Google-Apps
Hauptmenü

Post a Comment On: Ken Shirriff's blog

"The digital ranging system that measured the distance to the Apollo spacecraft"

20 Comments -

1 – 20 of 20
Blogger Unknown said...

You are amazing. Very few people can explain complicated technology as well as you do. Bravo.

April 24, 2022 at 5:08 AM

Comment deleted

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 24, 2022 at 6:51 AM

Blogger Miguel Cantera said...

Very impressive work! Saludos desde España

April 24, 2022 at 6:51 AM

Blogger Ken Boak said...

63 is not prime. I am sure you meant to say something else?

April 24, 2022 at 6:55 AM

Blogger Ken Shirriff said...

Oops, I meant to say "relatively prime". I've fixed the text.

April 24, 2022 at 10:37 AM

Blogger Brian of Romsey said...

Excellent info well explained, as usual. Keep it up.

April 24, 2022 at 9:43 PM

Blogger Ellie said...

This is a fascinating write-up of a fascinating subject. I just would like to express my appreciation for all the effort that must have gone into this.

One of the things that I like most about the Apollo era, is that many of the solutions employed actually required true understanding and innovation. Methods needed to be designed, implementations were not available off the shelf, and the constraints in reliability, materials, power consumption, computing speed, weight, size, data storage, transmission bit rates, etc. must have been massive.

These days, computing power is abundant, stuff is cheap and off the shelf; so there is much less of an incentive to make things tight, clean and efficient.

It is of course great that you can plow through gigabytes of data with a sloppy python script, but if you need to build something that achieves the same with TTL logic, if that, you think about the problem in a totally different way.

April 25, 2022 at 5:46 PM

Blogger Josh O said...

Wow, outstanding writeup. My mind is blown. I sorta understood this before, but after looking at your interactive demonstrations, I see more how it worked. I had no idea that GPS used a pseudorandom code too. I wonder if Apollo ever compared their ranging measurement to the AGC dead reckoning position in real time? I also wonder what techniques we'll be using when we return to the moon, if we do shortly like they are saying. I suppose something similar, but can we get the actual 3D position by having stations elsewhere? What about putting one on the moon itself, maybe at one of the poles? Now that we can pack a lot of this into a tiny computer.

April 26, 2022 at 4:43 AM

Blogger Ken Shirriff said...

Josh, it looks like NASA will use a bunch of different techniques to return to the Moon including radiometrics, optimetrics, celestial navigation, weak-signal GPS, autonomous navigation, and a system called LunaNet. I don't know any details but here's a NASA link.

April 26, 2022 at 9:36 AM

Anonymous Maurizio Bianconi said...

Thank you for this amazing blog and especially for this post, that brought me back to a time when I was familiar with telecommunications stuff.
I was intrigued by the frequency ratios of the transponder and would like to share an alternative theory as to why the funny ratio 240/221 comes up.
I tried to figure out what a transponder with ratio 12/11 would look like and if the carrier recovery and downlink frequency generator could be accommodated by a single mixer architecture, which would be the real advantage.
I reckon that the critical part would be the narrowband filter, which runs around 9 MHz in the original: the higher the center frequency, the higher the cost. Another constraint may come from the frequency multipliers, that call for a low factor for low cost.
After playing around with the numbers, one solution consists of a narrow band filter at 8.3 MHz, i.e. the uplink frequency is scaled down by 1/(1+12*21)=1/(11*23)=1/253, a PLL with a multiplying factor of 12 (that might be implemented by one stage PLL and some frequency multipliers), giving a frequency of about 100 MHz at the input of a x21 frequency multiplier for the LO (2098.1 MHz) and a x23 frequency multiplier for a downlink frequency of 12/11 times the uplink frequency of 2106.4 MHz.
Actually this corresponds to a downlink/uplink ratio of 12*23/11*23 = 276/253 which is quite like 240/221.
This design has still the disadvantage of having two RF frequency multipliers with input at 100 MHz and factors above 20, which might be awkward to implement.
The original design has a double mixer, first one balanced, and leaves more room to choose PLL and frequency multiplier factors, while keeping the center frequency of the narrowband filter low enough. The factor 240/221 might be the result of design constraints of the individual components.

April 26, 2022 at 3:24 PM

Anonymous pgarrettuk said...

Thank you, another informative piece!
I suspect that rather than step recovery diodes, varactor diodes were used in the multiplier stages. Especially for the transmitter, they are very much more efficient than step recovery diodes would be. For instance: see a contemporaneous paper at https://core.ac.uk/reader/85250570
Also the 240/221 is easily 'explained' by considering the technology and techniques in common use at the time, and taking into account power, size and weight constraints. A minimum of a dual conversion receiver architecture would be suggested. Similarly, to maintain phase coherence, local oscillators with a 'nice' multiple of the reference are desired. Neither PLLs nor dividers of a suitably high frequency were in common use at the time.
So a received frequency of (LO1 = N1 x Fref) +/- (LO2 = N2 x Fref) +/- Fref is required, where N1 and N2 are readily factorised integers.
From the included block diagram of the transponder it's clear how multipliers are shared (and so minimised in number) between N1 and N2 for the receiver and the required x240 for the transmitter.
Also of interest from the Apollo (and earlier) programs is the VHF communications system. How it grew from a simple, effective voice system to incorporate an elegant 'bolt on' range finder. Well worth studying for more elegant solutions with the constraints imposed.

April 27, 2022 at 5:59 AM

Blogger Unknown said...

Ken, Out Standing As Usual.
Keep it coming.

regards
John

April 27, 2022 at 7:07 AM

Anonymous Pieter-Tjerk de Boer said...

Thanks for this interesting article!
I have a minor addition to footnote 2: although the 1946 experiment was the first intentional radar reflection off the moon, such a reflection was accidentally already detected in 1943. See https://www.pa3fwm.nl/technotes/annex/cqdl-7-79-eme.html, where I host a copy of a German article about this, and my English translation.

April 27, 2022 at 11:33 AM

Blogger Unknown said...

I don’t know if everybody realises that the USB system was designed by JPL, and first used on DSN missions, such as Surveyor. The main designer was Pete Lindley, and he came to Tidbinbilla for the first real life use of the Mk1 Ranging System during Surveyor 1. The Apollo system was identical to the DSN’s, except for VCO’s.
And on a slightly different subject, the MSFN also generated “3 way” Doppler data at listening stations. I don’t know how useful that data was in trajectory computation.
Angle data was hardly used at all

Mike Dinn - ex DSN and MSFN

April 29, 2022 at 12:58 AM

Blogger Mike Dinn said...

And for some pics of the operational environment of the USB system, have a look at these, from Col Mackellar’s honeysucklecreek.net

https://bit.ly/3Lw3829

Mike Dinn - ex Honeysuckle

April 29, 2022 at 1:21 AM

Blogger Willitwork said...

Great article, took me back to the beginning of my career working on radar systems as a new degree fresh-out.

In the normal NASA redundant manner, they also had a microwave C-band (4.5GHz) radar system for tracking missile tests, and improved it for use with Apollo at lunar ranges. The design team i joined in 1966 made a mod-kit for our FPQ-6 pulsed radars to add Coherent Signal Processing (CSP) that added Doppler velocity tracking to the radar, with a whole new transmitter. It skin tracked, or tracked a coherent C-band transponder, and did spacecraft acquisition to start the tracking. Tight Doppler frequency control allowed narrow band (Hz) crystal filters at 100KHz-IF to reduce data noise in the 4 axis tracking servo loops (Range, Az, El, Velocity) and the system computer (RCA 4101 http://www.carnarvonspace.com/wiki/index.php?title=RCA_Computer) resolved the Range-rate vice Doppler-velocity ambiguity (Invarient Embedding technique). To acquire the target velocity we used a received I&Q sample time compressor and correlated with ambiguous velocity & acceleration profiles; using p-mos serial shift register memories 16, 32, or 64 words long, with the rest of the DTL logic. The angle tracking loops were integrated in the computer software, while the sigpro hardware tracked the range & Doppler, at 160, 320, or 640 PRF.
We used H/P frequency synthesizers, a big crystal oscillator, and an rf multiplier, for the transmit exciter and receiver local oscillators; stepped the LO synth by one Hz LSBs to track Doppler.
A few years later, we installed a simplified Doppler Velocity Extraction System (DVES) in our FPS-16 and MPS-36 instrumentation test range radars.

I really enjoyed the article about the Unified S-band Tracking and Communication link.

April 29, 2022 at 2:41 PM

Comment deleted

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 29, 2022 at 2:41 PM

Anonymous Marco66 said...

Wonderful explanation! Thank you!!

May 1, 2022 at 10:12 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

In your first footnote, you say "First, ranging only determined distance, while GPS determines position in three dimensions and also the exact time"

Fundamentally, GPS also only determines distances, which it calls pseudoranges. Where it gets weird, and the reason for the "pseudo," is that they're distances in spacetime - each distance is affected by the difference between the satellite's clock and your clock.

With four of those pseudoranges (one for each dimension) and information about the locations of all of the satellites (which is transmitted continuously by the satellites themselves) you can do a bunch of math and determine your position in four dimensions. The geometric relationship between the satellites that you use in your computations has a huge impact on precision, though, so having more pseudoranges to choose from is always better.

Back when GPS wasn't a household word and the constellation was a lot smaller, there were frequently periods where there simply weren't four satellites in view, but you could still compute a fix from three pseudoranges if you had a geoid model and some non-GPS-derived knowledge of your altitude. The precision was pretty terrible, though, so in practice it made more sense to plan your GPS usage for times you could expect to see more signals.

May 5, 2022 at 3:27 PM

Blogger Toivo Henningsson said...

Great writeup, I especially enjoyed the explanation of how they exploited the Chinese Remainder Theorem. Do you know if they checked e.g. all 127 possible offsets for the C code at once, or tried one at time, or somewhere in between?

June 13, 2022 at 8:18 AM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot