Technology, Science and the Environment.

[SpacedX]

 

A new study published today posits that a vast magma ocean may have once existed on the moon's south pole, a region of high interest to spacefaring nations hoping to return to the lunar surface.

 

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/exploration/india-lunar-moon-ocean-magma/

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy54905nv0go

 

The BBC has learned that Telegram - the messaging app service whose boss has been arrested in France - refuses to join international programmes aimed at detecting and removing child abuse material online.

The app is not a member of either the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) or the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) - both of which work with most online platforms to find, report and remove such material.

 

...The BBC has contacted Telegram for comment about its refusal to join the child protection schemes.

Previously it has said it is "absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform".

 

... clearly platforms don't encourage horrible crimes and abuse, people encourage horrible crimes and abuse, then.

[SpacedX]

27 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Previously it has said it is "absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform".

 

... clearly platforms don't encourage horrible crimes and abuse, people encourage horrible crimes and abuse, then.

Similarly I have seen suggests this week that car manufacturers wouldn't be held liable for people speeding and drink driving - which is an appalling analogy. These platforms have the power to regulate, curtail and remove content and those that abuse them. 

[blabyboy]

You clearly do not understand end to end encryption and the economy based around that.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, blabyboy said:

You clearly do not understand end to end encryption and the economy based around that.

Would you mind elaborating on this further? I would be interested.

[The Bear]

I read that the Russian military use Telegram to communicate, so any restriction of it will affect them badly against Ukraine. Supposedly the reason Telegram's boss has been arrested and why they're trying to take it down, or at least have access to all the encryption keys. 

[blabyboy]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Would you mind elaborating on this further? I would be interested.

Sure, I'll try, but as in other matters of your interest, personal research is beneficial.

 

Telegram, along with many of the other messaging platforms e.g. (WhatsApp, FB Messenger, Briar and Signal) use end to end encryption(ETE).i.e only you and the person you are communicating with can read the contents of the message. 

 

Note, Content and the Metadata are two different aspects of a message. The Metadata can be obtained from a platform with the appropriate legal process and that would tell the authorities where one account contacted another account, the date, the time, but crucially not the contents. Consider it the same as sending a letter, the post office know that a person received a letter on a specific date and time, and if you include a return address, they have an idea as to who sent it, but they don't know what the letter contained.

 

The benefit of ETE over a postal letter is that the encryption keys are generated on the senders device and then a public key is sent to the recipient so they can decrypt the message, there is no third party needed, and that act in itself also occurs over an encrypted connection... I.e. the post office cannot steam open the envelope and read the letter and then reseal it because they can't see which letter to open. There are other additional techniques to apply that improve this even further, but let's keep it basic for now.

 

Various governments have tried to lobby/threaten/taint these platforms over time using the "for the sake of the children" trope as a bridgehead to gain access to the content by getting the platforms to weaken the encryption process and build in  backdoor(s) that only parties with appropriate legal legitimacy would be able to access. 

 

Kinda sounds reasonable on the face of it. The question then becomes do you trust the agency that weilds the power to unlock that backdoor only for its intended purpose? At present, the resounding answer from an economic perspective is No, companies and the market in general do not. Once those backdoors are admitted to exist the owners of that platform know they are going to lose customers very rapidly - it is why the likes of Apple, Google, FB and the messaging apps have all resisted these requests. They would rather sit in front of a Select Committee or. Senate hearing and be humiliated by attention grabbing politicians than see their business crumble because customers would no longer believe they could communicate secretly and in confidence with a recipient. It is important to note here that some companies e.g. Apple have on a few occasions assisted with compromising a device .i.e law enforcement could get into the phone, but did not compromise the messaging app itself by inserting a backdoor, so they have in effect localised the hole to that one device 

 

It is also worth noting that the actual processes many of the apps use are based on open source software and the algorithms used are not within the gift of the platforms to compromise. These are the same algorithms used by banks for your transactions - do you want backdoors in them? Would you trust that those backdoors would not be exploited by criminals for gain? Online banking would suffer severe shocks in a short space of time. Stocks and shares trading would be especially affected by this with the obvious knock-on to various economies around the world and the global economy as a whole.

 

Whenever I hear this type of argument, I wince because the ramifications of what someone is suggesting just has not been thought through or researched... Governments and three letter agencies rely on this naivety of the public to try and browbeat the platforms into changing their systems knowing full well that if they did that, the customers of that platform would desert it very quickly and switch to another app. 

 

"For the sake of the children" would be just the start, industrial espionage is the real goal along with population monitoring depending upon your country of residency.

 

Pavel Durov cannot effectively give up the keys for the organised crime accounts because fundamentally he doesn't have the keys. At best France can try to get the metadata for certain accounts and have an approximate location and date for that account, but those accounts will already be dead accounts, the locations will be spoofed and the criminals off to another platform that is not under investigation. To me, this is very much more about being seen to do something than actually doing something productive.

 

It is absurd what the French are doing, they would be much better working in the shadows with Interpol as various European governments did when they managed to infiltrate the Encrochat network alongside the U.S agencies to capture numerous drug lords.

 

It is perhaps ironic, that the French are trying to enforce the law for this request, but the President is not enforcing the law from a much bigger request I e.an election vote, to change the government. Plus ca change!

 

 

Edited 29 August by blabyboy

[blabyboy]

4 hours ago, The Bear said:

I read that the Russian military use Telegram to communicate, so any restriction of it will affect them badly against Ukraine. Supposedly the reason Telegram's boss has been arrested and why they're trying to take it down, or at least have access to all the encryption keys. 

Both sides use Telegram, there are several other apps, so no, if it disappears, the disruption would be minimal as they can jump elsewhere.

 

They don't have access to the encryption keys.

 

France is punching way above it's weight if it thinks it can take down Telegram, China can't, the US can't.. France?? Non!

 

The odd thing is that these requests for information are related to Groups..and groups on Telegram are not encrypted, so any content would be visible along with any metadata obtained/ requested. So, I would guess that it's more about the request to take the group(s) down has not been fulfilled. Durov is also a French/Russian citizen so would be subject to the law as a native of that country. 

 

On further reading (it's a developing story), it appears Telegram have never serviced a request for takedown/information from any authority. Maybe Durov has finally pushed the buttons of the French.

 

[The Bear]

Cheers for the explanation 👍

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, blabyboy said:

Sure, I'll try, but as in other matters of your interest, personal research is beneficial.

 

Telegram, along with many of the other messaging platforms e.g. (WhatsApp, FB Messenger, Briar and Signal) use end to end encryption(ETE).i.e only you and the person you are communicating with can read the contents of the message. 

 

Note, Content and the Metadata are two different aspects of a message. The Metadata can be obtained from a platform with the appropriate legal process and that would tell the authorities where one account contacted another account, the date, the time, but crucially not the contents. Consider it the same as sending a letter, the post office know that a person received a letter on a specific date and time, and if you include a return address, they have an idea as to who sent it, but they don't know what the letter contained.

 

The benefit of ETE over a postal letter is that the encryption keys are generated on the senders device and then a public key is sent to the recipient so they can decrypt the message, there is no third party needed, and that act in itself also occurs over an encrypted connection... I.e. the post office cannot steam open the envelope and read the letter and then reseal it because they can't see which letter to open. There are other additional techniques to apply that improve this even further, but let's keep it basic for now.

 

Various governments have tried to lobby/threaten/taint these platforms over time using the "for the sake of the children" trope as a bridgehead to gain access to the content by getting the platforms to weaken the encryption process and build in  backdoor(s) that only parties with appropriate legal legitimacy would be able to access. 

 

Kinda sounds reasonable on the face of it. The question then becomes do you trust the agency that weilds the power to unlock that backdoor only for its intended purpose? At present, the resounding answer from an economic perspective is No, companies and the market in general do not. Once those backdoors are admitted to exist the owners of that platform know they are going to lose customers very rapidly - it is why the likes of Apple, Google, FB and the messaging apps have all resisted these requests. They would rather sit in front of a Select Committee or. Senate hearing and be humiliated by attention grabbing politicians than see their business crumble because customers would no longer believe they could communicate secretly and in confidence with a recipient. It is important to note here that some companies e.g. Apple have on a few occasions assisted with compromising a device .i.e law enforcement could get into the phone, but did not compromise the messaging app itself by inserting a backdoor, so they have in effect localised the hole to that one device 

 

It is also worth noting that the actual processes many of the apps use are based on open source software and the algorithms used are not within the gift of the platforms to compromise. These are the same algorithms used by banks for your transactions - do you want backdoors in them? Would you trust that those backdoors would not be exploited by criminals for gain? Online banking would suffer severe shocks in a short space of time. Stocks and shares trading would be especially affected by this with the obvious knock-on to various economies around the world and the global economy as a whole.

 

Whenever I hear this type of argument, I wince because the ramifications of what someone is suggesting just has not been thought through or researched... Governments and three letter agencies rely on this naivety of the public to try and browbeat the platforms into changing their systems knowing full well that if they did that, the customers of that platform would desert it very quickly and switch to another app. 

 

"For the sake of the children" would be just the start, industrial espionage is the real goal along with population monitoring depending upon your country of residency.

 

Pavel Durov cannot effectively give up the keys for the organised crime accounts because fundamentally he doesn't have the keys. At best France can try to get the metadata for certain accounts and have an approximate location and date for that account, but those accounts will already be dead accounts, the locations will be spoofed and the criminals off to another platform that is not under investigation. To me, this is very much more about being seen to do something than actually doing something productive.

 

It is absurd what the French are doing, they would be much better working in the shadows with Interpol as various European governments did when they managed to infiltrate the Encrochat network alongside the U.S agencies to capture numerous drug lords.

 

It is perhaps ironic, that the French are trying to enforce the law for this request, but the President is not enforcing the law from a much bigger request I e.an election vote, to change the government. Plus ca change!

 

 

Thank you for that, seems like an entirely fair argument.

 

Better covert ops to deal with the very shady things happening on these platforms then, because even though the blunt approach being taken here is likely ineffective, it's reasonably clear that something has to be done to stop those who do some pretty nasty criminal stuff on these platforms.

[Zear0]

I get the desire for encrypted messages, but the following statement I just find baffling. 

 

"Telegram’s CEO, Pavel Durov, has nothing to hide and travels frequently in Europe,” it said. “It is absurd to claim that a platform, or its owner, are responsible for abuse of that platform.” 

 

The above is absolute bullsh*t and is such a clear example of the social media leadership's view. You can't create a service that hosts criminal activity, terrorism and paedophilia and say "not our problem". Yes, it is your problem and you need to sort it one way or another. I've seen the false equivalence arguments that car manufacturers aren't responsible for drivers speeding etc but this is so different and the lack of accountability, whilst raking in the cash, does irk me. 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Zear0 said:

I get the desire for encrypted messages, but the following statement I just find baffling. 

 

"Telegram’s CEO, Pavel Durov, has nothing to hide and travels frequently in Europe,” it said. “It is absurd to claim that a platform, or its owner, are responsible for abuse of that platform.” 

 

The above is absolute bullsh*t and is such a clear example of the social media leadership's view. You can't create a service that hosts criminal activity, terrorism and paedophilia and say "not our problem". Yes, it is your problem and you need to sort it one way or another. I've seen the false equivalence arguments that car manufacturers aren't responsible for drivers speeding etc but this is so different and the lack of accountability, whilst raking in the cash, does irk me. 

Depends on what ones view of "freedom" and "personal responsibility" is, I guess.

 

There's an issue here in that laws based on such nebulous ideas of ethics differ depending on location so you're always going to get situations like this.

 

FWIW I absolutely agree that it's bollocks and that the creator of a platform should bear some responsibility for not policing illegal activity on it.

[SpacedX]

15 hours ago, blabyboy said:

Sure, I'll try, but as in other matters of your interest, personal research is beneficial.

 

Telegram, along with many of the other messaging platforms e.g. (WhatsApp, FB Messenger, Briar and Signal) use end to end encryption(ETE).i.e only you and the person you are communicating with can read the contents of the message. 

 

Note, Content and the Metadata are two different aspects of a message. The Metadata can be obtained from a platform with the appropriate legal process and that would tell the authorities where one account contacted another account, the date, the time, but crucially not the contents. Consider it the same as sending a letter, the post office know that a person received a letter on a specific date and time, and if you include a return address, they have an idea as to who sent it, but they don't know what the letter contained.

 

The benefit of ETE over a postal letter is that the encryption keys are generated on the senders device and then a public key is sent to the recipient so they can decrypt the message, there is no third party needed, and that act in itself also occurs over an encrypted connection... I.e. the post office cannot steam open the envelope and read the letter and then reseal it because they can't see which letter to open. There are other additional techniques to apply that improve this even further, but let's keep it basic for now.

 

Various governments have tried to lobby/threaten/taint these platforms over time using the "for the sake of the children" trope as a bridgehead to gain access to the content by getting the platforms to weaken the encryption process and build in  backdoor(s) that only parties with appropriate legal legitimacy would be able to access. 

 

Kinda sounds reasonable on the face of it. The question then becomes do you trust the agency that weilds the power to unlock that backdoor only for its intended purpose? At present, the resounding answer from an economic perspective is No, companies and the market in general do not. Once those backdoors are admitted to exist the owners of that platform know they are going to lose customers very rapidly - it is why the likes of Apple, Google, FB and the messaging apps have all resisted these requests. They would rather sit in front of a Select Committee or. Senate hearing and be humiliated by attention grabbing politicians than see their business crumble because customers would no longer believe they could communicate secretly and in confidence with a recipient. It is important to note here that some companies e.g. Apple have on a few occasions assisted with compromising a device .i.e law enforcement could get into the phone, but did not compromise the messaging app itself by inserting a backdoor, so they have in effect localised the hole to that one device 

 

It is also worth noting that the actual processes many of the apps use are based on open source software and the algorithms used are not within the gift of the platforms to compromise. These are the same algorithms used by banks for your transactions - do you want backdoors in them? Would you trust that those backdoors would not be exploited by criminals for gain? Online banking would suffer severe shocks in a short space of time. Stocks and shares trading would be especially affected by this with the obvious knock-on to various economies around the world and the global economy as a whole.

 

Whenever I hear this type of argument, I wince because the ramifications of what someone is suggesting just has not been thought through or researched... Governments and three letter agencies rely on this naivety of the public to try and browbeat the platforms into changing their systems knowing full well that if they did that, the customers of that platform would desert it very quickly and switch to another app. 

 

"For the sake of the children" would be just the start, industrial espionage is the real goal along with population monitoring depending upon your country of residency.

 

Pavel Durov cannot effectively give up the keys for the organised crime accounts because fundamentally he doesn't have the keys. At best France can try to get the metadata for certain accounts and have an approximate location and date for that account, but those accounts will already be dead accounts, the locations will be spoofed and the criminals off to another platform that is not under investigation. To me, this is very much more about being seen to do something than actually doing something productive.

 

It is absurd what the French are doing, they would be much better working in the shadows with Interpol as various European governments did when they managed to infiltrate the Encrochat network alongside the U.S agencies to capture numerous drug lords.

 

It is perhaps ironic, that the French are trying to enforce the law for this request, but the President is not enforcing the law from a much bigger request I e.an election vote, to change the government. Plus ca change!

 

 

This is a superbly written and articulated post.

 

20 hours ago, blabyboy said:

You clearly do not understand end to end encryption and the economy based around that.

Not sure who this was addressed to, but I assure you that I so. In so doing, Telegram is actively promoting this abuse and whilst the leverage of state power exerted to eavesdrop on private conversations is deeply worrisome, it's equally troubling to see a private company declaring itself to be above and beyond the law. 

 

The 'end to end encryption' however that is being referred to in the popular press fundamentally misrepresents what Telegram is and how it works in practice. Hear me out here. This feature guarantees that every message will be encrypted using encryption keys that are only known to the communicating parties, and not to the service provider. That same assurance holds for anyone who might hack into the provider’s servers, and also, for better or for worse, to law enforcement agencies that serve providers with a subpoena. Telegram clearly fails to meet this pledge for a simple reason: it does not end-to-end encrypt conversations by default. If you want to use end-to-end encryption in Telegram, you must manually activate an optional end-to-end encryption feature called “Secret Chats” for every single private conversation you want to have. The feature is explicitly not turned on for the vast majority of conversations, and is only available for one-on-one conversations, and never for group chats with more than two people in them. This may seem as though I am being unnecessarily petty or facetious but the difference in adoption between default end-to-end encryption and this experience is likely very significant. The practical impact is that the vast majority of one-on-one Telegram conversations — and literally every single group chat — are probably visible on Telegram’s servers, which can see and record the content of all messages sent between users. That may or may not be a problem for every Telegram user, but it’s certainly not something you'd promote and advertise as particularly well encrypted.

 

Many use Telegram for its social media-like features, meaning that you mainly consume content rather than producing it. But hypothetically suppose your friend, who also uses Telegram for similar reasons, notices you’re on the platform and decides he/she wants to send you a private message. Are you concerned about privacy now? And are you each going to manually turn on the “Secret Chat” feature — even though it requires four explicit clicks through hidden menus, and even though it will prevent you from communicating immediately if one of you is offline?

 

My point is, Telegram knows its encryption is difficult to turn on, that many users don't activate this or assume that it is default. and they continue to promote their product as a secure messenger.

 

Returning however to the question of Durov's arrest, the provision of this is of course open to abuse by those that do understand it. I concede, you have provided a strongly compelling case in defence of it. That said, where I would contend Durov does have a responsibility is to acknowledge that his platform by design actively and intentionally enables this abuse and acknowledgment of the ramifications of that and also, like any other social media CEO, in the regulation and removal of harmful or dangerous content for public consumption. 

 

"Comme on fait son lit; on se couche".

 

 

[leicsmac]

On topic to the above:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg4yerrg451o

 

The dark side of the digital world in Korea.

 

NB. If you want blokes to not do stuff like this, perhaps your government ought to address the systemic and social inequality that exists between men and women in Korea and actually get young blokes treating women like human beings rather than either conquests or adversaries, Mr Yoon.

Edited 29 August by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/controversial-phosphine-findings-on-venus-corroborated/4020063.article

 

A team led by Dave Clements, a reader in astrophysics at Imperial College London, announced initial findings at a special session of the National Astronomy Meeting in the UK in July. They are yet to be peer reviewed and are based on a tremendous amount of new data since the initial discovery of phosphine in 2020. The researchers have not only found phosphine (PH3) in Venus’s atmosphere once more, but also ammonia (NH3) at parts per billion deeper down in the clouds.

 

By no way confirmed yet, but the question of phosphate (and perhaps even life) on Venus keeps rumbling on.

[Daggers]

On 30/08/2024 at 16:56, leicsmac said:

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/controversial-phosphine-findings-on-venus-corroborated/4020063.article

 

A team led by Dave Clements, a reader in astrophysics at Imperial College London, announced initial findings at a special session of the National Astronomy Meeting in the UK in July. They are yet to be peer reviewed and are based on a tremendous amount of new data since the initial discovery of phosphine in 2020. The researchers have not only found phosphine (PH3) in Venus’s atmosphere once more, but also ammonia (NH3) at parts per billion deeper down in the clouds.

 

By no way confirmed yet, but the question of phosphate (and perhaps even life) on Venus keeps rumbling on.

I for one welcome our new toxic Venusian overlords…

 

…although that makes them sound like Katie Hopkins’ Twitter account. I am hoping for more death lasers and less vile 128 character online dirge.

[Zear0]

Pretty tight time likes but glad he's going for it. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/ckg2g1nj4y4o

 

Billionaire businessman Jared Isaacman has become the first non-professional astronaut to walk in space during the Polaris Dawn mission.

"Back at home we all have a lot of work to do, but from here Earth sure looks like a perfect world," he said as he stepped out into space for the first time.

Carrying four private citizens, including SpaceX engineers Anna Menon and Sarah Gillis, the SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket launched into space on Tuesday and will spend up to five days in orbit.

Mr Isaacman funded the mission, which is the second privately-crewed mission from SpaceX - the spaceflight company founded by Elon Musk.

Their spacecraft, called Resilience, will go into an orbit that will eventually take them up to 870 miles (1,400km) above the planet. No human has been that far since Nasa's Apollo programme ended in the 1970s.

 

And so we continue on The Expanse timeline, it would seem.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwp3ppp6xo

 

A firefighter died during a flood rescue in Austria and one person drowned in Poland, as torrential rain caused by Storm Boris continued to wreak havoc across Central and Eastern Europe.

In Romania, five people have died, while several remain unaccounted for in the Czech Republic.

The Austrian province surrounding Vienna has been declared a disaster area, with its leaders speaking of "an unprecedented extreme situation".

Poland's prime minister Donald Tusk declared a state of natural disaster.

 

...Following extreme flooding in 2021, the World Weather Attribution Network concluded that the warming climate meant the likelihood and intensity of such events in Europe was increasing.

 

That's pretty awful.

[leicsmac]

One of the best analyses of a fallacy I see so often. Particularly the last few paragraphs.

 

 

[dsr-burnley]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

One of the best analyses of a fallacy I see so often. Particularly the last few paragraphs.

 

 

It's a stretch to say that we can only know if science is wrong by "reiterative applications of the scientific process".  Sometimes we can know that it's wrong because the expected results don't happen - for example, we know that covid doesn't kill children en masse because it didn't - it killed fewer than RSV does annually.  And we know that eating hamburgers did not cause mass vCJD in the UK because mass vCJD did not happen.  

 

One of the problems with science is that it is perceived to be over-changeable in some fields.  For example, whether or not eggs are good for you has flipped probably four times in my lifetime.  And some of this isn't the fault of "science", I know, it's the fault of people with vested interests in diet and advertising, but successive governments have thrown their weight behind possibly dodgy science and that appears to validate it.

 

Sometimes people simply reject "science", as stated above, because they think "science" is wrong.  Example - my mother's first pregnancy, in 1959, she was cursed with dreadful morning sickness.  She was offered this new drug thalidomide which scientists said was wonderful, and she turned it down.  It is often wrong to ignore the science, but not always.  (That's not to say climate change should be ignored, just to explain why it often is.)

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's a stretch to say that we can only know if science is wrong by "reiterative applications of the scientific process".  Sometimes we can know that it's wrong because the expected results don't happen - for example, we know that covid doesn't kill children en masse because it didn't - it killed fewer than RSV does annually.  And we know that eating hamburgers did not cause mass vCJD in the UK because mass vCJD did not happen.  

 

What is observing something through empiricism and seeing it didn't happen (thus either satisfying or not satisfying a hypothesis) if not an "iterative application of the scientific process"? That's one of the most fundamental ones, even though the examples mentioned here weren't exactly carried out under controlled conditions.

 

8 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

 

One of the problems with science is that it is perceived to be over-changeable in some fields.  For example, whether or not eggs are good for you has flipped probably four times in my lifetime.  And some of this isn't the fault of "science", I know, it's the fault of people with vested interests in diet and advertising, but successive governments have thrown their weight behind possibly dodgy science and that appears to validate it.

 

And what proves these people wrong? Further advances in the scientific process, nothing else.

 

8 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Sometimes people simply reject "science", as stated above, because they think "science" is wrong.  Example - my mother's first pregnancy, in 1959, she was cursed with dreadful morning sickness.  She was offered this new drug thalidomide which scientists said was wonderful, and she turned it down.  It is often wrong to ignore the science, but not always.  (That's not to say climate change should be ignored, just to explain why it often is.)

I have sympathy for people who have this viewpoint, though the post I cited goes into immense detail as to why such thought is misguided.

 

I cannot, however, speak for those who will (BIU for extreme emphasis, it is practically a mathematical certainty) suffer and die because of the above mindset and the resultant lack of action through political policy resulting from it, and those people may be much less sympathetic than I. They may seek to hold such people accountable in an extreme manner, should the worst come to the worst because of ignorance of the scientific process. And that, through a variety of possibilities alone or combined (climate change just being one of them), is a distinct probability.

 

Bluntly, the laws of science won't suffer ignorance forever, and neither likely will those who end up in terrible conditions because of that ignorance.

[leicsmac]

https://www.space.com/earth-moon-photo-juice-uranus

 

Great photos. And a triumph of astrodynamics to plan the gravity assists that will get it to Jupiter on minimal fuel budget.

 

Perhaps one day we'll have the means to get there in slightly shorter time without having to plan it out like that, though.