CP+ 2018: Nikon&#39;s space cameras

Mar 7, 2018*permalink

Mar 7, 2018*permalink

Mariano Pacifico

"." denotes a period. An end to a sentence. An END. Means, an end to Nikon. Dramatic exposition of sarcasm. "." Period. Like picture, says it all. Worth a thousand words.

NIKON. The End. Period. Their last CP+ exhibition.

Mar 7, 2018*permalink

It was a DPR doubled post. And posts can't be left blank or deleted.

Mar 7, 2018permalink

felix from the suburbs

Interesting exhibit of some serious no frills "working cameras". Get into orbit, get the job done and bring the film home. I bet the team at Nikon probably had a great time coming up with these.

Mar 6, 2018permalink

Spectro

a mirrorless Nikon Photomic would be fine with me. Like the iconic viewfinder head, maybe it can house some electronic circuit now.

Mar 6, 2018*permalink

BG28

That modified F in the 3rd image.. seriously awesome-looking. I'd totally buy that!

Mar 5, 2018permalink

AlanG

I can't wait until we look back fondly at Apple's display of NASA and its modified iPhones.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

G Sciorio

Can't show off future innovation so look to the glory of the past. Guess this helps those that site what Nikon used to be while trying to justify their purchase.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

How do you show off innovations from the future ?

Mar 6, 2018permalink

G Sciorio

Usually, a company shows upcoming products like a new mirrorless or smartphone at launch events. Those products come out several weeks afterward - in the future.

Mar 6, 2018permalink

Vignes

Come on, show a bit of respect... it was an achievement when there was many camera maker then and Nikon got selected, being a Japanese company (non US) in the 60s.

Mar 7, 2018permalink

Tungsten Nordstein

In addition to my comment below, I'd like to add that it's nice that Nikon have remembered that they once actually use to make such 'iconic' cameras. Pardon the sarcasm and I do like Nikon. My dSLR being one.

Mar 5, 2018*permalink

OMalley10

Wow........Nikon shows old space cameras while Fujifilm and Sony launchs X H1 and A7 III........

Mar 5, 2018permalink

But the Nikon DL fiasco...

Mar 5, 2018permalink

"But the Nikon DL fiasco..."

What does that have to do with anything here?

You do follow that much of this article is about a display of film cameras?

Mar 6, 2018permalink

It was a mandatory mention of the DL. They can make space cameras but failed with that compact.

Mar 6, 2018permalink

SG:

I'm sorry what does a failed compact digital line of cameras have to do with this Nikon display and Nikon's history of providing cameras for manned space missions?

Mar 6, 2018*permalink

Not much.

Just hoping to contribute to Nikon's deminse by mentioning one of their recent big failures.

Mar 6, 2018permalink

http://www.nikon.com/news/2017/0825_nasa_01.htm

SG:

"Just hoping to contribute to Nikon's deminse by mentioning one of their recent big failures."

So cool. Sarcasm.

And Microsoft continues despite 20 years of truly awful OSes.

Mar 6, 2018permalink

Mariano Pacifico

Nikon reminisced their glory days ... tsk! tsk! tsk! ... not anymore ...

Mar 5, 2018permalink

photoMEETING

Not anymore?

;-)

Mar 5, 2018permalink

xPhoenix

Great, so they have the space market covered. Now for things that really matter, like mirrorless??

Mar 5, 2018permalink

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/skylab_tele.jpg

You mean come to the party when it's nearly over?

Mar 5, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

I understand that Nikon is no match for Sony.
But please give them some time. I understand they are working very hard to add a lot of thin vertical lines to their images to match the newest Sony.
Additionally they also decided to drill little holes to have the some water-cooling Sony is so famous for!

Mar 5, 2018permalink

Al wants a bagel

I was looking at that F3. The buttons were so small, how would the astronauts work the winders for example with the big fingered gloves?

Mar 4, 2018permalink

They don't wear gloves while they are inside Skylab (the space station at which that camera was used). In fact, they don't wear gloves while they are in any of the space stations.

Notice the Polaroid SX70 floating in the picture. They would operate any of these cameras just like they do on Earth...with their bare hands.

Mar 4, 2018*permalink

zodiacfml

I'd take that EVA cover than a D5. Thank you. :p

Mar 4, 2018permalink

But of course! Not everybody can afford a D5

Mar 5, 2018permalink

Rob890

number 3 would make a nice mirrorless camera

Mar 4, 2018permalink

Neddie

It looks similar ... to Leica M

Mar 5, 2018permalink

jwasturias

I was thinking exactly that!

Mar 5, 2018permalink

MunchmaQuchi

$20,000 for a space blanket ? You're getting ripped off folks. My knitting club could make a nice little mohair camera cozy for less than $100 including the cost of yarn needles and rose tea.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

Oh sure. NASA scientist can learn from you.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

This is a typical example of NASA making sure its budget is used up so that next year's budget is not reduced.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

OH my! Are you a comedian?

Mar 5, 2018permalink

Very surprising to see that Gagarin did not take a camera with him in 1961 in Vostok 1. He was a foundryman and part-time dock worker so he may not have owned a camera.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

> Very surprising to see that Gagarin did not
> take a camera with him in 1961 in Vostok 1

During first flight, mental health of the cosmonaut was... well, an unknown quantity. No-one was sure that the huge stress would not take its tall. So, say, manual controls that would initiate re-entry were purposefully complicated (IIRC, Gagarin had to punch in some sequence of digits before it could be engaged...), so that the cosmonaut would not accidentally start it in panic.

So, if you think about it, leisurely taking some snapshots while enjoying the orbiting was pretty much out of question for the first flight: even the ability to control the spacecraft (let alone camera) was not a given.

On second orbital flight, Gherman Titov did have a camera with him, and became the first photographer in space; see my other post below.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

Thanks for the very informative explanation @vadims and I can understand how uncertain everything was on the first space trip - Titov had a cine-camera didn't he ? Was Glenn the first with a stills camera ?

Mar 4, 2018permalink

> Was Glenn the first with a stills camera ?

Quite probable. He was most certainly the first with Minolta stills camera. ;-)

Interestingly, Alexey Leonov also only had motion picture camera with him during his first-ever spacewalk.

Speaking of Leonov's spacewalk... Its effect on mental health was also feared to be potentially huge. Soviet cosmonauts had guns with them as part of the "survival package" (in case they'd land in taiga etc.; 9mm regular pistols on first flights, specialized TP-82 guns later), and commander of the Leonov's ship (Pavel Belyaev) had pretty gruesome instructions in case Leonov wouldn't be able to re-enter the spaceship. Which BTW nearly happened... but not because Leonov lost his mind (as was feared), but because his spacesuit got inflated.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

dougjgreen1

We sometimes forget that these first Cosmonauts were every bit as brave as our Astronauts, although apparently our space explorers and theirs shared an immense mutual respect for one another, borne out of understanding and empathy that only they had for what the others experienced.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

AlanG

I remember being impressed by Astronaut Major Nelson when I was a kid.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

@dynaxx - what is your point ?

Mar 5, 2018permalink

@AlanG

My personal hero (during childhood) was Konstantin Feoktistov -- the first Soviet engineer in space; all cosmonauts before him were military pilots.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

AlanG

Did he have a beautiful genie too?

Mar 5, 2018*permalink

@AlanG

No -- a mundane, boring, real-world engineer... for most but not me.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

I could be wrong, but I'm not even sure Gagarin had a proper window. The Mercury astronauts had to lobby for NASA to include one in early US missions.

Regardless, whether or not Gagarin owned his own personal camera, I'm sure the Soviet space agency could have provided one to him in a professional capacity...

Mar 6, 2018permalink

> I could be wrong, but I'm not even sure Gagarin had a proper window

He did. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_1 :

"...the flight is continuing well. I can see the Earth. The visibility is good.... I almost see everything. There's a certain amount of space under cumulus cloud cover."

Mar 6, 2018permalink

Wasn't it a periscope though?

Mar 12, 2018permalink

http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/vostok.htm

> Wasn't it a periscope though?

All Vostoks had periscopes, not just Gagarin's. They were used for manual orientation (if needed) of the spaceship during re-entry.

And they all had windows's, too. I never heard that Gagarin's Vostok was any different in that respect... Anyway, Gagarin flew Vostok 3KA, and quick search for its specs returns this:

The Controls line in the REENTRY MODULE section has this:

"Controls: analog; Vzor optical device for manual spacecraft orientation; 2 windows"

Vzor is the periscope; windows are, well, windows...

Mar 12, 2018permalink

Hugo808

There's some seriously cool stealth cameras there. I'd go for that look if they want to put in on the shelves.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

BBnose

In this nikon space camera range, I only have seen the big F3 before.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

Roadrunnerdeluxe

It is always fascinating to see the ultimate pragmatism that was applied during all space missions to ensure functionality and weight minimization.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

Mariano Pacifico

Nikon builds extra-terrestrial cameras
Back on earth
100 anniversary later
Nikon teeters in the brink of irrelevance
CellCam is now the space cam

Mar 4, 2018permalink

De Fotoman

Your wise cracks, they add nothing.

Use interpunction. Grow up. Go out and play. Infant.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

FoxShutter

Good! All Nikons and Canons to the space - they are weightless only there.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

They have the same mass in orbit as on the surface of the earth.

Now true, nothing weighs the cameras "down".

Mar 4, 2018permalink

I'd be voting dark triad.....

Mar 4, 2018permalink

photomedium:

Inertia be kind of important too. Being hit by a car going 15 miles an hour is more damaging than being hit by a bicycle going 15 miles per hour.

Now, if you'd limited your comment to the weight of things one has to carry (walk around with) you'd sort of have a point. However no one is taking long walks in space--long duration spacewalks not being walking around on the ground.

In short, in your attempt to be "smart" you've demonstrated a lack of understanding of how mass functions, in space or on the ground.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

I have two possible explanations:
1- you got hit by a car when you were young, probably doing 15x2=30mph in a school zone. You and your family got a whole bunch of money from the insurance and that has allowed you a free ride through life.
2- someone dropped the pointy end of a Leica from 20 ft over you head and that's why you like them and know so much about gravity and inertia.

Both hypothesis fit the data.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

ROFL.....

Mar 4, 2018permalink

photomedium:

So indeed you don't have a valid answer to my point, but feel the need to attempt to demean and disparage. Cool, sarcasm.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

What point was that? The one you got from watching Bill Nye the science guy video and that you felt the irresistible need to re-vomit on this thread?

Mar 4, 2018permalink

He was traumatized by Pinocchio.....

Mar 5, 2018permalink

Karroly

Howaboutraw,
Weight is the effect of gravity. So, the OP is right when saying they are (almost) weightless in space... And if it is also true that the mass does not change when in orbit or at sea level, this is not the point, here.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

Karroly - Watch out, Howaboutraw will try to drag out this thread for the next 6 months, telling us all how clever he is.

Mar 5, 2018*permalink

I accounted for all of that in my original comment:

"Now true, nothing weighs the cameras "down"."

I guess I could have added "in orbit".

Mar 5, 2018permalink

ento....
It's just Howie the Hijacker...
Pulling another heist.....
:=)

Mar 5, 2018*permalink

FLruckas:

Still confused about hijacking.

The mass point stands.

Notably you've not managed to refrain from your urge to stalk me.

Mar 5, 2018*permalink

"The mass point stands."
Yes the mass point is factually correct but it does not stand in the contest of the OP, that is, except in your head. That is the problem.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

The problem is the nurse hasn't taken away his keyboard....
:=)

Mar 5, 2018permalink

FLruckas:

"The problem is the nurse hasn't taken away his keyboard....
:=)"

Still can't resist personal insults I see.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

Lift weight (to launch) is the issue, NOT weight(lessness) in space.i

Mar 5, 2018permalink

"Still can't resist personal insults I see."
HAR, but you have to admit, with you is like fishing with dynamite...in a barrel.

Mar 5, 2018*permalink

photomedium:

"HAR, but you have to admit, with you is like fishing with dynamite...in a barrel."

Your "logic" doesn't work. I hope you don't attempt to use such "logic" in the wider world.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

Yeah....
He takes the bait every time...
We really should have some sympathy for him....
The only thing in his kit are 10 year old rechargeable batteries...
And a whole lot of anger...

Mar 5, 2018permalink

FLruckas:

There you go again with a personal attack.

Mar 5, 2018*permalink

Guys. Don't you realise that Howaboutraw is playing games with you?

HAR is the ultimate troll, he gets his nuts off by winding you up.

I'll bet right now he's killing himself laughing at the way you all fall for it.

...and you just keep coming back for more

Mar 5, 2018*permalink

Dark triads don't tend to laugh....
And you might just be mixed up about who is playing who....
Just like a fiddle....
How be it an out of tune one....
Hit those strings with a bow....
And that baby sings....
Not an ounce of control....
:=)

Mar 5, 2018*permalink

FLruckas:

It's not a surprise you'd try a personal attack via pop-psych.

Mar 5, 2018*permalink

Like I said guys, he's winding you all up and having a good laugh.

You keep coming back but you'll never get the better of the master troll.

It doesn't matter whether or not he's talking sense, don't worry about it dudes.

Resistance is futile.

Mar 6, 2018permalink

"Your "logic" doesn't work."

HAR,
It is merely a statement of fact. A truism, like tomorrow is another day. It is apparent and blatant to all reading your comments.

Mar 6, 2018permalink

Na...
He's not a troll...
Schmuck????
Yes....

Mar 6, 2018permalink

FLruckas:

"Na...
He's not a troll...
Schmuck????
Yes...."

There you go using nasty names.

Mar 6, 2018permalink

photomedium:

Thanks really, for demonstrating that you don't apprehend what the quotation marks around the noun mean.

You seem to have "forgotten" that you included "you have to admit". And you remain in the position of defending the likes of FLruckas; "good" place to be, for you.

Mar 6, 2018permalink

HAR, Yes, I agree, it's good to be me. Or at least better than being you. ;-)

Mar 6, 2018permalink

photomedium:

"HAR, Yes, I agree, it's good to be me. Or at least better than being you. ;-)"

Oh, it's a "good" thing your alignment with his/her ilk.

I am who I am.

Mar 6, 2018permalink

HAR:
"Yes".

Mar 6, 2018permalink

The hijack continues....
:=)

Mar 6, 2018permalink

FLruckas
I am running an experiment, I want to see if he puts quotes around my quotes.
I have no idea of what he has been talking about for the last 10-15 posts and I am proud of it! ;-)

Mar 6, 2018permalink

FLruckas:

Still confused by the definition of "hijack".

Mar 6, 2018permalink

photomedium:

"I have no idea of what he [,HowaboutRAW,] has been talking about for the last 10-15 posts and I am proud of it! ;-)"

No kidding, and yet you kept up making such "good" posts.

Mar 6, 2018permalink

photo...
I don't read them either...
Sometimes it's fun to watch or play with a fool...
:=)

Mar 6, 2018permalink

FLruckas:

"I don't read them either...
Sometimes it's fun to watch or play with a fool...
:=)"

There you go again with the personal attacks, and proof that you really have nothing constructive to add. Then there's your hijacking of a thread about mass and weight. Irony.

Mar 6, 2018*permalink

HAR,
Buddy, if I understood, or thought I understood your posts I would check myself into the nearest nuthouse. ;-)

Mar 7, 2018permalink

photomedium:

"Buddy, if I understood, or thought I understood your posts I would check myself into the nearest nuthouse. ;-)"

There you go joining FLruckas in personal attacks. Such a "good" position to hold.

Mar 7, 2018permalink

HAR:
I know mental illness is hard but all you need to do to make this go away is up your meds or stop replying. After all you started by taking the OP tongue-in-cheek and turned it into 50-posts troll fest. So you are either the king of all trolls or you are nuttier than a squirrel turd.

Mar 7, 2018permalink

"Buddy, if I understood, or thought I understood your posts I would check myself into the nearest nuthouse."
The line that would join you is pretty long....
:=)

Mar 7, 2018permalink

OMG are you guys STILL arguing?

Mar 7, 2018permalink

FLruckas:

""Buddy, if I understood, or thought I understood your posts I would check myself into the nearest nuthouse."
The line that would join you is pretty long....
:=)"

A typical me too from you.

Mar 7, 2018permalink

photomedium:

"I know mental illness is hard but all you need to do to make this go away is up your meds or stop replying."

There you go again, you be extending the comments with a personal attack.

I'm not the party that brought up unrelated subjects, and attacked other parties.

Mar 7, 2018permalink

Howie is a classic case of Dunning Kruger.....

Mar 7, 2018permalink

flruckas,
I know! I also diagnosed him with Asperger syndrome long ago, minus the savant part. Instead of thanking us and seek treatment he keeps on clinging on this notion that we are personally attacking him when in fact we are only here to help. ;-)

Mar 7, 2018permalink

FLruckas:

"Howie is a classic case of Dunning Kruger..."

Again with the personal attacks.

Mar 7, 2018permalink

photomeduim:

"Instead of thanking us and seek treatment he keeps on clinging on this notion that we are personally attacking him when in fact we are only here to help. ;-)"

This concern trolling of yours remains a personal attack.

This is from you above:

"What point was that? The one you got from watching Bill Nye the science guy video and that you felt the irresistible need to re-vomit on this thread?"

Mar 7, 2018permalink

.... and you guys are STILL arguing.
None of you are going to admit defeat.
Get over it guys!

Listen to John Lennon: "Let it be"

Mar 7, 2018permalink

And ento...
God bless you...
But you're about 10 steps behind Howie...
Can we get back to photo gear???....
Howie can skip contributing....
Everyone is tired of his divisiveness....

Mar 7, 2018*permalink

FLruckas:

"Howie can skip contributing....
Everyone is tired of his divisiveness...."

My divisiveness?

I posted a comment about mass in orbit, in below a comment about weight of cameras on the ground in a comments section about cameras to be used in orbit.

Then you entered into personal attacks.

Mar 7, 2018permalink

entoman:

No I'm not going to stop with calling attention to personal attacks directed at me.

Mar 7, 2018permalink

This has become another Pinocchio thread....
:-(

Mar 7, 2018permalink

FLruckas,
HAR keeps on harping on the personal attack thingie because he read in the statute that it is not allowed. He wishes for the moderators to take action against the people that break his focus on trolling and hijacking. That's how he always approaches defeat. His argument was lost about 30 posts ago. ;-)

Mar 8, 2018permalink

GabrielZ

Cool!! I’d love to own one of those cameras!

Mar 3, 2018permalink

dougjgreen1

You can buy a used DCS-760 Which was a Kodak modified Nikon F5 with a 6 MP digital sensor inside. It was a $10K camera when new in 2001. That model was used on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station in 2001-2004. I bought one used for under $1000 in 2004 and used it for a few years until 2007 when I sold mine to someone in China on ebay , for nearly as much as I paid for it. Image quality wise, it was comparable to a Nikon D50, but it weighed over 3 times as much.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

The first camera in space ( John Glenn - 1962 ) was a Minolta HiMatic ( imported into the USA and re-badged as an Ansco Autoset but Glenn called it a "Minolta" ) - of course being a rangefinder design it has no mirror !

I am sure Barney knew all this.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

MarshallG

How did those photos come out?

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Michiel953

Howaboutraw: I was joking...

Anyway, Nikon somehow managed to get it both right and wrong with that line of cameras and lenses.

I generally hate cameras without a viewfinder, but the iPhone like AF (just press what you want in focus on the rear display) is quick and accurate.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

I think some Gemini missions used modified Leica IF/1G cameras, too.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

The first camera in space with which images were taken manually was Konvas, a Soviet movie camera made by the same plant (KMZ) that produced Zorki rangefinders.

The first man to photograph Earth from space was Gherman Titov:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gherman_Titov

Sample image can be see here:
https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/the-first-photographer-in-space-44654847/

Mar 4, 2018*permalink

DrWu

I suppose you mean German Titov? Never heard of anybody whose name is "Gherman".

Mar 4, 2018permalink

@DrWu

"Gherman Titov" is how "Герман Титов" is spelled in English. I can tell you that "German" does not sound as "Герман" at all; "Gherman" is much closer.

Also, you may want to have a look at the articles I linked.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

Camley

DrWu - you are joking I am sure, but if not, German Titov was a hockey player and Gherman Titov was a Soviet cosmonaut - the second man to orbit the earth.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

Range Finder camera HAS MIRROR!
The mirror is called PARALLAX mirror.
The parallax mirror triangulates focus on the object.

Would you, perhaps, been thinking of the INSTANT REFLEX MIRROR in a SLR and the REFLECTIVE internal surfaces of the PENTAPRISM?

Mar 5, 2018permalink

silvano

Many years ago Nikon builded many cameras for NASA and space but today people is waiting one mirrorless ...

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Nikon has had a mirrorless digital camera line for years.

So "waiting for one mirrorless..." isn't a valid point.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Michiel953

Howaboutraw: “One” is correct though. There’s a V3 still in occasional use around here. Not a bad little camera.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Michiel953:

Nikon 1 is the line name. And note I wrote "mirrorless digital line".

The OP more than implied there is not one Nikon mirrorless--didn't say "it would be nice if Nikon updated the 1 (or One) line.

I lost count of the number of Nikon 1 bodies that have shipped.

The point is Nikon still has a mirrorless line in 2018 and has had. It hasn't been added to recently, and of course it's not APSC or full frame sensored.

However, the line was well ahead of other manufactures with on sensor phase detect AF. And the AW1 remains the only interchangeable lens waterproof digital camera system.

Mar 3, 2018*permalink

RedFox88

nikon's 1 line of cams are long discontinued. Dead.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

RedFox88:

Nope, the Nikon 1 series is still shipping new in 2018.

You're repeating rumor as established fact.

Now true, Nikon hasn't updated the 1 series in a while.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

https://www.cnet.com/pictures/inside-the-nikon-1-factory-in-china/

Michiel953:

Okay, if you were getting at the lack of a built-in view finder on all but one Nikon 1 body, then why not say so?

Yes, I too think the lack of a built-in VF is a drawback.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

justmeMN

@HowaboutRAW: Nikon 1 was made in Nikon's Wuxi China factory. Nikon closed that factory.

http://www.nikon.com/news/2017/1030_01_e.pdf

Mar 4, 2018permalink

justmeMN:

And yet the current 1 series cameras can still be purchased new--and are listed as available.

Now, yes Nikon could be "about to announce..."

Nor of course do your links say that Nikon has cancelled the 1 series--they say a factory used in 2011 to make the 1 series was closed in 2017.

Mar 4, 2018*permalink

Slouch Hooligan

“New, old stock” might describe Nikon 1 cameras shipped in 2018.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

Slouch Hooligan:

Yes, that's possible.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

@HowaboutRAW - I think the OP meant we're waiting for a Nikon mirrorless system that is actually worth owning. A tiny 1" sensor for a system as expensive as Nikon 1 is a joke. People just don't want to invest in a system built around such a tiny sensor. Whether they are still shipping cameras or not, the system is still more or less dead. It has basically fallen off the radar amongst camera systems. Think about it: we're actually debating whether or not the 1 system has been discontinued!

Mar 4, 2018*permalink

T3:

"I think the OP meant we're waiting for a Nikon mirrorless system that is actually worth owning."

An entirely different point.

"People just don't want to invest in a system built around such a tiny sensor."

That's speculation. And besides Nikon there's only been one other 1 inch ILC digital camera system, but Samsung exited the ICL market entirely.

"the system is still more or less dead." You don't know that. Now, it very much could be true, but again you're speculating.

"It has basically fallen off the radar amongst camera systems."

You know that cameras and lenses purchased in say 2014 are still working?

Now, how long did it take Sony to add phase detect AF to its 1 inch cameras? How about more than 10 FPS in raw?

"Think about it: we're actually debating whether or not the 1 system has been discontinued!"

It's not a debate, since Nikon hasn't announced it, and it's still available new.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

@HowaboutRAW - Yes, most people really don't want to invest in an ILC system limited to a 1" sensor. That's why the 1 system sold so poorly and is basically off the radar amongst camera systems. It's not an issue of whether the cameras are still working. And yes, we are "debating" (i.e.. talking about) whether the camera system is still even alive. I'm pretty sure that's not the kind of conversation any camera system wants people to be having!

By the way, I can still buy a Samsung NX new:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HV6KGNM/ref=asc_df_B00HV6KGNM5391639/?tag=hyprod-20&creative=395033&creativeASIN=B00HV6KGNM&linkCode=df0&hvadid=198070155062&hvpos=1o4&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2962848368108574551&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031523&hvtargid=pla-385574431817

and the NX system is still on Samsung's website:
https://www.samsung.com/us/showcase/digital-cameras-and-lenses/

But that doesn't mean the NX system is alive and kicking! LOL

Mar 4, 2018*permalink

T3:

But where can you buy a Samsung NX-Mini body new?

Mar 4, 2018permalink

Smack53

HowaboutRAW: Nikon USA website only has the Nikon 1 J5 available, all the others are archived and not available anymore. So for the USA, Nikon 1 is pretty much dead.

Mar 4, 2018*permalink

Smack53:

Do you mean to imply that since Panasonic doesn't sell the GH3 any longer that Panasonic's mirrorless line is close to dead?

Now true, Nikon hasn't released new 1 series bodies recently, and the line MAY be dead or about to die. But as you say the J5 is still available.

Mar 4, 2018*permalink

@HowaboutRAW - It is likely that Nikon has suspended any future development on the Nikon 1 system to pursue a more viable mirrorless strategy: FF and APS-C mirrorless, which are clearly more popular ILC formats than 1". I just can't see them fully supporting a 3-format mirrorless product line: CX, DX, and FX. Not in today's market. Every company has a finite amount of resources, and they have to decide where to use those resources. I'm guessing that Nikon is putting those resources into something more fruitful than their 1 series. Most likely, those resources are being re-directed towards a DX/FX mirrorless system. In the meantime, they'll just keep selling their existing stock of Nikon 1 inventory and not make any formal announcements about the state of the Nikon 1 System. After all, what good would that do them to announce the termination of their 1 System? They still probably have existing stock they want to sell! Their best bet is to just act as if it's business as usual.

Mar 5, 2018*permalink

@HowaboutRAW - "Do you mean to imply that since Panasonic doesn't sell the GH3 any longer that Panasonic's mirrorless line is close to dead?"

Well, it certainly helps that Panasonic is still introducing mirrorless products! They just introduced the 50-200mm F2.8-4.0, 200mm F2.8 lenses, 8-18mm F2.8-4.0, and 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 lenses, as well as the G9, GX9, and GH5S bodies within the last year or so. The 50-200 F2.8-4.0 and GX9 were just introduced last month!

Mar 5, 2018permalink

@Howaboutraw by waterproof, do you mean actually submersible? Or merely rain and weatherproof? Because if it's the latter, then my 2012 Olympus EM-5 beat the 1 to waterproof status. Fuji and Sony (IIRC) also offer mirrorless system models which are fully weather sealed. This discussion isn't meant to include small sensor waterproof cameras like the Olympus, Pentax, Fuji or Nikon models, which are submersible, with non-removable lenses.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

Mr Bolton:

Waterproof, for use underwater. I believe there are 2 lenses.

No, not simply weatherproof like say the Olympus EM1.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

T3:

"It is likely that Nikon has suspended any future development on the Nikon 1 system to pursue a more viable mirrorless strategy: FF and APS-C mirrorless, which are clearly more popular ILC formats than 1". I just can't see them fully supporting a 3-format mirrorless product line: CX, DX, and FX. Not in today's market."

Right, that's perfectly legitimate speculation. And still one can purchase the J5--and as far as I know the AW.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

I didn't know Nikon made a fully waterproof 1. Olympus offers lexan shells for some of their mirrorless models so you can take them diving. Not quite the same, but still possible to use for underwater. I'd probably trust a complete housing for any real underwater work over just dunking the camera, however.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

Br Bolton:

There are plenty of excellent cases (I imagine most are polycarbonate--the generic name for Lexan) for all sorts of ILC cameras and a some highend point and shoots like the Sony RX100.

The cases can often cost more than 1000 usd.

Right now, there is one waterproof digital ILC system sans an external case, it's the Nikon 1AW. Now true, you can dive deeper with your Canon 5DIV in case than with the bare 1AW.

Mar 6, 2018*permalink

Neat!

Mar 6, 2018permalink

Nice to see items like this, thanks dpr.

How about producing a much more thorough article about the history of space photography and the cameras used?

Mar 3, 2018permalink

GabrielZ

That’d be good!

Mar 3, 2018permalink

I'd be into writing something like that.. as an aside, I've got a bunch of science books from the '50s and '60s which I saved from my elementary school library. They go into considerable detail about the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs.

How I wish America were still capable of dreaming and doing like that.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

Mr Bolton - That would be good, try dpr and see if they are interested in publishing it. Best to ask first, rather than submit without first checking what style and word count they would want.

Mar 5, 2018*permalink

quiquae

What's the point? If this comment section is any indication, the only feedback they'd get would be from the "yeah, but mirrorless" trolls.

Mar 6, 2018permalink

Tungsten Nordstein

Great styling on the space cameras. My kind of camera. If they made a camera today with those great looks, I'd buy one. :)

Mar 3, 2018permalink

rondom

Exactly what I thought when I first saw it. It’s amazing how fresh it looks. Absolutely timeless design. (Photo no 3)

Mar 3, 2018*permalink

Tungsten Nordstein

@rondom
Yes, it's the same kind of aesthetic that initially drew me to the Ricoh GRD. Apart from already owning a GR1s!

Mar 3, 2018permalink

It's crazy to look at the cameras first being used on the shuttle missions and look at how fast cameras progressed, yet that same shuttle was in use for 30 years.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

dougjgreen1

Actually, two of the shuttles didn't last 30 years, having failed in use.

Mar 6, 2018*permalink

Actually, nothing. I never mentioned a specific shuttle, merely the shuttle in general. I forget how unnecessarily pedantic people try to be online sometimes.

Mar 6, 2018permalink

StevieF

Perhaps this exhibition is a hint that their forthcoming FF mirrorless is going to be stellar? Or possibly never get off the launch pad if the N1 marketing team are anywhere near it.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Robert1975

But is it weatherproof?

Mar 3, 2018permalink

aPointedView

They weren't going to wait around for that asteroid shower...

Mar 3, 2018permalink

ybizzle

No 4K, no buy

Mar 3, 2018permalink

agrek

The third photo looks like FF mirrorless... 🤔

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Having no viewfinder it would make sense for it to be even without mirror. Crazy if you think we are waiting nikon's mirrorless, but it was already here since the '70s!

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Vallkar

The third photo is Nikon F (SLR with a mirror). Here with pentaprism finder removed (You had options of changing viewfinders on Nikon F, F2 and F3).

Cameras were "mirrorless" when originally invented. We had "view cameras", "optical view finder cameras" and when a mirror was introduced to reflect the view of the lens projecting image on the film we got SLR cameras but they were never called "Mirrored". The term Mirrorless is now wrongly used for cameras having electronic view finder which don't need a mirror anyway.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

The term "mirrorless" refers to reflex cameras meant to replace models with mirrors. While it's true that cameras didn't always have mirrors, it's still a fair distinction because you can buy a DSLR with a mirror that flips out of the light path to the sensor during exposure. The sensor is silicon versus silver halide but the principle is the same. Since you can also buy a DSLR which even has a faux pentaprism but lacks an actual mirror, the term seems necessary to make this distinction.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

Is there a reason why nasa uses D4 - D5 class of cameras instead of D810 - D850? The sensor of the latter should be better in dynamic range and obviously resolution, while maintaining similar high iso performances. Also if you don't need the battery grip they are a little lighter, not a huge difference but still something to consider given the cost of pushing weights in orbit.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Lars V

There's probably a tendency towards tried and proven tech, which rarely means the latest and greatest. and D810 doesn't have a great frame rate.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Sharlin

It makes sense to send the absolutely most rugged bodies available.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

That is a good question. I don't think the rugged argument is important ( although it doesn't hurt).
The interior of the ISS is uber clean and for EVA, the camera will be in a heat shield anyway. Plus, you won't find much water/ dust outside.

I'd say the argument of speed/ high iso is one.
Plus, a bigger body means better handling with those fat gloves.

That being said, i'd be curious how they setup the cameras for EVA ( full auto, priority something ?? ).

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Better handling, can't imagine mild DR improvement is particularly relevant.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Sharlin

Water and dust are indeed not a problem but ruggedness is more than that.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

I would have thought metering wise you'd use full manual. Otherwise include a bit too much black, metering system would get thrown off and you'd blow out everything. You're essentially trying to photograph a scene that contains the sunniest day possible and the blackest night possible at the same time. I can't imagine many metering systems are set up to cope well with that.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

I think they use full manual, giving the right exposure for the thing they have to shoot. Automatic and semi-auto exposure is useful for us, we go around and take pictures of things / scenes we decided we like so we have lots of variability, they instead go out with the camera knowing precisely what to look for (probably pieces of equipment to show to technicians on earth) and what the light would be, and without the possibility to change anything with those gloves. If you see the pictures taken with the meterless hasselblad on the apollo missions you'll see that they are perfectly exposed, with films that probably didn't have a lot of dynamic range (the amount of detail is insane!).

Mar 3, 2018permalink

bjphotolabs

Electrical stability of the power systems in the camera,
and battery life might also have something to do with it.

As for dynamic range and higher resolution, there is always the possibility of bracketing, etc.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

nasa tends not to uprgade mission specific technologies when they are part of system meant to meet mission critical standards , thus during the entire life of the shuttle missions a really ancient cpu was used , simply because its testing and certification for the mission didnt allow willy nilly upgrades because of very carfully crafted mission specs , and testing and certification
protocols that were unmutable

probably went for cameras too

Mar 4, 2018*permalink

Spectro

maybe it is dark in space

Mar 4, 2018*permalink

@cosinaphile
I remember reading something about the use of an ancient cpu, if I am not wrong it was about something similar to a powerpc G3 that apple used in the late '90s. The reason was, alongside testing and certifications, that bigger transistors are less prone to data corruption due to radiations / solar wind.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

Einride

Reliability. Usability. Basically quality. Quality is difficult to pin down on a spec sheet.
Today DR is in vogue. In ten years it will be something else. The top level pro cameras are above consumer trends.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

Air has a certain refraction index, and I guess void's index is different.
If that is the case, this means you can't use a regular lens in space for it will fail to focus correctly right?
Has anyone has an answer as to wether the lenses were filled with air ( that wouldn't change the issue of the front element), designed around specific formulas or I'm just saying bs cause the difference in refraction index is negligible? ( or other)

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Quick update, the order of magnitude of the difference is 10^{-4}, therefore, I believe they are considered to be equal.
Gaz gaz generally featuring indexes that hover around 1,00xx one could expect this to never be an issue. Still it's an interesting question for someone planning an expedition to another planet.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Nice to know, I thought about that too, and I got to the same conclusion thinking about the fact that cameras works about the same way on really high mountains and probably on planes too (aerial photography came to my mind). Probably there would be just a light shift of the focus plane.
Another thing that came to my mind is how the lenses handle the depressurization, especially using top of the line tropicalized lenses: the air trapped inside may put some mechanical stress if it can't escape at least in a short amount of time (I am imagining a puzzled astronaut looking at the front element of a 14-24 floating away!).

Mar 3, 2018permalink

refraction index from air to vacuum never occurred to me .... "facinating captain "

Mar 4, 2018permalink

I assume the camera would depressurise alongside the astronaut holding it. If the astronaut and his suit can handle it, I'd bet the camera can.

Mar 6, 2018permalink

I'd rather say that although there is weather sealing all you want, gear is not sealed ( especially to air).
I believe the camera gently depressurise alongside the astronaut and there is no more air in it. Thus no pressure issue.

Mar 8, 2018permalink

User9362470513

Could Nikon not have provided an English translation alongside the cameras?

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Lars V

Or Swedish.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Yokohama is in Japan, to be fair. You don't see much Japanese on signage at the Javitz Center at Photo Plus Expo....

Mar 3, 2018permalink

AbrasiveReducer

But there is English all over Yokohama, in train stations, shops, hotel lobbies. Anywhere a foreigner might go.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

It seems to me there're lots of insecure Sony users around here?

Sony cameras will never be considered for harsh environments let alone for Space.

Mar 3, 2018*permalink

User9362470513

Camera brands fans are all insecure. They need to bash other brands online to feel secure and avoid post purchase dissonance.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF1T9DwnCuo&vl=en

They are not insecure, they just feel a little paradox: they know their cameras should stay as far as possible from water, and this might have been their perfect placement, except nasa chose nikon...

Mar 3, 2018permalink

aris14

@User9362470513

Cognitive dissonance is the term and we all know it..: "Thank you for being the proud owner..." et such...

Mar 3, 2018permalink

IamJF

Never.
Except that A7s mounted outside of the space station.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Nikoncanonfan

@uswr9362 wrong, I'm an enthusiastic Sony hater because I really dislike the equipment and Minolta heritage it's nothing to do with reassuring myself, it doesn't matter how much money i have I will never buy one. Not keen in Ricoh either

Mar 3, 2018permalink

mm1975

the A7SII is on the International Space Station.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Very few Sony comments except in response to baiting like was done here. And as has now been pointed out, the baiting OP, yeah, you RadPhoto, are simply wrong.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

NaBalam

Just the sensors... mounted on nikon bodys

Mar 3, 2018permalink

What kind of person says, "XYZ brand will *never* be considered for..." Sounds like an *insecure* person who says that! Never is a long time. And you can't predict the future. You simply can't rule anything out.

I remember when Canon dumped their FD system and introduced the EOS system in its place. There were a *lot* of people like you who said, "Canon will *never* be trusted or be taken seriously by serious photographers because Canon abandoned their previous camera system! No one will ever want to invest in the Canon EOS system because Canon may abandon all their users just like they did with all their FD system users!" Geniuses like them, and like you now, thought they could predict the future. Stupid!

Mar 4, 2018*permalink

What's even more stupid is that what he said could NEVER happen, already happened..

Mar 4, 2018permalink

Vignes

T3... that was the Canon which is like Sony today. they were daring enough to try out new tech. the eye focus was one of those. where is that Canon, today?

Mar 4, 2018permalink

The eye focus was an awesome, ahead of its time idea. I wish someone still made a camera that learned to focus where my eye is looking in the frame!

I'd seriously consider shooting Canon if they brought that feature back.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

I had a Canon camcorder that tracked what I was looking for. It wasn’t precise enough to be effective and felt gimmicky as a result. My eye is looking all over the frame when I’m shooting. Not sure I want the focus changing every time I look somewhere else.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

I loved Canon Eye Control Focus (ECF) back in the day. Back then, they used an array of infrared lights to track your eye position. It was a very primitive system. These days, they could put a tiny digital camera inside the viewfinder to see the location of your eye. It would potentially be much more precise. And it wouldn't have to be Canon who does it. For one thing, if there were a patent on the original ECF, the patent is probably expired by now. Utility patents last 20 years. Canon ECF was first introduced in 1992. And the second point is that if a manufacturer used a tiny digital camera inside the viewfinder instead of an array of IR beams to track the eye, it would be using an entirely different technology. So anyone could come out with a new version of Eye Control Focus.

Mar 5, 2018*permalink

@MikeRan - Canon's Eye Control Focus worked by selecting the focus point that you stared at for a moment. Your eye had to actually pause on where you were looking before the system selected the focus point that corresponded to that location. That meant that you could look all around the viewfinder, and the system would simply ignore your eye movement until it saw that you paused and stared at something for a moment. (It's like the equivalent of a long press on your smart phone screen that activates other functions.) And secondly, it would only select that focus point if you were half-pressing the shutter button at that same time. So if you want to having your eye wander around the viewfinder without the Eye Focus system selecting focus points, just don't have the shutter button half pressed, and don't stare at a location for longer than a certain period of time that would trigger the Eye Focus system.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

After about a dozen shots, it felt seamless and it learned dynamically how your eye moved. At least that's what they said back then.. siiigh.. one of the few "good old days" ideas that really were good enough to compare to what we have now.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

aris14

Ι think the implementation derived from military targeting systems.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

@Mr Bolton - No, I don't think it was dynamically learning anything. We're talking about a fairly rudimentary, primitive system. No real brain power. It's nothing like the computers and processors we have today. You could do multiple manual calibrations in different lighting situations to help it improve its effectiveness. But I highly doubt it was actively learning as you were using it. With today's technology, with an embedded digital camera in the viewfinder and today's processing power, it might be able to do that.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

I think if it could be combined with scene intelligence, it could potentially be effective. I.e., the camera recognizes objects, and the eye indicates which one to focus on. Or, a flexible spot that follows your eye, and when you press a button “locks on” and tracks the subject. So the camera identifies potential subjects, and the eye selects them. Maybe it could work. But frankly Canon is so far behind, they should be focused on other things. (No pun intended)

Mar 5, 2018permalink

@MikeRan - That would be very appropriate and feasible for mirrorless cameras and EVF. With mirrorless cameras, the image sensor is "seeing" the scene and is able to apply AI (artificial intelligence) to what it is seeing.

Mar 5, 2018*permalink

Very cool

Mar 3, 2018permalink

lightandaprayer

I see that there are an unusually large number of inane comments in response to this interesting slice of photo technology history. . . The fact is, Nikon has reason to be proud of its contributions to space exploration. Why not celebrate its history of innovation with an exhibit at CP+?

Mar 3, 2018permalink

.... agreed @lightandaprayer but let's not forget that the one reason Nikon became a major optics company was the supply of kit to the Japanese military that facilitated their despicable acts in WW II. Prestige and shame go hand-in-hand.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

WGVanDyck

@dynaxx - Seriously? And, Boeing should have refused to produce bombers that could cause civilian collateral damage, fire bomb civilian areas, drop an atomic weapon on civilians, etc.? It was a war! In a war you do what is required by your nation to be the victor, and survive. Yes, things look different in hindsight, particularly if you're the victor. But, are we to hold a grudge against Toyota, Minolta (makers of the Dynax camera), Lieca, Volkswagon, Fiat, and all the other manufacturers that aided the war efforts of enemies in a conflict that ended almost three quarters of a century ago? And, then ignore any good those companies have done during the ensuing years? If so, that war has never ended. Besides, can you imagine that Nikon actually made a huge fortune being required (it was Imperial Japan, so yes required) to service the military in a wartime economy. Don't mistake the Japanese economy, and the profitability of military manufacturing, with that of the US during World War II.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

@WGVanDyck - your emotional response has got in the way of you reading my post carefully - Nikon was a small optics company with, I believe, a single factory before they supplied gun-sights, periscopes, binoculars etc. etc. to the Japanese military and became a large-scale company by the end of WW II - this is not true of any of the companies you mention and certainly not true of any other optics/photographic companies - I reminded the readers of this thread that the prestige they rightfully get from their contribution to space photography is just one part of a more checkered history.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

stevenj2

IBM Germany and Poland during WW2 punch card tech machines enabled census and tracking that aided efficient extermination. Fact. Also in 1935 T. Watson moved IBM Europe HQ from Paris to Geneva.

Ah, Switzerland

I condemn Switzerland in strongest possible terms. Hitler's money laundering and gold loot depended on them, plus Swiss turned s blind eye on trainloads of concentration camp bound Jews. Swiss guaranteed their safety and wealth with blind eye to evil.

Need any more? Please pardon this political ish post, you see how tech and politics are bound.

Love, to Nikon.

Mar 5, 2018*permalink

number 3 looks kinda cool ... i could see a properly sized one scaled for the first nikon ff mirrorless ,,, keep that cool deep matte thing going on

yeaaaaaa....

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Debankur Mukherjee

From now onwards Nikon will be making cameras for space only since the company is going blank on earth for quite some time........

Mar 3, 2018permalink

SheepStar

Oh hunny.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

Tons o Glass 0 Class

Time to sew some nylon around a camera, call it an EVA cover, and sell it on eBay!

Also, am I the only one who wouldn't mind being seen shooting the 'big' F3 on slide no. 5?

Mar 3, 2018permalink

no ill take one too....

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Yake

Comments full of Sony ... as if Sony is relevant to the topic.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Edmond Leung

These are histories.
Up to now, Nikon is still the pioneer in space photography. Who can compete with them?

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Akpinxit

As I recall , Sony had presented 7R "space" version

Mar 3, 2018permalink

RubberDials

@Edmond
Hasselblad. The iconic photograph of Buzz Aldrin on the moon was taken with a modified ELM with the 70mm cassette. I don't think they took any 35mm to the moon - but I might be wrong.

The Space race was chronicled by Nikon and Hasselblad. As you say it is history.

Mar 3, 2018*permalink

Photomino

And before Hasselblad and Nikon, was Minolta Himatic (Ansco), and Leica.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Burnt to a Crisp

I admire Nikon. When they're not discontinuing cameras and missing deadlines, they're working hard to single-handedly write the dictionary definition of "defunct."

Real overachievers!

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Greg OH

Weight may not be an issue in space, but mass sure is. Every gram of camera is a gram of something else that can't be launched.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

SheepStar

Yeah but what good is a light mirrorless camera that just eats the stars you're trying to photograph in the first place? You calculate the payload based on what you NEED in space. Sending a shipment of equipment that won't work is the biggest waste of all.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

Someone is still living in the past.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Studor13

Yes, and in 30 years time when Dp show images of Nikon cameras used on the first man landing on mars, I guess you will make the same post.

Mar 3, 2018permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBA7su98v3Y

Didn’t NASA buy a bunch of Nikon D5’s last quarter?
Your point?

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Actually, is it really going to be NASA on Mars? Or is it going to be Elon Musk's SpaceX? NASA is a bit decrepit right now. Like a lot of their equipment :) Just because NASA chose Nikon decades ago doesn't necessarily mean that SpaceX (or some other entity) will too! Times change. It isn't NASA that is launching re-usable rockets that can land themselves autonomously back on launch pads! It's SpaceX

So it's the old vs the new. NASA/Nikon vs SpaceX/Sony?

Mar 3, 2018*permalink

jnd

SpaceX is only the transport provider, NASA will most likely buy the rocket to get to the Moon and also Mars, as well as develop some kind of base. To be honest you need colaboration of both public and private sectors like it's happening with taking astronauts to the ISS.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

Old Cameras

T3
Spacex is not profitable. None of Musks companies (boondoggles) are profitable for that matter. Not one.
If NASA chooses them for launches they can break even. Bezos builds rockets too, very successfully.

Mar 4, 2018permalink

@Old Cameras - Hahahahaha. You realize that ventures such as starting a car company or a rocket company take YEARS to reach profitability, don't you!?!?! We're talking massive R&D and startup costs! Wow, you are extremely short-sighted. You must have the attention span of a gnat. Some people think short term. Other people (Musk) think long term. I'll take Elon Musk's judgment and intelligence over yours any day. What have you done in your life, compared to Elon Musk? Have you started a car company that makes amazing cars like the Model S? Have you launched rockets that can land themselves? Have you started a company as ubiquitous as Paypal (which eBay bought from Musk for $1.5 billion)? Musk made his first millions by starting a software company called Zip2, which he sold for $307 million in 1999 when he was still in his 20's! Yeah, sure, Musk's companies are nothing but boondoggles. Hahahaha.

Mar 4, 2018*permalink

Let's not forget the seventy years of taxpayer funded, publicly available research and development on which SpaceX was able to base their designs and/or learn from past mistakes. John Q Taxpayer's Grandpa paid for a whole lot of the profit soon made by private firms venturing into space.

The 'Cut my taxes' crowd like to point at SpaceX as an example of private sector innovation-and it is-but don't like to remember how much they sit on the shoulders of giants like Werner Von Braun and NASA, who envisioned and made reality much of what they do now-before I was born.

Drumpf doesn't see it, Republicans don't see it, Libertarians don't want you to see it, but we need a publicly funded, not-for-profit space program. Our country is better today because of the one we have.

Mar 5, 2018permalink

mandm

Well Mr Bolton, you made many valid points and I was going to agree with you until you allowed your ignorance to make everything you said total garbage; Drumpf, what a sad little person you are.
FYI: I would have responded the same way if it was a slam on President Obama.

Mar 7, 2018permalink

jim seekers

SOOOooo Ugly LOOOKing

Mar 3, 2018permalink

lightandaprayer

Form follows function when it comes to Nikon's NASA cameras. . .

Mar 3, 2018permalink

Featherchaser

While they're at it, astronauts should wear swimsuits to space because spacesuits are SOOOooo Ugly LOOOKing too.

Mar 3, 2018permalink