9 ms·

One issue that I really don't understand is why the onboard cameras are so bad and are badly positioned. A huge part of this program is to generate buzz and in

by geuis 4y ago

One issue that I really don't understand is why the onboard cameras are so bad and are badly positioned. A huge part of this program is to generate buzz and interest in the public about the human space program. A large part of that is pretty pictures, to be honest. The onboard video quality looks like 720p at best and the exposure is for the Orion vehicle, not Earth or the moon. And the video seems horizontally distorted. I'd have to look, but I'm guessing this is an engineering camera meant to primarily view the physical state of the craft. That being said, after billions of dollars to get this thing into space, they should have accounted for the need and benefits of better footage.

witx 4y ago
Never worked on this domain, so I might be wrong, but what I've heard is that usually for space stuff the hardware is chosen well in advance and "locked". So even if a new shinny thing is out probably it won't make it into the project
- tintor 4y ago
  Quality digital cameras existed for more than 10 years.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    They've been working on SLS/Orion for much longer than 10 years. They're just we tad bit behind schedule
  - witx 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure they've been working on this, hence hardware locked, for 10 or more years. Not saying I agree with the choice as I'd prefer better quality images, but I understand their reasoning (if it really is as I said)
- nradov 4y ago
  We had high-quality cameras used on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station for years before the Orion design was locked.
  - lokimedes 4y ago
    They were both basically still within Earth’s biosphere when it comes to camera destroying ionization. The Van Alan Belts are the first problem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt and from there it gets pretty bad on out. Space is hard, in the learning-loop sense. 99.999% of all in-space experience has taken place less than 5000km from Earth.
peawee 4y ago
Probably because they want cameras they know will work and survive in a deep-space environment. Space is hard. Once you get out of the atmosphere and magnetosphere, it's an unkind environment for electronics. They're probably going to spend the money, effort, and mass on some nice cameras for manned missions, but these are little cameras that mount to the ends of the solar arrays.
- cuSetanta 4y ago
  It is also probably a data rate issue. They will have higher priority data coming back from the spacecraft, especially for a first iteration, and in the early stages of the mission. It is quite possible that once things have stabilised that the video and pictures being sent back will improve. For the ispace lander we take much lower resolution images throughout the mission until we have landed and have the high gain antenna in a stable connection.
runarberg 4y ago
> A huge part of this program is to generate buzz and interest in the public about the human space program. Perhaps this is an impossible task. Humans don’t care about space explorers. We continue to have fun with sci-fi, but when we actual humans going to space in real life, it turns out they are just rich ass-holes that we all commonly hate. Compare this with actual useful robotic missions like the James Webb Space telescope, which sparked huge interests and a ton of excitement. I think the era of human space exploration died in the 1970s, and any effort to try to revive it are futile.
- trap_goes_hot 4y ago
  As per the below poll, some people do care, but yes not the overwhelming majority. https://morningconsult.com/2021/02/25/space-force-travel-exploration-poll/ https://morningconsult.com/2021/02/25/space-force-travel-exp...
  - runarberg 4y ago
    Weird interpretations from these results to say the least. “Space Dominance” is nowhere mentioned except in the headline, yet the headline claims that’s what people want (!) Seeing the results though I see that human space exploration is in the lower tier, just like my previous post was suggesting. More people would rather prioritize normal robotic missions as it seems. More people seem to put some importance to Conducting research to understand space then don’t. This is reverse (i.e. more people don’t think it important to) Research space travels health effect.
- gibolt 4y ago
  Very few people who have gone to orbit (actual space) were anywhere near 'rich'. The reason rich people are the ones funding current space companies is because they are literally the only ones that can do it, other than the largest governments. SpaceX has generated more buzz than recent NASA work (except maybe Webb) and that will continue once Starship begins ferrying passengers into space.
  - runarberg 4y ago
trap_goes_hot 4y ago
Somehow, I don't think pretty pictures are going to sway public opinion all that much. Maybe its a generational thing? From what I found online after a quick search: https://morningconsult.com/2021/02/25/space-force-travel-exploration-poll/ https://morningconsult.com/2021/02/25/space-force-travel-exp...
- FredPret 4y ago
  720p pictures aren’t swaying public opinion no. But an 8k multi-cam livestream of the whole thing would have had people glued to their screens.
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    Would it? I don't personally know anyone who has an 8k display, and I don't know that many people who knew about the SLS launch attempt last week until after it happened
    - geuis 4y ago
      I'll admit up front it isn't the same thing, but go back and watch the video of Musk's car floating in orbit after the Falcon Heavy first launch. It's still impressive as hell to rewatch because its well lit and high quality
- somenameforme 4y ago
  The pink elephant here is that you have to try to be impressed by things like this. And try somewhat hard. It's a low quality picture of the Moon, the same body we had astronauts walking on and live-streaming footage from literally more than half a century ago. If we were coming from a background of zero, this would be amazing. But as we aren't it's really kind of a sad reminder that technological progress, or even stability, is not a given. By contrast when one watches the Falcon Heavy land [1], it's enough to give you goosebumps. I've shown that video to quite a lot of people outside the space world, and the most common response has been "Is that real!?" Even look at the YouTube comments and it's suddenly enough to even turn the internet into a domain of hope and aspiration. The problem is almost nobody knows about that, let alone the major ongoing progress since, or the implications of things like Starship. So I think, without much to be truly inspired by, people are (perhaps subconsciously) simply discounting the possibility of space going anywhere during their lifetimes. If Starship achieves even a fraction of its potential, I would expect views to change. Because that genuinely does create the possibility of an exciting sci-fi style future, as opposed to just trying to recreate the 60s. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSwFU6tY1c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSwFU6tY1c
Fatnino 4y ago
https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1594719135249973249 https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1594719135249973249 Actual gopros
thesausageking 4y ago
While the mission is going on, they first send down low-res versions that are optimized for mission operations. That's why the exposure is for the vehicle and not the moon. Higher res ones that are focused on the moon will come later.
- geuis 4y ago
  Thanks, that's an excellent point I forgot to consider.
Gordonjcp 4y ago
How do you plan on getting higher resolution live video back from a moving spacecraft in orbit around the Moon?
- dekhn 4y ago
  Could you: have an array of different satellites orbiting the moon. Have the spacecraft transmit different bits of video to different satellites which all buffer and send the data back when they have line of sight?

by geuis 4y ago

witx 4y ago

Never worked on this domain, so I might be wrong, but what I've heard is that usually for space stuff the hardware is chosen well in advance and "locked". So even if a new shinny thing is out probably it won't make it into the project

tintor 4y ago
Quality digital cameras existed for more than 10 years.
- dylan604 4y ago
  They've been working on SLS/Orion for much longer than 10 years. They're just we tad bit behind schedule
- witx 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure they've been working on this, hence hardware locked, for 10 or more years. Not saying I agree with the choice as I'd prefer better quality images, but I understand their reasoning (if it really is as I said)
nradov 4y ago
We had high-quality cameras used on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station for years before the Orion design was locked.
- lokimedes 4y ago
  They were both basically still within Earth’s biosphere when it comes to camera destroying ionization. The Van Alan Belts are the first problem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt and from there it gets pretty bad on out. Space is hard, in the learning-loop sense. 99.999% of all in-space experience has taken place less than 5000km from Earth.

peawee 4y ago

Probably because they want cameras they know will work and survive in a deep-space environment. Space is hard. Once you get out of the atmosphere and magnetosphere, it's an unkind environment for electronics. They're probably going to spend the money, effort, and mass on some nice cameras for manned missions, but these are little cameras that mount to the ends of the solar arrays.

cuSetanta 4y ago
It is also probably a data rate issue. They will have higher priority data coming back from the spacecraft, especially for a first iteration, and in the early stages of the mission. It is quite possible that once things have stabilised that the video and pictures being sent back will improve. For the ispace lander we take much lower resolution images throughout the mission until we have landed and have the high gain antenna in a stable connection.

runarberg 4y ago

> A huge part of this program is to generate buzz and interest in the public about the human space program. Perhaps this is an impossible task. Humans don’t care about space explorers. We continue to have fun with sci-fi, but when we actual humans going to space in real life, it turns out they are just rich ass-holes that we all commonly hate. Compare this with actual useful robotic missions like the James Webb Space telescope, which sparked huge interests and a ton of excitement. I think the era of human space exploration died in the 1970s, and any effort to try to revive it are futile.

trap_goes_hot 4y ago
As per the below poll, some people do care, but yes not the overwhelming majority. https://morningconsult.com/2021/02/25/space-force-travel-exploration-poll/ https://morningconsult.com/2021/02/25/space-force-travel-exp...
- runarberg 4y ago
  Weird interpretations from these results to say the least. “Space Dominance” is nowhere mentioned except in the headline, yet the headline claims that’s what people want (!) Seeing the results though I see that human space exploration is in the lower tier, just like my previous post was suggesting. More people would rather prioritize normal robotic missions as it seems. More people seem to put some importance to Conducting research to understand space then don’t. This is reverse (i.e. more people don’t think it important to) Research space travels health effect.
gibolt 4y ago
Very few people who have gone to orbit (actual space) were anywhere near 'rich'. The reason rich people are the ones funding current space companies is because they are literally the only ones that can do it, other than the largest governments. SpaceX has generated more buzz than recent NASA work (except maybe Webb) and that will continue once Starship begins ferrying passengers into space.
- runarberg 4y ago

trap_goes_hot 4y ago

Somehow, I don't think pretty pictures are going to sway public opinion all that much. Maybe its a generational thing? From what I found online after a quick search: https://morningconsult.com/2021/02/25/space-force-travel-exploration-poll/ https://morningconsult.com/2021/02/25/space-force-travel-exp...

FredPret 4y ago
720p pictures aren’t swaying public opinion no. But an 8k multi-cam livestream of the whole thing would have had people glued to their screens.
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  Would it? I don't personally know anyone who has an 8k display, and I don't know that many people who knew about the SLS launch attempt last week until after it happened
  - geuis 4y ago
    I'll admit up front it isn't the same thing, but go back and watch the video of Musk's car floating in orbit after the Falcon Heavy first launch. It's still impressive as hell to rewatch because its well lit and high quality
somenameforme 4y ago
The pink elephant here is that you have to try to be impressed by things like this. And try somewhat hard. It's a low quality picture of the Moon, the same body we had astronauts walking on and live-streaming footage from literally more than half a century ago. If we were coming from a background of zero, this would be amazing. But as we aren't it's really kind of a sad reminder that technological progress, or even stability, is not a given. By contrast when one watches the Falcon Heavy land [1], it's enough to give you goosebumps. I've shown that video to quite a lot of people outside the space world, and the most common response has been "Is that real!?" Even look at the YouTube comments and it's suddenly enough to even turn the internet into a domain of hope and aspiration. The problem is almost nobody knows about that, let alone the major ongoing progress since, or the implications of things like Starship. So I think, without much to be truly inspired by, people are (perhaps subconsciously) simply discounting the possibility of space going anywhere during their lifetimes. If Starship achieves even a fraction of its potential, I would expect views to change. Because that genuinely does create the possibility of an exciting sci-fi style future, as opposed to just trying to recreate the 60s. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSwFU6tY1c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSwFU6tY1c

Fatnino 4y ago

https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1594719135249973249 https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1594719135249973249 Actual gopros

thesausageking 4y ago

While the mission is going on, they first send down low-res versions that are optimized for mission operations. That's why the exposure is for the vehicle and not the moon. Higher res ones that are focused on the moon will come later.

geuis 4y ago
Thanks, that's an excellent point I forgot to consider.

Gordonjcp 4y ago

How do you plan on getting higher resolution live video back from a moving spacecraft in orbit around the Moon?

dekhn 4y ago
Could you: have an array of different satellites orbiting the moon. Have the spacecraft transmit different bits of video to different satellites which all buffer and send the data back when they have line of sight?