/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12743599
Scientific cameras don't just take the total sum of light when they take an image. Instead they record each color separately so that materials in an image can be determined. This is done without any regard for how it looks so adjustment for human eyes is needed. Pic related, the scientific camera that took this image actually took three images. One in blue, red, and green each. However, the moon moved as those images were taken so there is a slight misalignment when all the data is used to make a human-friendly image

>photobombs your climate monitoring satellite
>"pssssh nothing personnel, kid"

Is it possible to extract water from Earth in space? That way propellant depots in LEO wouldn't have to rely on launches from Earth to replenish their stocks. Perhaps scooping water from the upper atmosphere after using lasers to put more evaporated water in the air?

>>11464355
>Of all the videos shot on the moon, why did they never pan up to look at the Earth or the Sun?
Well, they never aimed the camera at the Sun because it would burn out the camera. It happened on Apollo 12. I'm sure a there's a video shot of the Earth from the lunar surface somewhere, but you'll probably not find it in the popular videos of the missions because there's more important things to look at (like the mission itself).

>And speaking of this, why is it so hard to find non-composite images of the entire Earth hemisphere?
Most satellites today that regularly photograph the Earth are either meant to photograph a small section of the Earth or to look at the Earth at a non-visible wavelength of light of interest. There's really no regular need to have those kinds of shots that you describe. However, they can be easily found if you know where to look for.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/from-a-million-miles-away-nasa-camera-shows-moon-crossing-face-of-earth
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
Also look up SpaceX Starman

>I'm not trying to be a conspiracy theorist, but I'm honestly just questioning why there are so few images of the Earth in all it's glory when we have been doing space missions for over half a century.
Like stated above. There's really no need for regular photos of the whole Earth nowadays. Most of the interest are either close up photos for mapping or monitoring, or specialized views for some scientific curiosity.

>If these photos do exist, why are they so hard to find?
Probably because they're not labeled as "Whole View Non-Composite Image of Earth" or something like that. They would have other labels that the original image takers felt was more important.

>>11313737
And this.

>>11300442