11–20 of 89 posts
And yes, I'll probably keep posting this image in nearly every thread that mentions Curiosity's cameras until NASA starts giving us more color imagery.
In any case, it's kind of surprising that by 2004, NASA engineers wouldn't have proposed a solution that anticipated vast improvements in digital sensor technology, so that something, in 2009-2010, could be "dropped in" (relatively speaking, not literally) as a replacement.
Of course such a design feature is going to take way more planning and resources than it would for the holiday consumer camera lineup...but a) this is NASA, some of the best of the best engineers. And b) while panning-and-stitching is always a solution, doesn't that have additional operational risk of its own? Additional panning requires additional mechanical movement and attention to moving parts.
What will get us closest to what we actually want, without totally breaking spec and screwing with the time and monetary budget.
http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/Mastcam/
James Cameron lobbied to make zoom lenes for the cameras so they could be set at the same zoom level to create stereo pairs for 3D images.
JPL had "problems designing the lens without using wet lubricants which would require battery-sapping heating"
Difficult trade-offs must have been made everywhere - who knows where that extra battery power went that the zoom lens gave up.
Now that I find out that the main reason for using a 2 MP camera is because that's what the specifications were in 2004, I'm a lot more disappointed than if it was just about the speed of transfer between Mars and Earth. 2 MP cameras were in high-end phones in 2004, but you'd expect NASA to use something a little more advanced than what was available in phones in 2004. How much more would it have cost them to use a 5…
The chances of a problem with newer technology may be small, but the impact of that risk (that you've gone all the way to Mars and your camera doesn't work) is HUGE.
Everything on that vehicle will have been reviewed, tested and retested and retested again all of which takes time. You don't just throw something new on there at the last minute and launch.
I think the explanation is satisfactory, but how often, if at all, do other components of such projects change, up until lift off? I imagine engines and other propulsion parts won't be upgraded much after the original spec, even if such components even remotely followed the same curve of improvement as digital chips do. But what about other types of sensors used by the rover? What is the most recent piece of tech use…
"In early 2010, NASA reconsidered the VFL [zoom lens] cameras and work resumed on assembling these cameras, which will replace the FFL cameras described here if the work is completed in time and the instruments meet their requirements."
I think the explanation is satisfactory, but how often, if at all, do other components of such projects change, up until lift off? I imagine engines and other propulsion parts won't be upgraded much after the original spec, even if such components even remotely followed the same curve of improvement as digital chips do. But what about other types of sensors used by the rover? What is the most recent piece of tech use…
The dust covers over the haz cams (the navigation cameras on the belly of Curiosity) were added in the last minute. Here is the engineer who implemented them writing about the covers: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29612.msg93...
Basically, the Phoenix lander (landed on May 25th 2008) kicked up more dust than expected. They were worried and did a review for Curiosity, but found out that only the haz cams (because of their location on the belly) were in danger, so they decided to add dust covers to them (and also kept them transparent to see whether there really was a dust problem – as you could see from the first photos with covers still attached there very clearly was).
My guess is that stuff gets changed and updated a) if there is money and resources left or b) if the mission is in danger if you don’t change something.
The 2MP sensor is very clearly good enough. Any update in resolution would give you diminishing returns – so something like that gets pushed back.
2004 technology aside, this is called the "Good Enough Factor". Obviously every super geek at NASA wants an 20 MP camera with full zoom,100 year lifetime, 3d, blah blah blah. But, they are working in very exact specifications and budget. So, you have to opt for the option that satisfies the Good Enough Factor. What will get us closest to what we actually want, without totally breaking spec and screwing with the time…
I think the explanation is satisfactory, but how often, if at all, do other components of such projects change, up until lift off? I imagine engines and other propulsion parts won't be upgraded much after the original spec, even if such components even remotely followed the same curve of improvement as digital chips do. But what about other types of sensors used by the rover? What is the most recent piece of tech use…
And sensors -- they're not just looking for fancy new imaging sensors, they're looking for well-tested, radiation-tolerant sensors that can handle a range of temperatures. And then you need to redesign the rest of the circuit around it to handle more data -- all the chips driving the fancy imaging chip would have to be well-tested, radiation-tolerant chips that handle a range of temperatures.
The risk here is "use tech that's 8 years old" or "increase the chance that something goes wrong on a $2.5 billion dollar project".