China Grew Two Cotton Leaves on the Moon - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/robotic-exploration/china-grew-these-leaves-on-the-moon <comment><USER2> [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6599445/That...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6599445/That- didnt-long-China-reveals-cotton-sprout-planted-lunar-lander-dead.html)

Recent article with actual photo (not just the CGI rendering)

<comment><USER3> I don't think I have ever seen such an aggressive shaking gdpr popup

<comment><USER4> And that pop up might be the least offensive thing about that paper.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How is this much different than growing within a space station in orbit? Didn't the plant grow in its own mini biosphere (soil) separate from the moon surface, essentially isolated from the lunar environment other than light and heat?

<comment><USER6> Maybe the moon's gravity? Or temperature cycle differences?

<comment><USER7> From the article, "But, the plants will not be able to survive the lunar night, when temperatures dip down to -170 degrees Celsius."

<comment><USER8> I wonder if that part was expected or if something broke down. Strange to go to all the work of planting a seed and creating the proper environment with light routing knowing that it will last only a single lunar day.

Seems likely that the insulation or power system did not work as designed.

<comment><USER9> I'd suspect it's a "tack on" experiement. They were doing a bunch of experiments and wanted to see if a plant could even germinate in a low gravity environment. Now that they know it can germinate, it is worth the money to see if i t could last longer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Isn't the photo some bad CGI?

<comment><USER11> I doubt it. Similar experiments on the ISS looked exactly the same.

Edit: Nevermind, the IEEE article photo is definitely a render. I was referring to the picture on the Guardian.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Looks like a bad 3D render... which it is?

</comment><comment><USER13> Why do we get titles like this? It's so weird.

If this were a NASA thing I promise you the title wouldn't be "USA Grew Two Cotton Leaves on the Moon".

Everything Chinese is reduced to "China".

<comment><USER14> NASA's brand is much better known than CNSA's.

<comment><USER13> Gee... do you think maybe that's because NASA's achievements are attributed to NASA while CNSA's are attributed to "China"?

<comment><USER14> I think it is because NASA

1\. is 30 years older

2\. did that whole "men on the moon" thing

3\. is featured frequently in U.S. media, which is consumed around the world.

Also, the CNSA refers to everything it does as China's accomplishments: [http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/english/index.html](http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/english/index.html).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _(edit: found the link to article with the real picture)_

Not going to lie, I'm impressed that they pulled this off, and it's really, really cool!

It is interesting that something similar was the original concept for what turned into Space X. So it's not really an original idea.

[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jp5g8k/spacex-is- because-...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jp5g8k/spacex-is-because-elon- musk-wanted-to-grow-plants-on-mars)

(VIDEO) [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bjGiY8Suk9o](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bjGiY8Suk9o)

</comment><comment><USER16> I was hoping they would use lunar "dirt". I mean this experiment doesn't seem like it even had to be on the moon due to the closed-off environment. It's still cool but I feel like more could have been learned here.

<comment><USER17> Do plants grow well in microgravity/low gravity is still not well understood. Growing stuff on the moon, especially more complex plants, is still quite valuable to our understanding of whether we can sustain life off world.

I'm less familiar with Lunar "dirt" (aka regolith) than Martian regolith, but it's very likely that Lunar regolith isn't capable of supporting life. Martian regolith is a highly toxic blend of perchlorates, oxides, and extremely dry jagged minerals. The lack of a water cycle means that weathering behaves very differently, and the resulting material is considerably sharper and finer than the stuff on Earth. It also, of course, lacks any of the organic content that you'd need to make healthy soil.

<comment><USER18> With all the lunar rocks brought back by the Apollo missions, it's sad if no researchers tried to grow things in it.

<comment><USER17> Those rocks are highly controlled, however there are scientists investigating whether soil can be made from simulated regolith.

<comment><USER18> Many have wound up in private hands, and others just sit uselessly in museums.

Besides, what more valuable research could be done with them than answering "can we grow crops in lunar dirt" and "what do we need to mix in the lunar dirt to get crops to grow"?

<comment><USER17> I believe most still remain in a sealed vault, stored in a nitrogen environment, and only rarely are damaged or passed to other scientists for study.

We might want to understand:

The rate at which solar radiation impacts one side of lunar rock vs another (all the specimens were sampled with their orientation photographed). The composition of different lunar materials in different places. The alignment of various internal crystal or magnetic elements to better understand the moon and Earth's history. If we get very lucky, we might pick up a rock that came from Mars, or somewhere else, and we can understand the creation of our own solar system. Solar radiation leaves its mark on the rocks, and provides us a record of our sun's history if we can learn to read it.

We might want to understand whether a lunar regolith sample was capable of sustaining life, but the way we do that is not just grab the existing samples and put a seed in them. They are far too rare and precious. Better to try and understand everything about them and their formation, then try to create as accurate a simulation as possible.

<comment><USER18> > Better to try and understand everything about them and their formation, then > try to create as accurate a simulation as possible.

Why is that better? Learning if they can support life seems far, far more valuable and practical than better understanding of its geological history.

If crops can grow in it, then a moon base becomes far more practical, and with a moon base you'll have all the rocks you want for further study.

I.e. priority should go to "what do we need to know to build a sustainable moon base". Understanding solar formation history is of doubtful immediate value.

<comment><USER17> Good question. I'm guessing that solar history could inform things like the histories of other world and their compositions. We might be better able to predict where to find water, or learn why Mars has no magnetic field.

If we can manufacture lunar regolith, and it's 99.9 percent the same, why use the real stuff (which is literally priceless) ?

<comment><USER18> If we can manufacture lunar regolith, then the real thing is not needed for any other studies, either!

> which is literally priceless

The price we'll pay for not using it will be the cost of extra missions to the moon to do those experiments there. We cannot plan a moon base without knowing whether crops will grow there or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> is the photo real? looks like cheap cgi render.

</comment><comment><USER20> Doesn't look like any lunar regolith was involved.

<comment><USER21> Yeah, it's one thing to ship a canister to the lunar surface and then witness a tiny bit of growth, it's quite another to actually grow using the base aggregates available on the moon. While I appreciate their experiment, it's really a pretty small result. And perhaps the real headline would be something like "4 out of 5 expected growths failed to occur and scientists don't know why". The fruit flies didn't hatch, the yeast didn't colonize, and the other two seedlings failed to grow at all. The theory was that all of them would grow in the artificial biozone and maybe even provide a CO2/O2 cycle. But they didn't, and that's the real science.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Why does it say image processing? How did they record the experiment if they had to process or maybe even render the picture?

</comment><comment><USER23> Does this mean we have colonised moon? (in reference to The Martian movie)

<comment><USER24> I think the main difference at least in accordance to the movie is this wasn't activating lunar soil, it was using earth soil on the moon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Did they send a seedling or did they actually grow something from a seed?

</comment><comment><USER26> So where's the planetary protection complaints on this one?

</comment><comment><USER27> This image is fake?

<comment><USER28> Re-read these comments; there's lots of links to better sources/images.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Link is down- heres'a an older related article with a photo of the sprout [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/16/china- first-...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/16/china-first-cotton- plant-on-moon-dies-change-4-lander)

<comment><USER30> Yours has a much more believeable photo. Here's a mirror of the original with the weird picture everyone is talking about. [https://web.archive.org/web/20190930160024/https://spectrum....](https://web.archive.org/web/20190930160024/https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech- talk/aerospace/robotic-exploration/china-grew-these-leaves-on-the-moon)

<comment><USER31> Is it acceptable that ieee.org posts an article with a faked photo?

<comment><USER32> Calling it "faked" is somewhat hyperbolic.

The article refers to it as an "image" (as opposed to a raw source photo) that it clearly states is the result of "image processing".

It's common practice in science to produce such representative images, e.g. in a lot of astronomy, space photgraphy, and things like SEMs

<comment><USER33> _it clearly states is the result of "image processing"._

I see no such statement, clearly or otherwise.

 _It 's common practice in science to produce such representative images_

Maybe this is one reason why a growing number of people don't believe scientists anymore.

"Representative images" sounds like the fine print in a used car ad.

<comment><USER34> "The team behind a pioneering biological experiment sent to the lunar far side has released an image showing two green leaves grown on the moon."

"Image processing has now shown that two cotton leaves had grown—rather than just one as initially thought—in what was the first biological growth experiment on the moon."

<comment><USER33> "Photo: Chongqing University

Two cotton leaves grown in the Chang'e-4 lander on the far side of the moon."

Photo = "Photograph"

Photo ≠ "We made this cool rendering of what we imagine something like this would look like."

<comment><USER35> "Photo" is used synonymously with "image" or "rendering" depending on the context, e.g. try searching for "Hubble photography" and you'll find plenty of examples of cool renderings from aggregated photographic source data.

<comment><USER36> Sure, Hubble images are seldom seen raw, but the resulting images are based on actual photos. This however seems to have been an outright illustration, and should have be labelled as such.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37>
      Yossarian, I want you to do something for me.
      [removes item from small bag]
      I want to serve this to the men.
      Taste it and let me know what you think.

      [Yossarian takes a bite]
      What is it?

      Chocolate-covered cotton.

      What are you, crazy?

      No good, huh?

      For Christ's sake, you didn't even take the seeds out!

      Is it really that bad?

      It's cotton!

      They've got to learn to like it!

      Why?

      Look, I saw this great opportunity to corner the market
      in Egyptian cotton. How was I supposed to know there
      was going to be a glut?
      I've got a hundred warehouses stacked with the stuff all
      over the European theater.
      I can't get rid of a penny's worth. People eat cotton
      candy, don't they?
      Well this stuff is better - it's made out of real cotton.

      Milo, people can't eat cotton!

      They've got to - it's for the Syndicate!

      It will make them sick! - why don't you try it yourself
      if you don't believe me?

      I did - and it made me sick.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

<comment><USER38> Off-topic: has anyone seen the new Catch-22 series on Hulu? Is it worth watching? I recently finished the book and happened to notice they made a miniseries of it!

<comment><USER39> Very decent, definitely watchable!

<comment><USER40> Did not even know this existed. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> First thought, they didn't grow anything, they germinated a seed.

2nd thought, great we now left more fingerprints on the Petrie dish that is the moon.

<comment><USER8> What's with the obsession with keeping the moon and other planets barren?

There is an incomprehensible number of barren planets: 21.16 quadrillion in the Virgo Supercluster alone. We should be spreading life, not obsessing with keeping things 'clean'.

<comment><USER41> I don't want them to stay barren, to want to know if life exists before spreading our germs, and sneezing cotton everywhere.

<comment><USER42> If we find life surviving on one of the planets that we've been exploring, and it's so similar as to be indistinguishable from Earth life, then it almost certainly came from Earth on one of our missions. Even if an asteroid transplanted something that managed to take root millions of years ago, it would have endured some pretty severe evolutionary pressure by now (and probably didn't have any competition from native life).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'd like to see SpaceX grow Cannabis leaves on the moon.

<comment><USER44> So would Elon.

<comment><USER45> > _So would Elon_

Symbolically, a mayflower [1] would be smarter.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigaea_repens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigaea_repens)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Am I the only one who thinks the scientists are a bit immoral? They wanted to send a turtle and the only thing that stopped them were the constraints of the experiment. Not the fact that they would be killing a turtle for literally no reason.

Kinda makes me think about the fact that we need stronger ethics rules in the new space race.

<comment><USER47> _"it is very meaningful to choose tortoise"_

Can anyone explain this reference?

<comment><USER15> Well, besides the Soviet mission it mentioned that used tortoises in the past, I suspect the origin of the reference is in regard to the classic saying "It's tutles all the way down"

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down)

Not positive about that, but that's where my mind went :)</comment></comment></comment>


Questioning Accidentalism - <AUTHOR> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/09/accidentally_on.php

<comment><USER2> Accident may be the wrong word, but he author doesn't give a better one. Why is English the language of commerce, or the dollar so popular? If it's not an accident of history, then what's the right word?

Most scientific advancement is not on time and on schedule though; it's a conflux of the right people standing next to the right problem. Gutenberg's press would have been almost worthless without cheap rag for making cheaper paper, which was available through another accident of history. I'm sure Gutenberg didn't know that movable type would lead to mass media and the protestant reformation. It's all accidents.

<comment><USER3> Contingent.

<comment><USER4> Unplanned. I believe this word best expresses the meaningful part of "accidental" and leaves out the meaningless philosophical part.</comment></comment></comment>


Eyes Gaze - <AUTHOR> http://alteredqualia.com/xg/examples/eyes_gaze2.html <comment><USER2> I remember a project like this from about ten years ago.

There was only one character (an Asian lady) but her face was high resolution and screen filling so on a typical screen it was about real life sized. Moreover, when you didn't move the mouse she shyly looked around and from time to time ever so slightly raised the corners of her mouth to a Mona Lisa like smile.

All of this made it eerily realistic.</comment>


IOS 7 Icon Templates | Sketch - Photoshop - Slicy - <AUTHOR> http://ios.robs.im/

<comment><USER2> I might be the only one that thinks this, and I don't develop for iOS, but... Isn't that just a rounded-edge square with a blue gradient to fill it?

Or maybe that was the point? did I miss some sort of commentary on the state of modern design?

<comment><USER3> No, the corners aren't quarter circles. Here's a good explanation: [http://dribbble.com/shots/1110779-iOS-7-Icon-Rounded- Corner-...](http://dribbble.com/shots/1110779-iOS-7-Icon-Rounded-Corner- Radius?list=popular&offset=41)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Question to ask to white label solution provider - <AUTHOR>

Can anyone please list important question which a guy should ask to white label solution provider? Any particular thing to keep in mind while discussing things with them? <comment><USER2> It's hard to say more without knowing what you're buying a white label of, but: Licensing/volume fees Support structures - what are they responsible for? Documentation - what have they got? System specification - details! Hosting - are they providing it, or are you installing it yourself! Whois responsible for the rebranding and design?

That's some of the stuff that bit us when we were white labelling a crowd funding platform.m

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!! Its for photobook creator web app

Please let me know if you can help in this or know someone who can. We are still looking into it.</comment></comment>


Facebook amends ban on calls for violence, adds exceptions - <AUTHOR> https://facebook.com/communitystandards/credible_violence <comment><USER2> There was already a thread on this, but it got locked and deleted because the HN Moderators are censorious cowards :\

<comment><USER3> it's what we expected though right?</comment></comment>


Steve Yegge's Google Platforms Rant - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/112678702228711889851/posts/eVeouesvaVX

<comment><USER2> DUPE -- This is a repost of an article Steve Yegge wrote almost two years ago [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3101876](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3101876)</comment>


Ask HN: What skills does it take to level up to a mid-level dev? - <AUTHOR> I've been at my first job for 3 years. Doing fairly basic dev work. I'm starting to look for a new job and I don't think I'm good enough to sell myself as a senior dev, but what would companies look for in a solid mid-level developer? <comment><USER2> In my opinion, the best way to level up as a developer is to start asking 'why' instead of 'how', dive into the source code of the frameworks you usually use, learn how things work instead of just reading the getting started guide and follow tutorials.

</comment><comment><USER3> Some resources related to leveling up:

Leveling up as a junior engineer: HN thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14586329](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14586329) Medium article: [https://medium.com/masterpoint/leveling-up-as-a-junior- engin...](https://medium.com/masterpoint/leveling-up-as-a-junior- engineer-3f6880f8af1d)

What is 1 thing that can take a Junior's career to the next level? HN thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13744999](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13744999)

</comment><comment><USER4> Before you look for a new job, go to your manager/boss and say: "I think I'm ready to take on more than I've been doing. What have you got?" That way, you don't have to pass an interview, and you may get mentoring or other company- paid training that can advance your career.

</comment><comment><USER5> I oversee some junior and mid-level developers. In this person's opinion, based of course on my own experience, traits I most strongly associate with someone becoming a mid-level developers involves identifying issues that have not been specifically brought to their attention; seeing problems coming down the pipe or seeing ways that something they're doing (or not doing) now could cause problems later; seeing opportunities in how we work or what we do that we could take advantage of now for a pay-off later. Essentially, providing useful output in both directions. It's not just being better and faster at writing code. I'd expect a mid-level not to make various of certain classes of mistakes, but not making those mistakes just makes someone a skilled junior dev; mid-level is about seeing beyond the boundaries of the ticket at hand.

</comment><comment><USER6> We have a pretty good outline on our job description page. It's borrowed heavily from GitLab's handbook:

[https://www.level12.io/careers/full-stack-web-app- developer-...](https://www.level12.io/careers/full-stack-web-app-developer- mid/)

</comment><comment><USER7> My experience is that there is no difference in such roles apart from how much say you (are willing to) have in decisions.

Especially between Junior and Mid level I'd say the most important distinction is willingness to job hop, to be a bit cynical.

</comment><comment><USER8> Fix bugs. If you have the grasp enough to fix bugs, it shows a good understanding of development.

Not to say that's all there is, but that is one thing that'd move you out of the novice phase in my opinion.

</comment><comment><USER9> Senior developers normally have about 10 years of actual work experience. This is normally a long mix of managing program deliverables, other engineers, mastery of documentation for all aspects of the program or programs and the big one is understanding the big picture and asking why, what, when, where and how for engineering, management and personnel decisions goals for the success of programs(these guys generate a ton of profit just by keeping things on task and focused to achieve the goals of the program(s)).

</comment><comment><USER10> I would focus on three areas:

1.) Start reading source code. If your favourite frameworks are open source, they're a great place to start.

2.) Work on your soft skills (ie - communications, leadership, general interpersonal skills, public speaking etc). At this stage in your career, Toastmasters would likely be a good investment.

3.) It would be extremely useful to get experience taking a project all the way from idea to release. And, the more you do this the more useful it gets to you (particularly if you switch up the types of teams/roles you take on).

</comment><comment><USER11> > what would companies look for in a solid mid-level developer?

-Given an abstract problem statement she can break it down into smaller concrete pieces & deliver upon them.

-She can anticipate blockers, technical/organizational, and mitigates risk by calling it out / working around it early on.

-Be a quick learner and ready to jump on projects in unfamiliar territory.

</comment><comment><USER12> Depends on the company. The level of tech skills required for an organisation depends heavily on what the company does, what technologies they're already using, etc. What Google requires for a mid level developer is different from what a smaller, less tech focused company will require.

</comment><comment><USER13> Work better with others by thinking about what their perspective is on an issue, what's their perspective. It's rarely how can i screw the other person. How can you maintain good relationships with people you work with, even if you disagree.

</comment><comment> UK-Al05 A lot of time the difference is ability negotatiate a better job... And timing</comment>


The Security Mindset (2008) - <AUTHOR> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/03/the_security_mi_1.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I was rereading some essays a few hours ago and came across this and the essay by Ed Felten on Freedom-To-Tinker commenting on it, _The Security Mindset and "Harmless Failures"_ ([http://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/security- mindset-an...](http://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/security-mindset-and- harmless-failures)).

On of Ed Felten's points, _"The second way is to think, "This looks like a harmless failure, but we should avoid it anyway. No good can come of this." The first way protects you if you're clever; the second way always protects you."_ Is also useful in protecting against other types of failure, not just security problems.

</comment><comment><USER2> Fascinating stuff!

Programmers (good ones) also have a different mindset - always trying to think of all paths, not just the happy paths. But we don't expect malice, just Murphy's law.</comment>


Show HN: Opsmatic configuration monitoring - <AUTHOR> https://www.opsmatic.com/

<comment><USER2> Looks neat, but...

Are people actually OK with a privacy policy [1] that looks like this:

\---

Furthermore, in the course of using the Services, you or someone else in your organization may provide us with information about your systems infrastructure and access to your systems infrastructure. _In addition, we may 'self- discover' this information by analyzing additional parts your systems infrastructure that you did not explicitly input into the Services._ This information may include, but is not limited to:

Names and IP addresses of servers;

Operating systems of servers;

Applications installed on servers;

Performance of elements within the systems infrastructure;

 _Configuration information for elements within the systems infrastructure, including any credentials that may be embedded therein;_ Operational logs of elements within the systems infrastructure; and Locations of files and databases within the infrastructure

\---

1: [https://www.opsmatic.com/app/docs/privacy](https://www.opsmatic.com/app/docs/privacy)

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure how that kind of service could work without collecting that data, although I'd certainly like to know more details on "credentials that may be embedded".</comment></comment>


A new photo of Mars from the Hubble Telescope - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/19/11715340/nasa-mars-photograph-sun-opposition-hubble-space-telescope <comment><USER2> At a cost of $10 billion I still think the Hubble is one of the best investments that high science has offered us. The images it produces have to be _the_ most fascinating and valuable pieces of data humanity has ever produced.

Hubble's successor, the James Webb, is scheduled to launch in a couple of years. It will orbit the Sun rather than the Earth (at the L2 Earth-Sun Lagrange point) with a mirror more than twice the diameter of Hubble's. The images that it will produce are expected to be even more stunning than Hubble's. These are truly great times we're living in.

<comment><USER3> I knew little about Larange points[0] or the James Webb[1] before reading your comment and spending 10 minutes on Wikipedia. The L2 is a stable orbit with the Earth between the L2 point and the sun; the Webb is a telescope that seems twice as large as the Hubble scheduled for launch in 2018. Fascinating stuff!

As noted in the Webb article:

>The JWST will operate near the Earth-Sun L2 (Lagrange) point, approximately 1,500,000 km (930,000 mi) beyond the Earth. Objects near this point can orbit the Sun in synchrony with the Earth, allowing the telescope to remain at a roughly constant distance and use a single sunshield to block heat and light from the Sun and Earth. This will keep the temperature of the spacecraft below 50 K (−220 °C; −370 °F), necessary for infrared observations.

There's a great picture[2] on Wikipedia comparing sizes of major telescopes.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point)

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope)

[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_optical_telesc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_optical_telescope_primary_mirrors.svg)

<comment><USER4> Idle speculation, but I wonder if the distance will impair service, repair and upgrades, all of which I believe Hubble has benefited from

<comment><USER5> Yes.

No human has ever been out that far into space. Though I suspect by the time it launches it is conceivable SpaceX and NASA could actually put a mission together to do that since at SpaceX prices repairs might be cost effective.

<comment><USER6> On that note, is it possible for the mission operators to put the telescope in earth orbit first, make sure everything is working, then repair if needed before sending it out to L2?

<comment><USER7> No. It would be too warm to take good observations. And the mirror unfolds in sections, and isn't AFAIK equipped to fold back down again for the journey to L2. And repairing in LEO would still be tremendously expensive in any case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Some more images from ISRO MOM.

[http://www.isro.gov.in/pslv-c25-mars-orbiter- mission/picture...](http://www.isro.gov.in/pslv-c25-mars-orbiter- mission/pictures-mars-colour-camera-mcc-onboard-india%E2%80%99s-mars-orbiter)

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the link. This image out of all posted there compares directly to the one taken by Hubble : [http://www.isro.gov.in/sites/default/files/galleries/Picture...](http://www.isro.gov.in/sites/default/files/galleries/Pictures%20from%20Mars%20Colour%20Camera%20%28MCC%29%20onboard%20India%E2%80%99s%20Mars%20Orbiter%20Spacecraft/mars4.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article from NASA themselves is a lot better, with a lot more information: [http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/new-hubble- portrait...](http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/new-hubble-portrait-of- mars)

<comment><USER11> Also, the headline is less click-baity.

<comment><USER12> And the site doesn't auto play audio at high volume and wake your girlfriend when she's asleep but you can't!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> NASA's Instagram post has a surprising amount of detail in the photo description that helped orient me to the features in the photo: [https://www.instagram.com/p/BFmwqJNIaLU/](https://www.instagram.com/p/BFmwqJNIaLU/)

</comment><comment><USER14> Could someone provide a link to the high res photo?

</comment><comment><USER15> I always thought Mars was red and dusty. That image looks more like Earth than not!</comment>