knowing absolutely nothing about this topic and assuming the statement is legit, I assume the reason why is because you want incoming light to hit the surface at a lower angle to create more shadows and make the topography stand out more.
But what if you're not observing terrain, but surface reflectance or something else, and the shadows will interfere? This is my problem with "nerds" like the one from the comic. They want to appear intelligent to others and will inconveniently spill out statements that are specific as if they were universal (dunning-kruger, maybe), just to boost their self-esteem.
The werenerd better explain himself, because I am pretty sure it's easier to observe the moon when it's visible. He has until I load this revolver with silver bullets.
Fucking cursed knowledge when people know you own a telescope.
"Oh it's a full moon tonight! You gonna take your telescope out?!"
Then you either have to lie and pretend to be excited, or be that akshually asshole. And then half the time you try to tell them the truth, they think your just being negative and that it's obviously the best time to take the telescope out because just look at the moon it's so big and full and clearly that must be the optimal way to view it, and then you have to try to explain how shadows work and how lots of the details are missed when the light is shining directly into the craters instead of at an angle and how the light of the full moon is so intense that it washes out anything else that you are wanting to look at and then they ask why you're being so difficult, can't you just take the telescope out? So you haul your giant fucking telescope out and get it all set up and they look through it at the moon and kinda go "yea that's nice! See? It's still beautiful!" and yes it is, but it's only like 30% as amazing as it would be with any kind of gibbous or crescent and then they ask is there anything else they can look at and you again have to explain that because the moon is full, you can't really get any good views of nebulas and any planets you look at will be practically colorless and then they make you show them anyways and they just aren't as excited as they could have been because it's not nearly as impressive so they lose interest within 5 minutes and then you have to pack up and haul back in your giant telescope that they insisted you get out to show them the views you told them wouldn't be super impressive.
And then they forget all of this within a month and so 30 days later you're hit again with "Oh it's a full moon tonight! You gonna take out your telescope?!"
knowing absolutely nothing about this topic and assuming the statement is legit, I assume the reason why is because you want incoming light to hit the surface at a lower angle to create more shadows and make the topography stand out more.
My assumption is that it is more difficult to make lunar observations while being attacked by werewolves
Despite taking a few years of Spanish classes the capitalization here is still making my brain process it as “¿Por que no los MS-DOS?”
C:\>_
As a regular dude with absolutely no expertise. This is definitely the right answer.
Spot on
(Me silently crossing out werewolves)
Well, no, indirect.
But what if you're not observing terrain, but surface reflectance or something else, and the shadows will interfere? This is my problem with "nerds" like the one from the comic. They want to appear intelligent to others and will inconveniently spill out statements that are specific as if they were universal (dunning-kruger, maybe), just to boost their self-esteem.
"Observe" here refers specifically to optical observation tho
Optical observation like measuring surface reflectance? Or maybe optical observation like artistically gazing at the full moon? ;)
There's no single universal best moment. It all depends on what you want to observe.
Well, it is a comic intended to be a joke, not a dissertation on observational astronomy.
Yeah what if you're observing moon werewolves
Found the moon nerd!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=6G49jr7YhBU
The werenerd better explain himself, because I am pretty sure it's easier to observe the moon when it's visible. He has until I load this revolver with silver bullets.
You usually want to use shadows to help highlight surface details. When full, there are virtually no shadows.
does that mean the darker spots one can see with the naked eye are not shadows? the ground is just darker there?
They didn't say you can't say details. They said it is the worst time for observation. Which it is.
Yes. Those dark spots are plains of actually darker rocks, specifically basalts. That generally means that those are dried out lava fields.
When is golden hour on the moon
Got a curse I cannot lift
Shines when the sunset shifts
When the moon is round and full
Gotta correct that wrong, gotta state those facts.
My mind has changed, my glasses frames
and god I like it
My mind's a flame, I got big brains,
and god I like it
Love it!! I've had this cover on repeat today. :)
I'm reading Wil Wheaton's book "Still Just A Geek", and I feel like he'd really enjoy this comic.
Does he manage to make himself likable on page? It's always been a struggle for him on screen. Or microphone. Or tweet.
Boooooo
I've considered you and I disagree
That's fair. He kind of ruined the Martian audiobook for me, so I held a grudge.
Joke's on you nerd, the new moon is even worse for lunar observation (but far far superior for deep space)
Fucking cursed knowledge when people know you own a telescope.
"Oh it's a full moon tonight! You gonna take your telescope out?!"
Then you either have to lie and pretend to be excited, or be that akshually asshole. And then half the time you try to tell them the truth, they think your just being negative and that it's obviously the best time to take the telescope out because just look at the moon it's so big and full and clearly that must be the optimal way to view it, and then you have to try to explain how shadows work and how lots of the details are missed when the light is shining directly into the craters instead of at an angle and how the light of the full moon is so intense that it washes out anything else that you are wanting to look at and then they ask why you're being so difficult, can't you just take the telescope out? So you haul your giant fucking telescope out and get it all set up and they look through it at the moon and kinda go "yea that's nice! See? It's still beautiful!" and yes it is, but it's only like 30% as amazing as it would be with any kind of gibbous or crescent and then they ask is there anything else they can look at and you again have to explain that because the moon is full, you can't really get any good views of nebulas and any planets you look at will be practically colorless and then they make you show them anyways and they just aren't as excited as they could have been because it's not nearly as impressive so they lose interest within 5 minutes and then you have to pack up and haul back in your giant telescope that they insisted you get out to show them the views you told them wouldn't be super impressive.
And then they forget all of this within a month and so 30 days later you're hit again with "Oh it's a full moon tonight! You gonna take out your telescope?!"
What if you slipped a pair of sunglasses over the telescope?
Pretty sure the new moon would be the worst time, but I guess it depends on what you're looking for.
Everybody here when somebody ask if its GNU/Linux or Linux, and which is the Arch BTW version