Comments
Wooden_Ad_3096 t1_ixqfl83 wrote
Want’s to make sure you aren’t on the moon.
Pluspen1 t1_ixqlgyw wrote
Because we live in a dystopia
TickletheEther t1_ixqp6lw wrote
So sad if you want valuable information and want to learn you gotta be subject to pay walls, tracked, cookies slapped, and a million ads. Wikipedia is under appreciated.
BedrockFarmer t1_ixqwlmc wrote
Very cool pics. The surface is way more bumpy than I had thought from prior photos. I also can’t wait for the unhinged to do their Rorschach test claims of aliens because of the light/shadow play on some of the features.
I hope I live to see the day we actually build a permanent (probably sub-surface) base there.
[deleted] t1_ixqy0sn wrote
[removed]
Chainsaw_Viking t1_ixqzciv wrote
Same here. In just those few photos I already saw several interesting shapes, including something that looked like a vending machine, so I’m looking forward to seeing these images on clickbate ads with sloppy red circles around ‘proof’ of aliens for years to come.
BedrockFarmer t1_ixr0bkf wrote
Clearly caught an alien sunbathing on a chaise lounge!
[deleted] t1_ixr2ruv wrote
[removed]
oscarddt t1_ixr31yi wrote
Because if you are in latinoamerica, they´ll send you to the gizmodo in spanish web page, which sucks.
Farseer_Uthiliesh t1_ixr4lq3 wrote
No geologic processes like erosion to efface craters.
jthompson473 t1_ixr5sqt wrote
Get some binoculars and look at the moon.
Ralphie99 t1_ixrbjiy wrote
Most of the craters were made millions of years ago. The moon does not have the atmosphere that Earth has, so more objects will hit the surface of the moon than will hit the surface of the Earth. Earth’s atmosphere burns up most objects that enters it.
Also, the moon does not have the same systems as Earth has that erode surface features over time. On Earth, a crater might get filled with water, and sediment and vegetation might fill it over time. None of these things happen on the moon.
CuriosityK t1_ixrcv69 wrote
Does he have a pack of warm beer that we can consume? On the chaise lounge all day long?
[deleted] t1_ixrg0tg wrote
[removed]
BedrockFarmer t1_ixrivmo wrote
No, but there is a vending machine near by.
[deleted] t1_ixrobk7 wrote
[removed]
ClitusLickus t1_ixrofwl wrote
Where's the space weed and space bong?
ClitusLickus t1_ixrp7wc wrote
I wouldn't say wikipedia is underappreciated. A ton of people use it daily for information and was even when absolutely anyone could change pages.
5-10 years from now... Maybe? A lot of young millennials and gen z are using TikTok for information oddly.
[deleted] t1_ixrs3mm wrote
[removed]
Storm_nor5280 t1_ixrtw23 wrote
WTF...Why do these photos look so bad? I can take a better photo from here with my Iphone.
_kst_ t1_ixrvmiq wrote
i don't think Earth's atmosphere significantly reduces the number of craters that are formed on Earth. Anything big enough to form a crater that's visible from space is going to get through the atmosphere reasonably intact.
Earth has fewer visible craters than the Moon because it erases them.
[deleted] t1_ixrxogq wrote
[removed]
t53ix35 t1_ixrya3k wrote
“Excuse me.” “What?”
TickletheEther t1_ixs0gqy wrote
All I’m sayin is sometimes I just want to learn and not dig though a cacophony of ad videos there is not much online that isn’t profit seeking. Guess I just gotta pick up a damn book instead 🙃
[deleted] t1_ixs16jv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixs2fzv wrote
enderjaca t1_ixs3aqh wrote
Mmm I dunno about that. There are plenty of moon craters you can see in these photos that would not form on earth because those small meteoroids would burn up in Earth's atmosphere. And the moon's surface is relatively light and dusty.
Ralphie99 t1_ixs401w wrote
I mentioned craters getting “erased” as one reason we don’t have nearly as many visible craters on Earth. However, I stand by my contention that the smaller craters on the moon are from objects that would have burned up in Earth’s atmosphere. These objects smash unimpeded into the moon.
Ralphie99 t1_ixs48d4 wrote
Even the craters that are from objects that are big enough to also impact Earth would be smaller on Earth as some of the material from the object would burn up in Earth’s atmosphere, even if a portion of it reached the ground.
MrSpindles t1_ixs4brw wrote
all day long on the chaise longue?
_kst_ t1_ixs4j9a wrote
A quick Google search found this article which says:
> Typically, though, a meteoroid would have to be about the size of a marble for a portion of it to reach the Earth's surface. Smaller particles burn up in the atmosphere about 50 to 75 miles (80 to 120 kilometers) above the Earth.
A crater is typically about 10 times the diameter of the meteorite that created it.
Any crater that's big enough to be visible from space would have formed either on the Moon or Earth.
Unless (and I neglected to allow for this) it hits in the ocean.
According to this article, the smallest meteorite crater on Earth is about 7cm in diameter and 3cm deep. That wouldn't be visible from space.
_kst_ t1_ixs4tng wrote
The smaller craters yes -- but only the ones that are so small that they can't be from orbit. See my other comment.
imafraidofmuricans t1_ixs6k9u wrote
Do they need somebody to butter their muffin?
enderjaca t1_ixs7hym wrote
Good to know, thanks for the resourced info!
Gilgamesh72 t1_ixs8e7a wrote
It’s from a ship moving at 25k mph with a camera that wasn’t designed for high quality planetary survey, I’d bet it was a while were here thing
[deleted] t1_ixsbs5c wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixsf6v8 wrote
[removed]
happychapsteve t1_ixsg684 wrote
Cool…finally, back to the moon. Let’s see if Elon and his BFR Spaceship can send enough cargo and Tesla Bots to build something more permanent there. 😆
Lunaranalog t1_ixsksyu wrote
Ever see “First Man”?
“Those boulders are as big as cars. We can’t land there”
Anyway really awesome cinematography
NotAHamsterAtAll t1_ixskupb wrote
I guess they bought the camera when they started the project. So it is 25 years old now.
PhoenixReborn t1_ixspaj1 wrote
This camera isn't meant to look good to us. It's meant for optimal computer recognition of features for navigation.
KryptCeeper t1_ixsvyqm wrote
>Researchers estimate that roughly 225 new impact craters appear every seven years or so.
What an odd metric. Couldn't they have just said roughly 32 a year?
xoverthirtyx t1_ixsz78e wrote
No kidding, it had no problem sending crispy shots of Orion with a nice Earth rise, but behind a blurry dull moon.
xoverthirtyx t1_ixsz7qt wrote
No kidding, it had no problem sending crispy shots of Orion with a nice Earth rise, but behind a blurry dull moon.
danteheehaw t1_ixt1l99 wrote
We don't need moon aliens knowing we found their homes.
[deleted] t1_ixt1r7k wrote
[removed]
kenthart31 t1_ixtd9vz wrote
Not wanting to go into a conspiracy rant or anything. But honest question. Wouldn't you think the big key pics we would wish to see would be say... the flag planted by Armstrong? Or maybe some of the crap left behind? You know proof that the first moon landing was real? Imagine how huge those photos could have been.... And to clarify I know so very little about all the details of this mission, or even the moon landing. Thus being a genuine question of mine...
HardenPatch t1_ixtvqo3 wrote
Because the moon itself is dull, increasing the contrast would mean overexposing Orion. The camera is pretty good but it had to send live-ish footage travelling at a huge speed so they couldn't send all the data and the result was highly compressed.
Anon-Stoon t1_ixupvom wrote
I donate to Wikipedia every year.
[deleted] t1_ixux5x4 wrote
[removed]
Icy-Conclusion-3500 t1_ixuxeqk wrote
Perhaps the photos aren’t meant for visual enjoyment
[deleted] t1_ixv0est wrote
[removed]
acksed t1_ixvcsws wrote
According to Scott Manley they are plain old GoPro 4s.
KirkUnit t1_ixw64gr wrote
I'm curious as well. They aren't shy about pointing out prior landing sites on Mars. Photos of the Apollo landing sites seems like an easy public engagement win.
kenthart31 t1_ixxnjma wrote
Exactly, the attention and public support would be huge for NASA.
KirkUnit t1_ixztqgp wrote
One thought - that flag has likely been bleached white by the sun long ago. Close-up, photos from the scene, if we ever get them, the artifacts may well look like crap.
kenthart31 t1_iy0jgds wrote
That is intresting, but I feel like it would not cheapen the experience of not only confirming the moon landing, but the symbolism that flag could bring regardless of it being sun damaged. Infact it would prove even further that this happened a long time ago and not recently.
KirkUnit t1_iy5smkf wrote
Agreed. One thought, just in terms of practical considerations, I'm not sure that the Apollo landing sites would have been particularly visible on this mission, this orbit. I believe the closest approach to the Moon is nearer to the south pole, the Apollo sites more equatorial, and a far-ranging orbit besides - it might just not be worthwhile on Artemis I.
drunkenly_scottish t1_ixqau1c wrote
Why does the disclaimer on the webpage ask for permission to track my location?