Let's get live video footage from the moon - on the moon

I've been thinking about a magnetic launch system that kicks in after a rocket has got your payload into the stratosphere.


QV.

Originally posted by absente
Each of the lenses allows me a 10/fold digital zoom, without compromising the image quality.

This caught my eye. Digital zoom by it's definition compromises image quality. Well it doesn't really do anything else but crop the image.

NASA has a base on the moon for many years and the latest craft used to get there Is the Lockheed X-22A based In the mountains of Utah. The pilots are all sheep dipped and they don't exist.

I'm with the people who said video on the Moon is rather pointless, unless the rover just films itself driving around, moving rocks, etc.

If you're interested, there are videos from a Japanese orbiter, showing lunar surface in HD.

reply to post by RocksFromSpace

Great Idea, wonder why they didn't leave live cameras going when they landed on the Moon.Seems like a simple thing to do since they were already there.

They did! The Surveyor program landed several units on the moon, each with a TV camera. This is how they worked out the kinks in lunar landings prior to the manned missions.

I always get a chuckle out of people who don't think the manned missions occured. All of the Ranger/Surveyor/Merucry/Gemini/Apollo missions were baby steps where they learned how to do each of the tasks necessary for the manned missions. All the while, there were R&D projects all over the Nation testing the equipment and concepts in laboratories, including air drops of lander prototypes.

Check this for the Surveyor Project: Surveyor Project

Remember, NASA didn't buid any of that equipment. Contactors like Lockheed, RocketDyne, McDonnel/Douglas, Northrop, etc. built ALL of the equipment. They did the "workup missions" as well as the manned missions. Even the launce control center was staffed by contractors. There were no secrets kept.

reply to post by absente

Let's do a "How to send a 80kg package to the moon and land it safely for Dummies"

All of the information regarding placing a payload on the moon has been published and is in the public domain. The Surveyors massed in at 285kg when on the moon. With today's technology it could indeed be a great deal lighter. The rocket to get it there would, however, still be about as big as what NASA had to use to get theirs to the moon:

Surveyor 1 Mission

All of the Surveyors: Surveyor Missions

Getting off the earth is a large undertaking, and not one that could be accomplished with a small staff of inexperienced aerospace engineers.

If you do your research, you will find that NASA accomplished their missions with minimal hardware and a handsome budget. You can certainly get a "leg-up" by acquiring the documentation of those who went before you; however, you are still looking at a very expensive project propelled by a very dangerous rocket.

And, yes, NASA will allow you to all of this. You might have to go someplace else to build a launce facility. If you can convince NASA that you have the engineering savvy and the necessary funding, they will probably grant usage of their launch facilities.

reply to post by absente


That's why I don't believe they did the moon landing, because for no good reason they never could point the camera in a 360 pan, up, down or any direction other than a stationary shot in one direction, which is exactly how you film most movies in a movie studio. That's one of the tell tale signs they faked it.

If you do this, be prepared to have a lot of people accuse you of filming on a set, or using some other form of trickery to broadcast from the moon.

But, seriously, if you do somehow happen to actually do this, I wish you good luck. Space exploration, of any kind, is something I wholeheartedly agree with.

reply to post by r2d246


You do realise that would result in a nice black square. Unless you point at the sun of course. Nothing worth seeing there either. Also you do realise that when they left they used the camera to pan up to the lander lifting off. The only time there was actually something worth seeing above the horizon.

Originally posted by r2d246
That's why I don't believe they did the moon landing, because for no good reason they never could point the camera in a 360 pan, up, down or any direction other than a stationary shot in one direction, which is exactly how you film most movies in a movie studio. That's one of the tell tale signs they faked it.

From reading this post, it is clear you've never spent any reasonable amount of time watching any Apollo video. Apollo 11's camera was stationary I believe, but the rest of the missions were not. They controlled the camera from Earth and they were always panning the camera all around 360 degrees, zooming in and out etc.

Go and actually watch an entire EVA (I recommend an EVA from Apollo's 15 16 or 17). Before you try and make claims about the video.

ETA:

Go to the Apollo Lunar surface Journal and start watching. The link goes to Apollo 17. You can try watching EVA 1, it's only around 5 hours worth of video, so I hope you have some free time.

Originally posted by r2d246
That's why I don't believe they did the moon landing, because for no good reason they never could point the camera in a 360 pan, up, down or any direction other than a stationary shot in one direction...

A few weeks ago back in this thread it was pointed out to you multiple times that your statement is a lie.
You even admitted to watching such a 360 degree pan video, so its rather surprising now that you keep trotting out this favorite falsehood of yours.

So, to repeat...
a 360 degree panorama was one of the first things Neil did when he setup the camera away from the lander.

reply to post by r2d246

That's one of the tell tale signs they faked it.

Am I to understand that you have reviewed the design of those landers and also the video they provided? You youngsters seem to think that video technology in the 1960s is as good as it is now. Trust me, it wasn't. Those landers weren't designed to tour the moon. They were designed to test vacuum landing and to test the soil for landing the manned ships. As I said, each of the preceeding missions gained knowledge for the next.

The Surveyors were not crawlers. They sat in one spot. They did pan, tilt, and zoom. All of that material is in the public domain; but, possibly not on the internet. How about contacting NASA to see what they have available. They are a kindly sort of people.

You haven't done any reasearch at all have you? Anyone with engineering skills can read the mountains of documentation and tell that it wasn't faked. Just go get the material and see if you can find the flaw that would have prevented the missions from being successful.

Try the material here: Landing Apollo

Get four DVDs of Apollo documentation here: DVDs of Apollo Documentation

You really need to read the technical material before you make such corny decisions like Apollo didn't happen. The whole world watched those developments, from Ranger to Apollo. Believe me, if the Russians could have proved we didn't do it, they'd be all over it. The Russians could track spacecraft, same as us.

Sure, it is possible, no doubt about it. The problem is that amateur rocket and balloon enthusiasts who launch small craft into space do not posses the know-how to not only leave earth's orbit, but calculate with the precision needed to guide a craft, and then the hard part, have it LAND on the moon. This is by no means an easy feat, even for those we call professionals...Those who have done it before. It is by no means "routine" in my opinion.

There are people who could figure this out, but there are so many small details, and this is why it took Nasa such a large team of people. I think they said there were somewhere on the order of 400,000 people needed overall to first put man on the moon, with the designing, building, testing, etc...It would take a rocket first of all.
But not an ordinary model rocket that people fly in their backyards. It would be even more complex that those of the semi-professional rocket designers who build relatively large rockets as a hobby.

It would have to be multi-staged, and the sheer distance involved would mean a special propellant. This in itself is no easy feat to accomplish, this complex of a rocket. But it could be built, and it might work. But then the really hard part begins. The equipment needed for the video feed, plus everything else involved, is going to add up as far as weight is concerned. So that's another issue, and the rocket is going to have to be bigger.

But even if these obstacles are overcome...There has to be another stage to get it to the moon. That is a long ways away. It would take days to arrive, and throughout that time there has to be some sort of computerized guidance system. That is another huge obstacle. Then there is actually landing on the moon. Simply creating parachutes strong enough to slow the descent to the surface is a challenge. Just as the government, lol.

So additional boosters would be needed to slow the lunar module to a light touchdown on the surface of the moon, so as to not damage all the sensitive equipment inside. It is just too large of a project for amateurs without the adequate experience, and more importantly, assets, to accomplish. Nasa or another space agency could do it, but it would still cost a lot and take a huge amount of time. Not only the planning, but the designing, development, testing, etc., is something that should not be taken lightly.

So while I think this is a great idea, and also think it would be cool to attempt to do, I don't think a small group of people could pull it off....Unless of course they had a large budget, adequate connections to obtain materials, lots of time on their hands, and most importantly, the firsthand knowledge of all the dynamics of space flight. That is an extremely tall order in my opinion. This is all before even mentioning the video feed itself, and what would be needed.

The good news is that there are probably startup companies out there who send stuff up, and they may be able to pull something like this off...Maybe. At least they would have the basic resources to get something like this started. But I am not sure if any of these companies build or launch their own rockets. I would assume they would hitch a ride for their satellites and whatnot on rockets sent up by the big boys. While I do not want to discourage you, although everything I said above may beg to differ, I think it is important to be realistic. Dreams and ideas are great, but at some point someone has to step up and present the facts as they are, and I think this is helpful in the long run. I would assist in any way possible on a project like this, because I like the idea of doing the impossible, but I am not sure where to even start...It is that daunting of an idea to me.

Originally posted by qvision
I've been thinking about a magnetic launch system that kicks in after a rocket has got your payload into the stratosphere.
QV.

Can you elaborate a little more on this?

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by absente
Each of the lenses allows me a 10/fold digital zoom, without compromising the image quality.

This caught my eye. Digital zoom by it's definition compromises image quality. Well it doesn't really do anything else but crop the image.

No. If you have a matrix that shoots in, let's say 5700p x 4200p (just an example), then a 10x zoom will still give you 570x420p, without compromising image quality. If you then though expand it to 1080p it would compromise the quality, yes.

I am using 22.3 megapixel sensors in my design, that allow shooting at 5760x3840p.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


I am aware of the difficulty and the big budged involved. I am not saying that I want to launch it tomorrow. What I and my team are good at is building that MV, and now I am discovering options. Instead of doing it on only google, I wanted to hear some ATS opinion, because I know that I will get some alternative options here - nothing more.

The main goal is to keep this project as unbiased as possible, if it is going to happen. If I have to compromise control over the MV, or signing contracts with sponsors that could overtake the idea of the project, I rather postpone it to a time, where I can finance it myself or with the help of people I trust.

If we start building the MV now, we will have a working prototype in about 7-12 months. Add another year for testing, debugging, etc. There is no rush. All I am doing right now is starting to understand slowly the next step - it is crucial, because understanding it can lead to design changes in the MV for example, in order to lower the budged needed.

What some people might not understand (because I didn't mention it) is, that there is a lot of testing involved, regarding the way of bringing the payload into space. Phase one would be doing a successful launch into the Earth's stratosphere. Phase two, placing a communication device into Earth's orbit that can later be used as a control and communications waypoint. Until that point, everything is relatively easy and cheap, compared to the other phases.

PS: Thanks for your post

For those so estranged.
What happened?
The 'mass' media seems to have done quite an Number on you.
What do zionists assume to gain? 400 years not enough? Rot-child? Rock-a-feller? Net-a Yahoo? and co.?
Had enough yet?
They're not happy; never were though for some reason ? wish your destruction.
Could a book, a 'wise man' or two be to blame?
So, what happened?

reply to post by absente


Yeah I understand how the system works. But by lowering the image resolution 10x to get 10x zoom is by my defintion compromising the image

reply to post by PsykoOps


.

Amateurs cannot launch rockets into orbit, that takes much more energy than a suborbital hop. The best way how to get an amateur satellite into space is to catch a ride on a real rocket as a secondary payload.

Maybe you should start with something more simple like getting it to orbit the moon first. Which in it self is no easy task.