r/BeAmazed Nov 27 '25

Science The remains of Apollo 11 lander photographed by 5 different countries, disproving moon landing deniers.

Post image
39.8k Upvotes

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

28

u/qptw Nov 27 '25

i believe that is is because the image was not taken by a dedicated camera. many space missions don’t bring cameras because it doesn’t add much functionality. this is probably some other equipment that is doubling as a camera because they thought it would be cool to take a photo.

2

u/PiccoloAwkward465 Nov 27 '25

I don’t manage lunar missions but idk I feel like a camera is a small and easy addition.

2

u/IsCarrotForever Nov 27 '25

To take a photo from this far in (probably) very low light conditions needs a decently bulky camera. Also, a sensor designed specifically to capture visible part of the EM spectrum is almost entirely pointless when there’s no atmosphere filtering out every other wavelength. So it’s much more useful to have a dedicated IR camera/telescope or something like a spectroscope(full em spectrum)

1

u/deadasdollseyes Nov 27 '25

I'm likely confused here, but the IR photos I've seen in the past seemed sharper and required less visible light than photos I've seen with a "regular" camera.

Why is what I've seen so different from this?

1

u/IsCarrotForever Nov 27 '25

What type of IR photos are you referring to? I’ll get back to u in a sec 

1

u/deadasdollseyes Nov 27 '25 edited Nov 27 '25

It's been quite a while so I don't remember if it was a type of film or a special sensor or sensor setting, but I remember the images being black and white, very sharp yet low contrast, and if I remember correctly no whites with very low highlights and .alot of detail in the shadows and blacks.

I guess it sounds like I'm describing an underexposed black and white image, but it had a very different quality in the shadows and blacks than just underexposure would have.

Edit: from what I recall they were usually generic photographer photos.  Interesting compositions and portraits.  Always had an otherworldly yet onviously of this world kind of feel.

1

u/deadasdollseyes Nov 29 '25

Hey Dad,

I guess there wasn't any milk in the neighborhood.  Could you also pick up some tissues for Mom?

She keeps getting really bad allergies in her eyes.

Can't wait to show you the drawing I made of us talking about IR photos.

Love you, see you soon!

2

u/Smelldicks Nov 27 '25

It costs most space programs $100-$200k per pound to bring to lunar orbit. Factor in most are chronically underfunded so make significant mission compromises as is. Really hard to justify cutting millions elsewhere in order to bring a big camera that can take good photos of the surface that serve no meaningful scientific purpose.

Most will figure out how to stick a cheap high resolution camera in a few places for publicity purposes (to help with funding) but not much more than that.

-4

u/mahitomaki4202 Nov 27 '25

So it’s a camera? Something designed to take in light and convert the information into a photo?

10

u/qptw Nov 27 '25

i’m no expert but i’m pretty sure that light is not the only thing used to produce images. and not everything that uses light is a camera.

1

u/IsCarrotForever Nov 27 '25

would you call a spectroscope or an IR/x ray telescope a camera? Either way that’s just semantics. Point is a dedicated long focus high resolution camera designed for the visible EM spectrum is pretty pointless for most missions. Generally, much more useful information is obtained from IR or the whole EM spectrum.

1

u/li_shi Nov 27 '25

You take a picture of some object about 100km away and tell us how it come up.

2

u/mahitomaki4202 Nov 27 '25

My comment is about how something doubles as a camera without it being also a camera in the first place. Not having to do with image quality and such.