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?
