6 ms·

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

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.

verisimi 3y ago
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 https://www.bbc.com/news/13411083
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  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/Parker_Solar_Probe#Instruments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WISPR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WISPR
- mcbutterbunz 3y ago
  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.
  - kryptiskt 3y ago
    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.
- tekla 3y ago
  Only on HN do we find so many people that have so much high regard of their own intellect over a army of Engineers.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - schoen 3y ago
      Here's an article by the scientists who created the camera that took this picture, introducing it and describing its design. https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/200751/1/The%20Wide-Field%20Imager%20for%20Solar%20Probe%20Plus%20%28WISPR%29.pdf https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/200751/1/The%20Wide-Fi... It's very much not an off-the-shelf camera; it seems to have involved years of custom engineering work. This article doesn't seem to address the specific question of "why is this camera monochrome?" but you can see that it wasn't trivial to make an instrument that would work well in this difficult environment. So it's definitely not like "and let's throw a commercial digital camera on there too just for fun!". It's a legitimate question why some kind of color camera wasn't considered worth including, but lots of space missions have sensors that are something other than a simulacrum of human vision. That's why so many astronomical images end up getting published in false color. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_color https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_color In almost all of those cases, the justification for the false color seems to be some form of "true color wouldn't have been possible or appropriate for the scientific purposes of this imagery".
      - verisimi 3y ago
        Thank you for acknowledging this is a legitimate question. I've no issue with all sorts of cameras and scientific instruments being placed on a space craft. I don't expect to get access to all the data that is sent back - though - as it is from the public purse - I think it should be made available. My point is that the only interaction us great unwashed have with these missions is with the imagery that is provided.. How difficult would it be to have a colour camera?!?! I have a crap mobile and it has 3 cameras! And one on the front! When colour cameras have been available to everyone for so long, its simply inconceivable that NASA can never provide decent imagery! Its 2024 ffs, surely we can have colour by now! No? If not now, when?
Dylan16807 3y ago
> 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.
- mulmen 3y ago
  > 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?
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > …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.
mulmen 3y ago
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.

verisimi 3y ago

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 https://www.bbc.com/news/13411083

ceejayoz 3y ago
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/Parker_Solar_Probe#Instruments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WISPR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WISPR
mcbutterbunz 3y ago
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.
- kryptiskt 3y ago
  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.
tekla 3y ago
Only on HN do we find so many people that have so much high regard of their own intellect over a army of Engineers.
- verisimi 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - schoen 3y ago
    Here's an article by the scientists who created the camera that took this picture, introducing it and describing its design. https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/200751/1/The%20Wide-Field%20Imager%20for%20Solar%20Probe%20Plus%20%28WISPR%29.pdf https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/200751/1/The%20Wide-Fi... It's very much not an off-the-shelf camera; it seems to have involved years of custom engineering work. This article doesn't seem to address the specific question of "why is this camera monochrome?" but you can see that it wasn't trivial to make an instrument that would work well in this difficult environment. So it's definitely not like "and let's throw a commercial digital camera on there too just for fun!". It's a legitimate question why some kind of color camera wasn't considered worth including, but lots of space missions have sensors that are something other than a simulacrum of human vision. That's why so many astronomical images end up getting published in false color. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_color https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_color In almost all of those cases, the justification for the false color seems to be some form of "true color wouldn't have been possible or appropriate for the scientific purposes of this imagery".
    - verisimi 3y ago
      Thank you for acknowledging this is a legitimate question. I've no issue with all sorts of cameras and scientific instruments being placed on a space craft. I don't expect to get access to all the data that is sent back - though - as it is from the public purse - I think it should be made available. My point is that the only interaction us great unwashed have with these missions is with the imagery that is provided.. How difficult would it be to have a colour camera?!?! I have a crap mobile and it has 3 cameras! And one on the front! When colour cameras have been available to everyone for so long, its simply inconceivable that NASA can never provide decent imagery! Its 2024 ffs, surely we can have colour by now! No? If not now, when?

Dylan16807 3y ago

> 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.

mulmen 3y ago
> 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?
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > …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.

mulmen 3y ago

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.