Pioneer 10 rx error and tx frequencies?

"Craig Markwardt" wrote in
message news

"ralph sansbury" writes:

"Craig Markwardt"
wrote in
message news


You contradict yourself below where you say
they
are uplink records.

Good point. I amend my opinion: Since you have not provided
sufficient data, such as the "ground mode" field in the record,
it is
impossible to determine what kind of records you have, and
hence it is
impossible to interpret the other data fields.

All of this is provided and unlike you, I have shown my
program and you
are free to find errors in it. There are just 10 lines of code to
look at to see
if the program gives the right fields for ground mode and
transmitter on or off etc.
Just download the program and compiler as needed
and run the program as written or with another data file and see
the ground mode
and other relevant values.



And let me clarify, I only processed 2 and 3 way Doppler
data. One
way data was excluded because it is not useful for Doppler
tracking.

Clarify? You intentionally and very unprofessionally lied.
And now
that you are being found out, you are admitting that you
lied.

This is an erroneous claim. I have always maintained that I
only
processed 2/3 way coherent data. See for example this article
from
December 2003.

Markwardt wrote in :
I accepted all coherent tracking sessions. [ for Doppler
analysis ]

which you inquired about, and acknowledged as "makes sense" in
the
following few posts in that thread; so, you cannot say you
didn't read
that text.

If this was a court you would be judged guilty of lying.

Furthermore, my paper, gr-qc/0208046, makes the same claim
regarding
2/3 coherent tracking data.

One-way sessions were irrelevant to the discussion in that
thread,
since they do not involve an uplink at all. You have only
*speculated* that if the transmitter is off, then the received
data is
somehow magically transformed into one-way data. That is
incorrect.

The point is you lied. Why?




Judging by the quality of the program you posted on your
web page (or
lack thereof), the error is likely to be in your program.

Again you have no substantiation for this criticism and the
consistency and correctness of the rest of the output
suggests you
are the one who is in error. Your previous record of
dissembling
suggests you are lying here too.

An opinion cannot be a lie, so your suggestion is erroneous.

You have lied twice so your credibility is nearly zero.

My
opinion is that your program is of low quality (namely, poorly
documented, poorly structured, repetitive code).

Your opinion is fact free. Your program is of unknown
quality and the output
in form and substance is crap. I have shown you my program which
may
not be the best and may have some errors which you are free to
find.

You may have errors in your program and you are afraid to show
it or you
are lying about your results as you lied about the lack of 1 way
Doppler
to press your point that Doppler could not have been received if
the transmitter was off.

ad hominem arguments snipped.

.. Thus, I conclude it is likely that you have
made errors in your program.
What are the specific error? If you are qualified
to judge my programming expertise surely you can find
the error in ten lines of amateurish code where the transmitter
on off field is decoded.??????




But it doesn't matter because even if the transmitter
was off,
the existence of Doppler when the transmitter is off is
explained by
1 way Doppler.

Unsubstantiated and erroneous. One-way Doppler is
indicated
explicitly in the data.

Yes in the cases where it is expected. That is the
point.
Contrary to what you said before about it being impossible to
receive data when the transmitter was off, it is possible.

To my knowledge,
You have.

I have never claimed that it was "impossible" to
receive data when the uplink transmitter was off. In fact, I
have
said quite the opposite, that there are examples of coherent
data
being *received* when the transmitter is off, which directly
negates
your scenario.
Well as you see the transmitter was probably not off.
unless you find the error in my program that shows I was reading
the wrong field.
And what is the difference
between coherent 2way or 3 way received data and 1way received
data?
You dont seem to know.

"ralph sansbury" writes:

"Craig Markwardt" wrote in
message news
[ ... ]
Good point. I amend my opinion: Since you have not provided
sufficient data, such as the "ground mode" field in the record, it is
impossible to determine what kind of records you have, and hence it is
impossible to interpret the other data fields.

All of this is provided and unlike you, I have shown my program
and you are free to find errors in it. There are just 10 lines of
code to look at to see

You are in error. You have not provided the ground mode field, which
is crucial in determining the record type. As I have said before, I
will not debug your program(s) for you.


And let me clarify, I only processed 2 and 3 way Doppler data. One
way data was excluded because it is not useful for Doppler
tracking.

Clarify? You intentionally and very unprofessionally lied. And now
that you are being found out, you are admitting that you lied.

This is an erroneous claim. I have always maintained that I only
processed 2/3 way coherent data. See for example this article from
December 2003.

Markwardt wrote in :
I accepted all coherent tracking sessions. [ for Doppler analysis ]

which you inquired about, and acknowledged as "makes sense" in the
following few posts in that thread; so, you cannot say you didn't read
that text.

If this was a court you would be judged guilty of lying.

If this were a court, the court would acknowledge that I have supplied
evidence, including direct citations, that verify my claims (including
reference to a thread where you yourself acknowledged that I was
discussing coherent Doppler data; see previous posts in this thread).
You have not supplied equivalent evidence.



My
opinion is that your program is of low quality (namely, poorly
documented, poorly structured, repetitive code).

Your opinion is fact free. Your program is of unknown quality
and the output in form and substance is crap. I have shown you my
program which may not be the best and may have some errors which you
are free to find.

You may have errors in your program and you are afraid to show it or
you are lying about your results as you lied about the lack of 1 way
Doppler to press your point that Doppler could not have been
received if the transmitter was off.

Again, your claims are unsubstantiated.
(1) My complete decoding programs have been on-line since 2002. (*)
(2) The code is extensively documented and table-driven for
maintainability.
(3) The code has been used successfully by another investigator for
an unrelated Lunar orbiter studies.
(4) The raw data and human-readable decoding of that data have been
available on-line since 2002 (for year 1994). (*) You did not
investigate that data.
(*) - ATDF Notes page


[ reordered text: ]
To my knowledge, I have never claimed that it was "impossible" to
receive data when the uplink transmitter was off. ...

You have.

... In fact, I have
said quite the opposite, that there are examples of coherent data
being *received* when the transmitter is off, which directly negates
your scenario.

Note, you have not substantiated your claim. If I have said what you
claim, then you could have supplied a quote or a reference, but you
did not. The quote I supplied in a previous post directly contradicts
your claim.


Well as you see the transmitter was probably not off.
unless you find the error in my program that shows I was reading the
wrong field.

If you cannot take responsibility to debug and verify your own
program, I certainly cannot.

Your conclusion that "all zeroes" means that the transmitter was
always on, is hasty and sloppy, since "all zeroes" is also suspicious
of a potential decoding problem. Your sample data also has the lock
indicator "all zeroes," but the receiver was not always in lock.
Also, your spreadsheet gives the "source designation" as 0 or 4, but 4
is not a valid DSN antenna system designation. Invalid results are
indications that you have potential decoding error(s).

And what is the difference between coherent 2way or 3 way
received data and 1way received data? You dont seem to know.

Erroneous claim. Examples...

Markwardt wrote on 12 Jan 2004 in :
Find out yourself if you wish. One-way Doppler relies on the
spacecraft's oscillator, whose stability properties at a given time
are unreliable and unknown.

In any case you are diverting from the main point. I never compared
the "good" data with one-way Doppler, since I did not analyze one-way
Doppler data. What I did say was that the data taken when the
receiving station's transmitter was off, was of equal quality to the
other data, taken when the receiving station's transmitter was on.

Markwardt wrote on 30 Jan **2003** in :
They have both. When in two- or three-way coherent mode, the on-board
trasponder is locked to the uplink. There is tons of data in the
archive which is in non-coherent mode, either by design or accident.
In either case, these are not suitable for precision navigation
because of the poor frequency standard on board the spacecraft.

CM

"Craig Markwardt" wrote in
message news

"ralph sansbury" writes:


Now that your 'unintentional' distortions have been
"clarified,"
the received Doppler could have been as 1way though
assumed to be 3way, sent
by the craft a second before and not minutes or hours before.
In any case the transmitter need not have been on at the same
time.
But in the overwhelming majority of times if not all the time
the transmitter was on when Doppler was received.
In these cases the received Doppler could be due to
transmissions from the same site seconds before and not
hours before from the same or another site.
So now one can as George suggested 1)s analyse the more
reliable 2 or 3 way Doppler
in the cases where there is no disagreement as
to the transmitter being on, as follows: Obtain from Horizons
ephemerous,the instantaneous
position of craft and site at this time and a minute before and
calculate
the predicted instantaneous Doppler and the difference between it
and the
observed Doppler and compare the difference to that obtained in
the conventional way.
2)Make a similar comparison using Doppler coded as 1way







Your conclusion that "all zeroes" means that the transmitter
was
always on, is hasty and sloppy, since "all zeroes" is also
suspicious
of a potential decoding
or data input problem
problem.

. You could easily show an error
in my 10 lines of code that produce these zeros indicating the
transmitter on
and the fact that you haven't
suggests your program is incorrect or that you were lying.


I am still prepared to believe although I dont see it that
there is an error in
my program or that the data may have been off because
the reserved(set to zero) fields on either side of the lock and
transmitter
on off fields are not always zero and that these values may refer
to lock and transmitter off.
And if there are such cases, then I would argue that such an
instance of received Doppler
is from the craft and is simply not Doppler due to transmission
from the
ground made coherent with the craft oscillator etc and sent back
down.
The bottom line is that the received Doppler could have been
sent
by the craft a second before and not minutes or hours before even
if the
transmitter was off. And that in general the transmitter was on
when
Doppler was received and the received Doppler could be due to
transmissions from the same site seconds before and not from
another
site

Your sample data also has the lock
indicator "all zeroes," but the receiver was not always in
lock.

Certainly not later but perhaps in these 87 records it was.
Or perhaps it was not and this is a mistake in the data or
in my program but I dont see the mistake.

Also, your spreadsheet gives the "source designation" as 0 or
4, but 4
is not a valid DSN antenna system designation. Invalid results
are
indications that you have potential decoding error(s).
Yes and there are 1s in columns that the layout sheet says
reserved for
zeros.
These could be instances of other of the inconsistencies that
you describe in your notes
and previously on this thread.
But I agree they indicate a mistake in the data or a mistake in
the program.
I see no mistake in the program and neither do you, so I conclude
it is in the data.


And what is the difference between coherent 2way or 3 way
received data and 1way received data? You dont seem to know.

Erroneous claim. Examples...

Snipped no examples just repetition of the quote that the
craft oscillator etc is unstable

In any case you are diverting from the main point. I never
compared
the "good" data with one-way Doppler, since I did not
analyze one-way
Doppler data. What I did say was that the data taken when
the
receiving station's transmitter was off, was of equal
quality to the
other data, taken when the receiving station's transmitter
was on.

But you dont say what equal quality means? You have
specified no criteria.
The one way Doppler shows the same systematic variation
minute by minute as the 2or 3 way Doppler so in spite of the
supposed unreliability
of the results it might fit your unspecified criteria. But we
still dont know that the
transmitter was ever off in any of the supposed 3way cases.
Unless you can find an error in the algorithm he

//SET 2
for (k=29;k=56;k++)
{
j=0;
for(t=128;t0;t=t/2)
{
if(b[k] & t)ch[j]=1;else ch[j]=0;//b[29] is byte 30 cont bits
233thr240=8*30.
idx=8*(k-29)+j;A1[idx]=ch[j];//A1[0]contains bit
233,A1[4]contains bit 237 etc.
j=j+1;
}
}

prev=0;
for(fld=0; fld11; fld++)
{
flg[fld]=f2[fld+1]-f2[fld];a2[fld]=0;//flg[0]=237-236,flg[1]=238-
237 etc. since
//f2[0]=236 etc from
f2[12]={236,237,238,240,243,253,289,325,361,397,433,453}
cm[fld]=prev+flg[fld];//cm[0]=0+1,cm[1]=1+cm[1] etc.

for(f=0;f=(flg[fld]-1);f++)
{
ff=f+prev;//ff=0+0 and that's all for flg[0]=1 and flg[1]=1
A0[f]=A1[ff];//
A0[f]=A0[f](flg[fld]-1-f);//so A0[f] is unshifted A1[f] for f=0
for fld=0 and
//1 whose first bits are f2[0]=236 and f2[1]=237.
//a2[fld]=a2[fld]+A0[f];// so a2[0]=0+A0[0]=A1[0] and a2[1]=A1[1]
which are the
//values of bits 236 and 237 respectively
}
//cout" fld2 = "fld+1 "," a2[fld];cout"\n";
prev=cm[fld];
}