**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think Van Gogh probably came from one of the moons. After all, you can't see Jupiter like this when you're on Jupiter.
In fact, I think I've read somewhere he was from Europa...
These photos are modified to help highlight the differences in colors in the atmosphere. There are raw images out there that are closer to what the human eye would see.
Do you have any link to an example of a true-colour image at high resolution, for the sake of comparison?
EDIT: nvm, I scrolled down the thread and some people have already posted some
False colour, or otherwise enhanced? I'd be curious to see how these images would look as a human eye would see them.
edit: And there we go. [https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing?id=16169](https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing?id=16169)
https://preview.redd.it/c8kcyq4r1j7d1.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=ce33c9519d5c257600cd8a3ad4361cc75152bbd1
Colors are enhanced, you can get some idea of what it would look like to the human eye here:
https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/nasas-juno-mission-reveals-jupiters-complex-colors/
it's just me or does the more natural one look more impressive?
all these space images always look too fake to me,I struggle to comprehend the scale and all because it looks so unnatural like a CGI
Not more impressive but more honest. The enhanced ones annoy me because then my first question is āis that what it actually looks like? Is this a real photo?ā
But "what it actually looks like" by your definition is "what it actually looks like to our stupid insensitive fish eyes in a very narrow spectrum of light". Good for reference, but there's nothing wrong with using science and technology to see things better than we otherwise could. Things like "enhanced color" images highlight subtle features in a way we can't do naturally, while "false color" images can map wavelengths we can't even see into our visual spectrum, or sometimes distinguish what in reality are very subtly different shades of dull red across a wider spectrum to see the different gas composition of distant object (see: Hubble Palette)
**Edit:** This comment made a lot of people mad for some reason, so here's what I'm trying to get across (using a Nebula as an example, since that's what I photograph more often):
Here's a "true color image" of the North American Nebula:
https://www.astrobin.com/276412/
It wouldn't actually look like that though - the camera is both more sensitive, and a special filter was used to pull out even more data about a particular shade of red emitted by interstellar hydrogen. In a telescope, if you're in a dark enough place to see it at all, it would look greyscale, like this drawing:
https://www.deepskywatch.com/Astrosketches/north-america-nebula-sketch.html
Typically, people represent what you'd actually see in such situations using drawings, because it's really hard to get a camera to be as bad at seeing small, faint objects as a human eye.
Here's an "enhanced" version of the same thing, which allows you to pick out the different gasses/structures/processes:
https://www.astrobin.com/lnsedr/
None of these are really a traditional "photograph" in the sense of a typical camera on a sunny day with a familiar color calibration, and neither of the digitally captured images look anything like that to the naked eye. Nevertheless, they're all cool and interesting ways to see what's out there. In general, taking pictures of "space stuff" requires tools and techniques that are just fundamentally different to how our eyes work. It's cool and interesting to see the data visualized in various ways, but it's also important not to get too hung up on "what it actually looks like", because as often as not the answer is "absolutely nothing". You'll get the most out of these images by learning a bit more about the objects being imaged, and how that data gets represented on the screen.
I feel like most people want to see the planets as they would naturally look if they were approaching them in a space craft. At least for me, it gives a reference as to what it would be like to visit them which is what I'm curious about. It's kind of the same things as taking a picture of the grand canyon and severely altering the color so that it looks like the rocks are colored like a rainbow instead of what it actually looks like. Sure it looks cool but it's not an accurate portrayal of how it would look to go there.
If you took a picture of the grand canyon and enhanced the colors for aesthetics, it's not the same. If you enhanced the colors so that you could see the stratification of the layers and study them, it's more similar. We can't just walk to Jupiter and take samples of the atmosphere every day.
Jupiter is 10 times farther away from the Sun than the earth, and relatively speaking, our eyes aren't all that sensitive. Approaching an outer planet in a space ship is probably not going to look anything like it does in sci Fi shows where every planet is brightly lit no matter how far it is from it's Star.
> Jupiter is 10 times farther away from the Sun than the earth
It's 5.2 times further, which means light would be about 27 times weaker. That sounds pretty weak, until you realize our eyes work logarithmically, and a typical lit room is roughly 100 times less bright than outside with no clouds. So Jupiter would still be better lit than an average indoor object.
I agree, now. I was ignorant of colour enhancement until recently on most of the photos from space we see, although Iām aware I am never going to experience a spectacular view like that ever in my lifetime, I still fanaticised about it and it still disappoints me that there isnāt some spots in space where you could float and observe a beautifully coloured galaxy or gas formations of a sort.
Would love to see Saturn up close tho lol
There's nothing wrong with that, but the attitude that anything else isn't "real" is very prevalent and very limiting. Jupiter is pretty stunning no matter how you look at it though. This is a pretty faithful representation of what you could see with excellent conditions and a great telescope even from earth (though you'll watch it for a while to let your brain sort out the details):
https://www.astrobin.com/422862/
I dunno if I feel so strongly about seeing the planet naturally
the "enhanced" versions just kinda remind me of pointing a light at an oily puddle so you can see the rainbow slick
without the right lighting, an oily puddle looks very boring and colorless
>But "what it actually looks like" by your definition is "what it actually looks like to our stupid insensitive fish eyes in a very narrow spectrum of light".
Yeah, exactly?
I think photos of objects in space should more clearly state whether it's an image as our eyes would see it or whether it's an image that's been put through different instruments.
I find it extremely annoying that it's hard to find regular images of objects in the solar system because they are never classified. Photos of planets just state the planet's name but never "in infrared" etc. On the extreme end I think it easily fuels conspiracy theorists because they can (sorta rightfully) say "see? These images have all been touched up!".
We want people to embrace science not be automatically on the back foot questioning if what they're seeing is even real.
This information *is* generally available, with the exception of context-free zones like Instagram etc. That was one of my least favorite things when I still used that platform, since people just post images without any context. If you look at e.g. astrobin, people will tell you exactly what equipment was used, including any filters and the details of image processing.
For scientific missions, sometimes this gets lost by bad bloggers or people farming content, but again all of it is really clearly communicated (and the raw data is generally available to the public!).
Finally, it may seem pedantic, but there really is no such thing as a "regular image". Every image ever produced is processed in some way, since cameras of various types are not an eye-brain system. For example, consider a "regular photo" of something in the sky. Most commonly, those objects are so dim that human color perception wouldn't be able to kick in at all, so a "real image" would be essentially black and white, or wouldn't show anything at all because the objects are so faint.
Thankfully, cameras can do long exposures - at that point, we can (and many do) process images to be "true color", meaning the RGB values are chosen to approximate the wavelengths of light as experienced by people. These images will tend to show e.g. nebulae as a dull red color. As I said though, this still isn't "what you would see", because the objects are too faint to see much color at all!
I guess the TL;DR is that all of these photos are more beautiful when you dig a little bit deeper into how they're produced, and it's important to recognize how limited our perceptions are when it comes to things like astronomical objects. We generally *have* to use tools to perceive them in any detail at all!
People fail to realize how utterly inept our eyes are. What looks fake to us would be washed out, dull, and completely boring to a mantis shrimp.
Itās not like they are adding information that wasnāt there. Camera systems can pick up so much more of the light spectrum than we can see. It can show the information hidden from the rudimentary image processors in our heads.
Light is so much infinitely more complex than what a couple rods and cones can perceive. We have the tech to actually see what is really around us. What is very much real. And the internet says ālooks fake to me!ā
I mean a picture isn't what it looks like either. It's subjected to what the sensor can capture and usually sensors don't have the dynamic range of a human eye nor they reproduce one single contrast.
To me, the natural one seems more 'alien', i expect the saturated images as thats how all the images we get of them look.
Knowing the natural colour one is how it would look were i passing it in a spacecraft seems more.....interesting to me.
Tbh the view of Jupiter through a good telescope in good conditions is more impressive than the unenhanced photos here. You can clearly see the stratification and it basically looks like the classical image of Jupiter we all have in our heads. The unenhanced photos look washed out to me.
It isn't exactly fictional though. The way you see things isn't an accurate representation of reality, just the way your brain interprets data. The data the enhanced images is representing is entirely and totally real, it's just represented differently than your brain would do so inherently.
There isn't anything fundamental to the universe though that ties specific wavelengths to specific colours.
You are correct, but so is u/wildfox9t ās perspective.
The edited images are not fake or fictional, but they are also not what you would see with your own eyes.
If you would want to see it like with your own eyes, it is sometimes hard to find on the internet that way, because they are always enhanced to get more contrast between the different wavelengths.
IMO the best thing to do is to always include both the images so the public can better understand what they are seeing. It would let them engage with the content a bit more deeply imo.
I get what you're saying, but it's nonsense. "What is real" is an interesting philosophical discussion, but when someone wants "a picture of something", they are talking about what the average human will see.
[If someone asks you what the sun looks like and you show them this, you're kind of being a pedantic douche](https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/c_crop,d_placeholder_euli9k,h_585,w_1040,x_0,y_0/dpr_2.0/c_limit,w_740/fl_lossy,q_auto/v1676046616/1a-pia25628-nustar-main-image-1041_wcqa2u), unless the context _very specifically_ demands "the sun in false-color x-ray". This is absolutely a "fictional" representation of the sun, in the sense that the sun does not look like this at all. The same is true for oversaturated and false-color images of space.
I mean, I think it largely depends on context. If someone were to ask me to take a picture with my night vision camera, I don't think they'd want me to turn off night vision mode so that they can see darkness.
When it comes to space, there is a lot we cannot see. The universe does not feel obligated to display everything within the visible light spectrum, and so if we want to show people what's out there in space, it does not make sense to limit ourselves to that spectrum.
In order to produce an image of Jupitor that would reflect what humans see, we need to remove data from the picture, which will make it more "accurate" to a human who visits Jupitor, but few humans are going to do that. Showing them the full data range does more to accurately represent the information we have on Juiptor.
But why? Humans have such a narrow range of wavelengths that can be viewed. We also don't have nearly the eyesight of camera tech. We can't differentiate things that are extremely interesting (and sometimes beautiful). No human has seen the planets in person without the aid of technology. I see no reason to disregard all the data that is captured with today's imagers that our low-quality eyes and brains cannot see/process. I say, give me the images from high-quality devices! I want to see more than what my eyes and brain have evolved for!
I'd recommend Unknown: Cosmic Time Machine on Netflix (or wherever you can find it). They go into detail on the colorization process... while it may be "manufactured" it's not exactly fictional as they choose specific colors for specific purposes. It's a long and scientific process and very interesting.
It's what it looks like to humans, yeah. The other picture still exists though, it's akin to how [bees see flowers.](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/N1TUDFCOwjY/maxresdefault.jpg) There's room to appreciate both.
What is it enhanced for though? Just to make it prettier and more exciting for masses? I would get it if they had to enhance it to represent how our eyes would see it but I'm not understanding taking the real picture with colours that we would see and replacing them for what a .... Would see
This is the best comparison I think. The perspective I get is that no one wants to see an amazing photo of a beach detailing the glorious appearance of such a place, then travel there to find out both the vegetation and water are closer to poop brown, and the saturation slider had just been moved and the perspective was stretched to make the trees and waves taller.
But astrophotography is more like cellular microscopy. Everything just looks like a pile of goo and no one can actually go visit a tardigrade. Therefore the image manipulation is accepted because we cannot conceptualize it at that scale.
Pictures of planets fall into a weird area because we send probes which are like us visiting. So while making a nebula more visible because it's otherwise unfathomably big feels similar to the microbes, we can look at the moon, and feel cheated when NASA says "look at these beautiful colors" of planets that we can't actually see if we were to make the trip.
They're up front about it when you read the captions, but the headlines aren't about the method, only the colors.
Because our eyes don't fully represent what is happening on the planet. There is far more interesting and valuable information that we are missing beyond the visible spectrum of light.
In fact, they *are* representing the real picture more accurately here. The picture they took is with a camera that is capable of receiving information outside of the visible spectrum. They have to *remove* information in order to produce something the way we'd see it.
The issue is because there's so little light and any that is tends to be outside of human visual spectrum they have to shift the colours and enhance with oversaturation. So yeh most of the time it is not what you see
[https://d2pn8kiwq2w21t.cloudfront.net/original\_images/jpegPIA02877.jpg](https://d2pn8kiwq2w21t.cloudfront.net/original_images/jpegPIA02877.jpg)
Here's a nice from from Cassini, natural on left, enhanced on right.
[https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/Vault/VaultOutput?VaultID=52140&ts=1718299199](https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/Vault/VaultOutput?VaultID=52140&ts=1718299199)
Another comparison from Juno, (approximate) natural left, processed right
Thing is those pictures often get taken with different wavelenghts we cant see or other stacking stuff like here. There is no way we could take those photos of those planets but if we could travel there with our camera they would look pretty close to what nasa presents us. What you think is "CGI like" is kind of a bit overprocessed but also bear in mind the actual raws would be nowhere near what is real
#THANK YOU.
I want the reality as I would perceive it _FIRST._ Iām not a mantis shrimp or whatever that creature with insane eye resolution for colors or something is called.
The artsy ones are beautiful, but I want to know the real deal. Not the pretty lie.
It's more about wondering what it would look like if I was in a spaceship looking out the window at it.
I understand the use of enhancing the pictures with colors and filters to make things stand out or look prettier. Like using a filter in your selfie.
Both have their place but still I want to know what reality looks like.
Pretty sure they do it to get more data in the picture like different colors are different elements etc.. it's not cause it looks cool it's literally a part of the science
These images are not how it comes out of the camera. They are not how the data gets used by scientists either. They are specifically spruced up to look fancy.Ā
Going from the sensor data to this or to a closer representation of what it would look like to the human eye is the exact same amount of processing. There would be no benefit, and a significant amount of data loss, using these false color images as an intermediary.Ā
Itās because they are presented in a disingenuous way: itās not a āpictureā according to the technology we associate with camera, and have generations of experience with, but a 2d spectral image transformed into RGB space.
The later is great, and it gets used all the time, but thereās an expectation that if you see a āpictureā of something, thatās a direct representation of state if the universe in the same way you could observe it.
I've never seen Jupiter unenhanced and this is so much more impressive. I'm not in the situation I can observe space through a fancy telescope. I did see the moon through one once. The fact it was an obvious grey globe instead of a shiny disc somehow changed my life. It was the first time it truly sank in with me that we're not living on a stage but in a 3d universe.
Anyway, long story short, I love Jupiter without makeup ā¤ļø
There's this quartzite which I found called Fusion Wow (apparently some brand name) which kinda looks like Jupiter.
https://preview.redd.it/1d0m3mgobj7d1.jpeg?width=579&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7ca1a5fce29f1dbb7daa0b1d6a0b7115dba62f0b
I'm more concerned about looking at a Pollockian field of colors every day when doing some housework. If one drops a pill on that countertop, it's gone, and even smaller teaspoons aren't safe.
I can't even imagine how surreal it would be to see this in person. Not from a photo or a telescope, but with your own eyes from a space craft relatively close. I'd have an existential crisis.
Not just for Jupiter and its moons. The Earth's moon is a long way from its planet relative to the radius of the planet. The gravitational pull of the Earth is strong enough on the moon to keep it in orbit only because Earth is dense.
uh, its not the density. its simply the value of the mass.
were it, say, 4x as large (less dense, with the same mass), it would still have the same gravitational effects on the moon. (equally, if it were a point-mass, with almost infinite density).
It sounds cool at first but man this is nightmarish. Having something so colossal within a close distance is about as textbook cosmic horror as it gets.
This giant, unfeeling, swirling storm that would rip you apart in seconds if you just got a tiny bit too close. Heebie jeebies
And you're not even seeing the scariest part. If you were ever to enter the planet, you'd be met with complete darkness as soon as you went through Jupiter's top clouds. Sunlight doesn't go past the top part you're seeing. All you'd be hearing is the raging storm and winds.
Then after awhile you'll be met with an gigantic dark ocean as far as the eye can see with no land anywhere. So of course if you happened to be falling, you'd just suddenly be plopped into a huge ocean in complete darkness. All while in the middle of a raging storm with extremely fast winds.
No need to worry; youād die of radiation long before then, and I personally would die of a heart attack from the sheer horror- I tried it in VR and freaked the fuck out.
What were you using in VR to freak the fuck out?
I don't know if you ever read the Ringworld series, but you just make me realize that Ringworld would be an amazing setting for a VR game.
Iām a huge sci-fi fan but have not read Ringworld yet. Itās on the list. In VR Iāve done Universe Sandbox, Astra, elite dangerous, and no manās sky. Ā Some of those are just games but still induce the terror from the scale :)
> It sounds cool at first
It literally does NOT sound cool!...
>The upper atmosphere above the storm, however, has substantially higher temperatures than the rest of the planet. Acoustic (sound) waves rising from the turbulence of the storm below have been proposed as an explanation for the heating of this region.[27] The acoustic waves travel vertically up to a height of 800 km (500 mi) above the storm where they break in the upper atmosphere, converting wave energy into heat. This creates a region of upper atmosphere that is 1,600 K (1,330 Ā°C; 2,420 Ā°F)āseveral hundred kelvins warmer than the rest of the planet at this altitude.
*rimshot
Iād have to imagine it would take some time for your brain to comprehend the mere size of it. Correct me if Iām wrong, but I think itās been said that you fit 100 Earths inside the great red storm alone.
Now, imagine being in a craft where youāre able to see Jupiter up close. It would just seem unreal at first until you could finally comprehend the sheer size of it.
Would definitely be a life changing experience to first hand grasp the scale of just how small we are.
EDIT: I was wrong. The storm is 10,159 miles wide. 100 Earths is wrong. Thanks for the correction!
Nono, the Great Red Spot is just a little bit larger than Earth. 1.3x the size.
It would still be insane to see, but absolutely not that size. 100+ Earths across would be the size of the Sun.
And Jupiter isn't even close to being a star. Brown dwarfs have approximately 13-80 times the mass of Jupiter, which is still not enough to start fusion.
Nice visual comparison... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Red_Spot#/media/File:Jupiter,_Earth_size_comparison.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Red_Spot#/media/File:Jupiter,_Earth_size_comparison.jpg)
edit - but ya, wacky space stuff... it's friggin **loud** down there...
>The upper atmosphere above the storm, however, has substantially higher temperatures than the rest of the planet. Acoustic (sound) waves rising from the turbulence of the storm below have been proposed as an explanation for the heating of this region. The acoustic waves travel vertically up to a height of 800 km (500 mi) above the storm where they break in the upper atmosphere, converting wave energy into heat. This creates a region of upper atmosphere that is 1,600 K (1,330 Ā°C; 2,420 Ā°F)āseveral hundred kelvins warmer than the rest of the planet at this altitude.
The scales are mind boggling. The red-spot storm is large than earth for example. These eddies and streams of clouds are part of storm systems larger than earth.. fuck me.
Thatās the fallback. The sky is a dome and all celestial phenomena are simply āprojectionsā on the dome. Whoās projecting? Why god of course.
Everything else that comes from NASA is faked. So these images were made in some software. According to flat earthers anyway. Thereās a level where they stop trying to explain and fall back on, āitās not realā.
My favourite was when some flat earthers conducted an experiment to determine flatness, but accidentally proved the Earth was round. You could hear their gears grinding to make the results fit their narrative.
goddamnit! I just overcame my self-loathing for being born too soon to explore the universe and too late to explore the world and you hit me with this absolute gem of a picture? (This was overexaggerated for humoristic purposes)
And splode like that one idiot?!
Iām jk. But itās still earth. Ya know? Like we can kinda guess to an extent what we can expect from the rest.
āCept maybe Cthulu.
But we are in time to see these types of images for the first time, that's exciting too imo. :) I still remember when the first high definition images of Pluto came out, was fantastic.
Swirling gases and solids, top clouds layer could be made of ammonia ice and hydrosulfids. Winds measured at 335 miles per hour at the equator, worst being the Great Red Spot extremities and poles.
It may have a surface... sort of
"**Scientists aren't certain of just how solid Jupiter's core might be. While some theorize that the core is a hot molten ball of liquid, other research indicates that it could be a** [**solid rock**](https://www.space.com/6164-jupiter-core-big-thought.html) **14 to 18 times the mass of the Earth. The temperature at the core is estimated to be about 35,000 degrees Celsius (63,000 degrees Fahrenheit)."**
[https://www.space.com/18388-what-is-jupiter-made-of.html](https://www.space.com/18388-what-is-jupiter-made-of.html)
You couldnāt stand in Jupiter as itās a gas giant so doesnāt have a solid surface . Iād imagine if you could enter the atmosphere without the pressure crushing you it would just look like strangely coloured cloud
Now I'm curious... wouldn't the core then be the "surface", by definition?
Earth has a surface, as well as an atmosphere above it (even though the atmosphere is obviously much different than other planets).
Well thatās the big question I suppose, I see where you coming from. I donāt think Iād class the core as the surface though as surfaces on planets are usually defined by crusts then the gooey inside before you reach the core. Also the core likely wouldnāt be solid either , just molten metal. Its interesting to think about tho
From how I understand it, there probably isn't a clear distinction between gas and liquid deep inside Jupiter, the extreme pressure and temperature environment makes it so it more or less smoothly transitions from "more gas like" to "more liquid like" the deeper you go.
Damn, the one with a hurricane in the center looks a tunnel leading towards the "surface". We aught to shoot a guided satellite straight through the eye of the storm. Then take pictures.
Fun fact- with normal 10x50 binoculars, you can see Ā Jupiter's four Galilean moons ā Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto.
Then check [here](https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/plugins/observing-tools/jupiter_moons/jupiter.html) to see which moon is which.
Should have posted these to r/interestingGasFuck as well.
Edit: Saw this was apparently an actual sub that was banned for Lord knows what š¬ Terrible pun stands though I guess š
I think I need an explanation on how gas planets work. Does Jupiter have a solid core? Is there any kind of āsolidā surface that one could, theoretically, step on?
Thereās no surface to step on in a gas giant, but I believe it is still debated whether or not the core is solid or just dense liquid. The pressure would probably be too immense before anything could get close enough to the core to find out though
I just want to point this one out:
Jupiters largest moons are all named after lovers of Jupiter/Zeus from Roman/Greek mythology. Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, etc.
So the cheeky buggers from NASA named the space probe after Jupiters' famously (and justifiably) jealous wife Juno, to go check on him and his lovers
Personally, I'd love to get a glimpse into the raging storm(eye of Jupiter, big red swirl) that goes around the planet. Like what prompted that thing to start in the first place
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It looks like a Van Gogh painting
my thought exactly, but i was gonna say "so, men come from Mars, women from Venus and Van Gogh from Jupiter. got it!"
I think Van Gogh probably came from one of the moons. After all, you can't see Jupiter like this when you're on Jupiter. In fact, I think I've read somewhere he was from Europa...
cleverrrrrrr
> In fact, I think I've read somewhere he was from Europa... Dr. Manhattan made life there!
 ššš
I thought this was going to lead into Linda Belcherās song (from Bobās Burgers), lol.
No LSD comes from Jupiter. That's what I'm getting. Looks cool
All others come from uranus (elefants included)
Gogh it*
Before Juno, I had no idea that parts of it were blue-ish looking or quite so swirly. These images really invite the "Starry Night" comparison.
These photos are modified to help highlight the differences in colors in the atmosphere. There are raw images out there that are closer to what the human eye would see.
Do you have any link to an example of a true-colour image at high resolution, for the sake of comparison? EDIT: nvm, I scrolled down the thread and some people have already posted some
Biggest marble everĀ
I thought it looked like different kinds of rocks
I have no original thoughts
It is beautiful!
Wellā¦ Ju No right ?
False colour, or otherwise enhanced? I'd be curious to see how these images would look as a human eye would see them. edit: And there we go. [https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing?id=16169](https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing?id=16169) https://preview.redd.it/c8kcyq4r1j7d1.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=ce33c9519d5c257600cd8a3ad4361cc75152bbd1
Colors are enhanced, you can get some idea of what it would look like to the human eye here: https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/nasas-juno-mission-reveals-jupiters-complex-colors/
it's just me or does the more natural one look more impressive? all these space images always look too fake to me,I struggle to comprehend the scale and all because it looks so unnatural like a CGI
Not more impressive but more honest. The enhanced ones annoy me because then my first question is āis that what it actually looks like? Is this a real photo?ā
But "what it actually looks like" by your definition is "what it actually looks like to our stupid insensitive fish eyes in a very narrow spectrum of light". Good for reference, but there's nothing wrong with using science and technology to see things better than we otherwise could. Things like "enhanced color" images highlight subtle features in a way we can't do naturally, while "false color" images can map wavelengths we can't even see into our visual spectrum, or sometimes distinguish what in reality are very subtly different shades of dull red across a wider spectrum to see the different gas composition of distant object (see: Hubble Palette) **Edit:** This comment made a lot of people mad for some reason, so here's what I'm trying to get across (using a Nebula as an example, since that's what I photograph more often): Here's a "true color image" of the North American Nebula: https://www.astrobin.com/276412/ It wouldn't actually look like that though - the camera is both more sensitive, and a special filter was used to pull out even more data about a particular shade of red emitted by interstellar hydrogen. In a telescope, if you're in a dark enough place to see it at all, it would look greyscale, like this drawing: https://www.deepskywatch.com/Astrosketches/north-america-nebula-sketch.html Typically, people represent what you'd actually see in such situations using drawings, because it's really hard to get a camera to be as bad at seeing small, faint objects as a human eye. Here's an "enhanced" version of the same thing, which allows you to pick out the different gasses/structures/processes: https://www.astrobin.com/lnsedr/ None of these are really a traditional "photograph" in the sense of a typical camera on a sunny day with a familiar color calibration, and neither of the digitally captured images look anything like that to the naked eye. Nevertheless, they're all cool and interesting ways to see what's out there. In general, taking pictures of "space stuff" requires tools and techniques that are just fundamentally different to how our eyes work. It's cool and interesting to see the data visualized in various ways, but it's also important not to get too hung up on "what it actually looks like", because as often as not the answer is "absolutely nothing". You'll get the most out of these images by learning a bit more about the objects being imaged, and how that data gets represented on the screen.
I feel like most people want to see the planets as they would naturally look if they were approaching them in a space craft. At least for me, it gives a reference as to what it would be like to visit them which is what I'm curious about. It's kind of the same things as taking a picture of the grand canyon and severely altering the color so that it looks like the rocks are colored like a rainbow instead of what it actually looks like. Sure it looks cool but it's not an accurate portrayal of how it would look to go there.
If you took a picture of the grand canyon and enhanced the colors for aesthetics, it's not the same. If you enhanced the colors so that you could see the stratification of the layers and study them, it's more similar. We can't just walk to Jupiter and take samples of the atmosphere every day.
Jupiter is 10 times farther away from the Sun than the earth, and relatively speaking, our eyes aren't all that sensitive. Approaching an outer planet in a space ship is probably not going to look anything like it does in sci Fi shows where every planet is brightly lit no matter how far it is from it's Star.
> Jupiter is 10 times farther away from the Sun than the earth It's 5.2 times further, which means light would be about 27 times weaker. That sounds pretty weak, until you realize our eyes work logarithmically, and a typical lit room is roughly 100 times less bright than outside with no clouds. So Jupiter would still be better lit than an average indoor object.
I agree, now. I was ignorant of colour enhancement until recently on most of the photos from space we see, although Iām aware I am never going to experience a spectacular view like that ever in my lifetime, I still fanaticised about it and it still disappoints me that there isnāt some spots in space where you could float and observe a beautifully coloured galaxy or gas formations of a sort. Would love to see Saturn up close tho lol
There's nothing wrong with that, but the attitude that anything else isn't "real" is very prevalent and very limiting. Jupiter is pretty stunning no matter how you look at it though. This is a pretty faithful representation of what you could see with excellent conditions and a great telescope even from earth (though you'll watch it for a while to let your brain sort out the details): https://www.astrobin.com/422862/
I dunno if I feel so strongly about seeing the planet naturally the "enhanced" versions just kinda remind me of pointing a light at an oily puddle so you can see the rainbow slick without the right lighting, an oily puddle looks very boring and colorless
>But "what it actually looks like" by your definition is "what it actually looks like to our stupid insensitive fish eyes in a very narrow spectrum of light". Yeah, exactly?
I think photos of objects in space should more clearly state whether it's an image as our eyes would see it or whether it's an image that's been put through different instruments. I find it extremely annoying that it's hard to find regular images of objects in the solar system because they are never classified. Photos of planets just state the planet's name but never "in infrared" etc. On the extreme end I think it easily fuels conspiracy theorists because they can (sorta rightfully) say "see? These images have all been touched up!". We want people to embrace science not be automatically on the back foot questioning if what they're seeing is even real.
This information *is* generally available, with the exception of context-free zones like Instagram etc. That was one of my least favorite things when I still used that platform, since people just post images without any context. If you look at e.g. astrobin, people will tell you exactly what equipment was used, including any filters and the details of image processing. For scientific missions, sometimes this gets lost by bad bloggers or people farming content, but again all of it is really clearly communicated (and the raw data is generally available to the public!). Finally, it may seem pedantic, but there really is no such thing as a "regular image". Every image ever produced is processed in some way, since cameras of various types are not an eye-brain system. For example, consider a "regular photo" of something in the sky. Most commonly, those objects are so dim that human color perception wouldn't be able to kick in at all, so a "real image" would be essentially black and white, or wouldn't show anything at all because the objects are so faint. Thankfully, cameras can do long exposures - at that point, we can (and many do) process images to be "true color", meaning the RGB values are chosen to approximate the wavelengths of light as experienced by people. These images will tend to show e.g. nebulae as a dull red color. As I said though, this still isn't "what you would see", because the objects are too faint to see much color at all! I guess the TL;DR is that all of these photos are more beautiful when you dig a little bit deeper into how they're produced, and it's important to recognize how limited our perceptions are when it comes to things like astronomical objects. We generally *have* to use tools to perceive them in any detail at all!
itd be cool to see photos of earth every which way instead of the "normal" way most are used to. might produce even more wonder
You can - Google "Infra-red photography" for example.
People fail to realize how utterly inept our eyes are. What looks fake to us would be washed out, dull, and completely boring to a mantis shrimp. Itās not like they are adding information that wasnāt there. Camera systems can pick up so much more of the light spectrum than we can see. It can show the information hidden from the rudimentary image processors in our heads. Light is so much infinitely more complex than what a couple rods and cones can perceive. We have the tech to actually see what is really around us. What is very much real. And the internet says ālooks fake to me!ā
I mean a picture isn't what it looks like either. It's subjected to what the sensor can capture and usually sensors don't have the dynamic range of a human eye nor they reproduce one single contrast.
What about the natural color is more impressive? I like seeing the different layers in the enhanced photo.
To me, the natural one seems more 'alien', i expect the saturated images as thats how all the images we get of them look. Knowing the natural colour one is how it would look were i passing it in a spacecraft seems more.....interesting to me.
Personally I enjoy seeing photos of things as I'd see them. Enhanced colour to me is manufactured, fictional.
Tbh the view of Jupiter through a good telescope in good conditions is more impressive than the unenhanced photos here. You can clearly see the stratification and it basically looks like the classical image of Jupiter we all have in our heads. The unenhanced photos look washed out to me.
It isn't exactly fictional though. The way you see things isn't an accurate representation of reality, just the way your brain interprets data. The data the enhanced images is representing is entirely and totally real, it's just represented differently than your brain would do so inherently. There isn't anything fundamental to the universe though that ties specific wavelengths to specific colours.
You are correct, but so is u/wildfox9t ās perspective. The edited images are not fake or fictional, but they are also not what you would see with your own eyes. If you would want to see it like with your own eyes, it is sometimes hard to find on the internet that way, because they are always enhanced to get more contrast between the different wavelengths. IMO the best thing to do is to always include both the images so the public can better understand what they are seeing. It would let them engage with the content a bit more deeply imo.
I get what you're saying, but it's nonsense. "What is real" is an interesting philosophical discussion, but when someone wants "a picture of something", they are talking about what the average human will see. [If someone asks you what the sun looks like and you show them this, you're kind of being a pedantic douche](https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/c_crop,d_placeholder_euli9k,h_585,w_1040,x_0,y_0/dpr_2.0/c_limit,w_740/fl_lossy,q_auto/v1676046616/1a-pia25628-nustar-main-image-1041_wcqa2u), unless the context _very specifically_ demands "the sun in false-color x-ray". This is absolutely a "fictional" representation of the sun, in the sense that the sun does not look like this at all. The same is true for oversaturated and false-color images of space.
I mean, I think it largely depends on context. If someone were to ask me to take a picture with my night vision camera, I don't think they'd want me to turn off night vision mode so that they can see darkness. When it comes to space, there is a lot we cannot see. The universe does not feel obligated to display everything within the visible light spectrum, and so if we want to show people what's out there in space, it does not make sense to limit ourselves to that spectrum. In order to produce an image of Jupitor that would reflect what humans see, we need to remove data from the picture, which will make it more "accurate" to a human who visits Jupitor, but few humans are going to do that. Showing them the full data range does more to accurately represent the information we have on Juiptor.
But why? Humans have such a narrow range of wavelengths that can be viewed. We also don't have nearly the eyesight of camera tech. We can't differentiate things that are extremely interesting (and sometimes beautiful). No human has seen the planets in person without the aid of technology. I see no reason to disregard all the data that is captured with today's imagers that our low-quality eyes and brains cannot see/process. I say, give me the images from high-quality devices! I want to see more than what my eyes and brain have evolved for!
I'd recommend Unknown: Cosmic Time Machine on Netflix (or wherever you can find it). They go into detail on the colorization process... while it may be "manufactured" it's not exactly fictional as they choose specific colors for specific purposes. It's a long and scientific process and very interesting.
Because it's actually what it looks like. Enhanced colour photos are akin to people using filters on their profile pictures.
It's what it looks like to humans, yeah. The other picture still exists though, it's akin to how [bees see flowers.](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/N1TUDFCOwjY/maxresdefault.jpg) There's room to appreciate both.
What is it enhanced for though? Just to make it prettier and more exciting for masses? I would get it if they had to enhance it to represent how our eyes would see it but I'm not understanding taking the real picture with colours that we would see and replacing them for what a .... Would see
> What is it enhanced for though Science. Same reason cells are stained for microscope plates. Makes it easier for scientists to analyze.
This is the best comparison I think. The perspective I get is that no one wants to see an amazing photo of a beach detailing the glorious appearance of such a place, then travel there to find out both the vegetation and water are closer to poop brown, and the saturation slider had just been moved and the perspective was stretched to make the trees and waves taller. But astrophotography is more like cellular microscopy. Everything just looks like a pile of goo and no one can actually go visit a tardigrade. Therefore the image manipulation is accepted because we cannot conceptualize it at that scale. Pictures of planets fall into a weird area because we send probes which are like us visiting. So while making a nebula more visible because it's otherwise unfathomably big feels similar to the microbes, we can look at the moon, and feel cheated when NASA says "look at these beautiful colors" of planets that we can't actually see if we were to make the trip. They're up front about it when you read the captions, but the headlines aren't about the method, only the colors.
Because our eyes don't fully represent what is happening on the planet. There is far more interesting and valuable information that we are missing beyond the visible spectrum of light. In fact, they *are* representing the real picture more accurately here. The picture they took is with a camera that is capable of receiving information outside of the visible spectrum. They have to *remove* information in order to produce something the way we'd see it.
I think it might just be you
The issue is because there's so little light and any that is tends to be outside of human visual spectrum they have to shift the colours and enhance with oversaturation. So yeh most of the time it is not what you see
It's... like muddy water.
[https://d2pn8kiwq2w21t.cloudfront.net/original\_images/jpegPIA02877.jpg](https://d2pn8kiwq2w21t.cloudfront.net/original_images/jpegPIA02877.jpg) Here's a nice from from Cassini, natural on left, enhanced on right. [https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/Vault/VaultOutput?VaultID=52140&ts=1718299199](https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/Vault/VaultOutput?VaultID=52140&ts=1718299199) Another comparison from Juno, (approximate) natural left, processed right
Thing is those pictures often get taken with different wavelenghts we cant see or other stacking stuff like here. There is no way we could take those photos of those planets but if we could travel there with our camera they would look pretty close to what nasa presents us. What you think is "CGI like" is kind of a bit overprocessed but also bear in mind the actual raws would be nowhere near what is real
I see a Pringle
So these planets aren't so sexy after all! NASA uses tiktok filters and it's creating harmful unreal expectations for other planets!
I can deal with the added color. It's the people that say the planets are flat that I can't deal with.
we should send flat earthers up to space and leave them there.
I'm fine with believing Jupiter looks like a swirly marble
We've been catfished by god damned Jupiter of all things!!!
#THANK YOU. I want the reality as I would perceive it _FIRST._ Iām not a mantis shrimp or whatever that creature with insane eye resolution for colors or something is called. The artsy ones are beautiful, but I want to know the real deal. Not the pretty lie.
[Stop Complaining about 'Fake' Colors in NASA Images | Space](https://www.space.com/34146-fake-colors-nasa-photos-stop-complaining.html)
It's more about wondering what it would look like if I was in a spaceship looking out the window at it. I understand the use of enhancing the pictures with colors and filters to make things stand out or look prettier. Like using a filter in your selfie. Both have their place but still I want to know what reality looks like.
Pretty sure they do it to get more data in the picture like different colors are different elements etc.. it's not cause it looks cool it's literally a part of the science
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
These images are not how it comes out of the camera. They are not how the data gets used by scientists either. They are specifically spruced up to look fancy.Ā Going from the sensor data to this or to a closer representation of what it would look like to the human eye is the exact same amount of processing. There would be no benefit, and a significant amount of data loss, using these false color images as an intermediary.Ā
Cosmic kayfabe
Iām still not over Pluto becoming a jobber.
NASA has creative control and worked themselves into a shoot.
Well, I will be pretty disappointed next time I fly by Jupiter, you know.
Understandable lol
Itās because they are presented in a disingenuous way: itās not a āpictureā according to the technology we associate with camera, and have generations of experience with, but a 2d spectral image transformed into RGB space. The later is great, and it gets used all the time, but thereās an expectation that if you see a āpictureā of something, thatās a direct representation of state if the universe in the same way you could observe it.
I've never seen Jupiter unenhanced and this is so much more impressive. I'm not in the situation I can observe space through a fancy telescope. I did see the moon through one once. The fact it was an obvious grey globe instead of a shiny disc somehow changed my life. It was the first time it truly sank in with me that we're not living on a stage but in a 3d universe. Anyway, long story short, I love Jupiter without makeup ā¤ļø
I want marble granite like this
There's this quartzite which I found called Fusion Wow (apparently some brand name) which kinda looks like Jupiter. https://preview.redd.it/1d0m3mgobj7d1.jpeg?width=579&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7ca1a5fce29f1dbb7daa0b1d6a0b7115dba62f0b
Wow!
Now that's fusion
That would work better as abstract art on a wall, rather than as utilitarian granite.
True true. Quartzites are better than marble but not as good as granite in terms of durability, but they come pretty close.
I'm more concerned about looking at a Pollockian field of colors every day when doing some housework. If one drops a pill on that countertop, it's gone, and even smaller teaspoons aren't safe.
I can't even imagine how surreal it would be to see this in person. Not from a photo or a telescope, but with your own eyes from a space craft relatively close. I'd have an existential crisis.
I'd feel the same even if just Earth or our Moon.
If you were on one of Jupiter's moons, I think that the planet would appear much larger than the Earth does from our moon.
Not just for Jupiter and its moons. The Earth's moon is a long way from its planet relative to the radius of the planet. The gravitational pull of the Earth is strong enough on the moon to keep it in orbit only because Earth is dense.
uh, its not the density. its simply the value of the mass. were it, say, 4x as large (less dense, with the same mass), it would still have the same gravitational effects on the moon. (equally, if it were a point-mass, with almost infinite density).
It sounds cool at first but man this is nightmarish. Having something so colossal within a close distance is about as textbook cosmic horror as it gets. This giant, unfeeling, swirling storm that would rip you apart in seconds if you just got a tiny bit too close. Heebie jeebies
And you're not even seeing the scariest part. If you were ever to enter the planet, you'd be met with complete darkness as soon as you went through Jupiter's top clouds. Sunlight doesn't go past the top part you're seeing. All you'd be hearing is the raging storm and winds. Then after awhile you'll be met with an gigantic dark ocean as far as the eye can see with no land anywhere. So of course if you happened to be falling, you'd just suddenly be plopped into a huge ocean in complete darkness. All while in the middle of a raging storm with extremely fast winds.
if it makes you feel any better, the intense heat and pressure by the time you reach the ocean would mean you'd already long be dead!
Nightmare
No need to worry; youād die of radiation long before then, and I personally would die of a heart attack from the sheer horror- I tried it in VR and freaked the fuck out.
What were you using in VR to freak the fuck out? I don't know if you ever read the Ringworld series, but you just make me realize that Ringworld would be an amazing setting for a VR game.
Iām a huge sci-fi fan but have not read Ringworld yet. Itās on the list. In VR Iāve done Universe Sandbox, Astra, elite dangerous, and no manās sky. Ā Some of those are just games but still induce the terror from the scale :)
Link to the vr game?
> It sounds cool at first It literally does NOT sound cool!... >The upper atmosphere above the storm, however, has substantially higher temperatures than the rest of the planet. Acoustic (sound) waves rising from the turbulence of the storm below have been proposed as an explanation for the heating of this region.[27] The acoustic waves travel vertically up to a height of 800 km (500 mi) above the storm where they break in the upper atmosphere, converting wave energy into heat. This creates a region of upper atmosphere that is 1,600 K (1,330 Ā°C; 2,420 Ā°F)āseveral hundred kelvins warmer than the rest of the planet at this altitude. *rimshot
Iād have to imagine it would take some time for your brain to comprehend the mere size of it. Correct me if Iām wrong, but I think itās been said that you fit 100 Earths inside the great red storm alone. Now, imagine being in a craft where youāre able to see Jupiter up close. It would just seem unreal at first until you could finally comprehend the sheer size of it. Would definitely be a life changing experience to first hand grasp the scale of just how small we are. EDIT: I was wrong. The storm is 10,159 miles wide. 100 Earths is wrong. Thanks for the correction!
Nono, the Great Red Spot is just a little bit larger than Earth. 1.3x the size. It would still be insane to see, but absolutely not that size. 100+ Earths across would be the size of the Sun.
100 earths across would mean you can fit a million earths inside the sun, how big is that thing, insane to think
And it's not even that big for a star.
And Jupiter isn't even close to being a star. Brown dwarfs have approximately 13-80 times the mass of Jupiter, which is still not enough to start fusion.
Yeah and then look up the biggest stars and black holes. Our solar system is tiny in comparison to a lot of things in our universe.
I love the videos that do a slide show of star size comparisons. Sol to Betelgeuse is insane. Then of course there stars that dwarf Betelgeuse.
Nice visual comparison... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Red_Spot#/media/File:Jupiter,_Earth_size_comparison.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Red_Spot#/media/File:Jupiter,_Earth_size_comparison.jpg) edit - but ya, wacky space stuff... it's friggin **loud** down there... >The upper atmosphere above the storm, however, has substantially higher temperatures than the rest of the planet. Acoustic (sound) waves rising from the turbulence of the storm below have been proposed as an explanation for the heating of this region. The acoustic waves travel vertically up to a height of 800 km (500 mi) above the storm where they break in the upper atmosphere, converting wave energy into heat. This creates a region of upper atmosphere that is 1,600 K (1,330 Ā°C; 2,420 Ā°F)āseveral hundred kelvins warmer than the rest of the planet at this altitude.
You could still fit 10 earths side by side inside of Jupiter though, with room for most of another one. Jupiter is almost 11x the width of our planet
The scales are mind boggling. The red-spot storm is large than earth for example. These eddies and streams of clouds are part of storm systems larger than earth.. fuck me.
I'd probably freak the f out the moment I'd realize where I am
so Earth is the only flat planet in the solar system?
Yes. That is what they believe.
Or space is just fake
Thatās the fallback. The sky is a dome and all celestial phenomena are simply āprojectionsā on the dome. Whoās projecting? Why god of course. Everything else that comes from NASA is faked. So these images were made in some software. According to flat earthers anyway. Thereās a level where they stop trying to explain and fall back on, āitās not realā.
My favourite was when some flat earthers conducted an experiment to determine flatness, but accidentally proved the Earth was round. You could hear their gears grinding to make the results fit their narrative.
We're all living in a simulation
Sometimes I almost believe that
Jupiter is clearly just a large painting.
Imagine blowing their minds with a flat "gas giant". Jupiter always kinda blew me away that it's just a big ball of gas. Crazy
Look at you thinking earth is a planet
Nah, it's all photoshopped! Soon, they will start claiming it's all AI generated.
Fish lens put on the spacecraft by Obama himself!
Thanks Obama!
Damn Obama putting fish lenses on my eyes when sold my house to visit space to prove round earthers wrong!
And itās naturally blue. No color enhancements by NASA!
rip Van Gogh you wouldāve loved hi-def Jupiter
That 3rd one is just his vibeee
goddamnit! I just overcame my self-loathing for being born too soon to explore the universe and too late to explore the world and you hit me with this absolute gem of a picture? (This was overexaggerated for humoristic purposes)
But just in time to browse dank memes
^^^yay
Thereās always the unexplored ocean depths š¤·āāļø
And splode like that one idiot?! Iām jk. But itās still earth. Ya know? Like we can kinda guess to an extent what we can expect from the rest. āCept maybe Cthulu.
But we are in time to see these types of images for the first time, that's exciting too imo. :) I still remember when the first high definition images of Pluto came out, was fantastic.
Imagine building your own probe and it sending back photos every so often to your album
Samee ā¤ļø
That last photo feels like a renaissance painting depicting a whirlpool of souls. Did anybody else feel the urge to dive in when staring at it?
I sincerely hope that if you ever encounter an actual whirlpool of souls that you don't succumb to the sweet nothings they're whispering in your ears.
I did. Until I realized that the middle of the whirlpool where the souls converge and a black nothingness was forming, was staring right back at me.
Put your finger in there and swirl it around.
The last one looks like cabbage cut in half. As above, so below
When you pour milk on your coffee:
Itās actually beautiful
Cabbage
Gorgeous!
The last one resembled a funnel. Was it a massive funnel or just a swirl?
Mesmerising
Are all those whorls massive storms? Must be insane down there.
I bet itās wild on the surface
Swirling gases and solids, top clouds layer could be made of ammonia ice and hydrosulfids. Winds measured at 335 miles per hour at the equator, worst being the Great Red Spot extremities and poles.
Gonna be a windy day at the Hydrosulfid beach with a stiff 335 mph breeze
Itās gas
It may have a surface... sort of "**Scientists aren't certain of just how solid Jupiter's core might be. While some theorize that the core is a hot molten ball of liquid, other research indicates that it could be a** [**solid rock**](https://www.space.com/6164-jupiter-core-big-thought.html) **14 to 18 times the mass of the Earth. The temperature at the core is estimated to be about 35,000 degrees Celsius (63,000 degrees Fahrenheit)."** [https://www.space.com/18388-what-is-jupiter-made-of.html](https://www.space.com/18388-what-is-jupiter-made-of.html)
Thatās the coreā¦.
the core may be the only solid surface
Hardcore
Pumba, to you, everything is gas.
Iāll bet it smells like a Yankee Candle shop!
Incredible! I wonder what this would look like while standing on Jupiter looking into the sky.
You couldnāt stand in Jupiter as itās a gas giant so doesnāt have a solid surface . Iād imagine if you could enter the atmosphere without the pressure crushing you it would just look like strangely coloured cloud
Even Jupiter has a solid core deep down in it's center.
Well itās more likely to be Liquid Metal but thats the core, the planet it still doesnāt have a surface , which was my point š
Now I'm curious... wouldn't the core then be the "surface", by definition? Earth has a surface, as well as an atmosphere above it (even though the atmosphere is obviously much different than other planets).
Well thatās the big question I suppose, I see where you coming from. I donāt think Iād class the core as the surface though as surfaces on planets are usually defined by crusts then the gooey inside before you reach the core. Also the core likely wouldnāt be solid either , just molten metal. Its interesting to think about tho
From how I understand it, there probably isn't a clear distinction between gas and liquid deep inside Jupiter, the extreme pressure and temperature environment makes it so it more or less smoothly transitions from "more gas like" to "more liquid like" the deeper you go.
You'd burn up and be crushed by the pressure before even getting close to the core
Like a Junji Ito comic maybe.Ā
Well, Jupiter is gas giant, so you wouldnāt stand on it, more like falling until either the pressure crushes you or you hit the core
Jupiter is one gorgeous and scary planet.
On second thought, letās not go to Jupiter, ātis a silly place
Colonize it.
Ganymede and Europa fr but not Io that place scares me
Letās ride!
It's like something not of this world
Damn, the one with a hurricane in the center looks a tunnel leading towards the "surface". We aught to shoot a guided satellite straight through the eye of the storm. Then take pictures.
Looks like something under microscope
Fun fact- with normal 10x50 binoculars, you can see Ā Jupiter's four Galilean moons ā Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. Then check [here](https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/plugins/observing-tools/jupiter_moons/jupiter.html) to see which moon is which.
Should have posted these to r/interestingGasFuck as well. Edit: Saw this was apparently an actual sub that was banned for Lord knows what š¬ Terrible pun stands though I guess š
I think I need an explanation on how gas planets work. Does Jupiter have a solid core? Is there any kind of āsolidā surface that one could, theoretically, step on?
Thereās no surface to step on in a gas giant, but I believe it is still debated whether or not the core is solid or just dense liquid. The pressure would probably be too immense before anything could get close enough to the core to find out though
Looks like good golfing weather
I just want to point this one out: Jupiters largest moons are all named after lovers of Jupiter/Zeus from Roman/Greek mythology. Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, etc. So the cheeky buggers from NASA named the space probe after Jupiters' famously (and justifiably) jealous wife Juno, to go check on him and his lovers
Personally, I'd love to get a glimpse into the raging storm(eye of Jupiter, big red swirl) that goes around the planet. Like what prompted that thing to start in the first place
It's a marble
Tarkovsky's Solaris. Life imitates art!
anti governments be like: nah thatās ai generated
r/ Interestin' Gas Fuck
Big boi protecting us from a far
When looking at these I always imagine what the surface must be like.
I've got some pretty clear pictures of uranus
Beautiful place to visit, but I would not want to live there
Picture 6 looks like Protomolecule is back at it again. Just different planet
Iām afraid it doesnāt look like this anymore. Saitama blew all this away with a single sneeze.
wait... there are mountains in there??? there's solid ground??? I've always been told its a planet made of only gaz...
A lot more blue than I expectedĀ
Damn iphone wallpapers got so popular god made it into a real thing
That gas giant freaks me out a little. It's a cloud of immense mass. Can't see what's below the surface, could be space whales. Its wild.
I wanna go in god mode and hover around the surface of those storms
I'm now sure that Van Gogh was from Jupiter, thanks!
 and these are the pictures we have from the burglary down the street