File talk:ISS March 2009.jpg

Flipped Why?
Why was this image flipped? The earth looks perfectly good "above" as "below", if not better. It helps demonstrate the fact that they are really in space. Ergzay (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Shadow?
what's casting that shadow on the left side? The Shuttle? Vonfraginoff (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My guess would be that the sun is actually to the left in this picture, the solar array is casting the shadow onto the radiators —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.182.253 (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I second the Flipped Why?
I agree that the image should be natural and not flipped. There's obviously no universally standard frame of reference in space, so the earth being at the bottom of the picture makes no more sense than it does at the top. Eric Statzer (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Better Image
First to address those who question why the image is "flipped." As has been pointed out, the whole concept of it being "flipped" makes no sense as, in space, orientation is entirely relative. However, there is a frame of reference - in this case, the Earth, and for aesthetic and human reasons it seems people prefer the "Earth-down, Space-objects-up" orientation. It doesn't really matter though.

As the person who nominated this picture to be featured, I feel that I should point out that since 2009 when this image was taken, some much better ones have come out that show a completed space station and are from a very similar vantage point, which when coupled with the higher quality, suggest it might be a good idea to replace this.

The thing is, this newer picture I am suggesting is also a featured picture, so I'm not sure how that would work.

Since I'm the guy who nominated this image in the first place I figured that, coming from me, this idea would resonate best.

Thanks!

Spiral5800 (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * After further consideration, I noticed that this image captures the ISS at an angle and configuration that demonstrates some significant details of the ISS that are less clear in the image I proposed as a replacement. In addition, the framing of this image is superior.  I therefore retract my suggestion. Spiral5800 (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)