Down left, Spain.
Above, Northwest Africa.
Space
A community to discuss space & astronomy through a STEM lens
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive. This means no harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions by discussing in good faith.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Also keep in mind, mander.xyz's rules on politics
Please keep politics to a minimum. When science is the focus, intersection with politics may be tolerated as long as the discussion is constructive and science remains the focus. As a general rule, political content posted directly to the instanceβs local communities is discouraged and may be removed. You can of course engage in political discussions in non-local communities.
Related Communities
π Science
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
π Engineering
π Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
Top: the aurora australis.
Actually, now that I look closer, if you look even more down left, there's also some aurora borealis!
Behind: Things that are very very very very very very very far away.
Where are all the international borders?
/s
Sadly, you can see the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic from space. Dominican Republic is the side with vegetation.
I'm in this picture and I don't like it
boooo!
Haha, is that a futurama quote
Kinda wild it looks like Gibraltar and the Sahara survived a water world incident.
Thank you, I was annoyed when the source link just went to a blue sky post from some rando who themselves didnβt post their source.
ISO 51200
I didn't even know it could go that high. π€£
Sony A1 MKii can hit 102,400 for stills.
AFAIK anything past 32,000 is digitally expanded (which could be done with RAW post-processing).
EDIT:
See: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Nikon%20D5_14,Sony%20ILCE-1M2_14
The old Nikon D5, impressively, doesn't seem to post-scale even at ISO 102400
Oh look! More proof for flat earthers to look at and immediately decide is AI generated!
Looks cool, flat earth talk aside. If I wasn't afraid of heights, I wouldn't mind if I could see Earth from that high up some day.
Is "height" even a concept without gravity or ground?
I am like 99% sure you're still being influenced by gravity at this distance
Well obviously gravity has infinite range in principle, however it does fall off with the square of the distance. So it will get irrelevant at some point, with local sources being the major factor. But obviously the Earth's influence is still quite significant, since the Moon doesn't go flying off. The Moon's orbit is what it is because of the gravity of Earth, although the Sun is a huge factor as well.
The Moon's gravity is what's causing the tides on Earth, so both objects influence each other through gravity signifanctly. The spacecraft will be decelerating on the way to the Moon because the Earth is pulling it down. However once they cross a certain point, the Moon's gravity becomes dominant and they get pulled towards the Moon. They are going too fast to be able to be captured by the Moon and get into an orbit. But they are going too fast to be captured by the Moon. So they will sling past the Moon, the Moon will pull them around and they will fall back to Earth again. They would then be going too fast to be in a proper orbit, instead being flung past the other side. So they will perform a braking maneuver to go back into Earth orbit and slow down further still to land back on Earth.
What confuses people is they see astronauts at 300km up and they are weightless. So one would assume gravity falls off much faster than it does. In fact at 300km the gravity from Earth is still 90% of what it is on the surface. The reason those astronauts are weightless is because they are falling.
Imagine a skydiver falling down and shaking hands with another skydiver, they are weightless compared to each other. If it weren't for the air rushing by, you would be able to tell they were falling and they would look weightless. In fact there is this awesome video floating around where skydiver also have a car falling down and they get in it, it all looks weightless, because it is. The famous vomit comet plane does the same, it flies up, then follows a parabolic curve down (aka falling), before pulling up again. Whilst falling things are in fact weightless.
So if those astronauts are falling, how come they don't fall down to the ground, obviously something is keeping them up there. The answer is speed, they are falling down, but at the same time going horizontally at great speed. Such a great speed in fact, they miss the Earth and instead fall around it. Imagine shooting a cannon faster and faster till it goes over the horizon and if fired fast enough all around the world.
Going to space isn't about going up, it's about going fast. The reason rockets go straight up is because they want to get above much of the atmosphere as fast as possible. This reduces air resistance and makes going faster easier (or possible even). As soon as they go up a little bit, they start turning to go horizontally, often in a so called gravity turn. This is where you use the gravity of Earth to curve downwards, so the gravity helps out instead of fighting it. LEO is only something like 300km up, and the widely recognized limit for "space" is only 100km up. You could easily drive that with your car in no time at all, so why do we need a huge rocket to get to space? Because to go into orbit you need to be going 8km/s, not 8km/h, but 8km every second. To go that fast you need a lot of power and a rocket has that power.
Orbital mechanics are really weird when you first learn about them. But we have the great Kerbal Space Program game to get a feel for them. Speed and altitude are directly related, changing one influences the other, often in ways we feel are not intuitive. This is why people who know faceplam at a movie like Gravity where an escape pod points up and just flies off into deep space. That's not how any of this works, most likely there wouldn't be enough energy (delta V as the nerds like to say) to get out of Earth orbit. At best it might end up in a helio centric orbit near Earth, but it's unlikely. It isn't like you can just point to outer space and go there.
Thatβs all there is. And a bunch of shortsighted rich motherfuckers are doing their best to end it.
The earth will be fine.
The plants and creatures on it? They will be battered, but recover.
Humans on the other hand... π
The planet is fine, the people are fucked
George Carlin
This makes me want to cry.
I try to be stoic and harden my heart to defend it from the horrors of the world and current events, but this is just so beautiful and amazing and all I ever wanted since I was a kid.
I don't know how people can look at this and be unable to pause and just want peace. We are so small and fragile.
We as a species should be working together, not trying to kill each other at every possible moment.
It's all I've ever wanted, and as I've aged I've become jaded and felt it's just been a stupid dream. But seeing this picture reminds me of that feeling, a world without borders.
Thank you NASA.
Many of us have been having the same stupid dream...
What is this bright thing at the center? Reflection of an interior light as it was taken through a window? Or what?

Looks like window reflection.
That's my guess. It's too large to be anything external.
You can also see the window frame at the bottom left.
Just Starfleet violating directives again. It's probably best to ignore it; somebody else's problem.
Since the photo is received from the astronauts, it must be a reflection from their warm interior, indeed!
This image of home just came down from the Artemis II crew...
what am i looking at
Erf.
On the left side is North Africa with Europe below it, and on the right side is South America
To think we'd willingly destroy that beauty
"As we can clearly see, the earth is flat, with australia being the only continent, apart from what we believe to be "east asia". Also: this whole mission is totally fake. "
-- Conspiracy mystics, probably.
You can see planet earthβs big naturals
Here's the full res shot from the NASA website:
click for full res
The photo's metadata reveals it was taken with a Nikon D5, focal length: 22mm, aperture: f/4, and exposure time: 1/4 sec.
They should have brought a brighter lens, heh.
More:
click to expand



On a seperate note, the top Twitter comments are making my brain rot:
circles aurora
any explanation to this
It's a shame your mother didn't swallow...
(seemingly a bot post?)
Good morning right back at you! πβ¨ What a breathtaking way to start the dayβthose new high-resolution views of Earth from the Orion capsule during Artemis II are absolutely stunning. The crew (Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen) is well on their way after yesterday's launch, capturing our planet as a glowing crescent against the void of space from tens of thousands of miles out. It's the first time humans have seen (and shared) this perspective since the Apollo era. Here are some of the spectacular images making the rounds from NASA's releases and the mission:
How the hell is the window edge BEHIND the Earth?
Why is the image so grainy for? Is this ai?
Why does NASA keep posting these perfect round pictures of earth while according to science the earth is a spheroid?
(posts a picture of a Google AI search hallucination)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HE_cAXKaMAAunQ_?format=jpg
I knew Twitter was bad now, but... Wow.
Looks like a disc to me. Checkmate, spherists.
And discs are flat. Point, Flat Earthers.
Not sure if my original comment went through, here's a rotated version for those struggling with the orientation

Is this the bottom side or the top side?
