OT: Moon Landing

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:bf26bf2c-f918-4761-8902-6ea02ff13448@googlegroups.com:

You are an abject idiot. The flag was held by a stiff rod at the
top.

And the Dow is down a quarter point.

There was no waving. There was no flapping. There was no
faking.

They showed it. They thought it was prof positive but it was not.
That flag DID move and it did it for the same reasone there is not
atmosphere on Mars.

Except this is the Moon, and there is none there either. They
"showed" nothing but their stupidity... those 'they' people you
speak of.

Except for your birth certificate. Your parents faked that,
because you were not born. You were shat.

They shat better than your Parents punk, ten paces, come on bitch.
We'll see who is left.

I can put one in your forehead from the hip, putz. And that is
with a short barrel. I'll put a smiley face on your lead pierced
face with a long barrel (except there would not be anything left of
it).

I was born. You were shat. BIG difference. B I G !!!

 

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:qgpol8$1hfc$1@gioia.aioe.org:

On 18/07/2019 12:17, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
I can't believe anyone is still on about this. I have analysed
the situation and the bottom line is that because the world was
watching to fake it they would have had to spend more money than
to actually do it. Kids had telescopes back then, and that
includes in Russia. They would have loved to expose any
possibility of deception during the cold war.

There are still no optical telescopes on Earth that can resolve
the lunar landing sites or spot an orbiter against the moons
glare.

However, everybody and their dog with a decent receiver and a
relatively high gain antenna was eavesdropping on the lunar
command module comms. Including a high school in Kettering,
England who were famous for it.

The most powerful piece of evidence they have is debunked. It is
not disproven but it is proven not to be proven. This is the
waving of the flag when there is supposedly no atmosphere.

It was supported by a rigid rod along the top. Clearly visible in
this picture. ISTR the flag initially very crumpled slowly
straightened out. Basically as the fabric adjusted to being
unfurled.

https://www.space-images.com/wallpapers/apollo/11-flag1/apollo11_01
_1920x1200.jpg

I hope the Chinese visit at least one Apollo site as tourists (not
Apollo 11 though) and bring back a Hasselblad. Be interesting to
see how well the red and blue pigments in the flag stand up to
hard UV. They were apparently stock items made of nylon so
probably won't have lasted very well in a hard vacuum (see other
thread about plastics in vacuum).

Gravity still acts on the flag and so do Newtons laws. The thing
behaves pretty much like a compound pendulum because of the rod at
the top.

Now, why is there no atmosphere ? because of solar wind, the same
reason a comet's tail ALWAYS points away from the sun. (or
nearest star) If it can blow the atmosphere off of Mars it can
move a piece of cloth.

Comet tails do not always point away from the sun! The main white
dust tail actually sits behind the comet along its recent
trajectory. Only the ion and gas tail points directly away from
the sun. The naked eye comet Hale-Bopp in 1996 showed this
phenomena beautifully for months.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Hale%E2%80%93Bopp

The distribution of dust along the orbit of periodic comets is
what gives us predictable meteor showers Perseids next up on
11-13th August.

There are conspiracy theories that are true, oh yeah, but this
ain't one of them.

It is just too easy.

The thing that would have been impossible to fake was the rock
samples they brought back with isotopic signatures and minerals
not of this Earth. Russia grabbed some robotically a year later
and both sets agree.

Pieces of moon rock and even bits of Mars fall to Earth from time
to time and command a high price with some avid collectors
(pricing science out of the market for highly sought after pieces
sold at auction).

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

+1

Again you prove to be one of the most informed and intelligent
posters in the group.

 

[bitrex]

On 7/19/19 4:47 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 02:57:41 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/19/19 2:51 AM, bitrex wrote:

Apparently the original design assumption was that the Orbiter would
only require an airline style A-check between flights, but in reality
heavy C- or D-checks were needed to be perform between flights
essentially disassembling and reassembling a lot of the Orbiter.


I think due to compartmentalization and the sheer size of the project
involving many teams working on many specialized systems it was possible
for some to lose the forest for the trees and even some in NASA
management, perhaps, didn't quite realize the scale and complexity of
the thing they were working on the construction of.

Thinking they're managing the development of something more like a
space-airliner and they don't even quite realize the total scope of the
project until it rolls out into the sun out of the VAB the first time
and they realize "Oh, it's this gigantic super-complex machine from the
future" it may have been a humbling experience even for some involved
directly in its development.

Keep in mind some of the people involved in the project probably dated
back to the Mercury and Gemini projects, the first flight of the Shuttle
was only 20 years after the first manned orbit. It wasn't that long ago
at that time.

And less than 40 years since the V2 first launch.

Previously with expandable vehicles, you could take ultimate
performance from various components such as engines. The only
requirement was that it should last long enough until the stage had
separated and the next stage taken over. Some Saturn V first stages
have been recovered from the Atlantic. Some F1 engines were nearly
burned through, so a JOT (Just on time) performance.

For a reusable device, you have to derate it sufficiently, so that it
is reliable for multiple flights before a large overhaul. Clearly too
much performance was required from the SSMEs, since a lot of overhaul
was required after each flight.

I think they thought that by putting the main engines on the orbiter
itself and making a vehicle that was a compromise between a traditional
vertical rocket, and a single-stage-to-orbit craft, they'd end up with
some of the advantages of both types of vehicle.

Turned out they got a finished product that wasn't nearly as reliable as
a traditional vertical rocket, and whose turn-around time and cost for a
follow-up launch wasn't any better, either.

Don't really know until you try I guess but I understand the argument
that in hindsight the problems with this design should have been better
apparent.

I think it's possible that within my lifetime there will be a true
single-stage-to-orbit launch system that approaches the turn-around time
of an aircraft, using something like the Skylon combined-cycle
ramjet/rocket engine. In 2020 the engine engineering and materials
science I think is mostly up to the task (it definitely wasn't in the
1970s) it's mainly a question of $$$

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 9:59:05 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

Gentlemen,

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the 'first manned moon landing' as
it were, I'm just wondering what proportion of the group believe the
whole thing was just an elaborate hoax for whatever reason?

Roku users can watch videos about the lunar landing, both free and premium.

<https://therokuchannel.roku.com/browse/w.dW9zm6963wHazlJLzqaZTeLDeMzMV0sbVrA2zPqKHQGJWPJKebIz8QYLb3Q9svWGYVvRRkIrpqw1Y4bdux9B8YQJDyHVDxaP/apollo-50th-anniversary?utm_source=MKTG&utm_medium=EML&utm_campaign=TRC&utm_content=20190719-TRC-Weekly_July19-&j=312568&sfmc_sub=152174434&l=122_HTML&u=4918866&mid=7290768&jb=178&r=5e8391e1-4d69-52fc-a7f5-271243a4649e>

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 05:36:23 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

we got the Apollo feeds nicely at 625 lines interlaced,
I think at that time real time converted by the BBC converter in the UK
from the US 512 lines or whatever feed.

All the European TV coverage of the moon landings came via the Goonhilly
Earth Station in England:

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

Only just found that out from a feature on the local news tonight.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Jul 2019 23:49:14 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Cursitor
Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in <qgtktq$lmo$4@dont-email.me>:

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 05:36:23 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

we got the Apollo feeds nicely at 625 lines interlaced,
I think at that time real time converted by the BBC converter in the UK
from the US 512 lines or whatever feed.

All the European TV coverage of the moon landings came via the Goonhilly
Earth Station in England:

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

Only just found that out from a feature on the local news tonight.

Correct, and BBC in UK was the only one with a good system converter 525 to 625 lines.
From there it went into the Eurovision network controlled by Brussels.
We had a constant intercom connection with them.
'NOS for Brussels' was a trigger .. Once woke up in a dream and heard that.
Control room for 3 TV networks, intercoms with everybody, events in the country, and the telco (that ran the towers) and the audio lines.
Synchrinisation of all external sources to te hsudio, thsey used at some point the radio FM transmitters to send sync signals to the
variouslocations, clever system.
Anything happened you had seconds to react, a whole bunch of phones started ringing at once,
everybody screaming in their intercom,
you had to figure out where it went wrong, who then to contact, explain to very freaked out producers
what was happening and what you were doing about it, find an alternative solution if it existed,
write a report, and in the evening when most happened we ran that head control room in shifts, you were alone.

How I ever got there? I dunno, was a fun time.
Seems they though I was reliable enough, but.. ?
My view was at that time, well I get payed for it, only fair to do the job right,
You have to go beyond your political views and biases too,
some others were not and contemplated at some point to switch some ultra right politicians to black.
I always protested against that. Was not very political involved anyways, video was more fun.
One phone was a direct line from the government, when that rang...
funny thing was that number once belonged to what was it, a butcher I think
and that red (yes) phone would ring and somebody wanted to order some meat,,,
Whole protocols in case something happened were stored in a safe, wars, queen dying, etc, combine the 3 channels;
instruct the program makers, activate protocols.
Now back to typing in Usenet.
Apollo was nice, it got everybody together, and what went wrong on the moon or on the way there: could not do much about that anyways.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 07:29:39 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Whole protocols in case something happened were stored in a safe, wars,
queen dying, etc, combine the 3 channels;
instruct the program makers, activate protocols.
Now back to typing in Usenet.
Apollo was nice, it got everybody together, and what went wrong on the
moon or on the way there: could not do much about that anyways.

One of the triggers for Britain to activate all its submarine launched
nuclear missiles was the absence of the BBC's Today radio programme on
Radio 4 long wave for 3 days. The radio engineers who worked at the
broadcast end always wondered why they were given so many back up
generators and whatnot to ensure even if the national grid went down,
there were 2 spare 1MW generators on site kept fully serviced and tested
monthly so even if the grid went down and genny 1 failed, genny 2 could
step in. Presumably if genny 2 failed as well, they'd have 3 days to
arrange for the hire of *another* spare one and if they couldn't do that
in 3 days then it was clear the country was toast anyway.

Russia has a similar system that will activate its doomsday autonomous
underwater drones that will make their way to their targets in the
absence of a regular confirmatory signal that all is well. I think they
had to bring these drones into service after Dubya announced they'd
abandoned the 'no first use' doctrine for the US's nuclear weapons.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, July 20, 2019 at 9:46:27 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 07:29:39 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Whole protocols in case something happened were stored in a safe, wars,
queen dying, etc, combine the 3 channels;
instruct the program makers, activate protocols.
Now back to typing in Usenet.
Apollo was nice, it got everybody together, and what went wrong on the
moon or on the way there: could not do much about that anyways.

One of the triggers for Britain to activate all its submarine launched
nuclear missiles was the absence of the BBC's Today radio programme on
Radio 4 long wave for 3 days. The radio engineers who worked at the
broadcast end always wondered why they were given so many back up
generators and whatnot to ensure even if the national grid went down,
there were 2 spare 1MW generators on site kept fully serviced and tested
monthly so even if the grid went down and genny 1 failed, genny 2 could
step in. Presumably if genny 2 failed as well, they'd have 3 days to
arrange for the hire of *another* spare one and if they couldn't do that
in 3 days then it was clear the country was toast anyway.

Russia has a similar system that will activate its doomsday autonomous
underwater drones that will make their way to their targets in the
absence of a regular confirmatory signal that all is well. I think they
had to bring these drones into service after Dubya announced they'd
abandoned the 'no first use' doctrine for the US's nuclear weapons.

Sounds dubious. How would a submarine receive TV broadcasts? If they stuck their heads up enough to receive a TV signal they would be detected each day and the entire purpose of using submarines would be lost.

If they used the same type of very low frequency broadcasts everyone else uses to command their subs someone on the ground would have to relay the message and those people would have knowledge of the situation and so no need to watch for a TV show.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Piotr Wyderski]

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

Apparently the reason for this single design this was financing, i.e.
you had to spread federal money to all states and constituencies to
get support from all senators and Congress representatives.

Same with the Airbus planes:

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/how-is-an-aircraft-built/transport-of-major-aircraft-sections.html

There are many heavy transport programmes aired at Discovery, etc.
"How do we transport wingd from the UK to France?" They give no
answer to why would anyone in their right mind do that in the first
place. But this arrangement apparently makes the socialists happy.

Best regards, Piotr

 

[Martin Brown]

On 20/07/2019 18:12, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, July 20, 2019 at 9:46:27 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 07:29:39 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Whole protocols in case something happened were stored in a safe,
wars, queen dying, etc, combine the 3 channels; instruct the
program makers, activate protocols. Now back to typing in
Usenet. Apollo was nice, it got everybody together, and what went
wrong on the moon or on the way there: could not do much about
that anyways.

One of the triggers for Britain to activate all its submarine
launched nuclear missiles was the absence of the BBC's Today radio
programme on Radio 4 long wave for 3 days. The radio engineers who
worked at the

Sounds dubious. How would a submarine receive TV broadcasts? If
they stuck their heads up enough to receive a TV signal they would be
detected each day and the entire purpose of using submarines would be
lost.

Radio 4 long wave is on 200kHz it has quite good penetration into sea
water with a wavelength of 1500m. I think MSF rugby on 60kHz and the
Omega network on even lower frequencies around the 16kHz band could also
be used to communicate slowly with deeply submerged submarines. It all
became a lot easier after SQUIDs became available.

If they used the same type of very low frequency broadcasts everyone
else uses to command their subs someone on the ground would have to
relay the message and those people would have knowledge of the
situation and so no need to watch for a TV show.

It was a radio show on 1500m.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 10:12:03 -0700, Rick C wrote:

Sounds dubious. How would a submarine receive TV broadcasts? If they
stuck their heads up enough to receive a TV signal they would be
detected each day and the entire purpose of using submarines would be
lost.

If they used the same type of very low frequency broadcasts everyone
else uses to command their subs someone on the ground would have to
relay the message and those people would have knowledge of the situation
and so no need to watch for a TV show.

The long-standing Today programme on long wave. It's a *radio* programme
that at that time if not now was on 1500 meters AM.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, July 20, 2019 at 10:12:07 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

> Sounds dubious. How would a submarine receive TV broadcasts? If they stuck their heads up enough to receive a TV signal they would be detected each day and the entire purpose of using submarines would be lost.

They only have to have an antenna on the surface for a short time, once a day.
It wasn't TV broadcasts (short range) but globalshortwave (aka long wave) radio that was the signal.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, July 20, 2019 at 9:21:40 PM UTC+2, Piotr Wyderski wrote:

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

Apparently the reason for this single design this was financing, i.e.
you had to spread federal money to all states and constituencies to
get support from all senators and Congress representatives.

Same with the Airbus planes:

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/how-is-an-aircraft-built/transport-of-major-aircraft-sections.html

There are many heavy transport programmes aired at Discovery, etc.
"How do we transport wingd from the UK to France?" They give no
answer to why would anyone in their right mind do that in the first
place. But this arrangement apparently makes the socialists happy.

Nothing socialist about it. The theory was that anybody who was going to compete with Boeing had to be big, and the way to get a big European competitor was to amalgamate the biggest surviving French, British and German aerospace companies.

The British-French Concorde project had shown it could work.

The Soviet Union might have started off with the idea that it would have only one aerospace business, but capitalist Europe had got to the same situation driven by economies of scale.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, July 20, 2019 at 9:48:06 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Saturday, July 20, 2019 at 10:12:07 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

Sounds dubious. How would a submarine receive TV broadcasts? If they stuck their heads up enough to receive a TV signal they would be detected each day and the entire purpose of using submarines would be lost.

They only have to have an antenna on the surface for a short time, once a day.
It wasn't TV broadcasts (short range) but globalshortwave (aka long wave) radio that was the signal.

Nuclear missile subs don't surface... at all. Not until they return to home port. Shortwave is even worse than TV. They would need a long antenna. Funny the term "short" wave was coined a long time ago when 30 MHz was pretty high frequency. There is literally no way they would surface long enough to erect a long wire antenna and receive the signal. Any exposure at all puts them at risk of being tracked and taken out before a war was started..

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 23:03:34 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, July 20, 2019 at 9:48:06 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, July 20, 2019 at 10:12:07 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

Sounds dubious. How would a submarine receive TV broadcasts? If they stuck their heads up enough to receive a TV signal they would be detected each day and the entire purpose of using submarines would be lost.

They only have to have an antenna on the surface for a short time, once a day.
It wasn't TV broadcasts (short range) but globalshortwave (aka long wave) radio that was the signal.

Nuclear missile subs don't surface... at all. Not until they return to home port. Shortwave is even worse than TV. They would need a long antenna. Funny the term "short" wave was coined a long time ago when 30 MHz was pretty high frequency. There is literally no way they would surface long enough to erect a long wire antenna and receive the signal. Any exposure at all puts them at risk of being tracked and taken out before a war was started.

ELF (3 to 30 Hz) signals propagate somewhat through deep salt water.
Send a "come closer to surface" command at a very slow data rate, say
1 bit/minute. This command might be a dozen or two (with
authentication) bits long.

The submarine comes closer to surface, puts out a long wire
(kilometers) with a float at the far end. This is then used to receive
the actual command at ULF/VLF (300 Hz to 30 kHz) at a much higher data
rate. The float should ideally remain 10 m below the surface to avoid
detection by ordinary microwave airborne radar.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 18/7/19 6:33 pm, gregz wrote:

Michael Terrell <terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 11:32:44 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/14/2019 8:59 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
As we approach the 50th anniversary of the 'first manned moon landing' as
it were, I'm just wondering what proportion of the group believe the
whole thing was just an elaborate hoax for whatever reason?
The question is just to stupid to entertain.
But I have to ad, this morning I saw the seamstresses from Platex even
got in on the hoax of sewing moon suits together.
I was about 14 then and my mom let me stay up late to watch it.
I remember how crummy the video was.

The video was slow scan, due to the transmit power requirements. Higher
bandwidth required more power than was available. It was also heavier
than they could take on the mission. You can only get so much gain from the antennas.

Slow scan allowed the video to be transmitted on an audio channel. Once
it was received on earth, it was scan converted, to let the public see
it. It was crappy video, or nothing.

Amateur radio operators still use Slow Scan video on the HF and VHF bands.

It's been decades, but I think it was eight seconds per frame for Amateur
radio, to fit into a 5KHz audio channel. One commercial product was 'Robot'?

Some use NTSC video at higher frequencies. Some old CATV modulators are
on the proper bands, and are used with an amplifier for ATV.

It was my impression video was transmitted as PCM digital data,

Incorrect. I wrote down many of the facts, direct from the Honeysuckle
engineers involved at the time, with whom I shared lunch just yesterday.
I have email addresses and phone numbers, and a promise from at least
one of them to scan and send the original documentation after their
return home. Bernard Smith was most helpful (he has amazing recall of
the details!), and Keith Brockelsby helped.

There was one S-band uplink (IIRC 2282.5MHz) modulated with:
* a 30KHz FM audio subcarrier
* a 70KHz biphase modulated command (data) channel,
* direct carrier phase modulation from the ranging PRNG
* Doppler from the relative velocity

The spacecraft receiver demodulated the ranging signal and directly
applied it to the transmit carrier. I have not been able to find out
whether that signal was squared-up (adding phase noise) before
re-transmitting. Ranging data was used to calibrate and separate the
Doppler vs oscillator drift.

There were two S-band downlink signals, one for TV, the other with a
1.024KHz telemetry signal and a 1.125MHz audio carrier. The telemetry
downlink was frequency-synthesised from the uplink frequency, using
analog phase locking. A ratio of 240/221 was mentioned and I think this
was the ratio, TBC.

The ranging PRNG had a bit rate of 992Kbps, sequence length about 5.5M,
for a 5.5 second repeat interval. It was composed of either a short code
or a long code, each produced from shift-register feedback generators of
various lengths. The short codes were 11,15,31,63 bits, and the long
codes were 11,31,63,127 bits. Ranging consisted of sending these in turn
and correlating each one (receiver had a delayed copy of the PRNGs). The
best correlation yielded a "Chinese number" (c.f. Chinese remainder
theorem) that was added in to start correlation using the next longer
sequence.

This was capable of range accuracy around 20cm at lunar distance, a
spectacular achievement at the time.

The ranging data was used for trajectory estimation (by variation from
the calculated path), because the earth baseline wasn't long enough for
accurate triangulation.

More details as I get them.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 18/7/19 10:28 pm, Martin Brown wrote:

On 18/07/2019 12:17, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
I can't believe anyone is still on about this. I have analysed the
situation and the bottom line is that because the world was watching
to fake it they would have had to spend more money than to actually
do it. Kids had telescopes back then, and that includes in Russia.
They would have loved to expose any possibility of deception during
the cold war.

There are still no optical telescopes on Earth that can resolve the
lunar landing sites or spot an orbiter against the moons glare.

The final crash site of the discarded Apollo 11 LEM is still unknown,
despite years of high-resolution mapping. Strange, because the
footprints are clearly visible.

The most powerful piece of evidence they have is debunked. It is not
disproven but it is proven not to be proven. This is the waving of
the flag when there is supposedly no atmosphere.

It was supported by a rigid rod along the top. Clearly visible in this
picture. ISTR the flag initially very crumpled slowly straightened out.
Basically as the fabric adjusted to being unfurled.

Not a rigid rod. It was a curved tape, exactly like that used in a tape
measure. The flag was touched several times, and it waved until the
fabric's own friction slowed it - the decay rate clearly shows the lack
of aerodynamic drag

Clifford Heath.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

mandag den 22. juli 2019 kl. 02.23.21 UTC+2 skrev Clifford Heath:

On 18/7/19 6:33 pm, gregz wrote:
Michael Terrell <terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 11:32:44 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/14/2019 8:59 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
As we approach the 50th anniversary of the 'first manned moon landing' as
it were, I'm just wondering what proportion of the group believe the
whole thing was just an elaborate hoax for whatever reason?
The question is just to stupid to entertain.
But I have to ad, this morning I saw the seamstresses from Platex even
got in on the hoax of sewing moon suits together.
I was about 14 then and my mom let me stay up late to watch it.
I remember how crummy the video was.

The video was slow scan, due to the transmit power requirements. Higher
bandwidth required more power than was available. It was also heavier
than they could take on the mission. You can only get so much gain from the antennas.

Slow scan allowed the video to be transmitted on an audio channel. Once
it was received on earth, it was scan converted, to let the public see
it. It was crappy video, or nothing.

Amateur radio operators still use Slow Scan video on the HF and VHF bands.

It's been decades, but I think it was eight seconds per frame for Amateur
radio, to fit into a 5KHz audio channel. One commercial product was 'Robot'?

Some use NTSC video at higher frequencies. Some old CATV modulators are
on the proper bands, and are used with an amplifier for ATV.

It was my impression video was transmitted as PCM digital data,

Incorrect. I wrote down many of the facts, direct from the Honeysuckle
engineers involved at the time, with whom I shared lunch just yesterday.
I have email addresses and phone numbers, and a promise from at least
one of them to scan and send the original documentation after their
return home. Bernard Smith was most helpful (he has amazing recall of
the details!), and Keith Brockelsby helped.

There was one S-band uplink (IIRC 2282.5MHz) modulated with:
* a 30KHz FM audio subcarrier
* a 70KHz biphase modulated command (data) channel,
* direct carrier phase modulation from the ranging PRNG
* Doppler from the relative velocity

The spacecraft receiver demodulated the ranging signal and directly
applied it to the transmit carrier. I have not been able to find out
whether that signal was squared-up (adding phase noise) before
re-transmitting. Ranging data was used to calibrate and separate the
Doppler vs oscillator drift.

There were two S-band downlink signals, one for TV, the other with a
1.024KHz telemetry signal and a 1.125MHz audio carrier. The telemetry
downlink was frequency-synthesised from the uplink frequency, using
analog phase locking. A ratio of 240/221 was mentioned and I think this
was the ratio, TBC.

The ranging PRNG had a bit rate of 992Kbps, sequence length about 5.5M,
for a 5.5 second repeat interval. It was composed of either a short code
or a long code, each produced from shift-register feedback generators of
various lengths. The short codes were 11,15,31,63 bits, and the long
codes were 11,31,63,127 bits. Ranging consisted of sending these in turn
and correlating each one (receiver had a delayed copy of the PRNGs). The
best correlation yielded a "Chinese number" (c.f. Chinese remainder
theorem) that was added in to start correlation using the next longer
sequence.

This was capable of range accuracy around 20cm at lunar distance, a
spectacular achievement at the time.

The ranging data was used for trajectory estimation (by variation from
the calculated path), because the earth baseline wasn't long enough for
accurate triangulation.

More details as I get them.

Clifford Heath.

https://youtu.be/2yW3GW_6LBM

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 18/7/19 6:33 pm, gregz wrote:

Michael Terrell <terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 11:32:44 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/14/2019 8:59 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
As we approach the 50th anniversary of the 'first manned moon landing' as
it were, I'm just wondering what proportion of the group believe the
whole thing was just an elaborate hoax for whatever reason?
The question is just to stupid to entertain.
But I have to ad, this morning I saw the seamstresses from Platex even
got in on the hoax of sewing moon suits together.
I was about 14 then and my mom let me stay up late to watch it.
I remember how crummy the video was.

The video was slow scan, due to the transmit power requirements. Higher
bandwidth required more power than was available. It was also heavier
than they could take on the mission. You can only get so much gain from the antennas.

Slow scan allowed the video to be transmitted on an audio channel. Once
it was received on earth, it was scan converted, to let the public see
it. It was crappy video, or nothing.

Amateur radio operators still use Slow Scan video on the HF and VHF bands.

It's been decades, but I think it was eight seconds per frame for Amateur
radio, to fit into a 5KHz audio channel. One commercial product was 'Robot'?

Some use NTSC video at higher frequencies. Some old CATV modulators are
on the proper bands, and are used with an amplifier for ATV.

It was my impression video was transmitted as PCM digital data,

Incorrect. I wrote down many of the facts, direct from the Honeysuckle
engineers involved at the time, with whom I shared lunch just yesterday.
I have email addresses and phone numbers, and a promise from at least
one of them to scan and send the original documentation after their
return home. Bernard Smith was most helpful (he has amazing recall of
the details!), and Keith Brockelsby helped.

There was one S-band uplink (IIRC 2282.5MHz) modulated with:
* a 30KHz FM audio subcarrier
* a 70KHz biphase modulated command (data) channel,
* direct carrier phase modulation from the ranging PRNG
* Doppler from the relative velocity

The spacecraft receiver demodulated the ranging signal and directly
applied it to the transmit carrier. I have not been able to find out
whether that signal was squared-up (adding phase noise) before
re-transmitting. Ranging data was used to calibrate and separate the
Doppler vs oscillator drift.

There were two S-band downlink signals, one for TV, the other with a
1.024KHz telemetry signal and a 1.125MHz audio carrier. The telemetry
downlink was frequency-synthesised from the uplink frequency, using
analog phase locking. A ratio of 240/221 was mentioned and I think this
was the ratio, TBC.

The ranging PRNG had a bit rate of 992Kbps, sequence length about 5.5M,
for a 5.5 second repeat interval. It was composed of either a short code
or a long code, each produced from shift-register feedback generators of
various lengths. The short codes were 11,15,31,63 bits, and the long
codes were 11,31,63,127 bits. Ranging consisted of sending these in turn
and correlating each one (receiver had a delayed copy of the PRNGs). The
best correlation yielded a "Chinese number" (c.f. Chinese remainder
theorem) that was added in to start correlation using the next longer
sequence.

This was capable of range accuracy around 20cm at lunar distance, a
spectacular achievement at the time.

The ranging data was used for trajectory estimation (by variation from
the calculated path), because the earth baseline wasn't long enough for
accurate triangulation.

More details as I get them.

Clifford Heath.

 

Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> wrote in news:sy7ZE.40412$472.6431
@fx12.iad:

The final crash site of the discarded Apollo 11 LEM is still unknown,
despite years of high-resolution mapping. Strange, because the
footprints are clearly visible.

Huh? Crash site?

No. They LANDED the ENTIRE LEM. They launched leaving behind the
LEM base. All of the Apolla landing sites are known. Nothing is
missing. Nothing was 'discarded'. All of our gear still up on the
Moon is still all our gear. We discarded nor relenquished ownership of
none of it.