Body
Hello Gerry,
Yes, that was the sole purpose of the use of the Maser as a receiver to
get that far down into the noise.
Joules Thompson Valve:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule%E2%80%93Thomson_effect
I don't have a figure for a 70 meter antenna but could suggest something
close to -180dbm.
I am surprised by the lack of information that comes out of the DSN as
that side of the Space operation seems to take a back seat BUT that was
where all the new Earth technology was being displayed.
Equipment was the best on offer, Hewlett Packard/Tektronix/Gold Brick
modules and specialty manufacture.
Quotes on signal level:
1. For anyone reaching this page wondering how much power DSN receives
from Voyager1 (the more distant probe), it's currently receiving
9.33x10^-23 kW, or roughly -160 dBm (July 10, 2015)– bmhkim
<https://space.stackexchange.com/users/8728/bmhkim>Jul 10 '15 at 17:38
<https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/9824/how-much-rf-transmit-power-does-dsn-need-to-send-commands-to-voyager#comment26911_9824>
2. I recently looked up how weak the Voyager signals are when they get
to Earth from the 22 W transmitters (as of September 2013, it was
roughly -245 dBm). But that got me wondering how many watts of power the
Deep Space Network (DSN) needs to send signals the other
way.votefavorite
<https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/9824/how-much-rf-transmit-power-does-dsn-need-to-send-commands-to-voyager#>
*5*
Have also attached a PDF on Goldstone and includes the Beam Waveguide
Antenna and where it was developed.
The tour guy is a part idiot but didn't do too bad a job with respect
the technical side.
The Antenna he is astride is the old Moon Bounce.
20% through is a green top trolley on which a part Maser is sitting and
the blue motor thing is the Drive Motor and what I had worked on.
I think my -172dbm was from the end of a Voyager track at horizon just
before I left in 1986 and the receivers were just still in lock.
Uplink power was 10kW and now 50kW with a 70 meter antenna.
Sad that the only reference you have today about Cryogenics is the
preservation of wealthy bodies for later recovery.
Smokey
On 10/06/2018 12:47 PM, Gerry [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
> Hi Smokey,
> Wow -172 dBm! nice.
> The best we could do inside a screened enclosure was around -130 dBm.
> I guess the cooling's to get the T down in the Noise Power equation.
> (k*T*Bandwidth).
>
> Gerry
>
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 5:26 PM, David G Dawson [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> [EVGRAY] <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>
> *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]
> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>,
>> <mkjekyll@...> <mailto: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
>>> <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
>>>> <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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>