Chinese satellite captures image showing both Earth and the Moon&#39;s far side

Interesting the edges of the disks are so sharp while the detail on the moon isn't.

1 week agopermalink

Look at the larger image with the names. The edge is not sharp.

I assume it is an artifact of the fact that space is so dark and the downsampling to a reasonable sharp image. Might also be some enhancement.

1 week agopermalink

User9070981109

As viewed from earth, the moon was a "waning crescent" with 1% illumination on the 3rd February 2019, on the next day, 4th February, it was a new moon with 0% illumination as seen from earth. We might call it the dark side of the moon, thank you Pink Floyd but that is a misnomer. During a new moon, the side of the moon facing the earth is dark, whilst the far side is fully illuminated by the Sun. That is why in the image, both the earth and the moon are illuminated and by a single light source, the Sun.

This is a truly wonderful image and it's sad that so many dismiss it and instead respond with pathetic wisecracks but then as the old Chinese proverb goes, when the wise man points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger.

1 week agopermalink

Actually earth is having a rim and 2 light sources. There is no shadow on earth where is supposed to be if it was illuminated by single light source. You are obviously looking at a different photo or maybe your wise middle finger is looking at it? It is not single light source on earth Mr.Huawei.

1 week agopermalink

You will make me to do actual 3D model with all publicly available data to prove you wrong. From position of the sun to position of satellite, to sun position and light direction, and based on that photo my data and render will be right.

1 week agopermalink

User9070981109

You are wrong, the sun, earth and the moon are only in a direct straight line casting a shadow on either the earth or the moon, during a total eclipse, which there wasn't on the day the photograph was taken.

1 week agopermalink

Gauravdp

Hey I can't see Pink Floyd. Where are dey? Must be fake.

1 week agopermalink

Mike FL

What's these two Chinese purple ball for?

1 week ago*permalink

BinHereBe4

What a sloppy Photoshop job!

1 week agopermalink

Do not bother a second of your time on any flat earther. They are obviously wrong and even if they are not actively trolling, they are too stupid to know if they were trolling = you will receive the same type of replies.

You will never change their mind with logic or fact. They will not accept the simplest challenges to use their own skills to prove to themselves a yes or no answer.

They only deflect and will call you indoctrinated.

Do not bother a single reply to them. The best you can do is copy a link to waste their time instead of yours.

This one will show you the stupid you are up against and is funny as well as educational: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw

2 weeks ago*permalink

Can you explain to me, why moon and earth have 2 different light sources? Me as a person that does believe we living on rounded shape (earth is not perfect round shape according to NASA). So why 2 different light sources? I just need answer to that.

1 week agopermalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw

Like I said, these retards think NASA decides the shape of our planet. They arnt actually asking a question. So,.. link.

1 week ago*permalink

You did not answer the question, why 2 different light sources? Again to repeat I do believe we are on circular planet. Why 2 light sources?

1 week agopermalink

BinHereBe4

@strados He does not have an answer and you don't really believe we live on spinning ball ;)

1 week agopermalink

I do believe since I really can not see China from a clouds that forms in a distance since they are curving around earth. This is the only personal earth reference and perception I have, beside the science that claims, and I have never been to space so I am not commenting on that, since NASA did. If it was flat this would be possible to see really into distance but not the case. You sound just like my wife presuming without knowing. This is what she would say: "I think you really do not like my food" even when I really like it. I can also say that you believe, that in a radio, small people ,live inside and give us news (LOL) I do know you are not that dumb.So prejudging is not nice if you do not know random people. I just do not like manipulation in plain sight.Like that 32kb pasted representation planet earth, with different light source.Is annoying none of us will see real raw photos taken without heavy handed edit. Truth is never black and white, only fools believe into that is.

1 week ago*permalink

I am taking a chance on you then, dont let me down.

Just because its hard doesnt mean its not true.

Show us your 3D model that you talk about then and we can discuss it.

Are you so distrustful that you only believe what you can see and touch?
You are a cave man as far as education then. Which is fine.

You can probably see that 2+2 does in fact = 4 since having 2 apples and adding 2 more equals 4. But you have a long way to go to figure out hard Math by yourself.
All the power to you.

The answer to your question is that there are not 2 light sources. It is possibly the misunderstanding of how far away and how large the Sun is. Could be another reason.

The reason stars are not in photos is because they are not bright enough to be in the same exposure as a sunlit moon or earth. This is a photography forum where people constantly talk about DR.

There are actual science books that explain all this. Maybe youtube isnt our friend after all?

1 week agopermalink

Believing what I see with my own eyes yes.Drawing my own conclusion from my own critical thinking and life experience , yes. But not a cave man, thank you again stranger from Internet calling me names for no reason.Trusting what I see on Internet while having full in depth understanding of photo editing software how easy is to manipulate, not much trust there. If we are talking film or slides I would not try to discredit those...

1 week agopermalink

http://lilacsat.hit.edu.cn/DSLWP-B/d3fc7178-a012-4749-ba24-17afb6b11929.jpeg

I did not put you down or call you a name. Using your senses only to understand something is the definition of Cave man.

As i said, its fine, and, power to you.

Yes its easy to manipulate, its also easy to find the correct math and science to explain it.
Not as easy or fun as not believing it though, which seems to be a big issue.

Did I answer your question about the light source's'?

In your 3D model, model the Sun and Earth and Moon in correct size ratios. Now place them at their proper distances. Do you see now? The incoming light is parallel. It is not a flash light with steep angles.

1 week ago*permalink

patrik069180

hi, this are clearly fake photos. Look at the first photo. The earth has a shadow at top left side. No shadow on the moon. The absolute evidence. Cpy paste the pic into Photoshop. create an Exposure layer. Move the gamma slider to the left side. What do you see? Strange artefacts around the moon AND a square around the earth! the earth has been copied into that pic.

2 weeks ago*permalink

Alan2dpreview

Why were the colors "wrong" originally?

2 weeks agopermalink

Hugo808

They had the white balance set to tungsten but the artificial light in the studio was fluorescent. They should have collaborated with NASA as they've had the right filters for decades.

2 weeks agopermalink

Sir 7

Lol! :D

2 weeks agopermalink

Scottelly

" . . . from an amateur radio transceiver . . . " Really? REALLY? They put it on a satellite. How is that "amateur?" I'd like to know that as well as the reason the picture is such a low resolution image. (I'm guessing the photo was shot at a much wider angle than what we see in this image, and cropped, but I'd like to know for sure what we are seeing and why it looks like that.) In the article the satellite is called a "tiny probe" - maybe it's an inexpensive experimental satellite, and they only wanted to put a tiny camera on it, which weighs just a few grams. For those who are interested, here is an original image:

There are many more available here:

http://lilacsat.hit.edu.cn/dashboard/pages_en/pics-b.html

2 weeks ago*permalink

Woa! That was a serious amount of crap images. They were lucky to get one iconic one among those :)

2 weeks agopermalink

See the Editor's pick comment by AndroC

2 weeks agopermalink

Have done so. It is all an amateur experiment at radio transmission. The camera is only there to have some kind of source for data. The earth and moon picture is probably pure luck.

2 weeks ago*permalink

landscaper1

Looking at the front page headline ("Chinese satellite captures photos showing dark side of Earth and Moon"), I'd like to point out that it was never necessary to send a satellite into space to photograph the dark side of the Earth. Newspapers have been featuring that on a daily basis almost since the dawn of photography itself.

2 weeks ago*permalink

Handiworks

Half the earth covered in a single cloud? (As a former USAF Space Officer I find this unlikely :) )

2 weeks agopermalink

808_freedive

Really, really cool. Thanks PRC!

2 weeks agopermalink

This is actually a super cool image. No matter what camera and lenses I get, I cannot take that one! The low technical quality is a pity. Would be nice to see an explanation for that fact.

2 weeks agopermalink

See the promoted comment for context

2 weeks agopermalink

Thank you for the hint!

Now all is clear. It is an amateur experiment on board a real satellite. How cool to be able to do that.

2 weeks agopermalink

Malli

For Article Title, ‘Far side of the moon’ is more appropriate .

2 weeks agopermalink

Yes - far side of the earth is a bit weird.

2 weeks agopermalink

Of course - far side of the earth for me is New Zeeland.

2 weeks agopermalink

ipribadi

IMO the photo is with the sun directly behind the camera:
1. If the sun was behind the moon or earth, we would see more blue glow from earth's atmosphere
2. If the sun was not exactly behind the moon/earth but outside of the view, we would see the dark side of the moon or earth
3. If the image is of both planet's dark side, we would have likely seen stars in the background

The moon looks a bit weird because the sun being so far from the moon, lights up the moon to a full hemisphere.
The camera being relatively much closer to the moon can only see a portion of the lit hemisphere thus no darkening of the edges.

As to why the image is so low res, well perhaps it was resized before sending.

2 weeks agopermalink

https://www.moongiant.com/phase/2/4/2019

Not so. The image was taken around the full Moon as seen from Earth so the Sun was in front of the camera and the view is of night time on the Earth and the Moon.

1 week agopermalink

ipribadi

If this is true, then you have an excellent valid point.
But why no stars?
One can easily observe a clear night with a crescent moon to see that the dark side of the moon has much less light illumination compared to stars surrounding the same view.
Ditto for earth, just checkout pictures of earth at night from the ISS, the background is full of stars.

1 week ago*permalink

ipribadi

"The satellite resumed activity on January 19 and captured a time-lapse, including one featuring the Moon's far side and Earth, on February 3."

1 week agopermalink

PostModernBloke

I clicked on this thinking 'blimey, 200 comments on a photo of the moon, that's cool'.

Then I read the most recent comments with the "fake" this and "fake" that. Good grief, must we distrust everything? Is everything "fake"?

Here's an idea - if you have evidence, real factual evidence supported by research and academic rigour, then share it by all means. Otherwise, just get a life or at least shut up.

This photograph is a pleasure to look at, a poignant evocation of our home planet, and an articulate demonstration of the potential of human endeavour.

Disagree? prove it!

2 weeks ago*permalink

BinHereBe4

@ PostModernBloke
Why don't you prove it's real. You have evidence to prove it's real?

1 week agopermalink

So - both the moon and the earth shows their night side. This means that the earth is lit by the moon. That is fine. But what lits the moon - the stars? If that is the case, no surprise about the low quality.

Another possibility is that it is the day side (full moon and full earth). Then there would be plenty of light. And then the low qualiy is more hard to explain.

2 weeks ago*permalink

John Willsund

Both the moon and earth looks lit to me, no night side. The sun just needs to be behind the camera for that to happen, during, say, a waxing or waning crescent. Does that make sense?

2 weeks agopermalink

Yes, you are right. If you look at the enlarged image with the names of the craters, then you see the shadows made by the sun light. It is a full moon and a full earth.

2 weeks agopermalink

The photo was taken during a full Moon on earth so it shows the NIGHT side of Earth and Moon.

1 week agopermalink

It is either the night mid-night side or the mid-day side. Nothing else. And someone should know. What is your source Chris59?

Personally I vote for the mid-day side as I can see shadows on the craters at the edge.

1 week agopermalink

User9070981109

Try checking a moon calendar, the photograph was taken on the 3rd February, you'll find that the next day, 4th February, was a new moon, that is the side facing the earth was in full shadow and dark whilst the so called "dark side of the moon", was fully illuminated by the sun.

1 week agopermalink

Thank you sir! That makes more sense!

1 week agopermalink

My bad. Already acknowledged I had it the wrong way round... :(

1 week agopermalink

And we all are extremely mad at you ... NOT.

1 week agopermalink

paulfulper

Are we sure they didn't enhance the blue color of Earth ?
It's supposed to look very dull greyish blue really

2 weeks agopermalink

John Willsund

"According to the team's initial report, the images have been color corrected by radio amateurs. A team shared an uncorrected version of the image on Twitter, seen above." - maybe someone's color correction taste is not for everyone :)

2 weeks ago*permalink

Cocktail Time

Fake?

I will say the perspective bothers me. How far From the moon would the orbital craft have to be to capture the moon at that size? With what focal length? What relative size would the earth be in such a photo? Also, the resolution is really terrible compared to nasa imaging.

If it isn’t a composite they worked pretty hard to make it look like one.

2 weeks agopermalink

nightstreet

Yeah! This is a photo website, we need to have the "behind the scene" shots to show how it was setup and lit, was it ambient or with strobes?...what did you use to hold up the glass marble...mmm...sorry..earth? etc, etc.

Just kidding, good job on the telescope by a bunch of amateurs.

2 weeks agopermalink

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3738057

what are you talking about.

Take any photo on the internet that is not a fake, and if you think its a fake for some reason you will look for hours to find evidence that supports your cause that you think its a fake, even though it is actually not a fake photo.

Now, why do you think this image is a fake? I am not talking about the actual image, but why do you think the person who took this image had a reason to fake it? Keep in mind, the persons name is "CHINESE ORBITAL TELESCOPE"

Also, how the heck would you even know what a shot like this is supposed to look like? WE DONT LIVE ON THE MOON.

I suspect that this was not taken with a canon powershot. I am sorry for the all caps, but this comment section is blowing my mind.

2 weeks agopermalink

n2dpsky

The satellite is pretty far away. It's in an Earth Moon L2 Halo orbit of about 65,000 km distance from the Moon. You have the remember the Earth is much larger that the Moon, which makes this perspective shot totally reasonable.

2 weeks agopermalink

backayonder

Nikon 8mm fisheye

2 weeks agopermalink

TomHudsonVisual

Finally, the corrected the title, from calling it the “dark side”.

2 weeks agopermalink

wcan

Take that Pink Floyd! :)

2 weeks agopermalink

Ben Stonewall

2 weeks agopermalink

1Dx4me

wonder if that shot was taken a with a canon 11-24 L ;-)

2 weeks agopermalink

HRC2016

Oh my goodness! They had to take a picture of Earth just when I ran out to my car in my nightgown! I'm so embarrassed.

2 weeks agopermalink

1Dx4me

i knew you'd get caught ;-)

2 weeks agopermalink

Barty L

I saw your ankles. Exciting!

2 weeks agopermalink

tsk1979

Both earth and moon are Flat. Did they use P900

2 weeks agopermalink

danski0224

Well, duh... everyone knows this.

The picture is a top view, otherwise the earth and moon would be seen from the side....

2 weeks agopermalink

also, when checking for "fakeness" in regular photos we first have to have some theory as to why we think this photo may be fake, or some motivation as to why someone would want to do that. Once we have that, then anything we find is more likely to be representative of fakeness.

Without an actual reason for why a photo would be fake we could look into literally any photo and come up with what we think is evidence that it might be fake, but are instead just artifacts and are instead more associated to our own errors in judgement, logic and bias.

This is just basic causal analysis and logical thinking.

2 weeks agopermalink

what is going on in this comment section? Do we have a bunch of flat earthers here?

What evidence do you have that this is fake? Also provide an alternative explanation for these supposed 'reasons for fake' and how they could simply be factors associated with how a true picture was taken or processed.

Lets start at the top reasons why this would be fake:
1) we didn't go there - ok, but we know the Chinese did go there. And also, what motive would they have for faking this lol. Seriously, why would they fake this photo?

Considering that none of us work for, oh, NASA and have any idea what equipment was used to take this image we simply are not qualified to make judgement. Everything we know about how to detect a fake photo that someone edited into their iphone does not apply here. This is not an iphone, this is a freaking TELESCOPE. The fact that the uncorrected version is purple to begin with suggests there was some type of filter applied to the spectrum.

cont...

2 weeks agopermalink

The camera used to take the picture wasn't a telescope, it couldn't be given the relative size of the Moon and Earth. If one knows the distance between the satellite used to take the photo and the Moon, and the effective focal length, one can easily work out if the photo was "faked".

I'm not saying the photo was faked, but it shouldn't be too difficult to work out if it is.

2 weeks agopermalink

it was taken from a satellite. Do you think they just mount a 5d classic up there and point it at stuff with a kit lens?

2 weeks agopermalink

Banderras

gravis92, I think it is great that you are exited about space stuff, it is important for science that general public is excited for science to get funded and in turn result in improvements in everyday life like microwave ovens cellphones etc.
However, it is even more exciting to know science. So Chris59 objectively provided you with information on how to calculate the lens focal length used, given the distance from satellite to Moon, distance to Earth and their relative size in the photo. If you do that, you will know that it was not a telescope.
E.g. astronauts on space station use regular nikon cameras and lenses, Lunar manned missions used modified hasselblad cameras and lenses.
So no, not all the cameras in space are telescopes. In fact most of them are not.

2 weeks agopermalink

Silentshuter

The pic shown to us is INCREDIBLY CHEAP FAKE!!!!! I mean really??? How hard it is to put it in Photoshop and make few moves with sliders in Levels so to discover even elemental lack of Photoshop knowledge! Or,..just open it in FotoForensic and get instant confirmation and the proof!!

2 weeks agopermalink

Probably the Earth is processed different from the Moon due to the much higher brightness. Even if the editor was not a Photoshop master, I wouldn't call that a 'cheap fake'.

If the Earth was 'added' to the Moon photo, we can call that a fake, though.

2 weeks agopermalink

The Earth wouldn't have needed to be processed differently because these are night time images of the Earth and the Moon.

2 weeks agopermalink

@Chris59:

> night time images

No. Both celestial bodies are in the sunlight.

> wouldn't have needed to be processed differently

Wrong. From space, the Earth is much, much brighter than the Moon.

2 weeks agopermalink

The image was taken on 3 February which was a full moon. Therefore an image of the Moon's far side would be in darkness as would be the Earth.

1 week agopermalink

@Chris59:

You wrote:
> on 3 February which was a full moon

Probably on the planet YOU live.

On Earth, NEWmoon happens on February 4th, 2019!

1 week ago*permalink

My bad.

1 week agopermalink

folmonty

Reading through the posts here it's no surprise. Lots of skeptics. Suppose it's for good reason since it's hard to believe media reports these days. As for the humorous comments, those are my favorites!

2 weeks agopermalink

Barty L

True sceptics proceed by rational enquiry with regard to evidence. Most of what you're seeing here is not scepticism, but reflex idiocy.

2 weeks agopermalink

DotCom Editor

Prove to me that this isn't fake.

2 weeks agopermalink

Raist3d

That's not how this works. If you make the claim it's fake, prove it.

2 weeks agopermalink

Barty L

Prove to me that you're intelligent enough to tell the difference.

2 weeks ago*permalink

You must first have a theory about why something is, and then you test the theory to see if that is true, then refine your theory.

So first @DotCom Editor, what is your theory as to why this photo would be a fake? Not how what you see, to you, looks fake. But to fake it someone would have had to deliberately alter this photo with the purpose of deceiving us all. Why, in your mind, would they do that? In order to be found guilty, we need a motive.

2 weeks agopermalink

DotCom Editor

Just having a little fun, boys.

2 weeks agopermalink

Raist3d

Ok man, sorry. Me bad. I think that blipped in my neural network as 20-30% likely and I rant with the 70-80% :-).

2 weeks agopermalink

ABW

no dual card support - I'm not buying!

2 weeks agopermalink

"Look mom no stars" (again). Push levels and fake become obvious. I do this with every NASA image. They have mix of fakes and real ones, but Chinese as they do knock off of everything they faked even this one.
Really disappointing images. Even the "real ones" look fake when you push levels.
Also moon has perfect 1 pixel white halo without any alteration.

https://ibb.co/X5S7Qm6

2 weeks agopermalink

AZheaven

Just curious...what color is the sky on the planet you live on?? It sure as hell isn't blue...

2 weeks agopermalink

n2dpsky

Some people just can't get past the concept that a black sky can still be in bright sunlight (which only means no atmosphere). They see black and expect stars. Stretch the histogram on your daytime landscapes. Do you see stars then? No, but they're there. It's the same as in this image. It takes a large telescope to be able to see stars and most planets with midday sun (with a few exceptions like Venus). I've done this many times. A short daytime exposure is never going to show them. They are clipped so badly no amount of histogram stretching is going to show them.

2 weeks agopermalink

sh10453

@srados,
It might help you learn something if you read about this on-going amateur project:
https://www.camras.nl/en/blog/2018/precious-earth-and-lunar-far-side/

2 weeks ago*permalink

BEKippe

You would think people on this site would be able to recognize jpg compression artifacts when they see them...

2 weeks agopermalink

SkySpades

Why would there be stars when they are on the sunward (daytime) side of the moon? Just because the "sky" is black due to space being a vacuum and having no atmosphere doesn't mean the stars should be shining bright - especially when one is exposing for a much brighter object than any star. Try taking a properly exposed picture of the full moon at night, you're not going to see any stars around it because any stars are much dimmer than the moon you're exposing for. I would think most on a photography forum would have a firm grip on that idea.

2 weeks agopermalink

These were actually shot at night but the exposure was probably still not enough to show stars. If you want to see a daytime photo of an object in space WITH stars, you only need to have a look at New Horizon's images of Ultima Thule.

2 weeks agopermalink

fatdeeman

I can't believe someone who frequents a photography website could be so utterly clueless about exposure.

I'm so bored of fools bringing up the same "evidence" to suggest space photos are fake, if they had just enough energy to look on google they would realise how utterly baseless and disproven their "smoking gun" really is.

2 weeks ago*permalink

did someone just say this photo in space was shot at night?

2 weeks agopermalink

NASA/Chinese/Russians can take camera expose for STARS then expose for MOON/Earth and serve general public yet another COMPOSITE image. How hard is that? Am I asking much?

2 weeks agopermalink

To gravis92. Yes, the photo was taken at night in the sense that the photo is of night time on the Earth and Moon. Even though the exposure is longer than photos taken of the Earth and Moon during the day, it's still too short an exposure to record stars...

1 week agopermalink

fatdeeman

srados:

You seem to be confused here. You accuse the space agencies of foul play but you are also angry that they don't offer up composite images that do not represent what the view actually looked like.

Come on, now. Which is it to be?

1 week agopermalink

http://lilacsat.hit.edu.cn/dashboard/pages_en/pics-b.html

srados is not confused, he is a flat earth tard.

He believes that NASA are evil and they indoctrinate us with their lying text books in our schools. Gravity is the 2nd biggest lie of course.

He will surely enjoy telling you all about 9/11, The great moon landing lie, that earth is flat because it looks flat.

They are stupid beyond any other stupid you have encountered. Which is quite a compliment actually. Most of them are proof of Dunning Kruger effect.

When you see a question mark, disregard it. Its a trick question mark even though they are too dumb to know that also.

1 week ago*permalink

GiancoLX

The originals:

2 weeks agopermalink

HAHAHAHHAH...really funny. This made my day.The "Originals" should be theme of space explorations.

2 weeks agopermalink

Rob890

so it is flat.....

2 weeks agopermalink

MichailK

...and made of cheese!

2 weeks agopermalink

GabrielZ

I read somewhere recently that claimed that China has decided that the Apollo moon landings were faked and didn’t happen after all, or was it Russia? Sounds like fake news to me, but did anybody else hear of this nonsense?

2 weeks agopermalink

folmonty

From many different sources - it's like reading 1984 and a form of revisionist history or mind manipulation. The latest that comes to mind was the comment from Steph Curry which got lots of play in the media.

2 weeks agopermalink

fatdeeman

Yeah I've read about it but exclusively from facebook and youtube conspiracy theorist idiots and never from any kind of credible source.

2 weeks agopermalink

hunk

one of the best things is these Dutch- and Chinese scientists work together in their free time without being bothered with politics etc.

2 weeks agopermalink

Paul Barnard

That's common with scientists from most countries. It's mainly the politicians that don't get on. Oh and armies create a big mess, when they fall out...

2 weeks agopermalink

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Luna_3_moon.jpg

Great!

Exactly 60 years after the very first image of the Moon's far side by the Russian spacecraft Lunik 3:

2 weeks ago*permalink

https://www.camras.nl/en/blog/2018/precious-earth-and-lunar-far-side/

Wasn't aware of the significance of the date. Good pick up!

1 week agopermalink

AndroC

Allow me to add some more context here. This is not breaking news, but a recent image that is part of an ongoing project that is principally about testing amateur radio coding and modulation techniques with an amateur built transceiver as experimental gear on board the satellite. As such, it's a remarkable achievement, but does not represent the state of the art in high resolution remote imaging as that is not the point of the project, and also, this project has been delivering similar images since mid last year. This is merely the newest image after a period of imposed radio silence. There's a well written article from the Dwingeloo Telescope here about it.

Pretty fantastic effort for amateurs operating on a shoestring budget.

2 weeks ago*permalink

PrakticaB

Great picture and 100% credible. And it's great US/NASA has some competition, itwill give some impulse to space exploration.

2 weeks agopermalink

NickyB66

Nice

2 weeks agopermalink

Almost 60 years since the first far side photo by Luna 3. If you examine that photo you can clearly see PDAF artefacts in it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Luna_3_moon.jpg

2 weeks agopermalink

Joe_Taylor

Here's to hoping that this isn't a composite. Because that's kind of what it looks like.

2 weeks agopermalink

sabad

Must have been taken with a Huawei phone.

2 weeks agopermalink

Matthias R

Awesome!

2 weeks agopermalink

HB1969

I wonder if they called that Mare (dark patch) Apollo after the Greek god or after the Apollo missions?

2 weeks agopermalink

It's a huge crater and here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_(crater)

2 weeks agopermalink

TMRoper

Mildly interesting, but nothing close to what the Parker Solar Probe is doing.

2 weeks agopermalink

User9362470513

Peak DPR comment where only snide negativity is allowed.

2 weeks agopermalink

chadley_chad

There’s always one!

2 weeks agopermalink

$DiffractionLtd$

While it's an ok accomplishment in its own right, it's sad to think they Americans actually landed on that thing over 49 years ago and since haven't progressed further (except via robotic probes which are valuable). Instead, they were worried out-of-work Russian nuclear scientists (Wall fell) would go build nukes for Middle Easterners and invented the ISS to keep them occupied, a $160 billion dollar orbiting white elephant that can't even begin to match accomplishments of machines like the Hubble Telescope which cost fifty TIMES less money.

2 weeks agopermalink

thenoilif

I’m surprised your programming didn’t go with the faked lunar landing conspiracy.

2 weeks agopermalink

$DiffractionLtd$

Except that the myth of the faked Moon landing and other fictions like the flat Earth ARE faked whereas you can SEE the ISS and its lack of value anytime you want to.

2 weeks ago*permalink

$DiffractionLtd$

They've accomplished some things with the ISS, but given its cost and comparing its accomplishments with things like the Hubble, Cassini, Apollo, Voyager, etc,. you have to wonder if it's even partially worth it? Also, not doing other potentially profitable missions because there is only so much money to go around. It's annoying to hear them whining about cost increases in the Webb Space Telescope of $5 billion, when compared to the money squandered on the ISS.

2 weeks agopermalink

huyzer

Are you serious? Just a quick search for "tech we have because of iss internation space station" will yield results to the benefits we've had due to the International Space Station.

2 weeks agopermalink

thenoilif

Marketing

2 weeks agopermalink

Shiranai

Please tell me again how unmanned Hubble, Cassini, Apollo and Voyager do long-time biological research, i.e. in the field of lifeforms reacting to anti-gravity.

2 weeks agopermalink

$DiffractionLtd$

Why? For the moon or Mars base they're never going to build? I prefer pure astronomical research to planning for mining colonies.

2 weeks agopermalink

dpfan32

There are theories out there that the ISS is a hologram. When you research what is possible today, it's possible

2 weeks agopermalink

spatz

"machines like Hubble" would have been useless without manned service flights. While I agree with you in principle, it's important to get the facts right.

2 weeks agopermalink

chadley_chad

Some people’s lack of knowledge shines like the brightest star 🤗

2 weeks agopermalink

$DiffractionLtd$

The Webb telescope will not be reachable by manned service flights because it's going to be very far away. The Hubble did need a repair thanks to an incompetency error on the part of some fools on Earth. Side issue; a flawless mirror made by Kodak sits on Earth to this day. Also, it received upgrades via manned service flights, but the ISS cost also helped kill the Shuttle owing to cost and so service flights are far less likely if a near Earth orbit object needed them.

2 weeks agopermalink

hammarbytp

Maybe it's a generation thing, but as a child of the moon landings, the idea of robotic only exploration denies the whole point of exploration in the 1st place. It would be a bit like Cook, Columbus deciding not to risk travelling the ocean, but instead send a few robots to take pretty pictures of the new world, while they sat in their arm chair.

The ISS is important because unless we want the human race to be tied to this rock forever, someday we will need to break out shackles, and that involves the biological, technological long term study to do it. Anyway robots have inherent limitations in that they can only do what they are designed to do, and do not have the flexibility that a human will give you.

2 weeks agopermalink

$DiffractionLtd$

I agree with you on most of your points about humans needing to leave the Earth, but the ISS isn't providing any way to do that or really preparing people TO do it since it is within Earth's magnetic field and the real (radiation) dangers are going to be faced outside that.

2 weeks agopermalink

spatz

I do really hope the JWST has no issues. However, in addition to correcting the optics, HST also had multiple service missions to refuel, for an almost 30 year life span. Without that possibility, JWST will have a projected service life of just 5 years.

2 weeks agopermalink

$DiffractionLtd$

The Webb is dead if it has any issues. A repair mission would cost at least $25 billion, maybe more.

2 weeks agopermalink

onlyfreeman

If we do leave this rock, where are we going to go and what will we do there? Make cities on Mars?

2 weeks ago*permalink

$DiffractionLtd$

It sounds unrealistic now, but it won't be in 100 years. They need to develop a propulsion system that can lift enough material in one shot to build a colony-encompassing structure on the moon or Mars. And the only way to do that is to resurrect the project Kennedy killed, Project Orion. Otherwise, we are stuck here.

2 weeks agopermalink

onlyfreeman

But really, it would be so boring living on mars, can't we just the moon into a prison instead? :D

2 weeks agopermalink

hammarbytp

@DiffractionLtd

Long term radiation is only one of the dangers of long term exposure. The ISS has allowed huge strides in space medicine in terms of understanding how the body changes in low-g environments(which is applicable to earth bound medicine as well). It also allows them to test things that will be needed on a long voyage. Even simple things showers and toilets are hugely complex in space. It also allows them to test them for the extended time periods required .

@onlyfreeman

Yes Mars, why not? Its not an Eden, but in many ways no worse than some places on Earth that people live on (No jokes about New Jersey). There are two good reasons to do it. One is that we reduce the risk of the human race being wiped out and two, it is only by setting ourselves difficult goals that we make progress. As Kennedy said, "we do this because it is hard...."

2 weeks agopermalink

$DiffractionLtd$

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_research_on_the_International_Space_Station

Far as I know, Russians were in orbit longer in some of their vehicles than anyone has been in the ISS. So when it comes to the impact on humans by being in space, it probably hasn't broken any new ground.

2 weeks agopermalink

hammarbytp

Comparing the Mir program and the ISS, is like comparing a school lab and a university medical laboratory. Its not duration which is important (although the ISS does hold the 3rd longest time), it is the flexibility, sophistication and rigor which you can do experiments. ISS is larger, better equipped and better suited to space science. The suggestion that it hasn't broken new ground or is continuing to push the boundaries is ludicrous.

1 week agopermalink

$DiffractionLtd$

Not if you are doing experiments on humans. Duration is everything.

1 week agopermalink

dpfan32

What the Russians are doing right is not covered properly in the western mainstream media. The Russians are only bad.
And we should be always first first first... Don't let the Russians be first ... ;)

1 week agopermalink

$DiffractionLtd$

Remember when the Left in the news media and Hollywood liked Russia (before the Soviet Union fell) and were always castigating the Republicans for attacking Russia? Now, Russia is "the enemy" and provide a general-purpose villain whenever the media needs one. But they still suck-up to China because it's still communist.

1 week agopermalink

Who sucks up to China for the reason that its Communist?

Duration is not everything. It doesnt take that long to get to Mars and anything a lot longer than that will be done with full shielding and/or simulated gravity.

Its better to have many samples than just one.

1 week agopermalink

$DiffractionLtd$

Full shielding, simulated gravity? Is it 2080 already?

1 week agopermalink