• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Can't we just shoot a bunch of inexpensive cameras out into space?

R

RESmonkey

Diamond Member
Just a small and inexpensive project (except for the energy required to shoot them). Say we 'shoot' ball-like cameras that are about the size of a bowling ball into space?

Each camera unit can send streamed video to a central node satellite already in space or something like that. Do you really need a large satellite antenna to send signals back to earth at all?

Imagine: hundreds of these camera shot into the depths of space. We can send to the depths of planets that we think can inhabit life just to see what's there and stuff.




 
Originally posted by: RESmonkey
Just a small and inexpensive project (except for the energy required to shoot them). Say we 'shoot' ball-like cameras that are about the size of a bowling ball into space?

Each camera unit can send streamed video to a central node satellite already in space or something like that. Do you really need a large satellite antenna to send signals back to earth at all?

Imagine: hundreds of these camera shot into the depths of space. We can send to the depths of planets that we think can inhabit life just to see what's there and stuff.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how far away the nearest planet (out of our solar system) actually is? Think millions of light-years, meaning if we can get a camera up to 1/2 the speed of light (very doubtful in the near future), it will take millions of years for it to get there and millions of years again for the signal to return. By that time, if we still exist, we'll likely to be able to travel so much faster (wormholes, something) that we could beat the camera there anyway. My conclusion: it's not worth even trying.
 
Well first the sort of camera needed to take pictures for hundreds of miles away is pretty large, then add in the fact that you need a large antenna to relay the signal, then you need large solar panels to power the thing, and its gonna need some fuel to make course corrections on the way. Basically when you add it all up you get pretty much just the sort of satellite we have now except that the satellites we use have several differnet cameras and sensing equipment. Basically the point is that in order to get something to even the closest planets in our solar sytem you need a lot of fancy equipment. To get to the outer planets you need even more (and lots of patientce for the 10 years journey) and for a planet outside the solar system thats more or less physically impossible, unless you want to wait for as long as recorded history for hte satelite to reach the planet and by then even a nuclear battery might be running out of power.
 
^ But think if of the pictures of space we can take in the next 100 years or so? Even close ups of Pluto would be cool.
 
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Well first the sort of camera needed to take pictures for hundreds of miles away is pretty large, then add in the fact that you need a large antenna to relay the signal, then you need large solar panels to power the thing, and its gonna need some fuel to make course corrections on the way. Basically when you add it all up you get pretty much just the sort of satellite we have now except that the satellites we use have several differnet cameras and sensing equipment. Basically the point is that in order to get something to even the closest planets in our solar sytem you need a lot of fancy equipment. To get to the outer planets you need even more (and lots of patientce for the 10 years journey) and for a planet outside the solar system thats more or less physically impossible, unless you want to wait for as long as recorded history for hte satelite to reach the planet and by then even a nuclear battery might be running out of power.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I wasn't aware of the need of large/expensive antenna and solar panel to power these cameras.

/thread
 
Originally posted by: RESmonkey
^ But think if of the pictures of space we can take in the next 100 years or so? Even close ups of Pluto would be cool.
Click to expand...

Pictures of what? During the next 100 years, any cameras we sent out right now wouldn't be able to take pictures of anything other than the 7 other planets, a few asteroids & sub-planets. We already have pictures of many of these. i.e. in 100 years, the camera would still be far far far closer to our Sun than any other star.
 
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: RESmonkey
^ But think if of the pictures of space we can take in the next 100 years or so? Even close ups of Pluto would be cool.
Click to expand...

Pictures of what? During the next 100 years, any cameras we sent out right now wouldn't be able to take pictures of anything other than the 7 other planets, a few asteroids & sub-planets. We already have pictures of many of these. i.e. in 100 years, the camera would still be far far far closer to our Sun than any other star.
Click to expand...

No, not if the cameras you are referring to are the "inexpensive cameras" the OP mentioned. If you would like to see what an "inexpensive camera" would see in space, follow these steps:

1) Open up your favorite Paintbrush program. I like Microsoft Paint.
2) Grab the "Fill Color" tool.
3) Select the color "Black" from your palette.
4) Fill the drawing space with the color black.
5) Save the file in your favorite format as "inexpensive-camera-0001.jpg"

You might also benefit from reading about telescopes and how cameras work in space.

Edit:
Actually, this isn't accurate either. Consumer-level cameras will not work in space. I got lost in my own fun analogy.
 
Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
Originally posted by: abhatia
Originally posted by: RESmonkey
in 100 years, the camera would still be far far far closer to our Sun than any other star.
Click to expand...

This is true, the farthest human-object is currently 104AU from the Earth, not very close to any stars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1#Current_status
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri

edit: i saw that
Click to expand...

I misread DrPizza's statement.
 
Originally posted by: abhatia
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: RESmonkey
^ But think if of the pictures of space we can take in the next 100 years or so? Even close ups of Pluto would be cool.
Click to expand...

Pictures of what? During the next 100 years, any cameras we sent out right now wouldn't be able to take pictures of anything other than the 7 other planets, a few asteroids & sub-planets. We already have pictures of many of these. i.e. in 100 years, the camera would still be far far far closer to our Sun than any other star.
Click to expand...

No, not if the cameras you are referring to are the "inexpensive cameras" the OP mentioned. If you would like to see what an "inexpensive camera" would see in space, follow these steps:

1) Open up your favorite Paintbrush program. I like Microsoft Paint.
2) Grab the "Fill Color" tool.
3) Select the color "Black" from your palette.
4) Fill the drawing space with the color black.
5) Save the file in your favorite format as "inexpensive-camera-0001.jpg"

You might also benefit from reading about telescopes and how cameras work in space.

Edit:
Actually, this isn't accurate either. Consumer-level cameras will not work in space. I got lost in my own fun analogy.
Click to expand...

Hasselblad cameras worked just fine in space.
 
Originally posted by: dkozloski
Originally posted by: abhatia
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: RESmonkey
^ But think if of the pictures of space we can take in the next 100 years or so? Even close ups of Pluto would be cool.
Click to expand...

Pictures of what? During the next 100 years, any cameras we sent out right now wouldn't be able to take pictures of anything other than the 7 other planets, a few asteroids & sub-planets. We already have pictures of many of these. i.e. in 100 years, the camera would still be far far far closer to our Sun than any other star.
Click to expand...

No, not if the cameras you are referring to are the "inexpensive cameras" the OP mentioned. If you would like to see what an "inexpensive camera" would see in space, follow these steps:

1) Open up your favorite Paintbrush program. I like Microsoft Paint.
2) Grab the "Fill Color" tool.
3) Select the color "Black" from your palette.
4) Fill the drawing space with the color black.
5) Save the file in your favorite format as "inexpensive-camera-0001.jpg"

You might also benefit from reading about telescopes and how cameras work in space.

Edit:
Actually, this isn't accurate either. Consumer-level cameras will not work in space. I got lost in my own fun analogy.
Click to expand...

Hasselblad cameras worked just fine in space.
Click to expand...

I don't really consider Hasselblad cameras cheap. Judging by the OP's knowledge of cameras and telescopes, I'm sure he wasn't thinking of Hasselblad's either.

Regardless, this is a ridiculous topic.
 
I think this is a fascinating topic, and it basically is the focus of a lot of ongoing space systems research.

The power problem was already mentioned, and its a big one. Also, the quality of the camera, as mentioned above, matters quite a bit. There did seem to be some confusion about the constants involved... here is a summary of them, at least. I am not an expert on this topic: most of my data is from Wikipedia.
Closest star to the sun: Proxima Centauri, 4ish light years.
Closest planet not in our solar system: We don't know, they're too hard to detect at distance.

Originally posted by: RESmonkey
in 100 years, the camera would still be far far far closer to our Sun than any other star.
Click to expand...
Not according to Project Longshot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Longshot . Admittedly, NASA's math is always subject to criticism these days.


Anyway, to summarize the challenges in unmanned interstellar spaceflight:
1) Power -- needed for communication, navigation, propulsion / course correction, and, of course, snapping photographs.
2) Cost -- Just about everything that can go into space is expensive (camera was mentioned)
3) Radiation -- Really just an impact on 2. Radiation breaks electrical systems quite badly. Making such things as guidance computers, cameras, and communications arrays insensitive to the kind of radiation floating around in deep space is very costly.
4) Patience -- Even if you believe NASA's numbers, we're still looking at a no-results-in-our-lifetime experiment (sell that, Mr. President).
 
A lot of the cost is getting the camera up to space in the first place.

Also, I note that any "cheap" way to "shoot" a camera into space will completely obliterate the camera in the process.

 
Originally posted by: KIAman
A lot of the cost is getting the camera up to space in the first place.

Also, I note that any "cheap" way to "shoot" a camera into space will completely obliterate the camera in the process.
Click to expand...

This highly technical thread resembles the thought process of a 7-year old. Instead of taking the trash out as a child, I asked my Mom why I couldn't "just shoot it into space at the sun."
 
Originally posted by: abhatia

This highly technical thread resembles the thought process of a 7-year old. Instead of taking the trash out as a child, I asked my Mom why I couldn't "just shoot it into space at the sun."
Click to expand...

I suppose the feasibility of said 7-year-old solution would depend on just how bad the trash is. 😛
 
Someone doesn't know the difference between miles and light years.

The closest exoplanet is 15 light years away. millions... lol

The cameras in the things we send into space are already relatively cheap. It is the things that make the cameras WORK in space that cost something, and the part about gett8ing them into space at all is the greatest expense. This is why space elevators are so important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top