digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Entire Planet Earth Viewed from Space [ Hi Res, HDR NASA Photo ]

earthobservatory.nasa.gov — Simply BREATHTAKING PHOTOGRAPH FROM NASA of Our Planet with the Moon in background among the Stars - - - - - Image Size 4000 x 4000 pix, so be prepared to Scroll or Make a Great Color Print from It

Who dugg this? Made popular Aug 12, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

233 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • NeoRicen, on 10/10/2007, -2/+337It's not an actual photo, it's a composite of satellite data mapped onto a sphere put onto a background. It's not an actual image of the earth.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -16/+99"Entire Planet Earth Viewed from Sapce"

    Well, if the entire planet is just America then this title is accurate.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+80What happened to the little lines dividing up the states?!
  • spxiii, on 10/10/2007, -2/+57The moon looks like *****. It needs some aloe or something.
  • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+52BeatlesBeatles, just admit that you have no idea what HDR is and you just put it in the title for more diggs.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+47First thing I noticed when I clicked the image, it looks digital. Thanks for confirming.
  • mpn401, on 10/10/2007, -7/+46From up there it looks uninhabited. Makes you wonder about other planets.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+35Ah, the classic and rare syndrome, "fourettes".
    Tourettes syndrome for your fingers.
  • JoCliMe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+28Yes, because America is the only country viewable in that image.
  • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -6/+311) To the guys complaining this isn't the entire earth: Yes it is, it just isn't simultaneously showing ALL SIDES of the earth at the same time. How do you even imagine it could do that?
    2) This is basically a digital rendering. This is not what the Earth would look like if it had been photographed from that position at that time - e.g. the vertical axis is exaggerated for effect, and the colors are not right. It is based on satellite data, but a photo or an accurate rendition of what the earth looks like it is not.
  • upsilonh24, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26And its certainly not HDR.
  • Jordan117, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26That's too bad. IMHO, images of Earth are always better when they're raw photos actually taken from thousands of miles away. They may not be as sharp or as colorful as patchwork satellite imagery or computer simulations, but they still convey that sense of scale and wonder and authenticity that only comes from the real, unprocessed thing.
  • loconet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22I think nasa should be able to handle digg's traffic.
  • Zebceponaf, on 10/10/2007, -5/+24Ok the moon just made me say WTF when I zoomed in.
  • BeatlesBeatles, on 10/10/2007, -3/+22http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=4231


    Here is their page with more details about this classic image
  • wily6, on 10/10/2007, -11/+30I can see my house.
  • pyroh, on 10/10/2007, -11/+28hmmm... ENTIRE =/= half .. and I still have my BREATH. buried.
  • MeMongo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17The earth is never fully lit because only one side faces the sun. . .unless of course you are a flat earther
  • EBFoxbat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Yup, one could never focus the earth, and the moon but not the stars, in the same shot - not from an instrument designed for in-space photography. And what of this HDR? The image isn't very dynamic.
  • fisj139, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19And then after that I would check out earth
  • nymphetamine, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16No, I think it's the classic example of an *****.
  • Ignignokt01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Why? It's not like M$ or other blatantly stupid acronyms. IMO and IMHO are very common.
  • psygnisfive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15That's because we're using visible EM frequencies to image the planet. Use a radio telescope and you'll find things are quite different.
  • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16What, you were expecting to get a negative in the mail? Of course it's digital.
  • Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Speaking of which, something that would be interesting would be a visualization of radio waves from space!
  • fxspec06, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Buried, and reported! Thanks!
  • therightclique, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10oh, i am.. and its wonderful!!!!
  • djphatjive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12It is fake. Look at the moon, It is in focus with the earth. WTF.
  • h3xZ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10why?
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12There you go again with the fourettes
  • vanscott, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9thats no moon... its a space station
  • samcrut, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I think you're looking for "≠"
  • dorshorst, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Surprisingly, it is not actually made of cheese. WTF indeed.
    I hope you aren't too disappointed.
  • upsilonh24, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I second that. It's rubbish. Especially the description.
  • matrixbandit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Wow, I get that that comment was supposed to be sarcastic and mean, but wtf does that even mean??
  • W3Coyote, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Better composites from the Terra satellite:
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMarble/Images/globe_west_2048.jpg
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMarble/Images/globe_east_2048.jpg
  • Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Above the USA in the picture.
  • Ev3nt372, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Its just a satellite image composite. It is actually impossible to get satellite images to match up since they would have been taken at different times and the clouds would have changed. Also if you notice it looks much more realistic lose up than far away.
  • therightclique, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6the greatest city on earth!
  • diggsIt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The CIA?
  • tonyhartfield, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5So many people bitched about the quality of this image but not one has linked some better alternatives
  • HanSolo69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Well if you were a true Digg member than you would have 50 accounts so you could Digg up all your friend's stories to the frontpage.
  • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5And you expected Europe to show up in the photo at the same time how, precisely? I challenge you to see both sides of the earth at once without a mind-bogglingly large mirror.
  • spxiii, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Eat a ham.
  • eelriver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That's funny, focus seems to be on Nicaragua to me.
  • Pic0, on 10/10/2007, -9/+13Ive seen many pics before and by the pixels I can tell this is a chop
  • fxspec06, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Or he could have gone with < >, which is more correct than =/=
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I call Bad CG. They could have compositioned everything amongst the stars better, and the lighting is not accurate.
  • 30thElement, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That one super-hires on Nasa really slowed down when digg hit it. The one with the galaxy.
  • Unimaxium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Yes, because "North America" is a country
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 234 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.