[Tumeni]

"Despite a serious cooling problem, the newest U.S. weather satellite has produced a sharp snapshot of Earth. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released the GOES-17 satellite's first image Thursday. It shows the Western Hemisphere in detail from 22,000 miles up, with cloud moving across the planet."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5795841/Ailing-350m-weather-satellite-sends-stunning-blue-marble-video.html

(and Yes, the continents are different sizes from other 'blue marbles' ... )

[Bobby Shafto]

Don't forget Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) has been sending "blue marble" images from L1.
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

[nickrulercreator]

https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

And Himawari 8 has been taking gorgeous photos every 10 min for a few years.

[Dr David Thork]

Wow. They made a right mess of that. The Atlantic between South America and Africa appears to be smaller than the Gulf of Mexico. They've also managed to find a way to make sure both the arctic and Antarctica aren't visible.  at the same time.

Light blue coral used to be a thing .... now its gone.


Atmospheres are no longer a thing in 2018

Aurora Borealis is having a day off


They managed to pick a day when there wasn't a single storm on the entire one half side of the planet


It was nice of the moon to move out of the way for this latest shot ... and the stars


The everglades is green again.
Must be warm in the Rockies ... no snow. Same with the Andes.
The presense of cloud over the Atacama desert is a little suspicious.
Storms are out, no little round storms at all now.
Clouds in general now have a new shape and texture from before. A new stipple tool perhaps?

The infrared sensors aren't cooling properly, meaning they won't work when the satellite is on the night side of the Earth and directly exposed to the sun's rays.

This is gibberish but I'll put that down to the journalist.

[Tumeni]

Wow. They made a right mess of that. The Atlantic between South America and Africa appears to be smaller than the Gulf of Mexico. They've also managed to find a way to make sure both the arctic and Antarctica aren't visible.  at the same time.

That's what happens when you photograph it from 22k miles out. I'll take a photo of my desktop globe from an equivalent scale distance for you....

They managed to pick a day when there wasn't a single storm on the entire one half side of the planet

Why would you expect to see a storm in a still photo?

It was nice of the moon to move out of the way for this latest shot ...

The satellite is 22k miles out, the Moon at 240k ... so the Moon is farther away.

[Dr David Thork]

Wow. They made a right mess of that. The Atlantic between South America and Africa appears to be smaller than the Gulf of Mexico. They've also managed to find a way to make sure both the arctic and Antarctica aren't visible.  at the same time.

That's what happens when you photograph it from 22k miles out. I'll take a photo of my desktop globe from an equivalent scale distance for you....

They managed to pick a day when there wasn't a single storm on the entire one half side of the planet

Why would you expect to see a storm in a still photo?

It was nice of the moon to move out of the way for this latest shot ...

The satellite is 22k miles out, the Moon at 240k ... so the Moon is farther away.

Yes, I get that but it could be in the background. It never is though. Never ever ever in any of NASAs images unless it is front and centre to show the thing they want to show. Accidental cosmology never occurs. Its almost as though someone composes every shot and makes sure they are perfect.

[Bobby Shafto]

It was nice of the moon to move out of the way for this latest shot ...

The satellite is 22k miles out, the Moon at 240k ... so the Moon is farther away.

Yes, I get that but it could be in the background. It never is though. Never ever ever in any of NASAs images unless it is front and centre to show the thing they want to show. Accidental cosmology never occurs. Its almost as though someone composes every shot and makes sure they are perfect.

That's interesting. I wonder what an image of the moon in the background of an earth shot would look like?

Let's each try to composite what we'd expect it to look like, either from a geostationary satellite or from that DISCOVR satellite parked at the L1 Lagrangian point (which captured that near moon transit pic.)

Start with this:

[AATW]

Voyager took this photo of the earth and moon

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/voyager-1-takes-the-first-image-of-the-earth-moon-system-in-a-single-frame/

[Tumeni]

Yes, I get that but it could be in the background. It never is though. Never ever ever in any of NASAs images unless it is front and centre to show the thing they want to show. Accidental cosmology never occurs. Its almost as though someone composes every shot and makes sure they are perfect.

You do realise that these craft are sent up there for the purposes of Earth Observation as a science, not to take photographs to fill your photo album of accidental cosmology, don't you?  That's why the cameras take pictures primarily in light spectra invisible to the human eye. That's PROBABLY why, even if the Moon were able to be shot in the background, nobody on the project team would be interested in it.

We went to the Moon already, to study it at close range. We can photograph it from Earth. There's no purpose to photographing it from the opposite side of Earth, a further 22k miles away.

[Dr David Thork]

Voyager took this photo of the earth and moon

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/voyager-1-takes-the-first-image-of-the-earth-moon-system-in-a-single-frame/

It says on that image on that NASA site ...

Voyager 1 snapped this picture from a distance of 7.25 million miles. It was the first to include both the Earth and the Moon in a single frame taken by a spacecraft.

So what about this image supposedly eight years earlier?

Awkward 

[Max_Almond]

Hardly. The above photo only has a bit of the moon.

Would you take a photo of your garden and say it was "a photo of the Earth"?

[Tumeni]

It says on that image on that NASA site ...

Voyager 1 snapped this picture from a distance of 7.25 million miles. It was the first to include both the Earth and the Moon in a single frame taken by a spacecraft.

So what about this image supposedly eight years earlier?
IMG
Awkward

Not awkward. Voyager was the first "taken BY a spacecraft".

The Apollo one was taken by an astronaut who was IN a spacecraft.

[Dr David Thork]

Hardly. The above photo only has a bit of the moon.

I'd wager you can only see a bit of the moon and a bit of the earth in the voyager image.

Would you take a photo of your garden and say it was "a photo of the Earth"?

I certainly wouldn't claim it was taken from a spacecraft.

READ the caption!

... to include
both earth .... check
and moon  .... check
in a single frame .... check
by a spacecraft ... check

The Apollo one was taken by an astronaut who was IN a spacecraft.

I think those are semantics we can live without.

How about this one? Lunar Orbiter 1 - 1966
https://explorer1.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/earth-from-space/#gallery-7
Are you going to tell me a scientific hamster took that one? Also look familiar? It is as if ... NASA were working towards some kind of space money shot. The same photo over and over, just better quality each time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Orbiter_1
(Unmanned)

[Dr David Thork]

In fact, lets have a closer look at the original Lunar Orbiter One image from 1958 ...


Weird how the moon is all segmented, yet the earth (the bit added in the photo below), is perfect.



Same shot, same suspicions.

It is very nice of the moon to make sure it is always in the same place at the time of every survey so the shot can always include both.

[Bobby Shafto]

Ahem.

It was nice of the moon to move out of the way for this latest shot ...

The satellite is 22k miles out, the Moon at 240k ... so the Moon is farther away.

Yes, I get that but it could be in the background. It never is though. Never ever ever in any of NASAs images unless it is front and centre to show the thing they want to show. Accidental cosmology never occurs. Its almost as though someone composes every shot and makes sure they are perfect.

That's interesting. I wonder what an image of the moon in the background of an earth shot would look like?

Let's each try to composite what we'd expect it to look like, either from a geostationary satellite or from that DISCOVR satellite parked at the L1 Lagrangian point (which captured that near moon transit pic.)

[Dr David Thork]

That's interesting. I wonder what an image of the moon in the background of an earth shot would look like?

Let's each try to composite what we'd expect it to look like, either from a geostationary satellite or from that DISCOVR satellite parked at the L1 Lagrangian point (which captured that near moon transit pic.)

something like this?




*I'm a flat earther. You asked for that. 

[Bobby Shafto]

something like this?




*I'm a flat earther. You asked for that. 

If that's what you expect to see, and anything else is fake, good one.

[Tumeni]

Same shot, same suspicions.


Misplaced suspicion. Look at the original, in the Apollo 11 Image Library, and there's no pixellation around the Earth at all. Some prankster has added this to mislead you, or their action of cropping the image has introduced the effect.



It is very nice of the moon to make sure it is always in the same place at the time of every survey so the shot can always include both.

You haven't shown it to be in the same place, merely (roughly) the same distance/angle above the horizon...

[Max_Almond]

Are people really still doing the old 'rectangle round the moon' trick?

How 2016.

Try seeing that on a high-res image - the rectangle is gone. It's just artifacts from jpeg compression. Totally googleable.

[Tumeni]

something like this?

[img] snipped

Can you do geometry with right-angled triangles? Solving for one angle, given two side lengths, one of which is the hypotenuse?