A hoax theory...

[ka9q]

Why is it necessary to track Apollo all the way to the moon to prove they went?

It wasn't.

The (entirely fictional) power-failure scene from The Dish hints why hams heard relatively little from Apollo during the transit. It was hard in those days even for a professional radio telescope to track a tiny spacecraft on its way to or from the moon. You needed to know where to point your highly directional antenna. Even if you had a computer with the right software, which was pretty rare in the late 1960s, you also needed the actual state vector/orbital elements to plug into that program. I don't think NASA treated them as classified, but neither did they publish them in the papers; there were useless to most people.

But when Apollo was in lunar orbit, it was easy to track: just point your antenna at the moon. Accurate almanacs would tell you where the moon would be even if you couldn't see it because of cloudy weather.

Even that might overstate it a little. I have a collection of the "Eimac moonbounce notes" from the early-mid 1970s for radio hams involved in bouncing their signals off the moon. Quite a few were devoted to various means for tracking the moon, often by ad-hoc graphical means. This is how they did things back in the good 'ol days before computers, sonny...

[bknight]

Why is it necessary to track Apollo all the way to the moon to prove they went?

It wasn't.

The (entirely fictional) power-failure scene from The Dish hints why hams heard relatively little from Apollo during the transit. It was hard in those days even for a professional radio telescope to track a tiny spacecraft on its way to or from the moon. You needed to know where to point your highly directional antenna. Even if you had a computer with the right software, which was pretty rare in the late 1960s, you also needed the actual state vector/orbital elements to plug into that program. I don't think NASA treated them as classified, but neither did they publish them in the papers; there were useless to most people.

But when Apollo was in lunar orbit, it was easy to track: just point your antenna at the moon. Accurate almanacs would tell you where the moon would be even if you couldn't see it because of cloudy weather.

Even that might overstate it a little. I have a collection of the "Eimac moonbounce notes" from the early-mid 1970s for radio hams involved in bouncing their signals off the moon. Quite a few were devoted to various means for tracking the moon, often by ad-hoc graphical means. This is how they did things back in the good 'ol days before computers, sonny...

One of comical comments are/were the lunar mission signals where coming from the TETRA satellites
EDIT Changed satellite to correct nomenclature.

[JayUtah]

Yeah, Bart Sibrel infamously made that claim. As if ground stations couldn't tell the difference between a translunar spacecraft and a LEO spacecraft.

[Bryanpoprobson]

Yeah, Bart Sibrel infamously made that claim. As if ground stations couldn't tell the difference between a translunar spacecraft and a LEO spacecraft.

There is a way that could have been done though, but I wouldn't want to furnish these idiots with theories..

[bknight]

Yeah, Bart Sibrel infamously made that claim. As if ground stations couldn't tell the difference between a translunar spacecraft and a LEO spacecraft.

Aw yes, but they were paid to keep silent on any discrepancies, or Ninja I did see an article about mysterious scientist deaths.  some apparently still believe NASA silences critics, whistle blowers
http://www.neonnettle.com/features/415-why-have-74-prominent-scientists-been-murdered-in-the-past-ten-years-

[smartcooky]

Yeah, Bart Sibrel infamously made that claim. As if ground stations couldn't tell the difference between a translunar spacecraft and a LEO spacecraft.

Err let me see, the moon tracks across the sky at about 15° per hour, but a LEO satellite tracks across the sky at between 1° and 5° per second (orbit dependent). e.g., the ISS tracks at about 1.2° per second. That is about 290 times faster than the moon.  I think mr Baysinger would have noticed!

There is a way that could have been done though, but I wouldn't want to furnish these idiots with theories..

Yes there is. You could send a specially designed radio replay station/lander........to the moon. You would have to send the outgoing transmisions to the lunar relay station which would then have to be scrambled (to defeat all those nosey ham radio operators) and sent back on a different frequency to a sooper seekrit receiving station on Earth (actually you would need a few sooper seekrit stations because of the Earth's rotation) and relayed to Tranqulity Base Studios at Area 51 where they are unscrambled, the astronaut replies, and his signal is scrambled again and sent back to the sooper seekrit relay station, back up to he lunar relay station where it is unscrambled again and transmitted back to CapCom.

One problem.... The delay. This would double the delay from about 2½ seconds to about 5 seconds which would be noticable immediately. It is possible to add delay, but not possible to reduce it; that would need the radio transmissions to travel faster than light, and is against Mr Einstein's rules.

 

[Bryanpoprobson]

My solution would have been, to put a relay satellite at the L1 point, although not the most stable point, it would only have to remain stable for the duration of the EVA's. Plus the round trip delay would be about 2.5 to 3 seconds..

[smartcooky]

My solution would have been, to put a relay satellite at the L1 point, although not the most stable point, it would only have to remain stable for the duration of the EVA's. Plus the round trip delay would be about 2.5 to 3 seconds..

Stable enough for Apollo 11 maybe for its short duration of a couple of hours in the surface but not long enough for Apollo 17 that was at Taurus-Littrow for three days.,

Also, for Apollo 13 there was a lot more communications with the spacecraft in transit (and remember that the Apollo spacecraft in transit to and from the moon goes a long way off the a direct line between the Earth and the Moon)

[Bryanpoprobson]

Stable enough for Apollo 11 maybe for its short duration of a couple of hours in the surface but not long enough for Apollo 17 that was at Taurus-Littrow for three days.,

Also, for Apollo 13 there was a lot more communications with the spacecraft in transit (and remember that the Apollo spacecraft in transit to and from the moon goes a long way off the a direct line between the Earth and the Moon)

It depends on the amount of instability at the L1 point, I know it is one of the least stable of the Lagrange points, beyond that I'm guessing. But as for tracking, that could be done from each of the Saturn launches.. But it just goes to show, all these little intricacies and difficulties, it was simpler and easier for it to have happened..

[smartcooky]

Stable enough for Apollo 11 maybe for its short duration of a couple of hours in the surface but not long enough for Apollo 17 that was at Taurus-Littrow for three days.,

Also, for Apollo 13 there was a lot more communications with the spacecraft in transit (and remember that the Apollo spacecraft in transit to and from the moon goes a long way off the a direct line between the Earth and the Moon)

It depends on the amount of instability at the L1 point, I know it is one of the least stable of the Lagrange points, beyond that I'm guessing. But as for tracking, that could be done from each of the Saturn launches.. But it just goes to show, all these little intricacies and difficulties, it was simpler and easier for it to have happened..

Back of the envelope math.

L1 is about 325,000 km from earth, the moon is about 384,000km, so L1 is about 85% of the distance. While you could possibly put a relay station there it wouldn't help much. If you are going to fake the landing site on Earth, say, at Area 51, then in order to make the signal come from the direction of the moon (to anyone listening), you still have to get the signal from

CapCom to L1 - 325,000 km
L1 to SSTN* - 325,000 km
SSTN* to Area 51 - ?
Area 51 to SSTN* - ?
SSTN* to L1 - 325,000 km
L1 to CapCom - 325,000 km

*SSTN = Sooper Seekrit Tracking Network

In 1969, the signal to and from Area 51 and SSTN would probably be achieved by landline and the delay would be typically 1-2 seconds each way (Others here will have a better idea of that than me)

The signal has to travel through space 1.3 million km

1.3 million km @ 300,000 km/sec =   4.3 seconds plus 2 to 4 seconds landline delay means that even an immediate reply to a transmission from CapCom could not be heard any quicker than 6 to 8 seconds later.

That delay would stand out like a canine's gonads!!! 


NOTE: With 1969 rocket technology I think it would be bloody difficult to put a satellite at L1. As I understand it, the Apollo missions were all done by, as Tom Hanks said in Apollo 13, "putting Sir Isaac Newton in the driving seat". The spacecraft literally fell toward the moon and they used the moon's gravity as well as retro-firing to put the the spacecraft into lunar orbit. The orbital mechanics experts here will have a better idea than me, but I imagine it would take quite a complicated series of manoeuvres and extended lunar orbits including a number of retro-firings to get a satellite into L1. 

[bknight]

Yeah, Bart Sibrel infamously made that claim. As if ground stations couldn't tell the difference between a translunar spacecraft and a LEO spacecraft.

Err let me see, the moon tracks across the sky at about 15° per hour, but a LEO satellite tracks across the sky at between 1° and 5° per second (orbit dependent). e.g., the ISS tracks at about 1.2° per second. That is about 290 times faster than the moon.  I think mr Baysinger would have noticed!

There is a way that could have been done though, but I wouldn't want to furnish these idiots with theories..

Yes there is. You could send a specially designed radio replay station/lander........to the moon. You would have to send the outgoing transmisions to the lunar relay station which would then have to be scrambled (to defeat all those nosey ham radio operators) and sent back on a different frequency to a sooper seekrit receiving station on Earth (actually you would need a few sooper seekrit stations because of the Earth's rotation) and relayed to Tranqulity Base Studios at Area 51 where they are unscrambled, the astronaut replies, and his signal is scrambled again and sent back to the sooper seekrit relay station, back up to he lunar relay station where it is unscrambled again and transmitted back to CapCom.

One problem.... The delay. This would double the delay from about 2½ seconds to about 5 seconds which would be noticable immediately. It is possible to add delay, but not possible to reduce it; that would need the radio transmissions to travel faster than light, and is against Mr Einstein's rules.

It seems it would be easrier to actually go than try a fake it.

[smartcooky]

Yeah, Bart Sibrel infamously made that claim. As if ground stations couldn't tell the difference between a translunar spacecraft and a LEO spacecraft.

Err let me see, the moon tracks across the sky at about 15° per hour, but a LEO satellite tracks across the sky at between 1° and 5° per second (orbit dependent). e.g., the ISS tracks at about 1.2° per second. That is about 290 times faster than the moon.  I think mr Baysinger would have noticed!

There is a way that could have been done though, but I wouldn't want to furnish these idiots with theories..

Yes there is. You could send a specially designed radio replay station/lander........to the moon. You would have to send the outgoing transmisions to the lunar relay station which would then have to be scrambled (to defeat all those nosey ham radio operators) and sent back on a different frequency to a sooper seekrit receiving station on Earth (actually you would need a few sooper seekrit stations because of the Earth's rotation) and relayed to Tranqulity Base Studios at Area 51 where they are unscrambled, the astronaut replies, and his signal is scrambled again and sent back to the sooper seekrit relay station, back up to he lunar relay station where it is unscrambled again and transmitted back to CapCom.

One problem.... The delay. This would double the delay from about 2½ seconds to about 5 seconds which would be noticable immediately. It is possible to add delay, but not possible to reduce it; that would need the radio transmissions to travel faster than light, and is against Mr Einstein's rules.

It seems it would be easrier to actually go than try a fake it.

Mitchell & Webb certainly believe so

[Rob260259]

About the Soviets...:

[ka9q]

The more you know about Apollo communications, the more absurd the idea of a hoax relay satellite becomes.

It's not just a matter of parking a relay satellite near the moon. It also needs the right range-rate (velocity projected along the line of sight) vs time so that Doppler measurements come out right. In two-way tracking, which was used almost continuously except when the LM was transmitting TV, the received downlink frequency depends on both the direct Doppler effect on the downlink signal (which depends on ground receiver location) and on the Doppler effect on the uplink signal (which doesn't). This is one of the reasons for the shifting LM frequency observed at Jodrell Bank even after the Eagle had landed -- there was Doppler on the uplink to the LM from Goldstone, which was transmitting at the time, and Goldstone is a long way from England.

When the LM is in orbit you'll expect to see the range-rate at a maximum when it is going around the limb of the moon and minimum as it crosses the face of the moon. After you subtract out the eccentricity of the moon's orbit, of course. And the earth's rotation.

However, round trip delay on voice communications is not the obstacle some think it is. You simply send your "uplink" directly from Houston to your nearby actor-astronauts on earth, and then route their response up to the relay and back. The total round trip time will be roughly as expected, and even if they interrupt each other or the crew microphones occasionally repeat the uplink audio you'll get the same effects as in the actual missions.

[bknight]

The more you know about Apollo communications, the more absurd the idea of a hoax relay satellite becomes.

It's not just a matter of parking a relay satellite near the moon. It also needs the right range-rate (velocity projected along the line of sight) vs time so that Doppler measurements come out right. In two-way tracking, which was used almost continuously except when the LM was transmitting TV, the received downlink frequency depends on both the direct Doppler effect on the downlink signal (which depends on ground receiver location) and on the Doppler effect on the uplink signal (which doesn't). This is one of the reasons for the shifting LM frequency observed at Jodrell Bank even after the Eagle had landed -- there was Doppler on the uplink to the LM from Goldstone, which was transmitting at the time, and Goldstone is a long way from England.

When the LM is in orbit you'll expect to see the range-rate at a maximum when it is going around the limb of the moon and minimum as it crosses the face of the moon. After you subtract out the eccentricity of the moon's orbit, of course. And the earth's rotation.

However, round trip delay on voice communications is not the obstacle some think it is. You simply send your "uplink" directly from Houston to your nearby actor-astronauts on earth, and then route their response up to the relay and back. The total round trip time will be roughly as expected, and even if they interrupt each other or the crew microphones occasionally repeat the uplink audio you'll get the same effects as in the actual missions.

iT IS Easy to mak4 a claim of ignorance, especially when their audience is as ignorant hence the HB seductively persuades them.