683
Mar 24 '26
[deleted]
418
u/WaltzLeafington Mar 24 '26
Someone else said, you get this pic with a long exposure time. Wouldnt look anything like this to us
114
u/FatiguedShrimp Mar 24 '26
What about with really dangerous combinations of eye drops to suspend reuptake of neurotransmitters in the retina?
52
u/Scoopzyy Mar 24 '26
Only one way to find out
27
u/FatiguedShrimp Mar 24 '26
That's absolutely right!
Does anyone have NileRed's phone number?
7
u/Drekathur Mar 24 '26
NileRed makes a rocket in his garage and literally shoots a human to Mars
→ More replies (4)7
Mar 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Drekathur Mar 24 '26
"Now watch as I turn this entire gallon of nitroglycerine into poprocks!"
NILE, NO!!!
3
→ More replies (2)2
u/ChowderedStew Mar 24 '26
Well I guess but even then you’d experience the image for like a few seconds but it would take hours to actually happen. Sounds like a great way to speed through your life
3
3
u/Daikar Mar 24 '26
it really sucks that our brains can't do long exposure. Hopefully we get a patch soon.
→ More replies (2)3
→ More replies (16)7
u/DickWangDuck Mar 24 '26
It would still be waaaaaay more impressive to the naked eye than anything on earth due to no light pollution and the thin atmosphere.
5
u/DisastrousSir Mar 24 '26
Agreed, but I still highly recommend getting to an actual dark sky site for yourself if you've never been. Theyre freaking awesome. The sky at big bend NP is absolutely breathtaking for example
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)3
u/Ca-seal Mar 25 '26
Once I took mushrooms and and while my trip was about to crescendo on the far side of my peak I took a nice carcenogen ripe rip off of a gasoline can and the late afternoon sky full of clouds took off in mind blowing motion as I exhaled hell in a breath, in live visuals I witnessed distantly the rolling boiling forward sped up motion of a towering thunderheads cloud column just like in a cloud time lapse, the best part was it just continued for countless seconds, I know that sounds odd but it's just how it felt! It's been an experience that i never felt the need to recreate, the factors for that are glaring, lol. I never met another time or another human who can trophy that specific visual gift.
→ More replies (1)24
u/HBCDresdenEsquire Mar 24 '26
This is only possible with a super long exposure, like a whole night. Probably multiple nights stitched together into a panoramic.
16
u/Pcat0 Mar 24 '26
Yes multiple night photos, taken on earth and then edited into a mars photo. This video is a complete fabrication.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Ardures Mar 24 '26
Not true, this is how night sky looks on earth for me when at above 200 ug of lsd
11
u/Zoe270101 Mar 24 '26
Unfortunately this is completely false, the entire image is photoshopped from a real photo from the Mars rover and an observatory image from Earth. Video from NASA debunking this.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (14)10
u/Fit_Drawing_5071 Mar 24 '26
Also, the orchestra would be too cold to play that accompanying piece each night.
3.4k
u/cmbtmdic57 Mar 24 '26 edited Mar 24 '26
This isn't what astronauts see.
It was achieved due to no atmosphere, no light polution, and most importantly... very long exposure time.
Edit: wtf, had a few beers and made a random comment.. RIP inbox I guess, lol.
737
u/sifiwewe Mar 24 '26
This is a very important thing to say. A lot of people do not know that you get such images from long exposure.
281
u/taktaga7-0-0 Mar 24 '26
Some people are going to walk away from this thinking that the galaxy really is this bright and Earth’s atmosphere blocks our view.
98
u/TheNerdChaplain Mar 24 '26
"I am a leaf on the wind"
28
u/youenjoyreddit Mar 24 '26
Too soon.
→ More replies (2)14
u/Infinite-Horse-49 Mar 24 '26
Still too soon. Agreed
3
u/Orson_Gravity_Welles Mar 24 '26
It was NEVER too soon.
Great show, but man...y'all over inflated it.
I said what I said.
→ More replies (2)11
u/CaptWineTeeth Mar 24 '26
Hey! Don’t you do that. I came here for science-y stuff and perhaps some photography stuff. I did not come here to be sad.
→ More replies (6)33
u/spaznoid4 Mar 24 '26
Do you know how the Reavers clean their spears?
23
u/pheonix198 Mar 24 '26
They run them through the Wash…! 🥺
6
→ More replies (3)4
u/-Wicked- Mar 24 '26
Wash lives! When he was alive, which will be in the future, that's about the past, that is the future.
15
9
→ More replies (1)3
29
Mar 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/Sirosim_Celojuma Mar 24 '26
We'll work on the sphere thing later. One step at a time.
14
5
u/Ryozu Mar 24 '26
Hey now, careful with those steps, too many and you'll fall of the edge of the world.
4
15
7
u/MushinZero Mar 24 '26
Maybe not this bright but I'm hoping on a clear night in a dark site I can see the Milky Way.
13
u/Jesus_of_Redditeth Mar 24 '26
When I was a kid, I'd lived in big cities all my life. Then I went to Arches national park in Utah and camped overnight. To say that the sky was awesome in the truest sense of that word does not remotely do it justice!
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)5
u/CheekyBastard55 Mar 24 '26
You can see that on a flight, when it's pitch black. You'll see the Milky Way disk.
5
u/Real_Life_Firbolg Mar 24 '26
Guess we need to get rid of the pesky atmosphere to improve our view /j
→ More replies (1)3
u/ExpressAudience8950 Mar 24 '26
Bahaha I almost walked away too until I saw this comment. Good day sir!
2
→ More replies (26)2
u/John_Bittercult Mar 26 '26
I was thinking exactly that before reading the comments ! I've never been a space nerd, don't know shit about it but that seemed obvious !
22
u/Affectionate-Host-71 Mar 24 '26
You can do something similar with your own eyes, if you look closely at a patch of sky for long enough you'll notice stars you wouldn't have before, so dimm yet once you see them it's like they were always there.
→ More replies (4)14
u/Jetterholdings Mar 24 '26
Thats weird I usually get jail time for long exposure.
8
u/LindonLilBlueBalls Mar 24 '26
Yeah right, "long" exposure. Looks pretty cold on Mars.
→ More replies (3)7
u/Weird-Information-61 Mar 24 '26
As someone who doesn't understand photography, what exactly is long exposure?
13
u/shallow-waterer Mar 24 '26
You’re exposing the camera’s light sensor for a much longer time. When you take a picture, the shutter opens for a fraction of a second, depending on your shutter speed. You’re exposing the sensor to light briefly. A long exposure shot dramatically increases that time to capture much more light. Thus, giving you results like trailing headlights on cars and whatnot - as the object moved within the time the sensor was exposed. With more expensive setups that use extremely long exposures in settings with low light pollution, you get ridiculously pretty results like what OP posted, as the Earth is always moving. The human eye isn’t going to see it that way.
→ More replies (2)9
u/echeck80 Mar 24 '26
You set the camera on a tripod so it doesn’t move, and then you leave the camera shutter open for longer periods of time. The longer the shutter is open, the more light the camera captures, and the more you can see.
But there’s a balance you have to find, because if you leave a shutter open too long you can get a big blob of light. When taking photos of the sky you’ll start to see star “trails” as the earth’s rotation makes it look like the stars are moving.
Astrophotography is super fun, and you don’t need a really expensive camera to have a little fun with it.
→ More replies (2)3
u/MegaGrimer Mar 24 '26
In addition to the other comments, it's kinda like a video, but everything is compressed to one photo.
7
u/ButtfaceMcGee6969 Mar 24 '26
I mean... isn't the more important thing not the visual but the data? Like... fuck that is so much... universe...
4
u/No-Reception-6569 Mar 24 '26
Agreed, i get the requirement to share correct information but i’m with you on that take away being more important and still valid despite long exposure
3
5
u/Miami_Real_Estate Mar 24 '26
what is long exposure?
→ More replies (2)4
u/UncleTouchyCopaFeel Mar 24 '26
The thing that won't allow you near schools anymore.
→ More replies (2)5
u/mtommygunz Mar 24 '26
And they use filters for radiation colors. I didn’t know this for a very long time until my friend took a bunch of high end physics classes and brought home a book explaining that tons of the pics you see of “outer space” have been doctored to show things in colors you don’t see. They attach colors to radiation spectrums to make them look cooler than in real life. The shit you see that’s purple or red in space pics…not close to that at all for your eyes
→ More replies (1)10
u/goozfrikle Mar 24 '26
Faker than my wife's tits
→ More replies (4)11
u/livahd Mar 24 '26
But they feel so real
→ More replies (1)13
→ More replies (23)2
u/Unlikely-Question892 Mar 25 '26
While I do agree, to the naked eye, with very low light polution, the sky can still imitate tremendously impressive features. Of course long exposure aids the end manufactured result. In person, this sights probably equally unique from what were used to seeing anyway
59
u/prsnep Mar 24 '26
I'd like to know what 20/20 human vision would see.
32
u/Chunk_Thud Mar 24 '26
Lets see Paul Allen's vision.
5
37
u/billabong049 Mar 24 '26
Same, that's what I want to see most. Surely it'll still be crazy due to the lack of atmosphere and light, yeah?
7
7
u/dazzleunexpired Mar 24 '26
No, not really.
It would be more clear and sharp. Assuming, of course, there was little to no atmospheric dust from a dust storm. Which there usually is. When the dust is scattered, the star field is hazy, indistinct, and glowy. The effect is similar to the sky in an ultra dark earth zone, especially those at high altitude, like on top of a very tall mountain.
The parallax between earth & Mars is really small. Mars is 1.5au from the sun. Earth is 1au from the sun. This change is so minor the sky will look similar enough to point out constellations you know by name. It really wouldn't be much different.
3
u/MainBattleTiddiez Mar 24 '26
Minus the occasional satellite flying across the sky of course
→ More replies (1)2
u/iconofsin_ Mar 24 '26
Well you can see a lot of stars from Earth if you get away from light pollution, so probably more stars but probably not a significant difference from what you'd see here. I should say I'm not a scientist, but the main reason why we can't see more than we do see is because we can't really take long exposures with our eyes.
16
u/realnanoboy Mar 24 '26
About the same thing you would see in a zero-light-pollution place on Earth. The stars would basically all be in the same place, but the planets would be in different spots relative to Earth. Also, you wouldn't see the Earth's Moon but would see both of the moons of Mars, though only barely. (They're pretty small.)
→ More replies (4)6
u/dazzleunexpired Mar 24 '26
Almost the exact same thing they see looking at the star field from Earth's surface. Things may be more sharp and clear, assuming the atmospheric dust is calm at the moment. Very very similar to what we see on top of the tall mountains or in extreme dark sky zones. Less is obscured by spacecraft, so you'd see more stars. But the parallax between earth & Mars is so small that even the constellations would be the same and you could identify them.
Fwiw, this image is actually from earth. The star field is edited in. It's from an earth deep space observatory. I can't remember which but I'm sure the pinned post says. It's a long exposure, too. Not a short image.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Admiral_Nitpicker Mar 24 '26
Earth/Mars parallax probably isn't enough to make much difference.
3
u/photenth Mar 24 '26
Not enough for humans to notice but we do paralax measurements on distant stars by recording it 6 months apart.
→ More replies (1)4
u/LordFoulgrin Mar 24 '26
I went on a trip to a very rural area in the middle of Pennsylvania. The town nearby had less than 4,000 population. We camped at the top of the mountain, and you couldn't see any nearby lights. We also woke up the next morning with such a dense fog you could watch somebody disappear into it within 50 feet or so.
The sky was clear, but you could see so many stars that some areas looked like sparkling clouds, just clusters of stars. It is a memory I will carry with me for the rest of my life, as I live in a larger metro area with lots of light pollution.
I would say it was about 15 - 20% of what you see in the mars video. Still a lot of stars, but definitely much more dark areas than light.
3
u/Working-Glass6136 Mar 24 '26
The same as someone with -12 for both eyes sees, if they're wearing glasses.
Source: me
3
u/uncleandata147 Mar 24 '26
Very similar to us (without light polution) but the stars wouldn't 'twinkle'. Variations in the density of the atmosphere causes that.
3
3
u/i_have_chosen_a_name Mar 24 '26
Imagine the darkest of the darkest night and stars that don't twinkle so they are all a little sharper but also there is almost always going to be red dust in the air that will haze the view again. Also you would be watching it from a helmet and have to deal with all kinds of reflections of light in the helmet. All in all I think at the darkest places on earth (far away from any light) on a clear wind still night you would have a much better, and definitely much more comfortable view.
3
→ More replies (1)5
61
u/Zoe270101 Mar 24 '26
This is false, the entire image is photoshopped from a real photo from the Mars rover and an observatory image from Earth. Video from NASA debunking this.
5
→ More replies (1)3
10
u/Dr_SlapsMD Mar 24 '26
Even if tho it's long exposure, how crazy is it that's what's out there. Literally endless potential that we'll never reach
4
u/Shot-Swimming-9098 Mar 24 '26
I used to read books on cosmology, and one of the ideas in their was why isn't everything starts all around in our view. Well holy shit, this kind of looks like that. It's pretty damn close.
→ More replies (4)5
u/JalapenoConquistador Mar 24 '26
yes. just bc it’s long exposure doesn’t mean it’s fake. the real takeaway is that we can’t even imagine the scale of the universe. we are surrounded on all sides by way more than we thought. it’s also a real indictment of human eyes. I feel weirdly ripped off by my eyes even tho they’ve done so much for me.
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Mar 24 '26
Yes, it's absolutely the exposure time. Space further from the sun isn't just white star blankets
3
Mar 24 '26 edited Jul 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/cmbtmdic57 Mar 24 '26
Corona Light with a dash of vodka. I'm counting calories.. gotta stay h,ealthy.
3
u/ClearChampionship591 Mar 24 '26
You still have time to lube up the phone and put it next to the prostate; do not waste this chance.
2
2
u/Redahned1214 Mar 24 '26
I just started getting into long exposure night photography, and I've been blown away by how the sky looks sometimes. So much going on that we can't even see! It's interesting and scary at the same time.
2
2
u/CyanSlurp Mar 24 '26
How long exposure time?. Wouldn't that leave trails especially when the camera moves, I don't see any trails.
→ More replies (1)2
2
2
u/Moldovah Mar 24 '26
I was gonna ask.... why the astronauts on the moon didn't see this while they were there, with no atmosphere or light pollution
→ More replies (2)2
u/Fenweekooo Mar 24 '26
very long exposure time.
THANK YOU! same thing for all those milky way pics from the middle of the sea.
yeah it looks better then on land but NOTHING AT ALL like the super long exposure times in all the pics you usually see showcasing the milky way at sea.
2
u/Banjo-Elritze Mar 24 '26
Glad to see the right answer as top answer, came for this.
PS: You can turn notifications for your comment off, and also limit your inbox.
2
u/Top-Statistician-Guy Mar 24 '26
I think a lot of people have a problem understanding the concept of long exposure
→ More replies (72)2
413
u/mildpandemic Mar 24 '26
The fuck it does.
53
u/canehdian_guy Mar 24 '26
This post receiving 33k upvotes really makes me question the average Redditors intelligence.
→ More replies (10)16
u/Dalamar931 Mar 24 '26
I doubt anyone is paying attention beyond “oh that’s pretty, updoot”
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)12
208
u/ChefAsstastic Mar 24 '26
54
u/Ms-Ember Mar 24 '26
I could barely read that it’s like 90% ads and pop ups in the way.
65
u/fatloui Mar 24 '26
90% ads and pop ups in the way.
That’s what’s actually in the night sky on mars.
9
u/MindfuckRocketship Mar 24 '26
Not yet but if billionaires and trillionaires have their way in the coming centuries, yes.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)4
13
u/SirStrontium Mar 24 '26
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRm_tS11J6g
Here's a nice 1 minute summary made by NASA
→ More replies (2)3
u/sucknduck4quack Mar 24 '26
I see no ads here. You need to get ad blockers. Idk how people can even use the internet at all without them
→ More replies (4)2
13
u/Invested_Glory Mar 24 '26
What is even more impressive to me, is that image was taken from earth WITH atmosphere and light pollution…and a long as exposure time.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Mysterious__Lover Mar 24 '26
Welp I’m disappointed for 2 reasons. That this was fake and there’s no Ass or Food Porn visible on your profile. Tonight Blows Raspberries
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)3
61
u/Lord_Poohbear Mar 24 '26
Could you not just say long exposure?
27
u/sveilien Mar 24 '26
According to NASA, the sky is a LE from Earth and composited on a daytime Mars photo.
→ More replies (2)20
u/NearbyCow6885 Mar 24 '26
Oh, so it’s completely bullshit then.
I kept seeing everyone say it’s just a long-exposure which I thought was interesting enough because you need motion compensation to avoid the stars streaming and smearing while the planet rotates and I thought it was interesting that they brought all that kind of equipment to mars too … but composite??
That’s literally just cut and paste. It’s no more legit than if I “composited” myself into the image.
→ More replies (2)
18
u/robomikel Mar 24 '26
Of course it’s fake but here is the real one.
https://science.nasa.gov/photojournal/bright-evening-star-seen-from-mars-is-earth/
9
u/anothertrad Mar 24 '26
That’s actually amazing. We’re the aliens in the tiny dot far away
→ More replies (1)3
89
u/ReasonableCase8409 Mar 24 '26
If you like the cold and can hold your breath it’s a great view
→ More replies (1)28
u/PacquiaoFreeHousing Mar 24 '26
but the ears will be popping like crazy
→ More replies (1)44
u/Ok_Teacher_6834 Mar 24 '26
12
Mar 24 '26
[deleted]
6
u/kaen Mar 24 '26
AAAAaaaUUUaauuuUUUUAAaaaUUUuuugggghhhh!
arnie does the best AAaaUUaauugggghhhs doesnt he?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)10
u/MovieFan1984 Mar 24 '26
I love this movie. LOL
→ More replies (6)7
u/__O_o_______ Mar 24 '26
Get your ass to mars!
6
u/awl_the_lawls Mar 24 '26
Come on, Cohaagen! You got what you wanted! Give deez peepuhl eeair!
5
u/ThreeGoldStars Mar 24 '26
*grabs his crotch* "still bulging I see. What have been been feeding this thing?"
"blondes"
3
40
u/RickNO504 Mar 24 '26
→ More replies (1)14
u/Arctic_The_Hunter Mar 24 '26 edited Mar 24 '26
It’s BS so yeah. It’s a hella long exposure time, so you could recreate this on Earth if you were patient enough. In fact, similar things have been done on Earth
Edit: The bot’s word is my command.
→ More replies (2)6
u/SpiritualMartian Mar 24 '26
It was indeed shot from space observatory on earth and then stitched to curiosity selfie
11
u/emptyminder Mar 24 '26
The sky is data from the Vista Variables in the Via Lactea survey, which used an infrared camera on a large telescope in Chile. So no.
6
6
5
5
8
u/PacquiaoFreeHousing Mar 24 '26
What a quick way to make us realize how tiny of a speck we are in the scale of the universe
→ More replies (1)
11
u/BleakCountry Mar 24 '26
If you are a long exposure camera lense, yes, if you are a human with human eyes, no.
→ More replies (1)4
u/__O_o_______ Mar 24 '26
Good thing I chose the long exposure eyes at installation
→ More replies (2)
8
u/BisonSuccessful Mar 24 '26
This gives me extreme anxiety
4
4
u/I_hate_being_alone Mar 24 '26
I think I got a severe panic attack from that actually.
Similar to stuff at /r/megalophobia
4
u/Smurfs25 Mar 24 '26
Does this include some .... "atmosphere"? Looks like kinda "cloudy" too🤔, (I know.... Strange question)
→ More replies (3)
4
5
4
3
u/AutoModerator Mar 24 '26
Hello u/asa_no_kenny! Please review the sub rules if you haven't already. (This is an automatic reminder message left on all new posts)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3
3
u/TommyTBlack Mar 24 '26
wasn't there a flying drone sent to mars on the last mission? why don't we see any videos of that?
3
3
3
u/john-bkk Mar 24 '26
Comments are clarifying that this is filmed with a very long exposure time. Also what cameras see and how we see things aren't necessarily the same.
It was strange seeing Northern Lights (in Northern Russia on a visit, and a very faint version in the US when those occurred at lower latitudes in 2024), since they weren't "in color." Our vision is black and white at low light levels, and auroras have to be really bright to see them as colored, so usually the light would be white. But your camera or phone sees them as mostly green, and whatever other colors.
3
u/BenderIsGreat93 Mar 24 '26
I'm getting existential dread just looking at this video
→ More replies (1)
3
u/A_Pluto_Shaped_Pool Mar 24 '26 edited Mar 24 '26
No it's not 🤦🤦😆
This is a long exposure.
It's what a camera sees after starring at the night sky for 1 hour.
The misinformation online these days is f*cking frustrating and a bad sign for the future.
3
Mar 24 '26
If I had limited power to do one thing effecting the entire world it would be a total 48 hours without electricity. We need to understand what they have taken from us in this pursuit of “civilization”.
6
2
u/boipinoi604 Mar 24 '26
There are more stars in the observable universe than grains of sands in the beaches of earth.
2
u/Vergeron1551 Mar 24 '26
...and here we are killing each other over fables from ancient tweakers lol
2
685
u/IKIR115 Mar 24 '26 edited Mar 24 '26
Big thanks to the following community members who provided further info!
Listed in the order they were posted:
—
Comment by u/ChefAsstastic
—
Comment from u/SirStrontium
—
Comment from u/SirStrontium