Hacker News Reader

Comment by kataklasm | Hacker News Reader

Modern day tech often reaches spaceflight circles decades after it becomes ubiquitous in normal use. For spaceflight purposes it is extremely vital that any and all components and tech is matured amd that takes a long time. Add in a ton of certification and paperwork processes and there you go.

View on HN

I disagree. There’s an enormous amount of bleeding edge tech in spacecraft. This camera was a totally custom thing. The constraints are simply so limiting that we have to make tradeoffs.

You don't think colour photography is mature?

And even if that were the case, do you not think there would be some scientific value to having the photo in colour that it would be worth the risk?

Personally - I think its ridiculous that NASA get so many billions but are unable to put in a decent colour camera. I can't see any acceptable reason for this.

PS first colour photo was in 1890.

PPS I mean 1861! https://www.bbc.com/news/13411083

The probe's purpose is not to determine the color of the sun; we are readily capable of doing that from here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe#Instruments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WISPR

In addition to all the other replies on this topic, monochrome sensors are capable of higher detail and higher sensitivity than color sensors. There's no scientific benefit to using a color sensor. In fact, a color sensor would be detrimental.

Yes, no professional telescope uses a color sensor, because the on-chip filters on those are terrible and doesn't go away when you don't want color. All color images are either done by combining images with different filters or are false color images.

Only on HN do we find so many people that have so much high regard of their own intellect over a army of Engineers.

I wish. AFAICT, that's the universal human condition.

One of the great things about ChatGTP is as a framing point — I can now use it as a standard by which to say: "this thing we all keep rolling our eyes at for its mistakes? It's knows more about this than ${person} does" (sometimes I'm that ${person}, helps point me in the direction of intellectual humility).

> For spaceflight purposes it is extremely vital that any and all components and tech is matured

It's not "extremely vital", it's just how NASA has been doing things for a good while.

Sometimes ultra perfectionism makes sense.

Sometimes you can aim for an 85% mission success rate and launch 5 probes for half the price a decade earlier.

> Sometimes you can aim for an 85% mission success rate and launch 5 probes for half the price a decade earlier.

…Which NASA also does.

That’s the helicopter on Mars, and the first Starship mission.

Which 85% success rate space mission did you pull off?

> …Which NASA also does. That’s the helicopter on Mars

So you agree with me that it's viable, great.

I guess I should have been more clear that the perfectionism is how NASA almost always operates these days.

> the first Starship mission.

Not NASA.

> Which 85% success rate space mission did you pull off?

What's with this hostility?

All I said is that it's not extremely vital. I didn't even say NASA definitely did anything wrong, just that there are options.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com