Chinese Satellite Captures a Cool View of Earth from Lunar Orbit

The lunar terminator would be somewhere off to the left of the frame.

The moon should be exposed the same as the earth at least, likely it should be much brighter since it’s closer and and has no atmosphere and is predominately white. It is significantly underexposed compared to the earth. the terminator should be out of frame, yes - is that what you are saying? - because the part of the moon we are looking at should be completely illuminated by the sun.

Real composite or fake composite? Don’t know what that means so I couldn’t say.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the color of the Moon. Just "no stars."

The underexposure is what you’re seeing there, not the color.

a reply to: Welllll

Earth''s albedo is significantly higher than the moon a correctly exposed earth will lead to an underexposed moon..

The two bodies are lit by the same object, so the same half is being lit on both. The area over which the camera is looking on the moon forms a small part of that half.

OneBigMonkeyToo

Earth''s albedo is significantly higher than the moon a correctly exposed earth will lead to an underexposed moon..

I’m not clear how that’s possible, perhaps I’m dead wrong and you could explain it to me. First, the earth is father away, and second, the moon has no atmosphere. Are you saying the moon rocks are less reflective than the land and water on the earth?

The two bodies are lit by the same object, so the same half is being lit on both. The area over which the camera is looking on the moon forms a small part of that half.

Yes, 100%. That is my point. The exposure should be roughly equal between the two.

a reply to: Welllll

I am saying that the moon is less reflective, yes.

a reply to: Welllll

The reason why is 2 things one involving area, The Earth is about 3.67 times the diameter of the Moon, meaning that its cross-sectional area, or how big it appears in the sky, is thirteen times as great as the Moon seen from earth.The other factor reflectivity for example light bounces off water almost like a mirror. Case in point ever go swimming and get your face sunburned its not like you swam looking at the sky.

Now the Moon just appears white to us its actual color would be more a charcoal grey. It seems white because the amount of unfiltered light it receives. Dont want to go into long explinations but let me say light frequencies will determine what colors we see.

So if we compare the two earth reflects 37 percent of the sunlight back out into space. Our moon sends about 11 percent back into space. With the difference in reflectivity and size the earth is about 43 times brighter then the moon.

I wonder when when will we have a NON INTERRUPTED live 24h stream of the Earth from the Moon. Still don’t understand why it hasn’t been done yet,I mean...

a reply to: leopayaso1987

Two reasons really. Firstly there's the issue of powering the broadcast. You either need a nuclear energy source (which of course could never go wrong!) or you rely on solar. Solar means having sufficient panels there to power the broadcast system and also charge batteries for the period of darkness it has to ensure half the time.

Assuming you can overcome those you get to the second bit: what's the point? Other than the wow factor (and yes, it would be really cool) it serves no purpose whatsoever. It's hard enough to get people to stump up the cash for hard science, never mind what would for many be very pointless TV.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

And honestly, I think the "wow" factor would wear off rather quickly.

Here's a link to the International Space Station's "ISS HD Viewing Experiment" (HERE). Some of the video's are 3 hours long, some are 50 minutes long, etc. They show feeds from the ISS of the Earth, including the times when the ISS is in the Earth's shadow, and they're uploaded multiple times a day (there are 3 from the last 22hrs alone). And if you click on the "Show More" link at the bottom of the page, it'll keep loading more videos.

The reason I'm mentioning this is because of the paltry number of views each video receives. After checking the videos dated over the last week, the most views any specific video has is only 23,251 views (at the time of this post). The second highest viewed video in that time frame currently has only 404 views and the 3rd highest only has 399 views. I don't think that numb ers like this will inspire any action whatsoever towards setting up a 24 hour broadcast from the Earth.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

You of all people should know that the Earth HAS been under constant observation from space for almost 50 years. Ever since the first geosynchronous weather satellites started beaming pictures every half hour or so.

Of course, you know ATS:

originally posted by: dragonridr

I agree with everything you said (bc it’s all facts) but that doesn’t change the fact that the photo is taken closer to the moon than the earth. I’m not a math wiz, I’m just a photographer. Seems like the inverse square law should balance the two.

Maybe it’s just an error in perception, one sees the moon at night and it’s bright white, suppose its just subjective and the reality is the moon is a dull gray.

a reply to: gortex

Why is the edge of the moon so misshapen? It's almost like someone has run this through a paint program.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CosmicAwakening

I don't think this one is a composite, fake or otherwise. It could be, but there isn't much reason for it to be. It closely resembles Hassleblad images from the Apollo missions.

What's interesting Phage is that 40 ppl starred your post despite that you yourself admit you aren't sure.

They just want to believe it's real and don't care if it is or isn't.

I personally don't care if it's real or not because I'm focusing on rebuilding a better life and unlocking my Dreams.

I do find it interesting, and typical, that people believe in what they want and aren't able to reserve judgment.

My own tendency to believe blindly is what destroyed my life. It had nothing to do with NASA pics, which is pretty harmless. Unfortunately my blind belief was in a person who was rotten and very bad for me.

Just be wary my friend, and keep your wits about you. Don't let hope and desire cloud your eyes to countless red flags. Trust your gut and the evidence.

a reply to: Phage

Oh, and I realize what I just said is ironic.

I am guilty of many mistakes.
But I'm trying to learn better from them.

Just yesterday I was repeating those terrible mistakes in poor judgment.

But today is a new day and I'm going to do better.

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

For the same reason the Earth would at the right angle in the right place. The lunar surface is a mess of mountains and craters that make for an uneven horizon.

a reply to: Saint Exupery

Well yeah, it's one of the reasons a camera feed would be pointless

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Because the Moon is not a flat surface , it has lumps and bumps.

originally posted by: musicismagic
Aren't there any stars?

There were recent images of Saturn's rings from Cassini that showed stars in the background. I dont have time to locate right now from work sorry, but why are they in them but not here? Much appreciated if anyone can post that image?. Cheers.

a reply to: satellite1

The examples I've seen all show features typical of long exposures. I would also imagine, without checking, that Cassini's camera was optimised for the job.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: satellite1

The examples I've seen all show features typical of long exposures. I would also imagine, without checking, that Cassini's camera was optimised for the job.

Are there any pics of Earth from anytime with stars? Would seem weird that we can achieve this with another planet but our own.

originally posted by: satellite1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: satellite1

The examples I've seen all show features typical of long exposures. I would also imagine, without checking, that Cassini's camera was optimised for the job.

Are there any pics of Earth from anytime with stars? Would seem weird that we can achieve this with another planet but our own.

There are lots of examples from the ISS, usually long exposures taken on night side passes. Unless you use the UV spectrum, a fully lit Earth and moon are simply too bright to allow stars to be photographed in their vicinity.

This document

ciclops.org...

discusses Cassini's imaging system and stars get a good few mentions.