Cameras + Telescopes

[dryer_lint]

I've been wanting to bring this up for a while.

When a new NASA probe lands on Mars, do people want to hear about the revolutionary temperature readings? Or the beautiful results from the materials study? No. While these are important, the most interesting piece of equipment is usually the camera, and it's one of the most useful pieces too!

Cameras and telescopes have been a big gap in the science system for a while. They would make science less about clicking and more about getting to a good spot to grab a photo that shows lots of features.

Here's how I think it could work

because Nik loves nothing more than speculation

There would be several different parts. The basic camera (radial-mounted) would take low quality black-and-white pictures. The advanced camera (radial-mounted) would take better, colored pictures. The telescope (about the size of a small fuel tank) would require lots of power, but be able to take pictures from a great distance.

Once you get into a good spot and position your ship, you snap a photo. The standard science dialog comes up, but now it's got a picture where the text usually is. You receive science points based on...

- What planet or moon the picture shows (Eeloo gives more than Kerbin)

- The size of the planet or moon in the picture (farther away = harder to see = less SCIENCE)

- Angle of picture (light side of planet is better than dark side)

- Altitude where picture is taken (Surface shots are way moar awesomer than orbital ones, say scientists)

- Quality of picture (Is it colored? How much static is there? Basically camera quality.)

Note: I know some of these would be hard to program. These are only suggestions.

In addition, pictures could give different antennas a use... better antennas give higher quality when transmitted?

One last thing. Pictures would also grant reputation, because like I said in the beginning, the public only cares about pictures. Taking pictures with your crew in them would greatly inspire the public and give you loads of rep.

So what do you guys think?

[r4pt0r]

I just support stock telescope parts. Though I would like placeable cameras for first person rovers, or for easier docking.

[tater]

Cameras should have been one of the first instruments, and yeah, the nitrate of the antenna types could determine the science gained.

Cameras could in addition provide USEFUL science. Not "points," but something you can use.

Simple useful metric for cameras:

1. Add a value for the visual point of view altitude for map view. The farther from Kerbin, the higher alt the map will be at full zoom. Jool, Duna, Dres, for example will only "zoom" in map view to about what you might see out the window of your pod at the first point the planet renders at all. Utterly useless, in other words.

2. Putting cameras near any world (SoI?) improves the POV altitude based upon the flyby distance, and camera type down to some altitude above current map POV minimum alt.

3. Putting a camera in orbit drops it farther based upon the apoapsis and periapsis, and perhaps the inclination (require an inclined orbit at some level for a mapping mission, not just equatorial). With the better camera, and a high-gain antenna, the POV altitude then starts to improve upon the current situation, and at some level of mapping the map view would become as good as the "real" view (allowing later players to plan landings on the Mun down to the smallest craters, for example, never really leaving map view if they like).

[dryer_lint]

I just support stock telescope parts. Though I would like placeable cameras for first person rovers, or for easier docking.

Oh yeah, maybe you could have a "show camera view" on the part, and then it... well... shows the camera view.

[cantab]

An idea I had on the topic earlier to make things interesting: Separate the camera optics from the sensors. So you might have a few different size lens/mirror arrangements, and then a few different sensors (eg Monochrome Imager, Colour Imager, Spectroscope, etc). That way you get a range of permutations without ballooning the part count, and you actually get to think about your science experiment instead of just slapping the part on.

[Bill Phil]

The telescopes could be the length of four OSCAR-Bs.....

I support telescopes.

But the cameras..... I like the idea, but what would they entail?

- - - Updated - - -

One of the first objects in space took photos.... The first object DELIBERATELY launched into space (V-2 in late 40s). And maybe certain photos of new places can add some rep and a little science.

[dryer_lint]

One of the first objects in space took photos.... The first object DELIBERATELY launched into space (V-2 in late 40s). And maybe certain photos of new places can add some rep and a little science.

Exactly! Cameras have always been on spacecraft.

And personally, I think photos should be one of the primary (okay, secondary) sources of rep. Nothing inspires the public like a shot of Jeb standing on the Mun, right?

[r4pt0r]

Exactly! Cameras have always been on spacecraft.

And personally, I think photos should be one of the primary (okay, secondary) sources of rep. Nothing inspires the public like a shot of Jeb standing on the Mun, right?

I like this. consider things that have caught the attention of the media, only recently:

the most recent "Smiley face galaxy"

pictures from the rosetta

incoming pictures from ceres, and pluto have both been trending in social media

heck, even cassani recently sent some breathtaking stuff

Thats not mentioning the stuff that captivated all of us years ago, the martian face, the first pictures from mars surface, voyagers photos, astronauts on the moon, ect...

It would make sense to tie that to reputation.

[Rath]

I think that the Telescope should extend and be like a sola panel in atmo so it ould break off and take worse pictures in atmo, we should also be able to look at otter planets and other stars for SCIENCE

[klgraham1013]

The Mystery Goo and the Material Bay were a big disappoint. They seemed like a lazy cop out after the thermometer and barometer. More actual science equipment would be great.

[Robje]

i approve of this message! (+1)

[Guest]

Agree with OP.

And, science is one big gap in KSP. It needs to be reworked from scratch. SQUAD should hire help of real astrophysicist and science advocate to make science both realistic and fun.

[Sampa]

In the immortal words of Jean Luc Picard: "Make it so!"

[Robotengineer]

I would love to see cameras and telescopes for science. I would also like to see the mystery goo and materials bay go. Ideally, the entire science system would be redone, with fog-of-war, planet discovery with telescopes, and a proper science system. However, just adding new good science parts and getting rid of the unrealistic ones. Cameras and Telescopes would be good options for better science parts. I support this idea.

[tater]

Cameras and telescopes are functionally the same for all intents and purposes in game, they only offer differing resolution. (I doubt they would then get into more instrumentation like spectrometers, photometers, etc).

I'm more interested in the smaller instruments since the focus of KSP is to actually visit worlds, rather than a Kerman Space Telescope that does loads of science from Kerbin orbit (science is too easy to get anyway). Makes more sense if there was "fog of war," but we sent probes to outer planets before we had the HST, and I'd presume the tech level for KSP would not be dissimilar.

[Arugela]

I think that the Telescope should extend and be like a sola panel in atmo so it ould break off and take worse pictures in atmo, we should also be able to look at otter planets and other stars for SCIENCE

That would be assuming it was a refracting telescope.(And that you don't already know this.8p) The Hubble is a newtonian for instance. Not unrealistic just different types!(Though I guess you could condense a Newtonian for packaging purposes if you wanted to. And obviously hybrid or other types could also.) But that leads to something they could do with such an idea! 8d Bring that whole world into the game! You could get science in a limited sense from ground and space base telescopes. And maybe money. They could be missions types for money and science. New use for satelites could be putting up telescopic(or other types. IE radar/heat/etc) satellites of various types around the solar system.

And obviously the age old reality of cameras and video via telescopes. It could be a video and picture making suite default in the game. Making a deep space video or other observation stuff could be cool. You could watch your own flights leave the planets etc. If there were random events like distant stars exploding and stuff too it would be cool.

Edit: Ok scanning the SS would be good too. I missed that! I always thought it was stupid you had access and info on everything at the start of a game. Even in a Sandbox game it would be nice to have the option to explore. Obviously you could set it to off if you had the option but the option to have it on would also be good. I wonder if that would lead to planet bases!? 8)

Edited February 26, 2015 by Arugela

[tater]

HST is not a Newtonian, it is a Cassegrain. (the focal point is behind the primary, not radial to the secondary).

- - - Updated - - -

We know we are going to have some sort of scanning (I suppose I should try Karbonite to get a feel for this), so presumably this can be utilized by any "camera" tech that we assume exists. Does Karbonite use specialized detectors for resources, or does it take a better approach (for science in KSP), and have layers of data?

Ideally---not just for realism, but for "science gameplay"---you'd expect to "scan" visually, then perhaps land instrumentation, collect surface samples, etc. That would be the ideal way to find where you need to look for resources (if they are discrete, like water). Obviously if the resource is just scraping huge amounts regolith into a machine that knocks the Oxygen, etc off, then the fidelity required is far less. Still, it seems like a "useful" role for cameras, though I would still like to see an interaction with map view on a broader level for simple landing operations (fly from the ship POV (external or IVA) exclusively unless you have imaged the landing site ahead of time with cameras/telescopes).

[Arugela]

Ah, I always thought those counted as a subcategory of Newtonian. And that style covering a lot of reflectors.

[cantab]

I like the Materials Bay. It's basically a whole little robotic lab, there's lots of detail on the part, and it gives plenty of opportunities for amusing descriptive text. The Goo on the other hand is rather goofy and cartoonish.

[dryer_lint]

the focus of KSP is to actually visit worlds, rather than a Kerman Space Telescope that does loads of science from Kerbin orbit

Well, it would be a late-game part for one thing, and it would also give reduced science so a follow-up mission would be necessary.

[tater]

Still cool, but I don;t see much use for late-game new science instruments. Of course, "late game" in terms of tech tree in KSP currently means maybe 2 months from Jeb discovering fireworks.

[dryer_lint]

I mean the telescope would be a late-game part. Basic black-and-white cameras would be unlocked rather early.

[Daze]

I really like the idea for camera, it would apply a real "new dimension" to the way we play

[juvilado]

imho, cameras could give scy points as well as extra view points. The real images that probes usually send to earth are black and white because they weight less than coloured ones i believe, and then colored here. But with powerful antenna and energy source color images could be trasmitted too. Different cameras that cover all electromagnetic spectre could be available with science advances. And telescopes should be a must too.

[tater]

Cameras provide a way to actually have instruments that belong deeper in the tech tree. First were low res video, then for the moon, they actually took FILM images, and scanned them for facsimile transmission. Later cameras (Voyager, for example), used CCD cameras. I'd have early probes have low res video. Pods would all have high res photography (requires return to Kerbin to develop). Later probe cores can be assumed to carry CCD cameras... Or they could be separate parts if holding part count down isn't a huge goal (except the pod cameras, those are handheld devices).

As was said above S/N drives effective bit rates, but the bottom line is indeed bit rate, though it is not a part limited thing, but one of distance from the spacecraft to Kerbin.