Germans demanded their flight modules 
over the objections of the designers and manufacturers so they are on 
their own with the consequences.  I am expecting them to roll them again 
if they run into problems.

This kind of noise source is different in that we have decided to mount 
them as part and parcel of the individual boxes, inside them in fact. 
They must be treated differently from other power and control devices 
and demand more noise mitigation than we have power and control devices.

We cannot expect to overcome noise that has a huge 1/r^2 advantage over 
the weak signals from the ground.


My suggestion on the receiver testing, given that we know we are going 
another round,  is we do everything possible to separate the noise 
source from the receiver so we are only testing and debugging the receiver.

Bob




Jim Sanford wrote:
> All:
> My OPINION, based on my experience, is that we're better off eliminating 
> the noise at the source. 
> 
> I understand Bdale's comments about flight units being delivered 
> already, but if it is as simple as replacing one (easily replaceable, 
> I'm assuming) component, I think we should at least consider that option 
> in the system level engineering decision.  I'd sure like to see the idea 
> tested somewhere.
> 
> Again, that's my INPUT to the discussion.
> 
> Thanks & 73,
> Jim
> wb4gcs at amsat.org
> 
> 
> 
-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"If you're going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or
else you're going to be locked up." Hunter S. Thompson


More information about the Eagle mailing list