Re: [EVGRAY] FLYING IN SPACE WITH A REAL FLY ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE STATION!!!

Body

Hi Mick

"Yes because the Russians did not have Walt Disney and Stanley Kubrick to makes sure everything appeared to work."
According to the documentary on the Russian space program they failed going to the Moon because their visionary chief engineer died and the one taking over wasn't up the the skills. Besides they didn't have enough funds for the task. Instead they learned how to live in space with their space station until it was hit by a rocket bringing supplies. The supply rocket was guided like some kind of computer game without knowing the distance as the USSR was split up and the Ukrainian company delivering the automated guidance system became too expensive for the space program.

"Please show me the math how 20 watts of energy had enough to overcome the free space path loss. The radio telescope was 26 meters at 5ghz I think it was, this provides a 60 db gain advantage as far as my math goes.  Can you show me in RF engineering math how this would work with the FSPL of over 250 thousand miles?"
I don't know the math for that without having to spend a lot of time researching. Sorry I don't want to spend time on that. Several sources mention that the communication was on the S-band (2-4GHz). Actually it was the lower end of that band.

On the camera and scan technology used back then:
"For Apollo 11, an RCA scan-converter was used, which operated on an optical conversion principle. The pictures were displayed on a 10-inch black-and-white monitor and a Vidicon TK22 camera was pointed at the screen. As each frame of the 10 frames per second picture was received, it was displayed on the monitor. The camera was gated to scan a single field at the EIA (NTSC) rate of 1/60th of a second, that is it did not take a picture until the 10-inch monitor had completed displaying a full frame. The output of the camera was transmitted and simultaneously recorded on magnetic disc. The disc recording was then played back a further five times and transmitted. While the disc recorder was playing back, the monitor screen was blacked out and the next frame started displaying. The monitor had enough persistence that it retained the picture, and RCA built special circuits to adjust for any loss of brightness between the top and bottom of the picture. In this way, a 30 frames per second (60 interlaced fields per second) TV was produced - with only one in six fields being live. "
Source: http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/tv_from_moon.html. http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/tv_from_moon.html

The video does look like it is being scanned quit slow with all the overlays seen when the astronaut is jumping. The same part of his helmet is scanned at different places when moving downwards. He moves faster than the lines are scanned. Thus the same moving parts are scanned at different places before the next frame is scanned..

"The fact no one seems to jump higher than a foot and a half is a dead give away."
But how do we know that they couldn't have jumped much higher? The hight they jump seems to be done without much effort. Were they asked to jump as high as they could? He should probably bend much more down before jumping if he wanted to jump higher.

Regards
Ole
 

---In [email protected], <mkjekyll@...> wrote :

 Ole,
 Yes because the Russians did not have Walt Disney and Stanley Kubrick to makes sure everything appeared to work.

 Please show me the math how 20 watts of energy had enough to overcome the free space path loss. The radio telescope was 26 meters at 5ghz I think it was, this provides a 60 db gain advantage as far as my math goes.  Can you show me in RF engineering math how this would work with the FSPL of over 250 thousand miles?
 I guess this guy did not need a radio dish to hear the moon transmissions:
 http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11 http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11

 The cameras on the moon were allegedly 10 FPS slow scan.
 https://www.popsci.com/how-nasa-broadcast-neil-armstrong-live-from-moon#page-2 https://www.popsci.com/how-nasa-broadcast-neil-armstrong-live-from-moon#page-2
 https://www.wired.com/2007/01/nasa/ https://www.wired.com/2007/01/nasa/
 watch him walking backwards, one can see the extra frames beyond 30 FPS this is supposed to be slow scan ten frame I say no way!  At 1/6 gravity men in the best training condition of their lives should have weighed 60 lbs with the suits on which should allow for 4 foot jumps easy.  The fact no one seems to jump higher than a foot and a half is a dead give away.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4

 
 On 6/3/2018 6:09 PM, onielsen@... mailto:onielsen@... [EVGRAY] wrote:

   Hi Mick;
 
 The 10kW was from the Earth transmitter. The 20W was from the transmitter on the Moon. On Earth two radio telescopes were used to pick up the weak signal.
 
 According to the Wikipedia article (https://wiki2.org/en/Apollo_TV_camera https://wiki2.org/en/Apollo_TV_camera) 30fps color cameras were used on every mission starting with Apollo 10. The first manned mission to land on the Moon was the Apollo 11. Thus this must have been shot with a 30fps color camera.
 
 "Somehow six missions to the moon and back and every mission suceeded and everyone lived, just the unlikelyhood of that is staggering even if one rocket had more stages and the fuel necesary."
 There was also a mission where the crew almost died without even landing on the Moon. It went even worse for the Soviet space program. All of their Moon rockets failed. Number two of their moon rockets crashed at the launch site and made one of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions in human history https://wiki2.org/en/N1_(rocket). https://wiki2.org/en/N1_%28rocket%29
 
 Regards
 Ole

 
 
 ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], <mkjekyll@...> mailto:mkjekyll@... wrote :
 
 Ole, 

 I know they alledge to use the moon as a reflector in EME but is it proven they are getting moon bounce or something else, is there an approx 6 second delay?  If so how is the moon bounce overcoming the free space path loss?
 

 Calculating with an 18 db gain antenna and 60 db reciver path loss is at about 160db for 250k miles so would require some serious wattage for a gain of 160 more than 10kw.  Even at 10kw how long could the batteries sustain that along with air conditioning at 250 degrees all day and heating for the freezing nights.
 

 But back to the analog video, this I know like the back of my hand.  I can tell you from personal experience when slowing down to 10 frames per second with a time base corrected analog setup that can record and playback with variable speed sync it looks like stop action very jerky.
 

 Looking at the video it is shot at a higher frame rate than normal to make it look slowed down, opposite of slow scan.  The astronots are galloping sideways to make their gate look different.  
 

 Somehow six missions to the moon and back and every mission suceeded and everyone lived, just the unlikelyhood of that is staggering even if one rocket had more stages and the fuel necesary.