>>5208883 Rotated with north (approximately) up, and annotated with constellation lines per H.A. Rey's book "The Star: A New Way To See Them," stars identified and prioritized by proper names, then Bayer letters, then Flamsteed numbers.
>>5209429 I was actually thinking of doing that. Offhand, it looks like Saturn is just lower-right of the Moon and Mars farther out. It also means north looks like it's really 'up', so I won't need to rotate imagery.
>>5209690 >You didn't need to rotate the other image. To more easily find my bearings I did. Lots of potential for mistakes when rotating in my head during labeling.
>>5209754 >why is it mostly limited to 1080p? It's what Anons find and post. Disappointing. At least one camera is a Nikon D5, 5568 x 33712 pixels. I've heard they have a Z6 as well, but haven't seen any exif to prove that.
>>5209758 >it's too big to uppload in here I'm noticing a lot these are .png. Can you save it as a jpg? Or do you have a URL for the image you got it from?
>>5210165 >jpeg compression artifacts There is some slight compression compromising., but that's not the whole point. You're not going to find better imagery anywhere else. But do tell.... crop out a section from >>5209783 big enough to post here, and circle the egregious artifacting you see. Go on... prove your point.
This is why they give us obscure views of the earth, or stick with Australia or Antartica landmasses only. They don't want us doing the real math. Especially with the advent of AI.
>>5210437 Except you're segrating North America and not africa. You must also add mexico, canada and alsaka....Africa is not as big as you portray it...And FYI, there is no China 2. You might as well be comparing England to the North American continent.
>>5210437 You're comparing a continent to countries, try comparing Africa to the Asian continent North American Continent? Not so big now is it? We can do the same thing, lets compare Chad or Lybia to the North American Continent? Won't do that will ya?
>>5209379 >This looks as fake as the day is long. >>5209369 Everything in that photo matches up with known physics. The moon is eclipsing the sun from Artemis' point of view. The glow behind the moon is from the sun's outer corona. The dimly lit crescent on the left side of the moon is from sunlight reflecting off of the earth. Everything in this scene is still dark enough for the camera to pick up the stars in the background. Is the image fake? I can't say with 100% certainty since I wasn't on Artemis II when this was supposedly taken. But it looks right, given the conditions. So you saying it looks fake doesn't mean much.
Transparent and Translucent moon. On a clear night, during a waxing or waning cycle, it is even possible to occasionally see stars and planets directly through the surface of the Moon! On March 7th, 1794, four astronomers (3 in Norwich, 1 in London) wrote in “The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Astronomical Society” that they “saw a star in the dark part of the moon, which had not then attained the first quadrature; and from the representations which are given the star must have appeared very far advanced upon the disc.” Sir James South of the Royal Observatory in Kensington wrote in a letter to the Times newspaper April 7, 1848, that, "On the 15th of March, 1848, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined disc so beautifully. On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon's dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable … The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon's edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon's dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon … I have seen a similar apparent projection several times … The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery."
>>5211905 In the monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society for June 8, 1860, Thomas Gaunt stated that the "Occultation of Jupiter by the moon, on the 24th of May, 1860, was seen with an achromatic of 3.3 inches aperture, 50 inches focus; the immersion with a power of 50, and the emersion with a power of 70. At the immersion I could not see the dark limb of the moon until the planet appeared to touch it, and then only to the extent of the diameter of the planet; but what I was most struck with was the appearance on the moon as it passed over the planet. It appeared as though the planet was a dark object, and glided on to the moon instead of behind it; and the appearance continued until the planet was hid, when I suddenly lost the dark limb of the moon altogether.” I have personally also seen stars through the edge of the waxing/waning Moon. It actually happens fairly often; if you are diligent and specifically observing for the phenomenon on starry nights you can occasionally see it even with the naked eye.
>>5211906 A star occulting a crescent Moon has long been a popular symbol of Islam, was the symbol of the Ottoman Empire, it is found on the flags of Algeria, Azerbaijan, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Pakistan, Singapore, Tunisia, Turkey, and in the Coat of Arms of countries from Croatia, to Germany, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Its origins can be traced back thousands of years to ancient Hindu culture where it is found in the symbol for the word “Om,” the primary name for the almighty, representing the union of god Shiva and goddess Shakti. Why the symbol has carried such widespread historical significance is open to interpretation, but regardless of interpretation, the image of star(s) occulting the Moon has long been a prevalent and meaningful picture.
>>5212088 Individually converting highly detailed images to fit 4chan’s file size requirements, without looking terrible, is tedious. I am not converting enough images to populate an entire thread.
>>5209379 The question I always have for deniers is what do you THINK it should look like? The reason these photos look so surreal is because they are taken in environments that are completely alien to our every day experience.
>>5218440 The secret isn't pushing against air it’s throwing mass. Isaac Newton’s Third Law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
>>5218461 No, mental retarded anon. What I explained is how a rocket works: when the fuel expands and is forced out of only one side of the craft, it generates thrust. That phenomenon is just one of countless examples where Newton’s laws remain consistent with the physical world we observe. Obviously, Newton couldn't leave the atmosphere back then the technology didn't exist but he could perform plenty of experiments that proved the exact same principle.
>>5220928 What I love about that shot is it shows how much darker the Moon is than the Earth. Imagine how bright our nights could be if the Moon reflected as much light as the Earth('s cloud cover) does.
>>5220324 >when the fuel expands and is forced out of only one side of the craft, it generates thrust. Thrust against what? Theres nothing out there to thrust against.
>The craft The rocket is within the craft, it needs to thrust against an atmosphere on the outside to push it, what is it thrusting against when there is nothing to thrust against outside the craft?
>>5221891 >What does the rocket "thrust" against? It doesn't. It thrust material out. That combined with the sudden, explosive expansion of the ignited fuel pressing against the flared nozzles provides pressure to move forward. The design of the nozzles is not random 'cause it looks cool. It is curved to capture as much of the expansion as possible given the directions of expansions along the length of the nozzle.
This is all of course available as info on the Internet. You're just being a smart-ass. Make sure you're smart, first.
>>5221891 >The rocket is within the craft, it needs to thrust against an atmosphere on the outside to push it, what is it thrusting against when there is nothing to thrust against outside the craft?
Let me break it down for your retarded brain
> Big iron cylinder ignite fuel. > Fire want go everywhere. > Back of rocket has hole. > Gas molecules scream out of hole one way. > Force push rocket other way. > Rocket no push air. > Rocket throw gas. > Throw gas fast = Rocket move fast.
>>5222266 It is genuinely impressive how you can acknowledge the existence of gas and a craft, yet fail to grasp that they are pushing each other. You are looking for a third object like a confused toddler looking for a floor to stand on.
>>5222306 >Space itself. Theres nothing in space to push against, no atmosphere, nothing, Its why asteroids and space rocks continually and freely travel through space as there is nothing to slow them down or stop them.
>>5222355 >you can acknowledge the existence of gas and a craft Yes, theres a craft and gas, theres nothing for it to push against though, you are the one who can't acknowledge that you are brainwashed as rocket propulsion in space is fake and can't and never will work and never has and that this woke and fake artemis journey didn't go anywhere past the green screen it was faked on.
nasa are liars and their programs are psyops to keep the dumb herd believing in ghost stories and put out blatant lies about losing the data it took to get to and land on the moon and is why their "astronauts" go mad and punch journalists on the street who question them if they really landed on the moon.
>>5222686 >Theres nothing in space to push against, no atmosphere, nothing, It is pushing against the space itself and not any matter floating around in the space. That’s what inertia is. You apply acceleration to an object with mass and you achieve a force. That force in rocketry is called thrust.
>>5222686 >Yes, theres a craft and gas, theres nothing for it to push against though Why the hell do you think the gas has to push against anything other than the rocket itself? Explain to me why there needs to be anything else out there. Explain how you think physics actually works.
>>5223121 >You think that idiotic post was worthy of response? Are you serious?! I can’t just let a fake-flat-earther contaminate my /hr/ thread with his room-temperature IQ. Do you not realize how necessary it is to humiliate this fake level of ignorance? It’s the principle of the thing. I don't care if he's baiting. I’m here to gatekeep reality from anyone with a double-digit IQ, real or LARPed.
>>5223258 >it's dust and shit that is catching the light. Perhaps. Mostly though, they're stuck pixels. Sensors are not perfect. One way to tell is to zoom in to an area where there are stars. You can see stars are a bit fuzzy or form streaks, not points. Look around and you'll soon see some point of light that really just one pixel, sometime surrounded by very dark pixels. Those bright ones are the stuck pixels. Now that you've learned what to look for, zoom in on the ones over the Moon - they're the pinpoints of stuck pixels. Something else about those: the same stuck pixels appear in many of the images. One technique in astrophotography is to take a long exposure with the lens cap on. Only stuck pixels will show up, and you can use software to sub track that "dark frame" from an astrophoto to get a cleaned image. Of course there's a small chance a stuck pixel lands on a star, but that coincidence is pretty small. The longer an exposure, the brighter the stuck pixels and more of them. There's also 'noise', which is similar to stuck pixels, but caused by trying to get more light out of the image using the electronics. It's more like grain on a film photo. The higher the ISO used, the grainier the texture. I've heard the high-end Nikons are less prone to noise, but I'm not sure of the details why, so i can't explain.
>>5223271 I don't get the joke. What's funny about that? Or are just being snarky from ignorance?
>>5223323 I know what settings do and there isn't many ways to remove stars, especially when looking toward the sun with the moon visible as opposed to looking away from the sun with the bright side of the moon the focus. Stars should be visible in both.
>>5223343 >dont go in the woods, faeries and daemons lurk there. twas only a bear, here is its head. >dont go in the water, monsters and mysteries dwell within. we have no need for deep water enterprises at this time and we already control the land. >dont go to space, aliens and the unknown occupy that realm. thanks to a bald entrepreneur we will rule the stars. >NO STOP THE JESTER GUILD SAYS THAT ALIENS ARE ACTUALLY ANGELS RRREEEEEEE then it is time to make good on the promises of those ancient stories of yours.
>>5223597 The one that shows stars shows the unlit side of the Moon (it's eclipsing the Sun), and includes a crescent of Moon at the left lit by the the Earth. So exposure times are long enough to get stars, too. The others (without stars) are exposed to show detail on the sunlit part of the Moon and also the Earth. So exposure settings don't pick up the stars. https://www.astronomy.com/science/pictures-of-earth-taken-from-moon-show-black-sky-with-no-stars
>>5223595 Stuck pixels vary with sensor temperature and exposure settings. But when they do show up, they show up in the same spots. Also, you might be comparing between images taken with different cameras. They brought a couple - a D5 (5568x3712 pixels) and a Z9 (8256x5504 pixels).
>>5223595 >>5223710 P.S. Pixels: if you see images with sizes other than those two, sets, then you're looking at an edited image. No telling where the cropping/resizing ended up putting the stuck pixels. In the pic I edited: >>5209643 I edited out the stuck pixels one by one. Someone else resized the image I started with >>5209369 to 4kx3k.
>>5223717 >>5223718 Oh!! Istand corrected: they had THREE (at least) cameras on board. The 4x3k one you posted was taken with a GoPro! Exif details attached. (Sorry for the extra white space - to meet size requirement for /hr/)
>>5223731 Man, please stop annoying everyone, this place isn't for trolling, go to /b/. And please to the rest of you, if this guy keeps bothering, don't reply, just report him for trolling outside of /b/ and leave it at that. It's annoying that you come to mess around in /hr/ where barely anyone visits non-celeb threads just to troll.
>>5218440 propulsion doesn't work by propelling "against something", at least not the way you mean it. Propulsion is exactly the same as recoil of a gun. The recoil has the same force no matter whether you are in earth's athmosphere, or underwater or in a vacuum. Recoil also doesn't change depending on whether you fire into the air or directly into a wall.
>>5225867 NASA always responds with gun in space analogy in accordance with Newtons Thirds law of motion. Here’s a copy and paste with a similar response to the gun in space answer:
One might argue that a gun creates a recoil effect yet this analogy is not applicable because we are talking about rockets not revolvers.
Short answer: Yes a gun recoils in space. No, the analogy does not apply to rockets.
Longer version: Shooting a gun in space would happen theoretically as follows: pressurized gas accelerates the bullet through the barrel until the bullet leaves the muzzle. At that point the gas that was pushing the bullet escapes without doing any more work i.e. via free expansion. The energy of the bullet (its momentum) travels with the bullet and the gun recoils by principle of conservation of momentum.
The gun analogy does not apply to a NASA-type space rocket as their pressurized gas escapes without doing any work at all. A NASA rocket is a gun without a bullet.
>>5229716 >this analogy is not applicable It's exactly applicable. Instead of one big bullet at a time, it's trillions of combusted fuel molecules in a constant stream.