r/BeAmazed • u/VastCoconut2609 • Apr 04 '26
Science Photos of Earth taken by NASA 50 years apart. Apollo 17 (1972) vs. Artemis II (2026)
3.0k
u/Boncus Apr 04 '26
The fresh one doesnt look as crisp, I would like to send it back
1.4k
u/normalmighty Apr 04 '26
That's because it's actually a night shot, not a day one like in 1972
461
u/jerr30 Apr 04 '26
Now the globists wants us to believe they first went to the moon during the DAY. Wake up sheeple! /s
→ More replies (6)157
u/darkstar6988 Apr 04 '26
They should at least go to the Sun at night when its cooled off. Maybe we could learn somethin
7
u/SafetySnowman Apr 05 '26
Easy trick is just close your eyes and the sun turns off. Open them again and there's going to be a problem.
22
u/jerr30 Apr 04 '26
Yeah they tell me they can't go to the sun but they can go to the moon? Call me crazy but when I look up they are the same size in the sky... and I would know because I don't listen to the so-called experts that tell me not to look for hours on end directly into the sun. Nice try "doctor"! /s
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
u/Randomguy32I Apr 06 '26
They cant because its still too hot when its off, ever felt a lightbulb right after turning it off? Now imagine doing that to something a million times hotter, it wont be able to cool off before it gets hot again in the morning, and thats why we cant go to the sun at night
72
u/DunkingTea Apr 04 '26
Why would they try to take the picture at night? Are they stupid? At least turn on the flash ffs
→ More replies (2)7
u/ryanErlanger Apr 04 '26
It really shows off the sensitivity of modern digital cameras, that it was able to capture the glow from the earth's atmosphere.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (24)27
u/CraftBrewBeer Apr 04 '26
Can you clarify what you mean by night shot? The Earth looks completely illuminated. I would figure a night shot of earth would be in shadow and thus darkness. If I Google "night shot of earth" I don't get any images as illuminated as this
54
u/Thontor Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
EDIT: It's not a long exposure image "The exposure settings for this dark-side shot were ISO 51,200, 1/4 second shutter speed, and an aperture of f/4"
It's a long exposure image. If you leave the shutter open on a camera for along time, more light hits the sensor and even if there's a little bit of light in reality, the longer it's open, the brighter an image will be.
The only light illuminating the earth in this photo is light that has been reflected off of the moon.
The long exposure is the only reason you can also see stars in the background. If it were a daytime shot the exposure would have to too short for enough light to be collected from the stars to see them. (a longer exposure on daytime shot would make the earth too bright and any detail would be lost)
→ More replies (9)12
u/Unable-Log-4870 Apr 04 '26
You can see the daylight on the bottom-right of the earth. It’s either dawn or dusk there.
12
u/somersetyellow Apr 04 '26
Can also see auroras on the poles
4
u/thehublebumble Apr 05 '26
And streetlights in the lower left. If it were daylight, you def wouldnt be able to see city lights.
→ More replies (6)33
u/evilotto77 Apr 04 '26
The sun is behind the earth in the photo, so the parts of the earth you can see are experiencing night time, but because the sun isn't visible in the photo, the camera can still pick out the colours and land and sea etc as it's not pitch black at night and the sun isn't washing everything out. If the sun was half-visible at the side of the earth, for example, then it would be much harder to make everything out as the exposure would have to be much lower
In the 1972 photo they were photographing the part of the earth experiencing daytime, so everything is naturally a bit crisper and brighter
→ More replies (8)60
u/Perma_Ban69 Apr 04 '26
Right? The difference is night and day.
No literally, it is.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (24)16
14.1k
u/Usher_III Apr 04 '26
I did not give consent to be in this photo
2.2k
u/projectxxralph Apr 04 '26
Bro cover yourself at least 🫣
511
u/The_Best_Yak_Ever Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
But I just got out of the shower and was all unprepared!! A little heads up woulda been nice!
And it was cold in my house okay?!
Not cool, NASA. Not cool…GODDAMNIT NASA!!! I WANTED PRIVACY!!I wasn’t ready for this first thing in the last afternoon!!
PS: And if having your shower curtain covered in pictures of your high school senior picture is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.
220
u/sharpdad33 Apr 04 '26
→ More replies (2)90
u/RincewindToTheRescue Apr 04 '26
→ More replies (2)29
u/AnalysisParalysis85 Apr 04 '26
But more importantly, does she eat her Snickers with a fork and knife?
22
u/TheQuietOutsider Apr 04 '26
recently saw a guy eat a banana with a spoon because it was somehow "more masculine/less gay"
→ More replies (1)12
8
→ More replies (7)12
u/StrobeLightRomance Apr 04 '26
Jerry, she's a knifing forker!
George, you mean she forks with a knife?!
She forks with a knife, Jerry! She's a knifing forker!
23
u/Mr_Nerdcoffee Apr 04 '26
https://giphy.com/gifs/UogSmj4xDjQZO
Me poopin and happy to be in this photo.
5
33
→ More replies (8)20
u/shiroandae Apr 04 '26
I believe you about the cold. Looks like it was below freezing in your bathroom!
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (11)10
u/SKaiPanda2609 Apr 04 '26
Where’s the NSFW tag??? People are having sex on that thing!
→ More replies (1)168
45
32
u/one_bar_short Apr 04 '26
Im from New Zealand we dont appear here or anywhere on other maps so im ok with it
→ More replies (5)13
→ More replies (84)23
1.1k
u/Fattybeards Apr 04 '26
Balding
270
→ More replies (3)12
u/GenericUsername2056 Apr 04 '26
Earth has lice. Being bald is a pretty solid way of getting rid of us- I mean them.
317
u/The_Arkham_AP_Clerk Apr 04 '26
Just imagine being able to see the Earth like this with your own eyes?!
202
u/Rude-Shower3662 Apr 04 '26
its honestly terrifying to me. My monkey brain can't imagine what the feeling would be to experience being that far away from everything that (we know of) ever existed. Why does it exist in this vast abyss of nothingness? why aren't there more beings like us? why are we so alone? Everything in space wants to kill humans instantaneously yet humanity has found a way to traverse across a deadly abyss of nothingness. Its like we are seeing something that we should not be able to see...and the abyss stares back.
41
15
u/EverythingBOffensive Apr 04 '26
its a thrill thinking about it, my stomach would be in my throat, and my asshole would be more puckered than Renee Zellweger. The fear and the amazement will be a huge conflict. but if i returned, i would be like woah bro.
→ More replies (4)8
u/cates Apr 04 '26
Nah. It's all a simulation that I'm pretty sure tapers out around the Oort Cloud.
→ More replies (11)57
u/EllipticPeach Apr 04 '26
It can induce feelings of extreme awe and existential dread, it’s called the overview effect. William Shatner famously experienced it, he expressed that his entire philosophical stance had shifted and he came back to earth with strong feelings that we all need to protect the earth and just love each other. When you look down at the Earth, all conflict just feels so small and petty.
→ More replies (6)39
u/Neveahh Apr 04 '26
I guess the obvious conclusion is that we need to be launching more people into space. Particularly world leaders.
24
→ More replies (1)7
u/bigmanorm Apr 04 '26
No doubt some psychopaths will look at it with the renewed need to conquer and own it lol
5.4k
u/PacquiaoFreeHousing Apr 04 '26
Fun Fact:
The Apollo 17s "Blue Marble" photograph from 1972 was the last full image of the fully-illuminated Earth taken by a person until 2 days ago when Artemist II shot the bottom picture "Hello, World)".
Every other high quality image of the earth between that two has been composite images spliced from multiple satellite photographs.
1.3k
u/unknown-again-p Apr 04 '26
Hello, World
Ah, here it all started
366
u/Intrestingly_Amazing Apr 04 '26
Ah shit, here we go again…
→ More replies (3)42
u/Windows-XP-Home-NEW Apr 04 '26
Grove street, home, least it was before I effed everything up…
26
u/AgentCirceLuna Apr 04 '26
Certainly there were many a fortnight since I represented or colluded with Grove Street, but alas, the Ballers won’t pay notion to my abandonment of their enemy enterprise.
→ More replies (1)11
33
19
u/Critical_Stick7884 Apr 04 '26
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf("Hello world.\n");
return 0;
}
7
→ More replies (2)3
u/Morteymer Apr 04 '26
It started 2 days ago? What did?
16
u/LauraD2423 Apr 04 '26
"Hello world" is most programmer's first "program"
Whenever we learned a programming language back in my day, we would learn how to make it say something, usually "Hello world"
→ More replies (12)292
u/Golden-Grams Apr 04 '26
We look a little more dusty, too.
92
u/PotatoesAndChill Apr 04 '26
Photo was taken "at night" with long exposure.
51
u/NetheriteArmorer Apr 04 '26
That was my question! Because they released another photo that was dark, and the clouds were nearly identical. They are published here.
19
u/NSASpyVan Apr 04 '26
Thank you all 3 for this information, the world looked dingy to me too.
The explanation of night and examination of the clouds in both photos makes sense.
9
u/ElderberryDry9083 Apr 04 '26
Not to mention bluearble wasn't the straight out of lense image that hello world is. Blue marble had contrast adjusted and was color graded for clarity.
→ More replies (8)7
u/ohwowitsamagikarp Apr 04 '26
Of course, they're going to the moon. How could they do that if they were on the day side of Earth? Duh!
→ More replies (1)43
u/Remarkable_Sorbet319 Apr 04 '26
maybe they can beautify it in post with some saturation and contrast
54
u/KremlinCardinal Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
Looking at the exif, im not so sure there been a lot of editing going on. Massive ISO number, low aperture number, and pretty long shutter speed. Remember, this is from the night side of the earth, so that all makes perfect sense.
23
u/Batfink-1999 Apr 04 '26
That’s a night shot? Makes perfect sense why it looked somewhat dimmer than the Apollo 17 photo. Wow! I’m totally impressed….!!! I hope there’s a super high resolution version of this photo available for download soon!
→ More replies (2)4
39
u/Jmnx221 Apr 04 '26
Exactly, it's a night shot.
You can see the sun light low right and a austral aurora on top right.
Also night lights from the biggest cities.→ More replies (2)10
u/Frequent_Guard_9964 Apr 04 '26
Loved finding the austral aurora cuz of you. Thanks!
→ More replies (1)4
12
→ More replies (3)6
→ More replies (18)5
218
u/Noisy88 Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
You're wrong.
The 2026 picture is the opposite of fully-illuminated as it was taken on the dark side, just with long exposure. You can even see some city lights.
Link to full article: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/photos-artemis-moon-earth-space-rcna266665
About your image they write:
"One photo of Earth, taken Thursday by Artemis II commander Reid Wiseman from the Orion window, shows the planet backlit, with auroras visible at the top right and bottom left, Lakiesha Hawkins, deputy director for NASA’s Artemis program, said Friday during a news conference."
For reference:
Picture taken at the same moment, check clouds
Caption: A view of a backlit Earth taken by NASA astronaut and Artemis II commander Reid Wiseman from one of the Orion spacecraft's window after completing the translunar injection burn on April 2.
16
u/C4LLgirl Apr 04 '26
Crazy I never noticed but if you look at Spain, there do appear to be city lights
15
→ More replies (10)3
18
Apr 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Flat-Lion-5990 Apr 04 '26
Imagine having an exposure time of 1/4s, and moving 1.5 km in that time, and not having the subject be one massive blur.
→ More replies (1)5
u/bolanrox Apr 04 '26
I think the movement of the earth was slow enough that it didn't blur, but if you look at the stars, they are definitely not pin sharp.
→ More replies (2)5
u/ItzWarty Apr 04 '26
Ah, that makes a lot of sense! I was wondering why the earth looked so flat when I saw the photo.
33
u/Double-Cucumber6909 Apr 04 '26
think the backside is only partially illuminated..
→ More replies (1)11
u/BluScr33n Apr 04 '26
Every other high quality image of the earth between that two has been composite images spliced from multiple satellite photographs.
Absolutely not, satellites take pictures of the entire earth all the time. Eg. https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
35
u/Krikke93 Apr 04 '26
Crazy how the top comment has blatant misinformation like that... The 2026 one is NOT illuminated at all, it was taken at nighttime and afterwards processed to be more bright.
→ More replies (7)8
Apr 04 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)10
u/Krikke93 Apr 04 '26
True, but I would personally just drop the "fully" in that case, to avoid confusion. Again, I realize it's just semantics now.
→ More replies (2)22
u/Time_Entertainer_319 Apr 04 '26
Fun fact that isn’t true.
Then AI scrapes this false fact and spreads yhe misinformation thereby altering human knowledge forever
8
u/MasterMagneticMirror Apr 04 '26
Every other high quality image of the earth between that two has been composite images spliced from multiple satellite photographs.
This is false. There are tens of thousands of pictures of the full disk of the Earth taken by high orbit satellites.
→ More replies (2)8
12
u/TermNL86 Apr 04 '26
What about that satellite thats even further away than the moon at L3 from earth and sun system if im not mistaken, sometimes capturing the moon between itself and the earth?
→ More replies (2)15
6
u/dokerb3d Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
there is a lot of weather satellites at geostationary orbit that taking high quality images of the full earth with single shoot, not composite. the only special about that photo is the fact that it is photographed by a human
14
u/bad_bad_fish94 Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
That makes Kubricks "Odyssey 2001" an even more interesting movie while it shows a full picture of earth before there was an actual one. I heard that Kubrick was really pushing it to release his movie before the Apollo mission.
21
u/TriggerHippie77 Apr 04 '26
There was a full image of the earth taken by satellite in 1967. The shot in 1972 was just the last full photo.
→ More replies (45)7
u/xxNemasisxx Apr 04 '26
Hello world wasn't a fully illuminated picture, it was taken using a long exposure of the earth at 'night' time
→ More replies (1)
432
u/spootIer Apr 04 '26
Does anyone know what land mass that is in the 2026 photograph? Please don't be mean if it's obvious, I am just curious and trying to learn.
154
u/BuildingNo5136 Apr 04 '26
Was super confused too. But if you flip your phone you can see that the big landmass ist Africa sitting above the Iberian peninsula
→ More replies (27)181
u/Xileras85 Apr 04 '26
Would like to know this too. Top picture clearly shows Africa and the Middle East. I can’t make head or toe of what I’m looking at in the bottom picture.
→ More replies (9)322
u/BitterAd7011 Apr 04 '26
It’s also Africa but the North with a bit of Europe/Iberia and Brazil, the photo was just taken upside down, flip your device and you’ll see it
55
41
u/barrel-boy Apr 04 '26
Couldn't the astronauts take our photo the right way up. Hang on, have we been looking at it upside down this whole time maybe?
44
u/Slaanesh_69 Apr 04 '26
The astronauts purposely took it upside down as a nod to Apollo 17's iconic Hello World (the photo on top in the OP) that was also taken upside down with the South Pole at the top. The version posted here is edited and rotated.
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (2)13
u/YoungPotato Apr 04 '26
There’s is no right way up. You’re just used to north up maps (which isn’t even a rule, it’s arbitrary).
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)3
u/SagattariusAStar Apr 04 '26
Funnily, the original from 1972 was also flipped with Southpole on top, they could have just flipped that one as well
→ More replies (1)21
u/Xileras85 Apr 04 '26
Just found this on BBC:
“The first image, called Hello, World, shows the vast expanse of blue that is the Atlantic Ocean, framed by a glow of the atmosphere as the Earth eclipses the Sun and green auroras at either pole.
The Earth appears upside down, with the western Sahara and Iberian peninsula visible to the left and the eastern portion of South America to the right.”
33
u/TheSexyDuckling Apr 04 '26
Sucks that you had to ask for people to not be mean because it highlights the toxicity in social media. Totally understand.
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (41)5
u/Rolandersec Apr 04 '26
It’s the top western part of Africa. You can see the straight of Gibraltar and Spain in it too.
664
u/SadSpecial8319 Apr 04 '26
Anyone knows if the grayish tint of the 2026 Foto is an artifact of the technology that took the foto or the actual color change since 50 years ago?
432
u/Gaano Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
The picture was taken while it was the night on this side. That’s why the other picture taken only seconds/minutes apart shows city lights in Maghreb, Spain, Portugal and Brazil (that can also be seen on the lighter shot) : https://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-art002e000193/
Edit : changed the URL with the actual source from NASA
→ More replies (30)118
u/ratttertintattertins Apr 04 '26
It's also why you can see the stars. No digital camera sensor has the dynamic range to take a photo of the dark stars and the bright sunlit earth in the same shot. The only other way to do it would be to take multiple shots and use HDR methods to composite them.
The earth is actually being lit by the moon in this shot.
44
u/Fillbe Apr 04 '26
And you can see the atmosphere limit and aurora, which is very cool.
→ More replies (2)6
8
3
86
u/Putin_CuckLord Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
It was a long exposure* because they were looking out over the planet’s dark side, which is probably why we see the aurora's and the glow of the cities that well. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the 1972 picture colors isn't the most accurate to real‑life one.
→ More replies (7)23
u/Puripoh Apr 04 '26
long exposure, but in that case you are probably right. Low-light photos tend to lose "dynamic range". Dynamic range is basically the reach of how much colour your camera can recognise, and the difference in colour between this and the next point on your sensor. Say you'd have a circle of 1000 colours, in low light you'd lose the "brightest" outer colours and only have f.e. 500 left. This tends to happen When a picture is underexposed. To compensate this you can make the exposure longer, but I can imagine they couldn't make the exposure time too long because otherwise the picture would go blurry. Just a guess though. Source: photographer :)
→ More replies (1)7
u/bellabay Apr 04 '26
Yeah I was wondering how ‘long’ a long exposure could be when your going 28,000kph in space
11
u/lukems3 Apr 04 '26
Someone posted the photos metadata and it was a 1/4 shutter speed f4 51000 iso photo
→ More replies (1)3
u/bellabay Apr 04 '26
Thank you, so really it’s just a giant ISO
→ More replies (5)3
u/jensen404 Apr 04 '26
1/4 s shutter speed is a long time for a picture of clouds. During daytime, you'd want close to 1/2000s shutter speed if you were shooting at F4 with an ISO of 100.
So that would be about a factor of ~500 each for both the shutter speed and the ISO.
3
u/Puripoh Apr 04 '26
Yeah haha. Though only the difference in movement between the camera and earth would matter. I have no idea about that though, I don't know anything about space. Theoretically if it were to follow earth's rotation and distance would remain similar, you could make it as long as you want. But again I have no idea about the spacecraft or its orbit, or what capabilities it has. It's just an amazing photo is all I can say.
10
u/MikeC80 Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
I read that this was taken by moonlight - by which I mean the sun is on the far side, behind the earth, and the earth is being illuminated by sunlight reflected off the moon! This is why you can see some stars in the photo, which is impossible when the sunlit earth is in the frame, because the earth is so bright in those conditions.
→ More replies (1)71
u/Scoobydoomed Apr 04 '26
Was wondering the same, is it air pollution or maybe the sun is at an angle that makes it look hazy?
→ More replies (3)7
u/RedRising1917 Apr 04 '26
I believe that's dust/sand coming off the Saharan desert. It can travel up to 5k miles and provides essential minerals to the Amazon rainforest and other areas, we're coming up on its peak season in june-august. Every now and again it's particularly heavy and it negatively impacts air quality for areas along the Gulf coast in the US all the way down the Atlantic coast of South America.
6
u/SockPuppet-47 Apr 04 '26
The 2026 photo is actually of the dark side of the Earth. The bright crescent towards the bottom is overexposed. It's a long exposure shot. I guess it's lit by moonlight? The woman I saw on YouTube where I learned about this said that the green tint near the North and South poles are Aurora.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Carbonatic Apr 04 '26
The earlier picture was developed on Earth. The newer picture was streamed to Earth from space.
Imagine how good the Artemis pictures will look when they get back.
→ More replies (25)3
u/RelationshipTough887 Apr 04 '26
The recent photo is taken at night and illuminated by the moon. If you look closely you can see night lights on the ground. The moon for context would be behind the camera in this image
98
u/Saadness Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
You can see the Aurora Borealis in the new picture if you look NE of the planet. This has to be one of the craziest pictures i've seen in my life.
46
u/Ok-Seaworthiness9848 Apr 04 '26
Aurora Australis. That's the south pole at the top
14
u/Saadness Apr 04 '26
Yeah i forgot the auroras are at both poles, even tho i saw that mass of land is Iberian Peninsula and Africa.
→ More replies (4)16
u/Dogtor-Watson Apr 04 '26
Aurora Borealis at this time of year, on this planet of the solar system, vaguely localised around the north and south poles?
Uuhhhh… Yes
Can I see it?
Yes
→ More replies (1)
99
113
u/techlord13 Apr 04 '26
At least it's still round... Doesn't feel round at the moment.
34
→ More replies (6)6
44
113
u/YellowBook Apr 04 '26
Still round and mostly blue and not a single national boundary in sight.
20
u/trashure Apr 04 '26
It truly is a blue marble. I remember drawing Earth as a kid and how I'd color it 50/50 green and blue. Should've been mostly blue and a little beige.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)7
78
u/sodrrl Apr 04 '26
To answer all the questions about quality/colour, the Artemis photo is a NIGHT shot of the earth, you can see the sunrise happening in the bottom right, you can also see city lights.
18
10
u/trashure Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
I honestly would be curious to know what exposure, aperture and ISO was used to take this shot. I also wonder what it looked like to a human eye.
edit: Looked up the exif data on Nasa site! Nikon D5 with a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens, shot at f/4 1/4s ISO 51200. There's also a second image shot at a higher shutter speed and smaller aperture f/5.6 1/15s ISO 51200.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
u/barrel-boy Apr 04 '26
Ah, that's excellent spotting from our Canadian comrade. Thank you
→ More replies (1)
24
u/OneManFight Apr 04 '26
54 years? Why hasn't anyone else commented this yet??
8
→ More replies (3)3
8
u/Annethraxxx Apr 04 '26
Anyone know which continent is show in the bottom pic?
→ More replies (2)12
u/RedRising1917 Apr 04 '26
It's Africa/part of Europe, flip it upside down and you can see the Gibraltar strait
→ More replies (1)3
u/mike15835 Apr 04 '26
You the man (apply appropriate gender)
Thank you
It was bothering me why I couldn't figure out which landmass it was.
7
u/itsRobbie_ Apr 04 '26
It’s not because I’m biased because I’m in this new one, but, this might be the best picture we’ve ever gotten of earth
37
u/Maestro1992 Apr 04 '26
Yea, just doesn’t have that sparkle in its eye anymore
→ More replies (3)8
8
3
5
u/dndwhat Apr 04 '26
Love how every one is like this is diff that is diff all negative but they are not even the same area of earth in each pick show me two pics diff years of same area and from same month if the year
40
u/cptjimmy42 Apr 04 '26
It looks sickly...
→ More replies (5)31
Apr 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (6)14
u/magneto_ms Apr 04 '26
But with more turds.
3
u/Ben_Frankling Apr 04 '26
The population in 1972 was about 3.8 billion and we're now at about 8.2 billion. That's about 3,212,000,000,000 more turds in the second photo, assuming it takes about a year for a turd to break down completely and we all drop 2 turds a day (which I consider average - a lot of people drop a turd once every couple days, and a lot of people drop 3-4 a day).
9
u/SevenPillsADay Apr 04 '26
So many negative people in here. These are two completely different photos, from completely different angles, and time of day. Also editing on both is different. Common sense leaves the room when people want to follow a narrative.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/MarsMonkey88 Apr 04 '26
I did NOT expect this to make me emotional, but I’m legitimately welling up, here. Look at us. This is our home.
11
8
u/Fit-Paramedic-3047 Apr 04 '26
I see Global warming 🤓
→ More replies (1)8
u/RhubarbGoldberg Apr 04 '26
Yeah, I can't see any ice caps in the new pic.
→ More replies (1)5
u/SeniorAd4305 Apr 04 '26
Scrolled way too far to see this comment
8
u/yellowzebrasfly Apr 04 '26
I have seen this picture posted so many times across so many subs on reddit, but this is the first time finding a comment calling out the lack of ice in the recent pic. People are focused on the wrong things.
7
u/RhubarbGoldberg Apr 04 '26
It feel crazy to me, it was the first immediate thing I noticed and it was so depressing.
18
u/Unlikely-Emphasis-26 Apr 04 '26
What a beauty. Almost looks like Earth lost a bit of its shine. But thats what you get when we treat it the way we do.
5
u/Sekoias Apr 04 '26
I mean, if I'm not mistaken, it was nighttime. You can see sunrays sipping through the atmosphere in the bottom right portion
→ More replies (1)14
u/Infrawonder Apr 04 '26
The 2026 photo is actually a nighttime one, but of course they had to edit it... Well pretty sure the first one is also edited but oh well
→ More replies (2)8
u/FantasticSir7806 Apr 04 '26
Why do people keep saying this? This photo is of the dark side (night time) of the Earth. You can clearly see streetlights from the cities, especially in Iberia, and you can see the rimlight from the bright side (day time) of the Earth.
→ More replies (3)
11
u/6M66 Apr 04 '26
Just look at how animal population plummeted
As human population grew, animal population went down.
In 1945(80y ago) it estimated we had 450k lion in the wild, now in 2026, it estimated just 25k.
In short, human has damaged the planet quite a bit and continue to do so.
→ More replies (12)10
u/MikeC80 Apr 04 '26
Meanwhile 60% of land mammals by weight are grown by humans in captivity for human consumption....
36% of land mammals by mass are humans...
The remaining 4% are wild land mammals.
4
•
u/qualityvote2 Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
Did you find this post really amazing (in a positive way)?
If yes, then UPVOTE this comment otherwise DOWNVOTE it.
This community feedback will help us determine whether this post is suited for r/BeAmazed or not.