17 ms·

So while everyone in the comments section is amazing us all with how inflation works, what's the cost of camera today on Perseverance? I'm having a rough time

So while everyone in the comments section is amazing us all with how inflation works, what's the cost of camera today on Perseverance? I'm having a rough time searching for costs on google and official pages, guess it's not a word that they like to put in PR pieces. There's 23 cameras onboard and it's not easy to work out what a single one cost. Edit: this is a great paper on the devices themselves https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-020-00765-9 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-020-00765-9

mturmon 4y ago
Thanks for linking Justin's paper, he has been the lead of the engineering camera system for Perseverance and, IIRC, for Curiosity before that (https://mastcamz.asu.edu/team/justin-maki/ https://mastcamz.asu.edu/team/justin-maki/) That paper is largely about the engineering cameras (for localizing obstacles, path planning, EDL diagnostics, etc.) -- as opposed to the science cameras (see paper Table 1) which would often be even more exotic from a hardware POV (e.g., spectral sensitivity and photometric calibration). The table links the following articles on science cameras, for example: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-020-00755-x https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-020-00755-x https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-021-00812-z https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-021-00812-z I guess the cost of the hardware might be of some interest, but as you can guess from a look through these papers, it's the supporting engineering (e.g., calibration and I&T) that dominates the system cost.
- RobotToaster 4y ago
  >The sensor has 1600 × 1200 photoactive pixels I kind of expected something more than 2mp.
  - EricE 4y ago
    more pixels mean the smaller each sensor for each pixel is and the less light each sensor for a said pixel can gather. Quantity does not always equate quality, especially in photography.
  - myself248 4y ago
    Lower pixel count means larger individual pixels, which increases their quantum efficiency. This gets you more accurate information about the light itself; think of it as more bit-depth. In scientific applications especially, this is often a better tradeoff than going the other way. If you need fine detail of distant objects, do it with lenses rather than raw pixel count.
  - skykooler 4y ago
    Keep in mind that Perseverance was designed back in 2012, and using proven hardware meant that the camera modules are from even earlier.
    - 908B64B197 4y ago
      The cameras on Perseverance are also mission critical for the rest of the 1B+ Rover. John Glenn’s camera wasn't mission critical. Failure would have had no impact on the mission success. It sounds like it was a hobby project for the Astronaut and NASA engineers.
iancmceachern 4y ago
To many financiers not enough emgineers

mturmon 4y ago

Thanks for linking Justin's paper, he has been the lead of the engineering camera system for Perseverance and, IIRC, for Curiosity before that (https://mastcamz.asu.edu/team/justin-maki/ https://mastcamz.asu.edu/team/justin-maki/) That paper is largely about the engineering cameras (for localizing obstacles, path planning, EDL diagnostics, etc.) -- as opposed to the science cameras (see paper Table 1) which would often be even more exotic from a hardware POV (e.g., spectral sensitivity and photometric calibration). The table links the following articles on science cameras, for example: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-020-00755-x https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-020-00755-x https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-021-00812-z https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-021-00812-z I guess the cost of the hardware might be of some interest, but as you can guess from a look through these papers, it's the supporting engineering (e.g., calibration and I&T) that dominates the system cost.

RobotToaster 4y ago
>The sensor has 1600 × 1200 photoactive pixels I kind of expected something more than 2mp.
- EricE 4y ago
  more pixels mean the smaller each sensor for each pixel is and the less light each sensor for a said pixel can gather. Quantity does not always equate quality, especially in photography.
- myself248 4y ago
  Lower pixel count means larger individual pixels, which increases their quantum efficiency. This gets you more accurate information about the light itself; think of it as more bit-depth. In scientific applications especially, this is often a better tradeoff than going the other way. If you need fine detail of distant objects, do it with lenses rather than raw pixel count.
- skykooler 4y ago
  Keep in mind that Perseverance was designed back in 2012, and using proven hardware meant that the camera modules are from even earlier.
  - 908B64B197 4y ago
    The cameras on Perseverance are also mission critical for the rest of the 1B+ Rover. John Glenn’s camera wasn't mission critical. Failure would have had no impact on the mission success. It sounds like it was a hobby project for the Astronaut and NASA engineers.

iancmceachern 4y ago

To many financiers not enough emgineers