121–130 of 221 posts
Anyone know if they flew over the site of the Apollo 11 lunar module landing? Surely they'd do it just for the publicity and ability to shut up Joe Rogan and the other nutjobs that consider that landing fake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1960s technology Still photography has gotten more convenient since then, but in the agreeable lighting and atmospheric conditions one would encounter while taking a vacation snap outside at noon Cynthian time, image quality now isn't better than then* *Unless you're willing to spend $10,000+
> *Unless you're willing to spend $10,000+ OP is comparing photography tech that made it to the Moon, so not cheap tech. The "special" way the photos look like is probably more a product of the environment than just the equipment.
Here are the pictures it has taken so far: https://www.flickr.com/photos/fireflyspace/albums/7217772031... There's also a cool lunar flyover video taken during final deorbit.
It's fascinating how the pictures have that "Apollo moon landing" look. I'd always assumed that a huge part of this was just 1960s technology (film not digital etc), but apparently it's actually coming from the literally unearthly lighting conditions of being on the Moon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am no expert, but to my knowledge the space flight tech evolves very slowly, if at all. One reason for that is that modern tech is supposedly too sensitive to radiation. So you want to balance what's worthwhile to upgrade, and fancy videos are probably low on that list.
Space engineer here, not exactly true, esp for non-critical systems. Check out the "Careful COTS" paper by Doug Sinclair
Apart from that, adding new components is also costly. You just don't order a random megapixel camera from alibaba and slam it on your 1bn space project.
Considering I made clear that i am no expert and my claims were under that context your response was simply arrogant and not helpful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am no expert, but to my knowledge the space flight tech evolves very slowly, if at all. One reason for that is that modern tech is supposedly too sensitive to radiation. So you want to balance what's worthwhile to upgrade, and fancy videos are probably low on that list.
The Apollo astronauts used Hasselblads for still photography. I'm pretty sure Firefly is not sending back rolls of 6x6 film.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Apollo astronauts used Hasselblads for still photography. I'm pretty sure Firefly is not sending back rolls of 6x6 film.
What is the point? Are we comparing coconuts and apples?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not any more or less out of reach for a medium-sized corporation than it's been since the 70s. The reason no corporation has gone is that there's no economic incentives to. And there's still not; this is a NASA mission, it's exploratory science funded by the public.
How do you expect to get to the Moon before SpaceX? The Space Shuttle ended up costing $2+ billion per launch, and given it's a government program - getting anything on it from an untested company who didn't already have major connections would be near to a nonstarter, and that's even if they could casually foot the billions of dollars it would have cost. FireFly launched as a private company on a Falcon 9 so their c…
"At the end of its operations, Blue Ghost will stay put, destined to remain on the moon’s surface indefinitely." Is that a euphemism for "Humans are leaving rubbish to pollute another part of the universe?"
"At the end of its operations, Blue Ghost will stay put, destined to remain on the moon’s surface indefinitely." Is that a euphemism for "Humans are leaving rubbish to pollute another part of the universe?"
> Is that a euphemism for "Humans are leaving rubbish to pollute another part of the universe?" Yes, in the same sense that the Pyramids and Stonehenge and the Parthenon are rubbish