submitted 2 weeks ago by thebartermyth@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

You can't literally see lights from space or whatever. If somewhere had less coverage on google maps you wouldn't think it's uninhabited, but for some reason, people irl seem to be constantly referring to this image as though it's a literal picture. Mostly for 'civilized' reasons, but also light pollution and just other stuff. Maybe this just made the rounds on reddit or something?

top 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Esoteir@hexbear.net 14 points 2 weeks ago

i uhh, i thought you could see the lights from space?

https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/photo.pl?mission=ISS028&roll=E&frame=33400

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Those are taken with an 8-20 second shutter speed which takes in considerably more light. In some cases they actually take several dozen photos in the same spot then stitch them together as one picture, this brings out light considerably more than it is visible usually.

Here's live video, you will see little to no light: https://youtu.be/DfEr5XCFNWM

[-] Esoteir@hexbear.net 12 points 2 weeks ago

that's more bc of the poor quality the ISS main cam is versus the new EHDC camera, you can see lights at night on the higher res livestream camera

[-] Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 7 points 2 weeks ago

exactly. it takes quite a few seconds of exposure for most cameras to match a human eye's low-light perception.

[-] Esoteir@hexbear.net 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

this yeah stalin-approval

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 2 points 2 weeks ago

Yes but this is still a tiny amount of light compared to the composite images and slow shutter speed images intended to capture light. It's the same technique as photographing epic pictures of stars and galaxies in the night sky.

[-] Esoteir@hexbear.net 2 points 2 weeks ago

okay but i was replying to OP saying you literally can't see them from space and you can?

you could use the same argument about the aurora borealis, just because it's darker in person doesn't mean you can't see it

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 1 points 2 weeks ago

I wasn't trying to be rude, sorry if I came off that way.

[-] Esoteir@hexbear.net 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

it's all good, i think i took your reply in the wrong way, so i'm sorry about that. I was replying to OP saying you can't see the lights from space, so I took the correction as an "um, actually you can't, you can only really see them in a camera picture", where after rereading, I think you were more responding to me responding to OP's entire post and saying that it would only look like the same brightness as the composite image with the high shutter speeds getting an exposure probably higher than the human eye could get, which is a fair assumption

that being said i just looked at the first ISS picture I posted again and you can see the metadata, which has it at a shutter speed of one second so shrug-outta-hecks

[-] HexReplyBot@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

[-] Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 8 points 2 weeks ago

city lights are most definitely visible from low earth orbit. astronauts aboard the ISS have said as much.

[-] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I'm bothered by the large bright spot in West Siberia.

[-] context@hexbear.net 10 points 2 weeks ago

looks like there's a lot of oil/gas wells in that region, they might have a lot of big lights set up for nighttime operations

[-] BoxedFenders@hexbear.net 6 points 2 weeks ago

It still seems way bigger than their energy production would require. That area is larger than all of Central Europe and just as brightly lit with a tiny fraction of the population.

[-] context@hexbear.net 5 points 2 weeks ago

to add to @Chronicon@hexbear.net's comment, that region is quite far north and the image is mercator projection. the size is significantly exaggerated relative to lower latitudes, and 6 months of the year it's "nighttime" so any industrial operations will need to be well lit.

[-] Chronicon@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

oh wow can't believe I didn't even think of the fact that its like, arctic circle territory and spends so much of the year in darkness.

[-] Chronicon@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

I mean, when has the fossil fuel industry ever cared about wasting energy or light pollution?

Here's a satellite view of like a 50km square (very ballpark) area:

every one of those white spots is some sort of extraction site, an oil/gas well, or a mine, or whatever, probably like 5 football fields in area minimum, and probably all brightly lit 24/7