[eagle] Re: Module Connectors

Juan Rivera juan-rivera at sbcglobal.net
Sat Jun 30 07:37:28 PDT 2007



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.




Juan - WA6HTP





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



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 



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.



Dick, KD1K


Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA

Eagle at amsat.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://amsat.org/mailman/private/eagle/attachments/20070630/2eb86f5a/attachment.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 73043 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://amsat.org/mailman/private/eagle/attachments/20070630/2eb86f5a/attachment.jpe

More information about the Eagle mailing list