Artemis II - Journey to the Moon
>>5208887space dust?
>>5208902Nerve gas, actually.
Fake
>>5208909But enough about your Mom's tits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw45hr4V-co
Christina Koch is kinda cute ngl
>>5208883Rotated with north (approximately) up, and annotated with constellation lines per H.A. Rey's book "The Star: A New Way To See Them," stars identified and prioritized by proper names, then Bayer letters, then Flamsteed numbers.
>>5208876>Artemis II - Journey to the MoonTheir site:https://www.nasa.gov/video-detail/art002m1200912237-saj-jettisonorig-3/
>>5208917Lol
any non-digital HR? fuck these pixel artifacts bro
>>5209079>non-digitalYou mean analog, like from film?
>>5209369This looks as fake as the day is long.
Don't you have a mud hut to build, faggot?
THE MOON IS FAKE!!!!IT'S SOME KIND OF A BALLOON THE GOVERNMENT PUT UP THERE TO CONFUSE EVERYBODY!
>>5209001Can you do the same with >>5209369 please?
>>5209429I'm not painfully autistic, so no.
>>5209429I was actually thinking of doing that. Offhand, it looks like Saturn is just lower-right of the Moon and Mars farther out. It also means north looks like it's really 'up', so I won't need to rotate imagery.>>5209432He wasn't asking you.
Incredible that so many people think this is all fake and gay
>>5209079NASA abandoned film cameras decades ago. At least we still have the apollo film archives.
>>5209079>>5209599They better send some film cameras up for Artemis IV and the landing
>>5209605>NASA drafts Christopher Nolan into the astronaut corps>he films everything in IMAX 70mm
>>5209637>Christopher NolanThe new Stanley Kubrick? The memes are writing themselves.
>>5209429>>5209369As before:>>5209001 (You)Except I didn't (need to) rotate the image at all.
>>5209643Field chart
>>5209605bet your ass they'll shoot tiktoks with the new space-iphone
>>5209643god damn that's cool
>>5209683Thanks! I enjoyed finding where all this was.
>>5209643You didn't need to rotate the other image.
>>5209468To be fair, the earth is pretty gay.
None of you are bothered the launch date of Artemis II was April 1. April Fools Day???? They're thumbing their noses at us.
>>5209723At you.
>>5209723> None of you are bothered the launch date of Artemis II was April 1. April Fools Day????No, is that your strongest evidence?
>>5209690>You didn't need to rotate the other image.To more easily find my bearings I did. Lots of potential for mistakes when rotating in my head during labeling.
>>5209723>They're thumbing their noses at us.It's just you, doing to yourself.
>>5209750Okay... where's the full-res version?
I'm not big on NASA-content, but why is it mostly limited to 1080p?Trying to access ~orig for most images throws a 403.
>>5209754>>5209753https://images.nasa.gov/search?q=orion&page=1&media=image&yearStart=2026&yearEnd=2026
>>5209754>why is it mostly limited to 1080p?It's what Anons find and post. Disappointing.At least one camera is a Nikon D5, 5568 x 33712 pixels. I've heard they have a Z6 as well, but haven't seen any exif to prove that.
>>5209753it's too big to uppload in hereis more than 8 MB
>>5209758>it's too big to uppload in hereI'm noticing a lot these are .png. Can you save it as a jpg?Or do you have a URL for the image you got it from?
>>5209759https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-ii-multimedia/#imagesMost of them are 1920x1280pxI open the image in the browserThen copy it and paste it here in the quick reply window.There are bigger pics herehttps://images.nasa.gov/search?q=Artemis%20II&page=1&media=image,video,audio&yearStart=1920&yearEnd=2026Those are bigger than 8 mb,
>>5209753
>>5209786Tell it to NASA.
>>5209756Z9https://images.nasa.gov/details/art002e012588
>>5209783Beautiful.I can work with that. Thanks!>>5209786Idiot
>>5209791>Z9Duh - right. Lysdexia settling in. Thanks for fifm
>>5209810kek, this is like "how does the mirror see behind the paper?"
my favorite out of all the new photos
>>5210160>esa>no europeans astronautsWhat cucks
>>5210165>jpeg compression artifactsThere is some slight compression compromising., but that's not the whole point. You're not going to find better imagery anywhere else.But do tell.... crop out a section from >>5209783big enough to post here, and circle the egregious artifacting you see. Go on... prove your point.
>>5210223"Nobody make a smell."
This is why they give us obscure views of the earth, or stick with Australia or Antartica landmasses only. They don't want us doing the real math. Especially with the advent of AI.
>>5210437shut up nigger
>>5210437Except you're segrating North America and not africa. You must also add mexico, canada and alsaka....Africa is not as big as you portray it...And FYI, there is no China 2. You might as well be comparing England to the North American continent.
>>5210437You're comparing a continent to countries, try comparing Africa to the Asian continent North American Continent? Not so big now is it? We can do the same thing, lets compare Chad or Lybia to the North American Continent? Won't do that will ya?
>>5208923>ywn rail your qt3.14 astro-wife after she returns from a mission to the moon
>>5210437>I don't know how to compose a coherent sentence expressing my concern.What's any of this got to do with the Artemis mission?
>>5210543Why would you respond to an obvious shill?
>>5210545Why haven't you asked this of >5210438>5210509 or>5210511 ?
>>5210546I expected better from you.
>>5210549Your expectations are flawed.I'm autistic.
>>5210864Neat, buy why?
>>5210869Why not just make your own thread?
>>5210873Fine.
>>5210867>>5210873>>5210876What was the theme?
>>5211269Old moon maps.
I’m a little disappointed with the Artemis II photos. Not one Artemis photo is as detailed or as rich as a 2018 P1000 Nikon photo.
>>5211682I noticed the very same thing.
>>5211837>EaglesDropped.
>>5210233yo
>>5209379>This looks as fake as the day is long.>>5209369Everything in that photo matches up with known physics. The moon is eclipsing the sun from Artemis' point of view. The glow behind the moon is from the sun's outer corona. The dimly lit crescent on the left side of the moon is from sunlight reflecting off of the earth. Everything in this scene is still dark enough for the camera to pick up the stars in the background. Is the image fake? I can't say with 100% certainty since I wasn't on Artemis II when this was supposedly taken. But it looks right, given the conditions. So you saying it looks fake doesn't mean much.
>>5211682>disappointed with the Artemis II photosA testament to the adage that "it's the photographer, not the equipment.">>5211271>Old moon maps.>>5210876Would like to see a thread like that.
Transparent and Translucent moon. On a clear night, during a waxing or waning cycle, it is even possible to occasionally see stars and planets directly through the surface of the Moon! On March 7th, 1794, four astronomers (3 in Norwich, 1 in London) wrote in “The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Astronomical Society” that they “saw a star in the dark part of the moon, which had not then attained the first quadrature; and from the representations which are given the star must have appeared very far advanced upon the disc.” Sir James South of the Royal Observatory in Kensington wrote in a letter to the Times newspaper April 7, 1848, that, "On the 15th of March, 1848, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined disc so beautifully. On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon's dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable … The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon's edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon's dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon … I have seen a similar apparent projection several times … The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery."
>>5211905In the monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society for June 8, 1860, Thomas Gaunt stated that the "Occultation of Jupiter by the moon, on the 24th of May, 1860, was seen with an achromatic of 3.3 inches aperture, 50 inches focus; the immersion with a power of 50, and the emersion with a power of 70. At the immersion I could not see the dark limb of the moon until the planet appeared to touch it, and then only to the extent of the diameter of the planet; but what I was most struck with was the appearance on the moon as it passed over the planet. It appeared as though the planet was a dark object, and glided on to the moon instead of behind it; and the appearance continued until the planet was hid, when I suddenly lost the dark limb of the moon altogether.” I have personally also seen stars through the edge of the waxing/waning Moon. It actually happens fairly often; if you are diligent and specifically observing for the phenomenon on starry nights you can occasionally see it even with the naked eye.
>>5211906A star occulting a crescent Moon has long been a popular symbol of Islam, was the symbol of the Ottoman Empire, it is found on the flags of Algeria, Azerbaijan, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Pakistan, Singapore, Tunisia, Turkey, and in the Coat of Arms of countries from Croatia, to Germany, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Its origins can be traced back thousands of years to ancient Hindu culture where it is found in the symbol for the word “Om,” the primary name for the almighty, representing the union of god Shiva and goddess Shakti. Why the symbol has carried such widespread historical significance is open to interpretation, but regardless of interpretation, the image of star(s) occulting the Moon has long been a prevalent and meaningful picture.
>>5211905>>5211906>>5211908Are you okay? Is one side of your body somewhat paralyzed? Have you got any friends who can look in on you?
>>5211902>Would like to see a thread like that.But instead he just rage quit and fucked off like a faggot. Shame...
>>5209472what a gorgeous little planet
>>5211843whoa, landing in 2028? that's neat.
why do the 70's photos look better? Did they use toy cameras in 2026?
>>5209472>>5212310Obscure land masses as per:>>5210437
>>5212315>landing in 2028In a studio in Burbank California where the ISS is stationed.
>>5212088Individually converting highly detailed images to fit 4chan’s file size requirements, without looking terrible, is tedious. I am not converting enough images to populate an entire thread.>>5211902>Would like to see a thread like that.you can find the maps herehttps://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/
>>5212473Very nice - thanks!But... not 'antique.'
>>5212556>not 'antique.'No one said it was.
>>5212401James Cameron eat your heart out!
>>5212557>>5211271>Old moon maps.Ah. Pity.
>>5212909>>5212907man all this time I never knew the moon was a polished sphere the size of a basketball
>>5212907>>5212909>>5212910dumbass
>>5212922>>5212925I'm never sure if moon hoaxers and flat earthers are trolling or genuinely, arrogantly unaware of how stupid they are.
>>5210437Why is there a mentally ill comparing continent size and countries? Does nigeria have electricity now?
>>5212991The real question is why are you so mentally ill that you cannot construct a simple sentence that actually makes sense?
>>5209379The question I always have for deniers is what do you THINK it should look like? The reason these photos look so surreal is because they are taken in environments that are completely alien to our every day experience.
>>5217881shut up NASA shill
>>5217883Retard.
>>5217929glow more glownigger
How exactly does rocket propulsion work in space where there is no atmosphere and therefore nothing to propel against???
>>5218440>nothing to propel againstThe rocket is in space, therefore there is not nothing.
>>5218440The secret isn't pushing against airit’s throwing mass. Isaac Newton’s Third Law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
>>5218458you telling me Newton was able to study these laws in the element i.e. outside earth's atmosphere?
>>5218461Yes, actually.
>>5218461No, mental retarded anon.What I explained is how a rocket works: when the fuel expands and is forced out of only one side of the craft, it generates thrust.That phenomenon is just one of countless examples where Newton’s laws remain consistent with the physical world we observe.Obviously, Newton couldn't leave the atmosphere back then the technology didn't exist but he could perform plenty of experiments that proved the exact same principle.
>>5218468>it generates thrust.Thrust against what exactly?Theres nothing to "thrust" against.
>>5220295The rocket.
>>5220295I'll repeat mongoloid> when the fuel expands and is forced out of only one side of the craft, it generates thrust.Thrust against what exactly?> The craft
>>5210437>>5209810>>5212909>>5212910>>5212907This probably hits hard if you're really fucking stupid
>>5220295Listen tard, there is this thing that Sir Isaac Newton said, Equal and opposite reaction....learn what it means!
https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/ShowQueryResults-Lightcycle.pl?results=177798551313402
>>5220928What I love about that shot is it shows how much darker the Moon is than the Earth. Imagine how bright our nights could be if the Moon reflected as much light as the Earth('s cloud cover) does.
>>5220296What does the rocket "thrust" against?>>5220324>when the fuel expands and is forced out of only one side of the craft, it generates thrust.Thrust against what? Theres nothing out there to thrust against.>The craftThe rocket is within the craft, it needs to thrust against an atmosphere on the outside to push it, what is it thrusting against when there is nothing to thrust against outside the craft?
>>5221891>What does the rocket "thrust" against?It doesn't. It thrust material out. That combined with the sudden, explosive expansion of the ignited fuel pressing against the flared nozzles provides pressure to move forward. The design of the nozzles is not random 'cause it looks cool. It is curved to capture as much of the expansion as possible given the directions of expansions along the length of the nozzle.This is all of course available as info on the Internet. You're just being a smart-ass. Make sure you're smart, first.
>>5221891>The rocket is within the craft, it needs to thrust against an atmosphere on the outside to push it, what is it thrusting against when there is nothing to thrust against outside the craft?Let me break it down for your retarded brain> Big iron cylinder ignite fuel.> Fire want go everywhere.> Back of rocket has hole.> Gas molecules scream out of hole one way.> Force push rocket other way.> Rocket no push air. > Rocket throw gas.> Throw gas fast = Rocket move fast.
>>5221891Picture a cone that is open at one end. An explosion happens inside the cone. Which way does it move?
>>5221891Can you throw a brick while you are airborne? Of course you can. In space the craft throws gasses.
>>5221904>provides pressure to move forwardPressure against what? >>5221928>Throw gas fast = Rocket move fast.Throw gas against what?>>5221955>Which way does it move?Wrong question, What does the explosion explode against to make it propel in one direction?>>5221961>In space the craft throws gasses.Against what?
cool thread thank you to all anons
>>5222266Space itself. That’s what inertia is.
>>5222266It is genuinely impressive how you can acknowledge the existence of gas and a craft, yet fail to grasp that they are pushing each other. You are looking for a third object like a confused toddler looking for a floor to stand on.
5222266Dubs checked.Literal troll post.Sure wish there were IDs for filtering on this board.
>>5222306>Space itself.Theres nothing in space to push against, no atmosphere, nothing, Its why asteroids and space rocks continually and freely travel through space as there is nothing to slow them down or stop them.>>5222355>you can acknowledge the existence of gas and a craftYes, theres a craft and gas, theres nothing for it to push against though, you are the one who can't acknowledge that you are brainwashed as rocket propulsion in space is fake and can't and never will work and never has and that this woke and fake artemis journey didn't go anywhere past the green screen it was faked on.nasa are liars and their programs are psyops to keep the dumb herd believing in ghost stories and put out blatant lies about losing the data it took to get to and land on the moon and is why their "astronauts" go mad and punch journalists on the street who question them if they really landed on the moon.
Ten bucks says he wrote that on an iPhone which bounced a signal off a "fake" satellite to post it here.
>>5222686>Theres nothing in space to push against, no atmosphere, nothing,It is pushing against the space itself and not any matter floating around in the space. That’s what inertia is. You apply acceleration to an object with mass and you achieve a force. That force in rocketry is called thrust.
>>5222686>Yes, theres a craft and gas, theres nothing for it to push against thoughWhy the hell do you think the gas has to push against anything other than the rocket itself?Explain to me why there needs to be anything else out there.Explain how you think physics actually works.
>>5222690>>5222692>>5222706:) Kek!! You guys are so baited...
>>5222824I'm larping
>>5222355how is it possible that they are pushing on each other when we are always moving at a billion miles an hour?
>>5222972Relativity you failed abortion
>>5222972They are not moving at a billion miles per hour relative to each other.
... but what does it all meeeeannn, Basil?
>>5222992>>5222993Seriously, guys? You think that idiotic post was worthy of response?Do you try and bite tires of passing cars, too?
>>5223121>You think that idiotic post was worthy of response?Are you serious?! I can’t just let a fake-flat-earther contaminate my /hr/ thread with his room-temperature IQ. Do you not realize how necessary it is to humiliate this fake level of ignorance? It’s the principle of the thing. I don't care if he's baiting. I’m here to gatekeep reality from anyone with a double-digit IQ, real or LARPed.
>>5220930>stars>>5220927>>5220925>>5220922>>5220921No stars
>>5220930Also, why can you see stars on the dark parts of the moons?
>>5223251>What are camera settings>>5223252Those aren't stars, it's dust and shit that is catching the light.
>>5223258>settingsLol lmao even
>>5223258>it's dust and shit that is catching the light.Perhaps. Mostly though, they're stuck pixels. Sensors are not perfect. One way to tell is to zoom in to an area where there are stars. You can see stars are a bit fuzzy or form streaks, not points. Look around and you'll soon see some point of light that really just one pixel, sometime surrounded by very dark pixels. Those bright ones are the stuck pixels. Now that you've learned what to look for, zoom in on the ones over the Moon - they're the pinpoints of stuck pixels. Something else about those: the same stuck pixels appear in many of the images. One technique in astrophotography is to take a long exposure with the lens cap on. Only stuck pixels will show up, and you can use software to sub track that "dark frame" from an astrophoto to get a cleaned image. Of course there's a small chance a stuck pixel lands on a star, but that coincidence is pretty small. The longer an exposure, the brighter the stuck pixels and more of them.There's also 'noise', which is similar to stuck pixels, but caused by trying to get more light out of the image using the electronics. It's more like grain on a film photo. The higher the ISO used, the grainier the texture. I've heard the high-end Nikons are less prone to noise, but I'm not sure of the details why, so i can't explain.>>5223271I don't get the joke. What's funny about that? Or are just being snarky from ignorance?
>>5223251>No starsDo you want an explanation, or are you just being stupid?
Space is scary...
>>5223323I know what settings do and there isn't many ways to remove stars, especially when looking toward the sun with the moon visible as opposed to looking away from the sun with the bright side of the moon the focus. Stars should be visible in both.
>>5223323The stars visible through the moon what you say is dust aren't in other images. Those pixels fixed themselves?
>>5223324Gopher itGo ferret
>>5223343>dont go in the woods, faeries and daemons lurk there.twas only a bear, here is its head.>dont go in the water, monsters and mysteries dwell within.we have no need for deep water enterprises at this time and we already control the land.>dont go to space, aliens and the unknown occupy that realm.thanks to a bald entrepreneur we will rule the stars.>NO STOP THE JESTER GUILD SAYS THAT ALIENS ARE ACTUALLY ANGELS RRREEEEEEEthen it is time to make good on the promises of those ancient stories of yours.
>>5223597The one that shows stars shows the unlit side of the Moon (it's eclipsing the Sun), and includes a crescent of Moon at the left lit by the the Earth. So exposure times are long enough to get stars, too.The others (without stars) are exposed to show detail on the sunlit part of the Moon and also the Earth. So exposure settings don't pick up the stars.https://www.astronomy.com/science/pictures-of-earth-taken-from-moon-show-black-sky-with-no-stars
>>5223595Stuck pixels vary with sensor temperature and exposure settings. But when they do show up, they show up in the same spots.Also, you might be comparing between images taken with different cameras. They brought a couple - a D5 (5568x3712 pixels) and a Z9 (8256x5504 pixels).
>>5223595>>5223710P.S. Pixels: if you see images with sizes other than those two, sets, then you're looking at an edited image. No telling where the cropping/resizing ended up putting the stuck pixels. In the pic I edited: >>5209643 I edited out the stuck pixels one by one. Someone else resized the image I started with >>5209369 to 4kx3k.
>>5223713>Someone else resized the image I started withThat would be the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
>>5223714>That would beHow do you know - did you find that image somewhere and post it yourself?
>>5223715Yes. From the NASA media site.
>>5223717>>5223715https://images.nasa.gov/details/art002e009571
>>5223717>>5223718Oh!! Istand corrected: they had THREE (at least) cameras on board. The 4x3k one you posted was taken with a GoPro! Exif details attached.(Sorry for the extra white space - to meet size requirement for /hr/)
>>5223719>only 4000x3000why the fuck are we funding this bullshit?
>>5223731Retard
>>5223733it's your money dude
>>5223734That's why I'm not put out that they bought a go-pro with it.
>>5223731You're trying too hard at being edgy. That was midwit-level bait.
>>5223731Man, please stop annoying everyone, this place isn't for trolling, go to /b/.And please to the rest of you, if this guy keeps bothering, don't reply, just report him for trolling outside of /b/ and leave it at that.It's annoying that you come to mess around in /hr/ where barely anyone visits non-celeb threads just to troll.
>>5209369that's the money shot right there
>>5223858>just make false reports because muh fee feesmaybe dont make threads about subjects that are fake and gay to begin with?
>>5225273Sounds like the Orange Idiot was fucking with reality last year.https://www.newsweek.com/nasa-moon-records-go-missing-space-2031102
>>5218440propulsion doesn't work by propelling "against something", at least not the way you mean it.Propulsion is exactly the same as recoil of a gun. The recoil has the same force no matter whether you are in earth's athmosphere, or underwater or in a vacuum. Recoil also doesn't change depending on whether you fire into the air or directly into a wall.
