Curiosity Rover: No Video on Mars?

Ryan Farnes

Ryan Farnes

Well-known member
Yikes. $2.5 billion and not so much as a GoPro made it up to Mars. 720p 10fps is the best it can do I think.

The MastCam system provides multiple spectra and true color imaging with two cameras. The cameras can take true color images at 1600×1200 pixels and up to 10 frames per second hardware-compressed, high-definition video at 720p (1280×720).
Click to expand...

Confirmed.

The Mastcam can take high-definition video at 10 frames per second.
Click to expand...

When I started learning about this rover, I was enthralled because I was sure that with technology where it is, something on par with a new GoPro would be on board. Surely at least on par. Perhaps more like a super high end DSLR sensor in CCD format or something. This is freaking NASA. Goodness, the original Hubble Telescope in 1990 had 800x800 CCDs.

I would have thought that NASA would love to get video of a sandstorm blowing through, or of the rover driving slowly. Maybe of a landscape with a sunset or sunrise would be fascinating. Video is so much more compelling than a still image to me...

I know data is an issue, but mere clips would be sufficient. They've got sensors, why would they not even have the capability to go up to 30fps? What am I missing here? Why didn't video cameras go up with this thing?

Heartache...
 
There's no point in video, the only thing moving in that crater is the rover. The dust storm was created by the landing, once it settles there won't be much in the way of noticeable weather events (1% atmospheric pressure of earth). NASA stitches together huge panoramas from images taken by that camera, it is more than enough for the circumstances. The Hubble is probing the depths of space. I doubt the rover can see further that even a couple of miles from it's vantage. There's no point upping the weight with an unnecessarily heavy camera. It's bare bones with the cost per pound equation.
 
Egg Born Son said:
There's no point in video, the only thing moving in that crater is the rover. The dust storm was created by the landing, once it settles there won't be much in the way of noticeable weather events (1% atmospheric pressure of earth). NASA stitches together huge panoramas from images taken by that camera, it is more than enough for the circumstances. The Hubble is probing the depths of space. I doubt the rover can see further that even a couple of miles from it's vantage. There's no point upping the weight with an unnecessarily heavy camera. It's bare bones with the cost per pound equation.
Click to expand...

I agree. It would be cool, but more like a novelty thing: "Watch this dust storm!" Also, as you probably know, real time video interaction is pointless as it takes a good few minutes to reach mars and move it. I'm assuming there must also be an issue with data transfers. Must take a lot just for one color photo, imagine 24 of them a second?

It's also about priorities. Why capture moving images of a still landscape, when the money going into setting up the video transmissions and camera (which would be far more than just buying a $300 go pro) can be put into a better heat shield thingamajig for the spectrometer thingamagig to find life?

Photos are enough IMO.
 
Egg Born Son said:
There's no point in video, the only thing moving in that crater is the rover. The dust storm was created by the landing, once it settles there won't be much in the way of noticeable weather events (1% atmospheric pressure of earth). NASA stitches together huge panoramas from images taken by that camera, it is more than enough for the circumstances. The Hubble is probing the depths of space. I doubt the rover can see further that even a couple of miles from it's vantage. There's no point upping the weight with an unnecessarily heavy camera. It's bare bones with the cost per pound equation.
Click to expand...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0803-mars-curiosity-20120803,0,1349831.story

At a briefing Thursday, scientists said satellites had discovered a dust storm swirling south of Gale Crater. Earlier this week, the storm was more than 600 miles from Curiosity's landing site but large enough that it could kick up a pesky cloud of dust.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons Curiosity has a radioisotope thermoelectric generator is because solar panels can get Martian dust on them from weather events. This happened with previous rovers.

It wouldn't up the weight, the cameras are already there, its just a matter of capability. I understand the mission of the rover may be more science based and therefore there is no emphasis on motion imaging, plus they can stitch still images. But NASA loves imagery. They were uploading thumbnail images within minutes of touchdown. A "video" of the entire landing sequence was released the following day from thumbnails. (full res to follow) They have an orbiter that took a picture of it parachuting in. Here again though, that descent video was with a camera only capable of 4fps. 4fps! This thing isn't weight limited with pinhole cameras. It has 17 cameras! And yet none does more than 10fps @ 720p.

:(
 
Ryan Farnes said:
One of the reasons Curiosity has a radioisotope thermoelectric generator is because solar panels can get Martian dust on them from weather events. This happened with previous rovers.
Click to expand...

I've heard people talk about this rover potentially going past it's anticipated lifespan, like the previous rovers... but since it's using this form of power system, isn't it game over once the fuel supply runs out?
 
Kevin Vega said:
I've heard people talk about this rover potentially going past it's anticipated lifespan, like the previous rovers... but since it's using this form of power system, isn't it game over once the fuel supply runs out?
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory#Overview

It is designed to explore for at least 687 Earth days (1 Martian year)
Click to expand...

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/interactives/learncuriosity/index-2.html

Curiosity's power source is designed to last about 14 years.
Click to expand...
 
From a scientific standpoint, pictures are the least interesting data for Nasa to have. They exist primarily for visual confirmation and for navigation. This thing has lasers on it and drills that can penetrate the surface and take spectrographic analysis of samples and dozens of other instruments that are ten times more important than pretty pictures. With a machine like the rover, it's all about maximizing power and bandwidth needs. Hi-def video would be a luxury they couldn't spare.
 
When I had horrible Time Warner internet, it took long enough to load an HD video. I can only imagine how long it would take us to transmit one back to earth.
 
Maybe they were worried that if it found life it might start free lancing doing the occasional wedding video :beer:
 
We're video people, they're scientists. They need pictures for navigation and general public interest. Data is what they're after.
 
Ryan Farnes;1986185937 I do look forward to more of these: (from an earlier rover) [URL said:
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA01907.jpg[/URL]
Click to expand...

And that was taken with a 1k camera. This one is almost 2k! In a few weeks we should get some amazing panoramas. Curiosity landed in more interesting terrain than the previous rovers...and hey, at least they are 3D cameras.
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
Here's an article about the how and why the camera systems are the way they are--

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/0...-with-Malin-Space-Science-Systems-Mike-Ravine
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Good to know the reasons.

Interesting to note that Cameron was involved and was pushing for a more visionary Mars rover, which wasn't crazy at all.

Hollywood director James Cameron was part of the team and successfully lobbied NASA to re-start the zoom project, with talk of 3D movies showing Curiosity's progress across the Martian landscape. Sadly, although the project was re-started, even Cameron's enthusiasm wasn't enough to ensure they'd be ready in time. 'We're going to get some great mosaics with the focal lengths we've got, but we're not going to get the wide-field cinematic moments or the 3D movies from Mars that Cameron wanted.'
Click to expand...


“The camera is looking down at the Mars rover,” recalls Mike Ravine, who was in the meeting. “You can see the sample arm off to one side, and we pan up and see Mars in front of us. We’re rolling slowly along the surface. We pan back slowly so we see Mars going by, then look back at the tracks of the rover going off to the horizon behind us—in 3-D.”
Click to expand...

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Camerons-Camera.html


NASA has shelved a special 3D camera system that was developed with filmmaker James Cameron for the $2.4 billion Mars rover Curiosity, which is due to launch later this year.
The zoom mast camera for Curiosity was nixed because there isn't enough time to prepare it for launch in November, according to developer Malin Space Science Systems and NASA.
Click to expand...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20048501-1.html
 
Vultch said:
Maybe they were worried that if it found life it might start free lancing doing the occasional wedding video :beer:
Click to expand...

Or join up here and frighten the mods.

Their posts might get here faster than mine sometimes, our stupid Labor Govt and the poo flinging code monkeys who run our National Broadband Network is a joke, the Martians wouldn't touch it.

Cheers.
 
Ryan Farnes said:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0803-mars-curiosity-20120803,0,1349831.story
One of the reasons Curiosity has a radioisotope thermoelectric generator is because solar panels can get Martian dust on them from weather events. This happened with previous rovers.
:(
Click to expand...
I believe in the first press conference, they said the nuclear power was primarily for keeping the rover from freezing at night, and (if I heard and remember correctly) was generating a surplus 100 watts. Don't know if this is a factor in camera selection.

Also, you think, "In the galactic/universe scale, Mars, our closest planetary neighbor- not that far, it's the next street over".
And yet signals traveling at the speed of light take 7 minutes to reach Mars, 14 minutes round trip, at Mars' present location (up to 40-something minutes at its maximum distance.)

Humbling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top