I still don't quite follow the explanation. The duck and I are on the surface of the same body and are rotating together, maintaining a constant distance... why does Earth rotation need to be corrected for?
Ignore the camera. Instead you have a planet (a circle in flatland), a gyroscope (an arrow that always points in the same direction on the page in flatland), and Mr Square.
--> [.]
|
/----\
| |
\----/
/----\
| | -->
\----/-[.]
We wouldn't have the same issue on a (non-rotating) space station. That's why planetary rotation is blamed.
> Due to Earth's rotation, its surface is not an inertial frame of reference. The Coriolis effect can deflect certain forms of motion as seen from Earth, and the centrifugal force will reduce the effective gravity at the equator. Nevertheless, it is a good approximation of an inertial reference frame in many low precision applications.
Once, a launch was aborted just before liftoff. The rocket stayed on the pad and the cosmonauts were sitting in the spacecraft for some time. Suddenly the abort system fired and pulled the capsule from the rocket. They landed safely on parachutes.
It was discovered that earth had rotated and the gyroscope had detected the tilt of the rocket, so it fired the escape system.
Soyuz 7K-OK No.1 was uncrewed and likely had the quirk with the gyros. One person near the launch on the ground was killed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-OK_No.1
> Initially, it was suspected that the booster had been bumped when the gantry tower was put back in place following the abort and that this somehow managed to trigger the LES, but a more thorough investigation found a different cause. During the attempted launch, the booster switched from external to internal power as it normally would do, which then activated the abort sensing system. The Earth's rotation caused the rate gyros to register an approximately 8° tilt 27 minutes after the aborted liftoff, which the abort sensing system then interpreted as meaning that the booster had deviated from its flight path, and thus it activated the LES. The abort sensing system in the Soyuz was thus redesigned to prevent a recurrence of this unanticipated design flaw. On the other hand, the LES had also worked flawlessly and demonstrated its ability to safely pull cosmonauts from the booster should an emergency arise as it did years later in the Soyuz 7K-ST No.16L abort (26 September 1983).
The emergency condition of the Soyuz 7K-ST No.16L abort was not caused by rotation of the Earth, but by multiple failures that caused damage to the launch vehicle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No.16L
> The crew was sitting on the pad awaiting fueling of the Soyuz-U booster to complete prior to liftoff. Approximately 90 seconds before the intended launch, a bad valve caused nitrogen pressurisation gas to enter the RP-1 turbopump of the Blok B strap-on. The pump began spinning up, but with no propellant in it, the speed of rotation quickly exceeded its design limits which caused it to rupture and allow RP-1 to leak out and start a fire which quickly engulfed the base of the launch vehicle. Titov and Strekalov could not see what was happening outside, but they felt unusual vibrations and realized that something was amiss. The launch control team activated the escape system but the control cables had already burned through, and the Soyuz crew could not activate or control the escape system themselves. The backup radio command to fire the LES required 2 independent operators to receive separate commands to do so and each act within 5 seconds, which took several seconds to occur. Then explosive bolts fired to separate the descent module from the service module and the upper launch payload shroud from the lower, the escape system motor fired, dragging the orbital module and descent module, encased within the upper shroud, free of the booster with an acceleration of 14 to 17g (137 to 167 m/s²) for five seconds. According to Titov, "We could feel the booster swaying from side to side. Then there was a sudden vibration and a jerking sensation as the LES activated".
> Your camera, which is using its IBIS system to attempt to keep everything as still as possible, may not realize that you are rotating with your subject and will instead try to zero out any rotation of the camera, including that of the Earth
The problem is that the stabilization system tries to compensate for the rotation of Earth (because it can't make the difference between the rotation of Earth, which shouldn't be compensated for, and the movement of the holder which should be).
So it would work if you were taking a photo of a subject not rotating together with the Earth. Like the stars.
The next level of stabilization would probably be gravitational waves.
Those movements just happen to be slow enough that they don't limit image stabilization to 6.3 stops.
Under what definition the Earth's revolution is "slower" than its rotation?
Why can the camera's stabilization system detect the rotation and correct it (and causes undesirable result) but not the revolution?
Thanks!
As far as taking pictures of other things on Earth, at least. Taking a picture of another planet/star/galaxy would also face similar challenges.
Which is normally not a problem, but relative to something on the surface of the Earth the stars do move.
So I guess you should ask people to stand directly in front of Polaris if at all possible.