wait why is it round?
The shot is from directly above the disc and the great turtle is hidden beneath it.
Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
21–30 of 419 posts
Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#22wait why is it round?
It's not really round, it's just a lens aberration.
Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#23I object to being included in this image without a model release and demand that pixel be removed.
Tell the world you're REALLY fat without telling the world ...
Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#24Come on flat-earthers. I know you are out there. Lets hear your crazy rant about how this is a fisheye lens on a weather balloon or a webcam atop the eiffel tower. Why can't we see the poles? And is that an ice wall on poking up in the lower-right quadrant of the disk?
Flat Earth is a distraction or a way to ridicule any counter-narrative to anything scientific. When a cosmologist says that a planet nobody can see exists and is made of x% helium and is y light years away etc etc with absolute certainty despite nobody being able to go there and witness any of it (look how wrong they were about Pluto’s appearance), then you can always just say “what are you a Flat Earther” and easily…
[deleted]
Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#25I object to being included in this image without a model release and demand that pixel be removed.
Your comment history suggests you're in the US, so you should be pleased to learn that you weren't included. The visible landmass is northern Africa, with a smidge of the Iberian Peninsula visible.
Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#26How come the pictures have such bad quality ? Is it a bandwidth issue ? Or there are really constraints that are not so obvious ?
Because fundamentally it is a large object illuminated by sunlight.
Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#27Come on flat-earthers. I know you are out there. Lets hear your crazy rant about how this is a fisheye lens on a weather balloon or a webcam atop the eiffel tower. Why can't we see the poles? And is that an ice wall on poking up in the lower-right quadrant of the disk?
My guess is the answer is: We didn’t really launch Artemis. This is all CG.
Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#28I was confused when I first saw this photo, as I don't think I've ever before seen a nightside, moonlit Earth, exposed so that it looks like the dayside at a first glance. I wonder how many casual viewers actually realize it's the night side. A nice demonstration of how moonlight is pretty much exactly like sunlight, just much much dimmer. In particular it has the same color, even though moonlight is often thought of…
It explains why the image is so grainy. At first I was confused what that stripe to the left and the bottom was. But it’s just the window edge, and the noise isn’t stars.
(To be clear, the bright dots are stars [except the brightest one, in the lower right, is Venus I think], which makes this photo also a great demonstration that of course you can capture stars in space, you just have to expose properly!)
Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#29I was confused when I first saw this photo, as I don't think I've ever before seen a nightside, moonlit Earth, exposed so that it looks like the dayside at a first glance. I wonder how many casual viewers actually realize it's the night side. A nice demonstration of how moonlight is pretty much exactly like sunlight, just much much dimmer. In particular it has the same color, even though moonlight is often thought of…
It’s a remarkable photo. You can see the aurora Australis at the top right of the image (it’s upside down, if there is such a thing - that’s the straits of Gibraltar at the lower left, and the Sahara above it - and the skein of atmosphere wrapping the entire planet. Those look like noctilucent clouds in the north, or possibly more aurora.
Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#30How come the pictures have such bad quality ? Is it a bandwidth issue ? Or there are really constraints that are not so obvious ? Because fundamentally it is a large object illuminated by sunlight.
It's the night-side Earth, taken at a high ISO value to keep shutter speed fast to prevent blur.