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?
I'm not sure what good it has done me in life to see pictures of places nobody could go in a trillion lifetimes.
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!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.
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.I'm not sure what good it has done me in life to see pictures of places nobody could go in a trillion lifetimes.
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?
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.
I wonder if the Falcon Heavy is big enough to launch a Kodachrome processor.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.
... A wet matrix was laminated with film after exposure and then the resultant image was scanned and the data returned to Earth.
...
I wonder if the Falcon Heavy is big enough to launch a Kodachrome processor.
...
... 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
... Hassleblad Squares I believe.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?