It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can NASA Really Send A Radio Or TV Signal From The Moon ?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
But if the dish was on the "Earth" side you would ALWAYS have a line of sight with some part of earth.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying Amuk.




posted on Apr, 4 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard

Originally posted by Amuk
But if the dish was on the "Earth" side you would ALWAYS have a line of sight with some part of earth.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying Amuk.



One side of the moon ALWAYS faces the earth, right?

If the dish is on that side it would always have LOS with some part of earth the part will change as the earth spins but there will always be some place in line



posted on Apr, 4 2004 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
If the dish is on that side it would always have LOS with some part of earth the part will change as the earth spins but there will always be some place in line


Why do we only see one side of the Moon?

Because the Moon and Earth are locked gravitationally into a synchronous rotation/revolution pattern. This means that from our viewpoint, the same face of the moon is always rotated to face us as the moon goes around the earth every month.




[Edited on 4-4-2004 by kinglizard because of my own idiocy.]



[Edited on 4-4-2004 by kinglizard]



posted on Apr, 4 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
what I said was that you cannot maintain a Line of sight signal with the moon because the earth rotates and the base station located on the earth will not always face the moon. I posted the other info because I was asked "what are my credentials" so I posted info that only a true satellite tech would know, info that can be verified. there is no one anywhere that can refute my info (as pertaining to my expertise) for it is 100% accurate and there are only a few that possess this knowledge .



posted on Apr, 4 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
you cannot maintain a Line of sight signal with the moon because the earth rotates and the base station located on the earth will not always face the moon.


Let me tell you why you're wrong.

Can you tell me how a signal can be sent to the other side of the Earth using satellites? If you answer this question you will have my answer.



As long as one satellite or base station has line of sight the signal can be sent.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by kinglizard]


jra

posted on Apr, 4 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   


you cannot maintain a Line of sight signal with the moon because the earth rotates and the base station located on the earth will not always face the moon.


But that's why you send a signal through satillites to the other side of the Earth to a transmitter that will then send it to the moon. They do this with the new Mars rovers from what i've heard. Why is this hard to figure out?

I'm defiantely not an expert on this subject, but i don't understand why you think we can't send signals to the Moon. You ignore the proof that people have given saying that we can send signals. You should try to come up with more proof for your side of the argument. Saying "I'm an expert and you are not" doesn't help much either, it makes you look childish.

You started this thread asking a question. People replied and answered, giving you there opinions. You ignore them and treat all there info as false while you claim you are 100% correct, so why did you ask the question if you already know all there is to know on this subject since you "pioneered" satillite tv or whatever...

Give us some more explinations as to why you think radio signals can't make it to the Moon. Show us some proof please. We would actually listen to you if you said something with some substance to back it up. We are open minded people here at ats. That's why we're here, but we don't accept every new theory as fact without proof. It would be foolish otherwise.



posted on Apr, 4 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
Take a look at the rover and tell me what component is used to send radio signals ? If there is something beyond satellite technology that they are using, what is it and how come no one has ever heard of it. The fact is that satellites are used around the world to send most signals are themselves proof of the limitations of radio and television transmissions.


The rover can use satellites orbiting Mars to send it's signals back to Earth. But it's not the only option.

The Article


To communicate directly with Earth, the rover has to use its low-gain or high-gain antennas, and the Earth has to be in view. It also can cue up its information and transmit it to the satellites when they pass overhead.

NASA takes advantage of about four satellite passes a day to receive data, two by Surveyor and two by Odyssey. Although the mission team usually sends commands directly to the rover, it also can do so through Odyssey.



[Edited on 4-4-2004 by kinglizard]



posted on Apr, 4 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I have watched this thread in utter disbelief and amusement, so enough of this...

NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory: Deep Space Network

For the past 40 years NASA has had in place 3 ground stations that communicate with all of it's deep space probes, as well as it's moon and planetary exploration efforts.

These 3 ground stations are placed at approximately 120 degree intervals around the globe so that at any one given time one of the ground stations will have a "line of sight" communication link established with the space asset in question.

The locations of the three facilities are 1.) Goldstone, California 2.) Canberra, Australia 3.) Madrid, Spain.

This strategic placement permits constant observation of spacecraft as the Earth rotates, and helps to make the DSN the largest and most sensitive scientific telecommunications system in the world.

The DSN has become a testbed for many new technologies and in so doing has become a world leader in the development of low-noise receivers, tracking, telemetry and command systems, digital signal processing, and deep space navigation.

This is how communication links were managed with the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Space Shuttle missions and it is how we communicate with our deep space probes as well.

Can the signal reach to and from the moon? Of course it can, if you had a 70 meter dish like they do at their 3 locations you could hear the faint whisper from some low watt satellite or moon shot transmission too.

They do it hundreds of times a day. In fact the dishes are so busy that NASA is considering going to laser comm links that would send bursts of data on a beam of light...

but I digress...

If you continue to have problems understanding this I suggest doing a search on the web for the Deep Space Network...



[Edited on 4-4-2004 by intelgurl]



posted on Apr, 4 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Intelgurl, that was just beautiful!


[Edited by Intelgurl's request]

[Edited on 5-4-2004 by Mo0se]



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
I have watched this thread in utter disbelief and amusement, so enough of this...


I, too have been absolutely LMFAO watching this pitiful display of utterly UNDESERVED arrogance.

I beleive one of two things is going on here...

Either we have an "Old School" satellite technician that has TRULY not learned anything since 1979 OR we have a kid who is hopelessly in over his head.

I think the former holds more water than the latter. I think our dear LOSTdayprophet is a an older guy who got into working with satellites in the early days (I just had a BIG dish [8 footer]! ripped from the ground at me and Val's house in Oklahoma) and fell into the "moonshot was faked" club hool, line and sinker.

Upon beleiving the moon shot was faked he applied his VERY LIMITED knowledge of 20+ year old obsolete technology and figured he had it all worked out.

The part that confuses me still is the fcat he didn't even have a clue about the DSN in Ca., Au. and Sp.

Heck I learned about that set up in the 4th grade (1973). I just can't imagine a "PIONEER" of the Satellite industry NOT knowing about one of the BEST and BRIGHTEST uses of the "early day" systems...

Very perplexing indeed!


PEACE...
m...



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Damn you intelgurl!

I was salivating at the thought of jumping in after these 5 crazy pages and just posting:

DEEP SPACE NETWORK BITCHEZ!

But you beat me to it


However DSN was not around for the Moon landings, at least not in its current form. The Aus downlink then was at a place called Parkes (Parks?) in New South Wales. Theres a good movie about the Aus side of those missions called The Dish. Pretty damn funny movie too.


Naturally communications between the downlink stations can occur via standard comms satellites orbiting the earth. But I dont think any deep space mission would communicate back to Earth via low-earth orbit comsats. No point when we can have dishes on the ground here that are a few hundred times more massive.

The moon was easy because one side always faces us. Mars is trickier because it rotates, thats why some of the current Mars Rovers comms come via the MGS or other orbiters. Primarily its surface-surface though.

[Edited on 5-4-2004 by Kano]



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Lastday Prophet, I'd like to thank you for doing better and answering my question about your credentials, I don't question that you are an expert on the technology that you worked with. The problem here is technology for earth based TV today or in the 70's is not quite the same as that used for spacecraft communications. While you may be an expert in the area you worked in, so far you've only proved that it's is a thin veneer of communication technology as a whole.

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
The satellites rotate with the earth and thus is why the need to transmit the signals via satellite.
Again, the satellites rotate with the earth , not the moon so you cannot align the uplink or downlink with the dish.
This is one area that you're mistaken in your belief. While it's true GEO Sats A geostationary (GEO=geosynchronous) orbit is one in which the satellite is always in the same position with respect to the rotating Earth. (cut from
here
Those are the kind used for commercial television that you worked with, but they are not the only kind that exist. There are Polar orbits as well as Inclined orbits that do not stay in the same position. The explanation of those orbits can be found at the same location referenced above.here. This should be a little clue that you need to update your expertise.

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet There is your info, I challenge anyone to find that it is not accurate.

Your the one with the new idea that is contrary to the accepted beliefs of most of this community and you started this thread, thus it is up to you to prove that what we know is a lie as you say.

My second response pointed you to the Deep Space Network , because I thought it might answer some questions you had. I do have an open mind otherwise I wouldnt of read what you said up to this point. Ive even done a couple hours research & typing.

You're quitting this thread, because you clearly have no evidence to back up your idea and you just keep regurgitating the same old I know because Im the one who knows. While that might work for those that know you in your home town or local bar that doesn't cut it here.

[Edited on 5-4-2004 by outsider]



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
...Why the hostilities ?


Hi LDP!

What you're experiencing here, I think, isn't "hostility" as such, but rather a sense of frustration from your peers on ATS?


Many people have attempted to challenge your original assertion that NASA can't, in your view, receive a radio signal from the Moon (apologies for the paraphrasing but hope that matches what you were stating?)

Evidence has been demonstrated by your peers that radio signals can indeed be transmitted to the Moon and received back, "simply" by "bouncing" them off of the Moon passively ie with no further amplification by a repeater being present on the Moon ie Moonbounce. Although I have never done this (I am a licenced G4 amateur radio licensee since the 1980's) I know of people that have. Beleive me, the equipment they use isn't "cheap" (if you cared to look at the photograph of the antenna farm I previously submitted you will see this is true) and, if it *didn't* work - and work well - then surely they (the amateurs who use Moonbounce) wouldn't invest so much money into it? Please remember we are NOT talking about "NASA" here but "amateurs": and if these amateurs can do it with their limited resources (relatively, because of the expense) then please accept that NASA most certainly could?

People are also frustrated by your lack of understanding of "known" concepts about the orbits of the Moon around the Earth, the Earth around the Sun, etc. And, when these facts are presented to you, you appear either not to accept them or totally ignore them. This leads to frustration on everybody's behalf - perhaps it causes you frustration too LDP?


ATS is all about trying to establish some "truth" and "Denying ignorance" LDP. Some cases are extremely difficult to prove, course, but acknowledged facts, such as the orbits of the planets, the existence of the Deep Space Network, the properties of radio waves and other attributes of the electro-magnetic spectrum, should, by now, be fairly well established with the Boards members - but, if someone has erroneous ideas about these, then you'll find that people, by and large, will try to explain these mistaken ideas, so as to increase understanding (so that effort can be put into areas of research that aren't so clear cut).

When such advice and guidance is given - and apparently ignored or overlooked - then frustration is the likely outcome LDP.

So, whilst "hostility" might seem to be what you've experienced, my personal belief is that you've met with frustration at your inability to modify your opinion - that radio can't be rec'd from the Moon - despite overwhelming evidence that it can.

Just my 0.02...



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Firstly let us clear up one point. We are talking about two different signals here, Satellites which use MicroWaves and are said to be in orbit at 23,000 miles above the earth ( I personally believe the orbit to be much lower but will not argue the point) A basic system would consist of a uplink satellite dish typically 30 ft. or larger for C-Band transmissions and a downlink dish which can be as small as 6 ft. for C-Band. Satellites beam the signal to the earth in a patern called a footprint, which covers a specific area. Inclined orbit satellites are like all other satellites with the exception that they travel in a figure eight pattern within the Clark Ark and require a actuator for azmuth and one for elevation to keep alignment with the satellite as it travels. The size of the dish necessary to send or receive a signal is based opon where the signal originates, where it is being relayed to, and the wattage of the "Bird" I gave the facts of what it takes to send a signal from Russia to the USA , you need a 50 ft. satellite dish in russia as your uplink and a 50 ft. dish in the USA as your downlink. the satellite you would be using is AMOS 1, located at 4 degrees west, a common channel used to find this Bird is ORT International transponder 10. It is circular polarization and PAL formatted. Then we have RF, which covers AM, FM, Citizens Band, shortwave and other waves, RF is based upon similar principles, the origin of the signal, the wattage of the transmitter and power of the reciever. I do not believe that you can send a RF signal directly from the earth to the moon and what proves this fact to be true is the above post. It clearly shows and verifies that NASA is using Satellites to transmit the signals, if these signals could be transmitted RF, why do you need a satellite dish to uplink them ? This brings us back to satellites as the system used to send these signals. They say the satellites orbit at 23,000 miles above the earth, again I doubt this and one of the reasons is that in the earlier days we used a tool for sighting satellites called satfinder, with this tool you could look up into the sky and actually see the satellites. It was like a mini telescope, about the size of a standard camping compass and had a inclinometer and compass built in. I seriously doubt if this tool had the capability to magnify a object that was 23,000 miles away, but again will not argue that point. I explained what was necessary to send a signal from the Russia to the USA, a 50 ft. uplink and a 50 ft. downlink (you could use a slightly smaller dish for the downlink but some transponders will have noise and sparkles). If you do the math, 250,000 mi.(the distance to the moon) divided by 23,000 miles(the distance of the uplink to the satellite) you come up with a figure 10.86, which we will round off to 11. That means you will need a dish 11 times larger than the one used to send the signal from Russia to the USA, for the moon is 11 times further away from the earth than the satellites. Understand ? This means you will need a dish 500 ft. on the moon as your uplink (remember you need a uplink and a downlink for satellite transmissions) and a dish 550 ft. on the earth to use as your downlink. ( the difference in these figures is because I subtracted 23,000 miles on the uplink for it only has to go to the satellite and not all the way to the earth) There is no dish 500 ft. on the moon and neither is there any dish 550 ft. on the earth. We have confirmed the fact that NASA uses satellites to transmit their signals. So enlighten me, where are these dishs ? I am neither afraid or running from this issue, I just do not like the fact of being called a Liar, Idiot, Unlearned, A child, amongst other terms that have been used. I have given accurate information that can be verified. I am not the one misinformed or deceived. I don't believe everything "THEY" tell us, I have found this world to be full of LIES and DECEPTIONS. I try to "prove" all things. After working in the satellite technology for over 25 years, I am very familar with how it works. Oh by the way, I have worked on dishs like those pictured in IntelGurl's post.

[Edited on 5-4-2004 by Lastday Prophet]

[Edited on 5-4-2004 by Lastday Prophet]



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
Lastday Prophet,

Voyager 1 Now Most Distant Human-Made Object in Space, Voyager 1, launched more than two decades ago, will cruise beyond the Pioneer 10 spacecraft and become the most distant human-created object in space, at 6.5 billion miles (10.4 billion kilometers) from Earth.

We are still receiving signals and scientific data from this satellite. The dish on the satellite hasnt grown according to its distance from the Earth. It has remained the same size and yet still works. If your theory was correct the satellite would no longer be able to get its message to earth because of its increased distance from Earth.


Can you please comment on my previous post?



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Your post is not accurate, do the math, there is no way that can be done with current technology. Billion miles, what a joke, you can beleive that if you want but I am not biting.



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet We are talking about two different signals here, Satellites which use Micro-Waves...
(The last time I saw someone spell microwaves that way, they were confused about whether or not their new microwave oven would actually contaminate their hot pocket with harmful radiation... certainly not someone educated on electromagnetic theory.) Man... you really are confused. RF = Radio Frequency... which includes microwave and the rest of the spectrum. What are your credentials? Where did you go to school? (I held an extra class Ham Radio license, the highest level, attended college for physics, and have 3 patents on HF, VHF, and UHF antenna designs) You still have not satisfied questions about your basics... so we must assume (in combination with your lack of basic understanding) you have none. You are arguing against technology that has been working for decades. You may as well argue that the earth is flat or that Solomon built the great pyramid (oh wait, you did that already here: www.abovetopsecret.com...). Your assumptions and calculations of dish size as a function of distance is wrong, laughable, and embarrassing to see in this fine Science & Technology forum. And, just to clarify, one of the reasons geosynchronous satellites are about 22,000 miles away is pretty simple... their footprint ends up being nearly the entire side of the planet facing the satellite. (You can probably find this in some basic middle-school level science text books) Solving one of your "footprint" issues. Now, it's been made clear to you that most of the communications to the moon involved a direct link without satellite involvement. I'm very sorry, but you need this:



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Anybody else notice how many points this guy is racking up? Wonder what he will do with them all?

Must be nice to live in a world where you can bend the laws of physics to suit your theories like this guy.



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Holy sh.. Skeptic. I don't pretend to know anything about this subject, I'm not the science wizard but jeesh! You just destroyed this guy. Don't pull any punches eh? lol

I feel like I'VE been clocked around the head it was such a massacre.



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND Anybody else notice how many points this guy is racking up?
Not to worry, he's very close to experiencing this: Simply because of the irritation factor.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join