• 404found@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    No way in hell I would want to go to the moon nowadays. Technology these days is like having two left feet. Especially if AI is involved.

    • poopkins@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The live stream of the launch was low resolution with constant cutouts. I was also surprised by how poor the tracking was. It’s saddening to see how much worse this has been so far compared to 1969.

      • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        To be fair it was cutting edge SiFi come to life in 1969. This is at least 30 years too late for that sort of world of tomorrow excitement. Is there even anything ‘cutting edge’ on this launch? I mean Outlook, really? Outlook poor if that is the best they could do.

      • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah, I rewatched the launch from Everyday Astronaut’s livestream and he actually had better footage, he had a tracking camera showing the booster separation

        Outside of the launch part, I think it’s mostly because SpaceX has set the standard so high, with tons of high resolution cameras streaming over Starlink even during reentry

        • poopkins@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          SpaceX does a good job, but it didn’t exist in 1969. My own take on this is that as a society we simply don’t care and are generally worse at our jobs.

          It’s always assumed that things are constantly getting better, but I’m reminded at moments like this that over the course of nearly 60 years, we’ve not progressed as much as we’d like to think.

          • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            22 hours ago

            It’s clear that several people in charge of the youtube livestream have no idea about how to do that correctly. I think the difference is just effort. Viewership was tiny compared to Apollo 11, as was the hype leading up to it. It’s clear that NASA could provide a whole lot better footage if even some random youtuber (Everyday Astronaut) can beat them. So that aspect is, as you said, because as a society we don’t really care about the Artemis launch. SpaceX does put a fair amount of effort into their livestreams, and you can easily tell by watching them.

            For the recorded footage, film often has a lot higher dynamic range than digital cameras and usually looks a whole lot better when recording a launch up close.

            Far shots are limited by atmospheric distortion and physical limits from diffraction for a given aperture size. None of that can change.

            IDK anything about the quality of the original live broadcast of Apollo 11, so i don’t have anything to compare in that regard