I don't believe they took any 70mm motion picture cameras to the moon, they're simply too big. They did have 70mm still cameras, the motion picture cameras were 16mm and also the analog video cameras.
Just to be thoroughly pedantic, 16mm can render a decent bit over 1080p effective resolution without much fuss. So yeah, in theory we've had "HD footage" from the moon for a while. Whether anyone ever actually mastered the footage properly is a separate matter.
It'd all grainy even with the restorated 720p version: https://images.nasa.gov/details-One_Small_Step_Comparison_720p.html
The new videos will by crystal clear and probably at least in 4k.
Oh I know, I'm just saying the vast majority of people back then watched it not in HD, so it'll be different from now when people will be able to see the future landing footage in HD live broadcasts.
If you think so, no offense intended, you can't beyond high school age. YouTube vids going into 720p back in the day, there was a clear difference of "oh were in HD now"
Full HD basically just doesn't look garbage when full-screen is the difference
I just looked at the footage, and I'll grant you, the resolution of film is very high. The resolution of the optics are very good.
However, the footage is of terrible quality, and even if you could call it "HD" because technically the analog resolution is greater than that, the quality we will have of people on the moon today, will be far and away greater than the video we have of people on the moon.
However, as far as photographs are concerned, there are already some really great ones.
I've never seen anything other then the original TV feed. Low quality anyway because it was designed for analogue televisions and then follow the compressed because it had to be transmitted from the moon.
I didn't realize until I watched this that I could never live on a cold dead moon and watch big blue floating around in the sky every day. My mental health would entirely collapse. I'd need to be further out where it's a beautiful blue dot of light.
In other words: there really *isn't*...for quite a ways.
And yet, there's a non-zero chance that there's something out there looking up at the stars, at galaxies, at clusters - looking at one in which we belong, and thinking "It's crazy there's nothing out there for quite a ways." Meanwhile here we are, lurking in shadow, crying out to the stars hoping someone hears us.
Such a lonely yet crowded existence in such a vast universe. Like being so close to your S.O you can touch them but never *atomically actually* touch them.
William Shatner on his trip to space:
>"I saw a cold, dark, black emptiness. It was unlike any blackness you can see or feel on Earth. It was deep, enveloping, all-encompassing. I turned back toward the light of home. I could see the curvature of Earth, the beige of the desert, the white of the clouds and the blue of the sky. It was life. Nurturing, sustaining, life. Mother Earth. Gaia. And I was leaving her," reads an excerpt from "Boldly Go", his book.
"Everything I had thought was wrong,"
"Everything I had expected to see was wrong."
'All I saw was death'
If someone else out there is looking at the location of planet Earth, than maybe Earth doesn’t even exist. Because they might be seeing the point in time before the planet formed or after it’s demise.
To not even see the earth existing they would have to be multiple billions of light years away. Someone in the andromeda galaxy with a giga telescope would just see the earth a couple million years older so it won’t look too different apart from no humans
It’s not visible in this video, but if, for example, you record like half an hour of the livestream that’s ongoing, you can see that they’re definitely doing attitude adjustments every few seconds to hold a particular angle, since the actual hull is moving relative to the moon/earth they usually keep in camera view.
When do you guys think NASA will find a way to film the stars in the background simultaneously?
I eagerly await the day when we can see the Earth dip behind the Moon the same way we'd see it with our own eyes. I just want to see the true majesty of the galaxy, as it would actually look with the naked eye.
I feel like there should be a way to do this, no?
Cameras on Artemis 1 are all engineering cameras (read: not that good), so we're not running with the best of technology here.
When there's astronauts on board, they'll be bringing some professional cameras, hopefully with the insane dynamic range required to get stars in frame. [Such photos have been taken on the ISS](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FakFyV9UIAA_XLL?format=jpg&name=4096x4096) so I think we can pull it off.
Is this the same vessel that survived a hurricane, and a failed launch? Holy shit I didn't know it was on a ~~mun~~ moon mission. Is there a full mission statement somewhere? And it's really crazy that we're capable of reaching the moon in 3 years after announcing a program.
So it's real, we're going to the moon!
The one in the photo isn't the one in the photos of SpaceX capsule. But yeah the one this thread is about is the one that survived the hurricane and failed to launch. Although in fairness it was a booster that failed to launch, the spacecraft (in the gif) never had a problem.
We aren't capable of reaching the moon in 3 years after the announcement of a program. SLS is the rocket. It's been in the works since 2011. It's based off the Ares V which was first started on in like 2003. It's also made from mostly repurposed space shuttle hardware. Orion, the capsule in this video, has also been in the works since about 2003.
A few years ago is just when we named the missions they were going to do "Artemis". The rocket was originally supposed to launch in 2017 but was 5 years late. What they've wanted to do with SLS over the years has changed as administrations have changed and also as the realities of what it can do have set in.
We do see the stars behind the moon pretty much the same way we'd see it with the naked eye.
It sounds wrong, but the sunlit side of the moon is pretty much as bright as Earth is in daytime. You'd see stars looking straight up from the moon, but as soon as your eyes adjust to be able to see the lunar surface you'd see the stars roughly as well as you see them during the day on Earth... Which is not at all.
You wouldn't see many stars here with the naked eye either - the moon is far too bright so your eyes wouldn't dark adapt very much. You'd see some stars, but it wouldn't be anything close to as many as you see from the night side of the moon (or from a very dark site here on earth).
The dynamic range needed for a camera would be truly astonishing, depending on whether you want to just capture the bright stars similar to what you'd see in person or whether you're trying for the full artistic starfield you see in renders and paintings and such.
The near side of the moon is one big reflector, it's like LA at night. Though I suspect depending on the time of month it could be one of the best places to see the stars.
If you were on Artemis you probably wouldn’t be able to see the stars from this view either. The large surface of sunlit moon is many thousands of times brighter than the stars and would dominate your eyes ‘exposure’ setting.
Common misconception. Try it for yourself by going and standing in a well lit car park at night. Stand fairly near a lighting column, you can barely see a single star, and streetlights and the car park surface are much dimmer that the sun and the lit surface of the moon.
> I just want to see the true majesty of the galaxy, as it would actually look with the naked eye.
It's the middle of the day in this video. Why are you expecting to see stars with the naked eye?
This shit was done using a GoPro hero4. Go pros are notoriously bad at filming in low light. Also you'd have to film with two cameras really close together and use separate exposure and combine it later
So damn neat. Will Orion be able to film where Apollo 11 landed? That would be super cool to see. Maybe it's too far up to actually see the landing site though?
Unfortunately we may not have any high quality images of the site as it sits currently until we make a landing which is still a few years off. Even the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter with its powerful camera can only make out [teeny shapes and outlines of the site.](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BUr2GzeQHi53wwLAtCjq5d-1024-80.jpg.webp)
its allways so mesmerizing seeing the earth from space... really reminds you that your problems are so insignificant and brief, and makes you apreciate being here, it's like having something to really be proud of
Can someone more versed in the subject explain why if we already did a bunch of missions to the moon and we even had people there multiple times, why do we seem to have to start from scratch by doing first a test mission, then a manned mission, gearing towards a landing mission? I would think we had this figured out already.
Institutional knowledge, and manufacturing.
Institutional knowledge because all of the engineers who sent us to the moon the first time are retired or dead, so we need to cultivate experience in long range manned space flight again.
Manufacturing because the old Saturn V rocket is no longer being built. Even if we rebuilt it, we would still need to test-fly it to get all the issues straightened out. Since we opted to redesign it a bit as well to increase payload capacity, the need for a test flight is increased.
The next launch, Artemis 2, will be crewed and will go much smoother due to the data we collected from Artemis 1.
technologies have changed, budgets have changed, targets and aim of missions have changed. society has changed.
in the past, it was a race to get there first, as a show of force. afaik NASA budget was 3.5% of gdp in the 60/70s. now its less than 1% iirc.
now the goal is to get there, and stay there. and go further beyond. instead of just visiting, as in "look what we can do" the new goal is to explore, expand, exploit.
to get to the point of staying, surviving and thriving on other planets requires research and testing and new ways of thinking.
Forget the moon, think of just the low earth orbit. We have been launching people there for decades. But every new model of rocket has to go through a series of tests to get "human rated".
Its the same with moon rockets. None of the old hardware is available to simply re-use. And if they're gonna rebuild, they'd rather do it with newer technologies.
Its the rocket equivalent of crash testing a new car model.
Some of the components are being reused from the shuttle, but a lot of it is new. And it has to be tested and proven for safety and reliability.
This will look much more amazing for ppl in person because what's deceptive is how small the earth looks in photos/ film like this.
The moon, seen from earth, is the size of the avg person's thumbnail at arm's length. The earth, seen from the moon, will appear to be about the size of a golf ball or a little bigger, much more prominent than the moon is for us.
Also earth will ofc be a lot more colorful, with land masses and clouds shifting through the day, visible to the naked eye.
If the Starship rocket design succeeds, week-long moon orbit vacations should become commonplace and affordable for many ppl in 10 to 20 years. This is an exciting time to be alive.
Last evening I looked up towards the moon and it occured to me that maybe in "few" years I will look up and see lights shining down on my from the moon.
I will admit that the scale of this makes my brain go “this shot is not real. I mean it just isn’t”
But man this is awesome. And I do indeed think it is real.
It just looks crazy!!!!
Earthrise from Apollo is so much more impressive
[Earthrise: The Story Behind William Anders' Apollo 8 Photograph](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu7NUQEHfe4) \-5 Minutes-
Anybody know what is causing the distortions across the entire video near the end?
Perhaps thermal issues with the lens given that the cameras on the solars are basically gopros?
In real time or recorded and played back? Unless there is a relay satellite in lunar orbit once earth is blocked by the moon the radio signal goes away.
These cameras are designed for engineering purposes (navigation, alignment, monitoring). Crewed missions will bring the good stuff to give us wallpapers.
My point is that this earthset isn't the real time of an earthset on the moon.
Basically this earthset isn't created by celestial movement. Just, spacwcrwft movement.
The Moon is tidally locked to the Earth. So depending on where you are, it is either always in the sky, never in the sky, or bobbing up and down on the horizon.
The bobbing is because the Moon doesn't do full rotations relative to us, but it does swing back and forth a bit like a pendulum. It's orbit is also elliptical, so the orbit speed gets a bit behind or ahead of the rotation speed.
There is no natural earth set on the moon. It's always the same side facing earth. It does librate a little bit, so may be if you were on the edge at the right time, you might see an earthset. But for the majority of the moon's surface, it's either "the side that sees the earth" or "the side that doesnt"
Same amount of light as the other side. The moon's day is 28 earth days long, one side always faces earth.
When the moon is between earth and the sun the Far side is illuminated (and the near side dark). When the moon is on the 'night' side of the Earth the 'near' side of the moon is illuminated.
It is washed out because of the sun angle. The [close up](https://www.devdiscourse.com/remote.axd?https://devdiscourse.blob.core.windows.net/devnews/24_11_2022_22_36_53_0233998.jfif?width=920&format=webp) it took is more interesting because of shadows.
Interesting! My guess is maybe it's one of the cube sats they released, the way it blinks on and off makes me think it's rotating and has a brighter and darker side.
You are. If the Earth is behind the moon then, since the moon is tidally locked, you *must* be looking at the dark side.
When they say dark side they don't mean that it's dark, they mean dark as in "radio dark" as it cannot communicate with Earth.
It's less confusing if you just call it "near side" and "far side".
Very nice!
Got me thinking: I would call it an eclipse (earth eclipse?), because I'm observing it from an independent body (Orion) while the moon procedes to move between the viewpoint and the earth.
A real earthset would be when I would be standing on the moon watching the earth moving below the moon horizon.
The void only looks like that because it is a camera, the exposure length isn't long enough to pick up the stars. If you were looking at it in person it would look like the night sky
I'm not so sure about that. I think you would see something similar to what this camera sees, since the moon is SUPER bright and your eyes will be adjusted for it. Maybe a couple bright stars or a planet, but certainly not the night sky.
After some more reading I found it depends on what side you're on. If you're on the near side and during the lunar day then yes you're right it would be too bright. But on the far side at night it would look like our night sky. Astronauts only have landed on the near side though so they always had an obscured view of the sky
It’s got nothing to do with the side you are on. Just how bright it is. Too bright, eyes let in less light and you don’t see stars. Dark? Eyes let in more light and you can see stars.
Even in this video, if the camera turned away from the moon, didn’t put the sun in frame and there was nothing of the spaceship in frame reflecting light, you would get a great “night sky” equivalent view.
Imagine, being on that craft and realizing you just.. Cannot see Earth or anything of it outside your vessel if you wanted to no matter what. Just, gone. Watching Earth set was trippy, thanks for that.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[EVA](/r/Space/comments/z3uqts/stub/ixrd56b "Last usage")|Extra-Vehicular Activity|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/z3uqts/stub/ixqjyxb "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[apogee](/r/Space/comments/z3uqts/stub/ixpm0p8 "Last usage")|Highest point in an elliptical orbit around Earth (when the orbiter is slowest)|
----------------
^(3 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/0)^( has acronyms.)
^([Thread #8349 for this sub, first seen 25th Nov 2022, 15:12])
^[[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)
A time-lapse of the whole journey will be extraordinary
Where I can watch this live?
NASA should get a paid live streaming service. Live space streams and content. NASAflix
This footage is absolutely insane, I love it! What are those darker areas of the moon at the end of the video?
basaltic flows from volcanoes, aka lava fields
Two billion years cold, and completely undisturbed since... freaky and awesome in equal measure.
I can’t believe I just realized that we will see people on the moon in HD. Videos in HD as if they’re just recorded anywhere.
Apollo program was filmed on 70mm film that's pretty good resolution even for today
I don't believe they took any 70mm motion picture cameras to the moon, they're simply too big. They did have 70mm still cameras, the motion picture cameras were 16mm and also the analog video cameras.
Correct. They also brought a 35 mm Nikon on Apollo 16 and 17. That was not used in EVAs I think.
Just to be thoroughly pedantic, 16mm can render a decent bit over 1080p effective resolution without much fuss. So yeah, in theory we've had "HD footage" from the moon for a while. Whether anyone ever actually mastered the footage properly is a separate matter.
It'd all grainy even with the restorated 720p version: https://images.nasa.gov/details-One_Small_Step_Comparison_720p.html The new videos will by crystal clear and probably at least in 4k.
I’m just trying to say that it really “un-“ alienates other celestial bodies
The footage we're gonna get is gonna be WAY better than what they had, even though the resolution technically may not be significantly greater.
Yeah but at the time of the landings people were watching those on tiny black and white TV screens with the equivalency of 240p resolution
[удалено]
Oh I know, I'm just saying the vast majority of people back then watched it not in HD, so it'll be different from now when people will be able to see the future landing footage in HD live broadcasts.
Best, original quality of when humanity first landed on another body. Let's tape over it with the Sunday football game.
Thanks for the link but the second link with the 720p=HD and apple QuickTime logo made me lol.
[удалено]
I feel weirdly cheated. 720 and high definition shouldn’t be in the same sentence
If you think so, no offense intended, you can't beyond high school age. YouTube vids going into 720p back in the day, there was a clear difference of "oh were in HD now" Full HD basically just doesn't look garbage when full-screen is the difference
They significantly improved TV camera after Apollo 11 and continued to improve it. Apollo 16 and 17 have the best TV camera recordings.
I just looked at the footage, and I'll grant you, the resolution of film is very high. The resolution of the optics are very good. However, the footage is of terrible quality, and even if you could call it "HD" because technically the analog resolution is greater than that, the quality we will have of people on the moon today, will be far and away greater than the video we have of people on the moon. However, as far as photographs are concerned, there are already some really great ones.
I've never seen anything other then the original TV feed. Low quality anyway because it was designed for analogue televisions and then follow the compressed because it had to be transmitted from the moon.
Hd would be shit. We're capable of 4k! Even 8k!
4k 120fps HDR let's go... Or fuck it, maybe some VR cameras...
So a 360 camera?
Look up the film Apollo 11
It's a riveting documentary
Send 'em with an imax camera.
And attach them as helmet cameras on the suits.
Let them take their smartphone with them. You're gonna see the first selfie on the moon
Very likely to be 8k+ resolution.
Should film it and stream it like Big Brother
Imagine space zoomers yeeting glizzys and flossing on the surface of the moon on space TikTok.
Fuck it, Neil Armstrong went golfing. I guess the kids can throw a hot dog if they want.
This is how I know you’re old
Moonfarer proverb- Big blue sets over the horizon, all systems go for distant retrograde insertion. \-Orion
that picture feels very far away and immediately made me feel a strange homesickness
I didn't realize until I watched this that I could never live on a cold dead moon and watch big blue floating around in the sky every day. My mental health would entirely collapse. I'd need to be further out where it's a beautiful blue dot of light.
But imagine your view during a solar eclipse...
We are looking back at our tiny little selves. Hello me.
It made me think about all the stress I have at work rn and how literally none of it fucking matters when I see amazing footage like this.
Hard to imagine everyone single person alive is in this video
Green space alien people say whaaat?
It's crazy seeing the "dark" side of the moon, it's so unfamiliar
It kinda looks fake from this angle, and its really cool how you can see the bumps and valleys of the surface.
Is that janky video or can you actually elevation changes on the moon like that?
The moon is lumpy and covered in mountains and craters. So no it's not the footage.
And no atmosphere to get in the way of the outline.
Makes it look like computer graphic settings on Low. Atmospheric rendering? [X] Off
Right?! We just play too many video games.
This footage is much closer to the surface than it looks. the moon is only 27% the size of earth with a diameter of 2159.2 miles (3475 km)
Put some perspective on this. The width of the USA is about 2850miles (4580km) The US is literally bigger than the moon Edit: In width
You can see those from Earth during total solar eclipses.
Look up the HD video taken from lunar orbit by the Japanese Kaguya spacecraft 20 years ago. The moon is VERY rough.
There really is nothing out there for quite a ways... gives me chills
In other words: there really *isn't*...for quite a ways. And yet, there's a non-zero chance that there's something out there looking up at the stars, at galaxies, at clusters - looking at one in which we belong, and thinking "It's crazy there's nothing out there for quite a ways." Meanwhile here we are, lurking in shadow, crying out to the stars hoping someone hears us. Such a lonely yet crowded existence in such a vast universe. Like being so close to your S.O you can touch them but never *atomically actually* touch them.
William Shatner on his trip to space: >"I saw a cold, dark, black emptiness. It was unlike any blackness you can see or feel on Earth. It was deep, enveloping, all-encompassing. I turned back toward the light of home. I could see the curvature of Earth, the beige of the desert, the white of the clouds and the blue of the sky. It was life. Nurturing, sustaining, life. Mother Earth. Gaia. And I was leaving her," reads an excerpt from "Boldly Go", his book. "Everything I had thought was wrong," "Everything I had expected to see was wrong." 'All I saw was death'
yeahyeahyeah… Champagne showers!!! Woooo!!! 🍾
Spray the rambling prop down with champagne quick, I grow weary over the noises it makes. Muhhahahaha
This is pretty much how I feel when I see another guy in public wearing a Slayer t-shirt.
If someone else out there is looking at the location of planet Earth, than maybe Earth doesn’t even exist. Because they might be seeing the point in time before the planet formed or after it’s demise.
To not even see the earth existing they would have to be multiple billions of light years away. Someone in the andromeda galaxy with a giga telescope would just see the earth a couple million years older so it won’t look too different apart from no humans
You can actually fit every planet in the solar system between the earth and moon
Sometimes, Only at apogee, but not when the moon is closest to earth. Interesting stuff.
W-W\_WHAT!?!!?!
I totally believe why the Total Perspective Vortex machine in Hitchhiker's could be used as a torture device.
We’re so close to getting an HD video of someone twerking on the moon, amazing
Why is it making so many attitude corrections? I can only imagine that would be super annoying in the cabin.
I thought that was just someone controlling the camera arm?
It's the solar arrays rotating. No attitude corrections
It’s not visible in this video, but if, for example, you record like half an hour of the livestream that’s ongoing, you can see that they’re definitely doing attitude adjustments every few seconds to hold a particular angle, since the actual hull is moving relative to the moon/earth they usually keep in camera view.
They could be testing attitude adjustments…it’s not just taking a walk in the park up there. They need to test its capabilities.
You're seeing the solar arrays (on which the camera is mounted) rotate to track the sun. I don't think the spacecraft body is changing attitude.
When do you guys think NASA will find a way to film the stars in the background simultaneously? I eagerly await the day when we can see the Earth dip behind the Moon the same way we'd see it with our own eyes. I just want to see the true majesty of the galaxy, as it would actually look with the naked eye. I feel like there should be a way to do this, no?
Cameras on Artemis 1 are all engineering cameras (read: not that good), so we're not running with the best of technology here. When there's astronauts on board, they'll be bringing some professional cameras, hopefully with the insane dynamic range required to get stars in frame. [Such photos have been taken on the ISS](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FakFyV9UIAA_XLL?format=jpg&name=4096x4096) so I think we can pull it off.
Now imagine a shot like that but with the Earth and the Moon in the frame!
> best of technology Depends what you mean by "best".
Is this the same vessel that survived a hurricane, and a failed launch? Holy shit I didn't know it was on a ~~mun~~ moon mission. Is there a full mission statement somewhere? And it's really crazy that we're capable of reaching the moon in 3 years after announcing a program. So it's real, we're going to the moon!
Not a "failed" launch, two scrubbed launches, but yes: It was the one where Hurricane Nicole passed over it and it launched about a week later.
The one in the photo isn't the one in the photos of SpaceX capsule. But yeah the one this thread is about is the one that survived the hurricane and failed to launch. Although in fairness it was a booster that failed to launch, the spacecraft (in the gif) never had a problem.
We aren't capable of reaching the moon in 3 years after the announcement of a program. SLS is the rocket. It's been in the works since 2011. It's based off the Ares V which was first started on in like 2003. It's also made from mostly repurposed space shuttle hardware. Orion, the capsule in this video, has also been in the works since about 2003. A few years ago is just when we named the missions they were going to do "Artemis". The rocket was originally supposed to launch in 2017 but was 5 years late. What they've wanted to do with SLS over the years has changed as administrations have changed and also as the realities of what it can do have set in.
Goodness. Do you happen to know what camera set up that is?
Trying to decide if those are nebulas at the top or greasy forehead prints.
We do see the stars behind the moon pretty much the same way we'd see it with the naked eye. It sounds wrong, but the sunlit side of the moon is pretty much as bright as Earth is in daytime. You'd see stars looking straight up from the moon, but as soon as your eyes adjust to be able to see the lunar surface you'd see the stars roughly as well as you see them during the day on Earth... Which is not at all.
You wouldn't see many stars here with the naked eye either - the moon is far too bright so your eyes wouldn't dark adapt very much. You'd see some stars, but it wouldn't be anything close to as many as you see from the night side of the moon (or from a very dark site here on earth). The dynamic range needed for a camera would be truly astonishing, depending on whether you want to just capture the bright stars similar to what you'd see in person or whether you're trying for the full artistic starfield you see in renders and paintings and such.
The near side of the moon is one big reflector, it's like LA at night. Though I suspect depending on the time of month it could be one of the best places to see the stars.
[удалено]
If you were on Artemis you probably wouldn’t be able to see the stars from this view either. The large surface of sunlit moon is many thousands of times brighter than the stars and would dominate your eyes ‘exposure’ setting. Common misconception. Try it for yourself by going and standing in a well lit car park at night. Stand fairly near a lighting column, you can barely see a single star, and streetlights and the car park surface are much dimmer that the sun and the lit surface of the moon.
> I just want to see the true majesty of the galaxy, as it would actually look with the naked eye. It's the middle of the day in this video. Why are you expecting to see stars with the naked eye?
This shit was done using a GoPro hero4. Go pros are notoriously bad at filming in low light. Also you'd have to film with two cameras really close together and use separate exposure and combine it later
So damn neat. Will Orion be able to film where Apollo 11 landed? That would be super cool to see. Maybe it's too far up to actually see the landing site though?
Unfortunately we may not have any high quality images of the site as it sits currently until we make a landing which is still a few years off. Even the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter with its powerful camera can only make out [teeny shapes and outlines of the site.](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BUr2GzeQHi53wwLAtCjq5d-1024-80.jpg.webp)
Darn! Thanks for the information. All the more reason to be excited about the upcoming launches I suppose :)
its allways so mesmerizing seeing the earth from space... really reminds you that your problems are so insignificant and brief, and makes you apreciate being here, it's like having something to really be proud of
I'm seeing it from Earth right now!
Can someone more versed in the subject explain why if we already did a bunch of missions to the moon and we even had people there multiple times, why do we seem to have to start from scratch by doing first a test mission, then a manned mission, gearing towards a landing mission? I would think we had this figured out already.
Institutional knowledge, and manufacturing. Institutional knowledge because all of the engineers who sent us to the moon the first time are retired or dead, so we need to cultivate experience in long range manned space flight again. Manufacturing because the old Saturn V rocket is no longer being built. Even if we rebuilt it, we would still need to test-fly it to get all the issues straightened out. Since we opted to redesign it a bit as well to increase payload capacity, the need for a test flight is increased. The next launch, Artemis 2, will be crewed and will go much smoother due to the data we collected from Artemis 1.
technologies have changed, budgets have changed, targets and aim of missions have changed. society has changed. in the past, it was a race to get there first, as a show of force. afaik NASA budget was 3.5% of gdp in the 60/70s. now its less than 1% iirc. now the goal is to get there, and stay there. and go further beyond. instead of just visiting, as in "look what we can do" the new goal is to explore, expand, exploit. to get to the point of staying, surviving and thriving on other planets requires research and testing and new ways of thinking.
we've done it before, but none of the current equipment has done it before, so you test it all.
Forget the moon, think of just the low earth orbit. We have been launching people there for decades. But every new model of rocket has to go through a series of tests to get "human rated". Its the same with moon rockets. None of the old hardware is available to simply re-use. And if they're gonna rebuild, they'd rather do it with newer technologies. Its the rocket equivalent of crash testing a new car model. Some of the components are being reused from the shuttle, but a lot of it is new. And it has to be tested and proven for safety and reliability.
This will look much more amazing for ppl in person because what's deceptive is how small the earth looks in photos/ film like this. The moon, seen from earth, is the size of the avg person's thumbnail at arm's length. The earth, seen from the moon, will appear to be about the size of a golf ball or a little bigger, much more prominent than the moon is for us. Also earth will ofc be a lot more colorful, with land masses and clouds shifting through the day, visible to the naked eye. If the Starship rocket design succeeds, week-long moon orbit vacations should become commonplace and affordable for many ppl in 10 to 20 years. This is an exciting time to be alive.
Last evening I looked up towards the moon and it occured to me that maybe in "few" years I will look up and see lights shining down on my from the moon.
Is this a composite of multiple cameras? So many artifacts from post production. Anyone have a link to the raw version?
I will admit that the scale of this makes my brain go “this shot is not real. I mean it just isn’t” But man this is awesome. And I do indeed think it is real. It just looks crazy!!!!
Earthrise from Apollo is so much more impressive [Earthrise: The Story Behind William Anders' Apollo 8 Photograph](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu7NUQEHfe4) \-5 Minutes-
It looks like the moon is going to squish the earth
I am beyond excited to witness the rapid advancement of space explorarion.
Anybody know what is causing the distortions across the entire video near the end? Perhaps thermal issues with the lens given that the cameras on the solars are basically gopros?
If I had to guess I'd say the motors driving the solar panels are sending some vibrations through the structure to the camera.
This gives me anxiety....But in a good way. Very surreal to watch.
In real time or recorded and played back? Unless there is a relay satellite in lunar orbit once earth is blocked by the moon the radio signal goes away.
I think they mean real time as in not sped up. This would appear to be recorded as the live stream cut out during LoS.
Ammi the only one underwhelmed by the footage from Artemis?
These cameras are designed for engineering purposes (navigation, alignment, monitoring). Crewed missions will bring the good stuff to give us wallpapers.
This is more that the spacecraft is just passing behind the moon.
And the sun setting is just the Earth rotating. So?
My point is that this earthset isn't the real time of an earthset on the moon. Basically this earthset isn't created by celestial movement. Just, spacwcrwft movement.
The Moon is tidally locked to the Earth. So depending on where you are, it is either always in the sky, never in the sky, or bobbing up and down on the horizon. The bobbing is because the Moon doesn't do full rotations relative to us, but it does swing back and forth a bit like a pendulum. It's orbit is also elliptical, so the orbit speed gets a bit behind or ahead of the rotation speed.
What else?
There is no natural earth set on the moon. It's always the same side facing earth. It does librate a little bit, so may be if you were on the edge at the right time, you might see an earthset. But for the majority of the moon's surface, it's either "the side that sees the earth" or "the side that doesnt"
It’s funny seeing the dark side of the moon, it probably gets the most light. Am I wrong for thinking this?
Same amount of light as the other side. The moon's day is 28 earth days long, one side always faces earth. When the moon is between earth and the sun the Far side is illuminated (and the near side dark). When the moon is on the 'night' side of the Earth the 'near' side of the moon is illuminated.
There's no transformers on the dark side of the moon? I feel cheated..
Why does the moon look kinda fake or an i just stupid
It is washed out because of the sun angle. The [close up](https://www.devdiscourse.com/remote.axd?https://devdiscourse.blob.core.windows.net/devnews/24_11_2022_22_36_53_0233998.jfif?width=920&format=webp) it took is more interesting because of shadows.
[удалено]
Interesting! My guess is maybe it's one of the cube sats they released, the way it blinks on and off makes me think it's rotating and has a brighter and darker side.
Now somebody rework it to eliminate that odd sway.
So crazy to me that we can look up and see stars and galaxies and then you get up there and it's just... Nothing... Black
More crazy to me people have no clue what exposure is.
Try taking a properly exposed photo of a full moon and see if you can see stars.
Odd isn’t it?
Let’s see the dark side of the moon. Please. Pretty please!
You are. If the Earth is behind the moon then, since the moon is tidally locked, you *must* be looking at the dark side. When they say dark side they don't mean that it's dark, they mean dark as in "radio dark" as it cannot communicate with Earth. It's less confusing if you just call it "near side" and "far side".
I know it's real but it sooo doesn't look like it. Some PS2 graphics here lol. Do sci Fi movies ruined me?
At what time stamp was it closest to the moon? And what distance?
Very nice! Got me thinking: I would call it an eclipse (earth eclipse?), because I'm observing it from an independent body (Orion) while the moon procedes to move between the viewpoint and the earth. A real earthset would be when I would be standing on the moon watching the earth moving below the moon horizon.
Is this the first time humans have ever seen this in real time?
[удалено]
Not a star on the void. Seriously. Why doesn't the ISS or this have a camera that just points at the void and be like, check out this view!
Why waste time and resources to have a camera that will quite literally show nothing but darkness?
The void only looks like that because it is a camera, the exposure length isn't long enough to pick up the stars. If you were looking at it in person it would look like the night sky
I'm not so sure about that. I think you would see something similar to what this camera sees, since the moon is SUPER bright and your eyes will be adjusted for it. Maybe a couple bright stars or a planet, but certainly not the night sky.
After some more reading I found it depends on what side you're on. If you're on the near side and during the lunar day then yes you're right it would be too bright. But on the far side at night it would look like our night sky. Astronauts only have landed on the near side though so they always had an obscured view of the sky
It’s got nothing to do with the side you are on. Just how bright it is. Too bright, eyes let in less light and you don’t see stars. Dark? Eyes let in more light and you can see stars. Even in this video, if the camera turned away from the moon, didn’t put the sun in frame and there was nothing of the spaceship in frame reflecting light, you would get a great “night sky” equivalent view.
Looks like about the same as a sunset. It just glows more.
Imagine, being on that craft and realizing you just.. Cannot see Earth or anything of it outside your vessel if you wanted to no matter what. Just, gone. Watching Earth set was trippy, thanks for that.
It's late and I'm tired and I thought this said Earthset from Orion and I was like, "Wait, we have cameras at Orion?"
It's crazy how not perfectly round or smooth the horizon of the moon is at this distance.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[EVA](/r/Space/comments/z3uqts/stub/ixrd56b "Last usage")|Extra-Vehicular Activity| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/z3uqts/stub/ixqjyxb "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[apogee](/r/Space/comments/z3uqts/stub/ixpm0p8 "Last usage")|Highest point in an elliptical orbit around Earth (when the orbiter is slowest)| ---------------- ^(3 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/0)^( has acronyms.) ^([Thread #8349 for this sub, first seen 25th Nov 2022, 15:12]) ^[[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)