5 ms·

Is that some sarcasm I can't get? New Horizon left this Planet on Jan. 2006, you have to consider that, too. We have advanced imaging tech from 9 years ago abo

Is that some sarcasm I can't get? New Horizon left this Planet on Jan. 2006, you have to consider that, too. We have advanced imaging tech from 9 years ago aboard.

NhanH 11y ago
Imaging tech is not the issue, we have plenty of ability to capture HD image (not movie level... but definitely internet level). Bandwidth, however, is a severe limitation.
- idlewords 11y ago
  I believe the imaging tech is also constrained by the radiation environment.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  Typically the technology aboard any space craft is 5 years older or older when it's being sent because it needs to be hardened and tested against the harsh radiation of space. So we're talking imaging tech from at best 2001 on this thing. So yes bandwidth is an issue but so is the imaging technology. They couldn't put an HD camera on this thing.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    Yes, that's correct, the technology used is generally much older and specifically hardened against radiation. To give an example, IIRC the CPU used in New Horizons is a radiation-hardened version of the CPU found in the PlayStation 1.
    - dharma1 11y ago
      Interesting. How are components hardened against radiation?
      - ZenoArrow 11y ago
        I don't know that much about it, but you can read about it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening
  - hga 11y ago
    They couldn't put an HD camera on this thing. Actually, I'm sure they could have, but a larger camera would have required a larger telescope in front, not to mention the bandwidth issue. Elsewhere in this discussion it's mentioned that the flyby data will be stored in two mirrored 8 GB units and slowly streamed back home through November 2016 (we'll get some lossily compressed images earlier, although nothing until the fly-by is finished and the main radio antenna again points at earth). So an 8.2 inch mirror, largest ever sent to the outer solar system, with a 1024x1024 bits CCD, which isn't bad at all, weighing in at 19.4 pounds and an average power of 5.8 watts (http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Mission/Spacecraft/Payload.php http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Mission/Spacecraft/Payload.php)
    - Roboprog 11y ago
      So, they essentially put in hardened versions of these: http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Cassegrain-Telescopes/Celestron-EdgeHD-800-Schmidt-Cassegrain-Optical-Tube/pc/-1/c/1/sc/14/p/9553.uts http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Cassegrain-Telescopes/Ce... http://www.telescope.com/Astrophotography/Astrophotography-Cameras/Orion-StarShoot-G3-Deep-Space-Monochrome-Imaging-Camera/pc/-1/c/4/sc/58/p/101473.uts http://www.telescope.com/Astrophotography/Astrophotography-C... (not quite enough pixels, but close) Well, something like those, anyway :-)
anon3_ 11y ago
Not sarcasm. Disappoint continually by Boy who cried wolf. I also remember this happening with the mars rover. I was expecting gigabytes of hidef images. YouTube images / twitch streams. The technology we have in space always seems to be 40 years older than what we have in Earth. Tiny, grainy images. No mass-fabrication of research devices. Weak computers. Long development times. Multi-billion dollar cost overruns (ISS, Hubble). In USA, outside of military technology, science also overpromises and disappoints, perhaps for funding / political reasons. See http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/12/275896094/scientists-say-their-giant-laser-has-produced-nuclear-fusion http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/12/275896094/.... Then http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/67/4/10.1063/PT.3.2344 http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/a....
- douche 11y ago
  Outside of military technology? Clearly, you have not been following the the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) program. Stealth, multi-purpose, VTOL fighter-jet, able to replace most combat aircraft for all three branches of service. Oops... https://medium.com/war-is-boring/for-america-s-f-35-stealth-fighter-the-best-case-is-still-bad-830fdf0abd48 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/for-america-s-f-35-stealth-...
- techsupporter 11y ago
  "We choose to go to the moon! We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." According to the Office of Management and Budget, NASA's 2014 budget was $17.65 billion. Total spending on the military of the United States in 2013 was $610.1 billion. That means that NASA received the equivalent of 2.8% of our "on the books" (e.g. no emergency allocations) military spending or 0.492% of the total Federal budget. Meanwhile, NASA delivers pictures of planets (no apologies, Pluto is a planet) so far away we can only barely see them from Earth and has provided the technology to park multiple upon multiple communication devices in orbit and around our solar system. I can only imagine what they'd do with over $600 billion each year.
- vhffm 11y ago
  I'd like to point out that space is an extremely large and harsh environment. The three main issues: 1) Distances are huge. Light needs ~5 hours to travel from Pluto to Earth. This means high-gain (=large), directional antennas, and low data-rates to make sure you actually receive the same data that the craft transmits to you (and vice versa). 2) Electronics need to be shielded from radiation and cosmic rays. On Earth, the atmosphere does a this for us (and we still get hit by cosmic rays, leading to things like randomly flipped bits). If you have a space-craft that cannot be directly controlled from Earth (because, 5 hours one-way communication time), you need it to be somewhat autonomous. Random bit-flips can spell disaster, so you need to either bring a ton of shielding, redundant (and well-tested, aka "outdated") systems, or both. 3) All these things add mass to your vehicle. Mass is the single largest cost driver in launch operations. In summary, space is difficult and expensive to get to and operate in. This costs money. Money is finite, especially in a world where many people would like to see space exploration funding cut because it provides no immediate tangible return.

Is that some sarcasm I can't get? New Horizon left this Planet on Jan. 2006, you have to consider that, too. We have advanced imaging tech from 9 years ago aboard.

NhanH 11y ago

Imaging tech is not the issue, we have plenty of ability to capture HD image (not movie level... but definitely internet level). Bandwidth, however, is a severe limitation.

idlewords 11y ago
I believe the imaging tech is also constrained by the radiation environment.
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
Typically the technology aboard any space craft is 5 years older or older when it's being sent because it needs to be hardened and tested against the harsh radiation of space. So we're talking imaging tech from at best 2001 on this thing. So yes bandwidth is an issue but so is the imaging technology. They couldn't put an HD camera on this thing.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  Yes, that's correct, the technology used is generally much older and specifically hardened against radiation. To give an example, IIRC the CPU used in New Horizons is a radiation-hardened version of the CPU found in the PlayStation 1.
  - dharma1 11y ago
    Interesting. How are components hardened against radiation?
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      I don't know that much about it, but you can read about it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening
- hga 11y ago
  They couldn't put an HD camera on this thing. Actually, I'm sure they could have, but a larger camera would have required a larger telescope in front, not to mention the bandwidth issue. Elsewhere in this discussion it's mentioned that the flyby data will be stored in two mirrored 8 GB units and slowly streamed back home through November 2016 (we'll get some lossily compressed images earlier, although nothing until the fly-by is finished and the main radio antenna again points at earth). So an 8.2 inch mirror, largest ever sent to the outer solar system, with a 1024x1024 bits CCD, which isn't bad at all, weighing in at 19.4 pounds and an average power of 5.8 watts (http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Mission/Spacecraft/Payload.php http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Mission/Spacecraft/Payload.php)
  - Roboprog 11y ago
    So, they essentially put in hardened versions of these: http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Cassegrain-Telescopes/Celestron-EdgeHD-800-Schmidt-Cassegrain-Optical-Tube/pc/-1/c/1/sc/14/p/9553.uts http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Cassegrain-Telescopes/Ce... http://www.telescope.com/Astrophotography/Astrophotography-Cameras/Orion-StarShoot-G3-Deep-Space-Monochrome-Imaging-Camera/pc/-1/c/4/sc/58/p/101473.uts http://www.telescope.com/Astrophotography/Astrophotography-C... (not quite enough pixels, but close) Well, something like those, anyway :-)

anon3_ 11y ago

Not sarcasm. Disappoint continually by Boy who cried wolf. I also remember this happening with the mars rover. I was expecting gigabytes of hidef images. YouTube images / twitch streams. The technology we have in space always seems to be 40 years older than what we have in Earth. Tiny, grainy images. No mass-fabrication of research devices. Weak computers. Long development times. Multi-billion dollar cost overruns (ISS, Hubble). In USA, outside of military technology, science also overpromises and disappoints, perhaps for funding / political reasons. See http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/12/275896094/scientists-say-their-giant-laser-has-produced-nuclear-fusion http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/12/275896094/.... Then http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/67/4/10.1063/PT.3.2344 http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/a....

douche 11y ago
Outside of military technology? Clearly, you have not been following the the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) program. Stealth, multi-purpose, VTOL fighter-jet, able to replace most combat aircraft for all three branches of service. Oops... https://medium.com/war-is-boring/for-america-s-f-35-stealth-fighter-the-best-case-is-still-bad-830fdf0abd48 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/for-america-s-f-35-stealth-...
techsupporter 11y ago
"We choose to go to the moon! We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." According to the Office of Management and Budget, NASA's 2014 budget was $17.65 billion. Total spending on the military of the United States in 2013 was $610.1 billion. That means that NASA received the equivalent of 2.8% of our "on the books" (e.g. no emergency allocations) military spending or 0.492% of the total Federal budget. Meanwhile, NASA delivers pictures of planets (no apologies, Pluto is a planet) so far away we can only barely see them from Earth and has provided the technology to park multiple upon multiple communication devices in orbit and around our solar system. I can only imagine what they'd do with over $600 billion each year.
vhffm 11y ago
I'd like to point out that space is an extremely large and harsh environment. The three main issues: 1) Distances are huge. Light needs ~5 hours to travel from Pluto to Earth. This means high-gain (=large), directional antennas, and low data-rates to make sure you actually receive the same data that the craft transmits to you (and vice versa). 2) Electronics need to be shielded from radiation and cosmic rays. On Earth, the atmosphere does a this for us (and we still get hit by cosmic rays, leading to things like randomly flipped bits). If you have a space-craft that cannot be directly controlled from Earth (because, 5 hours one-way communication time), you need it to be somewhat autonomous. Random bit-flips can spell disaster, so you need to either bring a ton of shielding, redundant (and well-tested, aka "outdated") systems, or both. 3) All these things add mass to your vehicle. Mass is the single largest cost driver in launch operations. In summary, space is difficult and expensive to get to and operate in. This costs money. Money is finite, especially in a world where many people would like to see space exploration funding cut because it provides no immediate tangible return.