"ralph sansbury" writes:
Where is it stated what the transmit frequency is?
What item number?

I've answered you multiple times. You ignore. It's also documented
in TRK 2-25.

Are items 31 and 32 the number from which the received frequency
is derived?

Yes, but the fields are in cycle counts. This is documented, and has
been discussed multiple times.

I dont understand what is meant by fractional cycles or why
the units are in
Hz times 10000.

They are not in units of Hz times 10000, and this is documented. If
you don't understand fractional cycles, then you have a problem.

My program shows that all of the bytes up to 277 and 278 are
00000000

Your program is wrong.

of the first 263 byte logical record etc for the next logical
record.

The logical records are not 263 bytes. However, some but not all of
the physical blocks recovered by NSSDC have an extra byte attached
(i.e. 8065 instead of 8064 bytes). This does not affect the first 28
logical records.


The power spectrum of pure noise with equal power
roughly over all frequencies would be different presumably
than the power spectrum you get here of a received frequency plus
noise
that would be different from the power spectrum of a pure version
of
the received frequency. Thus the power spectrum gives an
indication of
the modelling error involving a selected frequency.

No. The noise gives a measure of how well the signal can be detected,
and has nothing to do with how well the tracking solution is modeled.

The modelling error is the difference between the predicted
voltage
values over time and the actual received voltage values over
time.

No. The modeling error is the difference between the received and
predicted frequencies (not voltages), and can only be assessed in the
full analysis. It has nothing to do with the DSN tracking session.


If the
signal remains locked, then the frequency accuracy is of order
1/(accumulation time), or a few mHz (= few x 0.001 Hz).

So if the intermediate frequency doesn't change for 1000
seconds
then you say the frequency accuracy is .001 Hz.

I did not say that.

But what about the accuracy in the normative sense
that the received frequency,
or this intermediate representation of the received frequency,
is sometimes zero at different times than the local oscillator
whose
frequency and phase are fine tuned to most closely match this
intermediate
frequency?

If the carrier signal is locked in, your question is irrelevant.

If for example half of the time there was no correspondence
between the
predicted frequency zeros and the observed frequency zeros then
the
accuracy would be 2.292 GHz plus or minus 1 GHz.

The situation you describe is all-noise: the signal wouldn't have been
locked into the control loop, nor would telemetry have been received.
This is obviously not the case.


No. 30% of the overall dataset was taken with successful and
non-overlapping uplinks and downlinks.

In other words yes. 70% !!!!! of the data is considered
USELESSbecause
it does not conform to the speed of light delay assumptions!!!!!

I did not say that. Read carefully. 30% of the overall dataset was
taken successfully with non-overlapping uplinks and downlinks.
**70%** of the overall data set was taken **successfully** with
overlapping uplinks and downlinks. There was no analysis difference
between the non-overlapping or overlapping sets of data.


You mean you have to get rid of data which does not somehow in any
way possible confirm the politically correct view.

No.


1)And the 87 87 and 89 files I have, have
lots of blank data which could account for this.

Your software produces lots of erroneous blanks, and thus do not
account for anything.
My software works on other files so why not here?

Because you probably have one or more software bugs.


No, by "signature" I meant, the frequency signature that could only be
imprinted on the signal by certain earth and spacecraft motions.

The signature would be similar in many cases and in those that
are different perhaps these are among the 70 percent of rejected data.

No. 70% was not rejected. And, the signature would not be similar,
as the errors would be ~0.5 km/s = HUGE.


But how do I know you dont throw out any data that
doesn't conform to this and probably change
the transmit frequency which is nowhere indicated in the data?

You can know because I say: I didn't discard data based on light
travel time selections. I accepted all coherent tracking
sessions. The transmitter frequencies are stored in the data -- and
this is documented. You repeatedly ignore. I did not "change" any
transmitter frequencies. At this stage, I don't particularly care if
you take my word for it or not.


But half of all spacecraft have had navigation problems.

Name one spacecraft where a navigation problem was caused by incorrect
modeling of Doppler tracking data.

The data is not readily available for obvious reasons. .

So your claims are unsubstantiated, and therefore irrelevant.


You continue to fail to read what's presented to you. You fail to
consult the essential primary references or the documentation. You
ignore straightforward comments. You repeatedly ask questions that
have been answered. You offer unsubstantiated speculations. You
don't appear to have understood any of the basic signal processing
issues. In short, you don't appear to be learning, and I can't
justify spending more of my time on this thread.

CM