Posted on 03/04/2004 7:20:36 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Edited on 04/12/2004 6:06:53 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
PASADENA, Calif. (AP) - The NASA rover Opportunity turned a camera skyward to photograph Mars' moon Deimos eclipsing the sun and also carried out the most complex movements yet of its robotic arm to record microscopic images of a rock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory said Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Keep in mind that everything that goes into space has to be rad-hardened, ruggedized, vacuum baked, and undergo a series of vibration and shock tests before launch. You'd hate to launch an off-the-shelf part only to discover that it outgasses something nasty in vacuum that ruins the electronics. Or, you'd hate for the camera to break in two during the 9Gs of launch or the sudden impact on Mars. Also, you'd hate to lose your electronics because they took too many cosmic rays during flight. Finally, you have to consider power. These instruments are running on watts of power. Not hundreds of watts, not tens of watts, but watts.
If you could get away with buying off-the-shelf stuff, I'd be first in line. Heck, we do it when we *can* get away with it. However, nothing off-the-shelf is going to be space rated.
Besides, do we really want a repeat of Beagle 2?
Just a friendly reminder that your monthly dues are soon due. In your case I'll give you the prefered rate of only 12 Mars Bars. (no installments allowed)
It wouldn't be the first time. Nikon's website has lots of historical info on the custom F and F2 bodies they built for NASA. In fact, for years they sold the "Apollo" and "Titan" versions -- ruggedized commercial products, with titanium covers, based on the NASA models.
As far as concerns about outgassing and such, I'd think that would be more of an issue with film cameras, what with the emulsion being gelatine -- a biological material, notable for sensitivity to everything from temperature, humidity (and/or lack thereof), static electricity, and of course, radiation. Yet, for decades, they've used film cameras in space, on the Moon, in orbit (some satellites would drop a cannister with exposed filmf or an airplane to pickup), and it performed well.
The first "traditional" camera in space was a somewhat modified Minolta rangefinder model that John Glenn took with him. The modifications were basically things like big knobs that could be operated via the clumsy space suit gloves. The camera itself (transport, lens, shutter) was pretty much stock. (And ISTR the very first one being a stock Minolta, personally owned, but that may be my memory playing tricks on me.)
As for vibration and shock, an all-electronic camera would inherently be more robust than a film camera. And, most components can be potted, making them incredibly rugged. The optics, being small (smaller than those used on a 35mm or 120 camera) would have less mass and therefore be less susceptible to shock and impact damage (a feather can take a 10G impact better than a brick).
Finally, pretty much all concerns apart from impact (itself addressed above) can be solved by placing the camera in a rugged, hermetically-sealed "can" until landing and deployment. The rigors of space won't have any effect on it in such an environment -- and, it's an extremely low-tech, inexpensive solution.
IMO the only reason they haven't put a decent color camera onboard is that the pocket-protector crew persuaded the beancounter contingent that it was best to do it their way. The best of both worlds -- an arcane, convoluted, "see, we did it my way and it did work, kinda" process for delivering color photos, and a "save eleven cents out of an $850 million budget" level of "savings".
We've gone from the seat-of-their-pants "the best stuff" generation to the can't-get-a-date "revenge of the nerds" generation at NASA.
Yeah, they got their revenge. Junkyard Wars in Space.
end_grousing:initiate_coffepot_sequence
G'mornin', all.
I guess my brain is still functional. :)
Excerpted from " HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT: A RECORD OF ACHIEVEMENT, 1961-1998", by the NASA History Division:
Glenn was the first American to see a sunrise and sunset from space, and was the first photographer in orbit, having taken along a 35millimeter Minolta purchased from a Cocoa Beach, Florida drugstore.
Here's some more info on the actual camera he used, excerpted from Minolta Hi-Matic Range Finder Cameras - 1962-1978:
Introduced in 1962, the Minolta Hi-Matic was a full sized 35mm camera with a coupled range finder for its 45 mm f2.8 lens. It was also available with a 45mm f2.0 lens. Reasonably successful, it was also sold under the name Ansco Autoset.
It provided full automatic exposure by means of a selenium cell meter and a needle capture exposure system. In automatic mode the camera sets both shutter speed and aperture by a needle capture mechanism that locks the meter needle of the selenium light meter. The meter requires no battery. Apertures may also be set manually against a fixed shutter speed of 1/60 th of a second. The camera must be cocked before changing modes.
The body is chrome with a gray imitation leather covering and a black plastic focusing ring. It has a front mounted shutter release with an auxiliary threaded socket on the top plate for accepting a cable release. The PC flash contact is on the lower front of the body. The self timer is on the lens barrel.
The Hi-Matic has a special place in history. John Glen carried a modified version of the Minolta Hi-Matic with him aboard his Mercury Capsule when he made the first manned orbit of the earth by an American in 1962.
The modifications involved a handle and enlarged wind lever and trigger shutter controls. The camera was operated inverted using an auxiliary, folding viewfinder mounded on the bottom of the camera.
The camera is still on exhibit at the United States National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C.
And finally, from Bob Monaghan's fantastic resource, NASA Space Shuttle Photography -- an excellent collected knowledge base of space photography information.
Here's one last post on this topic. This is a better picture of the actual camera, as modified by Red Williams, from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum:
"Ansco Autoset 35mm camera used by John Glenn on Friendship 7, the first U.S. manned orbital mission. Glenn used standard and ultraviolet-sensitive film in the camera which had been modified for left-handed operation.
NASA Photograph"
Here's a description from NASA:
Even the weight of a small camera mattered. Known for his camera expertise, Williams was asked to modify further the off-the-shelf Ansco Autoset camera Glenn would carry into orbit. He removed any parts unnecessary to its basic function, such as decorative leather or metal and replaced the larger hand-pistol grip with a smaller one.He did indulge in one luxury, adding a larger viewfinder taken off a Polaroid camera so Glenn would have a better view.
(Lots more info on the other camera modifications he did for NASA at that link above.)
Criminal!
It depends on the instruments that are being flown. UV cameras are extremely sensitive to outgassing & contamination and have to be kept under constant GN2 purge and/or vacuum to stay clean. That was one of the concerns with the recent Rosetta launch -- all of those instruments had to be kept clean an extra year. Outgassing may not be a concern for that camera, but it may affect other nearby instruments or power supplies.
For that matter, we had a sounding rocket in April fail because of outgassing in the wiring. The outgassing created a partial pressure in our electronics section, and Paschen's curve bit us in the rear end & shorted our HV power supplies.
The first "traditional" camera in space was a somewhat modified Minolta rangefinder model that John Glenn took with him. The modifications were basically things like big knobs that could be operated via the clumsy space suit gloves. The camera itself (transport, lens, shutter) was pretty much stock. (And ISTR the very first one being a stock Minolta, personally owned, but that may be my memory playing tricks on me.)
True, but that was in the pressurized capsule. The same camera may have failed in vacuum/under radiation/whatever. I don't know off the top of my head.
Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to use as many off-the-shelf products as possible. My group does that as much as possible. However, in a lot of cases, the money you spend in environmental testing to qualify some off-the-shelf part for space is going to be more than just building something yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
