[eagle] Re: CAN-Do-Too! ??????????
greencl at mindspring.com
Mon Jul 16 19:47:00 PDT 2007
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
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,
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.
Louis McFadin wrote:
> 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 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?
>> 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?
More information about the Eagle