In the case of shuttle to ground voice, I believe this is digitally
compressed audio that's part of the air to ground data, so the audio signal
is pretty much all or nothing. The crummy sound is most likely due to the
very limited bandwidth used for the audio and by the primitive, by today's
standards, digital audio compression algorithms used.

In other words, there are likely better off the shelf solutions for CEV, but
they'll require more bandwidth and/or more digital signal processing for
compression and decompression.

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.

"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45c1a4cc.1076878765@news.supernews.com...
"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.

In the case of shuttle to ground voice, I believe this is digitally
compressed audio that's part of the air to ground data, so the audio signal
is pretty much all or nothing.

The crummy sound is most likely due to the very limited bandwidth used for the
audio and by the primitive, by today's standards, digital audio compression
algorithms used.

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 04:28:12 -0600, Otto Vrijhof wrote
(in article <45c06f41$0$37983$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl>):

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

I've worked as a design engineer in the industry; believe me I'm quite
aware
of the many real issues.

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.

You clearly have never worked in manned spaceflight then.

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.

Pleasing Dutch voters is not part of NASA's mission statement either.

In the case of shuttle to ground voice, I believe this is digitally
compressed audio that's part of the air to ground data, so the audio
signal is pretty much all or nothing. The crummy sound is most likely
due to the very limited bandwidth used for the audio and by the
primitive, by today's standards, digital audio compression algorithms
used.

In other words, there are likely better off the shelf solutions for CEV,
but they'll require more bandwidth and/or more digital signal processing
for compression and decompression.

But to update this would cost time and money. Resources that they'd
rather put towards more pressing problems and research.

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

"Herb Schaltegger" <herb.schaltegger@gmail.com.INVALID> wrote
[...]
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.

Pleasing Dutch voters is not part of NASA's mission statement either.

I apologize; I didn't know it goes without saying that those called 'space
fanboys' are foreigners

I apologize; I didn't know it goes without saying that those called
'space
fanboys' are foreigners

It doesn't, Herb is using your address to point out that those space
fanboys who are voters of interest to NASA don't have Dutch
citizenship

In other words, your wishes in the matter are way down the list of
priorities NASA is dealing with. Local US fanboys (like me) are a
little way ahead. Spending of budget and time resources is near the
top. Responding to the White House or Capitol Hill is very near the
top, so you need to get Mr Bush interested in having better audio
quality ;-}

On Jan 29, 7:14 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?

Otto

You remind me of my old boss back in the 60's.

I was working at my first real job, a mom & pop store, when the Eagle
landed on the moon. I was incredibly excited. My boss brought a TV
set in so we could all watch when man first set foot on the moon.

I shall never forget his response. "All those billions of dollars and
that's the best picture they could get?"

Humanity, it seems, has not matured.

Humanity, it seems, has not matured.

But technology has

"snidely" <Snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote
Responding to the White House or Capitol Hill is very near the
top, so you need to get Mr Bush interested in having better audio
quality ;-}

I'll send an email to the WH but I'll have to disguise the nationality I
presume

"The Rocket Scientist" <bill.the.rocket.scientist@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1170357646.735753.32510@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 29, 7:14 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?

Otto

You remind me of my old boss back in the 60's.

I was working at my first real job, a mom & pop store, when the Eagle
landed on the moon. I was incredibly excited. My boss brought a TV
set in so we could all watch when man first set foot on the moon.

I shall never forget his response. "All those billions of dollars and
that's the best picture they could get?"

Humanity, it seems, has not matured.

But technology has

Otto Vrijhof wrote:
"snidely" <Snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote
Responding to the White House or Capitol Hill is very near the
top, so you need to get Mr Bush interested in having better audio
quality ;-}

I'll send an email to the WH but I'll have to disguise the nationality I
presume

It may work to make it look like the work of Dutch Intelligence agents
attributing the difficulties of ending sectarian violence in Iraq to
the poor audio quality on the shuttle.

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 07:49:12 -0600, Otto Vrijhof wrote
(in article <45c3415a$0$37229$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl>):

And there are much better uses for the limited funding available than to
make
space to ground comm channels "Skype-like." Grow up.

Do you have a 50" plasma screen with surround sound and all that cool
stuff? I'm guessing probably not; and neither do I. It is available
though, we probably spend our income elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong, we don't use duct tape and paperclips to hold stuff
together, but EVERYTHING is a competition for limited funds. Further, I
believe (and engineers please correct me) that com systems are configured,
meaning you can't just swap parts out. There have to be studies and
buy-in from all affected parties in NASA and the contractors. It ain't
cheap; it ain't pressing, and funds go where they are more strongly
needed.