81–90 of 106 posts
Curiosity Drops In http://www.uahirise.org/images/2012/details/cut/ESP_028256_9...
from: http://www.uahirise.org/releases/msl-descent.php
A Wheel on Mars http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120807.html
landing site: http://www.uahirise.org/images/2012/details/cut/landing_site...
Curiosity Before Mars: Seven Minutes of Terror (video 5:08) http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120731.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
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 panor…
" 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.
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 panor…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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 do know that a 20MP sensor is significantly (~10 times) larger than a 2MP sensor, right? So the mechanics would probably simply not fit.
If they are of the same size, the pixel size - area - will be 10 times smaller for 10x more pixels (or a dimension - length x width - reduction of ~3.1x)
Now, noise is bigger if the pixels are smaller. This is one of the ways to radiation harden components: make their features larger.
I'm sure a small sensor like those in a compact camera would be subject to a lot of noise. Bigger sensors like 3/4 or full-frame are usually better (but they're probably using something else)
So yeah, maybe a 20Mp sensor with the apropriate feature size would be huge
Any thoughts on why the top area has been blacked out from view? Protecting devices? limitations of the equipment?
Too bad it's not enough for a complete 360 panoramic :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See this discussion and article from earlier today: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4360502
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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_ER...
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…
It sounds like excuses? By what standard? That NASA operations don't move at the same speed as consumer technology? By what qualifications do you even have the balls to make a flippant comment like this?
> 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?
You don't even sound remotely technical when you blurt out some nonsense like this. Ever heard of the phrase: "Fast, good, cheap: pick two"? Well when you're sending shit to other planets it ain't gonna be fast and it ain't gonna be cheap, so it better damn well be good. And not good the way an iphone is good where it dazzles you and your hipster friends to wait in line so they can sell a hundred million of them. Good as in, you build one of them, you get one shot at it, and if you fuck up some small detail hundreds of millions of dollars and years of people lives are utterly wasted.
