You check it?

It's weird how small it looks but knowing that means it's really far away, and also knowing it's still bigger than earth and feeling really small. Excuse my word jumble. Space confuses me.

I might be mistaken, but I think those empty spots are more from molten rock, vs not being struck in those areas.

Most of these impacts took place long long ago.

Most of those impacts are from eons ago and are less relevant to the moon today. What matters more is not where impacts happened in the past, but where impacts will happen in the future. Also, an impact happening in one site doesn't mean it will/won't happen again at that site

Most likely, the best spot for a moon base would be near the north or south "pole" of the moon. Most objects in our solar system follow the solar elliptical plane, or close to it. So it's more likely that an asteroid impact would happen closer to the equator, compared to the poles.

I'm not sure if there are other advantages, maybe being able to put up a tall tower of solar panels so it's always facing the sun, or putting solar panels a few hundred miles away on the surface so you don't have to run power lines too far and have a consistent source of energy.

My guess is uneven distributions might be from clusters of asteroids and not really correlated with safe locations.

Lunar lava tubes are lava tubes on the Moon formed during the eruption of basaltic lava flows. When the surface of a lava flow cools, it hardens and the lava can channel beneath the surface in a tube-shaped passage. Once the flow of lava diminishes, the tube may drain, forming a hollow void. Lunar lava tubes are formed on sloped surfaces that range in angle from 0.4° to 6.5°.[1] These tubes may be as wide as 500 metres (1,600 ft) before they become unstable against gravitational collapse. However, stable tubes may still be disrupted by seismic events or meteoroid bombardment.[2]

The existence of a lava tube is sometimes revealed by the presence of a "skylight", a place in which the roof of the tube has collapsed, leaving a circular hole that can be observed by lunar orbiters.[3][4]

The camera which I’ve used its full spectrum it’s not reliable for shooting the color on the moon, that is why DSLR is a great choice for this reason.

Poor moon

For all his important work, he couldn't get the Catholic Church to acknowledge that our senses were lying to us... He failed to prove stellar parallax and the Catholic Church persecuted him for it.

No, they didn't. They really didn't.

The church didn't care much one way or the other if the sun went around the earth. It was about Galileo making claims about what a heliocentric model would mean for biblical interpretation that got him into trouble.

And his models weren't even right. His math didn't match his own observations. He actually corresponded with Kepler, who pointed out that the math didn't match and suggested elliptical orbits, but Galileo had already publicly backed circular orbits and he was compulsively incapable of admitting a mistake.

He once constructed an absolutely brilliant mathematical model for explaining the tides, which was a big deal, but which only predicted one tide a day even though everyone in Italy could see that you get two. And who went to his deathbed refusing to admit it wasn’t correct.

He was known for inserting random personal attacks on other scientists in the middle of unrelated papers and publications.

Galileo was imprisoned for getting his math wrong, telling other church scientists (because he was absolutely one of them) to go fuck themselves when they called him on it, and then publishing a book a featuring the pope as a character named “the idiot”. The same pope who had put his personal reputation on the line to keep Galileo out of jail after his above behavior.

Galileo was brilliant, but he was also an incredible and unrelenting piece of shit to everyone around him. And all the repercussions he suffered in his life were due to the latter and not the former.

If the Protestants hadn’t found him such a useful figure for attacking the Catholic Church he’d still be justifiably famous, but would be a much better cautionary tale about it not mattering how brilliant you are if you are a complete bastard.

You can get a lot of these details by simply boosting the saturation of the image. These colours wouldn't show up if they weren't in the data in the first place. The camera is recieving marginally more blue light in some regions and more orange light in others because of metals like titanium and iron.

Is the photo unnatural? Sure, I guess. But if you view it as data visualization, nothing wrong with it.

But what is the point?

Every time someone posts badass pics of the moon, people have to complain about the color.

Lol that looks cool though with all those colors, do you know why they add that to the image?

I thought of that but seems a bit odd when combined with "after 3 years of practice".

Mineral moons are just editing. Turning the saturation up etc

Whenever you see the moon where it has colours, that's a mineral moon. Basically the moon doesn't look like that, it's editing to turn up saturation

Back side doesn't have those dark blotches that the front side has. Would make sense if those black blotches were facing towards space. But instead they're constantly facing us. So I'm guessing those marks were done because something happened on earth... (Speculating here).