[eagle] Re: Module Connectors

[rjansson@cfl.rr.com]

Juan:

What do you propose to do with the cover?

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: Juan Rivera <juan-rivera at sbcglobal.net>
Date: Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:42 am
Subject: RE: [eagle]  Module Connectors
To: rjansson at cfl.rr.com, eagle at amsat.org

> 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 
> angleadapter, 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 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 
> 
> 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 at amsat.org
> 
> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
> 
>