It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why don't they...?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:
x08

posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   
With computing power these days.. why don't they send a double or triple sattelite to mars instead of a single? Take two or three photos at different angles of the same object, and they should be able to build a 3D map of mars, instead of boring 2D pictures.... It will certainly take away our need to judge things through usage of shadows etc.




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by x08
With computing power these days.. why don't they send a double or triple sattelite to mars instead of a single? Take two or three photos at different angles of the same object, and they should be able to build a 3D map of mars, instead of boring 2D pictures.... It will certainly take away our need to judge things through usage of shadows etc.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (jra - are you there?...you seem pretty well-versed in this stuff), but I think NASA is already taking 3D photos by taking two images in succession of the same area, but from different locations (since the spacecraft is moving).


jra

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Like the ESA's Mars Express? You don't need extra satellites to do that, and they've mapped the Moon, Mars and Venus all with 3d terrain already. Get this program called World Wind and check it out there. It's not super high res 3d or anything, but it's still 3d none the less.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by jra]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Could be a money issue too. More cameras = bigger bill.


x08

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   
But I imagine at the range the cameras are taking pictures from, lighting could seriously affect accuracy. Wouldn't take multiple angle shots at the same time be more accurate than taking them at different times?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 03:44 AM
link   
The short answer is that orbital mechanics is a bitch.

Formation flying satellites in low orbit is actually a pretty hard thing to do. While it would be nice, the 3D imagery developed with one satellite is so good that using more just doesn't justify the cost/difficulty.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Besides, although computing power has risen greatly, rocket power really hasn't. Getting mass to Mars is ridiculously expensive, no matter how you cut it.


x08

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
OK. Cost is an issue, I know. But yes, I can see the point about formation flying being a PITA.

How about re-orbiting the camera in a different orbit and re-taking the shots to get better clarity. Taking two shots from different angles, but the same orbit is still going to restrict vision. You still won't see what's BEHIND the object. Only on the sides.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by x08
How about re-orbiting the camera in a different orbit and re-taking the shots to get better clarity.

Changing the inclination of an orbit (the angle which the orbital plane of the satellite makes with the equator of the orbited body) is practically impossible. Once something is launched into a particular trajectory about all you can do is raise or lower the orbit.

Like I said, orbital mechanics is a real bitch!



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   
You've read too many magazine articles to believe that computing power "these days" is anywhere that great a factor for space exploration. Think about the cost as well and the fac tthat it makes almost zero cents to go to mars in the first place, it would make one thousand times less to send three or four probes.


x08

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soitenly
You've read too many magazine articles to believe that computing power "these days" is anywhere that great a factor for space exploration. Think about the cost as well and the fac tthat it makes almost zero cents to go to mars in the first place, it would make one thousand times less to send three or four probes.


make that I don't read enough magazines
the only magazines I read these days are about cars and bikes~




top topics



 
0

log in

join