Space Exploration's Use Of Digital Over Analog

[DF]

So I'm watching Nova's episode of whether or not Pluto is a planet or just part of the Kuiper Belt and all the imagery is digital yet I can't help but wonder if we/they (scientists>astronomers) might be missing out on something if hypothetically these images were in analog.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I worked on programming the science platform including the wide field and narrow field cameras on Voyager I and Voyager II. CCDs were used to capture the images because there was no room on board for film processing and scanning, and because carrying enough film and chemicals would have been a bit problematical. Also we could not find someone to regularly go on site to do the routine maintenance.

 

[4season]

Your life would be simpler: You wouldn't have images from the outer solar system, nor the surfaces of Mars and Venus to contemplate.

I worked on programming the science platform including the wide field and narrow field cameras on Voyager I and Voyager II. CCDs were used to capture the images because there was no room on board for film processing and scanning, and because carrying enough film and chemicals would have been a bit problematical. Also we could not find someone to regularly go on site to do the routine maintenance.

Got any rough idea about what would be involved in altering their trajectories so as to allow a return to Earth's orbit, and whether they could've returned before Dwayne's shut down their Kodachrome processing?

 

[jim10219]

Yeah. Imagine how expensive it would be to fly up to the Hubble once a month to switch out film. Plus, digital can capture a wider range of frequencies and have a higher ISO with less noise, especially in the cold of space.

 

[Luckless]

The reusability of digital makes it so much more practical for scientific use, and was embraced fairly quickly in the field as the technology became available.

I know film was used for the earliest spy satellites, and some of the early orbital projects looking back at earth, but I can't recall any programs off the top of my head that used film for any kind of orbital telescopes looking outward.

Consistency is a bit of an issue - "Is that some new and interesting bit of science, or a flaw in the film?"
Data processing is also a problem with film - We pretty much have to digitize the stuff to do serious modern number crunching as it is, so starting from a film base is kind of adding extra steps to the process without gaining much.

And we very much used film for astronomy for a long time, and a lot of ground based observation was still being done with film up through the 90s and 00's. But the only ones still using film that I'm aware of are doing it purely for artistic rather than scientific reasons, simply because digital has proven to be the far better data collection method, and was therefore adopted as quickly as funding became available or prices of equipment dropped enough.

Got any rough idea about what would be involved in altering their trajectories so as to allow a return to Earth's orbit, and whether they could've returned before Dwayne's shut down their Kodachrome processing?

I've possibly messed up my napkin math, but I'm not seeing a way to get them out to Saturn such that they would loop back to earth in anything remotely short enough time. (excluding making them stupidly large with excessive fuel to just about-face and burn back to earth... But they get stupidly larger still if you want them to have enough fuel to slow down when they get here... On a random note, geeky minds should consider trying the game Kerbal Space Program if they haven't seen it before.)

 

[DF]

Yeh, I get it - film/chemicals/processing/equipment>space needed would make it impossible.
But still ....Analog image capture compared....??

 

[KN4SMF]

I'm not sure what good it has done me in life to see pictures of places nobody could go in a trillion lifetimes.

 

[jim10219]

Plus with film in space, I imagine you'd have to worry about fogging due to all of the solar radiation. And how would you point the camera without digital feedback to help you align it back on Earth?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I'm not sure what good it has done me in life to see pictures of places nobody could go in a trillion lifetimes.

By just seeing it you are in an indirect way going there. At the very least you can behold the wonder of the universe even if, with our limited brain, we cannot comprehend it.

 

[Arklatexian]

Yeah. Imagine how expensive it would be to fly up to the Hubble once a month to switch out film. Plus, digital can capture a wider range of frequencies and have a higher ISO with less noise, especially in the cold of space.

You folks have sold me about something that I already knew. Analog is at its best for making Black and White that people might want to keep for 100 or maybe 300 years. On my living room wall is a copy of a photograph of my mother and her family when she was thirteen in 1915. The print that I copied was in "mint" condition and will continue to be for the next 104 years if in the frame that it is in right now. My copy is framed and under glass and I expect it too will last more than 104 years. Meanwhile we are enjoying looking at people who are all deceased but were young and energetic when the picture was made. Truly, a family treasure.. Art noooo! But to me it truly is what Analog B&W photography is all about........Regards!

 

[MattKing]

I'm not sure what good it has done me in life to see pictures of places nobody could go in a trillion lifetimes.

By extension, one could argue that any photograph of a place that any of us are unable to get to isn't of much value.
The millions of readers of National Geographic magazine over the years might disagree.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The first space exploration of LEO (Low Earth Orbit) and the moon was done with wet photography using BIMAT film. A wet matrix was laminated with film after exposure and then the resultant image was scanned and the data returned to Earth. One of the instruments was on display at the George Eastman Museum in the front room. However, long term exposure to cold would eventually freeze the processing liquid.

On another note, Arthur C. Clarke did write about a noted photographer visiting Mars and using a new Kodachrome film. He was irked at having to wait to get it processed on Earth. I believe it was "The Sands of Mars".

PE

 

[Sirius Glass]

Your life would be simpler: You wouldn't have images from the outer solar system, nor the surfaces of Mars and Venus to contemplate.


Got any rough idea about what would be involved in altering their trajectories so as to allow a return to Earth's orbit, and whether they could've returned before Dwayne's shut down their Kodachrome processing?

Yes, I do, but it is not worth the effort for Kodachrome. Besides what sane person would want to use such an obsolete slide film especially when a much better Ektachome is will soon be available.

 

[Nodda Duma]

And we very much used film for astronomy for a long time, and a lot of ground based observation was still being done with film up through the 90s and 00's. But the only ones still using film that I'm aware of are doing it purely for artistic rather than scientific reasons, simply because digital has proven to be the far better data collection method, and was therefore adopted as quickly as funding became available or prices of equipment dropped enough.

A corollary that professional observatories imaging for astrometric calculations were actually using large plates for imaging up until the switchover to digital in the 1990s. Film couldn’t lie flat enough to accommodate the precision that astrometric calculations (relative positions of the stars) requires.

 

[Luckless]

A corollary that professional observatories imaging for astrometric calculations were actually using large plates for imaging up until the switchover to digital in the 1990s. Film couldn’t lie flat enough to accommodate the precision that astrometric calculations (relative positions of the stars) requires.

True, I do have a bit of a bad habit of lumping plate and film into the same group. Calling it all film is less of a mouth full than "Light sensitive emulsions spread on a carrier substrate"... But the field really did see an interestingly mixed bag of equipment depending on what they were after. Or what they could afford.

- If you want to record your research on thousands of glass plates, and you have funding for a spool of 35mm film... Well I assume most scientists would have done what they could with the roll of film.

At some point I hope I'll come across a really good book detailing scientific astrophotography up til the 2000s. I've spent years working along the edges of the field, but seems like a lot of the really interesting breakthroughs were decades before my time.

 

[cowanw]

As long as you don't use a Sony Stareater camera.
http://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/SonyA7S/sonystareater.html

 

[Wallendo]

Yes, I do, but it is not worth the effort for Kodachrome. Besides what sane person would want to use such an obsolete slide film especially when a much better Ektachome is will soon be available.

I wonder if the Falcon Heavy is big enough to launch a Kodachrome processor.

On the other hand, any type of film development would be problematic on a planet without running water. I guess the modern analog astronaut would have to stick to Instax.
I think it will be a long time before we can reach Planet Caladan with its great oceans, and the film would be long expired before getting there; although I suppose that Panatomic X kept at 4 degrees Kelvin might last a long time in the cold and dark of interplanetary space.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... A wet matrix was laminated with film after exposure and then the resultant image was scanned and the data returned to Earth.
...

As I'm sure you know, but others may not, the film capsules were ejected from the satellite, then fired retro-rockets to re-enter the atmosphere, and then aircraft captured the capsule while it descended by parachute.

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/V...le/195926/hexagon-kh-9-film-recovery-vehicle/

I wonder if the Falcon Heavy is big enough to launch a Kodachrome processor.
...

Does a Kodachrome processor even exist anymore? Maybe a few K-labs.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Many of those capsules were missed and did a rather hard landing. Those all carried conventional film. The ones I mention had no recovery possible. Only the data was returned. This was used on some of the first Lunar orbiters and (crash) landers.

PE

 

[Luckless]

Lithobraking still counts as a landing...

 

[Photo Engineer]

Or would it be earthing or lunaring or whatever now. On Saturn or Jupiter it might be squashing.

Any landing you can walk away from (or in this case - get data from) is a good landing.

PE

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... The ones I mention had no recovery possible. Only the data was returned. This was used on some of the first Lunar orbiters and (crash) landers.

PE

From the 1960's I remember the scanned images from the Ranger probes sent to crash on the Moon. The last image, only partially transmitted due to impact, always fascinated me.

It took six failed attempts before we could see our first ever "close up" photos of the lunar surface:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_program

 

[Photo Engineer]

I saw that live in the KRL auditorium, broadcast to us by NASA. One half frame!

PE

 

[DF]

Apollo 11 was/seen by Kodachrome Medium Format - Hassleblad Squares I believe.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... Hassleblad Squares I believe.

"Hasselblad Squares" ... it sounds like a good name for chocolate candy. Maybe Hasselblad can start a side business.