How NASA use 2295 MHz S-Band Frequency for long range communication

Routers are low power, low gain antennas and have to deal with interference from not only other WiFi but also Zigbee and Bluetooth. Plus no line of site.

NASA probably had extremely sensitive receiving arrays with line of site.

DJI uses 2.4GHz (and now recently 5.8 as well) for their drones and those have theoretical ranges of 5KM with line of site (2.5km practically). It’s not impossible, WiFi is just shit

higher frequency would be able to travel far if there isn't an obstacle.

learn2radio pal

If Moon landing was fake, why would Soviets not disclose that?

Because they were paid large amounts of wheat and other shit if they kept their mouths shut. The moon hoax was a great deal for the ussr.

because once the masses believed it, any soviet protest would be seen as nothing but butthurt.

directional antennas can be pretty sweet user

Modern radar guns use Ka-band frequencies around 34GHz and typical transmit powers between 10-50mW and they can be detected up to 5 miles away with sensitive detectors and ideal conditions.

Why would you think a 2.3GHz signal can't reach space when it's nearly 1/15th the frequency, is transmitted at a higher power with somewhat more directional antennas, and is received with more sensitive circuitry?

You can test the truth of moon landing on your own:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

dust patterns prove the landing was real: youtube.com/watch?v=79UAhuN6VPA

also youtube.com/watch?v=y5XkLa9RYNk this one debunks joe rogan's common argument that they were messing with covers on the windows.

>YouTube and Wikipedia as an argument

the kikes have arrived

Dumb retard, the wikipedia link describes a way to test it ON YOUR OWN with a fucking telescope and a proper laser.
Do you not believe your own exepriments either?

>he says as his fellow moon hoax retard constantly cites youtube randos with 300 views as a "proof" that moon landing is fake.

Hello Disney.

>The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from the Moon's surface using a laser with a millisecond pulse length.

looks like lasers were reflecting off the moon before the ((((moon landings))))

I'm and they won't believe that because those images are also by NASA. With my way you can test the presence of the reflectors with your own not super expensive equipment. You just need maths, a sufficently powerful laser that can be made at home, and a mediocre digital telescope

No shit, white reflects light. Can you also not tell apart a mirror from a white wall?

Did you just see "1962" and stopped reading? Don't be dishonest and willfully ignorant.

First off: Your router probably doesn’t have a directional antenna, which improves range significantly.
And secondly: your router also doesn’t operate at 10kW.
Read the Unified S-Band article on Wikipedia if you are interested in more detailed specifications about the system.

>lasers reflect better on a particular point in the moon so that means the manned moon landings were real

Oh right sorry, it could have been the ufos who left a mirror at the moon

I don't use that argument because some point out the surface of the moon is reflective enough by itself to detect a bounce, and for all I know that might be true.

user, the medium doesn't matter, you gotta actually address the argument.
And besides, don't act like an authoritative source would satisfy you. If I had sent a link to an official site you would just say they're shills.

The difference in reflectivity between rock and mirrors are incredibly huge. You can do the calculations if you want but since you're nothing but a retard, you'll just keep on shouting "HOAX! HOAX!" all day as if repeating it would evetually make your beliefs correct.

While a powerful enough pulsing laser may be built by an amateur, you'd certainly need the help of a real scientific telescope. And with a homemade laser firing enough pulses to get result may need some weeks or months of trying, since the only way you can power such a thing is charging a bunch of capacitors (think of an amount the size of a closet), then firing a short burst.

>inb4 the moon is made of highly reflective mirror-like material

For that to be an argument you would actually have to somehow prove the intensity of the reflected signal actually increased after the Apollo missions, a claim on Wikipedia doesn't prove it's actually true. And besides, the mirrors could've been left by an unmanned mission which would still be consistent with the manned missions being faked.

Keep reading the text books.

Hopefully, you'll learn your personal experience of something isn't applicable to the bigger picture.

In logic you're committing the 'fallacy of composition'.

Attached: full-charlotte-kemp-muhl-525ddef9bf5a6c0c5a96217c4b4e7ea5-large-1590075.jpg (936x1349, 390K)

Have men been on mars? There's human made equipment there too...

This. Show us an amateur rig that has managed to actually do this. I don't think you can.

Those mirrors don't cover the entire moon. Just hit a random surface.
>unmanned missions leaving fragile mirrors at precise locations
Robotics were not very advanced back then. My casio calculator has a fuckton more compute power than whatever shit the astronauts rode on.

can you prove to me that robotucs was advanced enough in the late 60s to do missions that were similar to Mars?

Read a book nigger
Also the soviets managed to build a space station before the moon landing and that worked pretty well

He's right, you need the help of a scientific telescope, but the high power laser can be homemade.
tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/apollo/apparatus.html
Here they used 10000 bursts, fired at 20hz
If you van get a shot every 5 seconds (about valid time for charging) that means you just need 14 hours, so multiple days.

Looks like a stalemate.

youtube.com/watch?v=jRlqo7ZofDo

Are you 12? The position of the mirrors is inconsequential. The lasers can't tell the locations of the mirrors. The beam's photons are spread out over a large area by the time they get to the moon.
And the mirrors aren't *that* fragile, if you can mount solar panels on the back of a spacecraft you also can mount a mirror.
>My casio calculator has a fuckton more compute power than whatever shit the astronauts rode on.
It probably doesn't. The AGC was actually pretty powerful for the time, it even had multitasking capabilities, something that personal computers didn't get until the 90s.
Not to mention that it received data from the mainframes at mission control.

That's made by a university physics department. Fact is no amateur has independently done the experiment successfully.

Yea i linked that for reference so you have an idea how powerful equipment is needed, and doing calculations on how hard this can be with amateur equipment. If i had a few $ks to spend on a laser, and the help of our uni's telescope, i'd do it.

>I was under the impression the higher the frequency the shorter it can travel but the more data you can send?
The higher the frequency the more it works by line of sight. Unobstructed line means good connection.

space.com/8295-lost-soviet-reflecting-device-rediscovered-moon.html

Looks like russians landed men on the moon too going by your logic.

get rekt kike shill

>I was under the impression the higher the frequency the shorter it can travel but the more data you can send?
Yea, I've also been thinking about how my eyes are fake. Red light is 400 THz yet i don't have to stick everything red into my eye to see it

Nice find.

The shorter the frequency, the more it behaves like light.
Light has no trouble travelling through empty space (between the moon and earth).

Please please please be a larp

>gizmo: beep boop the moon landings happened
yikes