9 ms·

Can someone explain how/why a $2.6 billion piece of equipment appears to have cameras that can't match a $100 digital camera? I know it takes a long time for da

Can someone explain how/why a $2.6 billion piece of equipment appears to have cameras that can't match a $100 digital camera? I know it takes a long time for data to travel from there to here, but I am sure a lot of people wouldn't mind waiting for 1080p, full-color video footage of the red planet. Instead, we get these 1-megapixel, black-and-white shots that need to be stitched together to create a half decent panorama image. Sorry, there is probably a good technical reason for this, but I am just ignorant of it and I would appreciate an explanation.

sunsu 14y ago
See this discussion and article from earlier today: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4360502 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4360502
- EternalFury 14y ago
  Thanks! The reason seems to be: It's the way it was planned 10 years ago and we don't go back on planning on a project like this one.
  - noonespecial 14y ago
    Its more than just choosing the camera 10 years ago, its having 10 years of testing of that particular camera under their belt and knowing every in and out of it. 10 years is plenty of time for any quirky behavior to emerge and be dealt with.
  - jser 14y ago
    Several articles have mentioned bandwidth limitations of about 250 megabits per day, which also has to be used to send instrument data. But I haven't seen an explanation why bandwidth is so low -- is it lack of spectrum? Interference issues?
    - elithrar 14y ago
      > But I haven't seen an explanation why bandwidth is so low -- is it lack of spectrum? Interference issues? Transmit power.
      - utoku 14y ago
        According to wikipedia article, the power source is designed to create 125 watts of electrical power from 2000 watts of thermal power. (It might look inefficient, but they are using the heat in all parts of the rover.) For comparison, that might be how much your graphics card might be consuming while you are reading this article. I guess that also means it is going to move very slow.
    - uvdiv 14y ago
      The bandwidth to the orbiters is up to 2 Mbps, but because they're in low orbit they're only in sight 8 minutes per day. http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/communicationwithearth/data/ http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/communicationwithearth/...
      - utoku 14y ago
        A bit of clarification, I think the orbiters are in sight of Earth for most of the day. It is Curiosity that is not in sight of the Orbiters, again because of their low orbit.
        danielweber 14y ago
        I'm not sure I understand. Gale Crater is pretty near the equator, so any equatorial satellite would pass quickly over it, but many many times per day.
        uvdiv 14y ago
        You answered your own question: both satellites are in polar orbits. They pass the equator many times a day, but at a different longitude each time.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    It's not like they have extra batteries and they just add a power strip for the better camera. The change you suggest would involve re-engineering, which would increase your lamented cost of this mission.
  - yaix 14y ago
    Maybe Instagramm built the camera? But seriously, I guess for the same reason Couriosity runs on old PowerPC processors. They are just well tested and less likely to fail. If you want a high res image, you can always take 10 images and glue them together, result is the same.
    - neilmiddleton 14y ago
      Not quite - it's still the same res, but bigger.
  - jeza 14y ago
    This topic was also discussed here (regarding some previous missions): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4356878 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4356878 They use a black and white CMOS to accurately measure the actual light hitting the lens (which may include non visible spectrum. To get a colour image they need to use filters and take multiple photos, where as consumer cameras have a fixed grid (Bayer pattern) of one filter per each pixel. That probably won't give you such an accurate picture. Also when they're using filters they're not interested in reproducing true colour but rather highlighting a difference in materials. The bandwidth constraints no doubt the reason they didn't change the sensor. Besides, when they combine three different images taken with filters to create one colour image it will essentially be 6MP anyway.
  - mattstreet 14y ago
    More like A) We aren't getting the pictures from the best cameras yet and B) We didn't send the latest, greatest best cameras because we didn't want them to fail after 10 minutes use. We send up camera's tested and hardened against temperature changes, dust, vibration, and radiation. Also cameras that require low power. Furthermore, there is limited bandwidth. So we probably want to send back mediocre pictures most of the time and if we see something we really want in high quality we take a bunch of pictures of it and put them together. As a final note, the quality of the sensor and lens probably matters a lot more than the number of mega pixels.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
bertako 14y ago
It's so plebian to complain about the image quality, especially when we haven't seen any full images from the rover's main camera yet.
- EternalFury 14y ago
  It may even be "plebeian" to ask questions about the technical features of a data collection instrument named "Curiosity". I should have been an aristocrat instead of an engineer ; I could marvel at everything wrapped in the bliss of my ignorance. And for the record, I think it is amazing and wonderful to receive these images. I am so thankful for that. But, for a data collection instrument that cost $2.6 billion to build, I cannot conceal my very personal feeling that an opportunity was missed.
  - monkeytaco 14y ago
    The $2.6 billion price tag is not just for the rover, it includes R&D for the rover itself, employee salaries, Sky Crane & parachute R&D as well as the rocket to launch it, which cost over $100 million. Also included in the budget is funding needed for all of the science teams to do what they do over the next few years while the rover does experiments.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - wlievens 14y ago
    The rover has been there for only a few days. They probably even haven't turned most of its instruments on!
- hnriot 14y ago
  Well, we already know that the main camera has only twice the megapixel density, so we are back to stitching images to increase the quality. Fortunately nothing moves much on mars over the timescales that the camera operates, so its perfectly reasonable to get the quality up that way, just as we have seen with Spirit and (the still working) Opportunity. But as much as we all want to accept that it's not Curiosity's main mission (taking pretty pictures,) it is a very important part of the mission because it's pictures, not data that gets the public's attention, and more importantly, makes future missions to mars a priority for politicians who see a voting public willing to support them.
bootload 14y ago
"... Can someone explain how/why a $2.6 billion piece of equipment appears to have cameras that can't match a $100 digital camera? ..." Why is this marked down? It's a great question because the explanations are not obvious. The camera design relates specifically to the mission requirements & technology available ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_probe#Probe_imagers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_probe#Probe_imagers & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_probes_by_operational_status#Mission_in_progress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_probes_by_operational_...
jonhendry 14y ago
" it takes a long time for data to travel from there to here" It doesn't take that long for it to travel, the data transmission rate is not very fast, and Curiosity doesn't have constant access to the Mars-orbiting satellites that relay the data to Earth. And besides that, its primary job is not taking pretty pictures.
- xfhai 14y ago
  If there is a satellite that orbits between Earth and Mars parallel to orbit of Mars, there could be better transmission.
  - jonhendry 14y ago
    The main thing is that the rover only has about 8 minutes a day to transmit to the orbiting satellites. The optimal thing would be a satellite in areostationary orbit over Mars' equator such that it is always reachable by the lander. Unfortunately such a satellite wouldn't be well-placed for many other potential landing sites.
jsz0 14y ago
IIRC one of the cameras can take 720P images at 10FPS which is adequate since it's not going to be a very action packed video. They'll get to it eventually though. The slow uplink is an issue but having local storage available in orbit around Mars really does help a lot when they can use it. It's also important though the camera works in that environment so they can't pickup a nice camera from Amazon and duct tape it on. Just about everything they use is either custom or hold-overs from previous missions.
Bjartr 14y ago
If they had used a $100 dollar camera, it would already be broken, much less last 2 more years.
- wlievens 14y ago
  Yeah. I'm not even sure the mechanics of a $100 can survive a vacuum, much less deep space and Mars reentry.
opminion 14y ago
When the $100 camera fails in Mars you can't just replace it with another one. You can't take it to the repair shop either. You can't try to "shake it a bit". Hell, you can't even bang it on your knee: http://www.pechorin.com/m/2006/06/13/SONY_Cybershot_E6100_ERROR-264346-9.html http://www.pechorin.com/m/2006/06/13/SONY_Cybershot_E6100_ER...
- EternalFury 14y ago
  You know, I didn't claim to understand the reasons behind the technical limitations, but the reactions of some of you are puzzling to me. We can go on and on about familiarity considerations, and planning considerations, and instrumentation considerations, and scientific concerns, etc. It all sounds like excuses after a bit. Let's reformulate the question: Why not keep the same enclosure, the same lens assembly, the same mechanical parts and simply swap the 2MP sensor for a 20MP sensor? Further, let's say you are really not sure about that spanking new 20MP sensor, because it is new, you are not familiar with it, and it was not part of the plan drafted 10 years ago, why not add 1 extra camera with a 20MP sensor? If it blows up during the trip or during landing, too bad, it's lost. If it makes it down there safe and sound, you can collect a 10-minute HD sequence that you can stream back to earth over the next 2 years, during down-times, as a very low priority task. Potential benefit: You offer the world the first and a truly spectacular HD film shot on Mars, in all its splendor, and you inspire a new generation of world explorers, who will ultimately drive man to take another small step, but a giant one for mankind. Clearly, if that's the best we can do for something as trivial as shooting a video up there, I cannot fathom a man setting foot on Mars in my lifetime. That may be normal, but it saddens me somehow.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - elithrar 14y ago
    > Let's reformulate the question: Why not keep the same enclosure, the same lens assembly, the same mechanical parts and simply swap the 2MP sensor for a 20MP sensor? You can't "simply" swap the sensor. What about the processor behind it, that interpolates the sensor data and produces a viewable image? Then you need more power for both of those units, and if you're moving to a 20MP sensor, probably size too.
kyberias 14y ago
I believe the reason NASA sent the probe was not to take "1080p, full-color video footage", but rather prove something scientifically about life on Mars with other more suitable instruments. They couldn't care less about video footage. A shame really, but that is the main reason.
- mkramlich 14y ago
  If they expect taxpayers to foot a $2.6B bill they need to give serious consideration to things which cause excitement and emotional resonance in same taxpayers. Having state-of-the-art resolution cameras (and audio microphone, in my opinion) in order to capture and transmit back a "you are there" experience should be a priority. If it were totally a privately-funded operation, then they can do whatever they want. I understand the desire to have rock-solid confidence in the overal system and it's components, thus testing-fest, thus analysis-fest, thus ultra-conservative instincts. But I'm sure there are ways to, say, isolate a "higher risk" component like a modern camera/microphone, and design for redundancy. And if you're going to spend $2.6B you might as well cough up an additional $100M, for example, if that's all it would take to put better, human emo-optimized sensors on there. Precisely because it takes so long and is so expensive anyway. So once it lands there and deploys, you can yield maximum ROI, including emotional/psychological ROI. Anyway, if a NASA operation never gets around to doing such a thing, I bet if SpaceX puts a craft on Mars they'll have the philosophy where they could justify doing it. And this is only a minor criticism on my part. I have massive appreciation for the NASA engineers and team, and what they just accomplished with the MSL landing. I think this issue is just one little blind spot it's easier for somebody outside their org to see and point out. They clearly nailed all the hardest bits of the mission, and "stuck" their EDL phase, even though it was so seemingly complex. Between SpaceX, the NASA Mars teams, and Planetary Resources, Armadillo Aerospace, etc. I feel these folks are taking us back to the historical trajectory we all thought we were on as kids. They're taking us back into the Space Age again, leaving the static doldrums of the Shuttle/ISS era.
  - indiecore 14y ago
    When the design was finalized these cameras WERE pretty state of the art. Once something is finalized for a space mission it is very very hard to change it because everything else is designed around it.
ricardobeat 14y ago
Repost from another thread: These are still from the navigation cameras. The main camera, not yet deployed, can take 1600x1200 full-color pictures and HD video at 10fps. There's actually two of it, so it can also make 3D images/video. Other features are wide/telephoto lens, panorama stitching and 8GB flash storage. Before complaining about resolution, this is like having a GoPro 3D on Mars, it has plenty of detail. One of the articles mentions that the cameras are provided by the same manufacturer as the Viking missions, so they must certainly have improved. Expect some awesome images in the coming months! More info: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/instruments/cameras/mas... http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/instruments/cameras/mas..., http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/Mastcam/ http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/Mastcam/, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20110531.html http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20110531.html
- arrrg 14y ago
  3D images are not possible since the two cameras have two different (fixed) focal lengths (for wide and tele shots). There were plans to add zoom lenses (which would make 3D images possible) but they couldn’t make it happen (mostly because of technical issues, it seems). (Hm, well actually, technically 3D images are possible, just not because there are two cameras. Since rocks tend to not move, Curiosity could just snap one image, drive a bit and snap a second picture.)
  - covalence 14y ago
    I remember reading the zoom lenses weren't possible because of having to keep a lubricating fluid wet. This posed challenges (heating from mar's extreme cold, etc) so it was scrapped for the time.
  - jonhendry 14y ago
    They've actually posted a few anaglyph 3D images. Perhaps they manipulate the images to approximate the same focal length (cropping, maybe). Ah - they used the hazard avoidance cameras: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16002 http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16002
hessenwolf 14y ago
I remember somebody who worked for NASA telling me it cost 750K to test the fluorescent lightbulbs for the spaceships. The crappy technology (by Earth standards) is mostly due to testing constraints, from what I understand. Just think of age testing - they probably want the camera to last at least 5 years. If the camera you want to send up has been developed in the last year, how do you really do that? In a lab, for reliability testing of new components, typically you temperature cycle equipment, up and down every couple of hours, to simulate time passing, in order to try and compress the time frame required to test the aging rate, but we all know it doesn't really achieve what we want it to too well.
maxerickson 14y ago
This release suggests that the image is only 1/8 of the full resolution capability of the camera system: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-237#5 http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-237#5 It also links some other images (and full image files, rather than a flash viewer). Edit: Also, the tif I just downloaded has more detail than the WSJ viewer makes available. So if you are judging based on the quality of the image in the linked story, maybe give it some more time.

sunsu 14y ago

See this discussion and article from earlier today: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4360502 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4360502

EternalFury 14y ago
Thanks! The reason seems to be: It's the way it was planned 10 years ago and we don't go back on planning on a project like this one.
- noonespecial 14y ago
  Its more than just choosing the camera 10 years ago, its having 10 years of testing of that particular camera under their belt and knowing every in and out of it. 10 years is plenty of time for any quirky behavior to emerge and be dealt with.
- jser 14y ago
  Several articles have mentioned bandwidth limitations of about 250 megabits per day, which also has to be used to send instrument data. But I haven't seen an explanation why bandwidth is so low -- is it lack of spectrum? Interference issues?
  - elithrar 14y ago
    > But I haven't seen an explanation why bandwidth is so low -- is it lack of spectrum? Interference issues? Transmit power.
    - utoku 14y ago
      According to wikipedia article, the power source is designed to create 125 watts of electrical power from 2000 watts of thermal power. (It might look inefficient, but they are using the heat in all parts of the rover.) For comparison, that might be how much your graphics card might be consuming while you are reading this article. I guess that also means it is going to move very slow.
  - uvdiv 14y ago
    The bandwidth to the orbiters is up to 2 Mbps, but because they're in low orbit they're only in sight 8 minutes per day. http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/communicationwithearth/data/ http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/communicationwithearth/...
    - utoku 14y ago
      A bit of clarification, I think the orbiters are in sight of Earth for most of the day. It is Curiosity that is not in sight of the Orbiters, again because of their low orbit.
      - danielweber 14y ago
        I'm not sure I understand. Gale Crater is pretty near the equator, so any equatorial satellite would pass quickly over it, but many many times per day.
        uvdiv 14y ago
        You answered your own question: both satellites are in polar orbits. They pass the equator many times a day, but at a different longitude each time.
- rhizome 14y ago
  It's not like they have extra batteries and they just add a power strip for the better camera. The change you suggest would involve re-engineering, which would increase your lamented cost of this mission.
- yaix 14y ago
  Maybe Instagramm built the camera? But seriously, I guess for the same reason Couriosity runs on old PowerPC processors. They are just well tested and less likely to fail. If you want a high res image, you can always take 10 images and glue them together, result is the same.
  - neilmiddleton 14y ago
    Not quite - it's still the same res, but bigger.
- jeza 14y ago
  This topic was also discussed here (regarding some previous missions): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4356878 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4356878 They use a black and white CMOS to accurately measure the actual light hitting the lens (which may include non visible spectrum. To get a colour image they need to use filters and take multiple photos, where as consumer cameras have a fixed grid (Bayer pattern) of one filter per each pixel. That probably won't give you such an accurate picture. Also when they're using filters they're not interested in reproducing true colour but rather highlighting a difference in materials. The bandwidth constraints no doubt the reason they didn't change the sensor. Besides, when they combine three different images taken with filters to create one colour image it will essentially be 6MP anyway.
- mattstreet 14y ago
  More like A) We aren't getting the pictures from the best cameras yet and B) We didn't send the latest, greatest best cameras because we didn't want them to fail after 10 minutes use. We send up camera's tested and hardened against temperature changes, dust, vibration, and radiation. Also cameras that require low power. Furthermore, there is limited bandwidth. So we probably want to send back mediocre pictures most of the time and if we see something we really want in high quality we take a bunch of pictures of it and put them together. As a final note, the quality of the sensor and lens probably matters a lot more than the number of mega pixels.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

bertako 14y ago

It's so plebian to complain about the image quality, especially when we haven't seen any full images from the rover's main camera yet.

EternalFury 14y ago
It may even be "plebeian" to ask questions about the technical features of a data collection instrument named "Curiosity". I should have been an aristocrat instead of an engineer ; I could marvel at everything wrapped in the bliss of my ignorance. And for the record, I think it is amazing and wonderful to receive these images. I am so thankful for that. But, for a data collection instrument that cost $2.6 billion to build, I cannot conceal my very personal feeling that an opportunity was missed.
- monkeytaco 14y ago
  The $2.6 billion price tag is not just for the rover, it includes R&D for the rover itself, employee salaries, Sky Crane & parachute R&D as well as the rocket to launch it, which cost over $100 million. Also included in the budget is funding needed for all of the science teams to do what they do over the next few years while the rover does experiments.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- wlievens 14y ago
  The rover has been there for only a few days. They probably even haven't turned most of its instruments on!
hnriot 14y ago
Well, we already know that the main camera has only twice the megapixel density, so we are back to stitching images to increase the quality. Fortunately nothing moves much on mars over the timescales that the camera operates, so its perfectly reasonable to get the quality up that way, just as we have seen with Spirit and (the still working) Opportunity. But as much as we all want to accept that it's not Curiosity's main mission (taking pretty pictures,) it is a very important part of the mission because it's pictures, not data that gets the public's attention, and more importantly, makes future missions to mars a priority for politicians who see a voting public willing to support them.

bootload 14y ago

"... Can someone explain how/why a $2.6 billion piece of equipment appears to have cameras that can't match a $100 digital camera? ..." Why is this marked down? It's a great question because the explanations are not obvious. The camera design relates specifically to the mission requirements & technology available ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_probe#Probe_imagers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_probe#Probe_imagers & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_probes_by_operational_status#Mission_in_progress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_probes_by_operational_...

jonhendry 14y ago

" it takes a long time for data to travel from there to here" It doesn't take that long for it to travel, the data transmission rate is not very fast, and Curiosity doesn't have constant access to the Mars-orbiting satellites that relay the data to Earth. And besides that, its primary job is not taking pretty pictures.

xfhai 14y ago
If there is a satellite that orbits between Earth and Mars parallel to orbit of Mars, there could be better transmission.
- jonhendry 14y ago
  The main thing is that the rover only has about 8 minutes a day to transmit to the orbiting satellites. The optimal thing would be a satellite in areostationary orbit over Mars' equator such that it is always reachable by the lander. Unfortunately such a satellite wouldn't be well-placed for many other potential landing sites.

jsz0 14y ago

IIRC one of the cameras can take 720P images at 10FPS which is adequate since it's not going to be a very action packed video. They'll get to it eventually though. The slow uplink is an issue but having local storage available in orbit around Mars really does help a lot when they can use it. It's also important though the camera works in that environment so they can't pickup a nice camera from Amazon and duct tape it on. Just about everything they use is either custom or hold-overs from previous missions.

Bjartr 14y ago

If they had used a $100 dollar camera, it would already be broken, much less last 2 more years.

wlievens 14y ago
Yeah. I'm not even sure the mechanics of a $100 can survive a vacuum, much less deep space and Mars reentry.

opminion 14y ago

When the $100 camera fails in Mars you can't just replace it with another one. You can't take it to the repair shop either. You can't try to "shake it a bit". Hell, you can't even bang it on your knee: http://www.pechorin.com/m/2006/06/13/SONY_Cybershot_E6100_ERROR-264346-9.html http://www.pechorin.com/m/2006/06/13/SONY_Cybershot_E6100_ER...

EternalFury 14y ago
You know, I didn't claim to understand the reasons behind the technical limitations, but the reactions of some of you are puzzling to me. We can go on and on about familiarity considerations, and planning considerations, and instrumentation considerations, and scientific concerns, etc. It all sounds like excuses after a bit. Let's reformulate the question: Why not keep the same enclosure, the same lens assembly, the same mechanical parts and simply swap the 2MP sensor for a 20MP sensor? Further, let's say you are really not sure about that spanking new 20MP sensor, because it is new, you are not familiar with it, and it was not part of the plan drafted 10 years ago, why not add 1 extra camera with a 20MP sensor? If it blows up during the trip or during landing, too bad, it's lost. If it makes it down there safe and sound, you can collect a 10-minute HD sequence that you can stream back to earth over the next 2 years, during down-times, as a very low priority task. Potential benefit: You offer the world the first and a truly spectacular HD film shot on Mars, in all its splendor, and you inspire a new generation of world explorers, who will ultimately drive man to take another small step, but a giant one for mankind. Clearly, if that's the best we can do for something as trivial as shooting a video up there, I cannot fathom a man setting foot on Mars in my lifetime. That may be normal, but it saddens me somehow.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- elithrar 14y ago
  > Let's reformulate the question: Why not keep the same enclosure, the same lens assembly, the same mechanical parts and simply swap the 2MP sensor for a 20MP sensor? You can't "simply" swap the sensor. What about the processor behind it, that interpolates the sensor data and produces a viewable image? Then you need more power for both of those units, and if you're moving to a 20MP sensor, probably size too.

kyberias 14y ago

I believe the reason NASA sent the probe was not to take "1080p, full-color video footage", but rather prove something scientifically about life on Mars with other more suitable instruments. They couldn't care less about video footage. A shame really, but that is the main reason.

mkramlich 14y ago
If they expect taxpayers to foot a $2.6B bill they need to give serious consideration to things which cause excitement and emotional resonance in same taxpayers. Having state-of-the-art resolution cameras (and audio microphone, in my opinion) in order to capture and transmit back a "you are there" experience should be a priority. If it were totally a privately-funded operation, then they can do whatever they want. I understand the desire to have rock-solid confidence in the overal system and it's components, thus testing-fest, thus analysis-fest, thus ultra-conservative instincts. But I'm sure there are ways to, say, isolate a "higher risk" component like a modern camera/microphone, and design for redundancy. And if you're going to spend $2.6B you might as well cough up an additional $100M, for example, if that's all it would take to put better, human emo-optimized sensors on there. Precisely because it takes so long and is so expensive anyway. So once it lands there and deploys, you can yield maximum ROI, including emotional/psychological ROI. Anyway, if a NASA operation never gets around to doing such a thing, I bet if SpaceX puts a craft on Mars they'll have the philosophy where they could justify doing it. And this is only a minor criticism on my part. I have massive appreciation for the NASA engineers and team, and what they just accomplished with the MSL landing. I think this issue is just one little blind spot it's easier for somebody outside their org to see and point out. They clearly nailed all the hardest bits of the mission, and "stuck" their EDL phase, even though it was so seemingly complex. Between SpaceX, the NASA Mars teams, and Planetary Resources, Armadillo Aerospace, etc. I feel these folks are taking us back to the historical trajectory we all thought we were on as kids. They're taking us back into the Space Age again, leaving the static doldrums of the Shuttle/ISS era.
- indiecore 14y ago
  When the design was finalized these cameras WERE pretty state of the art. Once something is finalized for a space mission it is very very hard to change it because everything else is designed around it.

ricardobeat 14y ago

Repost from another thread: These are still from the navigation cameras. The main camera, not yet deployed, can take 1600x1200 full-color pictures and HD video at 10fps. There's actually two of it, so it can also make 3D images/video. Other features are wide/telephoto lens, panorama stitching and 8GB flash storage. Before complaining about resolution, this is like having a GoPro 3D on Mars, it has plenty of detail. One of the articles mentions that the cameras are provided by the same manufacturer as the Viking missions, so they must certainly have improved. Expect some awesome images in the coming months! More info: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/instruments/cameras/mas... http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/instruments/cameras/mas..., http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/Mastcam/ http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/Mastcam/, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20110531.html http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20110531.html

arrrg 14y ago
3D images are not possible since the two cameras have two different (fixed) focal lengths (for wide and tele shots). There were plans to add zoom lenses (which would make 3D images possible) but they couldn’t make it happen (mostly because of technical issues, it seems). (Hm, well actually, technically 3D images are possible, just not because there are two cameras. Since rocks tend to not move, Curiosity could just snap one image, drive a bit and snap a second picture.)
- covalence 14y ago
  I remember reading the zoom lenses weren't possible because of having to keep a lubricating fluid wet. This posed challenges (heating from mar's extreme cold, etc) so it was scrapped for the time.
- jonhendry 14y ago
  They've actually posted a few anaglyph 3D images. Perhaps they manipulate the images to approximate the same focal length (cropping, maybe). Ah - they used the hazard avoidance cameras: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16002 http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16002

hessenwolf 14y ago

I remember somebody who worked for NASA telling me it cost 750K to test the fluorescent lightbulbs for the spaceships. The crappy technology (by Earth standards) is mostly due to testing constraints, from what I understand. Just think of age testing - they probably want the camera to last at least 5 years. If the camera you want to send up has been developed in the last year, how do you really do that? In a lab, for reliability testing of new components, typically you temperature cycle equipment, up and down every couple of hours, to simulate time passing, in order to try and compress the time frame required to test the aging rate, but we all know it doesn't really achieve what we want it to too well.

maxerickson 14y ago

This release suggests that the image is only 1/8 of the full resolution capability of the camera system: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-237#5 http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-237#5 It also links some other images (and full image files, rather than a flash viewer). Edit: Also, the tif I just downloaded has more detail than the WSJ viewer makes available. So if you are judging based on the quality of the image in the linked story, maybe give it some more time.