[eagle] Re: CAN-Do-Too! ??????????

Chuck Green greencl at mindspring.com
Mon Jul 16 19:47:00 PDT 2007


Thanks, Lou.

I don't know of any reason not to use them either.  Obviously, it needs 
to meet our mounting configuration requirement so the new mechanical 
design can meet the objectives I stated earlier.  This means it must 
mount on the edge of a PCB.  I think the HD15-D has three rows of pins 
so I'm not sure how this can work, but I haven't looked at the various 
parts available so maybe this problem has been solved.

If we are going to seriously consider using HD connectors I think we 
need the blessing of AMSAT's VP of Engineering and the EAGLE project 
coordinator.  This would be true for any change that would be pervasive 
in the satellite. 

I am a little disappointed that there have not been any comments 
regarding the changes I saw as being made with a new design.  
Additions/changes/questions/etc.  I don't think we should do a new 
design without this discussion.  Maybe people feel these issues have 
been well covered in the past.  If so, a simple "looks good to me" would 
be helpful.

And no one has stepped up to say they are well qualified and will design 
a new power supply.  Without this, I don't see a new design happening, 
but maybe.

And finally, I see that no one has dared touch the subject of parts 
procurement I raised. 

Obviously, most of these comments are really meant for the Cc list.

Thanks,
Chuck

Louis McFadin wrote:
> Chuck,
> Mouser has a very large selection of D-sub connectors including the 
> high density versions. Most are in stock.
> I see no inherent reason for not using them.
>
> Lou McFadin
> W5DID
> w5did at mac.com <mailto:w5did at mac.com>
>
>
> On Jul 16, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Chuck Green wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> Bdale Garbee wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>


More information about the Eagle mailing list