$150 Space Camera - Awesome, anyone willing to try?

[robojack]

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget?

And that's with a P&S. Anyone willing to risk their DSLR to get even better results?

[asysin2leads]

That's just cool. I have a spare A470 lying around. Walmart here I come (for duct tape and beer cooler)

[DDCSD]

Wow, that is awesome. I might have to give that a shot some day.

[phreezone]

I've got the Duct tape and the beer cooler. I predict there will be a short term run on A470's on ebay once this catches on more.

[mikekelley]

The kid who did this actually posted in the landscape forum awhile ago. Very cool.

[krepta]

Wow, that's pretty neat. Thanks for sharing!

[KenjiS]

Thats VERY Cool...

interestingly enough i had a similar idea when i was much younger...never did do it

[Shadowblade]

The balloon is a really good idea!

I have been considering a similar high-altitude photography project with a few engineer friends, using a small two-stage rocket booster launched from a climbing jet at 11000m (to avoid the worst of atmospheric drag) to carry a 4-camera payload (pointing forward, 45 degrees, 90 degrees and 135 degrees, likely to be slowly rotating) as high as possible, photographing largely during a descent stabilised by drag streamers... a balloon would be a much cheaper way of launching it!

I don't think an SLR is a suitable camera for this, though, due to environmental and flight conditions - I would anticipate mirror and mechanical shutter problems due to variable temperature, possible damage to mechanical components of the body and lens due to launch acceleration, frost and fog in the lens due to cold conditions (it would be harder to keep an SLR lens warm, as it sticks out significantly from the body), vibration-related loosening of mechanical components and glass elements in a cheaper lens, etc. I would imagine an electronic shutter and inbuilt lens would be less susceptible to damage...

Any idea what exposure settings would be suitable for something like this? Would a digital sensor need a UV filter at 50000m?

[KenjiS]

The balloon is a really good idea!

I have been considering a similar high-altitude photography project with a few engineer friends, using a small two-stage rocket booster launched from a climbing jet at 11000m (to avoid the worst of atmospheric drag) to carry a 4-camera payload (pointing forward, 45 degrees, 90 degrees and 135 degrees, likely to be slowly rotating) as high as possible, photographing largely during a descent stabilised by drag streamers... a balloon would be a much cheaper way of launching it!

I don't think an SLR is a suitable camera for this, though, due to environmental and flight conditions - I would anticipate mirror and mechanical shutter problems due to variable temperature, possible damage to mechanical components of the body and lens due to launch acceleration, frost and fog in the lens due to cold conditions (it would be harder to keep an SLR lens warm, as it sticks out significantly from the body), vibration-related loosening of mechanical components and glass elements in a cheaper lens, etc. I would imagine an electronic shutter and inbuilt lens would be less susceptible to damage...

Any idea what exposure settings would be suitable for something like this? Would a digital sensor need a UV filter at 50000m?

Weight would be a concern as well as balance, A lot of point and shoots are pretty "balanced" compact loads, an SLR with a lens is going to be a lot harder to balance

As for exposure, id imagine autoexposure would be a good bet...

...I wonder..if you got a wi-fi camera if you couldnt rig it up to somehow beam the images and such down to earth...Even if you say, tied it to a 3g-equipped cellphone or netbook....

[Shadowblade]

Definitely not with a cellphone - after all, mobile phone towers are on the ground, up to 50km below, there may be clouds in the way, and, given that launch is likely to be away from populated areas, there may not even be a nearby tower (in Australia, anyway). Also, I'm not too sure about radio-frequency interference at 50km...

Would have to be auto-exposure in RAW, so that I have room to push-pull - maybe a few older G-series cameras.

I would like to try this around dawn or dusk... would require some calculation to find the time of dawn/dusk at such a high altitude, though!

[KenjiS]

Definitely not with a cellphone - after all, mobile phone towers are on the ground, up to 50km below, there may be clouds in the way, and, given that launch is likely to be away from populated areas, there may not even be a nearby tower (in Australia, anyway). Also, I'm not too sure about radio-frequency interference at 50km...

Would have to be auto-exposure in RAW, so that I have room to push-pull - maybe a few older G-series cameras.

I would like to try this around dawn or dusk... would require some calculation to find the time of dawn/dusk at such a high altitude, though!

Hmn...true...

Hey if they could land on the moon with 1960s technology, including computer chips not considered good enough for a calculator today, im sure some people can rig some of this **** up in a shed with modern technology ;)

[Shadowblade]

Maybe with a signal booster and large antenna in addition to the cellphone... you could wrap the antenna around the payload in order to avoid protruding parts, and have more than one, so that, even if one stuck itself into the ground or otherwise failed, the other would not...

[czeglin]

Exposure: Sunny 16?

[DDCSD]

Exposure: Sunny 16?


Good point. That's what I'd base it off of.

[Shadowblade]

Is 'sunny 16' still applicable at extreme altitudes?

I would imagine sunlight intensity would be higher at 45km altitude than at sea level, due to lack of intervening atmosphere. UV and other short-wavelength radiation would also be much more intense, as this would be above the ozone layer. Also, the dynamic range at sunrise/sunset would be *huge*, and there is no possibility of using HDR or GNDs (barring a fully remote-controlled payload with a moveable camera and steerable carriage). Which point-and-shoot has the greatest DR and is capable of shooting RAW?

Of course, there are also problems with stabilising the payload - this is easy enough at lower altitudes, where we could rely on atmospheric drag and tail streamers to keep the package orientated in the correct direction, but there isn't much atmospheric drag for a slow-moving package in freefall at 30km or higher... lower down, I'd also be wary of losing the payload in a jetstream.

[DDCSD]

Is 'sunny 16' still applicable at extreme altitudes?

I would imagine sunlight intensity would be higher at 45km altitude than at sea level, due to lack of intervening atmosphere. UV and other short-wavelength radiation would also be much more intense, as this would be above the ozone layer. Also, the dynamic range at sunrise/sunset would be *huge*, and there is no possibility of using HDR or GNDs (barring a fully remote-controlled payload with a moveable camera and steerable carriage). Which point-and-shoot has the greatest DR and is capable of shooting RAW?


Your theory is plausible, except that you're taking photos of the ground, which is reflecting the same amount of light that it would if the camera was at 5 feet of altitude. :lol: If anything, you run the risk of underexposing the ground, since there would be more atmosphere in between the camera and the ground.

But I doubt that would have much effect on it.

As for the dynamic range, you've only got the ground and atmosphere to worry about. Both will have almost the same exposure readings, because the sunlight would be hitting both almost equally. Yes you'll have some shadows on the ground, but there's no way you'd be able to do anything about them. It likely wouldn't matter anyways, because you wouldn't need the shadow detail.

[xxmxaxrxyxx]

wow!!!

[Shadowblade]

Your theory is plausible, except that you're taking photos of the ground, which is reflecting the same amount of light that it would if the camera was at 5 feet of altitude. :lol: If anything, you run the risk of underexposing the ground, since there would be more atmosphere in between the camera and the ground.

Fair enough.

Still, you'd have to be careful with that - when shooting on snow-covered slopes, you run the real risk of blowing highlights, and cloud tops are just as white as mountains.

As for the dynamic range, you've only got the ground and atmosphere to worry about. Both will have almost the same exposure readings, because the sunlight would be hitting both almost equally. Yes you'll have some shadows on the ground, but there's no way you'd be able to do anything about them. It likely wouldn't matter anyways, because you wouldn't need the shadow detail.

At dawn or dusk (probably the most interesting times to shoot) you'd have huge luminance differences between the bright side of cloud-tops (illuminated by direct, unfiltered sunlight) and the dark side of cloud tops. You might also have the sun in the photo, at which point all bets are off...

I'd like to know how the balloon team handled retrieval of the camera module - what if it had landed in a creek or river, on private property, off a cliff or somewhere otherwise inaccessible? Would an aerial retrieval, using a brightly-coloured chute with LED lights for visual identification in addition to GPS, be a better idea than trying to find the box on the ground? Or would a steerable parachute (or control vanes linked to a GPS unit) for the final stage of descent be better?

[KenjiS]

I'd like to know how the balloon team handled retrieval of the camera module - what if it had landed in a creek or river, on private property, off a cliff or somewhere otherwise inaccessible? Would an aerial retrieval, using a brightly-coloured chute with LED lights for visual identification in addition to GPS, be a better idea than trying to find the box on the ground? Or would a steerable parachute (or control vanes linked to a GPS unit) for the final stage of descent be better?

My worry would be "What if it got sucked into an aircraft engine" ;)

But i live under a flightpath...so yeh...I get that worry when i see a balloon go into the air ;)

[Shadowblade]

My worry would be "What if it got sucked into an aircraft engine" ;)

But i live under a flightpath...so yeh...I get that worry when i see a balloon go into the air ;)

The odds of that happening are miniscule; you'd also not do it near a heavily-plied flight route either, since the consequences of a collision would be undesirable for either party...

Working out how to finding the module on the ground, then getting there to retrieve it before someone else did, is a challenge in itself.

[krepta]

My worry would be "What if it got sucked into an aircraft engine" ;)Is your worry regarding your camera and the whole kit you're sending up there, or regarding the aircraft and its crew and passengers? Hehehe...

Later, "I didn't do it." :roll:

[KenjiS]

Is your worry regarding your camera and the whole kit you're sending up there, or regarding the aircraft and its crew and passengers? Hehehe...

Later, "I didn't do it." :roll:

"Aircraft investigators from the NTSB are puzzled at what appears to be a camera that was sucked through the jet intake, causing massive damage to the compressor blades"

Actually more the aircraft...

And as it is we have to deal with idiots shooting laser pointers into the eyes of pilots at night and such :/

[krepta]

"Aircraft investigators from the NTSB are puzzled at what appears to be a camera that was sucked through the jet intake, causing massive damage to the compressor blades"If it comes out of that still looking to something close to a camera, then thumbs up to the manufacturer! That is one solidly built camera!

Actually more the aircraft...

And as it is we have to deal with idiots shooting laser pointers into the eyes of pilots at night and such :/Can they (laser pointers) reach that far? I wasn't aware that this kind of thing was happening. Yeah, that would not be too wise. I wouldn't want to be the cause of the death of 233 people and tons of $ in damage.

[KenjiS]

If it comes out of that still looking to something close to a camera, then thumbs up to the manufacturer! That is one solidly built camera!

Can they (laser pointers) reach that far? I wasn't aware that this kind of thing was happening. Yeah, that would not be too wise. I wouldn't want to be the cause of the death of 233 people and tons of $ in damage.

Yes actually, The sheriffs department actually nailed some idiots doing it a few days ago..The idiots even shot the sheriff's heli with it too....

Depends on the laser pointer, but the more expensive ones can indeed reach that far and they CAN cause temporary blindness even at that height...

[krepta]

Yes actually, The sheriffs department actually nailed some idiots doing it a few days ago..The idiots even shot the sheriff's heli with it too....

Depends on the laser pointer, but the more expensive ones can indeed reach that far and they CAN cause temporary blindness even at that height...I see. Well, 'idiot' is the right word for people who have no concern for the consequences of their actions. I have to wonder why in the world anyone would have the mind to do such a thing.

In any case, a space camera is a nice project. It would be good to be informed about flight paths before launching, that's for sure.

[Thalagyrt]

Some guys sent an HD Camcorder up to around 107,000 feet on the August 23rd using similar methods.

http://bear.sbszoo.com/bear3-4/bear4.htm

[photo_wed]

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget?

And that's with a P&S. Anyone willing to risk their DSLR to get even better results?

lol...i wonder if the scientist would do this with the 1Ds mark III

[DDCSD]

lol...i wonder if the scientist would do this with the 1Ds mark III


I don't think there's a memory card that's big enough for that! :lol:

[GMCloud27]

I don't think there's a memory card that's big enough for that! :lol:

Loved that!! :)

[Kyle is raaddd]

Wow, I am speechless!
That was awesome hahaha.

[michael.luczkow]

I'd do it if I didn't live on an island that's only about 5 miles wide :-(

[seabee_shooter]

Awesome! I can't believe they did that for so cheap. I wonder how many people found a free prepaid cell phone and digital camera float down from the heavens before the MIT guys successfully retrieved one.

[Splatmaster527]

a cell phone wouldnt work but im sure a Satellite Phone would.
Doesnt take a big solar panel to make a few volts for some added juice either.

[Tom H. Photography]

Yes actually, The sheriffs department actually nailed some idiots doing it a few days ago..The idiots even shot the sheriff's heli with it too....

Depends on the laser pointer, but the more expensive ones can indeed reach that far and they CAN cause temporary blindness even at that height...

We have those problems when flying to Berlin all the time, so much that we now even have a company procedure to deal with it in flight. It happened on four of my flights last year. Apparently some idiot has a high power laser pointer and uses it from rooftops close to the airport. When on final at low altitudes and at night, a laser like that lights up the entire cockpit. I can assure you that it's not pleasant to deal with...

[DDCSD]

a cell phone wouldnt work but im sure a Satellite Phone would.
Doesnt take a big solar panel to make a few volts for some added juice either.

A cell phone did work. That is what they used.

[KenjiS]

We have those problems when flying to Berlin all the time, so much that we now even have a company procedure to deal with it in flight. It happened on four of my flights last year. Apparently some idiot has a high power laser pointer and uses it from rooftops close to the airport. When on final at low altitudes and at night, a laser like that lights up the entire cockpit. I can assure you that it's not pleasant to deal with...

Oh i know, it hits that cockpit glass and it basically flares all over the place [for lack of a better term]

I dont remember if they told us what happened to those morons, But i hope they went to jail for it, I'm pretty sure theres a felony they could hit them with :)

[Tom H. Photography]

Oh i know, it hits that cockpit glass and it basically flares all over the place [for lack of a better term]

I dont remember if they told us what happened to those morons, But i hope they went to jail for it, I'm pretty sure theres a felony they could hit them with :)

In these days of anti terrorism laws I think there are more than plenty. Problem is catching the bastards...

[MattRaizoku]

This makes nasa's high end equipment well look pathetic XD

They spend so much money, yet somebody did this with a $150 rig amazing.

[dovaka]

me and some friends started to build one of these after we saw AHAB on makezine last year but it isnt done yet. weve all been to busy to finish it

[KenjiS]

In these days of anti terrorism laws I think there are more than plenty. Problem is catching the bastards...

Oh they got them alright :D

[HYBEagle]

how do they control where it lands ? IF that thing went all the way up then come back, wouldn't it take a day or two ? And by the time it lands, it would have been far far away from where it was lunched, it could very end up in a different country, middle of the ocean, forests and such ?

[mattograph]

I may have missed it.... but what happens when it lands. What if it lands on a house? Or a car? Or on a person? Odds are its gonna land somewhere it doesn't belong, you know?

[DDCSD]

how do they control where it lands ? IF that thing went all the way up then come back, wouldn't it take a day or two ? And by the time it lands, it would have been far far away from where it was lunched, it could very end up in a different country, middle of the ocean, forests and such ?

You take the weather into account and only launch on a fairly calm day. You have no way of controlling where it goes, but you can get an idea of the general area where it should land.

It is pretty well detailed in the article. They also mention that they used this website to give them an idea of where it would come down:
http://weather.uwyo.edu/polar/balloon_traj.html

I may have missed it.... but what happens when it lands. What if it lands on a house? Or a car? Or on a person? Odds are its gonna land somewhere it doesn't belong, you know?


It is highly unlikely that it will land on a house, car, person or anything else of any importance as long as some minimal precautions are taken. You obviously want to do your best to launch in an area that is sparsely populated to all but eliminate the possibility. Assuming the parachute works, it won't do any real damage even if it hits something.

If it lands on private property, you'll need to get the landowner's permission to retrieve it, get a law enforcement officer, trespass or write it off as a loss. I would think that few people would have a problem letting you retrieve it. Most people would think it was pretty neat!

[aprikh1]

Neat stuff. . .

[tstowe]

I did it on May 1. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=870099&highlight=MIT

[CrazyLeavell]

This is fun, my science class is about to launch our own balloon. We bought a "SPOT" gps tracker as we live in an area of little cell phone coverage. We are using a 16' weather balloon and a weather-resistant time-lapse garden camera. It is a neat project and has taught my students a great deal of scientific principles.

I highly recommend this project, we have about $500 spent. Most of the budget went to the GPS tracking. If you live in a well covered area stick with the cell-phone and save about $250.

I will post if our flight is successful!

Dan

[tstowe]

This is fun, my science class is about to launch our own balloon. We bought a "SPOT" gps tracker as we live in an area of little cell phone coverage. We are using a 16' weather balloon and a weather-resistant time-lapse garden camera. It is a neat project and has taught my students a great deal of scientific principles.

I highly recommend this project, we have about $500 spent. Most of the budget went to the GPS tracking. If you live in a well covered area stick with the cell-phone and save about $250.

I will post if our flight is successful!

Dan

You should look into a ham transmitter (no service fee). You have to have a license but I studied for all of two days, took and passed the license test. Also, a ham transmitter will give you latitude, longitude and altitude. SPOT won't give you altitude.

I use Byoncis MT-300. They don't sell that anymore but they have a stronger MT-8000 and MT-8000 FA. Or for a ready to go, no worries setup, you could get the AIO (All Ready to Go). You can find them here: http://byonics.com/microtrak/

One other piece of advice...When you think you have enough helium...put in a little more.