View of Earth from Artemis 1 Moonbound

How convenient that we only get to see 'live' footage of Earth when the Earth is a tiny blob in the frame... And at ridiculously low resolution as well. Definitely no faking here (sarcasm).

Trying to figure out why the most powerful rocket launched by NASA takes nearly twice as long to reach the moon! Apollo missions reached the moon in 3 days. This "super" rocket has taken 5 days to make the same journey!
The maths don't add up!

a reply to: nolabel

The maths add up fine because it's not taking the same journey - it took the long way round, seeing as it doesn't yet have to worry about keeping a crew alive.

a reply to: JohnThomas2

I checked the mission goals. Appeasing skeptics wasn't one of them.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Wow, what a convincing rebuttal!
Apparently, getting high definition footage of Earth using a £50 camera after paying $4 billion for the rest of the project wasn't one of their mission goals either...

So please explain: www.youtube.com...

Live footage from Artemis 1 orbiting the Moon, but no live footage during the take off, and no live footage of Earth, no full frame footage. Gee... possibly because it's impossible to make CGI clouds that match what the actual clouds on Earth look like, in real time?

Did you know that the total storage for all the cameras on Artemis 1 is only one TERABYTE? Like £70 worth of SSDs? And that the cameras can't record while downloading their existing footage to this feeble one terabyte of storage? What a joke.

originally posted by: nolabel
Trying to figure out why the most powerful rocket launched by NASA takes nearly twice as long to reach the moon! Apollo missions reached the moon in 3 days. This "super" rocket has taken 5 days to make the same journey!
The maths don't add up!

Precisely. The whole thing is a giant scam. They will NEVER land a man on the Moon with this project, you wait, there will be excuse after excuse, delay after delay, but the funding will keep flowing into NASA's coffers.

(Why do idiot journalists all write 'NASA' as 'Nasa'? They are so incredibly stupid that they can't even remember to write an acronym using all capital letters, then they try to normalise their stupidity by making out that this is the 'correct' way to do it, because "that's the way journalists write it".)

a reply to: JohnThomas2

Yo numb nutz - you will not get footage of Artemis on launch if because the camera is sealed inside the payload shroud which
protect the spacecraft as it ascends through the atmosphere on launch The shroud is jettisoned shortly before reaching
orbit

Also a terabyte is a Trillion bytes of storage , enough to store thousands of images

a reply to: JohnThomas2

There have been regular broadcasts showing Earth throughout the mission, all of them exactly matching the views shown on multiple satellites.

Feel free to prove otherwise.

The priority on launch is to establish the integrity of the launch vehicle and prepare for the next stage, not provide you with a picture of your house.

Seems like you'd be determined to find fault with whatever they did.

The simple fact is they didn't launch Artemis to take pretty pictures. If you're not happy with pretty pictures that they have taken, maybe email them and bitch about. It'll ruin their day and they'll totally re-rwite future missions to accommodate your demands.

originally posted by: JohnThomas2

originally posted by: nolabel
Trying to figure out why the most powerful rocket launched by NASA takes nearly twice as long to reach the moon! Apollo missions reached the moon in 3 days. This "super" rocket has taken 5 days to make the same journey!
The maths don't add up!

Precisely. The whole thing is a giant scam. They will NEVER land a man on the Moon with this project, you wait, there will be excuse after excuse, delay after delay, but the funding will keep flowing into NASA's coffers.

(Why do idiot journalists all write 'NASA' as 'Nasa'? They are so incredibly stupid that they can't even remember to write an acronym using all capital letters, then they try to normalise their stupidity by making out that this is the 'correct' way to do it, because "that's the way journalists write it".)

BBC News: Artemis: Nasa expects humans to live on Moon this decade

So where are the pictures of the back side of the moon?
The imaging algorithm shouldn't have as many compression artifacts as it did when the Russians went.

a reply to: Bordon81

They have released at least one that was sent back

twitter.com...

And there have been live streams on lunar approach showing the far side from a distance.

They can't live stream from the far side for obvious reasons. We do have very detailed images of the far side from previous probes from many countries.

I read yesterday that the reason the imagery is less than high definition is because the bandwidth needed for broadcast is being used for other things (telemetry, other experiments etc). The actual 4K level images will be available on capsule return, at which point people will start complaining about other things.

Here are some images I captured from the live streams. I will upload some more when I have more time. I am a little behind in class and need to catch up.

Insertion into distant retrograde orbit livestream.

Now that the first Artemis mission is over, and the 'magical' 'radiation-proof' computer memory is back on Earth, are we finally going to see the HIGH RESOLUTION videos (i.e. not taken with a toaster like all the crap we have seen so far from this mission) of the Earth and the Moon? I thought not.

a reply to: JohnThomas2

Will you just whine about them being fake when they do?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Bordon81

The actual 4K level images will be available on capsule return, at which point people will start complaining about other things.

Oh dear, that didn't age very well, did it... Where are the '4k level' (as you call them) images? (4k would have sufficed...) Still defending this obvious CGI rubbish?

Here are the "10 Greatest Images" from the mission, according to space.com:

www.space.com...

Wow, how impressive! Not.
Notice picture 4. Orion's FIRST image of Earth. When it's absolutely miles away.
How convenient! How much more easier to FAKE a single photo, with the Earth absolutely tiny, than to have to fake a 4k video, which we are all waiting for...

Wait for 'OneBigMonkeyToo' to tell me I'm "whining"... That will magically make it all better!

a reply to: JohnThomas2

You are.

That picture of Earth shows exactly what it should. Go check the weather satellites.

You claiming it's fake doesn't mean it's fake.

If they released an image of Earth where you could see your house you'd still bitch about it, because you've already made up your mind about it.

Your demanding pictures you don't really want from people you don't believe. Your outrage is sound and fury, signifying nothing.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: JohnThomas2

You are.

That picture of Earth shows exactly what it should. Go check the weather satellites.

You claiming it's fake doesn't mean it's fake.

If they released an image of Earth where you could see your house you'd still bitch about it, because you've already made up your mind about it.

Your demanding pictures you don't really want from people you don't believe. Your outrage is sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Wow, that's really shown me! So when you said:
"The actual 4K level images will be available on capsule return, at which point people will start complaining about other things. "

were you wrong? Where are the 4K images you promised us?
Don't tell me - they magically haven't got any 4K images. Isn't that odd. What with super high resolution (way more than 4K) being dirt cheap nowadays, and OBVIOUSLY the sort of thing you would have on such a mission...

All of your "If such and such happened, you WOULD do so and so" sentences are meaningless. They are just pathetic attempts to bait and switch.

WHERE ARE THE 4K PHOTOS, now that Artemis has been back on Earth for weeks?