Your donations pay for the CIH Forum hosting and software.
Please help the CIH Forums by disabling AdBlock Plus on this page.
Forum Home Forum Home :: Miscellaneous :: Off-Topic
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - AP Apollo 11 article and "stupid husband"
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

AP Apollo 11 article and "stupid husband"

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
pcgh View Drop Down
Commercial Hater
Commercial Hater
Avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 129
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pcgh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: AP Apollo 11 article and "stupid husband"
    Posted: 17 Jul 2009 at 5:18pm
Someone linked to this article in the Apollo 11 thread:
 
 
About a third of the way into it, there was a single-sentence paragraph that said:
 
"How did NASA end up looking like a bumbling husband taping over his wedding video with the Super Bowl?"
 
Disapprove
 
And so the stupid husband/dad stereotype is perpetuated yet again. It's become so ingrained in our society at this point, that guys who read the article might crack a smile of embarrassment and go "aw, shucks," while the soccer moms giggle with snarky delight and think to themselves "yep, that's my hubby alright!" I guess that's the effect the writer was aiming for, at least.
 
I guarantee if the article had said something like "a bumbling wife who sold her husband's Led Zeppelin vinyl records at a yard sale," the public outrage over the comment would spawn a second news article all on its own.
That's a bleepin' dead alien body if I ever bleepin' saw one.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links



Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56305
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jul 2009 at 9:17pm
I saw some of the refurbished video on the news last night...and lemme tell ya, it's not worth the $230,000 price tag that the article mentions.
 
This leads me to another question:  Why is "footage" often so crappy.  I'll give the moon landing video a pass because it was decades ago, and the lighting was probably not ideal.  But even surveillance video of crimes being committed in broad daylight, often just suck.  Sometimes it's so useless, I think, "why even bother?"
 
Back to Top
specialkt View Drop Down
Commercial Hater
Commercial Hater
Avatar

Joined: 29 May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 351
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote specialkt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2009 at 12:54am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

I saw some of the refurbished video on the news last night...and lemme tell ya, it's not worth the $230,000 price tag that the article mentions.
 
This leads me to another question:  Why is "footage" often so crappy.  I'll give the moon landing video a pass because it was decades ago, and the lighting was probably not ideal.  But even surveillance video of crimes being committed in broad daylight, often just suck.  Sometimes it's so useless, I think, "why even bother?"
 


NY CBS news anchor Chris Reggei (i might of misspelled that) was even mocking the whole "refurbishing" of the footage. the HD looks lighter at best.
Back to Top
Ad Endless Nauseum View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive
Avatar

Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ad Endless Nauseum Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2009 at 12:22pm
Other things being equal, the video quality all depends on the quality of the camera, and the bandwidth of the datastream.

For the first Moon landing, NASA had to juggle several million weight parameters. I forget the actual ratio, but it comes out to something like: for every pound of weight at the top of the Saturn 5 moonrocket, you had to add sixty pounds at the bottom, in the form of extra fuel and oxidizer, stronger construction of the framework, and so on. The design of any aerospace vehicle is an enormous fight with conflicting needs. As it was, the Eagle had less than 20 seconds of fuel remaining when Armstrong finally got past all the boulders and small craters and landed and shut off the decent engine. A fancier TV camera could very easily have reduced the amount of fuel in the decent stage, forcing a low altitude abort and return to Earth without landing.

On later missions, Grumman had continued to increase the efficiency of the LEM engines, continued to reduce vehicle weight, as did all the other contractors with other parts of the entire spacecraft. Also, the video camera makers worked hard to build better and lighter cameras, the telemetry systems were improved, which all contributed to better coverage as the missions went by. Culminating with the great live video images from Apollo 17.

And you are right. Lighting on the Moon for photography is complex and hard to understand at first.

As to security video, partly the poor results you see on TV come from business owners installing the absolute cheapest crap cameras they can get their hands on. Cheap cameras are easier on video tape usage quantities. Better quality cameras need more expensive recording methods. As with the Moon cameras, security video is a trade off between visual resolution and cost.

Some of the poor video on shows like those on CourtTV, are intentionally degraded in quality to protect some of the innocent people in the shots. Or the producers have to blow up a small format security video to fit your full screen TV at home, and blowing up already cheap and cheesy quality video does not improve it's visual detail. 
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

Defense de fumer et de cracher

A message brought to you by this station and the Ad Council.
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56305
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2009 at 2:27pm
Good info, Ad!
Back to Top
ThreadKiller View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive
Avatar

Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Status: Offline
Points: 1150
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ThreadKiller Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jul 2009 at 2:30pm
Originally posted by pcgh pcgh wrote:

And so the stupid husband/dad stereotype is perpetuated yet again. It's become so ingrained in our society at this point, that guys who read the article might crack a smile of embarrassment and go "aw, shucks," while the soccer moms giggle with snarky delight and think to themselves "yep, that's my hubby alright!" I guess that's the effect the writer was aiming for, at least.
 
 
Somewhere, this woman is "giggling with snarky delight"...
 
 
Hundreds of threads killed.
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56305
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jul 2009 at 2:44pm
Originally posted by ThreadKiller ThreadKiller wrote:

Originally posted by pcgh pcgh wrote:

And so the stupid husband/dad stereotype is perpetuated yet again. It's become so ingrained in our society at this point, that guys who read the article might crack a smile of embarrassment and go "aw, shucks," while the soccer moms giggle with snarky delight and think to themselves "yep, that's my hubby alright!" I guess that's the effect the writer was aiming for, at least.
 
 
Somewhere, this woman is "giggling with snarky delight"...
 
 
 
Right now, however, she's pregnant and babbling incoherently.
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.



"CANDIE!"