America's biggest mistake

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:7709b397-927b-4750-85ee-2485e8c799c4@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 9:18:31 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
krw@notreal.com wrote in news:uu0ajetdmd8fnu5lsm91rtj9q7ltolfat6@
4ax.com:

You're *always* wrong, AlwaysWrong. The IBM 7070 came out in
1958 and the 7090 in 1959. Neither used tubes.

Neither used IC chips either. They were 100% discreet wired.

Try again.

ROFL

You claimed IBM was using TUBES. Now it's "discreet wired".
Discreet wired what? Transistors, moron.

Wrong, always wrong.

You have a maturity problem.

You are so good at googling or so you think. Look up integrated
circuit you retarded putz.

And you jacking off at the mouth about the use of the term
"discreet wired" proves that you are an idiot too, as it is widely
used in the electronics industry, you pathetic little putz.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 11:03:37 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 21/7/19 10:10 pm, mpm wrote:
On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 6:33:10 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:65def308-d7b4-49b1-b0f8-faf53920bc42@googlegroups.com:

The classic Bell Labs paper on cellular mobile telephony doesn't
say anything about satellite links -

That's because motorola developed it.
They started in 1946.

AT&T 'conceived' of it (actual cell based telephony), but they went
nowhere with it.

In 1968 the FCC allocated the 800 - 900 MHz band for it.

But no. Cell phone systems need no sat links to operate.

Modern-day cell networks need GPS.
It is used for time-base synchronization at the cell site, among other things, such as E-911 location assist.


And GPS is just the Apollo ranging system (which I described in another
thread today), turned upside-down, with relativistic calculations to
locate the birds, and triangulation to compute the position.

This ranging system?

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720017537.pdf

with 259.7MHz and 298.6MHz carrier frequencies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

Lists GPS as using 1.57542 GHz (L1 signal) and 1.2276 GHz (L2 signal) carrier frequencies. The history of GPS doesn't mention the Apollo ranging system at all, which does make sense because GPS is designed to serve any number of users. and Apollo never had more than one at a time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:b7441221-ca6f-4855-9876-6a8ca887ce95@googlegroups.com:

Noyce and Kilby had independently invented the first IC in 1959,
that's before there was a space program.

No, idiot. It was AFTER NASA began. And it existed before it was
even called NASA as well, you stupid little putz.

It was simply before the Moon mission goals. It was primarily about
rocket guidance. Not that you have a clue about that either.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:b7441221-ca6f-4855-9876-6a8ca887ce95@googlegroups.com:

IBM was using transistors, the iconic 360 line was introduced in
1964, 5 years before the moon landing and obviously IBM was
working on the 360 for years before that. So was Sperry Rand:

You are about as stupid as it gets.

Mainframes computers back then had no ICs in them because the ICs
did not exist yet.

You do a good job of googling but only prove you have no actual
been around to see it knowledge.

You are a fat assed punk, at best. I doubt that you are even 30
years old. Your eleven year old mental age is sure glaring.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:b7441221-ca6f-4855-9876-
6a8ca887ce95@googlegroups.com:

> Yet they had a solid state computer in 1953.

Apples and oranges.

There are no 2 ton computers on any spacecraft.

The IC chip made it possible to make a computer small enough to be
part of the payload of a spacecraft.

NASA worried about the weight of individual solder joints.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:b7441221-ca6f-4855-9876-
6a8ca887ce95@googlegroups.com:

Wrong, always wrong. The first semiconductor based computers were
in existence in 1953, both in the US and the UK.

But NOT with IC chips. They were not around yet.
The logic circuits were all discreet components. Not that you have
enough brains or experience in the field to even know what the term
means.

You really don't get it.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 9:47:15 AM UTC+10, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:d7085918-1568-4c57-a38e-4068f192b0e6@googlegroups.com:

ROFL. Where did you come up with that? Sure, the moon program
helped accelerate the pace of semiconductor technology, but it was
never the only application. IBM, DG, DEC and others were building
computers for commercial use, the military and commercial users
were using semiconductors. Like all technology, it would have been
a huge commercial success with or without the Apollo program, and
with or without NASA.

You are a true idiot. IBM was using tubes and that was not going
to cut it on the moon.

IBM might have used tubes in their very first computer, but they moved to transistors early.

The first computer I used was an IBM 7040/44 in 1963, and while it didn't use any integrated circuits, it also didn't use any tubes - it was a discrete transistor based machine, like the PDP-8 which I also used around 1967.

Yes the transistor was being put to use, but
you have no grasp of scale.

Transistors had been around since Bell Labs invented them in 1948, but it took Fairchild's 1959 planar process to make them reliable and easy to use

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planar_process

By the 1960's tubes were restricted to specialised high voltage and high power applications, and integrated circuits were starting to show up.

NASA and the military worked with Fairchild to make the very first
integrated circuit chip, and other chips which were used on the Moon
shot. Intel came out of those original scientists. Oh and that chip
was not "commercially available" for many years, so your conclusion
jump fails like all your other quick google glance and act like you
know fuck all methods. You know NOTHING about what went down then.
Even a turbine impeller blade shape was top secret in 1960. You are
an absolute dope.

Sadly, the absolute dope here seems to be you. As a graduate student in Australia I bought a couple of integrated circuits - uA709 op amps - around 1967
so they were definitely commercially available.

The military were never the major customer. MIL-spec parts were good from 125C to -40C and very expensive. Industrial spec parts were good from +85C to -20C while the bulk of the production was commercial parts good from 70C to 0C.

I don't think that I have ever designed in anything but commercial parts.

Some of the ECL parts I have used came in ceramic packages and were industrial spec, but that was just because they ran hot, and commercial plastic packages wouldn't have lasted - we used them as a stopgap until Motorola started selling ECLinPS in volume.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 11:17:25 AM UTC+10, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

"dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> wrote in
news:37c009c3-782a-4ebe-ad96-e2987b0c5141@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 7:47:15 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:



You are a true idiot. IBM was using tubes and that was not
going
to cut it on the moon. Yes the transistor was being put to use,
but you have no grasp of scale.

NASA and the military worked with Fairchild to make the very
first
integrated circuit chip, and other chips which were used on the
Moon shot. Intel came out of those original scientists. Oh and
that chip was not "commercially available" for many years, so
your conclusion jump fails like all your other quick google
glance and act like you know fuck all methods. You know NOTHING
about what went down then. Even a turbine impeller blade shape
was top secret in 1960. You are an absolute
dope.trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:d7085918-1568-4c57-a38e-4068f192b0e6@googlegroups.com:

ROFL. Where did you come up with that? Sure, the moon program
helped accelerate the pace of semiconductor technology, but it
was never the only application. IBM, DG, DEC and others were
building computers for commercial use, the military and
commercial users were using semiconductors. Like all
technology, it would have been a huge commercial success with
or without the Apollo program, and with or without NASA.


Texas Instuments made the first intergrated circuit.

Germanium

NASA and the
military were not involved in making the first ic.

Yes they were. The first Silicon IC chip, which was by Noyce and
Fairchild. Far superior to the TI Germanium device.

https://anysilicon.com/history-integrated-circuit/

but still not all that wonderful, but useful enough for special application

"Fairchild went forward and created IC chips for use in the Apollo spacecraft which went to the moon. It was this program along with using chips for satellites that spread the IC from military applications to the commercial market. It also lowered the price of the IC drastically which made it perfect for use in many electronic devices."

It took p-n isolation to get to the kind of parts we use today.

"Noyce, who stayed at Fairchild, used an idea from Kurt Lehovec, who worked at Sprague Electric, to create the p-n junction isolation."

I was working at Kent Instruments in Luton when Motorola and RCA got their yields high enough to start the price war that dropped integrated circuit prices to point where it was cheaper to use them than discrete transistors, around 1975.

The parts cost for a circuit I designed dropped from 50 UK pounds to 15 UK pounds between time I'd completed the design and the time - about a month later when the printed circuit layout was completed and the design was released to production. It was a really low volume product, so the parts cost wasn't all that interesting.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:03:30 +1000, Clifford Heath
<no.spam@please.net> wrote:

And GPS is just the Apollo ranging system (which I described in another
thread today), turned upside-down, with relativistic calculations to
locate the birds, and triangulation to compute the position.

The ranging system used in Apollo is now known as two way ranging and
is used in all planetary probes these days.

While GPS also uses PRN codes, it is essentially a one way system.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Jul 2019 21:28:50 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in <cedajepluq89dfvf9lat8h8ncnq5jl9f6u@4ax.com>:

On 21 Jul 2019 19:32:43 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote...

Winfield Hill wrote:

tubeguy@myshop.com wrote...
America's biggest mistake was landing on the moon
50 years ago. This was the start of satellites,
which lead to the cell phones.

The satellite to cell-phone connection is tenuous.
A better bogeyman would be the invention of the
flat lithium battery. The cell-phone popularity
never would have happened with Ni-Cd batteries.

I beg to differ. The cell phone would have been
larger and heavier,but so much as to make it unusable.

It's not the weight and size, but the poor lifetime.
Those old-style batteries quickly degraded, leaving
users with a bad experience... unreliable, unusable.

I beg to differ (again). NiMH and LiIon batteries are good for 700 to
1000 charge cycles. Lead-acid batteries, about 300 cycles. NiCd is
good for at least 1000 and with a properly controlled charge cycle,
can easily do 3000 or more cycles. Properly treated, they can last
almost forever:
"NiCd Battery Still Runs After 28 Years"
https://www.powerelectronics.com/news/nicd-battery-still-runs-after-28-years

Indeed, I still have one nicad AA and a few month ago tested it after some discussion about those on Usenet.
Still working OK,.
Minus is the large self-discharge and lower capacity than modern batteries.
But I keep it.
An other one I have is for SRAM backup here:
http://panteltje.com/pub/8052AH_BASIC_computer/8052AH_BASIC_computer_inside_img_1727.jpg
the yellow thing comes from some old Philips video player and was already old around 1985,
is 2 Nicads in series.
Still working perfectly, tested a year or so ago.

So >> 34 years.
The AA is even older, maybe from 1983 or so.

 

On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 16:25:37 -0700 (PDT), trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 6:33:10 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:65def308-d7b4-49b1-b0f8-faf53920bc42@googlegroups.com:

The classic Bell Labs paper on cellular mobile telephony doesn't
say anything about satellite links -

That's because motorola developed it.
They started in 1946.

AT&T 'conceived' of it (actual cell based telephony), but they went
nowhere with it.


Wrong, always wrong. Motorola demonstrated the first HANDHELD mobile phone.
AT&T, Bell Labs were always major players in mobile, starting after WWII
and evolving into
cellular service. That first Motorola handheld in the 70s was not an
actual cellular based phone at all, it did not use cells. It
was AT&T, that supplied most of the cellular base station eqpt as
actual cellular service later deployed in the USA. The first deployment
was AMPS, developed at Bell Labs. And following the
breakup of AT&T, the eqpt part of AT&T and Bell Labs became Lucent Technologies
and they went on to dominate the cellular base station field. Today
merged with Alcatel, they are still a significant player, probably larger
than Motorola, though both of them have lost share to all the new players.

When exactly does a radiotelephone network become a cellular network ?

The number of channel has always been limited so the base stations
have to reuse the channels at say 100 km distance from each other.

Does a radiotelephone network become cellular, when two mobile units
in different areas can communicate wit each other through leased land
lines ?

Is a manual/automatic connection to the general landline telephone
network required ?

Must the base station automatically command the mobile station to use
the minimum power required to perform the communication, in order to
minimize spillover to nearby cells ?

 

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 04:11:54 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:b7441221-ca6f-4855-9876-
6a8ca887ce95@googlegroups.com:

Yet they had a solid state computer in 1953.

Apples and oranges.

There are no 2 ton computers on any spacecraft.

The IC chip made it possible to make a computer small enough to be
part of the payload of a spacecraft.

NASA worried about the weight of individual solder joints.

In the early days, that was mainly a US only problem with their
minuscule boosters, some of which were merely V2 derivatives.

The Soviets had a big dumb booster (Sputnik/Vostok/Soyuz) so they did
not have to watch every gram and could use more or less off the shelf
components and equipment.

 

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
news:n7iaje5nfbek9tft3o4aikip649nnghkie@4ax.com:

The Soviets had a big dumb booster (Sputnik/Vostok/Soyuz) so they
did
not have to watch every gram and could use more or less off the
shelf
components and equipment.

There was no such thing as "off the shelf" back then. Especially
not for us and certainly no big electronics industry existed in the
old USSR, everything was from a mil or aerospace root. We had ZERO
"COTS" in use until it was adopted.

Solder joint size/weight/mass is a vibrational survival thing, not
an overall payload thing. So the connection count is an important
factor when 99.9 percent of failure modes are from continuity breaks.
So a discrete wired assembly has to be constructed to survive vibe if
it is going into space.

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 12:29:00 AM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I beg to differ (again). NiMH and LiIon batteries are good for 700 to
1000 charge cycles. Lead-acid batteries, about 300 cycles. NiCd is
good for at least 1000 and with a properly controlled charge cycle,
can easily do 3000 or more cycles. Properly treated, they can last
almost forever:
"NiCd Battery Still Runs After 28 Years"
https://www.powerelectronics.com/news/nicd-battery-still-runs-after-28-years

So why do NiCd batteries have such a bad reputation for short
lifetime? The problem was that when NiCd batteries initially arrived
in the late 1960's and 1970's, the charging systems were really crude.
At best, they had some kind of heat sensor on the cells to terminate
charging when the battery became warm. That doesn't work very well.
I've can cram 5C or more charge current into a NiCd cell without
heating or damage at up to about 85% of full charge. From there, the
cell gets warm and eventually quite hot. Once warm, the cell is
damaged or dead. So, terminating the charge cycle when the battery
gets warm is a really bad idea. There were a bunch of other schemes
that worked to varying degrees. Some could be tricked by starting a
new charge cycle with a fully charged battery. Most chargers had no
intelligence of any kind and would charge at very slow rates on the
assumption that the low current could not overheat and kill the
battery.

There was also the problem of charging cells in series. With equal
current going through the series string of cells, the voltage across
each cell and the heating would depend on the internal resistance,
which could vary considerably. That resulted in overheated cells, and
occasionally a reverse charged cell. What was needed was todays
balance charger, as is popular in RC model airplanes, robotics, and
LED flashlights. Laptop batteries use a BMS (battery management
system) which also provides charge equalization. All this would have
been very useful protecting the early NiCd batteries.

So, if NiCd's were really so wonderful if properly charged, what
killed their popularity? Mostly, it was the cadmium, which is
designated a hazardous substance and pollutant. What was needed was
something more environmentally friendly. NiMH and some (not all)
LiIon chemistries provided the necessary replacement.

However, in the early 1970's, NiCd was still an acceptable technology.
Had NiMH and LiIon not been invented, and someone invented a
successful BMS, cell phone batteries based on NiCd chemistry would
have worked quite well. We would not have had Apple iPhones with
non-replaceable batteries, which is good thing. The phones would have
been larger and heavier, but that would have been tolerated pending
the invention of lower power radios.

Jeff, the first Mobile Telephone I repaired was in a briefcase. It was owned by a local doctor, and the original batteries had failed after years of service. It used six Gates 2V lead acid cells. That was in 1975 I think. It could also be operated from a cigarette lighter cord. It looked more like Telemetry equipment than a Phone.

 

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
news:n7iaje5nfbek9tft3o4aikip649nnghkie@4ax.com:

In the early days, that was mainly a US only problem with their
minuscule boosters, some of which were merely V2 derivatives.

The worry was not the weight. I should have said mass.

The launch G forces break circuit connections.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 2:26:52 PM UTC+10, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:a9ef28f6-4f04-4076-9c68-be7958fcff44@googlegroups.com:

Sadly, the absolute dope here seems to be you. As a graduate
student in Australia I bought a couple of integrated circuits -
uA709 op amps - around 1967 so they were definitely commercially
available.


1967 is NOT 1960.

You've snipped a whole lot of stuff which went back rather earlier, which makes you a cheat as well as a dope.

If you want to cheat, try to be less obvious about it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 2:55:18 PM UTC+10, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 16:25:37 -0700 (PDT), trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 6:33:10 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence..org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:65def308-d7b4-49b1-b0f8-faf53920bc42@googlegroups.com:

The classic Bell Labs paper on cellular mobile telephony doesn't
say anything about satellite links -

That's because motorola developed it.
They started in 1946.

AT&T 'conceived' of it (actual cell based telephony), but they went
nowhere with it.


Wrong, always wrong. Motorola demonstrated the first HANDHELD mobile phone.
AT&T, Bell Labs were always major players in mobile, starting after WWII
and evolving into
cellular service. That first Motorola handheld in the 70s was not an
actual cellular based phone at all, it did not use cells. It
was AT&T, that supplied most of the cellular base station eqpt as
actual cellular service later deployed in the USA. The first deployment
was AMPS, developed at Bell Labs. And following the
breakup of AT&T, the eqpt part of AT&T and Bell Labs became Lucent Technologies
and they went on to dominate the cellular base station field. Today
merged with Alcatel, they are still a significant player, probably larger
than Motorola, though both of them have lost share to all the new players.

When exactly does a radiotelephone network become a cellular network ?

The number of channel has always been limited so the base stations
have to reuse the channels at say 100 km distance from each other.

Does a radiotelephone network become cellular, when two mobile units
in different areas can communicate with each other through leased land
lines ?

The principle of a cellular network is that adjacent cells always use slightly different frequencies, and the transmitted power is adjusted so that non-adjacent cells re-using a given frequency don't interfere with the closest nonadjacent cell using the same frequency.

The moving phone keeps track of enough frequencies to know when to switch switch from the fixed station in one cell to the fixed station in the nearest neighbour cell.

The idea of cycling through a limited collection of frequency bands is the central feature of cellular networks.

Is a manual/automatic connection to the general landline telephone
network required?

It is built-in. The mobile phone talks directly to the station at the centre of the nearest cell which sets up a - mostly landline - connection to the telephone at the other end of the call.

Must the base station automatically command the mobile station to use
the minimum power required to perform the communication, in order to
minimize spillover to nearby cells?

That would seem to be an essential capacity. Cell sizes are limited both by the range that can be covered by the transmitter power capacity built into the mobile part, and the number of mobile phones active with a particular cell.

Country cells are a lot bigger than inner-city cells.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 2:28:28 PM UTC+10, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:a9ef28f6-4f04-4076-9c68-be7958fcff44@googlegroups.com:

The military were never the major customer. MIL-spec parts were
good from 125C to -40C and very expensive. Industrial spec parts
were good from +85C to -20C while the bulk of the production was
commercial parts good from 70C to 0C.


All of those 'specs' did not even come out until the '70s.

Rubbish. The data sheet for the uA709C that I bought - off the shelf in Australia in 1967 - included the specifications for the industrial and military specification parts.

Some chip makers' main lines were the high performance mil grade
ceramic carrier parts.

Most of the early parts seem to have designed for specific customers. Some were more widely useful than others, and the chip makers who got stuck with the less general purpose parts might have ended up selling only to the military customers who had commissioned the original part.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 22/7/19 2:19 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 11:03:37 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
And GPS is just the Apollo ranging system (which I described in another
thread today), turned upside-down, with relativistic calculations to
locate the birds, and triangulation to compute the position.

This ranging system?
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720017537.pdf

No. That one was for the CSM->LM range, and was piggy-backed on the
existing signal between the two. There were multiple VHF links,
including two each on the astronaut's suits.

> with 259.7MHz and 298.6MHz carrier frequencies?

259.7 was used from EVC-1 to EVC-2 and the LM.
296.8 (not 298.6) was used from the LM to the suits.
279.0 was sent from EVC-2 to EVC-1.

Anyhow, no, not those links.

The ranging system was sent as a PRNG directly phase-modulated onto the
S-band carrier (2287.5MHz) at a bit rate of 992kbps. The spacecraft
demodulated it and used it to immediately modulate the download the
downlink (2106.4MHz) same way.

The sequence of PRNGs was used with Chinese numbers to quickly search
for the maximum correlation, stepping through progressively
longer-sequence PRNGs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
Lists GPS as using 1.57542 GHz (L1 signal) and 1.2276 GHz (L2 signal) carrier frequencies. The history of GPS doesn't mention the Apollo ranging system at all, which does make sense because GPS is designed to serve any number of users. and Apollo never had more than one at a time.

Duh. It's the same thing, upside-down. One spacecraft, multiple ground
stations (triangulation only useful at certain ranges near earth due to
baseline length and visibility). One GPS receiver, multiple (moving)
satellites. It's the same thing.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 5:42:15 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 22/7/19 2:19 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 11:03:37 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
And GPS is just the Apollo ranging system (which I described in another
thread today), turned upside-down, with relativistic calculations to
locate the birds, and triangulation to compute the position.

This ranging system?
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720017537.pdf

No. That one was for the CSM->LM range, and was piggy-backed on the
existing signal between the two. There were multiple VHF links,
including two each on the astronaut's suits.

with 259.7MHz and 298.6MHz carrier frequencies?

259.7 was used from EVC-1 to EVC-2 and the LM.
296.8 (not 298.6) was used from the LM to the suits.
279.0 was sent from EVC-2 to EVC-1.

Anyhow, no, not those links.

The ranging system was sent as a PRNG directly phase-modulated onto the
S-band carrier (2287.5MHz) at a bit rate of 992kbps. The spacecraft
demodulated it and used it to immediately modulate the download the
downlink (2106.4MHz) same way.

The sequence of PRNGs was used with Chinese numbers to quickly search
for the maximum correlation, stepping through progressively
longer-sequence PRNGs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
Lists GPS as using 1.57542 GHz (L1 signal) and 1.2276 GHz (L2 signal) carrier frequencies. The history of GPS doesn't mention the Apollo ranging system at all, which does make sense because GPS is designed to serve any number of users. and Apollo never had more than one at a time.

Duh. It's the same thing, upside-down.

For a rather generous interpretation of "the same thing".

If the GPS history on Wikipedia is anything to go by, the Apollo ranging system is just one of many that was around at the time, and not all that relevant to the development of GPS. I can't recall a single mention of an atomic clock in the Apollo write up, and there is one in every GPS satellite.

One spacecraft, multiple ground
stations (triangulation only useful at certain ranges near earth due to
baseline length and visibility). One GPS receiver, multiple (moving)
satellites. It's the same thing.

If you haven't got much grasp of what's going on. Apollo didn't seem to need general relativistic correction, GPS wouldn't work without it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney