Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[wollery]

No need to go into orbit . In answer to your question, Telstar wouldn't have been much use, as it wasn't geosynchronous, even were it still in commission in 1969 because being in MEO, with an elliptical orbit path, it had a habit of dipping below the horizon so it was only available in 30-minute slots (which might be doable if NSA knew exactly what time the live broadcast would start). It had low power which meant ground infrastructure would have been ultra-expensive (but again, doable). In addition, it didn't have any radiation shielding, which was part of the reason it was written off so quickly. Further, low capacity, in that it could do only one image at a time. But by 1969, from 1962, if NASA was ready to send guys to the Moon to beat the Soviets you'd think they'd have a better plan than a basic Westinghouse SSTV system, but then maybe it wasn't thought through ATT that anyone would query it.

The question was - "why was Telstar needed in 1962?"

It's a very simple question.

Which you completely failed to answer.

Was reading for comprehension part of your O level English syllabus?

 

[JesseCuster]

Yes, of course, 'line of sight' is the official version of the 'live' tv broadcast, 250K miles away, with no problem with the images.

But does the “geopositioning” that you refuse to define refer to an orbit required to capture certain TV footage, or is it an orbit around earth used to relay a signal originating from the CSM orbiting the moon? Or does it have something to do with being able to calculate your co-ordinates when you’re somewhere down on earth? You can’t come out and say it, can you, which of these arguments or definitions you’re trying to use, or if you’re trying to get at something else entirely, can you?

You are completely incapable of putting forward a consistent or coherent or well defined argument about “geopositioned satellites” that you are willing to defend.

 

[Darat]

But does the “geopositioning” that you refuse to define refer to an orbit required to capture certain TV footage, or is it an orbit around earth used to relay a signal originating from the CSM orbiting the moon? Or does it have something to do with being able to calculate your co-ordinates when you’re somewhere down on earth? You can’t come out and say it, can you, which of these arguments or definitions you’re trying to use, or if you’re trying to get at something else entirely, can you?

You are completely incapable of being honest putting forward a consistent or coherent or well defined argument about “geopositioned satellites” that you are willing to defend.

FTFY

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yes, of course, 'line of sight' is the official version of the 'live' tv broadcast, 250K miles away, with no problem with the images.

What's that supposed to mean? the TV images were sent as data in a radio transmission.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Yes, of course, 'line of sight' is the official version of the 'live' tv broadcast, 250K miles away, with no problem with the images.

Just because you can look up and see the Moon in the sky, doesn't mean, it too, is not orbiting Earth at the same time Earth itself is spinning (albeit relatively slowly in the same direction).

Actually, what it means is that

1. If you can see the moon, what you are seeing is electromagnetic waves coming from the moon.
2. Which means any radio waves transmitted from the moon can follow a direct line of sight to earth.
3. Which explains why quite a variety of receivers located on earth were able to receive those radio waves.

What it doesn't mean is that @Vixen is intellectually capable of understanding any of those three facts.

 

[Mojo]

Yes, of course, 'line of sight' is the official version of the 'live' tv broadcast, 250K miles away, with no problem with the images.

If you can see the thing you can receive radio signals directly from it without the need for any intermediary. Seriously, it's not that hard to understand. Light and radio waves are both electromagnetic radiation. They travel in straight lines.

If you can't receive radio signals directly from something, you can't see it.

Have you ever seen the moon?

ETA: The first draft of this post contained a number of expletives, but I removed them before posting it in case Vixen thought they were there because I was angry. They weren't; they were there for ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ emphasis.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, of course, 'line of sight' is the official version of the 'live' tv broadcast, 250K miles away, with no problem with the images.

It’s a simple physical fact.

 

[Mojo]

It’s a simple physical fact.

But it's inconsistent with Vixen's conspiracy theory, so there's no way she can understand it.

 

[Darat]

If you can see the thing you can receive radio signals directly from it without the need for any intermediary. Seriously, it's not that hard to understand. Light and radio waves are both electromagnetic
radiation. They travel in straight lines.

If you can't receive radio signals directly from something, you can't see it.

Have you ever seen the moon?

ETA: The first draft of this post contained a number of expletives, but I removed them before posting it in case Vixen thought they were there because I was angry. They weren't; they were there for ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ emphasis.

Radiation!!! Oh no we all need to walk around with our eyes closed so our eyes don't become radioactive!

 

[JayUtah]

Just because you can look up and see the Moon in the sky, doesn't mean, it too, is not orbiting Earth at the same time Earth itself is spinning (albeit relatively slowly in the same direction).

My 8-year-old niece is laughing at how abjectly dumb this is.

 

[Steve]

Radiation!!! Oh no we all need to walk around with our eyes closed so our eyes don't become radioactive!

Good thing there are decontamination booths on every street corner.

 

[JayUtah]

But it's inconsistent with Vixen's conspiracy theory, so there's no way she can understand it.

Nobody is actually this stupid.

 

[Mojo]

Good thing there are decontamination booths on every street corner.

And light bulbs are all lead-lined.

 

[Mojo]

Nobody is actually this stupid.

It's certainly inconsistent with an intelligent person arguing in good faith, but I'm not convinced that it's consistent with an intelligent person trolling.

 

[Trebuchet]

Yes, of course, 'line of sight' is the official version of the 'live' tv broadcast, 250K miles away, with no problem with the images.

Gotta wonder how someone took the image in your avatar since line of sight to the moon apparently isn't a thing. Light, like radio, is electromagnetic radiation.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It’s a simple physical fact.

Maybe she thinks 'line of sight' means the cameras were on Earth and pointed at the Moon? I mean, that would be insane but...?

 

[JayUtah]

Maybe she thinks 'line of sight' means the cameras were on Earth and pointed at the Moon? I mean, that would be insane but...?

As my 8-year old niece figured out, “If you can see my eyes, I can see your eyes.”

 

[Mojo]

We once had a cat who didn't understand that. He evidently didn't realise that mirrors worked both ways.

 

[SteveAitch]

Radiation!!! Oh no we all need to walk around with our eyes closed so our eyes don't become radioactive!

Well, as a side note, part of that radiation is UV. I have been told I am likely to develop cataracts sometime in the next ten years (assuming I'm still above ground!) and that UV can hasten their development. So when I go out I wear my distance glasses with UV sensitive transition* lenses to filter it out. Right, back your usual programming.

*Don't tell the Trumpoids - they'll think I'm changing gender!

 

[Foster Zygote]

No need to go into orbit . In answer to your question, Telstar wouldn't have been much use, as it wasn't geosynchronous, even were it still in commission in 1969 because being in MEO, with an elliptical orbit path, it had a habit of dipping below the horizon so it was only available in 30-minute slots (which might be doable if NSA knew exactly what time the live broadcast would start). It had low power which meant ground infrastructure would have been ultra-expensive (but again, doable). In addition, it didn't have any radiation shielding, which was part of the reason it was written off so quickly. Further, low capacity, in that it could do only one image at a time.

You've proved your ability to type a subject into a search engine, but Whisky Tango actual Foxtrot do you think any of that has to do with radio communications between earth and moon?

But by 1969, from 1962, if NASA was ready to send guys to the Moon to beat the Soviets you'd think they'd have a better plan than a basic Westinghouse SSTV system...

They did. But because Apollo 11 had such a tight EVA schedule, Armstrong and Aldrin elected to skip setting up the high gain antenna to use the Westinghouse color TV camera. That's the only reason they went with the SSTV camera, to reduce the bandwidth to something that could be squeezed into the other communications channels. This was only done for the Apollo 11 surface EVA. And it was still done without any need for a satellite, because the moon is a satellite, because it always keeps the same face toward earth, and because the DSTN had enough antennae that there was always at least one with line of sight to the moon at all times.

but then maybe it wasn't thought through ATT that anyone would query it.

And now you're back to pretending that in the last fifty-seven years, not one actual engineer or scientist who, unlike you, actually knows how all this works in minute detail, ever paused to say "now wait a minute!" about some problem that's supposedly so fundamentally obvious that people who couldn't tell a resistor from a capacitor can see it clearly. Obviously, the idea that you're that much smarter than millions of engineers and scientists the world over for generations is ridiculous, and I think you also know this, based on your histrionics in response to being confronted by this implication.