I want to make light of NASA, without engaging in any conspiracy theory. Even touching this topic makes smart people go mad. I enjoy debating and learning. Most people, however, don’t actually engage in critical thinking on a regular basis. Challenging what they “know,” or what they have been taught is incredibly uncomfortable for them.
I do have to say, that a bs narrative doesn’t mean everything is a lie- it means the narrative is contradictory nonsense, and key details are left out. Sometimes it’s ignorance on behalf of the poor PR guy. Unfortunately, officials shoot themselves in the foot and often fan conspiracy due to their statements.
If you have worked in government or politics, as I have, you may know that the reality reflected in a newspaper differs from what actually happens. I see this regularly. Alternative news sources and gossip blogs tend to carry more factual truth than you realize.
Narratives are changed to conform to political agendas, to sell a person or product, or to change focus. This can be used for good or bad (a good reason is protecting a mistaken low level employee).
So the following narrative from NASA requires me to suspend my disbelief. [No, I am not on board the conspiracy theories re this matter, but do troll others as if I am for entertainment].
In 1969 we went to the moon and performed a live tv broadcast. But in 2019, only about 70% of calls from ISS in low earth orbit are successful, and there are “huge time delays.” Just off of a basic search of communication delays, the “delay” between earth and the moon is only 1.3 seconds. That’s not a huge difference.
The ISS orbits at an altitude of 1,328,000 feet (about 250 miles). The moon is 238,000+ miles away.
To believe this narrative, I have to accept the following:
-telecommunications were better in 1969 than today
-our satellite network and receivers are of lower quality today
-it’s easier to maintain a signal on two spinning objects at great lengths than to maintain a signal at a short distance.
-that a vast satellite network doesn’t improve time delays.
Of course, I am not an engineer. There could be perfectly valid explanations for this discrepancy (an off the cuff remark is more believable and most likely more true than a sanitized statement).
It is not a problem if you ask questions, and challenge the answers. You learn from it. You grow as a person, and can learn many new facts. It’s a problem when you just accept contradictory information and live in a state of cognitive dissonance.
So be curious. If you see something that is odd, research it. Learn.
PS: the first official estimate of the Apollo program costs with a ten year operating budget was just as much as the projected cost for Trumps border wall.
The Lexet Blog 
In my industry, we do data communication over commercial satellite networks. It isn’t unusual to see end-point-to-end-point latencies of 750ms or more. Interactive communications differ from TV, a one way, lossy, analog broadcast. Data traffic (including voice transmission) is digital, bi-directional, semi-lossless. A single one-way ground-to-satellite-to-ground data transmission takes nearly a quarter second, except you have to account for packet loss, retries, connection control, connection negotiation, equipment processing delay, cloud cover and weather events, security requirements, use of only tech hardened against radiation, etc.
Latencies of *much* less than that drive me crazy. Your mileage may vary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So does it come down to the type of waves used for communication, when it relates to time? Would pre digital communication methods work better? (I hate using voip due to lag and lack of sound quality)
LikeLike
Yes (strictly speaking) and no (practically speaking). With analog you “share” the space, like cheap walkie-talkies. Anyone can listen. With static/noise, you can usually still communicate. This is great for TV. But who wants to share airtime for interactive phone calls (i.e. no privacy or security)?
The lack of sound quality is due to (1) too little bandwidth and (2) filtering and compression to within a tighter frequency range. It sounds worse than analog by design because of the lost upper frequencies and harmonics.
The lag is, partially, caused by not prioritizing traffic.* Much of this is the fault of providers like Verizon, Comcast, etc. who charge high fees for services, but don’t invest in infrastructure to improve customer experiences.
This is due to monopolies or oligopolies. With the analog phone system, the government regulations forced the phone providers, as utilities and common carriers, to offer certain levels of service. However, with digital systems, the ISPs could maintain their effective monopolies without the need to provide the same level of service. A couple weeks ago there was a partial nationwide 911 outage when CenturyLink had a major internet outage. They’ve been reaping huge profits while using susceptible infrastructure. This would have never happened in the days of analog phones.
In short, the reason it works so poorly comes down to the extra money corporations make by making it just barely tolerable. Government regulations do nothing, at best, to curb this, and at worse are complicit.
* Don’t confuse this with net neutrality. Without net neutrality, ISPs are free to let their own VoIP services get high priority while deprioritizing competitors VoIP services. With net neutrality they wouldn’t be allowed to do this. Even with net neutrality it should be permissible to prioritize traffic by type (e.g. streaming).
LikeLike
The 911 outage also affected numerous hospital networks around the nation. That’s not a good thing at all.
LikeLike