3 ms·

I suspect that too, but am looking for data to support this. We have tiny miracles in our cell phones today, are they really any heavier than what's on that veh

I suspect that too, but am looking for data to support this. We have tiny miracles in our cell phones today, are they really any heavier than what's on that vehicle? (I understand a cell phone camera isn't Space Ready™.) Does it require, perhaps, additional hardware that wouldn't be needed otherwise with today's on-board solution? And what's up with the severe lens distortion? Cool topic I hope to dig into a bit to get those answers.

Rebelgecko 8y ago
A few factors I can think of: The rovers launched in 2014, and they were designed well before that. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera hardware was decided on in 2010 A normal camera in space is going to have problems. I'm not any sort of camera expert, but I can imagine there's a _lot_ of electronics in one. There's the sensor. That sensor may be hooked up to an analog to digital converter, which might be hooked up to a processor that converts whatever the sensor reads into a compressed image. Someone who is familiar with how cameras work can probably think of a dozen bits I'm missing :) All of those bits of silicon are going to get bombarded with radiation, so they need to be radiation hardened. Smaller transistors are especially susceptible to radiation, so your radiation hardened chips are going to be bigger, more power hungry, and generally not as good as more up to date ones. From looking around online, it looks like the best rad-hard cameras today are only a couple megapixels. I'm not sure about this case, but often times cameras not a priority for a mission. They're great for generating PR and excitement, but in terms of scientific value there's lots of other instruments that may have higher priority (both in terms of the design, and in terms of available bandwidth for returning data). If the cameras are just there to make sure the rover doesn't crash into something, they're probably using a wide angle lens which helps with navigation but can cause distortions.
tmd 8y ago
Also not an expert on the topic but here are some examples of space-ready cameras with pictures and specs: http://www.msss.com/space-cameras/ http://www.msss.com/space-cameras/ Obviously radiation, extreme temperatures, vibration, and vacuum are at least some of the problems. They explicitly state that lens have no moving parts, I’m not sure why that is an issue and how can they focus without moving parts - maybe they’re just permanently focused on infinity and hence close objects are blurrier? Lens distortion might be just normal with uncorrected very wide angle lens which you want to make framing/steering easier. Otherwise you might need a separate camera just to help you aim the first one.

Rebelgecko 8y ago

A few factors I can think of: The rovers launched in 2014, and they were designed well before that. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera hardware was decided on in 2010 A normal camera in space is going to have problems. I'm not any sort of camera expert, but I can imagine there's a _lot_ of electronics in one. There's the sensor. That sensor may be hooked up to an analog to digital converter, which might be hooked up to a processor that converts whatever the sensor reads into a compressed image. Someone who is familiar with how cameras work can probably think of a dozen bits I'm missing :) All of those bits of silicon are going to get bombarded with radiation, so they need to be radiation hardened. Smaller transistors are especially susceptible to radiation, so your radiation hardened chips are going to be bigger, more power hungry, and generally not as good as more up to date ones. From looking around online, it looks like the best rad-hard cameras today are only a couple megapixels. I'm not sure about this case, but often times cameras not a priority for a mission. They're great for generating PR and excitement, but in terms of scientific value there's lots of other instruments that may have higher priority (both in terms of the design, and in terms of available bandwidth for returning data). If the cameras are just there to make sure the rover doesn't crash into something, they're probably using a wide angle lens which helps with navigation but can cause distortions.

tmd 8y ago

Also not an expert on the topic but here are some examples of space-ready cameras with pictures and specs: http://www.msss.com/space-cameras/ http://www.msss.com/space-cameras/ Obviously radiation, extreme temperatures, vibration, and vacuum are at least some of the problems. They explicitly state that lens have no moving parts, I’m not sure why that is an issue and how can they focus without moving parts - maybe they’re just permanently focused on infinity and hence close objects are blurrier? Lens distortion might be just normal with uncorrected very wide angle lens which you want to make framing/steering easier. Otherwise you might need a separate camera just to help you aim the first one.