Query about shuttle/ISS communications

[pberrett]

Hi all<br /><br />I have been watching some of the spacewalks and ISS interviews and one thing keeps nagging me.<br /><br />If the ISS cost $100 billion+ why couldn''t they have afforded decent audio communcations? The digital communications the astronauts use have appalling audio quality that even realaudio would beat. <br /><br />Thoughts anyone?<br /><br />cheers Peter

 

[billslugg]

I do not know the answer to the NASA audio quality problem, but I know the problem is everywhere. I listen to talk radio every day, and I am appalled at the quality of cell phone audio. I keep a hardwired Ma Bell handset at home and at work and they are all I use. I leave the cordless and cell phones to others.<br /><br />Kathleen Potter addresses it here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[webtaz99]

Could it be possible that voice quality simply isn't a priority with NASA? Money better spent elsewhere? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

Bandwidth.<br /><br />NASA is also trying to get down TONS of data and have a forward command link. Audio only gets part of the bandwidth. it is good quality, just limited.

 

[thereiwas]

Cellphones use less than half the bandwidth ISS audio uses, so the quality is actually not bad when the signal is good. EVA audio is noticeably worse, which may be due to a combination of factors: smaller microphone, lower power radio, and signal path obstructions as they move around the ISS structure.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NASA is also trying to get down TONS of data and have a forward command link. Audio only gets part of the bandwidth. it is good quality, just limited.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Or to put it another way, the quality does the job perfectly well, so there is no need to spend money or bandwidth improving it. The additions I've seen (as an outsider) have revolved mainly around imaging improvements, and I think that's more important.<br /><br />I think it also may be a little unfair to compare the audio quality to a lot of terrestrial communications systems such as cell phones, because it's really trying to do a different job. There's probably a great deal more background noise for the microphones to cope with than we armchair astronauts realize. I suspect that because the quality sounds an awful lot like aviation headsets, which are designed to pick up a voice coherently in a very noisy environment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>