It should be noted, as well, that the Hazcams and Navcams are "build-to-print" exact copies of the ones that flew on the MERs in 2003. So most of the images we've been seeing thus far are actually taken with tech much older than the Mastcams, probably designed around the turn of the millennium. And there's nothing wrong with that -- they are very reliable and do exactly what is needed.<p>Source: <a href="http://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/publications/Mark_Maimone/fulltext.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/publications/Mark_Maimone/f...</a>
The mast camera is actually two cameras with zoom of each camera fixed at two different values:<p><a href="http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/Mastcam/" rel="nofollow">http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/Mastcam/</a><p>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.<p>JPL had "problems designing the lens without using wet lubricants which would require battery-sapping heating"<p>Difficult trade-offs must have been made everywhere - who knows where that extra battery power went that the zoom lens gave up.
They should eventually release a series of regular-quality images taken sequentially as the camera pans left and right, and have a competition to see who can squeeze the most resolution out of them using image enhancement and fusion techniques. There are lots of interesting stochastic methods out there (e.g. "compressed sensing") that have application for this kind of thing. It would make a great academic competition.
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 used by the rover?<p>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.<p>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.
They can generate low-res, closeup 3D images of the ground using the stereo hazcams and manual colorization. It's far from what stereo zooming mast cameras would have given them, but I still think it looks cool: <a href="http://nitrogen.posterous.com/curiositys-view-of-mars-in-pseudocolor-3d" rel="nofollow">http://nitrogen.posterous.com/curiositys-view-of-mars-in-pse...</a><p>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.
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.<p>What will get us closest to what we actually want, without totally breaking spec and screwing with the time and monetary budget.
This is a serious lack of vision for such an iconic company. Good science and technical ability, doubtless. But someone skimped on a real public relations goldmine here.
I really liked the article - it was very coherent and easy to follow.<p>BTW, is there a full-res movie of the descent? I've only seen the 'thumbnails' stitched together of the heat-shield and the parachute.
It would be neat if one day they send rovers in modules - one nuclear power supply to last dozens if not a hundred years, then a mini-robot sent to replace the modular camera with a 15MP one after they upgrade the bandwidth from 2mpbs to 10mbps and then one day 100mbps.<p>That 15-30 minute pingtime is a problem that cannot be overcome unless they find a faster than light wave that can be used for transmission - or a way to manipulate quantum entanglement for communications.
Can anyone explain what the key limits on bandwidth are when communicating from Mars? Is it just a matter of higher bandwidth requiring higher energy consumption?
I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't take this as a chance to try out cobbling up a "radiation box" and put commercial equipment in that. Surely, that would be a good experiment data point that could be used in future endeavors.
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.<p>2 MP cameras were in high-end phones in 2004, but you'd expect <i>NASA</i> 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 MP one? $100 more if they chose one in 2004 and stuck with it, or $10 more if the camera was added just a year ago. So this makes me think that they just didn't think this would be such an important factor, compared to say making the robot work.