Nasa releases stunning new image of Earth taken from a spacecraft orbiting the moon

originally posted by: donktheclown
a reply to: wildespace

Care to elaborate why you believe it not to be true?

I can. It may have to do with the hoards of people who claim they worked for NASA. There seems to be many individuals who say NASA is full of sh*t. You can find Astronauts who will or did back up these claims. What the heck does that tell you, that they're disgruntled astronauts?...

When an agency controlling what the "truth" is, tells the world something, there's nobody else to ask. Who can you call? The EU space agency, China? They're all in cahoots together. [ramble ramble ramble]

I prefer to base my world-view on facts and logic, rather than paranoia and ill-placed distrust.

a reply to: butcherguy

Thanks for entertaining me for a bit!

Anytime.

a reply to: Aazadan

You probably see this same effect in action every single day, shadows are smallest and the day is brightest around noon while shadows are long and the day is dark at dusk/dawn.

Chang'e images from the Moon.

Long shadow
moon.bao.ac.cn... %9B%BE.jpg
shorter shadow
moon.bao.ac.cn... E9%99%84%E8%BF%91.jpg
Almost no shadow
moon.bao.ac.cn... E9%99%84%E8%BF%91.jpg

From:
moon.bao.ac.cn...

Edit: The links above get mashed somehow so forget them, but the images show that when there is a long shadow the light is brighter and the colour better, a shorter shadow and less light, poorer colour, and with almost no shadow very dull and almost no colour. Why would that be?

i can buy an amateur scope and take better images of the moon from earth than a multi billion dollar government program can of the moon and earth whilst in space and only miles from the moon.

what a joke

a reply to: odzeandennz

Well that's just awesome for you, but you're forgetting one thing: this wasn't taken with a telescope.

You're also forgetting that you're looking at a low res version of the image - try grabbing the 300 Mb version and see how much of a joke you think it is.

Italy, from the photo:

a reply to: odzeandennz

Your image would be a blurry mess unless you turned it into a composite image... just like what was done with the OP.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: ngchunter
a reply to: imd12c4funn

What you believe is irrelevant. Yes, NASA took real pictures of earth. No, Bob Ross' paintings have no equivalency with photos from LRO, regardless of the stitching and image processing. Every astrophoto you have ever seen has been processed to one extent or another, but that does not mean it's as fake as a Bob Ross painting. They even show the video on the LRO website of the raw wide angle camera images as it scans the surface of the earth and moon. It's quite real, just processed together to represent one moment of time from that scan.

It's fundamentally no different than stacking an image of a comet moving through space. If stacked on the stars and on the comet and composited it represents just one moment in time from the original imaging session, but it comes from a range of images covering a span of time where the comet was actually moving relative to the stars. If you simply added the photos together without any other processing the comet would be a blur, just as earth would be a blur if you stabilized on the moon's surface and didn't do any other processing to create the image.

Despite what you say, it looks no different than the moon in any videogame, with 2007 graphics.

It takes away an awe or inspiration looking at it, when you can clearly see its nothing like what it would look like with human eyes.

How is it, that these computer simulations are so cartoony ????

It's not a computer simulation, no matter what you say, it looks just like the moon does through very good adaptive optics or high quality lucky imaging. I am an internationally recognized astrophotographer with 15 years of experience, I know what I'm talking about. The supreme ignorance displayed in this thread has me on the verge of giving up on ATS altogether.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
i can buy an amateur scope and take better images of the moon from earth than a multi billion dollar government program can of the moon and earth whilst in space and only miles from the moon.

what a joke

I'd like to see those images, please. Can you photograph the Compton crater's central peak in as much detail as LRO?

(full-scale crop)


You can even see individual boulders.

originally posted by: GaryN
Edit: The links above get mashed somehow so forget them, but the images show that when there is a long shadow the light is brighter and the colour better, a shorter shadow and less light, poorer colour, and with almost no shadow very dull and almost no colour. Why would that be?

Without seeing the images specifically I would say it's due to contrast. Contrast is the difference between your lightest lights and your darkest darks. When there's a lot of light everything is bright, like the light source so you have little contrast. When there's less light, the light source itself appears brighter and you get a higher contrast. It's the same effect as looking at your laptop screen in a dark room versus outside in the sunlight, even at the same screen brightness you can see the color better when there's less light.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: odzeandennz
i can buy an amateur scope and take better images of the moon from earth than a multi billion dollar government program can of the moon and earth whilst in space and only miles from the moon.

what a joke

I'd like to see those images, please. Can you photograph the Compton crater's central peak in as much detail as LRO?

(full-scale crop)

You can even see individual boulders.

It's not even the central peak - it's a small range of minor peaks halfway between that central peak and the western rim! That bit you've cropped to is about 2 miles across.

originally posted by: Kromlech
Composite/CGI, as usual...

Why not release the ACTUAL f***ing photo that it captured?

NASA even admits it's just a "composite" image on their Facebook post yesterday.

Because the photo it captured is meaningless on it's own, you wouldn't recognize anything, it would literally just be a wall of red/green/blue depending on the photo you're looking at.

The way the instruments are designed are that they return composite images. It photographs the blue channel, red channel, green channel, and some other stuff, one after the other. Those channels are put back together to create your image. Not all that different from the screen you're looking to read this. Your computer monitor uses the same technology, each pixel has a red, green, blue, and alpha channel and that data is sent to your screen to recreate the picture. Your tv and phone also use this technology, even old CRT monitors and even vacuum tube tv's used it.

originally posted by: ipsedixit
Do we have a problem? Is the earth in the OP's picture too round, from that vantage point?

Just because the surface is uneven doesn't mean the atmosphere is uneven. I assume you'll also mention that the Earth is slightly egg shaped (NASA even admits this), but it's a very slight difference, the earth isn't a perfect sphere but it's pretty close.

lol, simply BRIGHTEN the picture to see just how bad they altered it, and how unrealistic it is. That is a simulated picture of the moon's terrain, and that is a composite/simulated picture of Earth.

If you believe THAT'S a "real" picture of the moon and Earth you're looking at, then I have beachfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

a reply to: wildespace

LMAO, that's you in the hat, right???

a reply to: Kromlech

Nice job.

Others have pointed it out, in various ways, even those who support the image as presented, but, clearly, the image is a "confection". Personally, I don't think it was even taken by the space craft it is attributed to.

originally posted by: Kromlech
lol, simply BRIGHTEN the picture to see just how bad they altered it, and how unrealistic it is. That is a simulated picture of the moon's terrain, and that is a composite/simulated picture of Earth.

Those artifacts are due to jpg compression.

As far as a simulated photo goes, are you aware of how all digital cameras work?

This is an interesting photo:



www.lpi.usra.edu...

The Earth, photographed in far-ultraviolet light (1304 angstroms) by astronaut John W. Young, Apollo 16 commander, with the ultraviolet camera. The auroral belts 13° on either side of the magnetic equator can be seen crossing each other on the middle of the right side of Earth.

(Personal caveat: I am assuming that this is a genuine ultra violet photo taken from space, of the earth. Who or what took it, is an open question to me personally.)

In this photo, the earth is neither spherical nor an ellipsoid. It is an odd shape, reminiscent of the "geoid" referenced earlier in the thread.



As I (a non expert) understand it, a geoid is a conceptual representation of the shape the earth would assume if it were a giant drop of water but with all the parameters of earth's gravitational anomalies input into its structure, anomalies that tend to deform a spherical (or flattened ellipsoid) shape.

Obviously the earth is not a giant drop of water but it is, to a considerable degree, liquid, if one considers the liquid portion of the the earth's core and also plastic, if one considers the pliable portions of the "solid" mantle.

en.wikipedia.org...



Geodesy is a complicated subject, and measuring stuff is a can of worms, as anyone who has ever taken a shop class can tell you, but granting all that, in a real photo of the earth, taken from space, I would have expected a little more deformation than we see in the OP's photo.

On the other hand, all of the above could be irrelevant, if the Collins photo is just another fake.

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

if that's a real photo then that confirms that the moon landing was a hoax. The earth is 10 times bigger in that photo plus looks totally different than the original supposed moon landing pics. Plus the moon itself looks different.

originally posted by: lavatrance
a reply to: RoScoLaz4

if that's a real photo then that confirms that the moon landing was a hoax. The earth is 10 times bigger in that photo plus looks totally different than the original supposed moon landing pics. Plus the moon itself looks different.

No, it just confirms you haven't read the thread.

What looks different about the moon, specifically? How have you arrived at '10 times'? What is so different about the Earth?