The Wikipedia history of GPS doesn't say a word about the Apollo ranging system, and says quite a lot about Loran, Decca Navigator, TRANSIT, OMEGA and SECOR.
There really isn't any way in which GPS can be seen as an extension of the Apollo ranging system.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
NT does recommend ignoring anybody who has the temerity to disagree with you.
Like most of the people who go in for plonking, he does have a lot of silly ideas which richly deserve all the jeering that gets directed at them, and seems to lack the capacity to realise that he really is posting dangerous nonsense.
Granting that, plonking is the only solution that works for him. Adopting it would put you in bad company.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
The people who *built and operated* Apollo disagree with you. I know this - I was talking face to face with some of them just this weekend.
Just stop displaying your ignorance, Bill, you're out of your depth and apparently know nothing that you can't find in Wikipedia.
Clifford Heath.
other
to
nd
rg system, and says quite a lot about Loran, Decca Navigator, TRANSIT, OMEGA and SECOR.
the Apollo ranging system.
The people who built and operated Apollo do have a particular interest in s eeing is as the source and fount of everything built since then. Quite how many of them you'd run into in Australia is an interesting question. The gu ys who worked at Honeysuckle Creek weren't exactly the designers.
Grow up. Wikipedia is a easily accessible source of what everybody could kn ow with minimum effort - the kind of effort you don't seem to have put in.
For a slightly less shallow piece of insight see pages 6-10 of the NSW IEEE newsletter, which I happen to edit
Nothing about the Apollo ranging system, but it does make it clear how Hone ysuckle Creek was involved with the Apollo mission, and how little the guys who worked there needed to know about the ranging system.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
With extremely accurate distance and velocity (doppler) measurements combined with the less accurate six classical orbital elements obtained by other means, you can improve the accuracy after a few orbits.
If you know the inclination, this limits the north-south range where the satellite could be. Measuring the minimum distance to tracking station or doppler zero on two or more orbits, you can calculate the orbit period and from this the orbit size (if the mass of the big body is known). If eccentricity is known, you can calculate the perigeum and apogeum of the orbit. If you had measured one of these by some means, you can calculate the eccentricity. With the other classical parameters, you can fully describe th orbit in relation to the sky.
With some highly accurate distance and speed measurements, you can then gradually refine these classical parameters and hence predict the orbit in the future (extrapolating).
Of course a GPS satellite also broadcasts its orbit parameters with a very high accuracy, but these parameters are uploaded to the GPS satellite by the tracking station. These must be updated periodically to include orbital variations.
Further enshrining CSIRO's long-standing prevarication? It's only this last week that John Sarkissian finally came clean. Parkes must have been very bitter it wasn't them who got the first steps. But then they had no transmit capability, so could not send ranging, could not decode the telemetry (that was sent to HSK as a backup), and had various other comms weaknesses - they were always peripheral to the moon landing - if the video camera hadn't been included at the last minute, their involvement would barely be remembered. But that's enough to dupe the IEEE apparently.
I could give you phone numbers and email addresses of Keith Brockelsby and Bernard Smith, both of whom still have the engineering documentation and both of whom separately related to me *in detail* exactly how the system worked - and that's fifty years after it happened - PRNG sequence lengths, frequencies, correlation method, everything. But I wouldn't allow you to waste their time.
End. I won't argue this with you any further.
Clifford Heath.
They did TLI after 3-4 orbits only, and TEI even sooner - yet hit the earth's atmosphere at the right angle very precisely. I'm in awe, especially the return trip.
Great stuff. A lot of that pertains to earth orbit of course; but the TEI burn left lunar orbit. Bloody good effort, I say!
Honestly, that's never going to happen
Why?
Bigger antenna meant a better signal to noise ratio so what they received was what was passed on, at least for the bulk of the transmission.
It was - first and foremost - a radio telescope which is why it's still there and still working.
None of which has anything much to do with GPS, so why would I want to waste their time?
Wise decision. The more you post, the more obvious it is that you don't know enough about what you are talking about.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
The proposition that not agreeing with an under-informed poster is "displaying ignorance" is the kind of rationalisation that under-informed posters do seem to find comforting.
We seem to have two of them here.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
It was initially designed to use start navigation as the main navigation method. At some stage, the two-way ranging was added as an auxiliary method. I have no idea which was the dominant method at the end of Apollo program.
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
It was built by Raytheon. Just like I said it was. Weight was a MAIN consideration as it has always been with every space vehicle.
Your sig needs no work. It matches you perfectly.
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news:37cefb4e-d7da-4eac-bcfd- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
You are a goddamned retard.
John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
We ARE doing serious space science. That is what the ISS is for.
You have serious problems and it is you being absurd.
George Herold wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news:720be031-47c7-471a-9bca-3d1a666ea529 @googlegroups.com:
The Trump method.
Filter your news, and become unaware of the world around you. How quaint... NOT!
The "science" in ISS is mostly silly make-work stuff. None of it needs a human present. We could grow bean sprouts in zero-G without people there to supervise.
I don't know of any scientific or practical successes. Do you?
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Or the previous waves of Asian invaders.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
You're AlwaysWrong. This is no exception.
Which would be totally irrelevant.
There's that AlwaysWrong "maturity" we've all come to expect.
Neither of them seems to know that "discreet" means retictent or a least non-blabbermouth,and "discrete" means separate.
A "discrete component" is a concept, and a "discreet person" is another - entirely different - concept.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.