4 ms·

I have to say this. I have been as amazed as anyone by the feat of engineering that this entire mission represents. It is absolutely mind-blowing and I have bee

I have to say this. I have been as amazed as anyone by the feat of engineering that this entire mission represents. It is absolutely mind-blowing and I have been sharing it with others, including my kids. But, something puzzles me. That is, why didn't they use better camera technology? That's a lot of miles traveled and a lot of effort. Seems the mission would have been much better served by better imaging, both from a scientific perspective and from a public interest perspective (which can help engender support for future exploration). Frankly, the fact that it even happened amazes me. But, the images disappoint me. I know it sounds like a nit, given the overall accomplishment, but that's all the more reason to wonder why not ensure that something presumably as simple as the images we capture be as stunning as possible?

wldcordeiro 12y ago
My guess would be latency, a higher quality camera feed would take longer to transmit.
seccess 12y ago
Bear in mind it left Earth more than 10 years ago, I'd imagine they did send state of the art tech for the time.
- rosser 12y ago
  It might not quite have been state of the art; launch-contemporary technology probably wasn't also radiation-hardened.
Xylakant 12y ago
The wifi reception is really shitty up there. Jest aside: More pixels, more bandwidth needed and if you think about how much bandwidth wifi systems were capable of achieving 10 years ago, they're probably at the edge of what they could use without resorting to cutting edge tech. You also have to transmit the data from the lander to the orbiter in a reasonably short timeframe since the lander is not always visible from the orbiter. Maybe they have higher res pictures still on the orbiter that will download later when there's bandwith left.
- vacri 12y ago
  Not only 10 years ago, but also "known reliable equipment" from 10 years ago. Cutting-edge technical equipment usually isn't sent up on these things due to the propensity for unknown bugs.
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    Yes, known reliable is what I meant. Or, more accurately, best reliable. Seems like we certainly had better 10 years ago. Just really odd that this tremendous feat couldn't be paired with much better imaging tech. I mean, the imaging is strikingly poor and unimpressive compared to the rest of the mission.
    - unclebucknasty 12y ago
      Found the answer. Those who mentioned that it was state of the art for the time were correct. The main camera, OSIRIS, is only 4 megapixels. Also, the camera cost $100MM, which is a significant percentage of the overall mission. So, it's not as if they were skimping.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  Yeah, I think this mission was worthy of a cutting edge imaging solution though! As far as transmission windows, well we had download-continuation browser solutions back then. Seriously, not to say it's that simple, but this mission solved much harder problems than imaging would seem to pose. Really would be interested in knowing how the imgaging solution selection process went and what the key drivers were.
  - Xylakant 12y ago
    Sure, they certainly have download-continuation deployed, but they also have a lot of data and a very narrow channel and time window - the lander had only battery for 68 hours most of the time the lander is not visible to the orbiter. The problem is not imaging. The lens is certainly magnitudes better than you can see on the pictures, but transmitting all those pixels back to earth is the real problem. TCP kinda gets hard if RTT is approximately one hour.
munchbunny 12y ago
It's because you need to send something that needs to work on very tight energy budgets, after 10 years of radiation exposure and extremely cold temperatures, and on tight bandwidth budgets. They're lifespans and conditions that are rarely considered when designing cutting edge tech. If you only get one shot at setting up for a mission that won't start gathering data until 10 years later, you probably don't want to take a state of the art camera up there, you want to take a decent camera that you're pretty sure will work well after 10 years.

wldcordeiro 12y ago

My guess would be latency, a higher quality camera feed would take longer to transmit.

seccess 12y ago

Bear in mind it left Earth more than 10 years ago, I'd imagine they did send state of the art tech for the time.

rosser 12y ago
It might not quite have been state of the art; launch-contemporary technology probably wasn't also radiation-hardened.

Xylakant 12y ago

The wifi reception is really shitty up there. Jest aside: More pixels, more bandwidth needed and if you think about how much bandwidth wifi systems were capable of achieving 10 years ago, they're probably at the edge of what they could use without resorting to cutting edge tech. You also have to transmit the data from the lander to the orbiter in a reasonably short timeframe since the lander is not always visible from the orbiter. Maybe they have higher res pictures still on the orbiter that will download later when there's bandwith left.

vacri 12y ago
Not only 10 years ago, but also "known reliable equipment" from 10 years ago. Cutting-edge technical equipment usually isn't sent up on these things due to the propensity for unknown bugs.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  Yes, known reliable is what I meant. Or, more accurately, best reliable. Seems like we certainly had better 10 years ago. Just really odd that this tremendous feat couldn't be paired with much better imaging tech. I mean, the imaging is strikingly poor and unimpressive compared to the rest of the mission.
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    Found the answer. Those who mentioned that it was state of the art for the time were correct. The main camera, OSIRIS, is only 4 megapixels. Also, the camera cost $100MM, which is a significant percentage of the overall mission. So, it's not as if they were skimping.
unclebucknasty 12y ago
Yeah, I think this mission was worthy of a cutting edge imaging solution though! As far as transmission windows, well we had download-continuation browser solutions back then. Seriously, not to say it's that simple, but this mission solved much harder problems than imaging would seem to pose. Really would be interested in knowing how the imgaging solution selection process went and what the key drivers were.
- Xylakant 12y ago
  Sure, they certainly have download-continuation deployed, but they also have a lot of data and a very narrow channel and time window - the lander had only battery for 68 hours most of the time the lander is not visible to the orbiter. The problem is not imaging. The lens is certainly magnitudes better than you can see on the pictures, but transmitting all those pixels back to earth is the real problem. TCP kinda gets hard if RTT is approximately one hour.

munchbunny 12y ago

It's because you need to send something that needs to work on very tight energy budgets, after 10 years of radiation exposure and extremely cold temperatures, and on tight bandwidth budgets. They're lifespans and conditions that are rarely considered when designing cutting edge tech. If you only get one shot at setting up for a mission that won't start gathering data until 10 years later, you probably don't want to take a state of the art camera up there, you want to take a decent camera that you're pretty sure will work well after 10 years.