Until you address the images, and the returned samples, your ignorant, biased opinion is worthless.
Why can't you address the images and returned samples????
Why can't you answer the above question????
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
Until you address the images, and the returned samples, your ignorant, biased opinion is worthless.
Why can't you address the images and returned samples????
Why can't you answer the above question????
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Hold it, hold it, hold it. Are you saying that, so long as it received that frequency, ANY radio of ANY size and of ANY sort could pick up the signal from Ranger 7 as it was 10 km from the moon?
Are you saying that signal strength and receiver size are not factors in hearing a radio signal from the moon?
Please, tell me you're not saying that.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Loss Leader, they need the Saturn V to push the LM into space.....
Loss Leader, they need the Saturn V to push the LM into space. THE LM IS IS IS IS THE UNMANNED MILITARY PLATFORM.....
Get it? I don't mean that in a jerky way either, very straightforward. I have mentioned this before. The "Eagle" IS IS IS IS the military platform. They park it at Tranquility Base, or wherever and go from there.
Back to the Doppler issue. The Doppler shift for light from the moon is proportional to frequency. It is about 350 Hz maximum on 144 MHz. Not a lot, but obviously they have got it dialed because they are ranging the moon with a laser and so "easily" are dealing with this shifting issue. To determine the distance to the moon so precisely they must account for the Doppler shift/frequency shift from 350 Hz at the margins to zero when the moon is "directly overhead".
Very cool and very relevant stuff at this very cool little site. Helps to break one free of conventional thinking as regards all of this;
http://www.g1ogy.com/www.n1bug.net/prop/eme.html
Now contrary to matt's views, and one cannot blame matt, he's wicked smart but then again locked into mainstream thinking, you park the Eagle up there and start transmitting. You collect data just as you did with your low orbiters and work out a VICIOUSLY ACCURATE EPHEMERIS FOR THE EAGLE'S MOVEMENT ABOUT THE EARTH AT WHAT IS IT? SOMETHING LIKE 2200 MILES AN HOUR GIVE OR TAKE THAT THE MOON IS CRUISING "ABOVE US". Also, I have not seen this discussed anywhere, but the earth is rotating. If its edge is moving toward the moon, that will blue shift the signal as much as anything. Off hand, one can see the edge of the planet is moving toward or away from the moon by as much as 1000 miles an hour depending on geometry. I haven't worked with this much, just thought of it now, and since I haven't read about it elsewhere, will dig in and see what I can find. Interesting and perhaps relevant.
Now, armed with your Eagle, Doppler based Ephemeris, you can then receive a signal from the Eagle anywhere on the earth. YOU DO NOT NEED A DISH FOR THIS AND THE EAGLE NEED NOT HAVE A BIG DISH EITHER. The giant dishes are trackers, we are doing Doppler locating here AFTER!!!! TYHE EPHEMERIS HAS BEEN DETERMINED.
We pick up a signal from the Eagle that is "shifted"(frequency wise) 170.34567 Hz and viola!!!, there ya' go!!!! Instant location, just add water, errhhhh, I mean just add light, light from the moon. BEAUTIFUL!!!!!
Scroll down to the Doppler section here Loss Leader, just a bit on it all, but boy does it ever have a bite..... LOOK OUT BELOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/Geodesy4Layman/TR80003D.HTM
Loss Leader, they need the Saturn V to push the LM into space. THE LM IS IS IS IS THE UNMANNED MILITARY PLATFORM.....
Get it? I don't mean that in a jerky way either, very straightforward. I have mentioned this before. The "Eagle" IS IS IS IS the military platform. They park it at Tranquility Base, or wherever and go from there.
Back to the Doppler issue. The Doppler shift for light from the moon is proportional to frequency. It is about 350 Hz maximum on 144 MHz. Not a lot, but obviously they have got it dialed because they are ranging the moon with a laser and so "easily" are dealing with this shifting issue. To determine the distance to the moon so precisely they must account for the Doppler shift/frequency shift from 350 Hz at the margins to zero when the moon is "directly overhead".
Very cool and very relevant stuff at this very cool little site. Helps to break one free of conventional thinking as regards all of this;
http://www.g1ogy.com/www.n1bug.net/prop/eme.html
Now contrary to matt's views, and one cannot blame matt, he's wicked smart but then again locked into mainstream thinking, you park the Eagle up there and start transmitting. You collect data just as you did with your low orbiters and work out a VICIOUSLY ACCURATE EPHEMERIS FOR THE EAGLE'S MOVEMENT ABOUT THE EARTH AT WHAT IS IT? SOMETHING LIKE 2200 MILES AN HOUR GIVE OR TAKE THAT THE MOON IS CRUISING "ABOVE US". Also, I have not seen this discussed anywhere, but the earth is rotating. If its edge is moving toward the moon, that will blue shift the signal as much as anything. Off hand, one can see the edge of the planet is moving toward or away from the moon by as much as 1000 miles an hour depending on geometry. I haven't worked with this much, just thought of it now, and since I haven't read about it elsewhere, will dig in and see what I can find. Interesting and perhaps relevant.
Now, armed with your Eagle, Doppler based Ephemeris, you can then receive a signal from the Eagle anywhere on the earth. YOU DO NOT NEED A DISH FOR THIS AND THE EAGLE NEED NOT HAVE A BIG DISH EITHER. The giant dishes are trackers, we are doing Doppler locating here AFTER!!!! TYHE EPHEMERIS HAS BEEN DETERMINED.
We pick up a signal from the Eagle that is "shifted"(frequency wise) 170.34567 Hz and viola!!!, there ya' go!!!! Instant location, just add water, errhhhh, I mean just add light, light from the moon. BEAUTIFUL!!!!!
Scroll down to the Doppler section here Loss Leader, just a bit on it all, but boy does it ever have a bite..... LOOK OUT BELOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/Geodesy4Layman/TR80003D.HTM
Tomblvd
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 821
You really need to buy a book on the Doppler Shift. Because from your comments it is painfully apparent that you do not understand what it is.
For a hint, you might want to try actually reading the posts from Jay and matt. Measuring Doppler Shift is much more than just "pick(ing) up a radio signal..."
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
So work us a sample ephemeris problem for a spacecraft in a halo orbit around Earth-Moon L2. Show us how it's done.
Motion in which direction?
According to you it is. You assert that Ranger was tracked by means of the Doppler shift in its radio frequency. By "tracked" you seem to mean that its "ephemeris" was worked out based on knowledge of its velocity relative to a known fixed point on Earth -- the tracking station.
Then you assert that an emitter of known "ephemeris" can provide the reverse solution -- the location on Earth from which the observed Doppler shift in the precisely-tracked emitter would have to hold. Have I accurately represented your argument?
What Matt knows, and you don't, is that tracking Ranger requires more than just observations of Doppler-derived velocity. It requires also a precise determination of which direction that signal arrives from. Both values are required (see Bate). Direction can only be ascertained by a very large dish antenna, because that size is required to resolve the beam to the fraction of a degree needed to nail down the solution.
There's something else Matt knows that you don't, but it's part of your homework. When you answer the questions I've asked you to solve, you'll be faced with the reality of why you'd need a very large dish antenna like that to use the Moon as a navigational beacon.
No -- incredibly, incredibly naive.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
What is the link budget for that? Do you know?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You've mentioned it, but you are utterly unable to prove that it is. You have provided zero evidence that the lunar module was anything other than the official record says it is. You simply repeat your imagination over and over again as if that had any proof value.
Why have you not solved my problem yet or answered my questions?
No, Patrick. This is not a case of closed-mindedness. Matt has done this before, and you have not. It's a case of you being ignorant and Matt being knowledgeable.
Explain how that part would have been done.
Strange that you suddenly just now thought of it after I asked you a question regarding it.
Really? What was the signal strength from the LM on the Moon?
Nope. You're handwaving your way through a toy solution without actually providing any of the rigor. Please solve the problem I asked you to solve, and be quick about it.
And of course you can provide specs for this unmanned LM, details of the military hardware it carried, or at least one statement from somone who worked on the automated LM or the hardware can't you?
matt.tansy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 991
Right. Not nearly enough to get a fix.
Can you figure out what the Moon's speed is in the line of sight from that 350 Hz frequency shift?
That makes absolutely no sense. The 350 Hz you are ignorantly gloating about applies to the 144 MHz mentioned in your link. That frequency has absolutely nothing to do with laser ranging.
"break free of conventional thinking"? That link is nothing but mainstream science!
It's always amusing when your typical hoax believer, like yourself, breathlessly exclaims something he learned about simple scientific principles that everybody else was already aware of and never give a second thought.
The dish was a requirement for tracking the Ranger probes which you hilariously tried to use as an proof of the feasibility of a Doppler navigation system on the Moon. You cannot now try to mock anybody by bringing up the dishes when you didn't understand at all how the Ranger was tracked.
The big Deep Space Network dishes had a beam width of 0.25o and a worst case pointing accuracy of 0.025o. That is what helped the DSN to accurately track Ranger.
The ephemeris of the Moon has been calculated for centuries and the libration of the Moon would be a piddling addition to any algorithm a receiver would need to calculate the location of your fantasy transmitter. Why all the excitement?
This is so wrong I'm having trouble knowing where to start. I'll start with your ignorance. Low hanging fruit, I know.
You read something about satellites, something about something called a "Doppler shift", and something about finding your position using those big words, and you thought that's all there was to it. You are skipping a huge part of the process. Radio signals are not magic. There is no way to tell how far you are from the transmitter just by measuring a single Doppler shift.
If you are moving away from the transmitter at 100 mph the Doppler shift will be the same regardless if you are one foot away from the transmitter or one billion light years away. The transmitter has to move across a significant portion of the sky (~90o as a minimum for the TRANSIT NAVSATs) and the Doppler shift measured along regular segments of the transmitter's path to determine the range to the transmitter. The WRN-5 satellite receiver I used on my first sub needed about 6~8 minutes of recorded Doppler shifts as the satellite rose in the north (or south), my receiver found the signal and started recording, and set in the south (or north). During that time the satellite traversed about 150o of the sky.
Given that I navigated submarines for 20 years, including obtaining a thousand TRANSIT fixes before the advent of GPS, why did the Navy not share this alleged fix source with the people who navigated submarines?
Why would an "unmanned platform" have controls for maneuvering designed to be operated by astronauts.???
....and try and lay off the cap lock...it does nothing to help your "argument"...
Yeah..you like to repeat things that are unproven....perhaps a little less repetition, and a lot more evidence...
You simply do not understand how things work re. space related subjects...in other words, there is no "doppler issue".
Why can't you address the images/returned samples?...why can't you answer that question???
Oh, you mean people who DEMAND credible evidence before belief?
Yeah...CALL ME LOCKED IN.
Ah, yes....why address actual issues like the images and returned samples, when you can CONTINUALLY shift the topic to irrelevant subjects...you really need to stop doing that...
Why can't you address the images, and returned samples???
matt.tansy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 991
Dang. Sorry, Jay. You give Dr. Socks a pop quiz and before it gets approved by the moderators I submit a post that gives away some of the answers!
Odd that Patrick hasn't picked up on me giving the answers.
Odd that Patrick hasn't picked up on me giving the answers.
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
In regards to the Moon being a stable platform, you would need to compensate for the Libration and angular momentum/tidal acceleration that is slowly pulling the Moon away from the Earth. Not to mention the compensation due to the time dilation that satellites in Earth-orbit need to do.
It would seem to me (and I could be wrong) that an Earth-orbit satellite would be more stable than a Moon based object. A Moon based object may harder to reach, but then it would be harder to perform maintenance on and harder to destroy if you were trying to keep it from falling into someone else's hands. In Earth-orbit you can just have it enter the atmosphere and burn up and have any remaining parts land in the ocean. On the Moon you could use explosives, but you could never be sure if enough was destroyed.
It would seem to me (and I could be wrong) that an Earth-orbit satellite would be more stable than a Moon based object. A Moon based object may harder to reach, but then it would be harder to perform maintenance on and harder to destroy if you were trying to keep it from falling into someone else's hands. In Earth-orbit you can just have it enter the atmosphere and burn up and have any remaining parts land in the ocean. On the Moon you could use explosives, but you could never be sure if enough was destroyed.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No worries. I doubt Patrick will try to answer the questions anyway. If he remains consistent, he'll just offer an excuse for why the questions are irrelevant or ill-intended. You, I, and others here have endeavored to educate Patrick, and it's clear that's what you were trying to do in your post and that it had just been in the moderation queue.
It has only been recently that I've taken a more aggressive approach with Patrick, the reason being that he seems to be "sparring" with me (i.e., "matching wits"), and I'd like him instead to take the discussion more seriously. To me, taking it seriously means having him demonstrate some actual competence in the relevant sciences. But you can't be responsible for my change of tack.
Besides, the questions have a two-pronged intent. First, it requires some expertise to answer them. Patrick will either demonstrate the expertise, demonstrate that he doesn't have the expertise, or fail to take the test -- which is equivalent to the latter. Second, the answers to the questions demonstrate problems with Patrick's theory. If he comes up with the right answers, he'll have to reconcile those answers (which he now owns since he computed them) with his theory.
Taking things seriously also means answering RAF's questions about the existing evidence. Sts60 is right: Patrick is only considering one side of the question. "How can it be other than what I say?" seems to be his stock argument. How indeed? How about all the other evidence that favors the widely-accepted story of Apollo, such as authentic Moon rocks?
Not that I'm necessarily trying to change the subject, but Patrick isn't by any means the first conspiracy theorist to argue that Apollo may have actually flown to the Moon, but with some dark and sinister intent. But they at least try to explain the existing evidence. Patrick doesn't.
Not odd when you consider how little he seems to be paying attention to the response he's getting. We'll see if he connects your information to my questions.
He already noted the Earth rotation issue, but he hasn't yet connected that with why the Moon as a reflector exhibits a small Doppler shift at moonrise but not at zenith. Hmm.
matt.tansy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 991
Libration and the receding Moon can easily be calculated and corrected for. The LRRR allows us to accurately measure the distance to the Moon. Any fantasy-based Moon transmitter would incorporate that distance into its signal.
Also easily corrected for.
Irrelevant since errors in either system can be corrected.
Don't you watch Star Trek???
"Computer, initiate self-destruct sequence. Kirk, James T., Captain, authorization code lambda lambda one."
Or whatever it was.
Sure you could. Just place them in the right place. But getting your stuff captured isn't much of a worry in space.
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
A lunar-based installation has the very serious disadvantage of having to deal with the lunar diurnal cycle. It sits in the Sun for two Earth weeks, then cold soaks for two Earth weeks. This wasn't a problem for the short-term Apollo crew activities, but solar-powered landers like Surveyor can't stand this sort of treatment very long; none lasted more than two or three lunar day/night cycles. The ALSEP laboratories, deployed by the crews of A12, 14, 15, 16, and 17, used RTGs which afforded constant operation of the electronics and heaters necessary to bypass the thermal cycling torture test. They provided operation for up to seven years before the experiments were shut down.
Of course, like the rest of Apollo, the ALSEP design, construction, deployment, operation, and science are all part of the record, as is the use of the very limited isotope fuel resource. We know exactly and in abundant detail how this was all done, and have the telemetered science to prove it. My boss was one of those responsible for the development of the power system, in fact. We have drawers and drawers full of status reports and design and test information of these things.
All this is part of the enormous, self-consistent record that Patrick1000/DoctorTea/fattydash/longfuzzy/newyorkmary/etc. avoids so assiduously. Conversely, as already noted, there is no evidence whatsoever for any sort of military payload as fantasized by our quote-mining pretend scientist. The problem of lunar survivability adds the additional burden of showing where the nuclear fuel and generators required for such a system came from. Hint: they don't exist, and no amount of handwaving about secret budgets and programs will overcome the fact you can't conjure this up out of ignorance and wishful thinking.
matt.tansy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 991
TRANSIT User's Manual
Subtitled: Why you cannot find your position using a transmitter on the Moon.
The WRN-5 satellite receiver assumes you are on the surface of the Earth so a Doppler shift of a certain value will plot as a hyperbola along the surface of the Earth; e.g. if you are anywhere on that hyperbola the Doppler shift will be the same. Imagine a cone centered along the satellite's path and the angle the cone makes to the path is dependent on the Doppler shift (kinda like a Mach cone but it can extend out front). Some of the cone will intersect the surface of the Earth. You ARE on that hyperbola somewhere but the trick is finding out where on that hyperbola you are exactly. The line could be a thousands of miles long. Hence the need for recording the Doppler shifts over a majority of the NAVSAT's pass. As the satellite approaches you the Doppler shift decreases and the cone gets wider until at closest approach the cone is perpendicular to the path and as it recedes from you the cone narrows again but in the opposite direction of the satellite's path. There are only two places on the surface of a non-rotating Earth where these multiple hyperbolas will converge. On a rotating Earth the position on the opposite side from you of the satellite's pass the hyperbolas would not converge. That position is automatically discarded anyway because the satellite receiver already knows roughly where you are (within a few miles, anyway, because the receiver updates its position with heading and speed inputs from the last fix or the last initialization procedure). The receiver then uses trial and error to find where the hyperbolas converged.
The theoretical minimum time needed to get a fix was 2 minutes (the Wikipedia article mentions this) but in practice you needed more time than that. Oftentimes I would be recording a NAVSAT pass and the Officer of the Deck would have to lower the periscope to avoid detection, which would interrupt the signal (duh), and I would terminate the pass after only getting 2 or 3 or 4 minutes and the receiver always failed to compute a fix. Recording 6 to 10 minutes of a pass was optimum.
NAVSAT was not automatic like GPS. The user had to enter the geoidal height using a chart that looked like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...png/640px-Geoid_height_red_blue_averagebw.png
and add the antenna's/periscope's height above the water (which was different depending on whether you were surfaced or at periscope depth).
speed and heading inputs were required both to update the fix's position for the sub's movement during the recording process and to correct the observed Doppler shift caused by own ship's velocity, and if the user didn't manually terminate the recording before the satellite got too low in the sky the signal would degrade and spoil the fix. There was no way to discard bad signals. After terminating the pass the WRN-5 receiver took anywhere from 30 seconds to 10 minutes to compute the fix, with 2 minutes being average. There was nothing like having the CO standing behind you watching the display because he wants to go deep and go fast and he can't do that until we get a fix and he's asking you what's taking so long and he doesn't like your answer that it can take a few minutes and you're waiting and sweating and it finally says... "FAIL".
The WRN-5 had a function called "ALERT" that predicted when satellites would be available. The afternoon Quartermaster of the Watch was responsible for updating the "Alert Log" for the next day's satellite passes. It was a small green log book where we recorded the time of rise, satellite number, and maximum altitude ("elevation angle" for you landlubbers). Usable passes were between 20o and 75o above the horizon. The QMOW hit the "ALERT" key and would enter the sub's latitude, longtitude, course and speed for where he expected the sub to be and which general direction it would be moving over the next day and the WRN-5 would display the predicted passes one at a time. The QMOW would write that data in the log and press "NEXT" to get the next predicted pass. Satellite number was recorded because sometimes they would malfunction or get bad data uplinked to them and the Navy would send out messages saying, "Do not use NAVSAT xxx until further notice." It would sometimes take two hours to get a complete day's worth of predicted passes. Oh, the WRN-5 was slow!
Subtitled: Why you cannot find your position using a transmitter on the Moon.
The WRN-5 satellite receiver assumes you are on the surface of the Earth so a Doppler shift of a certain value will plot as a hyperbola along the surface of the Earth; e.g. if you are anywhere on that hyperbola the Doppler shift will be the same. Imagine a cone centered along the satellite's path and the angle the cone makes to the path is dependent on the Doppler shift (kinda like a Mach cone but it can extend out front). Some of the cone will intersect the surface of the Earth. You ARE on that hyperbola somewhere but the trick is finding out where on that hyperbola you are exactly. The line could be a thousands of miles long. Hence the need for recording the Doppler shifts over a majority of the NAVSAT's pass. As the satellite approaches you the Doppler shift decreases and the cone gets wider until at closest approach the cone is perpendicular to the path and as it recedes from you the cone narrows again but in the opposite direction of the satellite's path. There are only two places on the surface of a non-rotating Earth where these multiple hyperbolas will converge. On a rotating Earth the position on the opposite side from you of the satellite's pass the hyperbolas would not converge. That position is automatically discarded anyway because the satellite receiver already knows roughly where you are (within a few miles, anyway, because the receiver updates its position with heading and speed inputs from the last fix or the last initialization procedure). The receiver then uses trial and error to find where the hyperbolas converged.
The theoretical minimum time needed to get a fix was 2 minutes (the Wikipedia article mentions this) but in practice you needed more time than that. Oftentimes I would be recording a NAVSAT pass and the Officer of the Deck would have to lower the periscope to avoid detection, which would interrupt the signal (duh), and I would terminate the pass after only getting 2 or 3 or 4 minutes and the receiver always failed to compute a fix. Recording 6 to 10 minutes of a pass was optimum.
NAVSAT was not automatic like GPS. The user had to enter the geoidal height using a chart that looked like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...png/640px-Geoid_height_red_blue_averagebw.png
and add the antenna's/periscope's height above the water (which was different depending on whether you were surfaced or at periscope depth).
speed and heading inputs were required both to update the fix's position for the sub's movement during the recording process and to correct the observed Doppler shift caused by own ship's velocity, and if the user didn't manually terminate the recording before the satellite got too low in the sky the signal would degrade and spoil the fix. There was no way to discard bad signals. After terminating the pass the WRN-5 receiver took anywhere from 30 seconds to 10 minutes to compute the fix, with 2 minutes being average. There was nothing like having the CO standing behind you watching the display because he wants to go deep and go fast and he can't do that until we get a fix and he's asking you what's taking so long and he doesn't like your answer that it can take a few minutes and you're waiting and sweating and it finally says... "FAIL".
The WRN-5 had a function called "ALERT" that predicted when satellites would be available. The afternoon Quartermaster of the Watch was responsible for updating the "Alert Log" for the next day's satellite passes. It was a small green log book where we recorded the time of rise, satellite number, and maximum altitude ("elevation angle" for you landlubbers). Usable passes were between 20o and 75o above the horizon. The QMOW hit the "ALERT" key and would enter the sub's latitude, longtitude, course and speed for where he expected the sub to be and which general direction it would be moving over the next day and the WRN-5 would display the predicted passes one at a time. The QMOW would write that data in the log and press "NEXT" to get the next predicted pass. Satellite number was recorded because sometimes they would malfunction or get bad data uplinked to them and the Navy would send out messages saying, "Do not use NAVSAT xxx until further notice." It would sometimes take two hours to get a complete day's worth of predicted passes. Oh, the WRN-5 was slow!
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Though conceptually simple, the principles employed being easy enough to understand..
Though conceptually simple, the principles employed being easy enough to understand, the actual determination of a satellite ephemeris by way of doppler shift analysis Tomblvd is exceedingly complex and requires super computers. Here in this post I'll present some details as regards the process in outline, an historical perspective as it were. I'll initially stick with undisputed facts. Toward the end of the post, I'll discuss my own views with respect to satellite geodesy and Apollo Fraud in the context of doppler location systems of the NAVY's TRANSIT type.
This aspect of the fraud, well most of it anyway, is exceedingly straightforward. It is simply a part of 1960s satellite geodesy/geodetics and a part of NASA's very official, albeit very bogus narrative. By that I mean it is a relatively simple matter to look at the state of aeronautics/satellite geodesy in the 60s, have a listen to NASA's phony tale and come to the conclusion that earth-moon system based Doppler studies, both real and imagined, were "good enough" to be employed in the localization of objects receiving electromagnetic signals emitted from moon based transmitters.
I'll review some important issues in this post so that the facts are made as clear as can be. First off, what one would like to know is;
1) What was the state of satellite geodesy in the 1960s with regard to the art of earth based receiver location determination/navigation by way of doppler signal analysis ?
2) What were NASA's claims with regard to doppler analysis assisted tracking of deep space/perilunar objects in the 1960s.
One readily comes to the conclusion given the available scientific literature and NASA's own claims that indeed doppler analysis based satellite geodesic techniques readily provided a mechanism whereby American military interests were able to locate the position of pretty much any earth based receiver via the reception of satellite signals and the determination of the degree to which the signals' frequencies had been shifted. One also finds in a review of the available scientific literature generally and NASA's own reports specifically, that doppler based analysis had advanced to the point where deep space probes like the Ranger craft were locatable to within accuracies of feet from 240,000 miles away, and their velocities AS DETERMINED BY DOPPLER ANALYSIS were known with equal accuracy as NASA engineers/technicians calculated/determined these velocities to within accuracies of feet per second IN REAL TIME. High speed ultra powerful computers were o0f course required. None of this is in dispute as I shall readily demonstrate.
I shall argue further that based on 1 and 2 above;
3) US Military/Space Program interests parked instruments at various earth-moon system locations including upon the lunar surface itself and in earth-moon system libration points. Doppler analysis of receptions from such equipment would have provided data sufficient for the receivers' accurately locating themselves upon the surface of the earth. Of course lunar and earth-moon system libration point equipment served in additional capacities. To be sure, the equipment was broadly employed. But this was an important use, one worth covering in some detail, and so I shall. As I move on with the development of my personal Apollo Fraud Theory, there may well be revisions, and additions, but one will be sure to find that something went on as roughly presented below.
SPUTNIK AND THE BEGINNING OF DOPPLER ANALYSIS OF SATELLITE TRANSMISSIONS IN THE DETERMINATION OF EARTH BASED RECEIVER LOCATIONS
William Guier and George Weiffenbach were two American scientists working at the Johns Hopkins's Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). On their own initiative, the pair decided to monitor Sputnik's radio transmissions. They had a keen grasp of the obvious in a sense, the obvious to world class physicists, and realized they could determine the satellite's location along its orbit from studying Doppler shift data. Another way to say this is that they could determine Sputnik's ephemeris to a high degree of accuracy, the details of its orbiting(where exactly and how fast exactly the red bird was moving as it circled overhead) "simply" by studying how far its signal was doppler shifted from any given point and time of reception.
Take a look at this Wiki article for a bit of discussion. Go half way into the "HISTORY" section of the article and you'll read the part about the Hopkins' scientists;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
Note how the claim is made in this article that the Russians were surprised by the power of American computers, as according to the Wiki article authors, the Russian calculating machines would not have been able to determine the ephemeris of Sputnik with such accuracy. I would suggest that is an interpretation open to question. The Russians were and are capable, more or less as capable as the Americans were/are. If our boys could determine the red bird's ephemeris, it may very well have been the case the Russians could do the same by way of studying doppler data.
You'll note the Wiki article discusses the important issue of the US NAVY's Polaris concerns prompting a push to have the APL's William Guier and George Weiffenbach take a look at the "reverse problem"/solution, determining the position of an earth based receiver given a known/well described satellite ephemeris and satellite transmission data(signal and frequency/wavelength shift). This formal APL work on the "reverse ephemeris solution" BEGAN IN 1958, LESS THAN ONE YEAR AFTER SPUTNIK'S LAUNCH.
The US Navy's "TRANSIT SYSTEM"(satellite based navigation system) was first tested in 1960 and became fully deployed and operational in1964. The TRANSIT system is discussed a bit in the Wiki article linked above and in this dedicated Wiki article in greater detail;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_(satellite)
As noted in the Wiki article, TRANSIT was used as a navigation system by the surface ships, but far more importantly, was used by the U.S. Navy to provide accurate location information to its Polaris ballistic missile submarines. THIS WAS THE REASON FOR TRANSIT AND THE SATELLITE BASED NAVIGATION SYSTEM AS DEPLOYED IN 1964.
The TRANSIT system employed 5 satellites in low polar orbit, and the NAVY's birds orbited at a distance of roughly 600 nautical miles above the earth's surface. As only signals from sightable satellites could be picked up, at the equator, a ship might have to wait several hours before an orbiter would turn the earth's corner and come up over the horizon. If you were a ship's captain anxiously waiting for an opportunity to get a fix and you were parked somewhere latitude wise significantly above or below the equator, then of course you need not wait so long.
Note in the "Satellite" section of the Wiki article where the author states clearly TRANSIT 's intended role was as an updating system for SLBM launch. TRANSIT did not have the ability to provide high-speed, real-time position measurements. However, TRANSIT was adequate for the most part as submarines took periodic fixes to re-set their inertial guidance system. The point cannot be overemphasized however that TRANSIT 's primary role, its main reason for being was as an updating system for SLBM launch. VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY SIGNIFICANT!!!!!!!
TRANSIT was accurate. Note from the Wiki article that surveyors used TRANSIT to locate remote benchmarks by averaging dozens of Transit fixes. Nothing less than SUB-METER accuracy was provided under these special circumstances!!!!!!!. The elevation of Mount Everest was corrected in the late 1980s by using a Transit receiver to re-survey a nearby benchmark. THAT!!!! is accurate. You'll read in the Wiki article that as time went on the TRANSIT system provided single-pass accuracy of roughly 200 meters. VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY GOOD.
The beauty of the TRANSIT system is that/was that, once one has done all the ephemeris calculations, set up and calibrated the satellite system ephemerides, one need ONLY RECEIVE THE SATELLITE SIGNALS AND DO NOTHING ELSE BUT MEASURE THE FREQUENCY SHIFTS. Just that will give you your location to within a high degree of accuracy as already discussed. AMAZING!!!!!!!!
Now, we know NASA used doppler analysis to determine the velocity of Ranger(unmanned lunar mission) like space probes 240,000 miles away. And that type of analysis was used along with ranging/simple tracking analysis to determine the position and velocity of deep space probes to within a accuracies of feet(range) and feet per second respectively. So the fact that a probe is 200,000 miles away does not mean we can't doppler analyze the craft's transmissions. Large dishes were and continue to be used for this type of tracking. The 1965 journey of Ranger 9 was discussed along with Ranger probe tracking in general in Isaac Asimov's 1968 book THE PROMISE OF SPACE. Asimov emphasized the progressive accuracy of the NASA tracking capability with regard to location and velocity determinations. I like to emphasize the Ranger data because it was pre Surveyor Program AND pre Apollo Program. They did even better with those latter programs. Given the Ranger results, better than supreme accuracy could only mean absolute/utter confidence accuracy wise in one's knowing where the probe was, how fast it was moving and in exactly what direction the thing was headed. We are all well aware these were NASA's claims as regards the Apollo craft tracking capabilities. I like to emphasize this type of accuracy was achieved for the most part 4 years before Apollo 11 first set off for the moon.
So with regard to the issues I have covered so far, not a one is in dispute. The US NAVY's TRANSIT system was set up and operational by 1964. Using 5 polar orbiters, the system was able to provide accurate location data PRIMARILY FOR THE NAVY'S SLBM SUBMARINES, the ships for which the system was designed. Other naval craft, surface ships enjoyed its use as well. As time went on, the DOPPLER ANALYSIS BASED SYSTEM WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE A SLBM SUBMARINE WITH ITS LOCATION TO WITHIN 200 METERS. Not GPS numbers, but pretty dang good for the 60s. Good enough to vaporize Van Cliburn's competition with supreme confidence.
It is also not a point in dispute that by way of large tracking dishes here on earth, the positions of Ranger type lunar probes could be and were determined in real time within feet of their true locations and feet per second in terms of their velocities(rate and direction of movement).
I would encourage the curious to check out this web page;
http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsage17/diana.htm
And in particular, I would like to draw the reader's attention to the LOST IN SPACE SECTION. However, reading the whole thing is so worth it. It is a very good brief discussion of some aspects of deep space tracking techniques and some things/details even the most well informed may not be aware of are included in this brief presentation.
Now given the tracking and doppler analysis capabilities as described, were a transmitter placed at Tranquility Base, its movement, ITS PRECISE MOVEMENT ABOUT THE EARTH, A COMPLETE EPHEMERIS COULD BE DETERMINED. This was of course done with LRRR based measurements giving us the most accurate lunar ephemeris ever. But one needs special equipment to transmit and receive laser signals. Once a straightforward doppler based lunar ephemeris was determined, just as in the case with ephemerides determined by low earth orbiting satellites/NAVY TRANSIT SYSTEM, all one need do is receive a signal and determine its frequency change due to its relative motion. The frequency/doppler shift rises with approach and falls with the transmitters withdrawing from a receiver. SIMPLY KNOWING THE TRANSMITTING FREQUENCY AND THEN DETERMINING THE FREQUENCY CHANGE YIELDS DATA SUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE THE RECEIVER'S EARTH LOCATION ONCE THE EPHEMERIS OF THE SATELLITES HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT.
Note how large earth based dishes would be employed in constructing an ephemeris, but no longer needed after that project was complete. Once you have your ephemeris, you just turn on your receiver. If you wind up receiving at a frequency such and such higher, say 193.76894 Hz higher than the "rest" transmission frequency, then that "shift" will correspond to a location on the earth. In the case of TRANSIT, two locations were given for each reception, knowing your general location allows you to choose between the two and so you get your numbers, submerge your missile carrying sub, align your platforms, and proceed to blast the Soviet music schools with your favorite flavor of compressed tritium.
Now the moon does not move very fast, only 2200 miles an hour about the earth give or take. The earth rotates about its axis with any point on the equator moving at a thousand miles an hour, higher and lower latitudes move more slowly. So these are the motions generating the shifts in signal. Not great. But we know they are fast enough, generate shifts meaningful enough to be useful because shifts of this very magnitude are what were utilized to measure how fast Ranger/Surveyor/Apollo craft were moving about the moon. They moved at speeds of zero to thousands of miles an hour relative to the earth dishes tracking them, and the dishes themselves are in relative motion due to the earth's rotation.
So the objection that 2000 miles an hour is not fast enough to generate a meaningful doppler shift is not valid. Also, these same shifts must be taken into account in the LRRR experiments to determine the earth moon distance so precisely. So again, in the case of LRRR experiments, if we need to deal with the moon's 2200 mph velocity with respect to giving us earth-moon distance measurements within meters accuracy, we must be able to deal with this movement in a positive sense, in our being able to determine EXACTLY HOW THE MOON IS MOVING IN RELATION TO THE EARTH BY WAY OF DOPPLER SHIFT ANALYSIS. Were we not able to do this, we could not determine the earth-moon distance with the Lick laser. The Lick scientists cannot make the moon stop to take a LRRR measurement. They deal with the moon's relative motion in the context of their work by accounting for the doppler shift. Has to be that way.
None of the above is in question. These are not points in dispute. The above is stone cold factual. Outside of the mainstream presentation as above, it is my further contention that during Apollo, instruments were actually placed on the moon and in libration appoints 4 and 5, the stable Trojan points. A satellite could also be place at the relatively unstable libration point 3, or closer in to cover the moon's backside. Ephemerides for this outer satellite system could be determined and in so doing provide for 24/7 access to a satellite constellation that yielded NAVAL craft/SLBM submarines and other military receiving platforms upon reception of doppler shifted satellite signals, enough information to accurately determine their location on the high seas for the purposes of aligning the ships' own and additionally the SLBM platforms per se to blast the Ruskies.
Though conceptually simple, the principles employed being easy enough to understand, the actual determination of a satellite ephemeris by way of doppler shift analysis Tomblvd is exceedingly complex and requires super computers. Here in this post I'll present some details as regards the process in outline, an historical perspective as it were. I'll initially stick with undisputed facts. Toward the end of the post, I'll discuss my own views with respect to satellite geodesy and Apollo Fraud in the context of doppler location systems of the NAVY's TRANSIT type.
This aspect of the fraud, well most of it anyway, is exceedingly straightforward. It is simply a part of 1960s satellite geodesy/geodetics and a part of NASA's very official, albeit very bogus narrative. By that I mean it is a relatively simple matter to look at the state of aeronautics/satellite geodesy in the 60s, have a listen to NASA's phony tale and come to the conclusion that earth-moon system based Doppler studies, both real and imagined, were "good enough" to be employed in the localization of objects receiving electromagnetic signals emitted from moon based transmitters.
I'll review some important issues in this post so that the facts are made as clear as can be. First off, what one would like to know is;
1) What was the state of satellite geodesy in the 1960s with regard to the art of earth based receiver location determination/navigation by way of doppler signal analysis ?
2) What were NASA's claims with regard to doppler analysis assisted tracking of deep space/perilunar objects in the 1960s.
One readily comes to the conclusion given the available scientific literature and NASA's own claims that indeed doppler analysis based satellite geodesic techniques readily provided a mechanism whereby American military interests were able to locate the position of pretty much any earth based receiver via the reception of satellite signals and the determination of the degree to which the signals' frequencies had been shifted. One also finds in a review of the available scientific literature generally and NASA's own reports specifically, that doppler based analysis had advanced to the point where deep space probes like the Ranger craft were locatable to within accuracies of feet from 240,000 miles away, and their velocities AS DETERMINED BY DOPPLER ANALYSIS were known with equal accuracy as NASA engineers/technicians calculated/determined these velocities to within accuracies of feet per second IN REAL TIME. High speed ultra powerful computers were o0f course required. None of this is in dispute as I shall readily demonstrate.
I shall argue further that based on 1 and 2 above;
3) US Military/Space Program interests parked instruments at various earth-moon system locations including upon the lunar surface itself and in earth-moon system libration points. Doppler analysis of receptions from such equipment would have provided data sufficient for the receivers' accurately locating themselves upon the surface of the earth. Of course lunar and earth-moon system libration point equipment served in additional capacities. To be sure, the equipment was broadly employed. But this was an important use, one worth covering in some detail, and so I shall. As I move on with the development of my personal Apollo Fraud Theory, there may well be revisions, and additions, but one will be sure to find that something went on as roughly presented below.
SPUTNIK AND THE BEGINNING OF DOPPLER ANALYSIS OF SATELLITE TRANSMISSIONS IN THE DETERMINATION OF EARTH BASED RECEIVER LOCATIONS
William Guier and George Weiffenbach were two American scientists working at the Johns Hopkins's Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). On their own initiative, the pair decided to monitor Sputnik's radio transmissions. They had a keen grasp of the obvious in a sense, the obvious to world class physicists, and realized they could determine the satellite's location along its orbit from studying Doppler shift data. Another way to say this is that they could determine Sputnik's ephemeris to a high degree of accuracy, the details of its orbiting(where exactly and how fast exactly the red bird was moving as it circled overhead) "simply" by studying how far its signal was doppler shifted from any given point and time of reception.
Take a look at this Wiki article for a bit of discussion. Go half way into the "HISTORY" section of the article and you'll read the part about the Hopkins' scientists;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
Note how the claim is made in this article that the Russians were surprised by the power of American computers, as according to the Wiki article authors, the Russian calculating machines would not have been able to determine the ephemeris of Sputnik with such accuracy. I would suggest that is an interpretation open to question. The Russians were and are capable, more or less as capable as the Americans were/are. If our boys could determine the red bird's ephemeris, it may very well have been the case the Russians could do the same by way of studying doppler data.
You'll note the Wiki article discusses the important issue of the US NAVY's Polaris concerns prompting a push to have the APL's William Guier and George Weiffenbach take a look at the "reverse problem"/solution, determining the position of an earth based receiver given a known/well described satellite ephemeris and satellite transmission data(signal and frequency/wavelength shift). This formal APL work on the "reverse ephemeris solution" BEGAN IN 1958, LESS THAN ONE YEAR AFTER SPUTNIK'S LAUNCH.
The US Navy's "TRANSIT SYSTEM"(satellite based navigation system) was first tested in 1960 and became fully deployed and operational in1964. The TRANSIT system is discussed a bit in the Wiki article linked above and in this dedicated Wiki article in greater detail;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_(satellite)
As noted in the Wiki article, TRANSIT was used as a navigation system by the surface ships, but far more importantly, was used by the U.S. Navy to provide accurate location information to its Polaris ballistic missile submarines. THIS WAS THE REASON FOR TRANSIT AND THE SATELLITE BASED NAVIGATION SYSTEM AS DEPLOYED IN 1964.
The TRANSIT system employed 5 satellites in low polar orbit, and the NAVY's birds orbited at a distance of roughly 600 nautical miles above the earth's surface. As only signals from sightable satellites could be picked up, at the equator, a ship might have to wait several hours before an orbiter would turn the earth's corner and come up over the horizon. If you were a ship's captain anxiously waiting for an opportunity to get a fix and you were parked somewhere latitude wise significantly above or below the equator, then of course you need not wait so long.
Note in the "Satellite" section of the Wiki article where the author states clearly TRANSIT 's intended role was as an updating system for SLBM launch. TRANSIT did not have the ability to provide high-speed, real-time position measurements. However, TRANSIT was adequate for the most part as submarines took periodic fixes to re-set their inertial guidance system. The point cannot be overemphasized however that TRANSIT 's primary role, its main reason for being was as an updating system for SLBM launch. VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY SIGNIFICANT!!!!!!!
TRANSIT was accurate. Note from the Wiki article that surveyors used TRANSIT to locate remote benchmarks by averaging dozens of Transit fixes. Nothing less than SUB-METER accuracy was provided under these special circumstances!!!!!!!. The elevation of Mount Everest was corrected in the late 1980s by using a Transit receiver to re-survey a nearby benchmark. THAT!!!! is accurate. You'll read in the Wiki article that as time went on the TRANSIT system provided single-pass accuracy of roughly 200 meters. VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY GOOD.
The beauty of the TRANSIT system is that/was that, once one has done all the ephemeris calculations, set up and calibrated the satellite system ephemerides, one need ONLY RECEIVE THE SATELLITE SIGNALS AND DO NOTHING ELSE BUT MEASURE THE FREQUENCY SHIFTS. Just that will give you your location to within a high degree of accuracy as already discussed. AMAZING!!!!!!!!
Now, we know NASA used doppler analysis to determine the velocity of Ranger(unmanned lunar mission) like space probes 240,000 miles away. And that type of analysis was used along with ranging/simple tracking analysis to determine the position and velocity of deep space probes to within a accuracies of feet(range) and feet per second respectively. So the fact that a probe is 200,000 miles away does not mean we can't doppler analyze the craft's transmissions. Large dishes were and continue to be used for this type of tracking. The 1965 journey of Ranger 9 was discussed along with Ranger probe tracking in general in Isaac Asimov's 1968 book THE PROMISE OF SPACE. Asimov emphasized the progressive accuracy of the NASA tracking capability with regard to location and velocity determinations. I like to emphasize the Ranger data because it was pre Surveyor Program AND pre Apollo Program. They did even better with those latter programs. Given the Ranger results, better than supreme accuracy could only mean absolute/utter confidence accuracy wise in one's knowing where the probe was, how fast it was moving and in exactly what direction the thing was headed. We are all well aware these were NASA's claims as regards the Apollo craft tracking capabilities. I like to emphasize this type of accuracy was achieved for the most part 4 years before Apollo 11 first set off for the moon.
So with regard to the issues I have covered so far, not a one is in dispute. The US NAVY's TRANSIT system was set up and operational by 1964. Using 5 polar orbiters, the system was able to provide accurate location data PRIMARILY FOR THE NAVY'S SLBM SUBMARINES, the ships for which the system was designed. Other naval craft, surface ships enjoyed its use as well. As time went on, the DOPPLER ANALYSIS BASED SYSTEM WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE A SLBM SUBMARINE WITH ITS LOCATION TO WITHIN 200 METERS. Not GPS numbers, but pretty dang good for the 60s. Good enough to vaporize Van Cliburn's competition with supreme confidence.
It is also not a point in dispute that by way of large tracking dishes here on earth, the positions of Ranger type lunar probes could be and were determined in real time within feet of their true locations and feet per second in terms of their velocities(rate and direction of movement).
I would encourage the curious to check out this web page;
http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsage17/diana.htm
And in particular, I would like to draw the reader's attention to the LOST IN SPACE SECTION. However, reading the whole thing is so worth it. It is a very good brief discussion of some aspects of deep space tracking techniques and some things/details even the most well informed may not be aware of are included in this brief presentation.
Now given the tracking and doppler analysis capabilities as described, were a transmitter placed at Tranquility Base, its movement, ITS PRECISE MOVEMENT ABOUT THE EARTH, A COMPLETE EPHEMERIS COULD BE DETERMINED. This was of course done with LRRR based measurements giving us the most accurate lunar ephemeris ever. But one needs special equipment to transmit and receive laser signals. Once a straightforward doppler based lunar ephemeris was determined, just as in the case with ephemerides determined by low earth orbiting satellites/NAVY TRANSIT SYSTEM, all one need do is receive a signal and determine its frequency change due to its relative motion. The frequency/doppler shift rises with approach and falls with the transmitters withdrawing from a receiver. SIMPLY KNOWING THE TRANSMITTING FREQUENCY AND THEN DETERMINING THE FREQUENCY CHANGE YIELDS DATA SUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE THE RECEIVER'S EARTH LOCATION ONCE THE EPHEMERIS OF THE SATELLITES HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT.
Note how large earth based dishes would be employed in constructing an ephemeris, but no longer needed after that project was complete. Once you have your ephemeris, you just turn on your receiver. If you wind up receiving at a frequency such and such higher, say 193.76894 Hz higher than the "rest" transmission frequency, then that "shift" will correspond to a location on the earth. In the case of TRANSIT, two locations were given for each reception, knowing your general location allows you to choose between the two and so you get your numbers, submerge your missile carrying sub, align your platforms, and proceed to blast the Soviet music schools with your favorite flavor of compressed tritium.
Now the moon does not move very fast, only 2200 miles an hour about the earth give or take. The earth rotates about its axis with any point on the equator moving at a thousand miles an hour, higher and lower latitudes move more slowly. So these are the motions generating the shifts in signal. Not great. But we know they are fast enough, generate shifts meaningful enough to be useful because shifts of this very magnitude are what were utilized to measure how fast Ranger/Surveyor/Apollo craft were moving about the moon. They moved at speeds of zero to thousands of miles an hour relative to the earth dishes tracking them, and the dishes themselves are in relative motion due to the earth's rotation.
So the objection that 2000 miles an hour is not fast enough to generate a meaningful doppler shift is not valid. Also, these same shifts must be taken into account in the LRRR experiments to determine the earth moon distance so precisely. So again, in the case of LRRR experiments, if we need to deal with the moon's 2200 mph velocity with respect to giving us earth-moon distance measurements within meters accuracy, we must be able to deal with this movement in a positive sense, in our being able to determine EXACTLY HOW THE MOON IS MOVING IN RELATION TO THE EARTH BY WAY OF DOPPLER SHIFT ANALYSIS. Were we not able to do this, we could not determine the earth-moon distance with the Lick laser. The Lick scientists cannot make the moon stop to take a LRRR measurement. They deal with the moon's relative motion in the context of their work by accounting for the doppler shift. Has to be that way.
None of the above is in question. These are not points in dispute. The above is stone cold factual. Outside of the mainstream presentation as above, it is my further contention that during Apollo, instruments were actually placed on the moon and in libration appoints 4 and 5, the stable Trojan points. A satellite could also be place at the relatively unstable libration point 3, or closer in to cover the moon's backside. Ephemerides for this outer satellite system could be determined and in so doing provide for 24/7 access to a satellite constellation that yielded NAVAL craft/SLBM submarines and other military receiving platforms upon reception of doppler shifted satellite signals, enough information to accurately determine their location on the high seas for the purposes of aligning the ships' own and additionally the SLBM platforms per se to blast the Ruskies.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
So you had time to compose yet another wall of irrelevant text. But you neglected to answer my few questions intended to determine just what your competence is in this area.
Why should anyone pay attention to your theory if you are unwilling to show that you have at least as much understanding of the problems involved as your critics do?
When may I expect an answer to my questions?
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
"Code zero zero zero. Destruct. Zero"
Patrick, you debunk yourself inside your own paragraph. Ranger was moving. Surveyor was moving. Apollo was moving. Does any source anywhere state anything about new doppler analysis being able to find any ship once it touched the moon and stopped?
You say that the combined earth-moon motion is enough to generate a quick doppler signal, quick meaning less than a week. But all your examples regard spaceships which were all going very fast. Ranger 7 was going 2.62 km/sec when it hit the moon. That's ... FIVE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND SIXTY MILES AN HOUR.
So, your Earth-Moon system is 5,860 mph slower than the Earth-Ranger system. It's about 75% slower.
But, to you, they are the same. Why? Seriously, why?
It is impossible to prove untrue what is objectively true.
- Status