• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

ISRO Chandrayaan 2 Moon Landing LIVE / ISRO loses contact with lander minutes before scheduled landing

Weilthain

Gold Member
Aug 6, 2013
1,370
656
690
This thread is way fuckin wilder than it has any right to be. I was expecting memes of indian trains with people hanging off of the sides in space.
Pfft just imagine if they filmed the mission with video cameras. Like they did with the Apollo missions 50 years ago but with today’s fantastic camera technology.

Greatest video ever.
i feel like it's never enough for some people, they basically need to be sent up there against their will and told to stare at the goddamn orb until reality hits them in the face
So don’t film in space?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
37,011
2,952
1,520
Best Coast
A real time live video of the earth in space Vs composite images created on a computer using data from high altitude weather balloons and then superimposed onto a 3d model of the earth?
Real time live video bandwidth communication logistics difficulties at that long range aside, can you think of why a weather satellite would be deployed at a "relatively" close distance to Earth?
 

Weilthain

Gold Member
Aug 6, 2013
1,370
656
690
Real time live video bandwidth communication logistics difficulties at that long range aside, can you think of why a weather satellite would be deployed at a "relatively" close distance to Earth?
Because they aren’t really in space and maybe that’s the best they can do. Who knows?

Why do you think they don’t film these missions to the moon?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
37,011
2,952
1,520
Best Coast
Because they aren’t really in space and maybe that’s the best they can do. Who knows?
I know. It's because they are in geostationary/geosynchronous orbit with the Earth, which means that the orbit speed of the satellite matches the rotation speed of the Earth. That way, the satellite will always be in the same spot above the Earth, which would be helpful in this case since Japan's satellite would always want to be overlooking Japan. There's only a certain distance where this is possible, and that's the distance this weather satellite is at.

At that distance, The earth is very large and can't be fit entirely in a single frame. Stitching also makes it possible to produce high resolution images at less cost than if they were to just bring a bigger camera.
Why do you think they don’t film these missions to the moon
They take pictures of the actual mission objectives. There isn't much purpose to film the actual process itself since that would take up more resources. It's not so simple as "just stick a GoPro on it", especially since these missions are unmanned.
 

Weilthain

Gold Member
Aug 6, 2013
1,370
656
690
I know. It's because they are in geostationary/geosynchronous orbit with the Earth, which means that the orbit speed of the satellite matches the rotation speed of the Earth. That way, the satellite will always be in the same spot above the Earth, which would be helpful in this case since Japan's satellite would always want to be overlooking Japan. There's only a certain distance where this is possible, and that's the distance this weather satellite is at.

At that distance, The earth is very large and can't be fit entirely in a single frame. Stitching also makes it possible to produce high resolution images at less cost than if they were to just bring a bigger camera.

They take pictures of the actual mission objectives. There isn't much purpose to film the actual process itself since that would take up more resources. It's not so simple as "just stick a GoPro on it", especially since these missions are unmanned.
I mean to say if they can’t actually go into space to film the whole earth, then stitching strips of data from high altitude plane/balloon/ satellites makes sense.

I think you are confusing the Japanese satellite which I believe is claimed to be photographing the whole earth in one shot, with the blue marble iPhone photo of the earth by NASA’s r. Simmons which is admittedly photoshopped.

He talks about the strips of data having gaps in them and he needs to use the clone tool a lot. They talk about removing cloud layers and colouring in the ocean and adding lense flare to make it look more realistic.

As far as filming in space, your excuse that “you can’t just put a go pro on these things” is just and excuse. What am I supposed i say to that? Yes you are right they Cant film in space, even if they wanted to.

That’s a terrible excuse!
 
Last edited:

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,131
269
1,600
As far as filming in space, your excuse that “you can’t just put a go pro on these things” is just and excuse. What am I supposed i say to that? Yes you are right they Cant film in space, even if they wanted to.
That’s a terrible excuse!
Only because you're not either understanding or acknowledging the reasons for why just "putting a go pro" on these things in infeasible. If I walk from my home office to my garage, my bluetooth headphones cut out...that's about 30ft/10m. What kind of transmitter do you think a Go Pro has? Just think about scaling that to something capable of transmitting hundreds of thousands of kilometers and justifying the expense of doing so for what's a zero add in terms of value for the mission. That's about all anyone who works in the real world needs to consider before concluding that any kind of suspicious activity is in play here is stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cybrwzrd

Weilthain

Gold Member
Aug 6, 2013
1,370
656
690
Only because you're not either understanding or acknowledging the reasons for why just "putting a go pro" on these things in infeasible. If I walk from my home office to my garage, my bluetooth headphones cut out...that's about 30ft/10m. What kind of transmitter do you think a Go Pro has? Just think about scaling that to something capable of transmitting hundreds of thousands of kilometers and justifying the expense of doing so for what's a zero add in terms of value for the mission. That's about all anyone who works in the real world needs to consider before concluding that any kind of suspicious activity is in play here is stupid.
The Apollo astronauts live streamed themselves from the moon in 1969.

Of course they could have cameras on these space missions.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
37,011
2,952
1,520
Best Coast
I think you are confusing the Japanese satellite which I believe is claimed to be photographing the whole earth in one shot, with the blue marble iPhone photo of the earth by NASA’s r. Simmons which is admittedly photoshopped.

He talks about the strips of data having gaps in them and he needs to use the clone tool a lot. They talk about removing cloud layers and colouring in the ocean and adding lense flare to make it look more realistic.
No I'm not, no they aren't, and please post this supposed bombshell quote.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
37,011
2,952
1,520
Best Coast
And this is shocking because?

What is the coolest thing you’ve ever done as part of your job at Goddard?

The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17. NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS) satellites were designed to give a check-up of Earth’s health. By 2002, we finally had enough data to make a snap shot of the entire Earth. So we did. The hard part was creating a flat map of the Earth’s surface with four months’ of satellite data. Reto Stockli, now at the Swiss Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology, did much of this work. Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space. That ball became the famous Blue Marble.

I was happy with it but had no idea how widespread it would become. We never thought it would become an icon. I certainly never thought that I would become “Mr. Blue Marble.”

We have since updated the base maps by increasing the resolution and, for 2004, we made a series of monthly maps.

In 2002, NASA released an extensive set of satellite-captured imagery, including prepared images suitable for direct human viewing, as well as complete sets suitable for use in preparing further works.[19] At the time, 1 km/pixel was the most detailed imagery available for free, and permitted for reuse[20] without a need for extensive preparatory work to eliminate cloud cover and conceal missing data, or to parse specialized data formats. The data also included a similarly manually assembled cloud-cover and night-lights image sets, at lower resolutions.

A subsequent release was made in 2005, named Blue Marble Next Generation.[21] This series of photo mosaics was produced with the aid of automated image-sifting upon images from NASA's Earth Observatory, which enabled the inclusion of a complete, cloud-free globe for each month from January to December 2004, at even higher resolution (500 m/pixel).[22] The original release of a single-image set covering the entire globe could not reflect the extent of seasonal snow-and-vegetative cover across both hemispheres, but this newer release closely modeled the changes of the seasons.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
37,011
2,952
1,520
Best Coast
There aren’t any real pictures or video of earth from space so they have to make them on a computer.
There are plenty of pictures from space. That's one of them.

Is this picture of Shanghai real? It was taken the same way.

 

Weilthain

Gold Member
Aug 6, 2013
1,370
656
690

Weilthain

Gold Member
Aug 6, 2013
1,370
656
690
I forget - what’s the conspiracy theorist’s explanations for the accuracy of GPS if we can’t actually launch satellites in space?
Some think that satellites are really just high altitude balloons, like the ones google sends up. A geostationary satellite is essentially just floating at the same place in the sky like a balloon if you can think of it that way.

Another idea I’ve heard is the belief it’s to do with multiple radio/radar/whatever towers able to locate your position based on where you are in relation to them. I think it’s called triangulation or something like that.

Not saying I believe that, but you asked so there you go.
 

greyshark

Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,538
415
730
St. Louis
Some think that satellites are really just high altitude balloons, like the ones google sends up. A geostationary satellite is essentially just floating at the same place in the sky like a balloon if you can think of it that way.

Another idea I’ve heard is the belief it’s to do with multiple radio/radar/whatever towers able to locate your position based on where you are in relation to them. I think it’s called triangulation or something like that.

Not saying I believe that, but you asked so there you go.
What do you believe?
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,131
269
1,600
A real time live video of the earth in space Vs composite images created on a computer using data from high altitude weather balloons and then superimposed onto a 3d model of the earth?
Here's the thing bud: you appear to be completely set on this all being faked. So, I'd guess that someone like you would just say the livestream from the Indian probe (were it to exist) was fake too. Hence, nothing of value would be gained from incorporating that into the mission. Rocket scientists aren't worried about explaining why the Earth is round because it was shown to be thousands of years ago. The Indians were probably not interested in solving the engineering hurdles of a livestream because there's no value in it, because even if they did, people like you would find some reason to not believe the footage was real and keep going on your merry way believing the Earth is flat. You've said things like I'm getting offended because of my religion or whatever but guess what? I left my religion. I've done this exercise before. I've come to understand that if for X to be true then improbable A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I....and so on have to be true too. What's more likely? That all of these other improbable things are true, or that they're all false? Occam's Razor is a very useful tool in deciding what to believe.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But it seems far less likely that there's some giant apparatus that's been set up for thousands of years to trick me into thinking the Earth is round when it's flat, or that we landed on the moon when we didn't. Like...what the fuck would be the point? You said money...paid to whom? For what reason? I don't pay people for no reason, what the hell would the point of paying people to fake this? It's silly.
 

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
41,935
4,639
1,630
I don’t really believe in anything but I’m open to stuff like flat earth and weird theories about history.
You sound like a nut man. Please understand that. To say you don't believe anything, means you can also believe everything. You have no foundation or basic understanding of how life works if you don't believe in anything. You're lost! A flat Earth is one of the easiest things to know for a fact is a lie. Just look at the moon and sun dude.
 
Last edited:

Weilthain

Gold Member
Aug 6, 2013
1,370
656
690
Here's the thing bud: you appear to be completely set on this all being faked. So, I'd guess that someone like you would just say the livestream from the Indian probe (were it to exist) was fake too. Hence, nothing of value would be gained from incorporating that into the mission. Rocket scientists aren't worried about explaining why the Earth is round because it was shown to be thousands of years ago. The Indians were probably not interested in solving the engineering hurdles of a livestream because there's no value in it, because even if they did, people like you would find some reason to not believe the footage was real and keep going on your merry way believing the Earth is flat. You've said things like I'm getting offended because of my religion or whatever but guess what? I left my religion. I've done this exercise before. I've come to understand that if for X to be true then improbable A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I....and so on have to be true too. What's more likely? That all of these other improbable things are true, or that they're all false? Occam's Razor is a very useful tool in deciding what to believe.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But it seems far less likely that there's some giant apparatus that's been set up for thousands of years to trick me into thinking the Earth is round when it's flat, or that we landed on the moon when we didn't. Like...what the fuck would be the point? You said money...paid to whom? For what reason? I don't pay people for no reason, what the hell would the point of paying people to fake this? It's silly.
I told you already some people think its about money. India took a lot of money and said they went to the moon but did they?

Some people think they don’t film in space because that would give away the truth that the heliocentric model isn’t true after all.

I do know most people think it’s silly and of course I understand your frustration that I don’t believe the same things you do.

I don’t believe what you believe.

But to be honest, I don’t think I’ve been rude to you, but you seem to be quite unpleasant to me just because of my beliefs.

It’s like you wouldn’t like me as a person because of it. I don’t feel the same about you, nearly everyone I know believes the same thing you do.
 

Weilthain

Gold Member
Aug 6, 2013
1,370
656
690
You sound like a nut man. Please understand that. To say you don't believe anything, means you can also believe everything. You have to foundation or basis of how life works if you don't believe in anything. You're lost! A flat Earth is one of the easiest things to know for a fact is a lie. Just look at the moon and sun dude.
When it comes to flat earth, you have to watch out for stuff like “the flat earth society” and the YouTube disinformation shills that spread disinformation, claiming to be flat earthers , but they aren’t.

Don’t worry about me I’m alright.
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,131
269
1,600
I told you already some people think its about money. India took a lot of money and said they went to the moon but did they?
Why would anyone part with their money for something like this? Who's paying India to fake a failed mission to the moon? If they were faking it, why not fake success?
Some people think they don’t film in space because that would give away the truth that the heliocentric model isn’t true after all.
Who and why? Just ask those questions and think about how illogical that is.
I do know most people think it’s silly and of course I understand your frustration that I don’t believe the same things you do.

I don’t believe what you believe.

But to be honest, I don’t think I’ve been rude to you, but you seem to be quite unpleasant to me just because of my beliefs.

It’s like you wouldn’t like me as a person because of it. I don’t feel the same about you, nearly everyone I know believes the same thing you do.
It's not that I'm frustrated you don't believe the same things as me, it's that you've not put forth anything of substance to substantiate what you believe. You won't say "it's about the money because...." but rather go to this "some people believe..." stance. Well, la-di-freakin da, "some people" believe lots of wacky shit. I apologize for being rude or condescending, but it really is frustrating when someone continually moves the goalposts, or in your case seemingly thinks goalposts don't exist.
 

Weilthain

Gold Member
Aug 6, 2013
1,370
656
690
Why would anyone part with their money for something like this? Who's paying India to fake a failed mission to the moon? If they were faking it, why not fake success?

Who and why? Just ask those questions and think about how illogical that is.


It's not that I'm frustrated you don't believe the same things as me, it's that you've not put forth anything of substance to substantiate what you believe. You won't say "it's about the money because...." but rather go to this "some people believe..." stance. Well, la-di-freakin da, "some people" believe lots of wacky shit. I apologize for being rude or condescending, but it really is frustrating when someone continually moves the goalposts, or in your case seemingly thinks goalposts don't exist.
I’m suggesting it could be a scam. I mean there was no actual proof India went to the moon but they said they did and that’s enough to fool you. The people paying for it wouldn’t know they were being scammed.

Secrecy societies and all that.
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,131
269
1,600
I’m suggesting it could be a scam. I mean there was no actual proof India went to the moon but they said they did and that’s enough to fool you. The people paying for it wouldn’t know they were being scammed.

Secrecy societies and all that.
Fools and their money are easily parted, but the people controlling the kind of money you're talking about here aren't typically fools.
 

Weilthain

Gold Member
Aug 6, 2013
1,370
656
690
But how do you know gravity is real if you can't see it? Maybe it's just Big Magnet paying shills like Feynman.

EDIT:


Fucking LOL. Ohmergawd....thanks for the laugh bud, have a good one.
If you think that’s weird im open to weirder stuff than that.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
37,503
11,177
1,380
I would believe in gravity if I believed in the globe. Maybe it isn’t a globe and up is up and down is down.
come on dude, i'm asking you where you think that potential energy comes from (if not gravitation)

what about swings, slides, wrecking balls, pendulums, on and on

gravity, energy, and light are inextricably tied together
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
37,503
11,177
1,380
what makes you say the earth isn't a spheroid, have you not gone through any of the thought experiments on your own?
 

Weilthain

Gold Member
Aug 6, 2013
1,370
656
690
come on dude, i'm asking you where you think that potential energy comes from (if not gravitation)

what about swings, slides, wrecking balls, pendulums, on and on

gravity, energy, and light are inextricably tied together
I said already if the earth is a ball then it makes sense because you have to have gravity or a ball covered in curved water doesn’t make sense.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Tesseract

Weilthain

Gold Member
Aug 6, 2013
1,370
656
690
What do you believe is the reason why things fall down?
On the globe it has to be gravity or a ball that holds water doesn’t work.

The fake flat earthers will pretend they believe that all the science is the same and the math is the same, but the earth is really a pancake shape floating through space. This is disinformation. That’s why it appears stupid, because it is.

If you’ve ever heard the claim from flat earthers that gravity is explained because the earth is actually floating upwards creating a downward pull or whatever, you are being tricked into thinking that is what flat earth is about because when you type it into the internet that is the first thing you are going to see.
 

greyshark

Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,538
415
730
St. Louis
On the globe it has to be gravity or a ball that holds water doesn’t work.

The fake flat earthers will pretend they believe that all the science is the same and the math is the same, but the earth is really a pancake shape floating through space. This is disinformation. That’s why it appears stupid, because it is.

If you’ve ever heard the claim from flat earthers that gravity is explained because the earth is actually floating upwards creating a downward pull or whatever, you are being tricked into thinking that is what flat earth is about because when you type it into the internet that is the first thing you are going to see.
You've mentioned you don't believe in gravity, and you've mentioned what other people's explanations are - what is your explanation for why things fall down if it isn't gravity?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rentahamster

Weilthain

Gold Member
Aug 6, 2013
1,370
656
690
You've mentioned you don't believe in gravity, and you've mentioned what other people's explanations are - what is your explanation for why things fall down if it isn't gravity?
If the earth is a globe then it’s gravity. If it’s flat then it has to be something else.

I’m open to different models and cameras on rockets to the moon would go a long way to sway me in a certain direction.
 

greyshark

Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,538
415
730
St. Louis
If the earth is a globe then it’s gravity. If it’s flat then it has to be something else.

I’m open to different models and cameras on rockets to the moon would go a long way to sway me in a certain direction.
So you're saying you just don't know if the earth is flat or not, and refuse to believe the proposed theories either way due to their incompleteness?
 

nocsi

Member
Nov 11, 2018
98
84
270
Sup guys, here to derail the thread by interjecting with something I believe in. I believe we don't have too many pictures of Earth because they don't want to reveal that the planet is in-fact hollow. See the following illustration of what the Earth actually looks like.



Also what kind of dumb shit believes in gravity?
 

Weilthain

Gold Member
Aug 6, 2013
1,370
656
690
Sup guys, here to derail the thread by interjecting with something I believe in. I believe we don't have too many pictures of Earth because they don't want to reveal that the planet is in-fact hollow. See the following illustration of what the Earth actually looks like.



Also what kind of dumb shit believes in gravity?
That looks like a late 1800s woodcut. Where’d that come from?
 

Weilthain

Gold Member
Aug 6, 2013
1,370
656
690
So you're saying you just don't know if the earth is flat or not, and refuse to believe the proposed theories either way due to their incompleteness?
If you mean incompleteness in the sense that all the space agencies are reluctant to film in space then yes.
 
Last edited:

greyshark

Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,538
415
730
St. Louis
If you mean incompleteness in the sense that all the space agencies are reluctant to film in space then yes.
My question was related to your statement about not believing in gravity. Do you feel like you understand what makes gravity (or the equivalent effect that mainstream scientists attribute to gravity) work?

EDIT: I’m not trying to catch you in a ‘gotcha’ moment, I just want to understand where you’re coming from to lead you to the conclusions you draw.
 
Last edited:

Weilthain

Gold Member
Aug 6, 2013
1,370
656
690
My question was related to your statement about not believing in gravity. Do you feel like you understand what makes gravity (or the equivalent effect that mainstream scientists attribute to gravity) work?

EDIT: I’m not trying to catch you in a ‘gotcha’ moment, I just want to understand where you’re coming from to lead you to the conclusions you draw.
I understand the heliocentric model if thats what you mean.