Body
*Space Industry DSN Technical:
*DSN - Deep Space Network*
*The Space Industry used Masers for the downlinks in all of S/X/and K
Band - X/K receive only (2.3 Ghz/8.4Ghz/24Ghz) and we had two for each
frequency range - always a back up for every single function there were
two units available including equipment in 19" racks in the control rooms.
*They were not curiosities but functional receivers of very weak distant
signals.*
They were situated inside the Cones you see inside the Cassegrain
Antennas and below the resonant chamber of the Beam Waveguide types.
Many times on shift I would take over a cooldown which could take up to
24 hours and the temperature at cold was 269 Kelvin - 4 Kelvin above
absolute and that is what the analogue pump meter on top of the drive
unit was telling you - you do not use degrees when referring to Kelvin
temperature.
I was also fortunate in maintaining the drive pumps as these were
operating the full time the Maser was cooled.
The theory of cold here is in the use of a Joules Thompson Valve -
liquid Nitrogen was used to initially cleanse and evacuate all system
piping with a Kenny Pump and Helium was the final gas used in the Maser
itself.
The system temperature of the Cone windows looking into Space was 26 Kelvin.
Transmitters used were 10kW and later at DSS 43 at 70 meter diameter
upgrade we went to 50 Kw Klystron as did Goldstone and Madrid, Spain.
This was for the Voyagers I & II moving outside this planetary system
but I am informed today that the real purpose of these two were to
investigate Nibiru or Planet-X - probably triangulation with Earth
itself to get a bearing.
Believe this is also the reason for the Vatican's Infrared antenna on
Mount Graham in Arizona and also the NASA unit at the South Pole.
I am continually scanning our skies here in the South Outer Circle (SOC)
using an IR lens on my Camera but no anomalies have been observed.
When I left in 1986, signal level of the Voyagers was about -172 dbm and
that was near the limit of a 64 meter antenna and why an upgrade was
made to 70 meter with increased transmitter power.
Before I left I was given the task of upgrading all of the RF equipment
including the 1.5" Spiro lines which were also Nitrogen fed.
Any nick made on these when terminating or joining meant a signal loss
and in such the job simply had to be perfect.
I was the only person ever given a Certificate for wire wrap without any
training and was doing that job on the graveyard shift as tracking at
that point was just too quiet for me.
The Computer boards measured about 15" square using pin connection
technology and the reason for this was simple as the entire board could
be upgraded with a rewire and a special small drill was used to wrap the
wire on the Gold pins and once again the job had to be perfect.
Again, another precursor to your todays Computer.
Now I'm boasting.
At one stage for several years I was the only person in the Main room
which was some 50 x 25 meters as by this time we had Computer control of
most systems but not the Antenna nor the RF side with staff level
dropping from about 24 running two stations, to 10 running 4.
All of our ground installations were being used as the guinea pig for
your desktop Computers of today as we were given the 4040 series Intel
chips in any new equpment to trial and any problems were listed in a
special book.
I have attached a picture of UFOs outside a hangar in probably New
Mexico and I date that at about 1953 due to the two Sabre Jets alongside.
Have also seen this same hangar with B52s outside (Nellis AFB?).
*A very strong suggestion here that the Astronauts were transferred onto
UFOs for the final trip to the Moon and why there are some
inconsistencies in this area time wise and why so much footage had to be
manufactured in a Movie Studio that raised obvious questions.
All of this to deny you the 'black ops' side of the USA Military that
have been using UFOs now for some near 70 years and courtesy of 15,000
Nazi German scientists and technicians that were imported into the USA
after Peenemunde was secured in 1945.
We did go to the Moon!
*
Having actually pushed the buttoms for a great deal of this space
involvement, that is my take on why there are many inconsistencies.
We tracked the Helios I & II Solar Probes from 1975/76 (joint German ESA
and NASA) for many years with no feedback from the Mission Control
people which nagged me somewhat as also the RTLT (Round Trip Light Time)
was always 16 minutes and I asked why when the Spacecraft was doing a
loop around the Sun some 93million miles away.
*In reseaching this 'why', I came across the fact that there was an
intentional time delay designed into the Spacecarft to make it look as
if the Sun was that distance away when in fact it wasn't.
*This purpose delay was inserted between the one and two way modes.*
*This irked me into further ground research where my own calculations
over some two years puts our Sun at only some 4,000 miles away.*
*Further research is ongoing here to refine that distance.*
*When you talk to any Spacecraft (SC) they are in a 1-way mode, downlink
only and you ramp your uplink frequency through the SC rest frequency
where you pull it into the two way mode, both now an uplink and downlink.
At this point the ground receivers would drop out of lock and you had to
reacquire in the 2-way mode.
At this point you were able to transmit commands into the SC for
telemetry science data/maintenance etc.
At transmitter off, the SC receivers would then drift back to their one
way rest frequency.
I have the data here if anybody questions what I found.
Too much controversy here in all that I have done within the Space
Industry and would appreciate any questions as they will be answered
truthfully or to the best of my knowledge.
Respectfully.
Smokey
PS: EVGray:
The next person on this Forum that mentions the 'F' word will see me
depart .
If you can't be civil and talk with respect to others then you don't
deserve to be here.
Nothing is achieved when you talk like that including any 'Energy
Synthesis'.
Moderation IS firmly required here.
Smokey
On 8/06/2018 5:57 PM, [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
>
> Hi Mick,
>
> I don't know a lot about radio technology. But to be able to transmit
> at long distances with low power it is essential to not spread out the
> signal. Communication with the Voyager spacecrafts is done by using
> big disc antennas in both ends (transmitter and receiver). The Voyager
> 1 craft transmits with 23W and the signal takes 10 hours travel time
> between the antennas. Use a search engine to find the information or
> go to a library. Communication with the Voyager spacecrafts:
> https://science.howstuffworks.com/question431.htm.
> <https://science.howstuffworks.com/question431.htm>
>
> They use a frequency range with low noise which allows for big
> amplification of the signal. The distance is from outside the solar
> system.
>
> Regards
> Ole
>
>
>
> ---In [email protected], <mkjekyll@...> wrote :
>
> Ole,
>
> Thanks for the link.
>
> As I understand it in theory a maser would make perfect sense but as
> far as I am aware until very recently they required so much input
> power for so little output they were just lab curiosities until the
> much more efficient lasers were invented and became a useful tool.
>
> From your knowledge of electronics and RF math without tricks such as
> DSP's digging into the noise floor or special totally coherent non
> beam expanding collimated antennas what is the amount of power
> required to communicate reliably day in and day out 250k miles without
> repeaters or satellites, just two way with lets say a pair of 28dbi
> gain dishes? I just want to see if my math is completely messed up.
>
>
> On 6/6/2018 4:06 PM, onielsen@... <mailto:onielsen@...> [EVGRAY] wrote:
>
>> Hi Mick,
>>
>> The RF beam must be as narrow as possible to not spread out the
>> energy to places where it does no good. The guy I told about used
>> a helical antenna. I don't know anything about how he did it and
>> the power used. One way could be by using the predecessor of the
>> LASER which was the MASER. This would transmit a thin beam of
>> microwaves.
>>
>> This Wikipedia article
>> (https://wiki2.org/en/Earth%E2%80%93Moon%E2%80%93Earth_communication)
>> has a gallery of antennas used for earth moon earth
>> communication. It tells that as low as 100W can be used when
>> using digital signal processing.
>>
>> Regards
>> Ole
>>
>>
>>
>> ---In [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>,
>> <mkjekyll@...> <mailto:mkjekyll@...> wrote :
>>
>> Ole,
>>
>> Specifically the math is messing with my head. Either I am
>> misunderstanding / applying the math else according to FPL
>> calculations antenna gain and dbW something the distance of the
>> moon should not be feasible without millions of watts of
>> transmitter power.
>>
>> Laserbounce is another story due to the reflectors and the fact a
>> laser stays colimated enough not to disperse as quickly as does Rf.
>>
>>
>> On 6/6/2018 3:04 PM, onielsen@... <mailto:onielsen@...> [EVGRAY]
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Mick,
>>>
>>> The problem by using the moon as a reflector could be made
>>> more efficient if placing a RF reflector just like the LASER
>>> reflectors already out there. Another way could be making a
>>> RF repeater like is done in communication satellites. It
>>> would probably be much cheaper to put up a communication
>>> satellite or to use one of the many already up there.
>>>
>>> The surface of the moon isn't a good conductor (I guess) and
>>> it may even spread out the signal instead of reflecting it
>>> back to the transmitter like it is done withcorner
>>> reflectors <https://wiki2.org/en/Corner_reflector>. This
>>> gives great loss of the received signal.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Ole
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---In [email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>, <mkjekyll@...>
>>> <mailto:mkjekyll@...> wrote :
>>>
>>> https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/ham_radio/amateur-propagation/moonbounce-propagation-eme.php
>>>
>>> Here is a link for ham radio folk about EME or moonbounce
>>> radio. The path loss in best case scenarios is very high.
>>>
>>>
>>> Can someone who knows more RF electronics theory such as Ole
>>> or Hector please comment as to how this is overcome with
>>> 1000 watt input transmitter when the maximum theoretical S/N
>>> ratio and 252 db PL should require transmitters larger than
>>> AM radio stations.
>>>
>>>
>>> I must be missing something. Also checking the amateur
>>> radio sites for an answer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Mick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>