Re: [EVGRAY] Re: Moonbounce

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]
[EVGRAY] <[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] [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@...> <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@... [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], <mkjekyll@...> <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@... [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 with corner reflectors <https://wiki2.org/en/Corner_reflector>.
> This gives great loss of the received signal.
>
> Regards
> Ole
>
>
> ---In [email protected], <mkjekyll@...> <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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>

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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>