You must log in or register to comment.

BedrockFarmer t1_ixqwlmc wrote

Very cool pics. The surface is way more bumpy than I had thought from prior photos. I also can’t wait for the unhinged to do their Rorschach test claims of aliens because of the light/shadow play on some of the features.

I hope I live to see the day we actually build a permanent (probably sub-surface) base there.


Chainsaw_Viking t1_ixqzciv wrote

Same here. In just those few photos I already saw several interesting shapes, including something that looked like a vending machine, so I’m looking forward to seeing these images on clickbate ads with sloppy red circles around ‘proof’ of aliens for years to come.


BedrockFarmer t1_ixr0bkf wrote

Clearly caught an alien sunbathing on a chaise lounge!


CuriosityK t1_ixrcv69 wrote

Does he have a pack of warm beer that we can consume? On the chaise lounge all day long?


Lunaranalog t1_ixsksyu wrote

Ever see “First Man”?

“Those boulders are as big as cars. We can’t land there”

Anyway really awesome cinematography


drunkenly_scottish t1_ixqau1c wrote

Why does the disclaimer on the webpage ask for permission to track my location?


TickletheEther t1_ixqp6lw wrote

So sad if you want valuable information and want to learn you gotta be subject to pay walls, tracked, cookies slapped, and a million ads. Wikipedia is under appreciated.


ClitusLickus t1_ixrp7wc wrote

I wouldn't say wikipedia is underappreciated. A ton of people use it daily for information and was even when absolutely anyone could change pages.

5-10 years from now... Maybe? A lot of young millennials and gen z are using TikTok for information oddly.


TickletheEther t1_ixs0gqy wrote

All I’m sayin is sometimes I just want to learn and not dig though a cacophony of ad videos there is not much online that isn’t profit seeking. Guess I just gotta pick up a damn book instead 🙃


oscarddt t1_ixr31yi wrote

Because if you are in latinoamerica, they´ll send you to the gizmodo in spanish web page, which sucks.


jlotty34 t1_ixr1335 wrote

Is there a repo somewhere with all these pictures not buried in a pay walled, click-baity, vacuous article?


ryoon21 t1_ixr21ro wrote

Why does the moon have so many craters but not the earth? Is it because the moon has no atmosphere to incinerate meteorites?


Ralphie99 t1_ixrbjiy wrote

Most of the craters were made millions of years ago. The moon does not have the atmosphere that Earth has, so more objects will hit the surface of the moon than will hit the surface of the Earth. Earth’s atmosphere burns up most objects that enters it.

Also, the moon does not have the same systems as Earth has that erode surface features over time. On Earth, a crater might get filled with water, and sediment and vegetation might fill it over time. None of these things happen on the moon.


_kst_ t1_ixrvmiq wrote

i don't think Earth's atmosphere significantly reduces the number of craters that are formed on Earth. Anything big enough to form a crater that's visible from space is going to get through the atmosphere reasonably intact.

Earth has fewer visible craters than the Moon because it erases them.


enderjaca t1_ixs3aqh wrote

Mmm I dunno about that. There are plenty of moon craters you can see in these photos that would not form on earth because those small meteoroids would burn up in Earth's atmosphere. And the moon's surface is relatively light and dusty.


Ralphie99 t1_ixs48d4 wrote

Even the craters that are from objects that are big enough to also impact Earth would be smaller on Earth as some of the material from the object would burn up in Earth’s atmosphere, even if a portion of it reached the ground.


_kst_ t1_ixs4j9a wrote

A quick Google search found this article which says:

> Typically, though, a meteoroid would have to be about the size of a marble for a portion of it to reach the Earth's surface. Smaller particles burn up in the atmosphere about 50 to 75 miles (80 to 120 kilometers) above the Earth.

A crater is typically about 10 times the diameter of the meteorite that created it.

Any crater that's big enough to be visible from space would have formed either on the Moon or Earth.

Unless (and I neglected to allow for this) it hits in the ocean.

According to this article, the smallest meteorite crater on Earth is about 7cm in diameter and 3cm deep. That wouldn't be visible from space.


enderjaca t1_ixs7hym wrote

Good to know, thanks for the resourced info!


Ralphie99 t1_ixs401w wrote

I mentioned craters getting “erased” as one reason we don’t have nearly as many visible craters on Earth. However, I stand by my contention that the smaller craters on the moon are from objects that would have burned up in Earth’s atmosphere. These objects smash unimpeded into the moon.


_kst_ t1_ixs4tng wrote

The smaller craters yes -- but only the ones that are so small that they can't be from orbit. See my other comment.


KryptCeeper t1_ixsvyqm wrote

>Researchers estimate that roughly 225 new impact craters appear every seven years or so.

What an odd metric. Couldn't they have just said roughly 32 a year?


kenthart31 t1_ixtd9vz wrote

Not wanting to go into a conspiracy rant or anything. But honest question. Wouldn't you think the big key pics we would wish to see would be say... the flag planted by Armstrong? Or maybe some of the crap left behind? You know proof that the first moon landing was real? Imagine how huge those photos could have been.... And to clarify I know so very little about all the details of this mission, or even the moon landing. Thus being a genuine question of mine...


KirkUnit t1_ixw64gr wrote

I'm curious as well. They aren't shy about pointing out prior landing sites on Mars. Photos of the Apollo landing sites seems like an easy public engagement win.


kenthart31 t1_ixxnjma wrote

Exactly, the attention and public support would be huge for NASA.


KirkUnit t1_ixztqgp wrote

One thought - that flag has likely been bleached white by the sun long ago. Close-up, photos from the scene, if we ever get them, the artifacts may well look like crap.


kenthart31 t1_iy0jgds wrote

That is intresting, but I feel like it would not cheapen the experience of not only confirming the moon landing, but the symbolism that flag could bring regardless of it being sun damaged. Infact it would prove even further that this happened a long time ago and not recently.


KirkUnit t1_iy5smkf wrote

Agreed. One thought, just in terms of practical considerations, I'm not sure that the Apollo landing sites would have been particularly visible on this mission, this orbit. I believe the closest approach to the Moon is nearer to the south pole, the Apollo sites more equatorial, and a far-ranging orbit besides - it might just not be worthwhile on Artemis I.


happychapsteve t1_ixsg684 wrote

Cool…finally, back to the moon. Let’s see if Elon and his BFR Spaceship can send enough cargo and Tesla Bots to build something more permanent there. 😆


Storm_nor5280 t1_ixrtw23 wrote

WTF...Why do these photos look so bad? I can take a better photo from here with my Iphone.


Gilgamesh72 t1_ixs8e7a wrote

It’s from a ship moving at 25k mph with a camera that wasn’t designed for high quality planetary survey, I’d bet it was a while were here thing


NotAHamsterAtAll t1_ixskupb wrote

I guess they bought the camera when they started the project. So it is 25 years old now.


PhoenixReborn t1_ixspaj1 wrote

This camera isn't meant to look good to us. It's meant for optimal computer recognition of features for navigation.


acksed t1_ixvcsws wrote

According to Scott Manley they are plain old GoPro 4s.


xoverthirtyx t1_ixsz78e wrote

No kidding, it had no problem sending crispy shots of Orion with a nice Earth rise, but behind a blurry dull moon.


HardenPatch t1_ixtvqo3 wrote

Because the moon itself is dull, increasing the contrast would mean overexposing Orion. The camera is pretty good but it had to send live-ish footage travelling at a huge speed so they couldn't send all the data and the result was highly compressed.


xoverthirtyx t1_ixsz7qt wrote

No kidding, it had no problem sending crispy shots of Orion with a nice Earth rise, but behind a blurry dull moon.