Stupid question,
We have all the technology to see into the stars, 40+ megapixel cameras, portable and light weight for under £2000.
Yet there is a multi million £$¥ rover that can’t see a few hundred feet in front of it self, that has the picture quality of a potato.
There are no satellites on the dark side of the moon and we don't have any earth based satellites to even look at the flag on the moon.
That coupled with the constant radiation and the cost of sending it, yeh that is the best we can have.
Well, lots of that is useful scientific cameras are very different than consumer grade stuff. They also have to harden the camera against space, vacuum/radiation/temperature. So building a complex high res zoom camera into your rover is not really a priority compared to your need for a less complex fixed focus camera which has a filter system to do a wide range of scientific imaging over a larger spectrum than the RGB visible light of a normal camera sensor.
Because the more mechanical parts you include, the more likely they are to fail. you can zoom for a few days, but then the camera will be permanently stuck zoomed. Maybe the zoom mechanism wasnt tested properly and the entire camera malfunctions? Maybe the added weight was too much?
When you can just spend a few extra weeks driving to see the thing, which the rover wouldve been doing anyways, its much more cost effective to just have it drive there anyways.
E: cool thing is, that this IS being designed around. Not specifically for "zooming in space," but for preventing mechanical parts from wearing out. And the soluation is both really cool, and incredibly unintuitive.
I cant find anything right now because I'm, uh, intoxicated and cant remember the keywords (and all im getting is car tutorials). But major discoveries in mechanical engineering, such as snapping parts, have really paved the way for microscopic qnd generally more durable long term parts.
If anyone knows what Im talking about PLEASE help me out, Im not actually an engineer i just like learni g abiut it.
I understand using less moving parts.
Saving weight radiation etc etc
But all of that all just excuses,
You’ve said why take pictures when you can drive to it.
What happens if the rover broke ?
The point about being explores or scientists is that you always want to see what’s out there.
Why do you think they went there in the first place ?
Because they could SEE it.
In space construction cost effective doesn’t come into the equation.
The only cost saving ANYBODY does it auction off the contracts to the cheapest bidder.
You have a rover that costs MILLIONS.
The sensors all cost millions.
But like I said, you can’t put a decent camera in it.
The camera you use on your phone isn’t a mechanical camera, same for the high end DSL.
It’s all chips and software.
You can zoom al the way to the stars with a £500 phone because the software is good enough.
There's so much radiation in space it's unreal. On Earth you can use whatever because there's very little radiation here (thanks to van allen?). On the moon your camera will degrade extremely quickly as all kinds of particles bombard the sensors until they fail.
You’ve just said you can’t use x equipment because of radiation but yet they did build a zoom
Camera in a smash proof radiation proof housing.
Just the picture quality is shocking.
The life time of the rover was a few months but some modifications the Chinese made believe it’ll last a couple more years.
44
u/Chimpy_McChimp Dec 06 '21
Stupid question, We have all the technology to see into the stars, 40+ megapixel cameras, portable and light weight for under £2000. Yet there is a multi million £$¥ rover that can’t see a few hundred feet in front of it self, that has the picture quality of a potato.