>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.

>>16952111
At 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

>>16952073
This camera can still be used by a professional to deliver picture quality 100x better than a phone. So what's the issue?

>>16952073
>>16952111
and you retards believe nasa lies every time too

File: Consoomer Seething.jpg (86.2 KB)

86.2 KB JPG

>>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

File: scamsung.jpg (49.4 KB)

49.4 KB JPG

>>16952134
with modern tech you don't even have to fly to the moon to get good pics

>>16952234
They live streamed the whole thing. If you want good quality earth images or videos those exists in droves already

>>16952228
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence scicel

>>16952228
I agree with you, retard.
>4k
you don't know anything about cameras

File: nkz9_4_800x.jpg (99.4 KB)

99.4 KB JPG

>>16952073
they brought a z9 though you penis.
the same ones they will bring on future missions.
why are you guys so gay?

>>16952073
>10 year old DSLR
have sensors even become better? What happened in the last 10 years is mostly processing power increasing so you can take 60 bursts per second or 8k video at 240 fps.

File: y3u3y3y363y3u3.jpg (31.4 KB)

31.4 KB JPG

>>16952073
Infinite budgie? Intredasting

>>16952073
Use this or hasselblad like Apollo 11.
https://www.phaseone.com/iq4-digital-backs/

>>16957081
Sensors have much better ISO performance

The moon landing was fake and they're just fucking with us.
Noone questions if we have been to the ocean depths because the evidence is solid and we have alot of deaths in attempt of pursuing that knowledge.

>>16957084
what a nice looking bird right there
nature is tremendous.

>>16952073
>they could've pay nikon to build a custom camera with a much bigger sensor
they brought 24MP z5s and a 48MP z9... how much more resolution do you need when their closest approach was going to be 4000 miles above the surface?

>>16957735
They should have brought a telescope and located the landing site

>>16952073
fuck off idiot.

My ten year old DSLR still looks better than my cellphone even though cellphone has multiple sensors and 4k HDR video. Its all about the optics more than the sensor. Theres got to be some diminishing returns with those sensors. Just go to flickr and look at large 00s photos. They absolutely look clearer than whats from todays phones. I believe 48 megapixel existed twenty years ago? Sony….Sony injects AI processing into the hardware level, so there is no way to know if you are getting a real image. So youd want stuff that is pre-AI

>>16952885
Lol yeah shittons normies don't understand anything and just use popular marketing buzzwords. It's how YouTube and streaming services can get away with lowering bitrates because they don't know anything about bitrates, only numbers going up in resolutions. 1080p is 2.1 megapixels. I see zoomers all the time being baffled that a consumer digital camera in 2002 would have okay image quality because camera phones is all they know.