Mars Science Lab Cameras |
Mars Science Lab Cameras |
Guest_Sunspot_* |
May 20 2004, 01:23 PM
Post
#1
|
Guests |
Has anyone any idea what kind of imaging system is being proposed for the MSL? Would it be the same or simiilar to the MER's, or as improved as the MER pancams are to those that were used on Pathfinder?
With a nuclear power source for the rover, and hopefully the mars telecoms orbiter in place the data rate and data volume could be phenomenal |
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 02:12 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
Going on the recent news ( i LOVE looking at really old forum posts ) the answer involves any and all of the following words
Order of Magnitude Can of Whoop Ass Mike Malin VIDEOS Where did all my bandwidth go Doug |
|
|
Jul 8 2005, 01:39 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1636 Joined: 9-May 05 From: Lima, Peru Member No.: 385 |
The new bandwith that the MRO will transmit is between 1 to 30 MBits/sec depending upon to the Mars' atmosphere transparency between MRO and Earth. The improved transmission bandwith is based on new technology of utilizing the bandwith closer to the light.
Rodolfo |
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Jul 8 2005, 02:12 AM
Post
#4
|
Guests |
There was a lot on this at the recent LPSC:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1214.pdf http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1170.pdf http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1580.pdf |
|
|
Sep 1 2008, 11:00 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 691 Joined: 21-December 07 From: Clatskanie, Oregon Member No.: 3988 |
Forgive me for opening up an old post, but I am a little confused on how Mastcam can aquire both multi-spectral, aswell as natural color imaging all in the same package. How would this all work out when there is bayer filter limited to the visible spectrum and IR filters that move into the infrared part of the spectrum?. How could any narrowband information passing through the filter wheel be salvaged when the light also passes through a broadband bayer filter?. I emailed the MSSS guys about this but have not got a response back .
Thanks |
|
|
Sep 1 2008, 11:15 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
|
|
|
Sep 1 2008, 11:27 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 691 Joined: 21-December 07 From: Clatskanie, Oregon Member No.: 3988 |
Thanks Doug .
|
|
|
Guest_PhilCo126_* |
Nov 8 2008, 11:42 AM
Post
#8
|
Guests |
remarkable ChemCam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEZ5dEi4oPo...feature=related
|
|
|
Nov 8 2008, 05:00 PM
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 21-March 06 From: Canada Member No.: 721 |
It's also reassuring that this rover will be able to defend itself if attacked.
|
|
|
Nov 8 2008, 07:41 PM
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 104 Joined: 1-June 08 Member No.: 4172 |
One issue that just popped into my head (not sure if it's been mentioned before): MSL will survive for a long time, so there will probably be significant dust buildup on MastCam (and on the other cameras), just like with MER. Phoenix showed that a magnetic ring around a surface will prevent that surface from being covered with dust. Has any effort been put into such a system on MSL's camera lenses? Would it even be possible?
|
|
|
Nov 8 2008, 08:08 PM
Post
#11
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2542 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
...there will probably be significant dust buildup on MastCam (and on the other cameras), just like with MER. I'm unaware of any quantitative analysis of how much dust buildup there has been on Pancam; maybe others know more. I had thought the dust buildup was mostly on the hazcams, which are much closer to the ground. As for Mastcam, the current fixed-focal-length systems have the lenses set quite far back inside the sunshades (if you look at http://www.msss.com/msl/mastcam/index.html the front element is at about the front of the lens barrel, color-coded red), so the path for dust is quite long. MAHLI, of course, has a movable cover. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Nov 8 2008, 08:21 PM
Post
#12
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3419 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Member No.: 15 |
The MER Navcam lenses (esp. Oppy's) have dust accumulations ranging from light to very heavy -- Oppy's are quite occluded on the right sides of the images. However, this isn't a result of general dust accumulation, it happened almost entirely during the global dust storm (which also deposited dust onto the "protected" optics of the mini-TES instruments on both MERs, enough that it might possibly render the devices useless).
I think there's a difference between designing optics to remain "as clean as possible" during normal accumulation cycles and designing dust-storm-proof optics. I'm positive that MSL's cameras are good for the former, but doubt they're designed to handle the latter. -the other Doug -------------------- “The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Nov 8 2008, 08:33 PM
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 276 Joined: 11-December 07 From: Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Member No.: 3978 |
I think there's a difference between designing optics to remain "as clean as possible" during normal accumulation cycles and designing dust-storm-proof optics. I'm positive that MSL's cameras are good for the former, but doubt they're designed to handle the latter. -the other Doug Quite right. Aren't they concerned enough to make a mechanism for removing dust from the lenses? If I recall well, the Beagle 2 lander had a 'wiper' for each eye of its stereo imaging payload. Why on earth won't anyone consider such a thing? -------------------- |
|
|
Nov 8 2008, 08:39 PM
Post
#14
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2542 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
Why on earth won't anyone consider such a thing? Because the cameras aren't on Earth. Designing a mechanism that can survive for many years under martian conditions and not fail in some way that degrades imaging is not worth it, given the low chance of dust contamination as I have already described. The cameras are normally stowed pointing down. Was there some period on MER when they were left pointing up? -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Nov 8 2008, 09:25 PM
Post
#15
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th September 2024 - 08:42 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |