Page 1 of 1

Not a lot of water?

Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:45 am
by Cody

Re: Not a lot of water?

Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:55 am
by Gimi
Cool comparison.
Idea: do the same with the atmosphere, and be surprised how thin the Earth's atmosphere actually is.

Re: Not a lot of water?

Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:28 am
by Cody
Gimi wrote:
Cool comparison.
Idea: do the same with the atmosphere, and be surprised how thin the Earth's atmosphere actually is.
I've no real idea, but I suspect that the atmosphere would be a much larger sphere than the water... anyone know the numbers?

Re: Not a lot of water?

Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:46 am
by Disembodied
The atmosphere image (alongside another water one) is available here. Although much would depend on what pressure the atmosphere sphere is under ... I think here it's supposed to be at 1 bar.

Re: Not a lot of water?

Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:48 am
by Cody
<nods>

Re: Not a lot of water?

Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:54 am
by Gimi
I find the atmosphere image more surprising. All the gas around the entire world in that little ball.
Good find El Viejo (and Disembodied).

Re: Not a lot of water?

Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:08 am
by Smivs
<Smivs takes a deep breath...goes for a drink>

Re: Not a lot of water?

Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 1:22 pm
by SandJ
I was surprised the first time I saw a high-res photo of the earth in profile that mountains simply do not register. Doing the sums:

Diameter of the Earth: 12,800 km

Display it on a screen of 1280 x 1024 and give 90% of the height to the Earth means the diameter is spread across 920 pixels = 14 km per pixel.

Everest is 8.8km high so barely warrants a pixel to itself.

But at the top of Everest, you need bottled air to breathe.

So the usable atmosphere will not be visible on a picture of the Earth this big.

The highest clouds that are normally visible are at 18km - two pixels from the surface. (The very highest clouds that can occur are at up to 85 km, which would be 6 pixels, but you've probably never seen them.)

This has made me wonder for some years: just how often are Earth photos photoshopped to make the atmosphere visible because we expect it to be visible?

Edit: On this large NASA 'blue marble' photo of the earth, the breathable atmosphere is about 1 pixel thick. The blue band is 18 pixels thick, being about 125 km.

Re: Not a lot of water?

Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 3:07 pm
by Disembodied
SandJ wrote:
This has made me wonder for some years: just how often are Earth photos photoshopped to make the atmosphere visible because we expect it to be visible?
I think the NASA "blue marble" image is still the only image of the whole Earth ever taken by a human being: the others are either composites, or taken by unmanned spacecraft (like the photo that Voyager 1 took in 1990, where the whole Earth is 0.12 pixels across. :)). But shots from space which show the atmosphere are usually taken from low orbit, where the atmosphere line would be visible: I can't think of any full-planet photographs that show an atmospheric ring, although there are quote a few illustrations/mockups which do. You're probably right, people think it makes the image look more "real".

Re: Not a lot of water?

Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 3:20 pm
by Cody
This is the original (I think) Apollo Blue Marble image - still the best.

Re: Not a lot of water?

Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 3:20 pm
by Cody
Whereas Europa has plenty of water for its size!