Pluto flyover by New Horizons

[Archimedes]

Are you implying they did? If so can you provide some proof please?

what would you consider proof? You don't accept anything released from NASA therefore you've right off the bat said you won't accept photographic evidence or anything from the people who actually have and have shown the evidence.

Why do you think it's a NASA hoax? Do you think all NASA space probes are hoaxes or do you think some have been genuine? Why?

 

[Playball40]

Are you implying they did? If so can you provide some proof please?

what would you consider proof? You don't accept anything released from NASA therefore you've right off the bat said you won't accept photographic evidence or anything from the people who actually have and have shown the evidence.

Why do you think it's a NASA hoax? Do you think all NASA space probes are hoaxes or do you think some have been genuine? Why?

Was Hubble a hoax too?

 

[beero1000]

I don't get it. The budget for New Horizons was only $700 million - and that includes the equipment, launch, operations, data analysis, and PR. The launch itself was attended by the public in 2006 (so presumably not fake-able) and an Atlas V costs around $200 million. Wouldn't such a huge and complicated hoax more expensive/difficult to pull off than what $500 million is worth to the federal government? Why bother - just send the spacecraft. It isn't like the technology is that complicated. There isn't even competition to be the first to do it like with the moon landing - there's absolutely no reason to fake the flyby.

 

[dystopian]

there's absolutely no reason to fake the flyby.

Unless!

Unless the US governments knows that's where the aliens have set up their monitoring outpost, which they don't want the public to know about! Of course! How could we not see it!?*

(*answer: because it's really far and pixelly unless you do a flyby)

 

[Iznomneak]

Are you implying they did? If so can you provide some proof please?

what would you consider proof? You don't accept anything released from NASA therefore you've right off the bat said you won't accept photographic evidence or anything from the people who actually have and have shown the evidence.

Why do you think it's a NASA hoax? Do you think all NASA space probes are hoaxes or do you think some have been genuine? Why?

One should be able to point a radio telescope towards Pluto from anywhere on Earth and receive the data transmission (it will need data decompression technology). I suspect parallax could be used to confirm the distance. A person who thinks this is a hoax has at least 2 ways to confirm their hypothesis. Any takers? Fame and fortune await you.

http://hub.jhu.edu/2015/07/17/new-horizons-data-transmission#

Then there's the data rate challenge, says the Applied Physics Laboratory's Chris DeBoy, the lead RF (wireless and high-frequency signals) communications engineer for the New Horizons mission to Pluto. As an instrument makes an observation, data is transferred to a solid-state recorder—similar to a flash memory card for a digital camera—where it's compressed, reformatted, and transmitted to Earth through the spacecraft's radio telecommunications system, a 2.1-meter high-gain antenna. The antenna, however, receives a mere 12 watts of power. Taking into account the distance and low-powered signal, the New Horizons "downlink" rate is considerably low, especially when compared to rates now common for high-speed Internet, which can move information faster than 100 Mbps. New Horizons currently can only move data at a rate of 1 to 2 Kbps.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't get it. The budget for New Horizons was only $700 million - and that includes the equipment, launch, operations, data analysis, and PR. The launch itself was attended by the public in 2006 (so presumably not fake-able) and an Atlas V costs around $200 million. Wouldn't such a huge and complicated hoax more expensive/difficult to pull off than what $500 million is worth to the federal government? Why bother - just send the spacecraft. It isn't like the technology is that complicated. There isn't even competition to be the first to do it like with the moon landing - there's absolutely no reason to fake the flyby.

The launch would be easy to fake. Sure, a gazillion people saw the bird fly--but they didn't see inside it's nose. Launch a spy sat and call it "New Horizons".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

what would you consider proof? You don't accept anything released from NASA therefore you've right off the bat said you won't accept photographic evidence or anything from the people who actually have and have shown the evidence.

Why do you think it's a NASA hoax? Do you think all NASA space probes are hoaxes or do you think some have been genuine? Why?

One should be able to point a radio telescope towards Pluto from anywhere on Earth and receive the data transmission (it will need data decompression technology). I suspect parallax could be used to confirm the distance. A person who thinks this is a hoax has at least 2 ways to confirm their hypothesis. Any takers? Fame and fortune await you.

You need a very good radio telescope. Look at the size of the dishes in NASA's deep space network--you need a dish like that to pull in the signal. You also need a very good receiver--the signal is in a very narrow frequency band (that's why it's going to take more than a year to download the take from the flyby) and even then is just over the noise floor.

 

[fromderinside]

http://hub.jhu.edu/2015/07/17/new-horizons-data-transmission#

... The antenna, however, receives a mere 12 watts of power. Taking into account the distance and low-powered signal, the New Horizons "downlink" rate is considerably low, especially when compared to rates now common for high-speed Internet, which can move information faster than 100 Mbps. New Horizons currently can only move data at a rate of 1 to 2 Kbps.

Gee professor, how about using a very wide band transmitter receiver arrangement so one can transform data gathered over long intervals required by the packaging for space travel into short time signals containing all the information once it is collated at the transmitter. Benefits:eliminate noise problem of space distance, and deliver very large amounts of information is just a couple microseconds in redundant pulses. Problems: very large antennas on board craft which are already being used, and sure its sub threshold, but, the signal is known exactly so that shouldn't be a problem.

Just sayin'

 

[barbos]

And signal from probe is practically impossible to fake.

 

[barbos]

http://hub.jhu.edu/2015/07/17/new-horizons-data-transmission#

Gee professor, how about using a very wide band transmitter receiver arrangement so one can transform data gathered over long intervals required by the packaging for space travel into short time signals containing all the information once it is collated at the transmitter. Benefits:eliminate noise problem of space distance, and deliver very large amounts of information is just a couple microseconds in redundant pulses. Problems: very large antennas on board craft which are already being used, and sure its sub threshold, but, the signal is known exactly so that shouldn't be a problem.

Just sayin'

That's complete nonsense.
Bitrate is a function of power and antenna sizes (on probe and and receiving ones on earth)

 

[beero1000]

I don't get it. The budget for New Horizons was only $700 million - and that includes the equipment, launch, operations, data analysis, and PR. The launch itself was attended by the public in 2006 (so presumably not fake-able) and an Atlas V costs around $200 million. Wouldn't such a huge and complicated hoax more expensive/difficult to pull off than what $500 million is worth to the federal government? Why bother - just send the spacecraft. It isn't like the technology is that complicated. There isn't even competition to be the first to do it like with the moon landing - there's absolutely no reason to fake the flyby.

The launch would be easy to fake. Sure, a gazillion people saw the bird fly--but they didn't see inside it's nose. Launch a spy sat and call it "New Horizons".

That's still a real launch, paid for out of the New Horizons budget.

 

[Derec]

If we are done with all the conspiracy stuff, I liked this gif contrasting Hubble images of Pluto with what we had so far with much more detailed NH image.

And the heart shaped feature makes me think "weighted companion sphere".

 

[Shadowy Man]

The launch would be easy to fake. Sure, a gazillion people saw the bird fly--but they didn't see inside it's nose. Launch a spy sat and call it "New Horizons".

That's still a real launch, paid for out of the New Horizons budget.

Basically, the practically the entirety of the NASA budget has to be a fake, with all the highest people (at least) at NASA HQ in on the conspiracy. What fraction of what NASA does is fake? Is any of it real?

 

[Malintent]

Video is pretty useless as far as science concerned.
Also it's pretty dark there, I think these pictures have pretty long exposure time.
Not to mention video would be pretty slow motion.

So it isn't tangible evidence of the supposed fly-past then? In other words it's nothing more than a fanciful PR stunt. As I've said - it will take more than speculative abstract spin to convince me.

To convince you of what, exactly?

pictures not good enough for... what? convincing the likes of you that space exists and we have been there? Why should that be important to anyone (besides you)?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://hub.jhu.edu/2015/07/17/new-horizons-data-transmission#

Gee professor, how about using a very wide band transmitter receiver arrangement so one can transform data gathered over long intervals required by the packaging for space travel into short time signals containing all the information once it is collated at the transmitter. Benefits:eliminate noise problem of space distance, and deliver very large amounts of information is just a couple microseconds in redundant pulses. Problems: very large antennas on board craft which are already being used, and sure its sub threshold, but, the signal is known exactly so that shouldn't be a problem.

Just sayin'

Eliminate the noise problem by making it vastly worse?!?! What are you smoking?!

To receive the data the signal must be above the ambient noise level. The ways of accomplishing this are bigger antennas (narrower focus), more power and reducing the range of frequencies being used.

Big dishes take mass, big generators take mass. There's a limit to how far you can go with either of these with something you're sending into the sky on a tail of fire. That leaves only the last option--narrowing the frequency band.

The reason narrowing the frequencies helps is that the noise is across all frequencies. The wider the band you are looking at the more noise you receive.

(Note that in some special cases where you already know most of what it's going to say you can receive somewhat below the noise floor. The GPS system works this way--the only way you can find the signal is by looking for known patterns in the noise. If you don't know what to look for you can't find them at all with an ordinary small GPS receiver with it's omnidirectional antenna.)

 

[Archimedes]

That's still a real launch, paid for out of the New Horizons budget.

Basically, the practically the entirety of the NASA budget has to be a fake, with all the highest people (at least) at NASA HQ in on the conspiracy. What fraction of what NASA does is fake? Is any of it real?

Not only NASA, think of all the contractors that build and design stuff for NASA and supply computers, software, etc. IBM, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. as well as smaller specialist companies that supply hardware and software. When they design rocket engines, embedded computers, software systems, cameras, etc. for Curiosity, New Horizons, Dawn, Cassini, Voyager, etc., are they in on the conspiracy or have NASA effectively hoodwinked them into building a bunch of stuff that never gets used while NASA simply falsifies all the photographs and science data that that supposedly would have been collected and sent by those systems?

Does the conspiracy go as far back as the probes and landers from the 1960s and 1970s? The Mariner probes, Voyager probes, Pioneer probes, Viking landers, etc.

I presume the European Space Agency must be in on the conspiracy as well as some of these missions are joint ventures with ESA supplying some of the onboard equipment and experiments and the ESA have their own Mars orbiter, Mars Express, still active and gathering data.

As with most silly conspiracy theories, the more you actually think about it, the stupider and more far reaching it gets until it reaches ludicrous levels.

 

[James Brown]

It seems to me that if NASA was faking all these missions, they wouldn't have so many of them fail so spectacularly. Apollo 13 is all the reason I need to know that the moon landings weren't faked.

 

[skepticalbip]

Basically, the practically the entirety of the NASA budget has to be a fake, with all the highest people (at least) at NASA HQ in on the conspiracy. What fraction of what NASA does is fake? Is any of it real?

Not only NASA, think of all the contractors that build and design stuff for NASA and supply computers, software, etc. IBM, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. as well as smaller specialist companies that supply hardware and software. When they design rocket engines, embedded computers, software systems, cameras, etc. for Curiosity, New Horizons, Dawn, Cassini, Voyager, etc., are they in on the conspiracy or have NASA effectively hoodwinked them into building a bunch of stuff that never gets used while NASA simply falsifies all the photographs and science data that that supposedly would have been collected and sent by those systems?

Does the conspiracy go as far back as the probes and landers from the 1960s and 1970s? The Mariner probes, Voyager probes, Pioneer probes, Viking landers, etc.

I presume the European Space Agency must be in on the conspiracy as well as some of these missions are joint ventures with ESA supplying some of the onboard equipment and experiments and the ESA have their own Mars orbiter, Mars Express, still active and gathering data.

As with most silly conspiracy theories, the more you actually think about it, the stupider and more far reaching it gets until it reaches ludicrous levels.

It all started with the Sputnik hoax. This spurred the US to bring on board a lot of expert hoaxers because they were afraid of a space hoax gap developing with those dirty commies in the USSR way ahead in hoaxing.

 

[Cerberus]

If we are done with all the conspiracy stuff, I liked this gif contrasting Hubble images of Pluto with what we had so far with much more detailed NH image.

And the heart shaped feature makes me think "weighted companion sphere".

Populist or what!!

 

[Cerberus]

To convince you of what, exactly?

pictures not good enough for... what? convincing the likes of you that space exists and we have been there? Why should that be important to anyone (besides you)?

Of course 'space exists', I've never said it doesn't! Jesus wept!
'Have we been there'? Only in 'the back yard' viz the moon; further out? No!