[gwarrr]

I am no expert, but to my knowledge the space flight tech evolves very slowly, if at all. One reason for that is that modern tech is supposedly too sensitive to radiation. So you want to balance what's worthwhile to upgrade, and fancy videos are probably low on that list.

[pwnOrbitals]

Space engineer here, not exactly true, esp for non-critical systems. Check out the "Careful COTS" paper by Doug Sinclair

[gwarrr]

would be happy if someone would explain or differentiate "not exactly true"

[gwarrr]

The paper is 12 years old. If there haven't been other methods to evaluate modern commercial tech, then it's an actual proof of tech evolving slowly due to radiation concerns. Even the process pointed out in the paper requires resources, but it just got a bit faster in the last years.

Apart from that, adding new components is also costly. You just don't order a random megapixel camera from alibaba and slam it on your 1bn space project.

Considering I made clear that i am no expert and my claims were under that context your response was simply arrogant and not helpful.

[decimalenough]

The Apollo astronauts used Hasselblads for still photography. I'm pretty sure Firefly is not sending back rolls of 6x6 film.

[gwarrr]

What is the point? Are we comparing coconuts and apples?

[decimalenough]

Well, you were the one telling me "space tech evolves slowly", when Apollo was taking their pictures with a film coconut, Firefly is using a digital apple, and yet the output still looks eerily similar.

[varjag]

Last Apollo landing was 53 years ago…

[gwarrr]

you are talking about stills. still don't know what the actual tech difference is.

[nkoren]

Here's what Apollo used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_photography

Here's what Firefly uses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_photography

Hopefully you can see that from a raw tech level, there's practically no overlap between those things at all. The technology has moved on _completely_.