I can't get cell service in my basement but Nasa sent back an HD image of Mars?

[link to nypost.com (secure)]


Okay! Am I really to believe that NASA sent back a perfectly clear image of Mars within minutes of their toy landing? Meanwhile I struggle to get cell service in parts of my house. At some point in time people need to stop drinking the kool-aid.

Agree!

It's gotta be faked.

Mount a 150 ft parabolic dish on your cell phone and you will not only get cell services in your basement but also be able to receive pictures from Mars - provided that you are able to point the dish into the direction of Mars, something I really doubt, when I look at your above statement.

.

At least it's not as bad as that Jupiter photo of the northern lights they put out while ago. That one had no photo-shopped effort put into it.

[link to r.hswstatic.com (secure)]

Starting to think there's some sort of soft disclosure op/effort underway, with NASA and Elon Musk deliberately including anomalies in their photos/videos to plant seeds...

[link to nypost.com (secure)]


Okay! Am I really to believe that NASA sent back a perfectly clear image of Mars within minutes of their toy landing? Meanwhile I struggle to get cell service in parts of my house. At some point in time people need to stop drinking the kool-aid.

Despite what the fan-bois tell you, the Inverse Square Law relating to the propagation of electromagnetic waves makes the whole idea of tiny, mini-wattage transmitters sending any kind of message to Earth from over 90 million miles away, completely ridiculous, and impossible.

Never mind HD images.

No matter how "directional" the transmitter is, or how big the receiving antenna is.

What took the video of this?


[link to twitter.com (secure)]

What took the video of this?


[link to twitter.com (secure)]

Despite what the fan-bois tell you, the Inverse Square Law relating to the propagation of electromagnetic waves makes the whole idea of tiny, mini-wattage transmitters sending any kind of message to Earth from over 90 million miles away, completely ridiculous, and impossible.

Never mind HD images.

No matter how "directional" the transmitter is, or how big the receiving antenna is.

Here is the math proving that the transmissions are completely within the limits of what is possible with a 70 meter deep space antenna.

Actually the calculations account for inefficiency of the antennas as well as noise in the receiver and from the atmosphere as well. Transmissions at the 8.4 GHz frequency of New Horizons are pretty transparent through the atmosphere:
[link to www.propagation.gatech.edu]
Absorption doesn't become a major problem until you start getting above 10 GHz, and of course we're not concerning ourselves with ground propagation here. This is simple line of sight propagation.

First let us calculate the gain of the antennas involved. New Horizons halink hiderter dish and the Deep Space Network has 70 meter dishes for receiving the signals from New Horizons. New Horizons does indeed have a 12 Watt transmitter.

Gain = 10*log(k*(pi*D/lambda)^2)
where
k = efficiency
D = diameter in meters
lambda = wavelength in meters
So, 40 db and 70 db gain of the two dishes respectively assuming only 30% efficiency! Note that we are counting for efficiency here. I'm being generous and assuming only about 30% efficiency, the real numbers are frequently closer to 50-60% ( [link to www.radio-electronics.com] ) and the true stated X-Band gain of the 70m dishes is listed as being about 74 db ( [link to deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov] ) consistent with a much higher efficiency, around 70%. I'm being EXTREMELY generous to your notion that the equipment is not having its "best day ever."

Power dBm = 10*log(1000*Pw/1W)
12 watts = 40.79 dBm


Receiver temperature under clear weather at the zenith is about 17 k ( [link to deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov] ) but let's assume conditions are far from ideal and the true sky temp is twice the listed figures, so an average noise temperature of about 22 k instead.

Path loss will equal 20*log(4*pi*(distance/wavelength))
Given a current distance of New Horizons today of about 5208960277 km, and a wavelength of 8.4 GHz ( 0.035689578
meters) that equals a path loss of 305.27 dB.

Given the noise temperature of 22 k, a path loss of 305.27 dB, a transmitter power of 40.79 dBm, antenna gains of at least 40 and 70 dB, and a bitrate of 1000 bits per second (30 dB(bps)), that equals a received power of -154.4765774 dBm and a noise level of -155.1749419 dBm, for a signal to noise ratio of about 1.174455181. That's still above the S/N of 1 typically required for 1/6 turbo coding of the data, and well above the theoretical Shannon limit (Eb/N0 of about -1.6 dB). Yes, IDW, New Horzions is fully capable of transmitting at a rate of 1000 bits per second even if the efficiency is FAR below the ideal figures.

Space is not an empty vacuum, that is true, but to what extent is it not empty? Well let's use some more generous figures. Figure that interplanetary space has 100 particles per cubic cm (" It may rise to as high as 100 particles/cm3.")
[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]
Imagine a column with a particle density that high throughout, as wide as New Horizons' dish (2.1 meter diameter), extending from earth to New Horizons (5208960277 km). Such a column has a volume of 1.8*10^13 cubic meters, or 1.8*10^19 cubic centimeters. Given 100 particles per cubic centimeter, that is 1.8*10^21 particles. Sound like a lot? Well remember your chemistry and Avogadro's number. 1.8*10^21 particles is only about 0.003 moles. At standard temperature and pressure, all those particles would only produce 22.4 liters of gas per mole, or in this case, 0.0672 liters of gas. The atmosphere, of course, contributes far more than that (a single cubic foot of air at sea level has a bit more than a mole of gas in it), and even earth's atmosphere is negligible at 8.4 GHz ( [link to books.google.com (secure)] ). As for natural sky noise from background radiation and other sources, I was already generous in my calculations by doubling the expected amount of sky noise from the actual figures. It still wasn't enough to make transmission impossible, even at the stated data rate. And if you start reducing the data transfer rate, you get an even better signal to noise ratio. Face it, your argument is false, you can't win.

[link to nypost.com (secure)]


Okay! Am I really to believe that NASA sent back a perfectly clear image of Mars within minutes of their toy landing? Meanwhile I struggle to get cell service in parts of my house. At some point in time people need to stop drinking the kool-aid.

Mount a 150 ft parabolic dish on your cell phone and you will not only get cell services in your basement but also be able to receive pictures from Mars - provided that you are able to point the dish into the direction of Mars, something I really doubt, when I look at your above statement.

.

Okay! Am I really to believe that NASA sent back a perfectly clear image of Mars within minutes of their toy landing?

Meanwhile I struggle to get cell service in parts of my house.

At some point in time people need to stop drinking the kool-aid.

And why is the picture so monochromatic? Do they think that by making it all look one color it's more believable?

At least it's not as bad as that Jupiter photo of the northern lights they put out while ago. That one had no photo-shopped effort put into it.

I just get tired of people buying into NASA's bs. They take billions and put out photo-shopped pics and people eat it up.

It takes no more than (maybe) 10 minutes of research to find out that NASA is full of it.

They have yet to produce a real image of earth

Don't even get me started on that OBVIOUSLY fake Elon Musk car launch crap. I have seen better cgi quality in old movies than they put into that car launch.

According to NASA themselves'

starts at 27 seconds, the radiation is to dangerous for the guidance systems and on board electronics.

So the belts can damage "low Earth orbit" satellites but sending a probe to mars is no problem. I am starting to wonder if NASA knows how science works.

[link to nypost.com (secure)]


Okay! Am I really to believe that NASA sent back a perfectly clear image of Mars within minutes of their toy landing? Meanwhile I struggle to get cell service in parts of my house. At some point in time people need to stop drinking the kool-aid.

Not only does mars move about constantly in the sky, which means you'd have to have an incredible aim, there are also a gazillion pieces of satellites and space debris flying around. You'd think this might affect the reception just a little bit, no?

Plus, let's not forget the spinning. How do you aim something at a distant object when everything is spinning at an alarming rate?

Just look at all the Neo's flying around at this very minute:

Near Earth Asteroids
Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHAs) are space rocks larger than approximately 100m that can come closer to Earth than 0.05 AU. None of the known PHAs is on a collision course with our planet, although astronomers are finding new ones all the time.
On November 28, 2018 there were 1936 potentially hazardous asteroids.

[link to spaceweather.com]

Honestly, these space fantasies get funnier every time.

What took the video of this?


[link to twitter.com (secure)]

That's a computer simulation...not real.

That thing must come with it's own selfie stick.