Obviously NASA engineers don't ever go to Youtube, I'm sure looking up "asteroid sampler stuck" there would have been a number of hack DIYers who showed a variety of techniques they've used.
But how did they composite 81,000 images without worrying about atmospheric lensing distorting the proportions as it moved across the sky for 4 days? Is it just negligible?
The Samsung moon actually just makes up a plausible looking moon, which is hilarious given that the moon essentially doesn’t change, so they could have just overlayed reference images. Instead, you get features on the moon that don’t exist.
They didn’t. What they did was take 81,000 images and then filter through, them taking the best images of each region of the Moon and then averaging and compositing those.
It isn’t 81k images stitched together. It’s 81k images taken in the hopes of getting enough with perfect clarity to create the composite.
So basically 72 flights into it’s 5 flight mission it went to far over the horizon and lost line of sight. So they have to drive over to it to re-establish communication.
They’ve done good already, they don’t need to go this hard.
They went so hard they went over the horizon and lost coms.
Because it’s autonomous it’s likely still operational, they just have to get close to it.
It’s insane what these people do. They’re rewriting code from the 60s to use even less memory, have to test it in production without physical access, and it takes two days to see if anything changes. It’s an insane piece of engineering and it’s incredible that it’s still sending useful data.
I’d love to see what their test environments are like. You can’t test everything, but they can certainly test some things. A raspberry pi has more software capability.
This is an old article. It references the Batygin and Brown paper from 2016. As of 2024, it is still considered possible, but no direct evidence has been observed, and alternative explanations have been proposed, according to Wikipedia.
Things are looking pretty grim for planet nine, it’s running out of places to hide. It was a cool hypothesis and a gutsy prediction, but I’m afraid that it’s not going to work out.
Won’t the Vera Rubin Telescope (formerly LSST) settle this? It’s going to observe the entire night sky every few nights and provide enough data to find nearby moving objects.
This paper seems to be dated 18 April, 2024. Wouldn’t surprise me if its some sort of re-print, but otherwise would explain why this topic popped up in the media over the last few days. arxiv.org/pdf/2404.11594.pdf
It’s such a harsh message to propagate, though. A lot of these smaller countries have been really pushing their space programs, and they don’t need “LOL, lander upside-down” memes to accent their recent failure any further.
At this rate, Japan may be able to actually land on the moon in a few more years, take some great pictures, and shove Mashable’s “space photo of the decade” quote directly up their ass. Where it belongs.
I’ve been binging on For All Mankind and it’s been a great reminder of how difficult space exploration actually is and how quickly things can go wrong.
The fact that they accomplished their goal of pinpoint landing within 10 meters of their target should be the lede.
I bet people in the industry are amazed by this accomplishment.
It’s the sad part of science communication. The pop culture sees difficulties and failures as indictments of character. In science, failures are the fuel of progress. In this case, especially in scientific circles, this was a massive success and is being celebrated as such. The upside down part is laughed at as just the price of making the unimaginable, possible. But most publications who don’t belong to science journalism just don’t understand.
Why would that lead to shoving a quote anywhere? Much of the marvel of this photo is the unusual circumstances around it.
We’ve already got photos of the moon.
This, afaik, is the first photo we have a lander that suffered a significant complication in the landing but was still able to deploy a rover to take a picture.
Given that you aren’t the only audience to a response, even someone who recognizes that it’s a joke might add a little bit of context about, I don’t know, how melting the fastener might contaminate the sample or grinding the fasteners might cause dust and sparks that could also contaminate the sample, so on and so forth.
That all being said, are you okay? Kneejerk responses like that don’t usually come from good places.
I think it was fairly clearly a joke, and at least a little bit funny via absurdity, like suggesting nuking it to open it, or wrapping an elastic band around like a tight jar lid.
Not everything you read is serious unless otherwise stated.
Knowing what I know, I am assuming this image was standardised and then normalised (fancy stats algos to keep things in the same visual range) while stitching it together, and the final product enhanced a lot of colouration (saturation). They’re subtle or undetectable to the naked eye, but they exist. They are reflected in the different minerals present. I’ve done this stuff (raster stitching) with different imagery. Op was active in the comments with info, but I didn’t read up on it.
The colors don’t match what a human eye would see, but without going into a philosophy tangent, color is extremely complex and a huge part of what a human sees is your brain doing representations and mapping that isn’t perfectly represented in the physical object being observed. In this photo the saturation has been increased (versus a human eye) because it helps show the geological differences on the lunar surface. The reddish areas are high in iron and feldspar, and the blue-tinted zones have higher titanium content. Instead of thinking of the color as “real” or “fake” it’s probably better to think of it as a tool, to simulate if you were a super human with the ability to adjust saturation and detect metal composition with your eye. Usually when a photo like this is shared by researchers and scientist all this nuance and exposition is included, but then journalist and social media get a hold of it and people start crying “fake” without an understanding of what the image is trying to accomplish. TL;DR - The image isn’t what a human eye would see but it isn’t just art to look cool, the color and modifications have physical meaning and serve a purpose.
astronomy
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.