>>16950581 They mostly saw nothing, the picture has basically all of the far side they saw. Starlight may allow them to pick up some detail on the far side beyond that but nothing interesting for certain.
>>16950633 Well yes but I include that into "saw nothing" because it's not with their eyes. If they wanted to look at a picture of the far side of the moon there's plenty available with high definition and full lighting, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter for instance has a pretty good catalog of amazing pictures.
>>16950593 I often get hit with this disturbing notion that the entire visible universe is just full of boring lifeless balls of rock, and earth is all we have, it's all there is.
>>16950755 Well you can weep and gnash your teeth about the vastness of cosmic indifference, or take pleasure knowing that we are pretty much the focal point of it all
>>16950755 >earth is all we have, it's all there is. it's possibly but given how many stars are out there it's highly improbably. what is more disturbing is that barring some innovation like reifying the alcubierre drive, we'll most likely never know about them.
Reminder that Elon Musk's Occupy Mars shirt doesn't have Mars on it. The Moon with a red filter over it was used. Some think this was a secret signal that he knew he'd have to do the Moon first even though he kept saying it was a waste of time. Others think it was simply lazy graphic design.
>>16950728 They said in the stream they saw the dark side clearly during the eclipse because of Earthshine but the cameras wouldn't pick it from dynamic range. I figure they were able to see as much as a moonlit night.
>>16951948 I can't find it now but there's a map showing what the apollo missions actually saw up close and there's a big blind spot, so it's a correct statement even if it doesn't mean as much as they make it out to be
>>16951948 >the news keeps saying "never seen before seen by human eyes" to play it up So NASA now admits that none of the Apollo astronauts were really humans? Gnorts!
>>16951950 >there's a big blind spot Considering one astronaut remained in the command module, this is unexpected.
>>16951433 It's the first time a star other than our sun was shown at this level of detail. You're the retard for not understanding what that image represents.
>>16950755 what is improbable is life, let alone intelligent life, let alone civilization, let alone industrial civilization, let alone spacefaring industrial civilization multiply the probability for each and you get a vanishingly small chance for there to be multiple civilizations in the same galaxy The odds that there is another civilization within the visible universe at the same time as us, within the same cosmic epoch that spans billions of years, are nearly zero
>>16950507 what's that blue/purple stuff? does it actually look like that or is it one of those color renders, I hate it when they do that why can't they just take pictures with an iphone?
>>16950755 That's an incorrect notion though. The universe is full of fucking nothing. The lifeless balls of rock make up just a tiny insignificant part of it.
>>16954423 >The universe is full of fucking nothing At which scale? And then at which ratio perspective? And at which speed relative to other objects in the universe?
>>16954436 social media. the algorithm rewards engagement. any and all engagement. the easiest way to get people engaged is to make them angry. and they use all sorts of psychological tricks to keep people watching. they consume hours and hours of rageslop. anger becomes a natural state for them. so much so that they actually start to enjoy their anger.
>>16960973 I think a redditor is someone who gets a self esteem boost by feeling superior to someone the hivemind sneers at, so in that sense you're just a very advanced redditor
As Artemis II — NASA’s mission that will send four astronauts to circumnavigate the moon as soon as next year — draws closer, a new study is revealing how well its Orion spacecraft will protect the crew.
The findings are based off data from Artemis I, a 25-day journey around the moon and back in late 2022. The Orion capsule on that mission, which followed a trajectory similar to the one Artemis II is set to take, was uncrewed but carried special nonhuman guests.
Two of them, mannequin torsos called Helga and Zohar, rode along as test of how much radiation astronauts might experience as they venture to the moon. The mannequins were made of materials that mimic the soft tissue, organs and bones of a person and, like the spacecraft, included detectors to track radiation exposure along the way.
>>16950755 Even within our solar system there are balls of rock, balls of gas and rock, balls of rock and ice, balls with volcanic/tectonic/cryo-tectonic action. I can think of at least 3 bodies other than Earth that have some plausible chance of hosting some form of basic life. And our solar system is a ridiculously tiny sample of our visible universe, like you can't even conceptualize how tiny.
You can be disturbed by the notion that Earth is the only place with sexy bitches that we'll ever have, but the universe clearly has tons of balls that are not boring and lifeless in it
>>16950755 What is disturbing is that the chances of there being any fuckable alien babes are practically zero. Because attractiveness is linked to our biology and specific evolutionary tree. The milky way may be teeming with intelligent life, but the chances I would find any of them attractive are nonexistant. What's even the point of alien life if it's just some stupid ugly thing that's probably very difficult to understand and interact with?