• threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        This used to be the case, but now the tables have turned. There was a time when SpaceX launches were streamed in 4k and NASA launches were only 720p. Now NASA streams launches in 4k and SpaceX streams moved to Xitter.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          8 months ago

          Which only allows 1080p streams. That means the highest pixel quality streams of SpaceX launches are from third parties like everyday astronaut.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Should all of NASA’s budget go to SpaceX? Obviously not. But should they outsource their rocket development and launches to SpaceX, at least until the next competitive bid? Without question.

        The Falcon 9 has already revolutionized earth observation and science projects with how cheap it has become to get science satellites into orbit, and Starship is an even crazier reduction in cost and expansion of capabilities. It will be able to lift 100 to 150 tons for $30M per launch, and will be able to launch 30+ times a year. SLS, NASA’s traditionally designed and built rocket, will be able to lift 95 tons to orbit for $2200M per launch, and can only ever launch twice per year.

        Do you know how crazy of a difference that is for NASA’s science programs? For their exact same budget, they can either launch 100 tons of experiments once per year, or they can launch 100 tons of experiments every 5 days.

      • Wanderer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        Starship is coming in a lot cheaper than SLS and SlS had a lot of legacy projects already paid for.

        The fact of the matter is the real brainwashed people here are the ones that think Elon Musks Spacex isn’t a revolutionary company. People are talking about rocketry like they are experts but don’t know anything about it.

        Giving up on Shuttle and switching to Falcon 9 instead of developing something new was the best use of money Nasa could have done.

        Just yea keep circle jerking how Musk is the worst person in every possible way, at least you’re cool!

        • CptEnder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Cheaper isn’t always better. NASA programs like LM’s SLS don’t get to fail on live TV or they lose their budget, so they’re over engineered and built slowly which leads to higher costs. But SLS also hasn’t failed on any launch, unlike SpaceX programs.

          Don’t get me wrong, I want all space projects to succeed. But it’s disingenuous to say people can’t be critical of SpaceX because of “being brainwashed”. They have a somewhat reckless deployment method for the space industry with dubious reliability.

          • Wanderer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Cheaper isn’t always better no.

            Which is why it is so impressive that the Falcon 9 is cheaper than the competition and more reliable.

            SLS is still in early days so it’s hard to compare as it lacks numbers of reusability. But any rocket that has flown a lot whether it be the shuttle or even the mighty Soyuz. Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket in the world and the cheapest.

            If NASA can’t build rockets as cheap or as reliable as space X then I think the argument is that the SLS is a waste of money.

        • masterspace@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          SpaceX is a truly revolutionary company, and people often do not give them remotely the credit they deserve for how revolutionary they are because they’re blinded by they’re hatred of Musk.

          But Musk is also a huge piece of shit. Both of those things can be true.

  • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    400km is nothing, if you have/had satellite TV the signal comes from a geostationary orbit (35 786 km) and it has to get there first and if you’re not exactly below the satellite it’s even farther away. Streams from the ISS having low quality (do they actually have low quality?) is due to either bad cameras or cameras aging faster in space due to high energy particles hitting it.

    • BluesF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      8 months ago

      The ISS also moves relative to the receiver, whereas geostationary satellites don’t.

      • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s a trade-off, either you have to do tracking and compensate for doppler shift or you have to deal with really bad SNR.

  • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    8 months ago

    There was an unfortunate overwriting incident:

    The Apollo 11 missing tapes were those that were recorded from Apollo 11’s slow-scan television (SSTV) telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape at the time of the first Moon landing in 1969 and subsequently lost.

  • Steal Wool@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Is 400 km a lot? 🤷‍♀️ I’m american…

    Edit: thank yall, I was being cheeky