>be nasa>have infinite budge>prepare for one of the most important launches of history>take 10 year old DSLR camera with youbut "it's a proven and tested camera".. sure..with all that budget they could've pay nikon to build a custom camera with a much bigger sensor and use the D5 as a back up. Oh and not to mention the lens they've used (venerable 14-24 f/2.8G.) was made in 2007.
>you can’t use time tested technology on your moon mission because its… le old!!They didn’t even give the Apollo astronauts calculators and they did just fine
keep in mind that this is the same institution that taped i love lucy reruns over the singular & sole existent original tape of the first moon landing
Because of the radiation in space a lot of tech has a high failure rate. Old, reliable tech is often a better choice than the latest, cutting edge gear. That's why a lot of the cpu's and ram in satellites and rovers is all custom versions of older chips with extra em-shielding and error correction.
>>16952111At the time of the landing, the film and digital re-recordings of the original SSTV were the highest quality format available that could be readily transmitted or distributed. They tossed it in an archive thinking that in 40-50 years if a better format came along they'd make a better copy. Then, like so much shit that winds up in somebody's basement or attic or any dusty archive in a building somewhere, time passed and shit got moved around or mislabeled or recycled or lifted by someone with stick fingers or whatever. When someone decades later finally came along thinking they'd restore it it was nowhere to be found. From what I've researched the most probable explanation is that it got erased and repurposed with hundreds of other SSTV tapes during the Landsat program.This sort of thing isn't nearly as uncommon as you think. The amount of important documents, photographs, films, equipment, etc. that just get tossed in a closet somewhere and left to rot or thrown out in a big cleaning or misplaced because of a change in management or whatever is astronomical.
>>16952166>The amount of important documents, photographs, films, equipment, etc. that just get tossed in a closet somewhere and left to rot or thrown out in a big cleaning or misplaced because of a change in management or whatever is astronomical.this is what happened with the original Zapruder Film briefing boards for the CIA. there were two teams making their own versions of it, only one was ever presented to the CIA director, the other was found years later in a closet by one of the guys who made it and he was instructed to destroy it immediately
>>16952073This camera can still be used by a professional to deliver picture quality 100x better than a phone. So what's the issue?
>>16952073>>16952111and you retards believe nasa lies every time too
>>16952196>NOOOO! YOU HAVE TO USE NEW PRODUCT SINCE IT DELIVERS AN IMAGE THAT'S 8K ULTRA MEGA FULL HD RESOLUTION! COMPARED TO OLD BLURRY 4K PHOTO WHICH NO ONE CAN EVEN TELL THE DIFFERENCE APART!
Someone please answer me why they couldn’t at least take like a 10 second iPhone video of the fucking Earth
>>16952134with modern tech you don't even have to fly to the moon to get good pics
>>16952234They live streamed the whole thing. If you want good quality earth images or videos those exists in droves already
>>16952228Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence scicel
>>16952228I agree with you, retard. >4kyou don't know anything about cameras
>>16952073they brought a z9 though you penis.the same ones they will bring on future missions.why are you guys so gay?
