Why dont we have a single picture of the earth from any of the geosynchronous satellites we have in orbit?

Why dont we have a single picture of the earth from any of the geosynchronous satellites we have in orbit?

They orbit at 35,000km - more than enough distance to get a good picture of the earth.

Are you telling me no one has strapped a fucking digital camera to any of them?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cVzl9Dqg2o4
weather.unisys.com/satellite/
youtube.com/watch?v=3tw0u0a2Pbw
goes.noaa.gov/
epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
goes.gsfc.nasa.gov/text/goes.fulldisk.html
rtl-sdr.com/rtl-sdr-tutorial-receiving-noaa-weather-satellite-images/
epic.gsfc.nasa.gov
ssec.wisc.edu/data/geo/
api.nasa.gov/api.html#EPIC
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Why would anyone want to take pictures of the Earth from a geostationary orbit? It's a long way away, and you only get to look at a single spot. Placing cameras in LEO is better in every possible way.

You dont think that anyone involved in funding the launch of these sats wouldnt be intersted in getting a picture of the earth from pic related vantage point???

How much is a shitty camera? 100 bucks?

jesus christ

You know, satellites do not exist for the purpose of convincing flat earthers. Sane people usually already got it.

Well you can't just use a "shitty camera". It needs to work in fucking space. It's also not like you can just strap it to the satellites and that's it. It demands some engineering to power it, to process the pictures it makes and then send those pictures back to earth. If your satellite is supposed to something else entirely, then that's not something someone will do in his free time, because why not.

Despite that, here you go
youtube.com/watch?v=cVzl9Dqg2o4

you're my hero

>You dont think that anyone involved in funding the launch of these sats wouldnt be intersted in getting a picture of the earth from pic related vantage point???
Given it's a terrible vantage point, I'm not really surprised it hasn't publicly happened.
Geostationary orbit is far away enough that your pictures would look like ass, but not far enough to actually be interesting.

>How much is a shitty camera? 100 bucks?
Much more than that buy the time you've put it on a satellite, and more again by the time you've sent it to geostationary orbit. The price of a camera on a store shelf isn't really the important thing here.

>jesus christ
Why are you upset about this?
You're acting like it's unthinkable that people wouldn't do this, but you've not really given any reasons why they would WANT to.

>youtube.com/watch?v=cVzl9Dqg2o4

i can literally see the points where adobe premier is creating artifacts in the rendering...

>Why dont we have a single picture of the earth from any of the geosynchronous satellites we have in orbit?
??
There's no shortage of them.

weather.unisys.com/satellite/

Ha e you never held a DSLR? Top of the line ones are 1-2kg easily. Now add all the extra stuff needed to rig it, process pics etc and we're at 2-3kg, or $10-15k

>picture of a rendered planet
Please, that's like saying Michelangelo's pictures of babies with wings are concrete facts that cupid exists. Give me some evidence.

Because the earth is flat

>from orbit
Because space doesn't exist you fucking retard.

So what do you think the pictures from the moon are? Does that mean you believe the moon landing was a hoax?

Also, does a cool weather balloon experiment like this get close to what you were looking for?

youtube.com/watch?v=3tw0u0a2Pbw

>Show photo from geosynchronous orbit
>"it's fake"
You guys are so predictable.

>Give me some evidence.
Just look them up yourself

Here are some of the images from the GOES geostationary weather satellites above the US:
goes.noaa.gov/

Here's DSCOVR, it takes like 11 hi-res color pictures of the earth each day from L1:
epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Then download the raws here:
goes.gsfc.nasa.gov/text/goes.fulldisk.html

You want images taken by a shitty camera? Well this oughta be more than good enough

why flat earth threads aren't an immediate 2 week ban is beyond me

yea, too bad your opinions mean nothing to anyone. go kill yourself

If you fell for the RTL SDR meme you can get pictures of the Earth from space, yourself
rtl-sdr.com/rtl-sdr-tutorial-receiving-noaa-weather-satellite-images/

>nasa
>.gov

Sheep.

And what does that make you?

It costs more to program a picture taking machine than it does for a camera it's self

I'm guessing you'll only accept pictures from obamaisareptilian.com

im a comsat operator and no no one strapped a camera on one because there's no point. comsats use sunsensors\earthsensors\startrackers for navigation\maneuvering.
adding a camera also adds needless complexity to the satelite's internal communication and off the shelf comsat equipment\computers cant really handle storing\transmitting images .

also comsat industry is extremely conservative as these things cost a shitton of money to build and launch and last like 15-20 years you dont wanna fuck around with the equipment you put on it, its not uncommon for them to have really old computers because those models are tested and are reliable .

>You dont think that anyone involved in funding the launch of these sats wouldnt be intersted in getting a picture of the earth from pic related vantage point???
no
spy\scientific imaging sats are in LEO so they can get a better image and cover a good chunk of the earth in an orbit .
putting an imaging\spy payload on a GEO sat is objectively worse and more expensive then putting it on a LEO sat.

its less about weight and more about having to fuck around with lots of systems to integrate it into the satellite's communication system.
if you're gonna be constantly transmitting images you need new MUX\digitizers and shit to handle the bandwidth which is much higher then your usual telemetry and you need to take up some of ur antenna's bandwidth which is potential money lost.

basically no one pays enough money for GEO pictures\video so no one does it.

Well what the fuck were you expecting
Geo does make sense for weather satellites, because they can get a continuous uninterrupted view of a place. NASA's GOES does this.

Here you go. An image from the Deep Space Climate Observatory. You ask for 35,000km, I deliver 1,000,000 miles. You're welcome. Thread closed.

maps.google.com

>Well what the fuck were you expecting
It's almost like he was trolling or something

fake image

Could one of you flat earthers, please, please just say what evidence you would accept?

Baseless claim.

don't forget above top secret, flat earth society and good ol' /x/

Not Geosynchronous, but DSCOVR is far enough to get the entire planet in each photo (captures about 10-20 per day).

epic.gsfc.nasa.gov
epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Strap them to the side of the next Falcon9 stage that will land again.

If it works and the survive, then they get learnt and we all win.

If it blows up with them on it, lets face it, we still win

where are the stars?

>wahh if the photos aren't like I saw space in star wars then it's fake

Due to the way cameras work, you can either see definition in the Earth or in the stars, but not both. If you setup the camera to show definition in the stars, the Earth will look like an amorphous white blob, bleeding into the blackness of space. If you setup the camera to show definition in the Earth, you see no stars. It has to do with the difference in light intensity between the Earth (high intensity) and the stars (low intensity). A camera can only be setup to show definition in a narrow range of light intensities.

Fucking flat Earth lazy-assed sanctimonious Go-squad moron...
ssec.wisc.edu/data/geo/

your argument is to link to a rendered black and white image of a quadrant of the "globe"?

>rendered
It's a map overlay of a photo, dumbass.

If you don't believe pics taken of Earth from the moon, why would you believe pics taken from geostationary orbit?

If you could see the stars you'd be asking why the earth looks like a large white disk. Would you rather see the stars or the earth?

And if you want to ask why we don't have more advanced camera taking the photos keep in mind the HDR cameras then to take many pictures in rapid succession at different exposure values and then combines all the best parts of each photo to give you a pretty picture. And I know you aren't suggesting you'll accept when a camera has that functionality built in but not when NASA does it manually in other composition shots so just hurry up and fuck off

But we do, op...
NASA have amazing APIs for developers, one of them is called EPIC. It provides picture from satellites (not geosynchronous though) that are more than 1,000,000 km from earth.
>pic related
Official website: epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
API website: api.nasa.gov/api.html#EPIC

but WHY would this be faked? for what purpose? To what end?

what are you talking about?

the intimation, not so much here, but on some parts of the internet that everything from space is fakery.

It just beggars belief to me. It's a grand, extensive deception with no purpose and that's increasingly ludicrous given modern technology.

as a non native english speaker this answer is a pain in the ass to read
> but WHY would this be faked? for what purpose? To what end?
I assume flat earthers think that rich countries want people to think they (the countries) are the best, so they do fake missions to show they 'fake' superiority blabla..... (hope i make sense)
I also assume they are fucking dumb

>I also assume they are fucking dumb
Its this, and a profound need to distrust anything official and a moth-like attraction to anything other than the mainstream(sheeple) explanation.
I remember reading an article about people who constantly see conspiracy's around them, and there was something about their need to feel special, and that knowing "the truth" somehow fed their ego and self-image

Exactly, it's like hipsters, but at another level

What's that yellow highlight
in the middle of the picture?

Yeah, but hipsters are of no treat to anyone. The worst is that they wont make you the double mocha that you just ordered.
Conspiracy nutters on the other hand, can get themself put in places like the incoming Trump advisory staff. And that actually worries me

No idea. I looked at some of the other images on that site, didn't see any similar artifacting on those.

There's also Japan's Himawari 8 satellite.

wow top quality here, is this a fuji camera? kek. Nicely done japan

>Bible.
>Minister.
Literally, "flock" (of sheep)
Cucked and accepting it.

>kek
What do you mean "kek"? Are you some kind of space photography expert?

A fuckin retahd, that's what.

no but I love both

Just sayin Japan make the best cameras

From the Russian satellite Elektro-L