[HN Gopher] Artemis II crew take "spectacular" image of Earth
___________________________________________________________________
Artemis II crew take "spectacular" image of Earth
https://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/fd02_for-pao/
Author : andsoitis
Score : 1012 points
Date : 2026-04-03 19:35 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| damnitbuilds wrote:
| Anyone find the full res version of this ?
|
| Nasa images page is useless. Government work.
| matteason wrote:
| They're here: https://www.nasa.gov/gallery/journey-to-the-moon/
|
| Direct link to this image: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-
| content/uploads/2026/04/art002e00019...
| mbauman wrote:
| That version is ~~brightened significantly~~ (edit) a longer
| exposure; I like the darker one better.
|
| https://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-art002e000193/
| Sharlin wrote:
| They're two separate photos, just taken at different
| exposure settings.
| mbauman wrote:
| Sure enough, thanks for the correction!
| Jordan-117 wrote:
| "I cannot immediately find a photo on a website, therefore I
| will denigrate the agency that sent people into OUTER SPACE to
| make these incredible images possible."
| sgt wrote:
| I don't understand why media, such as BBC, keep uploading
| heavily compressed versions of photos that could be beautiful.
| The original has grain, sure but that's not a problem. The BBC
| version is horrific. Are they trying to save on bandwidth in
| 2026?
| pndy wrote:
| If the content loads fast, more views are given and more data
| is collected.
|
| My uBo caught 6 elements, Privacy Possum got referer headers
| blocked from 28 sources
| BHSPitMonkey wrote:
| It's highly reasonable for them to limit image size/quality
| to whatever looks fine to 98% of their readers. They store
| and serve an absolute ton of ever-changing content to
| browsers/apps; The very small (and likely revenue-negative)
| contingent of highly motivated people can find the originals
| if the images are especially noteworthy like these.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Come 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?
| layer8 wrote:
| Don't you see the reflection of the studio lighting in the
| middle?
| geldedus wrote:
| of course they are sore losers
| itsalwaysthem wrote:
| 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 discredit any doubt I have in these
| extraordinary claims with underwhelming evidence.
|
| Any idea you want the public to oppose, you can create and
| market an adjacent thing, like Trump. You can throw all the
| ideas you want to oppose in the Trump bucket and if anyone
| supports it it's probably because they're a Trump supporter
| right?
|
| See you're very very easily programmed, like clockwork.
| kube-system wrote:
| > a planet nobody can see exists and is made of x% helium and
| is y light years away etc etc
|
| Yeah, because this is high-school curriculum.
|
| https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/resources/lesson-plan/using-
| lig...
|
| > with absolute certainty
|
| It is taught that the scientific method provides evidence,
| not certainty, in middle school science curriculum.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _It is taught that the scientific method provides
| evidence, not certainty, in middle school science
| curriculum._
|
| FWIW, this fact isn't taught properly or normies are
| somehow unable to process it.
|
| There's this popular dismissal of tech people, saying that
| "they think in 0s and 1s, but world is shades of gray", but
| in reality, it's almost everyone else that thinks in 0s and
| 1s - STEM people and people in/into similar fields (like
| medicine) are usually forced to understand nuance due to
| nature of their interests/occupation, but everyone else
| seems to operate in purely binary mode, and what's worse,
| whether something is true and false isn't even correlated
| much with objective reality, and mostly with one's personal
| feelings about how things should be.
|
| (Now, to be an equal opportunity cynic, in my experience,
| the concept of categories and taxonomies being arbitrary -
| invented and assigned by people, and judged by their
| usefulness, as opposed to being inherent facts of nature
| that are discovered - seems to be hard for even STEM people
| to process, for some reason, at least based on my
| observations and the number of conversations I had about
| this with all kinds of people.)
| wat10000 wrote:
| Do you believe in Antarctica?
| adrian_b wrote:
| I do not know what you mean about "how wrong they were about
| Pluto's appearance".
|
| Since when I was very young and until now the amount of
| information about Pluto has continuously increased, so now we
| know much more about it.
|
| For example now we know that Pluto is practically a double
| planet, having a relatively very large satellite. This was
| not known when I was a child, e.g. at the time of the first
| NASA Moon missions.
|
| However, I do not remember anything wrong. Many things that
| have been learned recently were previously unknown, not
| wrong.
|
| If you refer to the fact that Pluto was reclassified as a
| dwarf planet, that is also a case of information previously
| unknown, not wrong.
|
| This planetary reclassification was not the first.
|
| When Ceres was discovered in 1801, it was considered the 7th
| planet, after the 5 planets known in antiquity and Uranus
| that was discovered a few years earlier. (The chemical
| elements uranium and cerium, which were discovered soon after
| the planets, were named so after the new planets, as their
| discovery impressed a lot the people of those times.)
|
| However, soon after Ceres a great number of other bodies were
| discovered in the same region and it was understood that
| Ceres is not a single planet, but a member of the asteroid
| belt.
|
| Exactly the same thing happened with Pluto, but because of
| its distance, more years have passed until a great number of
| bodies have been discovered beyond Neptune and it became
| understood that Pluto is just one of them, i.e. a member of
| the Kuiper belt, so it was reclassified, exactly like Ceres.
| maxbond wrote:
| > ...discredit any doubt I have in these extraordinary claims
| with underwhelming evidence.
|
| Something unfortunate about our media environment is that
| science news is a dumbed down summary of a dumbed down
| summary of a dumbed down summary. These issues you're
| flagging, a lack of evidence and overstated certainty -
| they're an artifact of the reporting process. If you work
| your way back to the original sources, there will be a heck
| of a lot of evidence and it will carry error bars (so the
| certainty is precisely & appropriately stated). There's bad
| or even fraudulent papers out there but there's a huge amount
| of good science being done by honest researchers who are just
| as concerned as you are about the quality of the evidence and
| the degree of certainty.
|
| Eg, there really is a compelling explanation of how we can
| know the composition of a gas giant light-years away, and it
| isn't invented out of thin air, it's been 100+ year process
| of understanding spectroscopy and cosmology, building better
| telescopes, etc. It's the culmination of generations of
| scientists pushing the field forward millimeter by
| millimeter.
| chrisnight wrote:
| Your argument is against large generalizations and straw man
| arguments, and to prove it, you.. use a generalization and
| straw man argument?
| jgrahamc wrote:
| There is no point engaging in any way with people who believe
| in such "theories". They are like trolls, the only way to deal
| with them is not at all. Don't engage, don't disagree, just
| nothing, total silence. One can choose to be a wilful edit and
| waste your life and time on complete bullshit, but the rest of
| us should just ignore those people completely.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Ya, but eventually they all wind up wearing furs and carrying
| spears as they storm the gates of some government building.
| Its all good fun until people start to die. We laugh as
| soveriegn citizens are yanked from thier cars. Harder to
| watch are the vids of them pulling guns on police.
|
| Conspiracy theorists need to be kept in check. Disengagment
| is easy but it doesnt help.
| simonw wrote:
| This was a fantastic YouTube video on flat earther beliefs from
| a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44
|
| Spoiler - they mostly switched to QAnon instead.
| YZF wrote:
| "How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat
| Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason"
|
| https://www.amazon.ca/How-Talk-Science-Denier-Conversations/...
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| Ridicule them until they leave? Don't really feel like
| wasting my time on any more than that.
| majkinetor wrote:
| Exactly what Professor Dave does.
| slopinthebag wrote:
| The only real difference between the "spaceflight" in the
| 1960's and today is that these pictures don't need to be hand
| painted - you can render them in Blender in a single day.
|
| But yeah, sure. With the amount of fake stuff on the internet
| including AI image generation, we're expected to believe that
| the US government dumped billions of dollars into going to
| space when they could give the appearance of doing so for a few
| bucks in nano banana credits? Hah.
| maxbond wrote:
| They couldn't do that for "a few bucks of nano banana
| credits" though. You could generate the imagery but that's
| only one line of evidence. A launch is easily detectable
| through multiple signals.
|
| Why would Russia and China and any other country with any
| degree of astronomic capability that the US has an
| adversarial relationship with just let them get away with
| lying to the world? Why wouldn't they take the opportunity to
| humiliate the US by revealing that no launch happened and
| that they cannot detect the spacecraft?
| slopinthebag wrote:
| How would they prove that no launch happened? There isn't
| conclusive evidence of an absence of launch, and if there
| were it would be accused as being fake and a ploy from
| American enemies to discredit them.
| maxbond wrote:
| > There isn't conclusive evidence of an absence of
| launch, ...
|
| A launch is detectable seismically, visually, on radar,
| etc. There's a lot of investment in being able to detect
| launches (to detect the launch of nuclear weapons). It
| would be screamingly obvious if the launch was fake. It
| would absolutely be conclusive if there were no seismic
| activity, no radar return, they couldn't detect the
| spacecraft presently, etc. At least for a definition of
| "conclusive" that can be operationalized - conclusiveness
| is a judgement call about when evidence is sufficient and
| not reaching some theoretical 100% certainty. Which can't
| possibly be reached for any claim for the reason you
| outlined; you can always invent some negative
| counterclaim that can't be entirely dismissed, even for
| claims like "the sky is blue".
|
| It's also pretty easy to find people who were physically
| there to witness the launch. This wasn't a secret bunker
| or a barge in the middle of the ocean. It was in Florida
| in the late afternoon.
|
| > ...it would be accused as being fake and a ploy from
| American enemies to discredit them.
|
| Hundreds of thousands of people around the world have
| access to this data. Astronomers, geologists, petroleum
| engineers, backyard amateurs. The conspirators could
| muddy the waters but they couldn't ultimately prevail. It
| is many orders of magnitude easier to go to the moon than
| to convincingly fake it.
| icehawk wrote:
| > and if there were it would be accused as being fake and
| a ploy from American enemies to discredit them.
|
| Yeah so, the soviets were pretty good at dodging things
| like that:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident
| mylies43 wrote:
| Im curious, so the rocket definitely took off, where did it
| go?
| christophilus wrote:
| My guess is the answer is: We didn't really launch Artemis.
| This is all CG.
| NitpickLawyer wrote:
| > This is all CG.
|
| Reminds me of the classic - It is true that Spielberg filmed
| the moon landings, but he was such a perfectionist that he
| wanted to shoot on location.
| dylan604 wrote:
| ahem, Kubrik
| saint_yossarian wrote:
| Kubrick, even.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| And here I thought it was all shoot on soundstage on Mars.
| _adq2 wrote:
| Don't pay attention to "authorities," think for yourself.
|
| - Feynman
| gaurangt wrote:
| Oh, wait, in addition to their usual conspiracy theories, now
| they can also claim that this is AI-generated!
| MiscIdeaMaker99 wrote:
| What a gorgeous sight to behold!
| Sharlin wrote:
| I 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 as bluish and
| sunlight as yellowish!
| layer8 wrote:
| 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.
| Sharlin wrote:
| (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!)
| MarkusQ wrote:
| How do you know that they're stars? I believe they probably
| are stars as well (by visual comparison with a star chart,
| suitably rotated), but I've found no source for either
| claim.
|
| I did find multiple sources, including TFA, for the
| brightest being Venus.
| Sharlin wrote:
| They're much brighter than the noise floor. Photographic
| noise doesn't really have such outliers.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Why would you think they are _not_ stars? Not really sure
| the confusion on the matter. Are we leaning towards this
| being shot from a soundstage?
| MarkusQ wrote:
| Just answered my own question to my satisfaction; they are
| stars.
|
| The same specs, which match star charts, show up in two
| images taken a few moments apart at different exposures
| (links were given down-thread).
| dylan604 wrote:
| Who said you can't capture stars in space? What do you
| think the purpose of Hubble, JWST, etc are? There's also
| plenty of imagery taken from ISS that clearly show stars.
| I've definitely seen Orion in some of that imagery and it
| put a different perspective on the size of the
| constellations when seen from that angle.
| smallerize wrote:
| Photos from the moon landings don't have stars in them,
| because they are exposed for full daylight on the moon.
| xp84 wrote:
| I'm assuming the people who complain that there aren't
| stars are the "moon landing faked" crowd... it's
| hilarious to me that they think this vast conspiracy came
| together to fake that whole thing, and that they
| literally forgot to put a bunch of tiny 25-cent
| flashlight bulbs up poking through the black backdrop on
| the sound stage. Like, no one thought about the stars, or
| they couldn't figure out how to do those "special
| effects" and just prayed no one would spot the error.
| Sharlin wrote:
| I referred to the common question (or accusation) of why
| there are no stars in, say, the Apollo photos taken on
| the moon. The answer is, of course, that you can't see
| stars if you're exposing for something bright and sunlit,
| like the day side of Earth, or the lunar surface.
| GorbachevyChase wrote:
| Of course. But they are not visible in the Chang'e photos
| on the dark side either. I think in the interview of the
| astronauts following the first Apollo Mission, a reporter
| asked for a confirmation that the stars were not visible
| because of "the glare" (an interesting question in
| itself). The explanation given was that the stars were
| not visible with the eye, but were visible with "the
| optics".
| MarkusQ wrote:
| Well one of them is obviously Venus. How did you determine
| the others weren't stars?
| layer8 wrote:
| I'm talking about the grainy noise over all the black parts
| (actually over the Earth disk as well), including beyond
| the window edge. The window edge itself looks like a denser
| and brighter stripe of stars.
|
| Zoom into this higher-resolution version:
| https://www.nasa.gov/wp-
| content/uploads/2026/04/art002e00019...
| Sharlin wrote:
| Yep, that's definitely noise.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| 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.
| Sharlin wrote:
| It really is gorgeous. You can see both auroral rings, then
| there's airglow, and city lights around Gibraltar and on the
| South American coast, and lightning flashes in the storm
| clouds over the tropics.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I've done several shoots lit only by the full moon. Doing long
| exposure, the images are as you stated not much different than
| an image taken during the day, except for looking at the sky
| and seeing stars.
|
| I've also done video shoots with the newer mirrorless cameras
| and fast lenses shooting wide open again lit with nothing but
| the full moon. It again looks daylight on the image. As a bit
| of BTS, I recorded a video of the screen on the camera showing
| what it was seeing, and then pulled away and reframed to show
| essentially the same shot as the camera but it's just solid
| black. One of those videos was fun as we caught a bit of lens
| flaring from the moon, and you can actually see the details of
| the surface of the moon in the reflection. It was one of those
| things I just never considered before as flares coming from
| lights or the sun are just void of detail.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Moonlight _is_ reflected sunlight.
| Sharlin wrote:
| That's obvious. But the moon is so perfectly neutral gray
| that the reflected light is essentially the same color as the
| incident sunlight.
| gorgoiler wrote:
| Reminds me of one of the best new comedy series in years,
| _Very Important People_ , doing improvised spoof interviews:
|
| https://www.tiktok.com/@veryimportantpeopleshow/video/731957.
| ..
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > even though moonlight is often thought of as bluish and
| sunlight as yellowish!
|
| Is that... true? Sunlight is seen as yellow, of course, but the
| moon is usually thought of as white.
| Sharlin wrote:
| That's fair, I was thinking of how night, or twilight, as a
| whole is associated with cool hues, but it's probably true
| that moonlight in itself is usually thought of as neutral
| white.
| syncsynchalt wrote:
| Sunlight is yellowish in atmosphere since some blue's been
| scattered by the atmosphere[1], but it's white in space.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| I don't think that's right. Sunlight is white in the
| atmosphere too. Scattering causes _the sun_ , not the
| light, to look yellow, and so sunlight is thought of as
| yellow.
| Sharlin wrote:
| Scattering doesn't really make the sun to appear yellow
| except when it's low, behind a lot of air. When it's
| above 30deg or so it just looks blinding, neutral white
| (or non-blinding neutral white if there's suitable cloud
| cover or other filter in front of it). Even though a lot
| of the blues _are_ scattered around, the sun still looks
| just white when it's high in the sky.
|
| But when the sun does look yellow, its light is yellow
| too, that's the definition of "looks yellow". And the
| golden hour paints everything in very iconic yellow-
| orange hues. The light _as integrated over the whole sky_
| is still white (modulo whatever's scattered back into
| space), but the light that comes from the direction of
| the sun is clearly tinted yellow and the light from the
| rest of the sky is clearly tinted blue.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > But when the sun does look yellow, its light is yellow
| too, that's the definition of "looks yellow".
|
| Not quite; the sun is far away and is restricted to a
| tiny portion of the sky, but its light covers half the
| earth at a time. It is simultaneously true that the sun
| looks yellow and that the light we receive from it is
| white. It isn't the case that objects in direct sunlight
| are yellowed by that light; the yellow appearance when
| you look at the sun is something of an illusion.
|
| > Even though a lot of the blues are scattered around,
| the sun still looks just white when it's high in the sky.
|
| This isn't true.
| nomilk wrote:
| Thanks. Until you pointed out it's Earth _at night_ , I had no
| clue what was supposed to be special about this photo (it
| appeared suspiciously pixelated for something 'high res', and
| neighbouring pixels seemed to contrast in colour rather than
| smoothly complementing as most photos do - but I guess that's
| random patches of city lights being captured by the camera).
| Cool stuff!
|
| Something I haven't figured out is: what is that yellow/whitish
| smudge toward the center of the earth? It looks like camera
| glare or a reflection?
| Sharlin wrote:
| Yeah, it's a reflection from the window, of something inside
| the ship.
| mr_toad wrote:
| What does it look like to human eyes? Is there enough light for
| a person up there to see colour, or would it look like black
| and white (like a moonlit scene on the ground).
| Sharlin wrote:
| No color, I'm pretty sure.
| rachel_rig wrote:
| Same! I mean the last time we were in space the cameras were
| ... not this good. I can't wait to see more photos from modern
| hardware!
| TimByte wrote:
| The camera is compensating for extremely low light, so you end
| up with something that looks closer to a daylight exposure
| Sharlin wrote:
| I know. Apparently this was shot at ISO 51,200.
| longislandguido wrote:
| > The image, titled Hello, World
|
| A new hello.jpg?
| hmaxwell wrote:
| wait why is it round?
| delichon wrote:
| The shot is from directly above the disc and the great turtle
| is hidden beneath it.
| falcor84 wrote:
| It's not really round, it's just a lens aberration.
| delichon wrote:
| I object to being included in this image without a model release
| and demand that pixel be removed.
| brongondwana wrote:
| Tell the world you're REALLY fat without telling the world ...
| palata wrote:
| "Your mom is so fat she would take a whole pixel on that
| image"?
| delecti wrote:
| 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.
| layer8 wrote:
| South America is visible on the right, and it looks to me
| like part of North America might also be pictured close to
| the horizon.
|
| Higher-resolution image: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-
| content/uploads/2026/04/art002e00019...
| delecti wrote:
| Oh, good point. I missed South America under the cloud
| cover. I guess the Eastern edge of the US would indeed be
| visible as a highly distorted smudge on the edge of the
| visible surface.
|
| For a view of roughly the same half of Earth, but with less
| clouds, if you rotate the image clockwise by 150 degrees
| you get roughly this viewpoint of the earth: https://earth.
| google.com/web/@3.63731074,-23.1618975,-2690.7...
| mtone wrote:
| Thanks!
|
| There's a heading control to include rotation in link: ht
| tps://earth.google.com/web/@3.63731074,-23.1618975,-2690.
| 7...
| al_borland wrote:
| Thank you. I have having trouble making sense of the
| orientation. My first thought was misshapen Australia, but
| where Spain nears Africa is much different than Australia and
| Tasmania. Also, they forgot New Zealand... while common for
| maps, I would expect it to show up in a photo.
| nasretdinov wrote:
| If they somehow manage to get another photo which features
| Australia without New Zealand that would be the best Apr
| 1st joke I've ever seen
| mememememememo wrote:
| Thanks I was looking for an orientation comment.
| sph wrote:
| Classic American thinking even from space they are the center
| of the world smdh
| Bloating wrote:
| glad you accept that fact
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Bad news, I was across town and I do consent to my pixel being
| used, so you're outta luck
| rvnx wrote:
| How 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.
| Sharlin wrote:
| It's the night-side Earth, taken at a high ISO value to keep
| shutter speed fast to prevent blur.
| rvnx wrote:
| Ok thank you, makes more sense, I thought it was the day-side
| Sharlin wrote:
| Yes, I was also confused when I first saw it - how could
| the aurora be visible?! The bright sliver of atmosphere in
| the lower right is, of course, backlit by the sun which is
| itself eclipsed by Earth. It's the near-full moon that
| provides most of the illumination here. Besides both
| auroral rings you can also see airglow, city lights, and
| lightning flashes, it's a marvellous photo.
| sgt wrote:
| No, it's BBC's compression of that image.
|
| Look at the original: https://www.nasa.gov/image-
| detail/fd02_for-pao/
|
| It's grainy, but the detail is terrific.
| consumer451 wrote:
| @dang, mods: maybe this should be the post's link. The image
| quality is much higher.
| AndroTux wrote:
| No GPS coordinates in the EXIF data. Would've been funny.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I love how all the public critique about not being able to see
| stars in nasa photos has resulted in better dynamic range
| photography and composition
|
| just the lowest hanging fruit that had been a second class
| citizen to the marvel of having an extraterrestrial angle to
| begin with
| seydor wrote:
| whats different between this and all the other pics of earth from
| various space devices
| senko wrote:
| This is the night side.
| Strom wrote:
| Taken by a different camera, from a different location, at a
| different time.
| layer8 wrote:
| It's taken by a human on the way to the moon.
| hydrogen7800 wrote:
| That's enough for me. There was also much hype about a new
| blue marble picture, but I'm ok with that.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| I saw someone point out on reddit that this probably the first
| digital picture of the whole earth (well, 1 side of it) taken
| by a person
|
| Apollo used film and it's been a long time since anyone has
| gone past LEO
| Forge36 wrote:
| There something amazing about that. Thanks for pointing it
| out!
| WalterBright wrote:
| Haven't any of the space probes taken such pictures as they
| left to wander through the solar system?
| consumer451 wrote:
| Man, this is truly awesome. I wonder if NASA's Don Pettit,
| u/astro_pettit [0] consults on all missions going forward. He
| really should.
|
| He is "our people," as far as hacking astrophotography from
| space. [1]
|
| [0] https://old.reddit.com/user/astro_pettit
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42701645
| evilelectron wrote:
| Hello again dot.
|
| Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. --
| Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, 1994
| hannesfur wrote:
| Looking at the EXIF (with exiftool) for the image uploaded by
| NASA (https://www.nasa.gov/wp-
| content/uploads/2026/04/art002e00019...), apparently this was
| taken by a Nikon D5 with an AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
| and developed with Lightroom. It also seems like very little was
| done in Lightroom. Amazing... I dumped the whole EXIF here:
| https://gist.github.com/umgefahren/a6f555e6588a98adb74eed79d...
| consumer451 wrote:
| Thanks! This was my first question.
| pants2 wrote:
| While the D5 is a great camera it's ~10 years old. Wonder why
| they didn't go for the Z9 which is its modern mirrorless
| equivalent.
| reactordev wrote:
| Government budgets man...
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > Wonder why they didn't go for the Z9 which is its modern
| mirrorless equivalent.
|
| From [0], "The D5 was chosen for its radiation resistance,
| extreme ISO range (up to 3,280,000), and proven reliability
| in space." (
|
| [0] https://www.photoworkout.com/artemis-ii-nikon-d5-moon/
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Zero point in measuring camera sizes (or other sizes haha)
| when JWST is floating there.
| jimbosis wrote:
| "The Nikon D5 remains the camera of choice for the Artemis II
| mission and will be assigned primary photographic duties. It
| is a proven, highly-tested camera that the Artemis II team
| knows will excel in the high-radiation environment of space.
| However, as Artemis II Commander Reid Wiseman explained ahead
| of yesterday's launch, he successfully fought to have a
| single Nikon Z9 added to Artemis II's manifest."
|
| https://petapixel.com/2026/04/02/a-nikon-z9-made-it-
| aboard-t...
|
| There are more interesting details in the PetaPixel article,
| such as: "'That's the camera that they'll be using, the crew
| will be using on Artemis III plus, so we were fighting really
| hard to get that on the vehicle to test out in a high-
| radiation environment in deep space,' Wiseman said."
|
| H/t to "SiliconEagle73" who linked to that PetaPixel article
| in the thread linked below.
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/nasa/comments/1sbfevm/new_high_reso.
| ..
| porphyra wrote:
| They did bring the Z9:
| https://petapixel.com/2026/04/02/a-nikon-z9-made-it-
| aboard-t...
|
| But yeah the grainy photo of the Earth with the D5 at ISO
| 51200 shows the shortcomings of the ancient DSLR. Still,
| great shot.
| hypercube33 wrote:
| I'd argue the D4s and D5 may be some of the best high ISO
| cameras I'm aware of maybe surpassed by that one canon
| video camera that can seemingly see in the dark (sorry I'm
| mobile) and the D3s. I think the lower numbers produce
| nicer looking max ISO noise but that's all preference. Sony
| has the A7s as well but as with some of these the overall
| resolution isn't extreme.
| jeffreygoesto wrote:
| How does the age of the camera influence physics? The only
| thing that really helps would be increasing the aperture.
| pants2 wrote:
| Lower noise sensors and better image stabilization for
| longer exposures
| apitman wrote:
| It might be the newest thing on the ship.
| miladyincontrol wrote:
| From what I recall reading its more or less, "we have
| established and validated processes for using the D5." Its
| less about getting the best possible photo, more about making
| sure what they do take looks fine and doesnt waste a ton of
| time.
| ericcumbee wrote:
| The D5 has flight heritage to use the industry term.
| layer8 wrote:
| Before Lightroom it might have looked closer to this:
| https://images-assets.nasa.gov/image/art002e000193/art002e00...
| consumer451 wrote:
| Might I ask, what was your path to finding this image?
| rafram wrote:
| https://www.nasa.gov/gallery/journey-to-the-moon/
| consumer451 wrote:
| Thanks so much. Sending this link to my nerdy nephews
| immediately.
| hannesfur wrote:
| From the EXIF we can infer that every setting was left at the
| default. No exposure comp, no contrast, no HSL, no lens
| correction and a linear tone curve. Just the default Adobe
| Color profile at 5400K.
| ranie93 wrote:
| Maybe it's because I (like many) have experienced taking
| pictures at night and seeing the grainy result that _this_
| image struck me as incredibly realistic.
|
| Almost like I ran the grainy-to-real conversion in my mind
| and I felt like I was imagining seeing this in person.
| Beautiful image!
| divbzero wrote:
| The photograph appears to show nightime on Earth with just a
| sliver of daytime. Beyond cities in Iberia and along the
| coast of Africa, most of what we can see would be reflected
| light from the Moon? We are just past full moon on April 1.
| hparadiz wrote:
| 1/4 exposure time so 250 ms of light. the light is coming
| from all the light sources in the universe, plus the moon,
| plus the sun's rays refracting through the atmosphere which
| happens even at night.
|
| The natural blue light is coming from the oxygen in the
| atmosphere but it's so overwhelming in that spot that it
| turns the light pure white. The red/orangish is coming from
| particulates and the green/red from aurora. My favorite
| part I think is the very bottom where you can see the blue
| light taper off and not overwhelm the camera sensor and you
| can see the aurora with it. I love this photo so much.
|
| Probably my favorite photo ever now.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> the light is coming from all the light sources in the
| universe, plus the moon_
|
| And all the others are negligible by many orders of
| magnitude compared to the moon. So it's really just the
| moon as far as this photo is concerned (except for the
| small sliver that's still illuminated by sunlight,
| including refracted sunlight).
| vasco wrote:
| > the light is coming from all the light sources in the
| universe,
|
| That's highly incorrect. I have many lightsources that
| aren't contributing to any photons in that picture. For
| example my refrigerator light.
| Y-bar wrote:
| I turn off my refrigerator light after I close the door
| by reaching in and pushing the button. Don't you?
| functional_dev wrote:
| so the atmosphere acts as giant lamp lit from behind by
| Moon? never thought of it that way
| tantalor wrote:
| > the light is coming from all the light sources in the
| universe, plus the moon
|
| This is true for every photo ever taken
| tayo42 wrote:
| That's what the caption the article above says
| pdonis wrote:
| _> Beyond cities in Iberia and along the coast of Africa,
| most of what we can see would be reflected light from the
| Moon?_
|
| Yes, exactly.
| deepsun wrote:
| But that one (art002e000193~large.jpg) is only 287kB. The
| Lightroom-processed one is 6.2MB. I would expect original to
| be heavier.
| porphyra wrote:
| The Lightroom one was processed from raw. Also, by
| brightening it a lot, the noisy high-ISO grain becomes more
| apparent. Noise is famously incompressible, so it leads to
| a much larger file size.
| thfuran wrote:
| Brightening the image may make the iso noise easier to
| see, but it doesn't create it.
| porphyra wrote:
| Noise that's easier to see will not be compressed away by
| the JPEG compression. JPEG is basically just DCT +
| thresholding. Any higher amplitude noise is going to stay
| and increase the final file size.
|
| Also, pulling more data from your 14 bit or 16 bit raws
| results in more noise in the end compared to the
| straight-out-of-camera 8 bit JPEGs.
| miduil wrote:
| But lossy-codecs job is to utilize psychovisual tricks to
| discard as much high-frequency information as possible,
| whilst remaining similar visual effects. If you increase
| the brightness in RAW and then re-encode the JPEG - more
| noise is being pulled up in the visual spectrum, therefor
| less of that information (filesize) is discarded.
|
| For example, if you render Gaussian noise in photopea and
| export as JPEG 100% quality, it has 9.2MB. If you reduce
| the exposure by -2 it goes down to 7.8MB. That's
| partially because more parts of the noise are effectively
| black pixels, but also I believe because of the earlier
| mentioned effect.
| godelski wrote:
| It's not lossless
| saint_yossarian wrote:
| The resolutions are different, 1920x1280 vs. 5568x3712.
|
| Also possibly different JPEG quality settings.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Could be the thumbnail / preview image generated
| alongside the raw
| fortyseven wrote:
| It's beautiful as these all are, that one is probably my
| favorite. And as somebody else said it kind of feels more
| real seeing the grain like that. It's just beautiful. A side
| we never see quite like this.
| SMAAART wrote:
| https://exifinfo.org/detail/RjJtDLtCfS5kpq0fM2e7yA
| to11mtm wrote:
| ...
|
| My only curiosity, and yeah I know orders of significance
| etc...
|
| Buuuuut I wonder why they didn't consider a Z5[0][1] and the Z
| mount 14-24, or the Z5 with an adapter for the F mount
| 14-24....
|
| There's at least a pound of weight savings on the table.
|
| Specifically, I wonder if it's a fun reason? i.e. it would be
| interesting if there was a technical reason like 'IBIS fails
| miserbly' or 'increased sensor resolution adds too much noise'
| (even at that ISO you gave from the EXIF...)
|
| [0] I'm really more of a Sony person but am thus keenly aware
| about importance of UX _feel_ , so I tried to keep the question
| apples to apples here.
|
| Edited to add:
|
| [1] Per [0] I may be stupid in thinking the Z5 is a 'at least
| minimal' substitute so happy to learn something here.
| geerlingguy wrote:
| They have a Z9 on board for radiation testing, but the D5 is
| the primary body for imaging on this mission IIRC
| to11mtm wrote:
| Yeah other folks gave better insight while I was writing my
| comment, oops...
| throw0101d wrote:
| The D5 has been used on the ISS since 2017, including EVAs:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cameras_on_the_Inte
| rna...
|
| The ISS now (also?) has Z9s. So they're both generally
| known-quantities.
| rafram wrote:
| When you're riding a rocket that weighs 3.5 million pounds...
| to11mtm wrote:
| Is that the Rocket or the Craft+Mission payload?
|
| My understanding is it's on the order of 5-10 pounds of
| rocket juice to get one pound of something to LEO, thus the
| question.
| chainingsolid wrote:
| At 3.5 mil pounds that has to be the full rocket. But
| quick [1]googling is giving an even higher total mass
| number...
|
| 1. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-
| content/uploads/2026/01/sls-5640-sls...
| chainingsolid wrote:
| Mass higher up the rocket costs several multiples more mass
| in propellant and propellant handling lower in the rocket.
| And the more deltaV you want the higher the multiplication.
| (If I remember right some weight issues of some kind on the
| Apollo capsule and or lander required a common bulk head in
| the first stage to make up the performance loss!)
|
| However cameras probably fall into the variance in
| astoraunt weight somewhat.
| atentaten wrote:
| Nice. It would've been cool to see what the location
| information in the EXIF looked like, if it were there.
| Kye wrote:
| The D5 doesn't have built in GPS, and adding it requires an
| attachment. I don't know if the smartphone app works on that
| model, but it is from the same year as my D5600 which does
| support it. The app provides GPS but also drains the battery
| fast. I turned airplane mode on after the first dead battery.
|
| GPS might work out there though:
| https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/space-
| communications-...
| porphyra wrote:
| I'd have probably shot it wide open at f/2.8 rather than
| cranking the ISO up to 51200. Incredibly impressed at the
| steady hands for a sharp image at 1/4 s shutter speed though!
| Maybe they just let the camera float in space with the mirror
| up, triggering it remotely.
| treis wrote:
| They're in space so they only sort of need to hold the
| camera.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| Or maybe press the timer and let it float...
| plaguuuuuu wrote:
| or sticky-tape it to the window.
|
| d5 has an actual shutter yeah? not mirrorless? I think
| the shutter moving will spin the camera.
| hackerdood wrote:
| I haven't looked at the manual but it likely has the
| ability to flip and keep the mirror up for direct capture
| on the sensor without the mirror flipping up and down
| between exposures.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Bad idea, shutter speed was 1/4 apparently
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47632457), even the
| small rotational inertia everything in zero gravity gets
| from a human "dropping" it would probably be enough to be
| annoying, you'd get a better shot holding it.
| narmiouh wrote:
| I would imagine since they are not circling the earth, that
| there will be pull of gravity and the camera would start to
| move relative to the spacecraft. But may not fast enough for
| a short exposure
| dotancohen wrote:
| The gravity of the Earth (and moon, and everything else) is
| uniform (i.e. no gradient) on the scale of things the size
| of that capsule at the distance that capsule is from them,
| on the order of time of the exposure of that photograph. So
| the gravity (from any source) will pull on the spacecraft
| and on the camera in the same fashion.
|
| To fully answer the question, the moon's gravitational
| gradient does pull on the Earth, the ocean closest to the
| moon, and the ocean furthest from the moon differently. But
| those are objects separated by thousands of kilometers,
| having hours of gravitational influence acting upon them.
| gus_massa wrote:
| Once you are out of the atmosphere and turn off your
| thrusters, you are on "fee fall" and the gravity on the
| camera, you and the spaceship produce the same acceleration
| and they cancel and it looks exactly like "zero gravity".
| It doesn't matter if you are in orbit around the Earth,
| going to the Moon.
| mr_toad wrote:
| They're not circling the Earth, but they're still orbiting
| it. Their orbit is highly eccentric, and will be near the
| Moon at apogee.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _I 'd have probably shot it wide open at f/2.8 rather than
| cranking the ISO up to 51200._
|
| One of the reasons the D5 supposedly was chosen was because
| of its high dynamic and good low light performance. It can go
| up to ISO 3,280,000:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D5
|
| The D5 has been used on the ISS, including EVAs, since 2017,
| so is a known quantity:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cameras_on_the_Intern
| a...
| porphyra wrote:
| The good low light performance was amazing for its time (10
| years ago), and it still holds up decently today. But let's
| not kid ourselves -- it has been clearly surpassed by
| modern backside illuminated CMOS sensors like the one on
| the Z9.
|
| EDIT: sorry, it seems I'm wrong. I just checked
| https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm and while
| the Z9 has the clear edge with 2 more stops of dynamic
| range at low ISO, the D5 actually pulls ahead at high ISO.
| Perhaps the technological improvements haven't been that
| much for the shot-noise dominated regime.
| nelox wrote:
| Was hoping to hear from the person at NASA who made the
| choice and why.
| throw0101c wrote:
| Sure, but D5s were also doing EVAs for many years and
| much more of a know quantity in space.
| ourmandave wrote:
| You can get a D5 on amazon.com. It would be amazing if one of
| the astronauts did a review explaining how it performs in
| space.
| adamm255 wrote:
| Oh man. "Rolled with the D5 on my recent trip around the
| moon, decent performance, very light and easy to hold in
| zero gravity".
| mhb wrote:
| f/8 and be there?
| jen729w wrote:
| You might misunderstand how ISO works on digital cameras. (I
| did.)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWSvHBG7X0w
| deathanatos wrote:
| Good grief, that video suffers the YouTube-ism of "ramble
| on about how you don't understand X" for _way too long._
|
| Video alleges people think ISO makes the sensor "more
| sensitive or less sensitive". (I ... don't _think_ this is
| common? But IDK, maybe this is my feldspar.)
|
| (The video also quibbles that it is "ISO setting" not "ISO"
| ... while showing shots of cameras which call it "ISO",
| seemingly believing that some of us believe ISO is film
| speed, in a digital camera?)
|
| Anyways, the video wants you to know that it is sensor
| gain. And, importantly, according to the video, analog
| gain, not digital gain.1 I don't know that the video does a
| great job of saying it, but basically, I think their
| argument is that you want to maximize usage of the bits
| once the signal is digitized. Simplistically, if the image
| is dark & all values are [0, 127], you're just wasting a
| bit.
|
| You would want to avoid clipping the signal, so not too
| bright, either. Turn your zebras on. (I don't think the
| video ever mentions zebras, and clipping only indirectly.)
|
| The video does say "do ISO last" which I think is a good
| guideline. Easier said than done while shooting, though.
|
| ... also while fact checking this comment, I stumbled
| across Canon's KB stating to use as low an ISO as possible,
| which the video rails against. They should talk to Canon, I
| guess?
|
| 1with the caveat that sometimes there is digital gain too;
| the video notes this a bit towards the end.
| jen729w wrote:
| Sounds like you'll be spending your day making a better
| video! :-)
| bingkaa wrote:
| i think we need to differentiate between raw or
| derivative format. canon KB might cater to wider audience
| thus the latter
| harrall wrote:
| ISO changes the analog gain and in a way yes, it does
| make it more sensitive to a certain _range of
| brightness_.
|
| This is because the ADC (analog to digital converter)
| right after can only handle so many bits of data (like
| 12-16ish in consumer cameras). You want to "center" the
| data "spread" so when the "ends" get cut off, it's not so
| bad. Adjusting the ISO moves this spread around. In
| addition, even if you had an infinite bitrate ADC, noise
| gets added between the gain circuit and the ADC so you
| want to raise the base signal above the "noise floor"
| before it gets to the ADC.
|
| Gain is not great -- it amplifies noise too. You want as
| low ISO as possible (lowest gain), but the goal is not
| actually to lower gain; your goal is to _change the
| environment so you can use a lower gain_. If you have the
| choice between keeping the lights off and using higher
| ISO versus turning on the lights and using a lower ISO,
| the latter will always have less noise.
|
| Most photo cameras have one gain circuit that has to
| cover both dark and light scenes. Some cameras like a
| Sony FX line actually have two gain circuits connected to
| each photosite and you can choose, with one gain circuit
| optimized for darker scenes and the other optimized for
| brighter scenes. ARRI digital cinema line cameras have
| both and both are actually running at the same time (!).
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| > your goal is to change the environment
|
| ...or integration time.
| OJFord wrote:
| > The video does say "do ISO last" which I think is a
| good guideline. Easier said than done while shooting,
| though.
|
| > ... also while fact checking this comment, I stumbled
| across Canon's KB stating to use as low an ISO as
| possible, which the video rails against. They should talk
| to Canon, I guess?
|
| Isn't ISO last the same as setting it as low as possible?
| Obviously it's always set to something, so I thought
| 'doing it last' means start with it low, set exposure &
| shutter, increase as necessary?
|
| (Shutter speed being dictated by subject and availability
| of tripod, essentially it's just exposure & ISO which
| becomes about how much light there is and how it's
| distributed, I suppose.)
|
| I'm not really into photography though, so perhaps that's
| all nonsense/misunderstanding.
| js2 wrote:
| Wide open generally sacrifices lens sharpness.
| porphyra wrote:
| Sure, but less grain is often worth it. There's a reason
| why fast lenses exist. The high quality lens being used
| here can probably still resolve 20 MP adequately even wide
| open.
| dgxyz wrote:
| I had that lens. It's soft as fuck around the edges open.
|
| Peak sharpness is about f/8. They should have had the D5
| on aperture priority auto iso, pushed the exposure comp
| either way and then just fired at f/8 and let the camera
| make the decisions.
|
| But they are astronauts not photographers :)
|
| The modern Z lenses are far better and sharper open but
| much larger generally.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| If you think they only took one shot, you're not a digital
| photographer)
|
| In this special situation you get as many as you can a few
| dozen at least. Then only publish the one that looks the
| best. If it's f4 then f4 worked best.
| chrisbarr wrote:
| It was shot at f/4, so opening up 1 stop to f/2.8 would only
| reduce the ISO to 25600
| g-mork wrote:
| 250 ms f/4 ISO 512000 in case anyone was wondering. I wonder if
| they applied any denoise, it looks great for such high ISO
| HPsquared wrote:
| Any GPS data? I wonder if it would pick anything up. Altitude
| reading would be interesting!
| throw0101d wrote:
| Yes, the D5s are the 'official' Handheld Universal Lunar
| Cameras (HULCs), but (a?) Z9 also got on-board at the 'last
| minute' (which means two years ago):
|
| * https://petapixel.com/2026/04/02/a-nikon-z9-made-it-
| aboard-t...
|
| They have a thermal blanket for exterior work:
|
| * https://petapixel.com/2026/02/24/artemis-ii-astronauts-
| will-...
|
| * https://petapixel.com/2025/01/10/the-custom-nikon-z9-and-
| the...
|
| * Various stories with the "Artemis" tag:
| https://petapixel.com/tag/artemis/
|
| The D5 has been used on the ISS, including EVAs, since 2017, so
| they're a known quantity:
|
| *
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cameras_on_the_Interna...
|
| The Mercury and Apollo missions used Hasselblad 500-series-
| based cameras (modified):
|
| * https://www.hasselblad.com/about/history/hasselblad-in-
| space...
| keyle wrote:
| as a Hassie lover it made me a bit sad that they went with a
| D5 but hey, who cares about the camera, the picture was worth
| a billion bucks and it delivered.
|
| It's so refreshing to be mesmorised by a picture in the age
| of shorts and reels.
| nate wrote:
| the morning after the launch i just randomly went onto their
| livestream and one of the astronauts was asking mission
| control for help on also using the gopros and iPhone cameras.
| i guess they have some. and he was struggling at getting a
| properly exposed photo with those. he said they were coming
| out super over exposed. but the D5 was working nominally.
| mission control said they'd get back to them about ideas on
| adjusting the gopros and iPhones. but it was funny to hear
| they're trying "new" tech and struggling with it up in space,
| and that 2005 D5 is still the champ :)
| throw0101c wrote:
| The SLR-like cameras have a bunch of manual modes so you
| can 'force' them to get _something_ captured, and you can
| then perhaps 'fix it in post'.
|
| Modern tech allows more people to capture more things more
| easily, but when the automation fails there aren't really
| many manual modes to fall back on.
| PeterStuer wrote:
| You have to wonder how unserious this can get. Given the
| unimaginable cost of this mission, they are faffing around
| as your typical aunt with Windows Home laptops and iPhones?
| Seriously?
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| > faffing around
|
| Sheesh, let the lab mice have a breather. Want them to
| solve physics during the trip?
| jjulius wrote:
| I'll echo that "sheesh" in the other comment, too.
| They're so unserious compared to those super serious
| Apollo guys[1], right? After all, the Apollo folk never
| would've smuggled contraband for fun on the Moon[2]!
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/8V9quPcNWZE?si=WBYqsQ1LitRC33rb
|
| [2] https://youtu.be/t_jYOubJmfM?si=QWMhqrwJm2LL14sC
| CWuestefeld wrote:
| _he was struggling at getting a properly exposed photo with
| those. he said they were coming out super over exposed._
|
| This is exactly what newbies experience when trying to
| photograph the moon from Earth. It's not intuitively
| obvious, but the light coming off the moon is essentially
| full-daylight bright. But the moon is small against a very
| black background, and depending on how the auto-exposure is
| operating, this often leads to guessing that the scene as a
| whole needs a lot more exposure.
|
| I imagine that trying to photograph the Earth when a
| significant part of what's in view is experiencing daytime,
| is very much the same thing.
| jjulius wrote:
| > ... 2005 D5...
|
| About 11 years too far back:
|
| > The Nikon D5 is a full frame professional DSLR camera
| announced by Nikon Corporation on 6 January 2016 to succeed
| the D4S as its flagship DSLR.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D5
| brudgers wrote:
| _It also seems like very little was done in Lightroom._
|
| This is consistent with good photographic technique that
| prioritizes "getting it right in the camera."
| hypercube33 wrote:
| Wild. I saw a quick glance and assumed the Z9 but the D5 is
| near the peak of the DSLR world so I guess.
| didgetmaster wrote:
| The EXIF data says that the picture was taken with the flash
| off!
|
| How did they get the Earth to light up when it is obviously
| dark outside? Is this fake?
| jstanley wrote:
| Possibly you're just joking, but it's pretty obvious that the
| flash would not appreciably illuminate the entire earth.
| didgetmaster wrote:
| Obviously. It was a joke.
| anjel wrote:
| Almost 6 decades later, Omega still has a firm hold on NASA by
| the wrist. https://www.gearpatrol.com/watches/omega-
| speedmaster-artemis...
| dddw wrote:
| X33 Gen2 certainly looks better than gen1
| kingforaday wrote:
| It's fun to think about tile dilation per the exif captured
| Create Date: "2026:04:03 00:27:39.26". I know it's negligible
| over the trip, but when they took it, was their time really
| "2026:04:03 00:27:39.25"?
| walrus01 wrote:
| The ISO 51200 would certainly explain the grain when viewing
| the image at 1:1 scale.
| ge96 wrote:
| Why 'spectacular' the quotes
|
| I'm sad not alive at a time like Cowboy Bebop oh well, this is a
| great pic, overview effect
| layer8 wrote:
| They are quoting NASA.
| juleiie wrote:
| [unexplained loss of data]
| ge96 wrote:
| It is funny if you think about it, imagine you arrive on a
| planet and there is nothing there, now what. Not saying it is
| not worth doing but it's like other aspects of life, about
| the journey. But yeah I think we are lucky to have this
| ability/get outside of our sandbox. Be aware of the bigger
| picture.
| sensanaty wrote:
| It really is crazy when you think about it, we're capable of
| taking a picture of the _planet we live on_ from outer space. We
| take it for granted, that we know what it all looks like. I often
| find myself wondering how ancient peoples before us would react
| to something like this
| rapnie wrote:
| Especially if they knew the sad state of the world whence the
| rocket was fired from, almost as a distraction of the decay of
| modern society mankind faces because of their fancy tech and
| the madmen it enables. I used to be fan of all space tech
| related stuff, but to me it has lost a lot of its shine. The
| people of old may say "hey, it is just like Easter island,
| except their monuments are dedicated to the God of Tech".
| MrGilbert wrote:
| I love the fact that you can see the aurora at both poles!
| sva_ wrote:
| I wish I could see a pic from today with the aurora. I was
| surprised to see the aurora in northern Europe a couple hours
| ago, it is very active right now.
| MrGilbert wrote:
| Yeah, it is - unfortunately, it is rather cloudy in my area
| at the moment. Luckily, the weather was better during the
| 19./20. January event, which I'll carry forever in my heart.
| Rury wrote:
| I like the non brightened version, where you can clearly see
| the light coming from cities. How cool would it be if we saw
| similar on another planet...
| pndy wrote:
| I may be mistaken but there's even atmosphere visible - that
| tiny translucent band on the darker photo
| nandomrumber wrote:
| Wild.
|
| That tiny translucent band...
|
| _The total mass of Earth's atmosphere is about 5.5
| quadrillion tons_
|
| https://www.britannica.com/story/how-much-does-earths-
| atmosp...
| TimByte wrote:
| It almost looks like the Earth has a subtle glow around it
| nout wrote:
| It took me a while to orient myself on that picture, until I
| realized where Spain is... :)
| brcmthrowaway wrote:
| Does there exist a camera that can zoom into a single person from
| this distance?
| xandrius wrote:
| Nope, not today that can be easily brought in space. Plus the
| atmosphere interfering.
| HanClinto wrote:
| Relevant XKCD "what if?" [0] is relevant.
|
| [0] - https://what-if.xkcd.com/32/
| mr_toad wrote:
| What clearance level do you have?
| underlipton wrote:
| Can't decide if this is "MOEAGARE ARUCHIMISU" moment or a
| "Transcending Time" moment.
| susam wrote:
| Much higher quality images are available on the NASA Image
| Library:
|
| Dark Side of the Earth: https://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-
| art002e000193/
|
| Hello World: https://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/fd02_for-pao/
|
| On images-assets.nasa.gov, we can find the 5567x3712 resolution
| versions of these pictures:
|
| Dark Side of the Earth: https://images-
| assets.nasa.gov/image/art002e000193/art002e00...
|
| Hello World: https://images-
| assets.nasa.gov/image/art002e000192/art002e00...
| ajs1998 wrote:
| It disappoints me greatly they're not raw :(
| nektro wrote:
| truly stunning picture
| prism56 wrote:
| Can I see the thin band of atmosphere?
| nasretdinov wrote:
| Yeah I'm pretty sure that's atmosphere since it does scatter
| light slightly
| sph wrote:
| It really just is a blue marble floating in nothingness.
| suzzer99 wrote:
| Where's Antarctica?
| saint_yossarian wrote:
| Just behind the horizon somewhere on the top right, or maybe
| some of those clouds are already it.
|
| You can see for yourself in Google Maps if you enable the globe
| view, unfortunately it seems I can't share a direct link.
| mkoryak wrote:
| This is exactly what I need for printing as 14x10 4x6 photos
| stitched together!
| eager_learner wrote:
| this ought to put flat-earthers completely down. :)
| getnormality wrote:
| If you're confused what you're looking at, turn it upside down.
| abdusco wrote:
| West Africa & Gibraltar strait
| computomatic wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > The Earth appears upside down
|
| Which I find to be a rather interesting take.
| thumbsup-_- wrote:
| Imagine that all our joys, problems and attachments are within
| that blue sphere
| bilsbie wrote:
| Can we confirm the cloud patterns match weather data from the
| same time? Might be a good way to verify.
| darknavi wrote:
| Verify what?
| bilsbie wrote:
| The shapes match.
| pndy wrote:
| You think this is some kind of hoax?
| bilsbie wrote:
| No but I'd like an answer for the people that claim that.
| dfedbeef wrote:
| Just don't talk to them
| GMoromisato wrote:
| I agree with "don't talk to those people". If they don't
| believe this picture, why would they believe a weather
| satellite picture?
| greentea23 wrote:
| No, that part of NASA was defunded.
| whycombinetor wrote:
| "It is the first time since 1972 that humans have travelled
| outside of the Earth's orbit." But they're not tho (Earth's
| gravitational dominance extends 4x the distance to the moon)
| rationalist wrote:
| Technically correct, the best kind of correct. After all, the
| moon is in Earth's orbit.
| mr_toad wrote:
| One would hope they're still in Earth's orbit - if they've
| achieved escape velocity they're not coming back.
| exegete wrote:
| So if we're being technical I think they did achieve escape
| velocity? But the moon's gravity and some timed burns will
| slingshot them back.
| gwd wrote:
| But one could imagine, as a failsafe, arranging things so
| that Integrity _was_ in fact still in orbit around the
| Earth, as a sort of "backup" in the event that they
| somehow missed the moon's slingshot effect.
| xyzsparetimexyz wrote:
| Theyre travelling to a region of space where the moons gravity
| is more important than the earths though. I think that counts
| pdonis wrote:
| _> It is the first time since 1972 that humans have travelled
| outside of the Earth 's orbit._
|
| They mean outside of low Earth orbit (which basically means
| further away than the ISS). The phrasing is not ideal.
|
| _> Earth 's gravitational dominance extends 4x the distance to
| the moon_
|
| "Earth's gravitational dominance" is not a single thing; it
| depends on what kind of "dominance" you're talking about.
|
| For example, even though the Moon is usually described as being
| in orbit about the Earth, its orbit is always concave towards
| the Sun. In other words, its net gravitational acceleration is
| always towards the Sun--even when the Earth is on the other
| side of it from the Sun. So by this criterion it's not in orbit
| about the Earth, it's in orbit about the Sun, doing a
| complicated do-si-do with the Earth, also in orbit about the
| Sun.
|
| I'm not sure what definition of "dominance" you're using that
| extends the Earth's "dominance" to 4 times the distance of the
| Moon.
| nandomrumber wrote:
| This video explains what you're talking about re the moons
| orbit always curving toward the sun, and also mentions Earths
| gravitational dominance.
|
| It's about the suns gravitational pull on the moon dominating
| over the Earths gravitational pull on the moon, but that due
| to the centrifugal force (there isn't one, so conservation of
| angular momentum) the Earth's gravitational pull dominates.
|
| https://youtu.be/KBcxuM-qXec
| pdonis wrote:
| The statement I made about acceleration due to gravity was
| with reference to an inertial frame centered on the Sun, in
| which there is no centrifugal force. The video you
| reference takes that viewpoint during its first part.
|
| The claim about centrifugal force refers to the Hill
| sphere, which is a _different_ notion of "gravitational
| dominance". The basic idea behind that is that, while the
| Sun's force on the Moon is greater than the Earth's, it
| _varies_ in space, in the region where the Earth and Moon
| are orbiting, much _less_ than the Earth 's does. So we can
| "subtract out" the Sun's gravitational force, so to speak,
| since we can approximate it as constant in the region we're
| interested in.
|
| The video, however, bungles this somewhat, because its
| claim about "centrifugal force" is made in a frame which is
| _centered on the Sun_ --but rotating at the same rate the
| Earth revolves around the Sun. But _nobody actually uses
| such a frame_! Doing that would be silly. The natural frame
| for us on Earth to use if we "subtract out" the Sun's
| gravitational force to analyze the Earth-Moon motion is a
| frame _centered on the Earth_.
|
| In _this_ frame, we can say that the Moon orbits the Earth,
| not because there is some "centrifugal force" canceling
| out the Sun's force, but because we've subtracted out the
| Sun's force by centering our frame on the Earth. Or, to put
| it another way, we're treating the whole Earth-Moon system
| as freely falling in the Sun's gravitational field, and as
| long as the Sun's field is, to a good enough approximation,
| constant in the region we're interested in, we can simply
| _ignore_ the Sun 's gravitational force. (This viewpoint is
| much more natural in General Relativity, where "gravity" is
| not a force at all to begin with.) Such a frame is called
| an "Earth-Centered Inertial" frame, and it's the frame
| that's being used, for example, to manage the Artemis II
| spaceflight.
| nandomrumber wrote:
| Sounds like you might have explained it better than the
| video.
| dzonga wrote:
| the pale blue dot.
|
| if anything in life gives me pleasure is I have experienced life,
| with its highs and downs on this little speck.
| thenthenthen wrote:
| If you are interested in taking similar images, there are several
| satellites transmitting 'full disk' images like this, instead of
| a camera you need a dish or yagi a sdr and lna. Example
| satellites are Himawari 8, GOES 18, Fengyun 2H.
| mariusor wrote:
| And they can be found online pretty easily:
| https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/.
|
| I remember there's some tools to use the images as desktop
| backgrounds: https://github.com/boramalper/himawaripy
| qingcharles wrote:
| I remember watching grainy B+W ones in the 80s via a dish. It
| might have been a slow scan signal back then? It blew my mind
| watching the Earth live as a disk, seeing the weather in
| realtime.
| rav3ndust wrote:
| to quote the old meme:
|
| > hey, i'm in a picture with all my friends!
| nntwozz wrote:
| For anyone not understanding the high ISO please have a look at
| this recent video by minutephysics.
|
| Do _you_ understand ISO?
|
| It took me 21 years...
|
| https://youtu.be/ZWSvHBG7X0w
|
| This video explains how ISO is very different to what most people
| imagine, and how you can use this knowledge to take less noisy
| photos.
| tacostakohashi wrote:
| There's something a bit weird having these digital photos and
| crisp digital audio and video of the astronauts, and seeing
| pictures of mission control with flat screens after having grown
| up on grainy analogue video, crackly audio with lots of beeps,
| and mission control being choc full of CRTs being watch by men in
| short sleeve shirts with black ties and cigarettes.
| jumpkick wrote:
| I had a similar thought at first, and then remembered the
| steady technical progress of the Shuttle era (at least from my
| recollection).
| TimByte wrote:
| I get that feeling, but I think a lot of the "texture" we
| remember is really just the limitations of the tech at the time
| radium3d wrote:
| Did they mount my Canon 7D to the outside? :D reminds me of the
| familiar grain haha
| erelong wrote:
| Literally a wasteful distraction from more important things
| 1zael wrote:
| How are people still flat-earthers after stuff like this
| heresie-dabord wrote:
| Because without the _network effect_ of adequate education,
| scientific understanding doesn 't scale.
|
| What _does_ scale, unfortunately, is arrant nonsense.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Maybe I'm just a dumb optimist, but I've always assumed that
| the flat earthers started out as an enteraining debate club
| intentionally trying to prove something impossible just for the
| challenge, which got overtaken by a tiny number of vocal
| idiots. I have heard they largely have moved on to Qanon, which
| tracks.
| erulabs wrote:
| The initial modern flat earth movement was absolutely
| trolling, no doubt about it. But as the myth grew, enough
| grifters and actual idiots glomed onto the idea that it
| became what it originally mocked. Poe's law and all that.
|
| Similar to the "I fell in love with an AI!" folks, it's
| _largely_ undercover salesmen hawking their goods to the
| gullible.
| Bloating wrote:
| ...sounds like the No-Kings people
| hydrogen7800 wrote:
| Yeah, certainly not the kings cult.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| If I have to choose between the people protesting
| authoritarianism and those embracing it, I'll take the
| former.
| JBits wrote:
| You can't claim to have superior knowledge if you admit you're
| wrong.
| boca_honey wrote:
| This photo could be easily faked. I don't believe the Earth is
| flat, but I also don't think everybody on the planet should be
| 100% on one side of a discussion. Even if flat-earthers are
| kinda dumb, I think it's worse to force everyone into
| intellectual submission just because you're "right".
| hdivider wrote:
| Even if clearly one side is correct without any doubt
| whatsoever, beyond any question? Such as 2+2=4 -- we should
| accept a situation where some people insist this is not true?
| It seems irrational.
| krapp wrote:
| >I think it's worse to force everyone into intellectual
| submission just because you're "right".
|
| I think it's worse to consider the acceptance of reality as
| being "forced into intellectual submission" and to use scare
| quotes around "right."
|
| There are discussions that everyone on the planet should be
| 100% on one side of and this is one of them. It is literally
| just wasting everyone's time to entertain the premise that
| opinions to the contrary hold any value.
| chungy wrote:
| I'm pretty sure people claim to be flat-earthers as a lark.
| qingcharles wrote:
| I know some MAGAs. I promise you they believe it 100%. They
| often talk of ice walls and one asked me if the Artemis
| mission would "break through the firmament"?
|
| There is a huge side of TikTok and Reels that most of us here
| would never find on our feeds which is dedicated to insane
| conspiracy theories and constitutes a large amount of the
| media that MAGAs etc consume.
| chungy wrote:
| If you think MAGA followers believe in flat-earth, you've
| deluded yourself badly.
| thegrim33 wrote:
| They aren't, what you see is a combination of trolls and
| propagandists; very few real human beings actually believe in
| such things.
| CommenterPerson wrote:
| Why didn't NASA or the news agencies rotate the image so North is
| up? and slightly to the right. That would make Africa instantly
| recognizable as that's how maps are imprinted in our brains.
|
| There is no "up" in space, so that wouldn't be editing the image
| I feel. The camera just happened to be oriented "upside down".
| getnormality wrote:
| I was thinking the same thing, but then I decided to embrace
| the frustration of the image. It's reminding us that the
| pictures we have in our heads are kind of fragile. They don't
| prepare us for a live encounter with Earth from some random
| angle in space.
| thsbrown wrote:
| This is kind of profound.
| spopejoy wrote:
| I asked a different question in my mind, who says it "appears
| to us as upside down"? I would think if you lived in Patagonia,
| the south pole is "up".
| s4i wrote:
| I personally prefer to view it in the same orientation the
| photographer saw it in their viewfinder. Makes me feel more
| like I'm inside the vessle looking at the planet.
| mr_toad wrote:
| If you live in the southern hemisphere most pictures of the
| Moon that you see online look upside down compared to ones that
| you take yourself.
| steve-atx-7600 wrote:
| To paraphrase Carl Sagan: insignificant plant in an insignificant
| galaxy and there's a good chance we'll annihilate ourselves.
| evolve2k wrote:
| Comparing the final two images of taken of earth in 1972 and 2026
| respectively; does the 2026 (left) image look murkier and less
| crisp to anyone else?
|
| Surely our camera gear is exponentially better now? Is the reason
| for the new image being 'murkier' due to light, pollution or
| something else?
| mccraveiro wrote:
| 1972 -> taken during daytime 2026 -> taken during nightime
| dsego wrote:
| > Surely our camera gear is exponentially better now
|
| They are better, but not exponentially. You can't beat physics,
| film cameras can still compete in terms of dynamic range and
| resolution, the optical elements haven't changed that much. The
| 1972 photo was taken on medium format film, which is twice the
| size of the sensor area in the modern one, which means more
| photons and less noise. The recent image was take at a really
| high ISO, which adds to the noisiness.
| firefoxd wrote:
| Fun question: What time was this taken?
|
| The exif includes time, but not time zone. They are not quite at
| the moon, and Lunar Time is under active development but not
| official. Also clocks tick slower under the moon's weaker
| gravity. (Or is it faster?)
|
| Anyway, what time was this taken?
| pdonis wrote:
| I think the clocks on board Orion are set to Houston time,
| which would be 5 hours behind UTC (because of Daylight Saving).
| But I'm not sure. I would expect the EXIF time to be in
| whatever time zone the spacecraft's clocks are set to.
|
| _> clocks tick slower under the moon 's weaker gravity. (Or is
| it faster?)_
|
| Compared to clocks at rest on Earth, clocks on board Orion
| right now are ticking faster, because it's at a high enough
| altitude above the Earth that the faster ticking due to higher
| altitude outweighs the slower ticking due to speed relative to
| the Earth.
|
| That will be true for most of the mission. For clocks in orbit
| about the Earth, the "breakeven point" where the altitude
| effect and the speed effect cancel out and the clock ticks at
| the same rate as an Earth clock is at, IIRC, about 1.5 Earth
| radii. So clocks on the ISS, for example, tick _slower_ than
| Earth clocks; but clocks on the GPS satellites (orbiting at 4.2
| Earth radii) tick faster (and there is an adjustment made for
| this on each satellite so that the time signals they send out
| match Earth clock rates).
|
| For a spacecraft moving at escape velocity, which is going to
| be roughly true for Orion all the way until splashdown, I think
| the "breakeven point" is higher, at a little over 2 Earth
| radii. Orion will reach that point on the way back a few hours
| before splashdown, I think.
|
| The Moon's gravity well is too shallow to make an appreciable
| difference in any of these calculations.
|
| I should emphasize that all these tick rate effects are tiny,
| on the order of one part in a billion to one part in a hundred
| billion. Even when you add up the difference over the entire
| mission, it's still only on the order of hundreds of
| microseconds (i.e., the astronauts end up aging a few hundred
| microseconds more than people who stayed on Earth).
| swores wrote:
| > _So clocks on the ISS, for example, tick slower than Earth
| clocks; but clocks on the GPS satellites (orbiting at 4.2
| Earth radii) tick faster (and there is an adjustment made for
| this on each satellite so that the time signals they send out
| match Earth clock rates)_
|
| I'm curious, and hope you or somebody else might be able to
| answer this: is it a single adjustment for each thing, where
| they just set it to always adjust by X ratio, or does it vary
| (enough to matter) as it orbits, such that the adjustment
| needs to be constantly varying slightly?
| pdonis wrote:
| The exact difference in clock rates is not constant,
| because the orbits are not perfectly circular and the Earth
| is not a perfect sphere. So both the altitude and speed of
| the satellite, and the Earth's gravitational potential, are
| varying with time, and that means the clock adjustments
| will vary with time as well.
|
| For the GPS satellites, their time signals are constantly
| compared with ground clocks, and adjustment signals are
| sent up to the satellites as needed to keep their clock
| corrections in sync with ground clocks.
|
| I'm not sure what, if any, adjustments are made to clocks
| on the ISS, or how they're done.
| swores wrote:
| Thanks! I figured the orbital paths not being exact
| circles meant they'd be slight variance in the
| difference, just wasn't sure if it was enough to matter
| or if they could treat it as if it was exactly the same
| all the way around without it mattering.
| throw_await wrote:
| Line 30 of the exif dump in the gist linked above gives an
| offset of -05:00
| Rodmine wrote:
| Once video models get better, hope we can also see some videos.
| bytesandbits wrote:
| here the original NASA photos at high resolution without
| unnecessary ads.
|
| https://www.nasa.gov/gallery/journey-to-the-moon/
| joebig wrote:
| https://artemis-tracker.netlify.app/
| joebig wrote:
| https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/hello-world/
| Uptrenda wrote:
| That picture of the "dark" Earth is most fascinating because
| everyone has seen a million images of Earth before, but how many
| have seen it in this view. The image by itself says a little
| about the Earths place in the planetary system.
| mrcwinn wrote:
| A beautiful reminder of what's possible with photography when
| you're using more than a comparatively crappy iPhone Pro Max
| camera. (Oh and taking the shot from Outer Space.)
| Helmut10001 wrote:
| The comparison pictures look like there is more dust in the air
| today. They don't explain this effect, so I assume it is related
| to time of day the photo was taken, or camera settings, not
| actual dust accumulation compared to 1972. However, the direct
| comparison gives the impression they want people to interpret
| like the air is getting dirtier?
| Arpitbhalla wrote:
| just curious to know why is there no dark on opposite side if sun
| is another side?
| picafrost wrote:
| This is all we've got. We need to do a better job of preserving
| it.
| Xiol wrote:
| Unfortunately that would affect shareholder value.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| One of the objectives of the Artemis missions is to prepare for
| Mars travel, none of the objectives of Artemis are to view
| Earth as the only planet we have nor to preserve it.
| Bloating wrote:
| You must be a capitalist pig with trump delusion, lol! This
| point of artemis is to prove the earth is flat. the picture
| proves it! I downvote thee!
| hermannj314 wrote:
| Proving the Earth is flat is not one of the stated goals of
| the Artemis program which is to establish a permanent base
| on the moon to prepare for deep space exploration.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| > We need to do a better job of preserving it.
|
| I reject this sentiment. Ask anyone that you know who lived
| through the 1960s in a rich country. Their experience is nearly
| all the same: The air quality and environmental pollution was
| appalling. When my mother lived in Manhattan (New York City) in
| the 1960s, she would return home from work, and wipe her face
| with a cloth. The cloth had black streaks from all the
| pollution. Today, it is a different world in rich countries.
| They have cleaned up.
|
| Finally: Yes, global warming is real, but the threat is
| different. I predict that we will far exceed the average
| increase in global average temperature, but we will survive.
| Yes, we will survive, but with some "scars".
| kzrdude wrote:
| We have done a lot better with faster and readily perceptible
| environmental problems.. from air pollution in China to acid
| rain killing forests and lakes in Europe. So yes, we should
| celebrate our successes too.
| deepsun wrote:
| Where are the turtles?
| chistev wrote:
| This picture wasn't taken from far away, but I thought about that
| quote from Carl Sagan -
|
| Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On
| it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard
| of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The
| aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident
| religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and
| forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of
| civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love,
| every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer,
| every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every
| "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in
| the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust
| suspended in a sunbeam.
|
| The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of
| the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of
| this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some
| other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager
| they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Think of
| the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so
| that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary
| masters of a fraction of a dot.
|
| Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that
| we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged
| by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the
| great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this
| vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to
| save us from ourselves.
|
| The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is
| nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species
| could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for
| the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
|
| It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-
| building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of
| the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny
| world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more
| kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale
| blue dot, the only home we've ever known.
|
| https://www.rxjourney.net/30-things-i-know
| trimethylpurine wrote:
| >The burn took the Orion spacecraft out of Earth orbit...
|
| No it didn't. That would be catastrophic and likely fatal. They
| are going to the Moon, which is also in Earth orbit.
| 14 wrote:
| I often think about what an amazing time it is to be alive and
| how amazing all the tech we have at our fingertips is. But I am
| also incredibly saddened by the fact that I was probably born
| just shy of routine space travel. I can not even imagine how
| amazing it would be to look down on earth and see it in its
| entirety. Hopefully my kids or my grandkids will be able to
| achieve my dream and do exactly that.
| 0x1ceb00da wrote:
| If you had routine space travel, you would be upset that you
| can't time travel.
| Vincsenzo wrote:
| What is that bright star like object on the bottom right? Is it
| Venus? I'm guessing it's Venus because it's much brighter than a
| star would be.
| qingcharles wrote:
| NASA confirmed it is Venus, yeah.
| polskibus wrote:
| Why is the old image so much more blue? Did pollution increase
| cause this change in color over time?
| alex_duf wrote:
| One was taken during daylight on film, which needs to be
| processed and scanned, the other one was taken at high ISO
| during night time on a digital camera.
|
| So much interpretation is done on colour on each step of the
| way that it's not surprising the colours are looking different.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/3DS/comments/1sakb3v/artemis_ii_lau...
|
| The launch, shot on a Nintendo 3DS.
|
| For those with a gen z-like retro tech streak.
| generj wrote:
| What a mad idea.
|
| The aesthetic ended up pretty cool but I can't imagine the
| thought process that lead to capturing the launch on a 3DS.
| anticrymactic wrote:
| Unsurprisingly this is also today's Astronomy Picture of the Day
| (APOD)
|
| https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap260404.html
| tom-blk wrote:
| Very cool
| pluc wrote:
| Why is spectacular in quotations? I keep seeing this in
| headlines, is it because they're quoting a single word?
| tantalor wrote:
| It's lazy "editorializing"
| jameshart wrote:
| Quite the opposite.
| not_a_bot_4sho wrote:
| Yes
| jameshart wrote:
| It's a BBC journalistic standards thing; the BBC doesn't want
| to express an opinion about the image, they are relaying that
| as a quote from someone about the image. The word "spectacular"
| is attributed to NASA in the article.
| tim333 wrote:
| I was trying to figure the country - I think north Africa upside
| down and Spain
| https://earth.google.com/web/@3.88879526,-24.75819914,62.068...
| Defletter wrote:
| It's one of those stark reminders that there's no such thing as
| up or down in space, and something that disabuses me of the
| notion that I can truly comprehend "the enemy gate is down".
| fanatic2pope wrote:
| Very cool. Along the same lines the EPIC::DSCOVR mission has been
| taking photos of the earth since, I believe, around 2015.
|
| https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
| pclowes wrote:
| Pale Blue Dot subtly shaped my perception of Earth.
|
| We are not standing on earth looking up at the stars.
|
| We are being held by earth as we look down into an infinite abyss
| of death.
|
| Everything we are depends on that fragile bubble holding us.
| djfobbz wrote:
| But why not film everything like skydivers do in 8K 120fps from
| every angle and live stream it? After all, it is 2026...and near-
| Earth missions like the Moon can now support hundreds of Mbps
| (even approaching Gbps with laser communication). In the age of
| live streaming, wasn't this taken into account? All we got is a
| choppy 480p video feed, if that.
| diyseguy wrote:
| Gotta love the sarcastic quotes
| skyskys wrote:
| WOW!!!!
| egeozcan wrote:
| Dear some very-rich person, please send a selfie-camera to the
| space! Yes, all that effort so we can keep looking at ourselves
| on a planet scale.
| MengerSponge wrote:
| Good news! We already have that! If you pay taxes to the US
| that's one of the thing you've helped pay for:
|
| https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/imagery/satellite-maps
|
| For reasons that are unexplainable if you're the NYTimes,
| polluting industries have been trying to kill these missions
| for decades.
| egeozcan wrote:
| I'm not a US resident but I'm immensely disappointed in
| myself because I didn't know this existed.
|
| I guess the rich person who was just planning to respond to
| my request needs to find another thing to spend their money
| on :)
| TimByte wrote:
| It sounds trivial, but perspective shots like this are part of
| why public support for space programs exists at all
| TimByte wrote:
| It's kind of wild how every generation gets its own "Blue Marble"
| moment. Technically we've seen Earth from space a million times
| by now, but every new human perspective still hits differently
| Fairburn wrote:
| Nothing spectacular about it. Except for the obvious degradation
| of our planet, there isnt anything special about it. Its just our
| home.
| basicallyyeah wrote:
| 1D smol brains: "Fckin flat erthers lolll"
|
| 2D midbrains: "It's Africa and Spain, I can tell you because of
| my superior knowledge of geography! Are you impressed yet"
|
| 3D minds of men: "Godspeed you brave soldiers"
|
| 4D Galaxy brains: "Israel did 911, all this space shit is a front
| for making bombs and rockets, nobody knows where we came from or
| what happens when we die"
| skc wrote:
| It's humbling to see this image. I can't even begin to imagine
| what it must feel like to see this from the perspective of those
| astronauts.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-04-04 23:01 UTC)