This thread has a summary of the operation of the NASA Deep Space Network (DSN): [POST=18517695]”How do they transmit data from deep space to Earth?”[/POST]
The DSN has three sites around the world in California, Spain, and Australia with 70 m parabolic antenna capable of such high gain that they can even receive signals from Voyager 2 which is now beyond the heliopause and has a 22 W transmitter. Communicating at lunar distance is trivial by comparison.
Stranger
Yeah, I actually brought up Voyager because I saw that it communicated from a further distance using less power and with more path loss. Not that I understand all of that but it seemed to refute what he was saying. I don’t recall if he had a response for that. I think, like many points I nailed him on, he just kept supplying more questions and then paid no attention to any of my points. You know how these people are, it’s not about the hundreds of times they were proven wrong, just the one point you didn’t have an answer for.
One thing to keep in mind is that a weak signal means low bandwidth. The signal from Voyager is very low bandwidth.
During the Moon landings, we got live video feed. That requires significantly higher bandwidth.
So bringing up Voyager and such in this context might actually backfire with these bozos.
Tracking an object in Moon orbit isn’t that hard. My college’s Astronomy Dept. set things up with a scope and a TV camera to aim at the specific spot where a CM would cross the terminator. You could see the white dot when the CM was still lit but over the dark section of the Moon. It got broadcast on live TV. I knew people in that department and their equipment. They didn’t have what it takes to fake any of that.
A radio antenna at that distance doesn’t need to be quite so precisely aligned.
On that last point, I read some article but can’t seem to find it which I think said something about the small size of the S-Band antenna actually helping with alignment to Earth. But maybe I’m dreaming that up, it doesn’t seem like it would help but what do I know?
If we can receive radio signals from as far away as distant galaxies, I don’t think a signal from our cosmic “back yard” would be a problem.
Ignorance knows no bounds.
I knew we get those signals but that’s kind of different isn’t it? I don’t think he’s saying a signal couldn’t travel that far, just not be useful for communications.
Ham radio amateurs picked up some of the communications from the Moon, so NASA clearly wouldn’t have any problem.
“But could we do it in 1969?”
Yes, we could.
Why are you pretending it’s someone else “just asking questions”?
I don’t follow. Do you think I’m a hoaxtard trying to fish for information to come up with a hoax theory or something?
I pointed that out to him but I think he was trying to say at one point the telemetry was faked somehow. Like it wasn’t coming from the moon or something. I also pointed him to an article I found about some observatory in the UK that was following both the Apollo 11 and Luna 15 telemetry with their radio telescope. I think that was ignored. This is about a month long conversation and it took some turns where I had to explain Newton to him and quite a few other places before it returned to his Friis theory.
I can’t address the gain equation but this tells me that he’s just yanking your chain. So he wants to argue (in the first part) that rocket thrusters can’t work in space. He’s therefore arguing that not only is the entire space program a hoax, but the direct-to-home satellite TV that he’s actually using can’t exist. How does he think communications satellites get up there? How do they maneuver themselves into precision geostationary orbits at a precise altitude and assigned geostationary slot, and manage to stay there through continuous drift adjustment?
Furthermore, how can one receive their signals as high-bandwidth HD TV when they’re more than 22,000 miles above the equator, and much further than that in total distance from most receivers? Satellite transponders are only around 35 to 150 watts or so in power, yet they can be received with simple inexpensive equipment and a dish that may be no more than 18 inches wide, while NASA’s Deep Space Network has dish antennas 50% wider than a football field with sufficient gain to receive weak signals from robotic craft on or around Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto.
He’s yanking your chain and you’re wasting your time talking to him.
Agree, just about figured out he’s yanking my chain on that, I just couldn’t point to anything to say how.
As for the thruster thing, that appears to be a pretty common hoaxster argument/misunderstanding among some of the dumber ones. I explained to him how it all worked and mentioned satellites to him so we’re past that. We’re also past oxygen toxicity, his misconception that they were carrying hundreds of pounds worth of scuba tanks for oxygen instead of LOX and quite a few other dumb things. I probably will just stop talking to him but he’s kind of fascinating, and kind of funny to watch him because he’s so arrogant about all the things he says as if he’s really studied this stuff when it quickly becomes apparent he’s never even bothered to read a Wikipedia article on the subject. It was only the communications thing I couldn’t really come up with much of a reply for because he does have a ham license and my experience is limited to a G.I. Joe walkie talkie a few decades ago.
As for the other stuff, I didn’t know if pointing to modern probes and the like was very convincing because they might use some other types of technology for all I know. He’s just specifically talking about his numbers and nothing else. And I tried providing him with a bunch of those other examples, like moon bounces, people monitoring the telemetry at the time and so on. But I can’t produce those people, he probably wouldn’t even believe it if I were one of those people.
Anyway like you said I’ll probably just end the discussion, I was never under the impression I was going to “convert” this guy or anything but sometimes arguing with a moron is entertaining and interesting. This guy has some issues, mostly a huge ego.
Ha, ha. The NY Times, in a famous editorial from the 1920s, made fun of Goddard for this very reason.
They retracted it in July of 1969.
OP, I think you may need to read up on the “Gish Gallop”.
Yes, and while this is factually true and can be demonstrated, someone who thinks the moon landing is a hoax won’t be convinced of anything. They think everything is a conspiracy.
A film maker (not the most sparkling speaker around) discusses how the moon landings might have been faked and concludes with the special effects technology available in 1969, it would have been cheaper to go instead.
I wouldn’t even think it would be considered theoretically possible back then but I’m not a SFX expert. Maybe the TV broadcasts but I wouldn’t think they could fake all the 16mm footage and other stuff. Footage shot on the lunar surface and in orbit with the CSM and LM maneuvering around each other. If that was possible nobody back then (except the government I guess, which they would argue) made any movies that looked that good. Even Apollo 13 and From The Earth To The Moon in the 90’s, while having great special effects, you could still tell they were fake. I always laugh a little when I read that Kubrick theory. 2001 was great but it’s not even close.
By the way I’m not having the conversation anymore with this guy so don’t feel the need to answer my question. I’m just discussing something I found of interest. My curiosity was satisfied, I don’t understand radios any better than I did but I’m convinced there was no merit to his numbers. I figured that much after all the stupid crap he’s said but I was kind of hoping to understand where he was wrong. Or I think I was more bothered by the fact that I knew he was wrong but couldn’t explain why, so being so sure of it in spite of my ignorance was kind of like being a hoaxtard only I just happened to be correct instead of insane/stupid.
Aside: The mot prestigious award in science fiction is the Hugos, and they’ve got a category for dramatic presentations (movies and such). In 1969, the winner was the footage of the moon landing.