As explained re the discussions about Telstar and Syncom, NASA knew that satellite communication whilst theoretically possible, wasn't a practical means to broadcast live pictures from the Moon. For example, it had no sure way of knowing the exact landng location, because, as you recall, Armstrong had to steer the module away from a crater boulder field (so there's a small problem with positioning for a start) it also did not know exactly what time they guys would exit the module, as they needed to decompress and adjust their space suits. I think in the end it took them four to six hours to come out. As you know, Telstar only had an eight-hour time slot befor disappearing off the horizon in its elliptical orbit. So, the guys were given a Westinghouse SSTV, the signals of which were to be received at ten frames per second by two receivers in Australia and one in California, chosen as being in favourable aspect to the Moon. This was decoded and then another TV camera pointed at a TV monitor at Houston transmitted the images live all over the world. Simples.
Except 'deniers' had issues about this.
So why didn't physicists and engineers have issues with this? Again, are they just that much dumber than you?
And you didn't answer the question.
Why was a satellite needed to relay a signal between the earth and the moon?
Paris and New York can't see each other, so you can't send signals between the two that have line-of-sight propagation. But if you put a satellite where both locations can simultaneously see it, then it can relay signals between the two cities.
The earth and moon
can both see each other. An antenna on the near side of the moon and an antenna on earth can send signals back and forth with no problem. If you have antennae in multiple locations, such as Goldstone, California; Canberra, Australia and
Madrid, Spain, that are connected to the same communications network, then you can maintain continuous communication between the earth and moon even as the earth rotates throughout the day.
Simples.
So simples, in fact, as to make it difficult to believe that
anyone capable of operating a toothbrush could genuinely be too obtuse to grasp it, let alone someone who had scored in the 99.9th percentile on a standardized intelligence test. So we're left to wonder
why someone would pretend to be unable to apprehend so simply a concept. Is it out of a pathological inability to admit error that leads to fabricating layer upon layer of willful ignorance to create a delusional reality in which to pretend you're proving your genius? Is it a simple need for attention, frustrated by an inability to generate interest without acting as though you're outrageously ignorant and arrogantly, delusionally over confident? Sadly, that question is the reason your threads draw any attention, not because your arguments are in any way compelling.
