I'm shocked at how high quality the video is. It's being beamed from outer space, and I can watch in practically real time. Who cares if it's analog or digital? It works, and it's awesome.
I don't want NASA messing with the latest technology just for shits and giggles. Don't fix what ain't broken.
I can watch much higher quality videos streamed over the Internet, from servers thousands of miles away, around the world, through many routers, fiber optics, and complex technological stacks (DOCSIS, TCP/IP, fiber optics signal modulation, video codecs, etc).
Yet the ISS has a clear line of sight to ground receiving stations 230-1000 miles away (or to satellites which are perfectly able to transmit digital data), yet the video signal quality is that bad?
Don't get me wrong. As a space enthusiast I love being able to watch live spacewalks. But as an engineer I sigh at certain technical aspects...
Both you and the servers you're pulling the content from are stationary on the ground, and any satellites used are in geosynchronous orbit. ISS is travelling 17000 mph. So while it may have clear line of sight to a ground station in New Mexico one minute, the next minute that same line of sight is in Texas.
Also, for a spacewalk the video source is from a space suit, so the video signal is sent wirelessly from the spacesuit to ISS, then sent to a TDRS satellite, then to the ground. The spacesuit camera is admittedly not as good as I'd like it to be, but considering all the architecture supporting it started being put in orbit over 10 years ago, and was designed before that, it's pretty good.
That's cool did you directly work on any of the systems?
I have been poking around the NSTS 07700 Volume X Book 1 Flight and Ground Specification. The EVA, and Video subsystems are highlighted there.
As an engineer, you should know that engineering involves designing systems that will get the job done with the minimal amount of resources possible.
What would be the point of a higher quality video in this context? Is it necessary, or simply a nice-to-have?
One of the most popular axioms of engineering is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." It could be revised for this scenario: "if it gets the job done, don't improve it."
Sure, if you want to spend the money to add (more) redundant links. You want to front a few thousand dollars?
Unless you mean that digital links aren't more vulnerable to radiation, in which case I recommend you read up on large-scale analog circuitry and get back to me.
Wait for SpaceX or somebody else to bring the per-kg cost down and we'll have all the digital video anyone could ever want.
You seem to be arguing rad-resistance is the factor that made them decide on analog instead of digital video.
I doubt it.
Like someone said, initially they chose analog because back in the day nobody did digital video streaming. It has worked okay since then. And there just hasn't been enough reasons to justify a change to digital.
I'm guessing you're not black, are you? Were your Japanese parents placed in an internment camp during WWII? Were you a communist in the McCarthy era?
It's not that we have less freedom now, it's that freedom is different. Now, we torture people and hold them indefinitely in Guantanamo. We spy on our citizens. We still haven't overcome racism or sexism. But there are definitely areas where we've improved greatly.
I second this recommendation. I hardly ever go into a used book store, except when I know they also sell boardgames and I want to try out a boardgame before purchase. Plus, it's a lot of fun.
Modern scanners will produce a 'searchable PDF' comprised of two layers - OCRed text below, scanned image on top. So you get the search and copy ability of OCRed text, but not the loss of presentation and formatting that comes with using OCR alone. As with any OCR, you do get occasional mis-transcribed words.
Google Books doesn't let you download an entire DRM free book to your Kindle, does it?
Why does every post on here need someone coming in explaining how it's wrong in some way.
Because that's how conversations are built. You either find something to agree with, or you find something to disagree with. Both are useful; even better is doing both at the same time.
But if you notice, you basically did the same exact thing you're complaining against.
Given that there isn't a puzzle/test type of way to rank managers
False. The test is: how much money did your team make? (For the truly crafty, the test is: how much money did your team make relative to the initial investment and risk?)
Theater, music, and literature tend to appeal to a "higher" class of people than film, comedy, and speaches. This higher class might care more and be more knowledgable about the subtelties of attribution.
No, I think you're creating a class distinction where it's completely unnecessary (and a weird thought to even have, I think).
Theater, music (I'll assume we're not talking about "popular" music, but something more like classical music here), and literature tend to have known authors, and tend to have a wide variety of performances. (Although literature is weird to include in this list, I think).
Film, comedy (since it's differentiated from theater and film here, let's say stand-up comedy) and speeches have known performers. Authors in film are sometimes relatively well-known, but I think attributions to actors rather than characters in films aren't that common.
