(no title)
aeroman | 2 years ago
The European (approximate) equivalent, AATSR, had a lot of really nice scientific qualities, but it was missing a blue channel, meaning that the 'true-colour' images it produced always had a blue tint to the clouds. There was a similar problem with the European geostationary satellite imager (SEVIRI) [1].
Scientifically, SEVIRI was incredibly useful (and far in advance of the American equivalent at the time), but the lack of a blue channel meant that it was never really used for those shots that made it onto the news (and neither was AATSR). When you have spent multiple billions on a satellite programme, you generally want the public to see it.
I remember being told at one point that this was considered such an issue that the Europeans would 'never launch a satellite without a blue channel again' - although that might be overstating it a little.
dougmwne|2 years ago
ekianjo|2 years ago
gessha|2 years ago
Those close up shots of the rocket and the massive letters USA plastered everywhere is a textbook example of how to market space related projects.
[1] - https://youtu.be/ViNcBQ8cDA0
samstave|2 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCJh5D0FCZk
Dalewyn|2 years ago
kortilla|2 years ago
7th graders control your budget.
raverbashing|2 years ago
Remember Juno was also almost launched without a camera as well