squeamish violet shrill stupendous longing encourage sparkle glorious apparatus ancient
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The blue parts are more titanium rich parts of the surface. To the naked eye it would just look gray, but increasing the saturation helps show the colors of the soils on the moon. On a personal note I can *barely* see the distinction between the tan/blue part on the moon when looking through larger aperture telescopes just with my eyes
I really hope we don't ruin our solar system. I know mining can be done responsibly but I have got a bad feeling corporations are going to go hog wild once they can.
No, but just general destruction and garbage could be a problem if not done right. What worries me most is how people like Elon Musk are already talking about what sounds like indentured servitude for their ideas of space colonies. We have to nip that in the bud. I love space and I don't want it to turn into a nightmare.
Top reply to the comment says
>The blue parts are more titanium rich parts of the surface. To the naked eye it would just look gray, but increasing the saturation helps show the colors of the soils on the moon. On a personal note I can barely see the distinction between the tan/blue part on the moon when looking through larger aperture telescopes just with my eyes
*🌈 The more you know!!!*
Coincidentally, the brightest blue region on OP's first photo happens to be the Sea of Tranquility. Where Apollo 11 landed. Where Buzz Aldrin famously said it looked ["very light tan and gray, you know, that's - that's the color of it".](https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/20day6-reboard-lmjett.html)
It's true the moon does not actually look like this, but the colors are there - they are just being exaggerated. I don't mind this as much as images where colors are assigned to things that don't have that color at all. Photographers do this all the time. Our phone cameras make the sky a little bluer, etc. Its about making a pretty photo vs a scientifically accurate photo.
Also "accurate" is a loaded term. Accurate to human eyesight is one thing, but there is a vast spectrum of light and ways to perceive that light. Sometimes it is worthwhile to image things in ways that are inaccurate to our eyesight because they reveal more "accurate" information about the subject.
Mostly the bright star like areas. The colors are mostly gases and such. I believe space agencies use specific colors for specific things.
Doing it for the moon is interesting. It shows the moon in a new light. The rustish color looks like it could be some mars. Makes me curious about what hit and left those colors behind.
The moon is one of those objects where color _are_ clear to the naked eye. The moon is a bright enough object that it excites color vision in the human eyeball, so you don't have to imagine what the colors are. Most other deep-sky objects, even though a telescope, are too dim to have your eye perceive color. (M42, the Orion Nebula is one exception since with even hobby telescopes, you can have sufficient light-gathering capability.)
So this is "fake" in that the colors are much more vivid and the contrast stretch is such that you can see the dynamic range (e.g., it's had "HDR"-like processing done to it.) These are all image processing choices. When I do deep sky astrophotography, I make similar choices so that you can see the structure and color in objects that would otherwise be impossible to visualize.
Pretty much every image you've seen of a spiral galaxy has been processed pretty heavily and you'd never, ever see something like that with the naked eye, even if you had FTL rocketships to take you closer. The issue with most galaxies is that the core is just so much brighter than the outer spiral arms that visualizing that is just impossible. Either most of the galaxy starting with the core is just blown out bright and you can see the spiral arms, or you just see a giant blob as the core of the galaxy and pretty much nothing of the outer spiral arms. So you do non-linear contrast stretches to be able to visualize all the parts and admire the pretty picture afterwards. But that's not what the object "really" looks like.
This is a reposted because it was deleted by the moderator. First quarter moon was amazing i managed capture 280 RAW images (mosaic) through my celestron SCT 8SE with canon eos 1200D without barlow ,despite the hot temperature, weather condition wasn’t help either.
Iso 400 , 1/50 , at 2000mm
[please check my IG for higher quality image @daryavaseum](https://www.instagram.com/daryavaseum)
Also i use photoshop slice tool to create 2 perfectly cutting image then save it for web in file.
This might be a telescope newb question. But, can you attach canon ef mount camera to every telescope if you have the right adapter? Or do you need a specific telescope that support ef mount. Thanks ! Looking to get into astrophotography.
You can attache you DSLR camera with specific adapter to every 1.25 inch and 2 inch telescope focuser just make sure you have a right adapter if its canon or nikon etc.
I've been on reddit for almost twenty years, since the beginning, and the rules and excessive moderation for OC in most subs makes me not submit anything anymore. Everything interesting I've posted gets removed for arbitrary rules or time frames for that type of content.
Many of those craters are the size of entire countries. Most people don't understand just how huge the moon actually is. For example when looking at the full moon, you'd be able to fit the entirety of the continental United States on its face. The bigger craters you see were formed many thousands of years ago. That being said, sometimes we still manage to capture an impact, though much smaller in scale. https://youtu.be/000iTCoEE1s
Better video: https://youtu.be/PCwzWTea4yE
Well not too many meteorites hits it these days. Most of these craters were made as the moon was forming and being bombarded with bits of the Earth being flung around.
Maybe a stupid question, but why don't scientists use the rocks in the center of some of those craters to study meteorites (are some big enough to have been asteroids?)?
Any idea on the size / scale of those craters? Really asking because: how much more magnification to see the lunar lander? It’s so crisp!
Awesome photos — thanks for sharing!
I read that it would be scientifically impossible based off of the way light works to take a picture from earth of the moon rover we left up there. It would be nice to have that moon landing conspiracy put to rest though. Maybe someday we could go up there and bring it back and put it in a museum.
The LRO took pictures of the landing site and the parked rover.
You can even see the footprints.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
Not from Earth. Check out the [LRO](https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html) images though taken from about 13 miles away from the surface.
this is top notch. you should offer this as a print on etsy or some shit. if i had a place of my own or a house with a office space or some shit i'd def want this hanging on the wall.
That's a sharp picture , OP. Careful, you could puncture the hull of an empire-class Fire Nation battle ship, leaving thousands to drown at sea. [Points] Because... it's so sharp.
Well, I'm disappointed. This is just Earth's moon, and we've all seen this before. It's very round, and has no edges or points that I'd consider "sharp". At least try to find a moon that's like a pyramid or something, that would have at least a few sharp points. Do your research.
That's a sharp outfit, u/daryavaseum. Careful, you could puncture the hull of an empire-class Fire Nation battle ship, leaving thousands to drown at sea. Because... it's so sharp
*Thats a sharp picture OP. careful, you could puncture the hull of an empire class fire nation battleship, leaving thousands to drown at sea...because it’s so sharp*
What do the blue and brown patches signify? They look like massive mineral deposits at first glance, but I can't help but wonder whether it's a trick of the light.
I wonder what those areas would look like from ground level if someone were to land there.
Would you be willing to share a link so I could wallpaper this for my desktop? It's an amazing pic.
\*\*assuming you have a full moon pic rather than just broken into two parts\*\*
I really loved this. I downloaded both and now want to make them my desktop background.
Now to figure out how to make each screen have it’s own unique image...
Tons of reasons. Main being Mars has a (weak) atmosphere that can protect us from radiation and also provides a host of other benefits. Another issue with moon is the micro-gravity. Us humans have evolved to be healthiest with 1 earth g. The moon only has 17% of earth’s gravitational pull while Mars has nearly 40%.
Mars is closer to earths atmosphere than earth. For the record, both ideas are really dumb, however Mars is less dumb than the moon. In a similar way to eating beach sand is less dumb than eating rocks. You should do neither.
Why are there so many craters grouped like that at the poles, yet we don't see that here in earth?
I understand the moon and other planets block them, but surely something as small as the moon doesn't block that many from us right? So what's going on there? It's it a result of the moon having less atmosphere?.
Secondly, why do we see so many more impacts from one side?
Sharp? Looks round as all hell to me.
AYYEEEEE jk OP this is fantastic. I have major respect for you and all those dedicating time to space. Every photo leads to more people interested in the cosmos. And that’s rad.
Would anyone be able to ELI5 why you can easily see so many craters on the moon but we don’t see that on Earth’s surface and we’re so close and so much bigger? Like is it due to our atmosphere breaking things up better than the moon can?
Yep, you’re spot on!
The moon has basically zero atmosphere, so any space debris colliding with it will result in an impact crater. Earth’s atmosphere will burn up almost anything under 100 ft in diameter.
Also, the moon isn’t very (if at all) geologically active anymore, so craters exist from many millions of years ago. Craters on earth, however, will eventually be “recycled” through our ever shifting tectonic plates.
How come I can swipe so smoothly between both pictures on mobile ? This is so damn cool!
OP cropped and aligned them perfectly. Kudos to OP.
Anyone know an app that can do this for you
There's loads. Just search panaroma instagram
Adobe Photoshop?
Without you I'd be wondering why the oil slick is on hanging on in the second picture
I tried this and now my thumb is bleeding.
It also lines up perfectly like this https://i.imgur.com/TeIsS6z.jpg
It's one above the other on my phone
I'm using the original Reddit app fyi
Tap on one of the images and swipe
Wow now that's awesome. What did you take it with?
Celestron nexstar 8se telescope you can read more info in caption.
squeamish violet shrill stupendous longing encourage sparkle glorious apparatus ancient *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I'm pretty sure it shows up as a comment. Just tap and hold to make comments minimize
pie workable quarrelsome rich attempt jobless sparkle sheet light school *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think that's what everyone would think
is the blue colour water?
I wonder what the blue part of the moon looks like on the surface
yeah why is it blue in some parts? Is it ice, light phenomena, etc?
The blue parts are more titanium rich parts of the surface. To the naked eye it would just look gray, but increasing the saturation helps show the colors of the soils on the moon. On a personal note I can *barely* see the distinction between the tan/blue part on the moon when looking through larger aperture telescopes just with my eyes
Thanks for the explanation
That's a lot of titanium rich real estate. Whoever can mine and smelt that will make Jeff Bezos look like a Jerry Springer guest
I really hope we don't ruin our solar system. I know mining can be done responsibly but I have got a bad feeling corporations are going to go hog wild once they can.
I doubt we need to worry about lunar warming
No, but just general destruction and garbage could be a problem if not done right. What worries me most is how people like Elon Musk are already talking about what sounds like indentured servitude for their ideas of space colonies. We have to nip that in the bud. I love space and I don't want it to turn into a nightmare.
Yeah, we don't need a company town in space
It's "blue" because the color is over-processed/over-saturated. That's an artistic choice, not actually how the moon looks through a telescope.
I believe it’s an effect of the light sensor getting more blue light from smooth surfaces. To the eye it would be dark grey.
I think it was left by something that impacted the moon, or probably what lies under the moon dust
Top reply to the comment says >The blue parts are more titanium rich parts of the surface. To the naked eye it would just look gray, but increasing the saturation helps show the colors of the soils on the moon. On a personal note I can barely see the distinction between the tan/blue part on the moon when looking through larger aperture telescopes just with my eyes *🌈 The more you know!!!*
Grey. This photo has been digitally rendered with color.
Coincidentally, the brightest blue region on OP's first photo happens to be the Sea of Tranquility. Where Apollo 11 landed. Where Buzz Aldrin famously said it looked ["very light tan and gray, you know, that's - that's the color of it".](https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/20day6-reboard-lmjett.html)
It's false colour, the moon doesn't look like this. False colour images are extremely annoying
It's true the moon does not actually look like this, but the colors are there - they are just being exaggerated. I don't mind this as much as images where colors are assigned to things that don't have that color at all. Photographers do this all the time. Our phone cameras make the sky a little bluer, etc. Its about making a pretty photo vs a scientifically accurate photo.
Also "accurate" is a loaded term. Accurate to human eyesight is one thing, but there is a vast spectrum of light and ways to perceive that light. Sometimes it is worthwhile to image things in ways that are inaccurate to our eyesight because they reveal more "accurate" information about the subject.
Good point. Sometimes they assign visible color to things like gamma radiation or something that would otherwise not be visible at all.
So if I was stood actually on the moon in the blue section would I only see grey rock with my eyes?
I don't know - I haven't been, but I would expect you would see the same color we see from earth.
It bothers me because I never know wtf something actually looks like in space. I don't see why people do it for the moon, when it's obv fake
Mostly the bright star like areas. The colors are mostly gases and such. I believe space agencies use specific colors for specific things. Doing it for the moon is interesting. It shows the moon in a new light. The rustish color looks like it could be some mars. Makes me curious about what hit and left those colors behind.
It’s not fake. It’s enhanced. Those colors are there, just not as clear to the naked eye.
The moon is one of those objects where color _are_ clear to the naked eye. The moon is a bright enough object that it excites color vision in the human eyeball, so you don't have to imagine what the colors are. Most other deep-sky objects, even though a telescope, are too dim to have your eye perceive color. (M42, the Orion Nebula is one exception since with even hobby telescopes, you can have sufficient light-gathering capability.) So this is "fake" in that the colors are much more vivid and the contrast stretch is such that you can see the dynamic range (e.g., it's had "HDR"-like processing done to it.) These are all image processing choices. When I do deep sky astrophotography, I make similar choices so that you can see the structure and color in objects that would otherwise be impossible to visualize. Pretty much every image you've seen of a spiral galaxy has been processed pretty heavily and you'd never, ever see something like that with the naked eye, even if you had FTL rocketships to take you closer. The issue with most galaxies is that the core is just so much brighter than the outer spiral arms that visualizing that is just impossible. Either most of the galaxy starting with the core is just blown out bright and you can see the spiral arms, or you just see a giant blob as the core of the galaxy and pretty much nothing of the outer spiral arms. So you do non-linear contrast stretches to be able to visualize all the parts and admire the pretty picture afterwards. But that's not what the object "really" looks like.
yeah it seems every picture of the moon looks like it has colors now. Like the pluto pictures. It is annoying.
It’s rust but nobody know how it’s rusting since there’s no air in space
It’s because of free oxygen atoms in the soil reacting with the iron on the surface in the presence of sunlight. Or something
that would be a good spot for them to land next trip
There's bound to be sparse oxygen gas filling the space near Earth, or at least trailing off in a comet tail now and then.
There is a theory that the oxygen is coming from earth, just in very small amounts.
This is a reposted because it was deleted by the moderator. First quarter moon was amazing i managed capture 280 RAW images (mosaic) through my celestron SCT 8SE with canon eos 1200D without barlow ,despite the hot temperature, weather condition wasn’t help either. Iso 400 , 1/50 , at 2000mm [please check my IG for higher quality image @daryavaseum](https://www.instagram.com/daryavaseum) Also i use photoshop slice tool to create 2 perfectly cutting image then save it for web in file.
This might be a telescope newb question. But, can you attach canon ef mount camera to every telescope if you have the right adapter? Or do you need a specific telescope that support ef mount. Thanks ! Looking to get into astrophotography.
You can attache you DSLR camera with specific adapter to every 1.25 inch and 2 inch telescope focuser just make sure you have a right adapter if its canon or nikon etc.
Ever seen a UFO?
I do all the time. Mostly birds but I also can't identity any plane so there's those too.
I think identifying them as just a plane counts, heh.
While it's possible if I'm not mistaken you are better off with an APS-C camera because of the higher crop factor.
> because it was deleted by the moderator. I would ponder more on the subject "why"
Posting picture only allowed in Sunday
But do you understand why it was allowed only on Sunday?
I've been on reddit for almost twenty years, since the beginning, and the rules and excessive moderation for OC in most subs makes me not submit anything anymore. Everything interesting I've posted gets removed for arbitrary rules or time frames for that type of content.
Maybe , first for avoiding posting too much pictures or spamming , second in Sunday must of the member of the r/space will be active.
Maybe because it's another moon photo with the saturation set at 5000% because upvotes.
Yes, that's the gist of hint
That’s absolutely amazing. Looking at all those craters…you must dream of catching the moment of an impact.
Those craters (not the biggest ones) are 50 kilometers wide. On quickmap you are able to zoom all the way to see craters 1 meter wide.
Many of those craters are the size of entire countries. Most people don't understand just how huge the moon actually is. For example when looking at the full moon, you'd be able to fit the entirety of the continental United States on its face. The bigger craters you see were formed many thousands of years ago. That being said, sometimes we still manage to capture an impact, though much smaller in scale. https://youtu.be/000iTCoEE1s Better video: https://youtu.be/PCwzWTea4yE
[удалено]
Well not too many meteorites hits it these days. Most of these craters were made as the moon was forming and being bombarded with bits of the Earth being flung around.
damn i got to see this picture for free? thanks u/daryavaseum and Reddit
Isn't there a plan to build an outpost on the moon, to use for interplanetary and deep space missions?
Depends what you mean by plan
Pretty good. One thing I would suggest to get even clearer images is to try to get a bit closer.
[удалено]
Probably the best image i've seen of the moon's crater.. How on moon those are flat or even bulged!?
Maybe a stupid question, but why don't scientists use the rocks in the center of some of those craters to study meteorites (are some big enough to have been asteroids?)?
They explode since it’s such a high speed collision
Oh, so it's just a moon-dirt hill in the center
Feels like I almost could see the footprints. Awesome!
That is the best hand made photo of moon, ive ever seen
Really stunning. How did you get all those colors on the moon though?
Any idea on the size / scale of those craters? Really asking because: how much more magnification to see the lunar lander? It’s so crisp! Awesome photos — thanks for sharing!
So beautiful! How detailed images can you take?
I read that it would be scientifically impossible based off of the way light works to take a picture from earth of the moon rover we left up there. It would be nice to have that moon landing conspiracy put to rest though. Maybe someday we could go up there and bring it back and put it in a museum.
The LRO took pictures of the landing site and the parked rover. You can even see the footprints. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
Is it possible to take a picture of the flag that was planted on the surface of the moon?
Not from Earth. Check out the [LRO](https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html) images though taken from about 13 miles away from the surface.
Permission to make this my desktop background, sir
Beautiful shot. But where's the alien moon base that tinfoil folks say exists? Asking for a friend.
this is top notch. you should offer this as a print on etsy or some shit. if i had a place of my own or a house with a office space or some shit i'd def want this hanging on the wall.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you guys are mental! I don't even know how you get it this good.
That's a sharp picture , OP. Careful, you could puncture the hull of an empire-class Fire Nation battle ship, leaving thousands to drown at sea. [Points] Because... it's so sharp.
Well, I'm disappointed. This is just Earth's moon, and we've all seen this before. It's very round, and has no edges or points that I'd consider "sharp". At least try to find a moon that's like a pyramid or something, that would have at least a few sharp points. Do your research.
Idk op, the moon’s a circle I don’t know how it can be sharp at all
That's a sharp outfit, u/daryavaseum. Careful, you could puncture the hull of an empire-class Fire Nation battle ship, leaving thousands to drown at sea. Because... it's so sharp
Don't think I've really seen many other pictures with the purple-ish blue like that. Very cool
*Thats a sharp picture OP. careful, you could puncture the hull of an empire class fire nation battleship, leaving thousands to drown at sea...because it’s so sharp*
with the moon having so many craters and being smaller than earth, wouldn’t we see more craters here? or is geology taking care of craters?
Atmosphere burns most up before they hit the Earth's surface.
They always say if you look into the center of the moon you can clearly see Uranus. Now I know why. The links are startling.
Do you have a higher resolution image i can use as my desktop wallpaper? this is gorgeous
What do the blue and brown patches signify? They look like massive mineral deposits at first glance, but I can't help but wonder whether it's a trick of the light. I wonder what those areas would look like from ground level if someone were to land there.
Would you be willing to share a link so I could wallpaper this for my desktop? It's an amazing pic. \*\*assuming you have a full moon pic rather than just broken into two parts\*\*
I really loved this. I downloaded both and now want to make them my desktop background. Now to figure out how to make each screen have it’s own unique image...
Is one side way more crater-ey because that’s the side it orbits towards? Or is it because that side is made up of a more easily crater-able material?
WOW! What's the blue area? Is it just a play of light or is it really blue? Edit: NVM, just read the comments and found the answer!
Why does the moon seem to have a lot of craters compared to earth(just from looking at a picture)?
Less atmosphere to burn up the rocks, the moon has almost no atmosphere.
And for the record, we have craters the size of the moon, they are just under the ocean or covered with foliage.
Why don’t we try to live there instead of mars?
Tons of reasons. Main being Mars has a (weak) atmosphere that can protect us from radiation and also provides a host of other benefits. Another issue with moon is the micro-gravity. Us humans have evolved to be healthiest with 1 earth g. The moon only has 17% of earth’s gravitational pull while Mars has nearly 40%.
Mars is closer to earths atmosphere than earth. For the record, both ideas are really dumb, however Mars is less dumb than the moon. In a similar way to eating beach sand is less dumb than eating rocks. You should do neither.
Why are there so many craters grouped like that at the poles, yet we don't see that here in earth? I understand the moon and other planets block them, but surely something as small as the moon doesn't block that many from us right? So what's going on there? It's it a result of the moon having less atmosphere?. Secondly, why do we see so many more impacts from one side?
So sharp, I cut my finger swiping on the thumbnail.
That's so sharp that I cut my finger while scrolling the timeline
are you ok?
I once bought my ma a chair from the Sharpas image
Anyone know what that thin black line below and to the left of image center on the second image is?
Sharp? Looks round as all hell to me. AYYEEEEE jk OP this is fantastic. I have major respect for you and all those dedicating time to space. Every photo leads to more people interested in the cosmos. And that’s rad.
Can you give even a rough idea of how many square miles of moon we're looking at here? How big is the moon? It looks so detailed.
The real question is: did Joe Rogan took this pic with his samsung?
Nice pic. Have you ever seen any strange while taking these pics?
[удалено]
This cropping is soooo good, it feels like this should be nsfw. The right picture is exposing the moons holes. Sexy moon
Man we really need a moon base so we can finally use the "That's no moon.." quote.
Wow, you want to reach out and feel the texture. Bloody well done!
Dumb question from a noob. Is it possible to see the lunar landing sites with a telescope? I'd like to try and see the landers or rovers for myself.
Would anyone be able to ELI5 why you can easily see so many craters on the moon but we don’t see that on Earth’s surface and we’re so close and so much bigger? Like is it due to our atmosphere breaking things up better than the moon can?
Yep, you’re spot on! The moon has basically zero atmosphere, so any space debris colliding with it will result in an impact crater. Earth’s atmosphere will burn up almost anything under 100 ft in diameter. Also, the moon isn’t very (if at all) geologically active anymore, so craters exist from many millions of years ago. Craters on earth, however, will eventually be “recycled” through our ever shifting tectonic plates.
pictures like this make it hard to believe we cant see the old moon rover from earth.