Originally posted by @freakykbh
[youtube]8ueKXD1Bbd8[/youtube]
Ship is unraveling.
And unraveling.
And unraveling some more, yo.
Dearest sonhouse:
Please start around the 8:00 mark.
No sense getting completely overwhelmed with science in one fell swoop.
The whole bunch of them are so full of shyte it isn't funny. Why don't YOU take a look at the specs that assswipe shows in his own graph, transmitter gain 60 db, receiver gain TEN db.
That last is rather important.
I can get ten DB gain from a frigging YAGI. You may remember I do know something about this subject, I possess the top amateur radio licence, extra class and was offered a job at goldstone space tracking center and was a trained apollo tech.
They are using radio telescopes with huge apatures and at 10 gigahertz the wavelength is 3 cm, 30 millimeters, call it an inch for grins. Take a look at the big radio telescopes around the world, 80 feet is a rather small one these days.
So look at the numbers, a disc 80 feet in diameter focusing incoming RF.
One inch wavelength with an 80 foot diameter dish will focus more than 70 MILLION such wavelengths on a detector.
So a 10 db antenna focuses 10X the energy, a 20 db antenna focuses 100X the energy. A 60 db antenna focuses 1 MILLION X the energy. and here we have 70 times that, call it an extra 15 odd db plus 60. Total gain, ~75 DECIBELS gain, not TEN DB like that chart says.
You really need to study electronics more if you plan to snooker us with bullshyte videos done by film makers using total BS tales like 'yeah, my video camera can only transmit an image 200 feet MAX, so how are we supposed to believe in 1969 that camera could have possible transmitted a video signal all the way to Earth.'
It looks to me like HE needs a bit of training in electronics since the signal from the camera goes to the backpack on the spacesuit and from there to the lander which has an antenna with some decent gain and THEN to Earth.
You really need to study these subjects before you shove your foot ever deeper into your widening mouth.
Of course you won't even understand what I just said anyway so go back to your old MO of moving the goalposts once again.
Or you could actually LOOK CLOSELY at the graph your own dude generated and see for yourself the reference to a miserly 10 db gain antenna in the receive end.
But you won't will you? Totally satisfied yet again a crackpot video HAS to be true because, hey, there is the video, and videographers NEVER lie.
And of course you have to deny the excellent video recently received from Pluto, showing details never even imagined, frozen methane dunes and such. There the antenna is maybe a meter across and similar wavelengths and a not very powerful transmitter, maybe 10 watts or so, managing to get that signal clear across the entire frigging solar system to the radio telescopes on Earth.
Also the Voyagers which took the first close up images of the planets 40 odd years ago, still running, still sending signals back from ten BILLION miles out and we are still getting good data about the interface between the solar system and total interstellar space, also something they didn't even imagine could have been possible, yet using the same technology as was available for the Apollo missions.
You live in a sad place mentally.