Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kldload t1_ixquwdh wrote

https://imgur.com/a/u7PsyR7/

Here are the actual pictures.

471

lezzet t1_ixqwctg wrote

What are the lines along some of the white areas?

89

lucius10203 t1_ixr1lub wrote

Since they're aligned with the camera and not the object, I would assume artefacting. Something like stitched together photo lines or effects from fast travel in a static image.

127

Kichigai t1_ixrzdr8 wrote

Have we fully radiation hardened digital imaging sensors? It's getting a good blast of all sorts of fun particles from Mr. Sun right then, wouldn't shock me one iota if they were being picked up by, or interfering with, the imaging sensor.

If it were a CMOS sensor it would make sense that you'd see per-line artifacting like this, though I might guess that NASA might use a CCD for this application.

29

FlyingSpacefrog t1_ixsmb6r wrote

On the launch day live stream with Everyday Astronaut he said that the cameras on Orion’s solar panels are essentially just GoPros

12

Kichigai t1_ixsolqf wrote

Information linked to in this tweet would seem to corroborate this.

>“Each of Orion’s four solar array wings has a commercial off-the-shelf camera mounted at the tip that has been highly modified for use in space, providing a view of the spacecraft exterior,” said David Melendrez, imagery integration lead for the Orion Program at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston.

15

Daillestemcee t1_ixr0g7h wrote

Pretty sure those are Sasquatch tracks

28

winterfresh0 t1_ixr4uh8 wrote

Something something hollow moon.

Alternatively, gurren lagann was a documentary and the moon is a giant spaceship/robot.

13

Kichigai t1_ixsnpbz wrote

They printed it with Vase Mode. Those layer lines blow!

0

Sav-vie t1_ixrpn36 wrote

Its from the moon projectors making the moon hologram 🌚

8

5yleop1m t1_ixsbl5a wrote

From what I understand, the pictures with the lines are taken with the OpNav cameras which keep the space craft oriented by studying the surface of the moon.

Some info here - https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210000793/downloads/Orion%20Optical%20Navigation.pptx.pdf

And more details here - https://mashable.com/article/nasa-artemis-1-moon-images-pictures-orion

The cameras have to be able to see tiny feature differences, so their contrast is higher than usual. The lines could be part of the sensor or some other part of the image processing pipeline. Sometimes markers like that are used to help differentiate between different flat aspects of an image, since the lines are a known constant.

7

katosen27 t1_ixrf3rv wrote

That second pic is peak "Felt cute, might delete later, idk." energy.

Love it though

8

Mival93 t1_ixss6sl wrote

Here is a really great video of the spacecraft in lunar orbit

https://twitter.com/lmspace/status/1596114847200120840?s=46&t=NaIoW-VH9LOkG4aW8JbUZQ

5

MadotsukiInTheNexus t1_ixumzcm wrote

There's something about photos (and especially video) where you can see part of the spacecraft that feels almost surreal to me.

I think it has something to do with the sense of scale and perspective. Images that just show a celestial body are photos of an object. Add something so clearly made by human beings, though, and whatever I'd being shown becomes a place instead (especially with a video like this, where you can see motion in roughly the way a human would from the same vantage). You get a sense for how large things are, and for their distance from the camera. It all feels so much larger and more dynamic, reminding us of where we are in the Universe.

2

Your_Gonna_Hate_This t1_ixsbnwm wrote

Why do they look like they're the same quality as what we could get in the 70s? I was hoping for some 4k HD eye candy!

−2

kldload t1_ixsigqa wrote

Check NASA website. Plenty of good porn there but you have to branch out past Reddit.

8

rocketsocks t1_ixt9mi1 wrote

Orion is a crewed spacecraft designed for human missions to the Moon, it's not a space science vehicle designed with instruments for observation, all of its cameras are basically engineering cameras.

3

The_camperdave t1_ixsqh3t wrote

> Why do they look like they're the same quality as what we could get in the 70s?

Because NASA is using the technology of the 1970s. An Apollo style capsule splashing down into an ocean followed by a naval search and rescue op? I mean, really! What has NASA got against landing on land? I mean, they even forced the Crew Dragon to splash down instead of doing a civilized landing.

−4

OpinionBearSF t1_ixsvnln wrote

> What has NASA got against landing on land? I mean, they even forced the Crew Dragon to splash down instead of doing a civilized landing.

Water covers around 2/3 of the earth's surface to land covering around 1/3. That immediately gives a vessel looking for a water landing an advantage in having more suitable landing spots.

Water is also a softer and less complex landing than a land landing, which is important when squishy fragile humans are onboard, especially if the return is hampered by crew health or vehicle health issues.

7

The_camperdave t1_ixt08za wrote

> ...a vessel looking for a water landing...

Why is the vessel looking for a water landing? Why can't it land on the ground? The Russians have been doing it for over 50 years, with hundreds upon hundreds of successful missions.

−2

WarNewsNetwork t1_ixt253i wrote

He just answered: water is softer and less complex for squishy humans. And USA has a navy that is well prepped to catch space faring sailors as they descend back to their fertile marble.

4

The_camperdave t1_ixt9sm4 wrote

> He just answered: water is softer and less complex for squishy humans.

So NASA astronauts are soft,and NASA can't handle "complex"? I don't buy it. There must be a better reason.

−3

wow360dogescope t1_ixtbeie wrote

Did the other reason completely go over your head? The US Navy.

I have another for you. Weight reduction.

SpaceX opting for splashdown wasn't forced on them by NASA.

3

OpinionBearSF t1_ixtzd2q wrote

> Why is the vessel looking for a water landing? Why can't it land on the ground? The Russians have been doing it for over 50 years, with hundreds upon hundreds of successful missions.

Water is softer and easier/safer for squishy humans to land on (especially if sick or injured) than land, and there is much more water than land.

Russia opted not to do water landings because they did not and do not have an extensive Navy to provide recovery services.

1

The_camperdave t1_ixvn454 wrote

> Water is softer and easier/safer for squishy humans to land on (especially if sick or injured) than land, and there is much more water than land.

I understand a splashdown as an emergency contingency, but Orion was being designed to land on the ground. I've seen pictures.

1

OpinionBearSF t1_ixvql5y wrote

> I understand a splashdown as an emergency contingency, but Orion was being designed to land on the ground. I've seen pictures.

Previous spacecraft (such as Apollo) could also land on land as an emergency contingency, but there were serious risks to both the spacecraft and its occupants if that were done.

Overall, a water landing is gentler to people and machinery.

1