From: mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com   
      
   Le jeudi 27 octobre 2016 04:06:49 UTC+2, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a écrit :   
   > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:07:15 -0700, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:   
   >    
   > > Le lundi 26 septembre 2016 01:19:13 UTC+2, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a   
   > > écrit :   
   > >    
   > >    
   > >> >> Combine an array, (let's say a 3x3), with faster CCDs and   
   > >> >> processors, (let's say 5 FOV/s), and an out of plane sensor platform   
   > >> >> that only looks at half of the sky, (because everything interesting   
   > >> >> is either staying in the plane of the ecliptic or coming from it),   
   > >> >> and you are down to one full scan every 12 minutes.   
   > >> >    
   > >> > Given the bulk of data (and poverty of input), faster CCDs and   
   > >> > processors will be insufficient. You need more processors (or   
   > >> > processors capable of much greater loads, or both), and more   
   > >> > sensitive CCDs (if you run the CCD too fast, it will not accumulate   
   > >> > enough energy to register).   
   > >>    
   > >> I'm not assuming a massive improvement here, less than 4X of what could   
   > >> be done in the early 1990s.   
   > >>    
   > >> You know, when a high-end home computer was a 486DX2 running at 66MHz.   
   > >> Covering the increased processing loads would be trivial.   
   > >    
   > > It REALLY isn't.   
   > > You are picking and chosing platform abilities that are bleeding edge   
   > > tech (for the time, at least), and assuming that all these abilities can   
   > > be combined on a single platform.   
   >    
   > Um, no.  That was for off the shelf tech, not bleeding edge stuff.     
   > Further, the 'combination' is simply using the future versions of various    
   > components we can already combine.   
   >    
      
   What makes you think "off-the-shelf" can not be "bleeding edge"?   
      
   The cameras for the U2 programme were bleeding edge tech for their time. Who   
   built them? KODAK. The lenses used were all "off the shelf". They were made   
   from the same materials, using the same processes, as all the other lenses   
   Kodak built. There was not    
   really much special about the film, either. The lens arrangement was identical   
   to all the other cameras of the time.   
   So, what made the U2 cameras so special?   
   First, quality control. Only the very best lenses were chosen for the   
   programme. This means that the only the best "off-the-shelf" materials and   
   processes were used. It also means that any items with any defects whatsoever   
   were set aside for sale to the    
   general public... or for less essential military uses, such as lenses for   
   signal lamps and spotlights.   
   The military received a bleeding edge, customised product, even though   
   virtually everything used was off-the-shelf.   
   Second, precision. The housings for the cameras were built to VERY specific   
   standards, with very little margin for error, and very little tolerance for   
   fit.   
      
   In the case of WISE and Hubble, yes, the detectors were technically   
   off-the-shelf. They were also the very best product the providers had to offer   
   at the time, and the quality control was kept to very high standards (let the   
   rest of the public make due    
   with the less performing chips). The chips themselves were also customised   
   slightly by using materials specificly chosen for the wavelengths targeted.   
   However, even though the detectors themselves were off-the-shelf, the   
   algorhythms used for providing useful information from the raw data were not.   
   Nor were the configurations (the number and placement of the chips, the   
   orientation of the chips, the    
   division of labour between chips, etc).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)