It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: GetHyped
An exercise for the bright minds who think "but 2d mountains!!" as an argument is anything but pants-on-head ridiculous:
A) what is earth's radius (in km)?
B) what is the tallest mountain (in km)?
C) what percentage of a) is b)?
originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
a reply to: iDope
I'm probably going to break a taboo here and say this. I know that the average LD in miles is 238900. So, lets just round that
to 250000 or a quarter million miles.
The photo of "earth-rising" was taken from a quarter million miles away. Now, let us look at this photo that was presented by the OP. One million miles away.... So, the moon is 750,000 miles away, and it is huge. I know, zoom and cropping and all that jazz.... The Earth is one million miles away.... Now, regardless of the camera used to take the "Earth-Rising" photo from 1968, how can it be comparable in size to the moon from our perspective, when a zoomed and cropped image makes it soooooo much larger?
I am not trying to make a point here, but I just wish to understand. The reply I received earlier was nice, but I just don't buy it.
How can the Earth look so gigantic in a "zoomed and cropped" image from a perspective one million miles away, but look so miniscule from a quarter million miles away? It makes no sense to me regardless of the lens..
originally posted by: lambros56
Does this tell us anything ?
This is a visualization of how a total eclipse would look like.
It`s dated March of this year.
The Moon looks exactly the same to me but the Earth looks different but then again, it says it`s a visualization.
I`m no expert so.......?
originally posted by: odzeandennz
NASA after years of space exploration posts an incredibly amateurish low rez GIF animation with just a couple of frames, and adds a ton of conjecture on how they were able to finally show the far side of the moon,
and NASA 'enthusiasts'
immediately accept it as truth, despite glaring issues, (i.e. we have beautiful images of Saturn, super high rez images of Jupiter, and a 'video' of us landing on a comet billions of miles away, yet they give us this and boom.)
so to the believers, no evidence is needed; to the non believers there is never enough evidence. trust me this applies to both ET nuts, and keyboard scientists who sworn allegiance to NASA and everything they put forth.
there also seems to be no issue with full spectrum imaging with any other planets, just the earth and the moon, there seems to be a lot of ambiguity when it comes to them.
Various members have made little smart comments (not you) on this thread, if some of those members put as much effort into learning how things work as they put into criticising other peoples work, may be things wouldn't be such a mystery to them.
originally posted by: GaryN
Any light on the Lunar far side is created by the thin Lunar dust atmosphere, and is very, very dim. The near side is mostly lit by Earthshine, so is brighter, but still of low Lux values.