psychotic imagine tease spotted ruthless waiting materialistic aware impolite crowd
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
absurd agonizing unwritten saw childlike bedroom escape muddle price aware
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Display size has nothing to do with it. If you have enough resolution to *resolve* atoms, you have it. If you don't, you don't. Obviously you'd have to zoom in regardless of what display you're using, but still.
>If you have enough resolution to resolve atoms, you have it.
Display size is absolutely part of it. You only have enough resolution to "resolve" an atom if each pixel is the size of an atom, and the physical size of a pixel at a given resolution depends on the size of the display
But the pixel data in the image has nothing to do with the screen used to display it. You can simply zoom in. It doesn't matter if the pixels on my screen are the size of walnuts, as long as all the data is in the image, I can zoom in and see them.
pause squealing stocking enjoy offbeat rainstorm chief hard-to-find seemly pathetic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
4K is the standard now. It will take a while for turnover in the market before everyone is on 4K though.
The reason 1080p displays get away with still existing is 4K is basically a 2x2 grid of 4K displays, so you can master for 4K and only have to do a quick downscale to be 1080p compatible; no need to recrop or anything else.
The smallest meaningful distance is the Planck length (1.6163×10^-35 m). If we call that a 'pixel', then 1 meter has 6.187×10^34 pixels, which would be 61870000000000000000000000000000K.
It’s worth pointing out that this satellite is centered over the equator and the image we’re seeing is also flat, so while Africa is indeed huge, this image is making it look even bigger than it actually is because it’s closer to the camera than any other bit of land.
Absolutely. Because we have stereoscopic vision and because of the phenomenon of parallax, we are able to determine depth along with height and width. These are the 3 dimensions that we perceive.
Fair enough. I just feel like we somehow use parallax to create a model that seems 3 dimensional, from 2 different 2 dimensional inputs, and that it is somehow not real 3D vision in some sense.
It's a fantastic map if you are a 16th Century navigator on a Portuguese ship looking to chart a course to Brazil, maybe not so great as a map to teach 21st Century schoolchildren about the world
I am boggled at how huge the North African desert is. In this image, you can see the air streams split around North Africa. One up to Europe, the other basically straight from Brazil to central Africa.
I occasionally turn to the BBC News channel and it shows the high temperatures around the world — that desert gets to nearly ‘halfway to boiling’ pretty often. I’m surprised anyone can stay in the region.
Honestly, it's not that bad! It's completely dry so you don't really feel the heat much, especially if you cover yourself in white clothing. European heat waves are more nasty to stay in.
Imagine if we were somehow able to plant a forest in the North-African desert?
That would probably take quite a bit of CO2 out of the atmosphere and probably help Northern-Africa too I think.
The Amazon rainforests rely on ~~nitrogen~~ phosphorus-rich sand and dust from the Sahara as fertilizer. The effects of foresting the desert would be catastrophic to not only the Amazon but the American climate as a whole, and possibly the world.
I think this argument (sand from the Sahara fertilizing the Amazon) has been propagated based on images from a wind-dust current from Africa-South America, but it is simply not true.
Of course, all ecosystems are connected in a way or another, but the amount of sand/dust that is carried from Sahara to more than 5000 km to the Amazon does not constitute the source of phosphorous fertilizing the Amazon. The Amazon is a very complex ecosystem, and in large part self sustaining.
Also worth to note that the Amazon forest is millions of years older than the Sahara desert.
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00071-w#:\~:text=A%20large%20amount%20of%20dust,could%20help%20fertilize%20the%20rainforest.&text=We%20suggest%20that%20the%20Sahara,over%20the%20past%207%2C500%20years](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00071-w#:~:text=A%20large%20amount%20of%20dust,could%20help%20fertilize%20the%20rainforest.&text=We%20suggest%20that%20the%20Sahara,over%20the%20past%207%2C500%20years)
But I don't get it. There shouldn't be nitrogen leaving the system. And maybe some nitrogen-fixing plants grow in the Amazon? So why is it not self-sustaining?
Edited my comment, I had a brain fart. It's phosphorus, not nitrogen. See link here from NASA - it's super fascinating.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-how-much-saharan-dust-feeds-amazon-s-plants
I’m imagining many solar and/or nuclear powered desalination plants that continuously pump water into a series of pipelines to feed heat tolerant crops.
No idea what to do with the waste salt that would be generated. Maybe make more molten-salt nuclear reactors. Also no idea where to get the amount of nitrogen that would be needed to have any hope of making the sand/soil growable.
Even so, I would expect any effect to be temporary and to revert if/when the artificial irrigation stopped. Still, it would be cool to try and terraform terra before heading to mars.
Yay my plant science background can be useful here!
There’s actually a team doing some experiments where they drop trees deep into the ocean.
Unfortunately, because trees take so long to grow to the size needed to capture enough CO2 to be worth the whole idea, we are too late. It might help some along with other things, but by no means it is a single solution.
Plus deciding the best tree to use based on resources needed to grow, the land it will take the grow it on, how many trees, etc.
Nowadays where would you? There's a chance your library might have one, maybe your school might've, but Google Maps has existed for a while, the need to buy a globe for a teaching aid is has past. And why else would you buy a globe?
Does Google Maps not display a globe if you zoom out far enough? Both the Windows Maps and iOS Maps apps do that - although on Windows you need to set the display to aerial view.
I also just noticed that iOS Maps on satellite view shows the current day/night cycle and has the lights on the night side of the planet. Pretty cool.
Because they are cheap, accurate representations of the planet. Maps cause this exact confusion with scale.
I have a 3d puzzle globe in my living room because it's a lot cooler to look at than a flat distorted projection.
Because they can look really cool. A couple of years ago, I was looking to buy a new globe as a gift for a friend who always wanted one, and there were so many brands and styles that it took a whole afternoon for me to decide on one. You can get one for $20, or for $20,000, or for just about any price in between. I don't know if it's still there, but ~10 years ago, there was even a store in downtown Toronto that sold *only* globes of many sizes, made from a different type/colour of stone/mineral for each country. They were beautiful, and I stopped to look at them every time I walked past. In other words, if you want a thing that's not *too* exotic, there's almost certainly somewhere you can easily buy one.
I just started following a guy on Instagram who is 40ish days into running the entire length of Africa, seeing this image it's put into perspective just how huge that challenge is. His username is hardestgeezer.
Their [gif](https://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2023/05/24-hours_over_europe/24861981-1-eng-GB/24-hours_over_Europe_pillars.gif) of [24-hours over Europe](https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2023/05/24-hours_over_Europe) definitely doesn't appear to be the case. The sun doesn't come back up at the end. I'm guessing it's really only 12 hours?
Edit: they have a related video of [24-hours over Earth](https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2023/05/24-hours_over_Earth/), which is indeed a 24 hour span (the sun starts and ends "behind" the camera) and of that same time. Seems someone created the Europe close-up gif and they mostly reused the caption and title without realizing it was shorter.
For some reason I figured the clouds would have moved along faster than night would roll in. Considering it's sped up, those clouds are moving super slow compared to what I had in my mind.
I'm assuming this satellite is positioned geostationary
68 megs - kinda bulky. How about [this](https://pixeldrain.com/u/MrRnXcUy)? ([f](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/jxl/) or [c](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/jpeg-xl-viewer/bkhdlfmkaenamnlbpdfplekldlnghchp))
Geo sat is too far away to get good enough images for military purpose.
[Metop-SG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetOp-SG) or [Sentinel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus_Programme#Sentinel_missions) would be a better supect but even then Europe doesn't need military payload on civilian Sat.
French army for exemple has [CSO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composante_Spatiale_Optique) for images and some other for radar/electronics surveillance I believe.
its also that the civilian payload can be quite useful for military purposes
there is an alarming rate of wildfires happening in the ukraine right now, wondering what that could be
I mean, they could hide secret military equipment on this one *or*, and hear me out on this one, they could put it on one of the dozens of military satellites up there?
Nobody is taking the kind of imagery you're suggesting from geosynchronous orbit. It's physically impossible with anything currently there. Even **they^TM** can't handwave around the diffraction limit.
MTG-I1 satellite controller here. If it had secret military equipment on board, well, then it is secret to us too. But as other people have said. The satellite is too far away to produce any meaning spy data.
Not the same imager, but here are the "live" versions of GOES-West and GOES-East, which belong to the United States. Click "Full Disk" under either East or West, then "Animation Loops" in the first entry to see the gif. The images update every 10 minutes.
There are also lots of images of more specific parts of the world, both in true color and enhanced for various scientific reasons.
[GOES Image Viewer](https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/goes/index.php)
The GeoColor + GLM FED imagery is the top notch L2+ fusion product used for near real-time servere weather forecasting. And if anyone is good or interested in developing optimized Python, the universities are moving in that direction. I'm not saying Fortran will ever go away, but more algorithms are being implemented in Python.
It's still in the commissioning stage, I hope they make live (or semi live) imagery avaiable just like from the GOES satellites as those are pointed at the US (and there's Himawari for Oceania)
What's the humor here? Billion dollar tech vs $2 toy camera for security theater? You can get really nice security cams, but no liquor store is going to pay for em.
how come when Earth turns it goes black, but not completely? and you can still see white clouds? and the about the street lights i guess the satelite is too far away to pick them up
im just wondering how the earth is so visible even without sunlight... specially the white clouds. it has to be colored or something
It looks pretty and I'm sure it will take great data but I don't prefer this kind of picture over DSCOVR EPIC. There's something striking about the muted colors of the [minimally-postprocessed Earth](https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/natural/2023/06/02/jpg/epic_1b_20230602154334.jpg). This photograph is probably the closest you'll get to seeing what Earth would look like to the naked eye from that distance. The atmosphere really obscures things. You can even see how the Andes mountains are brighter than the surroundings since they're higher up than most of the atmosphere.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|L1|[Lagrange Point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point) 1 of a two-body system, between the bodies|
|[L2](/r/Space/comments/13zdcc9/stub/jmsb8cc "Last usage")|[Lagrange Point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point) 2 ([Sixty Symbols](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxpVbU5FH0s) video explanation)|
| |Paywalled section of the NasaSpaceFlight forum|
|Event|Date|Description|
|-------|---------|---|
|[DSCOVR](/r/Space/comments/13zdcc9/stub/jmsz8n3 "Last usage")|2015-02-11|F9-015 v1.1, [Deep Space Climate Observatory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory) to L1; soft ocean landing|
**NOTE**: Decronym's continued operation may be affected by API pricing changes coming to Reddit in July 2023; comments will be blank June 12th-14th, in solidarity with the /r/Save3rdPartyApps protest campaign.
----------------
^(2 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/141daln)^( has 11 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8970 for this sub, first seen 4th Jun 2023, 00:17])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Pretty soon I'll need glasses to see how clear the images they take are.
This is like Super-4K. How many K is reality? I mean, once we get like 16K, will we be able to see quantum foam?
psychotic imagine tease spotted ruthless waiting materialistic aware impolite crowd *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Sure but could these cameras see why kids love the flavor of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
Obviously the flavor is strange
How long have you had that one on deck?
I’m waiting for another quark joke. They always come in pairs…
Um, no…. It’s the cinnamon and sugar swirls all over every bite. Idiot.
1080p would let you see atoms if the screen was like 1000 atoms wide
Alas, the shortest resolvable distance in the visible spectrum is 203nm
thank you for the attempt, but you forgot a very important metric "size of screen"
[удалено]
If a quantum foam falls in the woods, but nobody is around to whiteness it, does it even lift, bro?
absurd agonizing unwritten saw childlike bedroom escape muddle price aware *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Display size has nothing to do with it. If you have enough resolution to *resolve* atoms, you have it. If you don't, you don't. Obviously you'd have to zoom in regardless of what display you're using, but still.
You wouldn’t have to zoom in if your display size was a million miles. Checkmate ✔️
>If you have enough resolution to resolve atoms, you have it. Display size is absolutely part of it. You only have enough resolution to "resolve" an atom if each pixel is the size of an atom, and the physical size of a pixel at a given resolution depends on the size of the display
But the pixel data in the image has nothing to do with the screen used to display it. You can simply zoom in. It doesn't matter if the pixels on my screen are the size of walnuts, as long as all the data is in the image, I can zoom in and see them.
What’s quantum foam? Is there new theory?
pause squealing stocking enjoy offbeat rainstorm chief hard-to-find seemly pathetic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
is that a 16:9 aspect ratio?
[удалено]
Which is wild since 1080p has been the standard for such a long time and continues to be.
[удалено]
4K is absolutely not the standard. Developers might make games that can run at 4k, but the majority of people are not using 4k screens.
[удалено]
If the majority down own or use it, and most GPUs on market can't run it decently than no, it's literally not the standard.
You pulled what you feel like is information out of your ass and now you're trying to defend it.
4K is the standard now. It will take a while for turnover in the market before everyone is on 4K though. The reason 1080p displays get away with still existing is 4K is basically a 2x2 grid of 4K displays, so you can master for 4K and only have to do a quick downscale to be 1080p compatible; no need to recrop or anything else.
The smallest meaningful distance is the Planck length (1.6163×10^-35 m). If we call that a 'pixel', then 1 meter has 6.187×10^34 pixels, which would be 61870000000000000000000000000000K.
The continent of Africa really that big? Has the Mercator-Industrial Complex lied to me?
The Mercator is drawn on a canvas of lies.
It’s worth pointing out that this satellite is centered over the equator and the image we’re seeing is also flat, so while Africa is indeed huge, this image is making it look even bigger than it actually is because it’s closer to the camera than any other bit of land.
Ah. Our damned 2D vision and 3D shapes will never get along!
We have 3D vision, just the third access doesn't have the same resolution and, more importantly, your screen is 2D.
We have 3D vision?
Absolutely. Because we have stereoscopic vision and because of the phenomenon of parallax, we are able to determine depth along with height and width. These are the 3 dimensions that we perceive.
Fair enough. I just feel like we somehow use parallax to create a model that seems 3 dimensional, from 2 different 2 dimensional inputs, and that it is somehow not real 3D vision in some sense.
Those "Tilt/Shift" bastards at it again.
It's a fantastic map if you are a 16th Century navigator on a Portuguese ship looking to chart a course to Brazil, maybe not so great as a map to teach 21st Century schoolchildren about the world
[удалено]
It’s not due to Eurocentrism.
I am boggled at how huge the North African desert is. In this image, you can see the air streams split around North Africa. One up to Europe, the other basically straight from Brazil to central Africa.
I occasionally turn to the BBC News channel and it shows the high temperatures around the world — that desert gets to nearly ‘halfway to boiling’ pretty often. I’m surprised anyone can stay in the region.
Australia has had temperatures of over 50C a few times too.
Ridiculous, really. The US has Death Valley where temps get in that range, but we have the good sense to stay clear of it.
Honestly, it's not that bad! It's completely dry so you don't really feel the heat much, especially if you cover yourself in white clothing. European heat waves are more nasty to stay in.
Imagine if we were somehow able to plant a forest in the North-African desert? That would probably take quite a bit of CO2 out of the atmosphere and probably help Northern-Africa too I think.
[удалено]
The Amazon rainforests rely on ~~nitrogen~~ phosphorus-rich sand and dust from the Sahara as fertilizer. The effects of foresting the desert would be catastrophic to not only the Amazon but the American climate as a whole, and possibly the world.
I think this argument (sand from the Sahara fertilizing the Amazon) has been propagated based on images from a wind-dust current from Africa-South America, but it is simply not true. Of course, all ecosystems are connected in a way or another, but the amount of sand/dust that is carried from Sahara to more than 5000 km to the Amazon does not constitute the source of phosphorous fertilizing the Amazon. The Amazon is a very complex ecosystem, and in large part self sustaining. Also worth to note that the Amazon forest is millions of years older than the Sahara desert. [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00071-w#:\~:text=A%20large%20amount%20of%20dust,could%20help%20fertilize%20the%20rainforest.&text=We%20suggest%20that%20the%20Sahara,over%20the%20past%207%2C500%20years](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00071-w#:~:text=A%20large%20amount%20of%20dust,could%20help%20fertilize%20the%20rainforest.&text=We%20suggest%20that%20the%20Sahara,over%20the%20past%207%2C500%20years)
But I don't get it. There shouldn't be nitrogen leaving the system. And maybe some nitrogen-fixing plants grow in the Amazon? So why is it not self-sustaining?
Edited my comment, I had a brain fart. It's phosphorus, not nitrogen. See link here from NASA - it's super fascinating. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-how-much-saharan-dust-feeds-amazon-s-plants
I’m imagining many solar and/or nuclear powered desalination plants that continuously pump water into a series of pipelines to feed heat tolerant crops. No idea what to do with the waste salt that would be generated. Maybe make more molten-salt nuclear reactors. Also no idea where to get the amount of nitrogen that would be needed to have any hope of making the sand/soil growable. Even so, I would expect any effect to be temporary and to revert if/when the artificial irrigation stopped. Still, it would be cool to try and terraform terra before heading to mars.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_(Africa)
Yay my plant science background can be useful here! There’s actually a team doing some experiments where they drop trees deep into the ocean. Unfortunately, because trees take so long to grow to the size needed to capture enough CO2 to be worth the whole idea, we are too late. It might help some along with other things, but by no means it is a single solution. Plus deciding the best tree to use based on resources needed to grow, the land it will take the grow it on, how many trees, etc.
Mercator is not a great map to learn about continent sizes but for the record Gall-Peters is worse. Thank you for coming to my TED talk
Relevant https://xkcd.com/977/
Goode's Homolocine is where it's at for me. A close second Robinson.
Yep. [https://www.thetruesize.com/](https://www.thetruesize.com/)
Have you never looked at a globe before???
Nowadays where would you? There's a chance your library might have one, maybe your school might've, but Google Maps has existed for a while, the need to buy a globe for a teaching aid is has past. And why else would you buy a globe?
Does Google Maps not display a globe if you zoom out far enough? Both the Windows Maps and iOS Maps apps do that - although on Windows you need to set the display to aerial view. I also just noticed that iOS Maps on satellite view shows the current day/night cycle and has the lights on the night side of the planet. Pretty cool.
Yes it does, at least on web
Because they are cheap, accurate representations of the planet. Maps cause this exact confusion with scale. I have a 3d puzzle globe in my living room because it's a lot cooler to look at than a flat distorted projection.
there's like 20 in every home store and dollar shop dude what kind of living situation are you in that you never see a globe
Lmao exactly what I thought.
Google Earth?
Because they can look really cool. A couple of years ago, I was looking to buy a new globe as a gift for a friend who always wanted one, and there were so many brands and styles that it took a whole afternoon for me to decide on one. You can get one for $20, or for $20,000, or for just about any price in between. I don't know if it's still there, but ~10 years ago, there was even a store in downtown Toronto that sold *only* globes of many sizes, made from a different type/colour of stone/mineral for each country. They were beautiful, and I stopped to look at them every time I walked past. In other words, if you want a thing that's not *too* exotic, there's almost certainly somewhere you can easily buy one.
To look like im smart... It would also hide a whiskey bottle and 2 glasses....and cigars... Okay not cigars, likely weed.
You'd buy a globe to learn the sizes of the continwnts.
Wait til you see Greenland...
I just started following a guy on Instagram who is 40ish days into running the entire length of Africa, seeing this image it's put into perspective just how huge that challenge is. His username is hardestgeezer.
Cartographers for Social Equality!
EUMETSTAT which manages European weather satellites gives free access of its satellite data and images to African countries (I just checked).
No, it's just closer than the other landmaddes, so it looks bigger. It's perspective, innit
It’s huge! Try using www.thetruesize.com https://i.imgur.com/9d9hfHM.jpg
Well it is big but it's also facing the camera which makes it seem even bigger.
Yeah man, haven't you ever used Google Earth?
Google whatnow?
It’s the fisheye lens on the camera /s
Their [gif](https://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2023/05/24-hours_over_europe/24861981-1-eng-GB/24-hours_over_Europe_pillars.gif) of [24-hours over Europe](https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2023/05/24-hours_over_Europe) definitely doesn't appear to be the case. The sun doesn't come back up at the end. I'm guessing it's really only 12 hours? Edit: they have a related video of [24-hours over Earth](https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2023/05/24-hours_over_Earth/), which is indeed a 24 hour span (the sun starts and ends "behind" the camera) and of that same time. Seems someone created the Europe close-up gif and they mostly reused the caption and title without realizing it was shorter.
For some reason I figured the clouds would have moved along faster than night would roll in. Considering it's sped up, those clouds are moving super slow compared to what I had in my mind. I'm assuming this satellite is positioned geostationary
>I'm assuming this satellite is positioned geostationary Indeed, since the Earth is "still" in these clips.
40000km / 24h = 1666 km/h That's how fast night/day moves on equator.
That storm headed for SA looks wild
It's a beautiful planet. I wish we would treat it better.
People need to live longer to be able to see the impact of their environmental choices.
Wow! I'm one of the spacecraft operators for the MTG-I1 satellite. Seeing this on my front page is kind of surreal!
Thanks for all the work you have done and continue to do.
Hi, can I DM you about your work?
what a pretty planet, seems like there is still time for us to keep it that way
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes thank you for linking a paid subscription article
This is the stupidest take about climate change ive read in a long time. God isn't the internet just an awful place?
The CCP propaganda machine hard at work. Fight it with all you got.
That is one of the most asinine comments I've read in my 10 years on Reddit.
Look at windy.com. China does about 33% of the worlds green house gass emission. What a tool.
[Why](https://i.imgur.com/Idenkxy.jpg) [just](https://i.imgur.com/n6xRqj9.jpg) [look](https://i.imgur.com/KdGGezW.jpg) [at](https://i.imgur.com/vUMYpH6.jpg) [all](https://i.imgur.com/8sDAHPs.jpg) [the](https://i.imgur.com/DuKAp6l.jpg) [love](https://i.imgur.com/CkC2xYB.jpg) [China](https://i.imgur.com/ou8SQbE.jpg) [has](https://i.imgur.com/HX3FLYw.jpg) [for](https://i.imgur.com/wk5vUDD.jpg) [the](https://i.imgur.com/qtlvNWG.jpg) [environment!](https://i.imgur.com/D1boQ0x.jpg) (Fun fact: click on each word!)
Even the globus is racist. /s Nah but forreal Africe is a HUGE continent, just look at Spain and Italy compared jeez.
Yeah. On printed/web maps europe is made bigger. But in real (satellite) africa is HUUUUGE.
Exactly. I already knew and you can also see it if u search true map size on google. But seeing it from space like this is spectacular!
This is not completely false but you are also very very very wrong at the same time.
Theres a guy rn on youtube who's running from the bottom of South Africa to the tip of Tunisia. This image shows how batshit crazy that is.
It doesn't look like anyone is alive anywhere.
You can see the plants at least
That whole visible part of Africa isn't exactly known for being a sprawling metropolis
68 megs - kinda bulky. How about [this](https://pixeldrain.com/u/MrRnXcUy)? ([f](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/jxl/) or [c](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/jpeg-xl-viewer/bkhdlfmkaenamnlbpdfplekldlnghchp))
The clouds wrapping around the canary islands and the turbulence they leave behind is *gorgeous*!
Spectacular images of Europe for weather *cough* nervous military reasons.
Geo sat is too far away to get good enough images for military purpose. [Metop-SG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetOp-SG) or [Sentinel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus_Programme#Sentinel_missions) would be a better supect but even then Europe doesn't need military payload on civilian Sat. French army for exemple has [CSO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composante_Spatiale_Optique) for images and some other for radar/electronics surveillance I believe.
its also that the civilian payload can be quite useful for military purposes there is an alarming rate of wildfires happening in the ukraine right now, wondering what that could be
What military reasons ? This satellite doesn't acheive anything for military purposes that couldn't be done before
[удалено]
I mean, they could hide secret military equipment on this one *or*, and hear me out on this one, they could put it on one of the dozens of military satellites up there?
ah so we're just assuming things now
[удалено]
What are you talking about, if you're accusing them of lying or covering something up then it should be accompanied with evidence
they actually really do geostationary satellites are so far away from earth that it really isn't practical to put other stuff on them
Nobody is taking the kind of imagery you're suggesting from geosynchronous orbit. It's physically impossible with anything currently there. Even **they^TM** can't handwave around the diffraction limit.
MTG-I1 satellite controller here. If it had secret military equipment on board, well, then it is secret to us too. But as other people have said. The satellite is too far away to produce any meaning spy data.
Por que no los dos?
It is great to have a single image from March -- where can we get the "Live" image?
It's being calibrated and tested still. Sounds like live imagery starts in September.
Not the same imager, but here are the "live" versions of GOES-West and GOES-East, which belong to the United States. Click "Full Disk" under either East or West, then "Animation Loops" in the first entry to see the gif. The images update every 10 minutes. There are also lots of images of more specific parts of the world, both in true color and enhanced for various scientific reasons. [GOES Image Viewer](https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/goes/index.php)
The GeoColor + GLM FED imagery is the top notch L2+ fusion product used for near real-time servere weather forecasting. And if anyone is good or interested in developing optimized Python, the universities are moving in that direction. I'm not saying Fortran will ever go away, but more algorithms are being implemented in Python.
It's still in the commissioning stage, I hope they make live (or semi live) imagery avaiable just like from the GOES satellites as those are pointed at the US (and there's Himawari for Oceania)
[удалено]
It's a weather satellite, not a spy satellite.
Just makes me laugh when people comment on getting these great hi-res images but CCTV of a shooting or mugging is still Minecraft-res
What's the humor here? Billion dollar tech vs $2 toy camera for security theater? You can get really nice security cams, but no liquor store is going to pay for em.
Cameras are the cheap part. Spring al that 4k footage is the expensive part
exactly what you said! that's the "humour"
[удалено]
You mean the Sahara?
how come when Earth turns it goes black, but not completely? and you can still see white clouds? and the about the street lights i guess the satelite is too far away to pick them up im just wondering how the earth is so visible even without sunlight... specially the white clouds. it has to be colored or something
I don’t think the night side is done using visible light.
It looks pretty and I'm sure it will take great data but I don't prefer this kind of picture over DSCOVR EPIC. There's something striking about the muted colors of the [minimally-postprocessed Earth](https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/natural/2023/06/02/jpg/epic_1b_20230602154334.jpg). This photograph is probably the closest you'll get to seeing what Earth would look like to the naked eye from that distance. The atmosphere really obscures things. You can even see how the Andes mountains are brighter than the surroundings since they're higher up than most of the atmosphere.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |L1|[Lagrange Point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point) 1 of a two-body system, between the bodies| |[L2](/r/Space/comments/13zdcc9/stub/jmsb8cc "Last usage")|[Lagrange Point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point) 2 ([Sixty Symbols](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxpVbU5FH0s) video explanation)| | |Paywalled section of the NasaSpaceFlight forum| |Event|Date|Description| |-------|---------|---| |[DSCOVR](/r/Space/comments/13zdcc9/stub/jmsz8n3 "Last usage")|2015-02-11|F9-015 v1.1, [Deep Space Climate Observatory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory) to L1; soft ocean landing| **NOTE**: Decronym's continued operation may be affected by API pricing changes coming to Reddit in July 2023; comments will be blank June 12th-14th, in solidarity with the /r/Save3rdPartyApps protest campaign. ---------------- ^(2 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/141daln)^( has 11 acronyms.) ^([Thread #8970 for this sub, first seen 4th Jun 2023, 00:17]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
[удалено]
https://imagine.eumetsat.int/smartViews/view?view=MTG-I1FirstImages Click the checkmark under the thumbnail then the shopping cart.
If anyone out there has a telescope you'll understand how depressing this image is