USER PANEL



Login:
Password:

SEARCH 

ARCHIVE

«    Dec 2016    »
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

December 2016 (197)
November 2016 (725)
October 2016 (695)
September 2016 (727)
August 2016 (762)
July 2016 (695)

Photos by NASA (100 pics)

  • Category: Pics  |
  • 2 Aug, 2010  |
  • Views: 11490  |
  • Like
  • +44
  • Dislike  |
  •  
  •   

A very interesting collection of photographs mady by NASA.

1 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


2 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


3 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


4 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


5 Photos by NASA (100 pics)




6 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


7 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


8 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


9 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


10 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


11 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


12 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


13 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


14 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


15 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


16 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


17 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


18 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


19 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


20 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


21 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


22 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


23 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


24 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


25 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


26 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


27 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


28 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


29 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


30 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


31 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


32 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


33 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


34 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


35 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


36 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


37 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


38 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


39 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


40 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


41 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


42 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


43 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


44 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


45 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


46 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


47 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


48 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


49 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


50 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


51 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


52 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


53 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


54 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


55 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


56 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


57 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


58 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


59 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


60 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


61 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


62 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


63 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


64 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


65 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


66 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


67 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


68 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


69 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


70 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


71 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


72 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


73 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


74 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


75 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


76 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


77 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


78 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


79 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


80 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


81 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


82 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


83 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


84 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


85 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


86 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


87 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


88 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


89 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


90 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


91 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


92 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


93 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


94 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


95 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


96 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


97 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


98 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


99 Photos by NASA (100 pics)


100 Photos by NASA (100 pics)

Source


Do you like it?



№1 Author: Sokay (2 Aug 2010 01:34) Total user comments: 237


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • 0
  • Like
Buzz Lightyear 07
Nasa is so cool 01 04
  Reply       
№2 Author: NeMa (2 Aug 2010 03:10) Total user comments: 719


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • 0
  • Like
nice pics! 01
  Reply       
№3 Author: bruce88lee (2 Aug 2010 05:07) Total user comments: 1818


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • -1
  • Like
04 01
  Reply       
№4 Author: lepsy (2 Aug 2010 05:46) Total user comments: 1252


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • 0
  • Like
Look at the capsule reentry burn ...
  Reply       
№5 Author: astroboy3000 (2 Aug 2010 06:19) Total user comments: 2543


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • -2
  • Like
funny isn't it ? every picture of space nasa releases there are never any stars.
  Reply       
№6 Author: Jimmy Johnson (2 Aug 2010 06:55) Total user comments: 5518


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • -1
  • Like
You do realize there has been no advancement in jet propulsion in over 75 years? Man went to the moon in 1967 and they did it on technology that was already 20 years old...

The F-22 Raptor is a +20 year old design, for example. It's taken over two decades of development before the plane ever made it to government approval and therefore, production.
  Reply       
№7 Author: reidar (2 Aug 2010 09:02) Total user comments: 123


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • +1
  • Like
awesome. I hope I will be still alive when space travelling becomes available to an average man.
  Reply       
№8 Author: galz (2 Aug 2010 10:29) Total user comments: 2043


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • -1
  • Like
48
  Reply       
№9 Author: Jinxaruny (2 Aug 2010 13:57) Total user comments: 10324


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • -1
  • Like
48
  Reply       
№10 Author: fluorescentG (2 Aug 2010 14:46) Total user comments: 3958


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • 0
  • Like
there will be an "elevator" someday to get to the space station.. 63
  Reply       
№11 Author: 2fuzzy (2 Aug 2010 15:03) Total user comments: 10400


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • +1
  • Like
astroboy - it is an issue of exposure. When you take a picture of something big and bright in the foreground the items in background don't show up.
  Reply       
№12 Author: pety (2 Aug 2010 15:25) Total user comments: 581


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • 0
  • Like
01
  Reply       
№13 Author: Lu (2 Aug 2010 18:03) Total user comments: 15082


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • +1
  • Like
Awesome technology. Receive a hand, America. 21
  Reply       
№14 Author: motenaidayo (2 Aug 2010 19:10) Total user comments: 886


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • 0
  • Like
04 04 04
  Reply       
№15 Author: astroboy3000 (3 Aug 2010 00:25) Total user comments: 2543


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • -3
  • Like
no it isn't fuzzy. quit trying to be clever and just put up another one of your damn smileys.
  Reply       
№16 Author: peterflynn (3 Aug 2010 01:23) Total user comments: 958


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • +2
  • Like
Wow astroboy... sounds like you really know what you're talking about! Oh wait, you didn't actually explain anything did you.

What 2fuzzy's talking about should be glaringly obvious (pun intended) to anyone that's seen the night sky in the city vs the country. Heck, just use any old camera to look at the horizon during twilight and shift slightly up or down and you'll see how much of the sky you can see change depending on the focus.
  Reply       
№17 Author: 2fuzzy (3 Aug 2010 01:36) Total user comments: 10400


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • +2
  • Like
Thanks Peter, and not that this will help... but if he will not listen to others who do know what they are talking about a quick Google shows what NASA has to say about it.

What has probably caused some of this confusion is that in the typical photo or video image from space, there aren't any stars. This is because the stars are much dimmer than the astronaut, Moon, space station, or whatever the image is been taken of. It is extremely hard to get the exposure correct to show the stars.


http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa
_star.html (#5)

Now lets all wait for astroboy to apologize. 48
  Reply       
№18 Author: ddubia (3 Aug 2010 03:59) Total user comments: 299


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • +1
  • Like
Yeah 2fuzzy, it's pretty darn simple unless one is a conspiracy nut like our astroboy must be. You take any picture, anywhere outside at night, with bright lights nearby and there won't be any stars in it. The bright lights cause an overexposure and block out the camera's ability to capture the tiny stars.

But those who want to believe the government is falsifying space evidence will believe the nuts who claim foul.

I suppose NASA "forgot" to add in the stars in every picture they've taken. It just slipped their minds I guess. hahaha

It's the same nuts who claim the shadows on the moon are fake because shadows should all be aiming in the same direction. But look outside on any bright day and one will see that shadows don't do that. They aim in many different directions. Always away from the light source, but not in the exact same direction.

They sound like they make logical sense enough to sucker-in those who aren't thinking for themselves and love the idea of catching the government's "attempts" at fooling us. But any short and quick study on these topics will reveal that astroboy and his cohorts are only looking the fools themselves.
  Reply       
№19 Author: adzhoe (3 Aug 2010 05:05) Total user comments: 14959


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • +1
  • Like
basic light theory of photograhic principles is all.
  Reply       
№20 Author: peterflynn (4 Aug 2010 19:51) Total user comments: 958


  • Status: User offline
  • Activity rewards:
  • Dislike
  • 0
  • Like
This is one of my favorite conspiracy fails
06 06 06
Sprinkler Rainbow Conspiracy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
=_c6HsiixFS8
06 06 06
  Reply       

Add comment

Name:

E-Mail:


bold italic underlined strike Ensert smilies
Type the two words shown in the image: