Aurora viewed from space.

That is pretty cool! I wonder how edited/enhanced it is, though. A lot of released NASA photos are *heavily* doctored, and have been for decades to make them more intriguing to non-scientists (who then tell their congressmen to keep the bucks flowing in NASA’s direction).

I’m not saying that the moon shots were shot in the Nevada desert or anything, but NASA employs a number of talented artists who are good at adding color were the wavelengths of light are not visible, removing noise, upping saturation levels, sharpening blurriness and general photoshopping so that the public-released images wind up truly dazzling. The heavy editing always makes me wonder how much you can trust. As an engineer myself, I’d like to see a little less reliance on special effects artists and more on the RAW images.

Straight talk from Sid.

I’ve always wondered what an aurora would like from the other side of the atmosphere. Nifty.

chet: That’s my whole point. NASA heavily doctors the images they put out to the public to make them look extra pretty and appealing. They make some beautiful pieces of art, but the “science” disappears pretty fast when you start doing this. They’ve taken heat for this in the past, but pretty pictures excite more people about space = bigger budgets for them.

They admit this image is a composite of at least 2 other images, one of which (a “Blue Marble – Next Generation picture”) is itself heavily “enhanced” – read about that on their website. Like the resurrected Viking boat in another article, you have to wonder how much is real by the time they are finished.

Straight talk from Sid.