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.

 

All this technology and no videos?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I was just wondering why is it that we don't have "live" video of some of the planets where we currently have orbiting satellites? I'd love to see videos of Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars, for example. I know that those current satellites probably (they don't tell us everything...) don't have the ability to record videos, but what's stopping them from having video cameras on future satellites?

How come all we ever get are photographs? Is the technology just not there yet, or is it too expensive?

[edit on 2-6-2009 by Impreza]




posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Impreza
 


I would guess that photos yield far more detail than videos does and obviously more convenient(quicker) to transmit over vast distances with the very limited bandwidth.

They also do time-lapse with photos but again, the information transmission problem, the more photos you make. Compromises has to be made I think, it may not be possible to deliver photos and videos so they have to choose a between the two.

[edit on 2-6-2009 by ahnggk]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Video would not deliver some of the scientific level of detail as photos would due to exposure times.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Foxe
Video would not deliver some of the scientific level of detail as photos would due to exposure times.


your right..along with power limitations,coupled with "noise" from space over the vast distance, it's a wonder that they are able to recieve photos with as much clarity as they are recieving now. this isn't like sending video over a blackberry.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
To add another inefficiency reason, photograph lenses focus on their subject for an amount of time that you just cant do with video. With video, you could not see any galaxy, and videos of planets would be dark. Videos just don't have the capability to pull in enough light to start recording.

Not only is it inefficient, it's useless. What data would we get from video that we don't already get with photos and our own eyes from telescopes dwon here on Earth?

Finally, NASA does the things it does for research, not for civilian's entertainment. It just so happens to be that natural formations such as galaxies, planets, nebulae, super novae, etc. are astonishing to look at.

Ask this question again in 50 years and maybe the answer will be a lot different.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
It's also a question of bandwidth. Videos are a lot larger in bytes than photos. The vast distances that separate space probes and not so very powerful transmitter on board the craft, severely limits the bandwidth. Video quality has to be reduced to useless levels of detail to enable 'live' streaming.

Higher quality video could be alternately stored and transmitted later, but that gives them less time to transmit higher detail photos.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join