Why haven't the Rovers included zoom lenses onboard. Can't be a space/weight limitation, since many consumer camcorders have very small but high quality 20X+ zoom lenses. Can't be that they're photogrametricly wanting, as any decent computer optical mapping program should be able to correct for a zoom lenses aberrations thruout it's range. It's so frustrating to see landscape features closeby, and to know that if I were there with my little camcorder, I could see those features in very real and featured detail. Surely, closeby views of Martian terrain must be of interest to many, and, might even be used to do some great landscape photography. One other thought on this, I'm not really too impressed with the level of resolution on the Mars photos. I know that you're going to want to use conservative technology when you can't repair something a zillion miles away, but it seems like Rover(s) could use better quality imaging chips. Is this just a matter of the government bureaucracy always being way behind everything, , or simply a bandwith issue ? I'm not complaining. The Mars Rovers are a brilliant technical triumph, but most of the brilliance seems to have been invested in the getting there, and not with what-to-do once you'e arrived. Anybody know the answers to my questions ?

The information in this link has some of your answers:

http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20040130S0026

I suspect that there is little to gain scientifically from having zoom, while such a feature adds complexity and cost to the design. If it wants to look at something closer up, the Rover goes there. As for distant objects (like hills), optical zoom doesn't do much to help you determine whether there is (or was ) water in the area. And as for the quality of the imaging chips, I doubt anything outside of the NSA's spy satellites can compare.

__________________

~\_/~\_O
Burmese

Tnx for the camera link, John. Very interesting. I don't think these 1 megapixel chips are what they're using in nasa's spy technology, though.

The previous answers are good. I have another factor to consider as well.

Bandwidth. We're getting more bits from these rovers than from any previous inter-planetary mission. Adding a zoom would give you a more detailed image, but if you took a panarama shot with a 20x zoom, it would take 400 times the data to transmit the images. I don't think the current deep space network and Mars Odessy could handle double the data.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Or...perhaps this was a test run. I'm sure the next landing will be well worth the wait. Hopefully soon after the first results are translated, another mission will be underway. A confirmation of a well worth investment. Men to Mars. B)

Actually Burmese, I disagree about zooming lenses not being helpful for water evidence. Mars Pathfinder landed in a suspected outflow channel and the distant hills on the horizon showed faint signs of stratification - evidence for past water. Had that lander camera had a zoom capability it might have been able to decipher whether that truly was layering we were seeing.

I tend to think that zoom lenses could be very valuable on future landing missions. You never know how far away you might land from something really interesting, just out of adequate resolution of your camera. Martian geology is very interesting and a strong zoom capability could be a real asset.

How can anybody argue that a zoom lens wouldn't be extremely valuable in this circumstance ? At the very least, it would save the Rover's traveling time going to spots that might not prove so interesting, if they could have been imaged better before setting out. A zoom lens on a telescoping mast, as high as possible, seems like a really good idea to me. And, when we talk about a zoom lens, were talking about a package weighing but a few ounces, if one can draw a comparison from digital video cameras. The unit could just be hinged to drop over one of the hazard cameras-since all the cameras on the Rover's use the same chip. NASA seems to equate older outdated technology with conservative/dependable technology. I recall reading that on the earlier built shuttles, the computers are so primitive the pilots have to swap out disks for such things as re-entry. It's sometimes hard to understand why NASA chooses to be conservative about something like this, and then be positively cavalier about something like a hunk of foam blasting into the shuttle wing at 500mph during take-off. And like I said earlier, what a great chance to do some great landscape photography. Why should science be the only priority here ? It's not an either/or situation here, so why not feed man's soul as well as his intellect ?

Zoom or no zoom you get -equally- nice photography.

Zoom costs extra money, extra complexity, and an extra potential failure point to the Rovers' eyes. The Rovers find water by going to a location and examining it with other instruments, up close and personal. If something is so far away that only by using a zoom can they make out useful details then its' too far away to consider going to, anyway. If the feature were worth the risk they would have built it in and dropped something else from the instrument suit

__________________

~\_/~\_O
Burmese

Current case in point, NASA's going to use the stero cameras to image the martian moons-(somehow I dont think this will look too impressive.) How much nicer it would be to have some zoom capability to clearly see these objects. Also, a zoom lens conserves the most critical technology, arguably the Rover's mobility mechanics, by scouting destinations from afar, thereby saving wear and tear on the machinery and battery power. Zoom lenses can't be that complex, otherwise we'd all be in the camcorder zoom lens repair business. My basic point to this whole screed is that much of NASA's technology seems stale and primitive, compared to what's even available on the consumer market. If they'd get off their "custom made everything" kick, they could probably have built the Rover's using off the shelf part-(at least for the optical end of these devices) for a small fraction of what these things cost. I realize this isn't the way government likes to do business, but, it's just a thought.

1) Imaging the martian moons is a fringe benefit to having the rovers on Mars and has nothing to do with the their primary mission of finding water - thus zoom still doesn't make the cut.

2) NASA always has, wherever possible, relied on technology that has proven itself reliable over many years. The electronic processing capability on the rovers is based on 10-year old technology and it will likely remain paced that far behind current technology for the forseeable future. There is little to be gained and much potential risk to having newer technology onboard in this case. Most other govt. entities are much more modern technology-wise but don't have to have the reliability level that NASA needs. Other parts of their technology are cuting edge simply because that is necessary to get the job done and/or lower weight penalties. The instruments on the IDD all fall into this category and NASA has indicated that future robotic explorers will need to carry other types of instruments that at this point still need some advances in miniaturization to be workable.

__________________

~\_/~\_O
Burmese