pics from space taken with Kodak

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Mr.Bolshoyhuy, May 27, 2006.

  1. Mr.Bolshoyhuy, May 27, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Except the Nikon based Kodak DCS-760 in 2003 was usd $8000 body only for a
    6.3 mp 1.3X factor FOV the D100 would have been usd $1900 at that time. The
    Nikon 800mm f:5.6 lens would have been usd $6000-7000 at that time...

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdcs760/
     
    Darrell Larose, May 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Well, they took Hasselblads to the moon, and don't even ask
    about the price of a 1 MPix sensor like the ones used on the mars
    rovers.

    Don't even think of Huygens (160x254 HRI, 128x254 SLI, 176x254
    MRI) and the Pathfinder mission (512x512 with colour filters,
    actually an identical CCD).

    And since when was it the camera who composed and shot the
    pictures anyway?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 28, 2006
    #3
  4. But those are not space rated. You would not want to take an unrated
    camera on a multi-hundred million dollar space mission only
    to find that cosmic rays latch up the cpu and it won't take pictures.
    Cameras for spacecraft are expensive because radiation tolerant
    parts are used and the system is fully tested in a space simulation
    environment, including temperature, vacuum, radiation, and the
    shake of launch.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), May 28, 2006
    #4
  5. But I'd have thought that Darrell's point was that the DCS760 isn't
    cheaper than the "equivalent" Canon/Nikon, and the whole post is based
    on a misapprehension (or, alternatively, on a novel arithmetic wherein
    8000<2000)...

    As for space rated, did they actually test radiation resistance? Things
    like sensitivity of the sensor to the radiation up there would be
    fairly easy to work out without testing; but I have no idea whether the
    rest of the electronics (CPU etc) were specially prepared (radiation
    hardened etc).
     
    achilleaslazarides, May 29, 2006
    #5
  6. By the way, since you appear to find your nickname amusing, were you
    aware that there's a city in Belgium called Huy?
     
    achilleaslazarides, May 29, 2006
    #6
  7. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    J. Clarke Guest

    So? That just adds to the cost. And it doesn't negate the argument that
    "you don't need to spend much more for a Canon or Nikon to get great pics,
    even from space".

    Incidentally, it _was_ a 760, they state that explicitly in one of the
    captions.
    Why not? So you don't get any pictures of that mission, so what? Further,
    the _easy_ way to do that test is to just fly the thing along with your
    regular film camera as backup and see what happens. While launch weight
    matters, it's not so hugely critical on the Shuttle (which seldom flies
    loaded to the design limits and most of the operating cost of which is
    maintenance, not fuel) that they can't carry an extra camera once in a
    while. Why conduce extensive tests when you can get one that is perfectly
    adequate by just trying it?

    Incidentally, cosmic rays are more likely to latch up the CPU sitting on
    your desk than they are in the Shuttle. Look up "cosmic ray cascade" and
    you'll see why.
    If it's cold or hot enough in the cabin to break a camera, then the camera
    going bust is the least of your worries.
    If you've got vacuum in the cabin then the camera going bust is the least of
    your worries.
    If you've got enough radiation in the cabin to break a camera then the
    camera going bust is the least of your worries.
    Which ain't crap compared to spending 6 months in the back of a Land Rover
    with bad shocks--sure, the max G is higher, but that's not usually what
    breaks things.

    Cameras permanently mounted on spacecraft that engage in long-duration
    unattended missions need to be tested extensively because there's no way to
    _fix_ them and if they are on such a mission then they are considered to be
    a necessary part of the works. But there's much less need to conduct
    extensive tests on something that is going to be used in a spacecraft cabin
    in low earth orbit--they have zillions of pictures from low earth orbit and
    in any case if they have a photography mission a KH-11, which _has_ had all
    those tests you mention and has a _big_ camera purpose made for such use
    will do it better than some guy shooting out a window with a handheld
    camera.
     
    J. Clarke, May 29, 2006
    #7
  8. Except that it's actually more expensive than them, so the argument is
    wrong anyway.
    Why do you speak of things you don't understand?
     
    achilleaslazarides, May 29, 2006
    #8
  9. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    J. Clarke Guest

    If it costs more and then hardening it makes it cost even more, then why do
    you take exception to the statement?
    So explain it. Wait, let me make some popcorn. This oughta be good.
     
    J. Clarke, May 29, 2006
    #9
  10. I don't take exception to your statement. I am just saying that the
    DCS760 isn't cheaper than the equivalent Nikon/Canon, which was the
    point of the original post.
    Read this, if you really are interested:
    http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/hfm/CosmicRay/Showers.html
    In particular,
    "In fact, from most cosmic rays nothing comes down at all. Because the
    earth is hit by so many cosmic rays, an area of the size of a hand is
    still hit by about one particle per second. These secondary cosmic rays
    constitute about one third of the natural radioactivity. ".

    If I remember correctly, most of the secondary products that do end get
    to the surface are charged muons. These do interact with matter through
    ionisation, but the primary rays, which are ions, are so much more (and
    obviously more energetic) that it sounds ludicrous to me to say what
    you did. Please do correct me if I am wrong.
     
    achilleaslazarides, May 29, 2006
    #10
  11. ok, but is it a bolshoy city or just a small little huy the size
    of George Costanza's when he came out of the pool?
     
    Mr.Bolshoyhuy, May 30, 2006
    #11
  12. achilleaslazarides, May 30, 2006
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.