No, it only affects available bandwidth - the bytes per second and the bytes per watt (or maybe watts per bit?).
Exactly! So all that stuff about antenna size and signal power is irrelevant nonsense. A weak or noisy signal is not going to give them a grainy or blurry picture. It's going to give them a "Signal Lost" error message, and if it's important, the team will request a retransmission at a better bit rate. The image quality is solely dependent on the camera and optics (which are quite good, judging from the images I've seen. They are neither grainy nor blurry, but are crisp and sharp).
There are severe limits on sending antenna size and power use on the craft. They use a 2.2 meters diameter dish (seven feet), with 850W electric power from solar panels to transmit from a distance about one hundred thousand times greater than geostationary TV satellites. It's like the difference between whispering at someone's ear (half and inch away) and shouting for someone a mile away. I can't think of a car analogy on five orders of magnitude, but I'm sure someone will be more inspired
... and it's a digital signal from a digital camera, so none of that should affect image quality.
Wouldn't that be rolices?
Since you have to ask, you can't afford them.
Whatever you do, don't switch to CNN.
Can't. CNN has been removed from basic cable around here. We're down to less than a dozen real channels (about half of which are alternate language channels), and a dozen "infotainment" channels (Weather, Business, local news, and infomercial channels). There is literally almost nothing worth watching unless you get a digital set-top box.
I think one thing we learned from this disaster is that black box recorders are not good enough on their own. We need flight data and cockpit recordings to be sent to satellites in realtime.
Or, at a minimum, real-time position telemetry.
We gave you an atomic bomb, what do you want, mermaids? -- I. I. Rabi to the Atomic Energy Commission