In a message dated 2/23/2001 10:26:32 PM Alaskan Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Well, the draw was supposed to be that it was a 30 frame per second
> streaming video (albeit about 15+ seconds from real time). You've seen one
> picture of the Earth, you've seen them all. Streaming video is a little bit
> more interesting - as long as its high enough resolution. And if the camera
> is recessed into a crater, with maybe a fish eye lens, then that's a bit
> more. And actually having it on the moon should increase its expected life
> span. Seeing meteorites hitting the atmosphere, aurora playing in the
> ionosphere, and anything else that just plain looks cool - and ALIVE. Dead
> pan pictures of a round cloudy blue thing wasn't the idea. Having a "Best
> of Moon Cam" link was. That, and the obscenely low price tag - which was
> the original point. Just to say, "Hey. I only spent peanuts to do this. Why
> can't you?"
You know, I think it's a hell of an idea, especially if you could increase
the frame rate. However, one problem I see is that the government likes its
monopoly on whole earth pictures... what you're suggesting is something with
potential strategic consequences. For instance, would you be able to see
troop/tank buildups? Rocket launches? Pollution clouds? Keeping control of
the pictures allows governments to keep control of the news.
However, I'm genuinely interested in the actual costs of such a project...
not some hyperbole like 'the cost of a vette', but a real figure.
If such a figure, and a working prototype were proposed, it could possibly be
funded by internet contributions, or corporate funding. Crazy ideas CAN
happen, but you've got to have some rational basis for making them happen.
-- John Harlow Byrne
==
You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
