@@user-yy2nu1kw2w this is not true, nobody heard anything, there was no audio and the signal lasted a couple seconds

Bro, According To The Other KZfaqrs, Like Astrokobi, It Lasted 72 Seconds Not A Couple Seconds

@@user-yy2nu1kw2w the 72 second window is a big stretch made to accommodate some other peaks in amplitude, the "6EQUJ" sequence lasted for about as long as you can see in this video

x.com/uhf_satcom/status/1429196861131329543

@@dereksgc Thank you so much! But how does he know if the signal is from Juno, not from some radio station or roque antenna nearby? Does he have any video or paper that explains how he validated his data?

@@sbkarajan The signal frequency matches the Juno allocation, the signal Doppler shift matches the Doppler generated by the relative movement of the Earth and Jupiter plus Juno's own orbit, and most simply a visual confirmation as the dish antenna used for something like this is highly directional and Jupiter is quite a bright object, seen even in daylight if you use a telescope and know where to look (plus the az/el readings would match the current position of Jupiter)

@@dereksgc I want to believe you. So, what's the signal frequency of Juno & the doppler shift that's expected? And where do you get those numbers? (references?)

@@dereksgc For Juno, what would be the S/N ratio? -100 dB? -1,000 dB? -10,000 dB? Can it ever work in such situation?

I can not reach HST due to its orbital inclination, it never comes within view of central Europe. It should be possible for me to receive the JWST S-band telemetry beacon, but I believe its actual science data is transmitted way up higher and I do not have the hardware for that. The main advantage of space telescopes is the fact that they do not have to deal with the atmosphere. HST can have a 24/7 view of its target if it is aiming "up" or "down" relative to Earth's axis. The sky is also not moving for a space telescope, once you are in space you can lock your orientation relative to the galaxy and not be bound by earth's rotation, so it is actually easier for a space telescope to track an object in the sky than for a terrestrial one. But the Earth does provide an obstruction in some cases, I suppose in case of the HST low-Earth orbit was chosen for ease of access for maintenance with the Space Shuttle, whereas future telescopes (and even many of the current ones) are heading far above LEO

@@dereksgc Ok, but you heard of SOFIA, airborne telescopes? It can be anywhere, easier to maintain, out of most troposphere and I don’t think HST has much better advantage over it, other than HST being much more expensive.

@@dereksgc I think you know some science better than me, so let me ask you this. Do you remember John Glenn, the American hero astronaut? He claimed to have orbited the earth 3 times, meaning at the speed of 28,000 km/h around the Earth and then reentering to the earth that cooks the spacecraft with 3000 F heat. Take a look at his Friendship 7 craft in the Washington's Air and Space Museum. Do you think it went through earth reentry at 3000 F but its paints are intact? BTW, paint melts around 200-300 F.

@@dereksgc Compare Friendship 7, other Mercury, Gemini crafts with the real reentry capsules such as Soyuz and Shenzhoi. Even the bare aluminum Apollo and blow torched to look like it went through reentry. Bare aluminum melts at 1200 F.

@@sbkarajan SOFIA and similar telescopes still operate inside the atmosphere, after all both planes and balloons rely on atmospheric pressure to stay aloft. Space telescopes are going to be a lot more consistent and capable. Hubble is also extremely old and outdated by any metric, by the time SOFIA was flying the technology has improved a lot, and you can see that with JWST now. So yes, you can match the HST today for a fraction of the cost, but it was the innovation and experience gained from HST and others that will lead to more advanced and capable space instruments in the future. If you think SOFIA was as capable as Hubble, which arguably it was in some ways, if it was positioned in LEO it would have been even more capable. About the space capsule, you need to consider the fact that basically every orbital reentry vehicle is equipped with a heat shield on the bottom side. You are correct in your statement that the materials used would melt at those temperatures; it is the job of the heat shield to make sure they never reach them. The heat shield is either ablative and slowly burns away during reentry (in a controlled manner) which is how it takes away the heat energy, or it is just made out of a very durable material that takes the heat. As the heat shield is a blunt surface exposed to the airflow, it forms a "cone" of plasma around the capsule where the high temperature is concentrated, while the trailing surfaces stay relatively cold. If something was to go wrong with the control of the capsule and wrong surfaces (like the painted ones) were exposed to the superheated plasma on the front, you would then be looking at disintegration. There have unfortunately been cases of spacecraft burning up during reentry due to a problem with the heat shield, such as space shuttle Colombia.

sounds like a problem with your browser, if you are on a computer try pressing the enter button after you are done inputting the values, on a phone you should have a confirm/enter button on the keyboard as well, it was tested over multiple browsers and platforms and auto-updating worked

you place it with the first (bottom) turn roughly where the entrance of the LNB would be, for standard offset dishes you want around 60-70 degrees beamwidth, for prime focus dishes helical antennas aren't ideal but if you want to use one you need a wider beam such as 90-100

@@dereksgc Thank you so much I understand now. I will get images from the Metop satellite even if is the last thing I do!

There's currently just one in svalbard

Check with an app like look4sat or gpredict to see if you have line of sight, you need a clear view of the satellite with no obstructions. I don't think the 2.4 GHz grid antenna would work on its own, you would probably have to modify it so its properly tuned at 1.7 GHz

no