Pluto flyover by New Horizons

[Loren Pechtel]

Alternately, being facetious is a common behavior shown towards those who make fools out of themselves and who don't respond to sensible arguments or proof.

But you have offered no substantive nor substantiated argument whatsoever; all you've done is to write what you've read somewhere. Anyone can do that - in fact many are on this very thread!!!

Just because you don't have the scientific understanding to understand the arguments we present doesn't mean we don't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There has to be a wish buried in there somewhere. What I mean is, rational people would not normally adopt a stance of extreme skepticism about something as specific as space travel without an underlying emotional motivation. In the same way, 99% of the people who doubt evolution by natural selection are members of a particular handful of religions (our resident economic Non-stradamus, boneyardbill, seems to be an exception). It makes me wonder whether Cerberus has a pre-existing commitment to a worldview that is incompatible with the concept of satellites. Do we know of any belief systems that insist no satellites have travelled past the moon?

My theory is that it's a way for people to feel smart--they've found something that most people can't see.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Remember, though, they are limited to the distance they can put two dishes apart in Russia, they don't get to use Earth's movement.

Yes, and Russia is pretty big. So, you could easily get a minimum distance to the source of a signal due to its measured parallax relative to the "fixed" stars behind it. If Russia is, say 6000 miles wide, then something at the distance of Pluto would have a parallax of about 0.5 arcsecond, give or take. Maybe that's below the resolution of radio dishes, but at the distance to Jupiter it's about 2 arcseconds, and to Mars about 5 arcseconds. So, it starts getting easy to tell if a signal is at least as far as Mars, and then you start having to realize that if we can send something out to Mars or Jupiter just to fake a signal from Pluto, why not just go to Pluto?

If Russia suspected we were faking missions, they could reasonably easily set up some radio dishes (or radio arrays) to expose us.

Yeah, I'm not saying you couldn't figure out it's in deep space--you certainly could. I'm just questioning whether you can figure out it's near Pluto.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

they don't get to use Earth's movement.

Why is that?
In any case, using 5000km spaced telescopes can easily give you 1% accuracy for signal from Pluto.
So no need for a larger base.

The probe is moving, they have to take their measurements all at once. They can't wait 6 months like they do for parallax on nearby stars.

 

[fromderinside]

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.)

I think what I attempted to describe is actually more effective. Understanding Spread Spectrum http://www.ni.com/white-paper/4450/en/

To finalize, we would like to point out the advantages and disadvantages of using spread spectrum:Advantages:

• Privacy. Secure communications because signal is “hidden” like noise
• Non interference with other signals in the same band.
• Possible to share frequency and time at same time (CDMA)
• Protection against jamming

Disadvantages:

• Increase bandwidth (wideband circuitry, channel model for wideband systems behaves different over frequency)
• Increase complexity

I am particularly enamored with the decoupling of signal from noise through correlation after receiving of known and tagged signal and from noise which tends to zero with correlation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.)

I think what I attempted to describe is actually more effective. Understanding Spread Spectrum http://www.ni.com/white-paper/4450/en/

To finalize, we would like to point out the advantages and disadvantages of using spread spectrum:Advantages:

• Privacy. Secure communications because signal is “hidden” like noise
• Non interference with other signals in the same band.
• Possible to share frequency and time at same time (CDMA)
• Protection against jamming

Disadvantages:

• Increase bandwidth (wideband circuitry, channel model for wideband systems behaves different over frequency)
• Increase complexity

I am particularly enamored with the decoupling of signal from noise through correlation after receiving of known and tagged signal and from noise which tends to zero with correlation.

I don't see how this overcomes the noise problem.

 

[barbos]

Why is that?
In any case, using 5000km spaced telescopes can easily give you 1% accuracy for signal from Pluto.
So no need for a larger base.

The probe is moving, they have to take their measurements all at once. They can't wait 6 months like they do for parallax on nearby stars.

Stars are moving too.

 

[Archimedes]

I only believe proven and tangible facts, not speculation and fanciful ambitions.

[emphasis mine]

[re: employment at NASA]

If you accepted a post you would obviously start on the lower rungs of the ladder, like you would if you were accepting a position in any other firm, and would therefore not be entitled to a considered opinion. If you declared that you suspect 'it's all a lie' they'll tell you to take it, or leave it, and wouldn't care either way (in fact if you did have the temerity to ask that question during the interview you wouldn't even be offered the post - they'd say 'Next applicant please.'). If you took the post despite those restrictions, and subsequently 'made waves' within it - ie became a whistle-blower - you'd be sacked and never be employed in the same field ever again.

If you believe what you say above about the hiring process at NASA, then you only believe it because you have "proven and tangible facts". So what are these "proven and tangible facts" that show the New Horizons and every single other NASA, JAXA, ESA, etc.missions beyond the moon to be all hoaxes and what are the "proven and tangible facts" that lead you to believe what you say about the NASA process for hiring people to work on their hoaxed space missions?

Why don't you put up or shut up?

 

[barbos]

Having crappy and unfair internal politics (which is always true for any sufficiently large organization) is one thing and accusing them in ridiculous conspiracy is another.

 

[DBT]

I still find it hard to accept that anyone would seriously hold the belief that space exploration beyond the moon has all been faked, without a single whistle blower, or a shred of evidence to support the notion...it has to be a leg pulling exercise.

 

[barbos]

I still find it hard to accept that anyone would seriously hold the belief that space exploration beyond the moon has all been faked, without a single whistle blower, or a shred of evidence to support the notion...it has to be a leg pulling exercise.

Or he is pissed he was not hired by NASA.
I have been critical of NASA but suggesting that they hoax is just ridiculous, but then I was not turned down by NASA.

 

[skepticalbip]

I still find it hard to accept that anyone would seriously hold the belief that space exploration beyond the moon has all been faked, without a single whistle blower, or a shred of evidence to support the notion...it has to be a leg pulling exercise.

Or he is pissed he was not hired by NASA.
I have been critical of NASA but suggesting that they hoax is just ridiculous, but then I was not turned down by NASA.

Or maybe he was once one of those who believed the Moon landing was all a hoax and is slowly recovering - baby steps. In a few more years, he may realize that we have rovers on Mars but will still be denying anything further.

Or then again, it all may just be an attempt to provoke responses.

 

[barbos]

Or he is pissed he was not hired by NASA.
I have been critical of NASA but suggesting that they hoax is just ridiculous, but then I was not turned down by NASA.

Or maybe he was once one of those who believed the Moon landing was all a hoax and is slowly recovering - baby steps. In a few more years, he may realize that we have rovers on Mars but will still be denying anything further.

But this would be weird, because Moon landing was orders and orders of magnitude harder than Pluto flyby, especially considering times of the missions.

Or then again, it all may just be an attempt to provoke responses.

This is what I think too, this is simple trolling

 

[Cerberus]

I still find it hard to accept that anyone would seriously hold the belief that space exploration beyond the moon has all been faked, without a single whistle blower, or a shred of evidence to support the notion...it has to be a leg pulling exercise.

After all I said earlier about what happens to whistle-blowers you still come out with that??

Do not follow the common herd, but be of independent mind.**

** That's my signature but despite being ticked it doesn't show.

 

[Cerberus]

But you have offered no substantive nor substantiated argument whatsoever; all you've done is to write what you've read somewhere. Anyone can do that - in fact many are on this very thread!!!

Just because you don't have the scientific understanding to understand the arguments we present doesn't mean we don't.

The salient fact of the matter is that you don't - any more than I do. Indeed, any more than they do! The difference is that I don't pretend to know.

 

[DBT]

I still find it hard to accept that anyone would seriously hold the belief that space exploration beyond the moon has all been faked, without a single whistle blower, or a shred of evidence to support the notion...it has to be a leg pulling exercise.

After all I said earlier about what happens to whistle-blowers you still come out with that??

Do not follow the common herd, but be of independent mind.

What you said is an entirely different matter to what you demonstrated. Which is nothing. A waste of time asking this, but: why not provide evidence for whistle blowers within the field of space exploration, those, names, cases, etc, who have claimed that there is large scale fraud in space exploration, as you claim? If you are up for the challenge, include your evidence for the suppression of whistle blowers.

 

[Cerberus]

But what have you provided for us to think that you're right?
You HAVE made it a positive claim. Based on what?

Er, based on total lack of evidence? All there is in the public arena is speculation and CGI but not one iota of proof positive. Do you believe everything you're told without question? If not, then why do you believe this without question?

 

[Cerberus]

After all I said earlier about what happens to whistle-blowers you still come out with that??

Do not follow the common herd, but be of independent mind.

What you said is an entirely different matter to what you demonstrated. Which is nothing. A waste of time asking this, but: why not provide evidence for whistle blowers within the field of space exploration, those, names, cases, etc, who have claimed that there is large scale fraud in space exploration, as you claim? If you are up for the challenge, include your evidence for the suppression of whistle blowers.

Here's a question for you for a change: do you agree with my premise of what happens to whistle-blowers, bearing in mind that Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are being mercilessly hounded and victimised by the full weight of the US and UK governments? If you do agree, what makes you think NASA wouldn't do the same?

 

[dystopian]

What you said is an entirely different matter to what you demonstrated. Which is nothing. A waste of time asking this, but: why not provide evidence for whistle blowers within the field of space exploration, those, names, cases, etc, who have claimed that there is large scale fraud in space exploration, as you claim? If you are up for the challenge, include your evidence for the suppression of whistle blowers.

Here's a question for you for a change: do you agree with my premise of what happens to whistle-blowers, bearing in mind that Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are being mercilessly hounded and victimised by the full weight of the US and UK governments? If you do agree, what makes you think NASA wouldn't do the same?

One should also note that Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are both still quite alive and capable of blowing their whistles, which should indicate to any rational individual that we'd expect at least a few space program whistleblowers to have come forward and blow whistles.

But maybe the alien technology confiscated by the world's various space agencies enables them to take care of whistleblowers before they blow their whistles, and they have not for some reason shared this technology with the NSA.

 

[James Brown]

But what have you provided for us to think that you're right?
You HAVE made it a positive claim. Based on what?

Er, based on total lack of evidence? All there is in the public arena is speculation and CGI but not one iota of proof positive. Do you believe everything you're told without question? If not, then why do you believe this without question?

I'm trying to imagine the CGI used to fake the first Mars flyby back in July of 1965.