Why has NASA provided that the sound quality on Shuttle Communications
channels should be kept about as bad as in the Sixties? When I listen to
talk from the Shuttle on NASA-tv it sounds like I'm in a time warp. WHY
don't they have Skype type quality?

"Otto Vrijhof" <vri16668@freenet.nl> wrote in news:45bde52e$0$59881
$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl:

Why has NASA provided that the sound quality on Shuttle Communications
channels should be kept about as bad as in the Sixties? When I listen to
talk from the Shuttle on NASA-tv it sounds like I'm in a time warp. WHY
don't they have Skype type quality?

Limited bandwidth and no budget to improve it.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Why has NASA provided that the sound quality on Shuttle Communications
channels should be kept about as bad as in the Sixties? When I listen to
talk from the Shuttle on NASA-tv it sounds like I'm in a time warp. WHY
don't they have Skype type quality?

"Otto Vrijhof" <vri16668@freenet.nl> wrote in news:45bde52e$0$59881
$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl:

Why has NASA provided that the sound quality on Shuttle Communications
channels should be kept about as bad as in the Sixties? When I listen to
talk from the Shuttle on NASA-tv it sounds like I'm in a time warp. WHY
don't they have Skype type quality?

Limited bandwidth and no budget to improve it.

"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:

"Otto Vrijhof" <vri16668@freenet.nl> wrote in news:45bde52e$0$59881
$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl:

Why has NASA provided that the sound quality on Shuttle Communications
channels should be kept about as bad as in the Sixties? When I listen to
talk from the Shuttle on NASA-tv it sounds like I'm in a time warp. WHY
don't they have Skype type quality?

Limited bandwidth and no budget to improve it.

And no particular _reason_ to improve it - it works just fine.

"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45bef9ff.1033154250@news.supernews.com...
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:

"Otto Vrijhof" <vri16668@freenet.nl> wrote in news:45bde52e$0$59881
$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl:

Why has NASA provided that the sound quality on Shuttle Communications
channels should be kept about as bad as in the Sixties? When I listen to
talk from the Shuttle on NASA-tv it sounds like I'm in a time warp. WHY
don't they have Skype type quality?

Limited bandwidth and no budget to improve it.

And no particular _reason_ to improve it - it works just fine.

It seems to work just fine, most of the time. But there are times (when
I've been watching NASA TV) where shuttle astronauts have to repeat
themselves to the ground because the communications aren't *that* good.

On Jan 29, 4:14 am, "Otto Vrijhof" <vri16...@freenet.nl> wrote:
Why has NASA provided that the sound quality on Shuttle Communications
channels should be kept about as bad as in the Sixties? When I listen to
talk from the Shuttle on NASA-tv it sounds like I'm in a time warp. WHY
don't they have Skype type quality?

That said, there is room for improvement. First, modern compression
algorithms could greatly improve the quality even at that bandwidth.

Second, the systems could be made to expand the data flow once the Ku-
band antenna is deployed. However, both are non-trivial tasks which
would involve replacing a system which is absolutely critical and
currently reliable.

Another factor which might play into this is that the destinctively
clipped voice of an astronaut has become a NASA signature for the past
forty years. Improving the voice quality to the point where it sounds
like Skype might be perceived by some PR people as degrading the space
experience.

Thanks for all the background info. I was so miffed by the reply of the
first responder I have send a message to NASA because I couldn't believe
that 'bandwith & funds' stood in the way of improving communication. I'm
awaiting response.

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:09:27 -0600, Otto Vrijhof wrote
(in article <45bfb40a$0$40494$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl>):

Thanks for all the background info. I was so miffed by the reply of the
first responder I have send a message to NASA because I couldn't believe
that 'bandwith & funds' stood in the way of improving communication. I'm
awaiting response.

Don't hold your breath.

If you don't believe that bandwidth and money are real issues in the space
program, you're a cluleless dreamer.

Pleasing space fanboys who want to
watch missions on TV is NOT part of NASA'a mission statement.

You might ask why the worlds aircraft still use am vhf radios everywhere.

think its also if it works and is reliable, why bother?

I mean, so many of the emergency services have jumped into new age telecoms
and been forced to use the old as a back up when it falls over!

If you don't believe that bandwidth and money are real issues in the space
program, you're a cluleless dreamer.

They're two of MANY real issues in the space program

one of which is 'good
communications' the need for which is universal. I just do not believe that
communications with state of the art technology as it is today, is a very
heavy item on bandwidth and money, even if it has to meet exacting quality
standards.

Pleasing space fanboys who want to
watch missions on TV is NOT part of NASA'a mission statement.

Well, 'good communications' is of a concurrent interest to NASA and 'space
fanboys' the larger part of whom are also voters.

"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
It seems to work just fine, most of the time. But there are times (when
I've been watching NASA TV) where shuttle astronauts have to repeat
themselves to the ground because the communications aren't *that* good.

Keep in mind that audio quality and communications
connectivity/quality are only weakly related. If the antenna angle is
ratty, then functional audio quality is going to drop - regardless of
the absolute quality of the audio.

Limited bandwidth and no budget to improve it.