[eagle] Re: CAN-Do-Too! ??????????
btynan at beecreek.net
Tue Jul 17 07:53:55 PDT 2007
Are P3E and P5 also using our CAN-Do widgets? If so, we should be
coordinating any change is design with them.
I would think that they would have the same concerns regarding RF noise as
Bill Tynan, W3XO
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Green" <greencl at mindspring.com>
To: "Louis McFadin" <w5did at amsat.org>
Cc: "Dave Black ((Work))" <dblack at mail.arc.nasa.gov>; "Dave Black ((Home))"
<dblack1054 at yahoo.com>; "David Smith" <w6te at msn.com>; "AMSAT Eagle"
<eagle at amsat.org>; "Samsonoff at Mac. Com" <samsonoff at mac.com>; "Juan.Rivera
((Work))" <Juan.Rivera at gd-ais.com>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:47 PM
Subject: [eagle] Re: CAN-Do-Too! ??????????
> 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.
> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> revisit the design and think we need more than 9 pins, it might be
>>>> investigating higher density connectors like that?
> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA
> Eagle at amsat.org
More information about the Eagle