More Pictures of "Curiosity" Taken From Orbit

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Thank you for the addition. I'm very much looking forward to what this little guy adds to our knowledge and understanding of that place. One step closer to a man following it some day!

edit on 7-8-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Little guy!?

The thing weighs darn near a ton!

But as for the rest....OHHhhhhYea!

Originally posted by Hellhound604
yes, your 8mp cell phone camera can take good images in weak light, and are radiation resistant?????
I still have a 1.3mp DSLR, and at any day it can take much, much better pics than my cell phone with its fantastic 8mp sensor...... Lower resolution CCD's have much less noise than these crappy 8mp cell phones, therefore they take much better pics in low light, and they are less prone to radiation.

edit on 7/8/2012 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)

None of that explains why a $2.5 BILLION DOLLAR piece of equipment has such low imaging capability.

One could argue that the cameras are one of, if not THE most important part on the rover - as visual evidence and documentation are paramount to the mission.

I believe I'm asking a perfectly reasonable question.

We are talking about a planet NONE OF US HAVE EVER BEEN TO BEFORE... yet they load the thing up with low rez cams?? this is 2012 not 1980.

I'll be interested in seeing what comes down the pipe in the next few days....

Originally posted by HIWATT
None of that explains why a $2.5 BILLION DOLLAR piece of equipment has such low imaging capability....

As I said in another post, the cameras are NOT the primary science instruments on this rover. Sure -- pictures have scientific value, but there is also a whole suite of other (expensive) instruments:

- A Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) system, which is a laser that vaporizes rock and analyses that vapor to learn about the chemistry of those rocks.
- The Chemistry and Mineralogy (CheMin) X-ray diffraction and X-ray fluorescence instrument.
- Alpha-particle X-ray spectrometer (APXS), which can can irradiate samples with alpha particles and map the spectra of X-rays that are re-emitted for determining the elemental composition of samples.
- The Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) instrument, which will analyze organics and gases from both atmospheric and solid samples.
- Radiation assessment detector (RAD), which records radiation on Mars in a wide spectrum.
- Dynamic Albedo of Neutrons instrument (DAN), which measures hydrogen or ice and water at or near the Martian surface.
- The Rover environmental monitoring station (REMS), which is a meteorological package of instruments and an ultraviolet sensor (provided by Spain).

To pwer all of these instruments and the 17 cameras, they couldn't use just solar panels. Solar panels would not provide enough power, plus provide even less power during the winter when the sun is low in the sky (Spirit and Opportunity were required to hibernate during the winter during the winter. So Curiosity is powered with a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), which is a great steady, long-lasting, and reliable power source, but it is also a lot more expensive than solar panels.

So, as you can see, pictures are nice, but the science this rover does goes way beyond pictures.

It should be noted that the pictures eventually sent from Curiosity (once the MastCAM and the MAHLI become operational) will be better (resolution-wise) than the panoramic images sent from Spirit and Opportunity.

By the way, those wide-angle panoramas we got from Spirit and Opportunity were not single images, but mosaics made up of several small images stitched together. The same will be true for Curiosity images; each raw image will be small (although larger than the raw images from Spirit and Opportunity), and they will need to be stitched together by NASA to get the wide panoramas we are so used to seeing.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I'm taking a wait and "see" approach. The fact is whether operational or not, the cams are still limited by a MAX of 2 megapixel, which technologically speaking, is ancient.

For example, back around 1999/2000 when 2MP cameras came out, my cable modem was downloading files at a whopping 250kbps. I say whopping because 12 years ago, that was considered fast

NASA (apparently) has 500+ MP cameras on some of their satellites. And for about $10,000 you can get yourself a pretty sweet 40 MP DSLR

Yes I'm aware that the cams on Curiosity will be taking many photos and likely they will be formed into composite images as we've seen many times in the past.

Even still, what is going to give you more detail? A composite image made up of stills taken with a 2MP camera, or one with (say) 40MP?

I know it sounds like i'm nitpicking but really... you would have expected to see more advanced imaging technology onboard the first craft to photograph a planet nothing has ever landed on before... or at least I do.

reply to post by HIWATT

My point is that there is a reason it is $2.5 Billion (a price tag that is NOT simply the cost of hardware, but also pays for development, testing, launching, and labor & overhead costs).

Plus, picture data is not the main scientific data being obtained, and super high-resolution is not required to do the science they want to do. Scientists can do their same job with "mid-level" high-resolution as they can with "super" high-resolution...

...although I suppose from a purely Public Relations standpoint, the general public probably would like the highest resolution images possible. The public DOES like pretty pictures, even if the science doesn't require it.

Well, lets look on the bright side.
At least now they can ZOOM in on those pesky rabbits and bigfoot aliens that we seen a few years ago

Bigfoot

Originally posted by HIWATT
I'm taking a wait and "see" approach. The fact is whether operational or not, the cams are still limited by a MAX of 2 megapixel, which technologically speaking, is ancient.

One of the reasons the cameras (the most easily compared item) look dated is because they are, at least a little, as these things should be based on tried and tested hardware, and that hardware must be able to work in rough and untested conditions, so the best way is always go for the more simple but less likely to fail versions.
At least that would be my choice.

The CPUs of the onboard computers, for example, have the processing power of a 1996 Pentium Pro at 200 MHz, but they can work at more extreme temperatures (from -55 Cº to +70 Cº) and under radiation levels that would kill instantly a human being.

I know it sounds like i'm nitpicking

but really... you would have expected to see more advanced imaging technology onboard the first craft to photograph a planet nothing has ever landed on before... or at least I do.

It's not the first craft to photograph Mars.

Originally posted by HIWATT
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

I'm taking a wait and "see" approach. The fact is whether operational or not, the cams are still limited by a MAX of 2 megapixel, which technologically speaking, is ancient.

It's "ancient" for you because you fall for hype that more MP is always "better". 2MP is 1600x1200 which is more than plenty/sufficient. If they need mega images like panoramas, they can do this with shooting multiple images and appending images. You can make extremely large images like 20.000 x 5.000 with a 1MP camera, as has been done in the past.

The 2MP camera is also used for very close up imaging, almost like a microscope, where the 1600x1200 will cover an area barely an inch where the 2MP are still plenty to

>>
[MAHLI CAM]
At close focus (22.5 mm), images will have a resolution of about 15 micrometers (0.0006 inch) per pixel and cover an area of about 18 by 24 mm (0.7 by 0.9 inch). At a working distance of 50 mm (nearly 2 inches), images will have a resolution of about 24.5 micrometers (0.001 inch) per pixel. At the distance which the MER MI takes pictures, 66 mm (2.6 inches), the resolution is about the same as MI (31 micrometers per pixel), but the pictures cover a larger area and are in color.
>>

>>
Because MAHLI can focus at infinity, in addition to being able to get microscopic views of surface materials MAHLI can also be used for other purposes, including inspection of areas on the rover or imaging the local landscape.

Stereo (3D) views of selected targets can be acquired by taking 2 images of a target from different looking angles. This is achieved by moving the robotic arm to place the camera in the two different positions.
>>

There is simply no reason to put 8MP or bigger cameras up there, it would also increase processing times and times it needs to transmit images to Earth.

Example: I myself have a rather old, 6MP Nikon cam. A 6MP image would be already far too big, it would not even fit my on my PC desktop, so i set my camera to take 3MP pix instead. The benefit is that far more pictures fit in memory and it takes much less time to download via USB to my computer. So you can imagine that "downloading" a 8MP image from Mars would be moronic since there is just no benefit.

Also..let me get this straight...8MP would equal 4096pix x 2048 pix - so...tell me why an iPhone user needs to take images of that size or why it should be "better", unless you want to tell me you have a display/monitor which works with that resolution. In reality, you will have to greatly resize your images each and every time AND you waste your SD card because someone told you "8MP is better"

I wonder if they're going to take a run over to the skycrane once they get rolling. Nice mark it made.

Pictures require power, the fancier the picture the more power is required. Power is a precious commodity on Mars.

now that's what i call an 'orgy' of evidence.

>>
Curiosity can communicate with Earth directly in speeds up to 32 kbit/s, but the bulk of the data transfer should be relayed through the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Odyssey orbiter, which are much more powerful and have better antennas, thus being able to communicate faster with Earth. Data transfer speeds between Curiosity and each orbiter may reach 2 Mbit/s and 256 kbit/s, respectively, but each orbiter is only able to communicate with Curiosity for about 8 minutes per day.[43]
>>

Those speeds are not great, 32kB is slower than a dialup modem, 2Mb is like the slowest, crappy broadband internet and then they only have 8 minutes per day for relaying data to the orbiters. And a 8MP picture (assuming its not compressed) would need 4x as much data as a 2MP picture. So....resources are restricted, another reason why it makes more sense to have 2MP cameras.

Originally posted by Juggernog

Originally posted by citizenx1
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Great post with excellent links, many thanks.

Impressive to see how much detail we have from orbit of the various craft on mars now.

Yea, aint it though? Still cant see crap on the moon though

Just as well replies on here aren't an intelligence test then

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

Originally posted by HIWATT
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

NASA (apparently) has 500+ MP cameras on some of their satellites. And for about $10,000 you can get yourself a pretty sweet 40 MP DSLR

Yes I'm aware that the cams on Curiosity will be taking many photos and likely they will be formed into composite images as we've seen many times in the past.

Even still, what is going to give you more detail? A composite image made up of stills taken with a 2MP camera, or one with (say) 40MP?

I know it sounds like i'm nitpicking

but really... you would have expected to see more advanced imaging technology onboard the first craft to photograph a planet nothing has ever landed on before... or at least I do.

The answer to your question OPTICS !! IF the lens is no good the pictures will be rubish.

As for your 40mp v 2mp composite again the answer is optics yes the 2mp could be just as good.

More MP in same area more noise you know that, as for you 550+ mp camera do you have a link for that?

Mega Pixels isn't the most important thing a DSLR with a 5mp senor from a few years back will give you better images than any 8mp phone camera.



When it comes to sensors size IS everthing

What an incredible technological feat to put a "human" presence on an alien world and get it there in one piece and (hopefully) fully functioning.

On the flip side, however ... the human proclivity to "trash" the environment has now been carried across to include a brand new and up to the recent past, unsullied world. Now we have parachutes, heat shields, broken skycranes, earlier "dead" rovers and probably lots more useless/discarded junk left scattered all over the Martian landscape.
Give us a few more years and whats the bet that future Martian archaeologists will be digging up discarded coke and pepsi cans as well as discarded McDonald and Burger King wrappers

Originally posted by Phage
I wonder if they're going to take a run over to the skycrane once they get rolling. Nice mark it made.

I was thinking the same thing, it would be neat to examine that area close up. Looks like it blew up on impact, maybe because the left over fuel caused an explosion when it hit the ground.

Originally posted by jokerzwild

Originally posted by Phage
I wonder if they're going to take a run over to the skycrane once they get rolling. Nice mark it made.

I was thinking the same thing, it would be neat to examine that area close up. Looks like it blew up on impact, maybe because the left over fuel caused an explosion when it hit the ground.

The answer is no.

This question was asked during one of the press briefings (I believe yesterdays). The response was 'No'. It is not a priority nor is part of the plan for MSL to drive to any of the pieces (skycrane, heat shield, etc) for examination.

Ok, so....this doesn't remind you of the Moon landing? Why are we on Mars....when we've yet to do anything, since we "landed" on the Moon? Isn't the moon closer? What's on Mars that's sooooo important? Do they think they can live there? If so...........BUH, BYE.....and......DON'T COME BACK!!!! Earth is better off without you.

I'm sorry, but i'm calling this a HOAX!!! Why? Well, because ALL the pictures i've seen, look STAGED. How do i know? Look at the settings and placement of EVERYTHING, in these pics. It's PERFECT placement. Check out the pics where their "high fiving" each other. I also like they way they circle 'Curiosity' as it's about to land. (They want me to believe that little dot is "Curiosity".) So many things, that just DON'T ADD UP!

Sorry, but i don't buy ANYTHING N.A.S.A. has to say. What EXACTLY has NASA done for humanity anyway? How come they didn't send "Curiosity" to the moon, and take some good pics of it? The moon hasn't been conquered yet, let's revisit it!

They probably don't want to go to the moon, because they've never been there, in the 1st place. Why is Mars the hot topic? What's so "spectacular" about it, that money, time and resources needs to be WASTED???? It's not like we're EVER going to live there....so....what's the dealy, yo???

Also, i realize that "Curiosity" has other important features to it, and cameras weren't their main priority.....but, isn't a PICTURE worth a thousand words? Regardless of what anyone says....the poor quality of photos, just doesn't seem to do the mission justice! I want to see PICTURES in HD. We're paying for this CRAP!!!! Who cares about the rocks and dust?

Modern Science is a COMPLETE FAILURE. It has done NOTHING to better our lives...and if you believe it has....YOU'RE FRIGGIN' DELUSIONAL!!!!! Waste, Waste, WASTE!!!!!!!!!!!!

New Pics from Curiosity and NASA

Originally posted by SpittinTruth
Isn't the moon closer?

Yes, but it's not as interesting.

What's on Mars that's sooooo important?

The possibility of finding signs of extraterrestrial life, for example.

Do they think they can live there?

That's another thing Curiosity is testing, both with its meteorologic station and the radiation measurements.

How come they didn't send "Curiosity" to the moon, and take some good pics of it? The moon hasn't been conquered yet, let's revisit it!

Europeans went looking for other continents (or other ways of reaching the ones they already knew) before they had "conquered" Africa and Asia.

They probably don't want to go to the moon, because they've never been there, in the 1st place.

But they go to a much farther away target. Where's the logic in that?

Why is Mars the hot topic? What's so "spectacular" about it, that money, time and resources needs to be WASTED????

Possibility of having life, either in the past, the present or the future, the possibility of learning how planets evolve, both geologically and as a whole echosystem, etc.

It's not like we're EVER going to live there....so....what's the dealy, yo???

Says who? It's a real possibility, at least theoretically.

Also, i realize that "Curiosity" has other important features to it, and cameras weren't their main priority.....but, isn't a PICTURE worth a thousand words?

No, that's a slogan for a company that made cameras. If a picture is worth a thousand words, try to say that with a picture.

Regardless of what anyone says....the poor quality of photos, just doesn't seem to do the mission justice! I want to see PICTURES in HD. We're paying for this CRAP!!!!

But I'm not.

Who cares about the rocks and dust?

I do, they may tell us much more than most people.

Modern Science is a COMPLETE FAILURE. It has done NOTHING to better our lives...and if you believe it has....YOU'RE FRIGGIN' DELUSIONAL!!!!! Waste, Waste, WASTE!!!!!!!!!!!!

People's understanding of science (modern or not) is a complete failure, so they just ask for pretty pictures.

reply to post by SpittinTruth


If modern science is a failure, please throw away your computer, your internet, your cellphone, your GPS, your microwave oven, your flatscreen TV, etc, etc, etc ......