On 12/18/15, David I. Emery <d...@dieconsulting.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:50:01PM -0300, juan wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:03:14 -0500 >> Oh, ok. I thoguht the first landing was a bit a earlier. >> Anyway, so far nobody has provided much detail about radar >> resolution. Yes, voice comms were allegedly followed, yes, you >> can bounce microwaves off the moon. I freely admit that my >> knowledge of em theory is lacking so I wouldn't mind more >> information to go from "bounce radio off the moon" (big object) >> to realtime tracking of a small object on the moon, and without >> any fancy 'dsp' microelectronics. > > It is insanity to reply to this, but then I am quite certifiably > insane... > > Observers saw and timed the osculation of the radio signals from > the spacecraft in lunar orbit by the moon, saw correct Doppler for the > geometry involved from THEIR site (and correct timing for osculation)... > and saw the coherence of the signal consistent with a direct > transmission and not scattering from the moons rough surface (which > creates a considerable smearing of a wideband signal such as the Unified > S band telemetry/voice signals (and especially the video) due to the > path length (and thus delay) differences from all the random reflecting > points. > > And during the journey to the moon and back from the moon the > angles (and Doppler) observed when the highly directional ground > antennas were pointed for maximum signal corresponded to those predicted > from the the path of the spacecraft and not the reflective moon - which > eventually was not even close to being inside the beamwidth of the > antennas used. > > To simulate all of this realistically for tracking sites in > multiple continents would have required actually sending dummy > spacecraft to carry out the maneuvers and emit the "fake" signals. > > And if it isn't obvious, not only did private hams follow radio > signals from these missions, but so did various professional > intelligence and radio (and optical) astronomy sites, some with > substantial dish antennas and sophisticated gear. Many of these folks > (some obviously not friendly to the USA) would have to have been very > well fooled - or in on the game - not to have called our bluff.
Sounds very impressive science - is this documented somewhere, like some old magazine, so we can get someone to find a copy and scan it in for the world to see - something with empirical doppler calculations/ verifications for example? Zenaan
