Hacker News Reader

Comment by dev_tty01 | Hacker News Reader

NASA has often added video or image capability with low scientific value to increase public engagement, despite the associated risk and cost. They made a call not to do it this time. My only point is that it would have been a nice PR opportunity if they could have found a way to make it work within their mission parameters. I apologize if making such a simple and obvious point has offended you in some way.

View on HN

Nope. In the category of probes/satellites, NASA doesn't put cameras that aren't needed. Probes on Mars get cameras, but that's because they're in a dynamic environment. They then use those cameras in fun, engaging ways.

As the aforelinked blog post explains, the extreme environment of the JWST makes this more challenging than it would be for missions like the Mars rovers.

The dark side of the JWST (where all the instruments are) will be operating very close to absolute zero and in near-absolute darkness which, of course, is the entire point of the mission.

A selfie camera there would need to function in that environment, while also somehow not polluting the instruments on that side of the camera with heat.

It's surely do-able, but it's a more complex engineering task (and would therefore require more tradeoffs) than operating a camera in the relatively balmy environment of Mars, where heat pollution is of no concern because of the different nature of the mission.

Keep in mind that doing this on the JWST also need to have been accomplished with decades-old technology, given the extremely long design and engineering lifecycle of a complex space mission.

This is a good PR opportunity in the same sense that you giving all your earthly possesions away to charity is a good PR opportunity :)

It's only good if you ignore the cost, and look only at the benefits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com