What the Moon really looks like

[Brian G Turner]

Most of us are pretty familiar with what the full moon looks like - but when images of a half-moon are put together, showing a greater lighting contrast on the surface, the Moon looks very different: Terminator: Moon

[NOTE: I've edited the image of the full moon to make it align with the high-contrast version, as the image on the Bad Astronomy blog is about 30 degrees different]

Normal:

And with contrast:

 

[Foxbat]

The contrast really gives it a sense of depth.

 

[Ori Vandewalle]

Man, the moon's had a rough 4.5 billion years.

 

[.matthew.]

Man, the's moon had a rough 4.5 billion years.

Try looking at the Earth some time. Craters and tectonic plates and volcanos all over the place.

And it really got rough since the Industrial Revolution

 

[Pyan]

So much more detail visible, especially around the edges. Interesting to see how Tycho almost fades into the background when the craters within the bright ejecta rays are emphasised by the contrast process.

 

[-K2-]

Fantastic images, thanks @Brian G Turner for sharing them.

I have to say, however, it looks like a dead chunk of rock to me. Granted, battered by impressive impacts, but nothing else giving it any character.

In contrast, here's an image of the U.S.:

There I'm seeing tremendous upheavals, erosion, geologic activity and so on. A living world that experienced considerable internal/external changes which affected its features.

K2

 

[Ori Vandewalle]

Try looking at the Earth some time. Craters and tectonic plates and volcanos all over the place.

And it really got rough since the Industrial Revolution

Those tectonic plates and volcanoes (and water and wind) mean the Earth gets to exfoliate every few hundred million years.

 

[Don]

Great work!

The notion of a stranded Arkonide vessel near the moon's north pole, slightly into the dark side, was one of the things, which hooked me on Perry Rhodan a couple of years ago...

 

[paranoid marvin]

That's no Moon...

 

[Pyan]

...it's cheese, Gromit!

 

[BAYLOR]

Most of us are pretty familiar with what the full moon looks like - but when images of a half-moon are put together, showing a greater lighting contrast on the surface, the Moon looks very different: Terminator: Moon

[NOTE: I've edited the image of the full moon to make it align with the high-contrast version, as the image on the Bad Astronomy blog is about 30 degrees different]

Normal:

View attachment 66618



And with contrast:

View attachment 66617

You can see Moonbase Alpha from here.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I find it really interesting how the enhanced contrast really brings out features that otherwise don't show at all in the normal image. I wonder if this poses a similar problem when imaging other moons and planets during flybys.

 

[Ori Vandewalle]

Yup! For example, when New Horizons did the MU69 flyby, it looked as if the little space snowman didn't have any craters, which is what astronomers expected for a distant Kuiper belt object. But there's definitely some uncertainty in that conclusion because the spacecraft was basically only able to take images fully illuminated by the sun.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Those interested in tectonics etc might like Supercontinent by Ted Knield, which I loved.

 

[.matthew.]

Those interested in tectonics etc might like Supercontinent by Ted Knield, which I loved.

"Join us for the biggest SMASH hit of 2021... In a world tearing apart at the seams, as every continent heads for an epic collision, one team of scrappy seismologists and their plucky undergraduates must travel to the centre of the earth to save us all!!!!!"

It sounded like a disaster movie. I'm now dissappointed