Has the Famous “Blue Marble Earth” of 1972 Become the “Very Tired Marble Earth” of 2026?

[-]

paulhenrybeckwith@reddit (OP)

Short answer: No

In 1972 during the last Apollo 17 mission landing men on the moon, the very iconic "Blue Marble" photo was taken of the Earth from the spacecraft. Clearly seen is the high contrast between the oceans and continents and clouds, the huge swirls of the cloud motion, and an Earth that looks very much alive.

In early April, 2026 a similar photo was taken by the astronauts on the new NASA mission known as Artemis II. NASA published these images together, and the difference appears striking.

The new photo seems to show a much hazier, darker, dustier more polluted Earth, and I dub this photo the "Very Tired Marble".

The difference is very striking, very visceral, and like a punch to the gut. But is it real, or is it an artifact of the digital versus film photography, distance from the Earth, solar illumination or lack of illumination.

Please do your own investigating to answer this question.

I show what I have come up with so far in this video...

Short answer: No. Side by side comparison is misleading…

There has been renewed media interest recently on space travel, Artemis II, SpaceX possible IPO, Musk becoming a trillionaire, etc.

Sorry to rain on this parade, but the Kessler Syndrome becomes much more likely with overloading of low Earth orbit with satellites, and if the collision cascade triggers it will shut down human access to space for at least several decades, probably longer... very important to read about this, I have filmed a number of previous videos on my channel that you can search for to get more information...

Please enjoy...

Please subscribe to my YouTube channel. As well as my website, and YouTube, you can find me on Patreon, Facebook, Twitter/X, LinkedIn, Instagram, Reddit (multiple climate channels within), Quora, TikTok, Discord, Mastodon, Twitch, Vimeo, Bluesky, TruthSocial, Threads, Substack, Tumblr, Pinterest, etc...

References:

BBC article showing NASA images from 1972 and 2026, side by side for direct comparison: Artemis II crew now halfway to Moon as they take 'spectacular' image of Earth https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8jzr423p9o

Direct link to expanded version of side-by-side image for easier comparison: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/1fe5/live/07737500-2fb1-11f1-9885-91ba338bedfd.png.webp

World Map Projection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Earth_projection#/media/File:Equal_Earth_projection_SW.jpg

Perplexity AI queries that I looked at: Show me some photos of Earth from space from 1972. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/show-me-some-photos-of-earth-f-mxaZHGxJQqGYUhnPXAnH4A

Show me the photos of Earth from Artemis II

What is Earths albedo change from 1972 to present day?

Please compare the whole Earth photos taken in 1972 to those recently taken in the last few days. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/please-compare-the-whole-earth-0XS8_MFJT3681kAqd4RDsQ

Article in the Conversation: A million new SpaceX satellites will destroy the night sky — for everyone on Earth https://theconversation.com/a-million-new-spacex-satellites-will-destroy-the-night-sky-for-everyone-on-earth-277938

Article in Space Safety Magazine: Kessler Syndrome The Kessler Syndrome: 10 Interesting and Disturbing Facts https://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/space-debris/kessler-syndrome/

Wikipedia: Kessler Syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Please subscribe to my YouTube channel. As well as my website, and YouTube, you can find me on Patreon, Facebook, Twitter/X, LinkedIn, Instagram, Reddit (multiple climate channels within), Quora, TikTok, Discord, Mastodon, Twitch, Vimeo, Bluesky, TruthSocial, Threads, Substack, Tumblr, Pinterest, etc...

[-]

ravenisblack@reddit

I think you are leaving out the most important detail.. 1970s film photo vs a modern digital one. Color saturation is going to be wildly different.

[-]

plunki@reddit

Digital vs film isn't most important, it's a total different shot. The 2026 photo is the dark side of the earth taken with extremely high ISO, over-exposed to look like day.

[-]

ravenisblack@reddit

Okay yes, 100% agree the lighting condition is extremely important but... Film is an important distinction here too and much easier to explain to normies blasting nonsense on social media. Photographers and filmmakers strive for the tones and saturation that 70s era film production provides. And digital cameras are just different... They aim for a flat range capturing as much data as possible so it can be edited in any which way. They used a specialized Ektachrome film for this shot, and noting that: "Kodak Ektachrome is a daylight-balanced color reversal (slide) film renowned for its extremely fine grain and vibrant color."

[-]

GN0K@reddit

Also the sun placement is different if I read correctly

[-]

Sardond@reddit

Yup, the photo from Artemis II is of the night side of the planet using the illumination from the full moon (that’s why you can see stars in the new photo), sun is on the opposite side of the planet in the new photo.

[-]

old-legs-623@reddit

Pretty bright moonlight there. Nice.

[-]

Low_Complex_9841@reddit

Re: orbital collapse

What really gets me is that idea of reusable orbital tug was around since 1970x, yet no-one had money/motivation to implement it, so 'everyone' just drop their transfer stages up there ... because cheaper?!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576500000618

=---= Solar thermal OTV—Applications to reusable and expendable launch vehicles

[-]

leopold-teflon@reddit

I said it before, I say it again: earth doesn’t care. Nature doesn’t care. Humans haven’t existed, humans exist, humans will get extinct.

[-]

Fit_Peach-@reddit

The new photo doesn't look as round as the older photo.

[-]

TimberBiscuits@reddit

The new photo was on the night side….

[-]

FirstAccGotStolen@reddit

Holy shit I didn't realize this. Now that you say it I can absolutely see it, but when I first looked at it, I was just "meh, this is really the best they could do with modern equipment?"

Now I'm like, how?!? Pretty impressive.

[-]

Elevated_Dongers@reddit

Sleepy blue marble

[-]

Lupus1978@reddit

THIS! Anyone knowing anything about photography should understand that you just CANNOT compare these images. The new photo was taken on a night side with ISO 51200 (which is why the auroras and city lights for example are visible). They've been taken in totally different lighting conditions AND with totally different equipment (film vs digital).

[-]

Ramuh321@reddit

A little concerning how many people are taking this as some sign the earth is ill when it’s literally just a difference in lighting.

The earth is very sick indeed. This photo is not evidence of that.

[-]

CorvidCorbeau@reddit

I mean, I gotta say one of these clearly has way more ice than the other. That's got to mean something at least! /s

[-]

herefromyoutube@reddit

The over was over saturated in the 70s. Stupid climate change killing saturation levels.

[-]

ClassicallyBrained@reddit

Photographer here. I think this is *mostly* a difference in cameras. If you see the new image, you'll notice is has lots of stars in the background, where as the original image has none. This is basically showing that the new image was exposed much higher, which tends to wash out color saturation. The other difference is that the original is on film. Specifically, it was a medium format Hassleblad shooting Kodak Ektachrome SO-368, that's a ton of dynamic range (even by today's standards) and the film stock does lean more saturated.

But again, the giveaway is the stars. If you're exposing for stars, you're probably over exposing Earth.

[-]

Blood-PawWerewolf@reddit

And don’t forget about the cameras being different in technology. 1972 cameras still used film rolls and in 2026 digital cameras are the norm as well as digital editing software that can be used after the photo was taken. You couldn’t really do that once a photo was printed from a “analog” camera

[-]

ravenisblack@reddit

Can we also point out that its also digital vs film... Have you seen a movie from the 70s? Insanely saturated colors.

[-]

Bandits101@reddit

I think it’s just a badly exposed snap. You can see how the black is greyed out, especially bottom right and looks like a light is shining on it. I think they used a Hasselblad in the seventies.

At least one of the crew should have been taught the basics of photography, for such an important mission. Taking snaps with a phone really doesn’t do the mission justice.

[-]

plunki@reddit

It's a totally different shot. The 2026 photo is the dark (!) side of the earth taken with extremely high ISO, over-exposed to look like day.

[-]

Karambamamba@reddit

Also both shots are heavily edited. It’s absolutely not a reliable indicator for planet health. There are a plethora of other sources that can tell you how fucked we are lol.

[-]

Lishio420@reddit

Yeah on another thread i was telling someone as well that its most likely just a difference in how acurate/good todays cams are compared to what? Like 50 years ago

[-]

plunki@reddit

It's a totally different shot. The 2026 photo is the dark (!) side of the earth taken with extremely high ISO, over-exposed to look like day.

[-]

ClassicallyBrained@reddit

Honestly, in this case, it's the opposite. That Hasselblad would beat out 95% of cameras now days in color, contrast, and even sharpness all things being equal.

[-]

plunki@reddit

It's a totally different shot. The 2026 photo is the dark (!) side of the earth taken with extremely high ISO, over-exposed to look like day.

[-]

Scytodes_thoracica@reddit

Can we talk about the spacex plan to launch so many satellites it blocks out the night sky for everyone but a small percentage of people?

[-]

Educational_Snow7092@reddit

The atmosphere was transparent in 1972. In 2026, there is pollution trapped in the stratosphere. The clouds are also a lot choppier due to turbulence.

[-]

CrystalInTheforest@reddit

Honestly, this is mostly down to crappy photography.

[-]

computer-magic-2019@reddit

The original photo from 2026 was very dull, and they photoshopped the hell out of it to look daylit.

The fact that NASA passes it off as a real representation of Earth shows just how far integrity and telling the truth has fallen away in America.

[-]

Decent_Adhesiveness0@reddit

Let's take an unflattering photo of the earth! Let's make sure the sun is behind it not shining down on it. Then we'll compare them and use the resulting image to feel even worse about our miserable lives!

Look at the sharp black behind Earth in the second photo and the hazy black in the first.

I'm sure there are many Apollo photos of Earth just as "tired" as the first one here.

[-]

discoltk@reddit

The only collapse in this thread is one of fact checking. NASA clarified this during the live broadcast of the lunar flyby. That said, they probably should have anticipated people would jump to conclusions with this backlit photo.

[-]

Sknowles12@reddit

Didn’t previous photos also show green?

[-]

Ouroboros308@reddit

See, that's why they call us doomers. Because idiots like you are too focused on sensationalism. I'm pretty confident you know exactly that it looks like this because THE ONE ON THE RIGHT IS FACING THE SUN, AND THE ONE ON THE LEFT IS FACING AWAY FROM THE SUN! Meaning the newer Foto ist in earth's shadow and needed a way longer exposure time, too! Failing to mention this in your statement should get this post banned imo.

Fake news is already bad without creeping into this sub. @mods, pls delete this misinformation post.

[-]

Ouroboros308@reddit

I accidentally switched right and left, my point still stands. The older one (1972) shows the sunlit side, the newer one (2026) shows the shadowed side of earth.

[-]

CzIitz@reddit

I'm tired, boss.

[-]

metalreflectslime@reddit

Thanks.

[-]

21plankton@reddit

The smoggy marble.

[-]

FieldEngineer2019@reddit

This is probably the least concerning/ upsetting post I’ve seen from you lately haha. All things considered the Earth looks pretty good, but I think it’s still important to raise this question and ponder it. I’m less concerned about this comparison and more interested in what this may look like in another 50 years.

[-]

StatementBot@reddit

The following submission statement was provided by /u/paulhenrybeckwith:

Has the Famous “Blue Marble Earth” of 1972 Become the “Very Tired Marble Earth” of 2026?

Short answer: No

In 1972 during the last Apollo 17 mission landing men on the moon, the very iconic "Blue Marble" photo was taken of the Earth from the spacecraft. Clearly seen is the high contrast between the oceans and continents and clouds, the huge swirls of the cloud motion, and an Earth that looks very much alive.

In early April, 2026 a similar photo was taken by the astronauts on the new NASA mission known as Artemis II. NASA published these images together, and the difference appears striking.

The new photo seems to show a much hazier, darker, dustier more polluted Earth, and I dub this photo the "Very Tired Marble".

The difference is very striking, very visceral, and like a punch to the gut. But is it real, or is it an artifact of the digital versus film photography, distance from the Earth, solar illumination or lack of illumination.

Please do your own investigating to answer this question.

I show what I have come up with so far in this video...

Short answer: No. Side by side comparison is misleading…

There has been renewed media interest recently on space travel, Artemis II, SpaceX possible IPO, Musk becoming a trillionaire, etc.

Sorry to rain on this parade, but the Kessler Syndrome becomes much more likely with overloading of low Earth orbit with satellites, and if the collision cascade triggers it will shut down human access to space for at least several decades, probably longer... very important to read about this, I have filmed a number of previous videos on my channel that you can search for to get more information...

Please enjoy...

Please subscribe to my YouTube channel. As well as my website, and YouTube, you can find me on Patreon, Facebook, Twitter/X, LinkedIn, Instagram, Reddit (multiple climate channels within), Quora, TikTok, Discord, Mastodon, Twitch, Vimeo, Bluesky, TruthSocial, Threads, Substack, Tumblr, Pinterest, etc...

References:

BBC article showing NASA images from 1972 and 2026, side by side for direct comparison: Artemis II crew now halfway to Moon as they take 'spectacular' image of Earth https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8jzr423p9o

Direct link to expanded version of side-by-side image for easier comparison: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/1fe5/live/07737500-2fb1-11f1-9885-91ba338bedfd.png.webp

World Map Projection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Earth_projection#/media/File:Equal_Earth_projection_SW.jpg

Perplexity AI queries that I looked at: Show me some photos of Earth from space from 1972. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/show-me-some-photos-of-earth-f-mxaZHGxJQqGYUhnPXAnH4A

Show me the photos of Earth from Artemis II

What is Earths albedo change from 1972 to present day?

Please compare the whole Earth photos taken in 1972 to those recently taken in the last few days. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/please-compare-the-whole-earth-0XS8_MFJT3681kAqd4RDsQ

Article in the Conversation: A million new SpaceX satellites will destroy the night sky — for everyone on Earth https://theconversation.com/a-million-new-spacex-satellites-will-destroy-the-night-sky-for-everyone-on-earth-277938

Article in Space Safety Magazine: Kessler Syndrome The Kessler Syndrome: 10 Interesting and Disturbing Facts https://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/space-debris/kessler-syndrome/

Wikipedia: Kessler Syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Please subscribe to my YouTube channel. As well as my website, and YouTube, you can find me on Patreon, Facebook, Twitter/X, LinkedIn, Instagram, Reddit (multiple climate channels within), Quora, TikTok, Discord, Mastodon, Twitch, Vimeo, Bluesky, TruthSocial, Threads, Substack, Tumblr, Pinterest, etc...

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1sf2ed7/has_the_famous_blue_marble_earth_of_1972_become/oeu8527/