The ugliest moon in the solar system

[Algr]

In this universe, mankind looked up at the sky and said... Yuck. Humans looked upwards. In our world they saw hope, romance, and delicate beauty. In that world they saw this thing. Their eyes turned down, they continued to exist as mortals, but the civilizations and cultures withered and vanished under a necrotic sky. We are so fortunate that this moon shines elsewhere.

 

[256bits]

That moon says, you think I look bad, you should see the other one.
It looks like it ended up on the wrong end of a moon boxing match.

 

[AlexB23]

TThat

In this universe, mankind looked up at the sky and said... Yuck. Humans looked upwards. In our world they saw hope, romance, and delicate beauty. In that world they saw this thing. Their eyes turned down, they continued to exist as mortals, but the civilizations and cultures withered and vanished under a necrotic sky. We are so fortunate that this moon shines elsewhere.

View attachment 372460

That's Io, Jupiter's moon. Looks like a spherical pizza that overstayed in the oven.

 

[DaveC426913]

If Io had been our moon since the dawn of time, it would be the most beautiful thing in the sky.

Contrarily, we would look upon Luna as a drab, colourless, pockmarked, failed Mercury-wannabe.

Mother Goose effect is strong in us (the strong tendency to prefer the first of a thing you see).

 

[Algr]

I don't think so. There is no culture that sees pock marks or sores or splotchy skin as being attractive. Animals or people who are attracted to such things do not leave many offspring. Io genuinely looks like human disease, whereas the moon is a purley white disk with barely visible details. I'm Io-phobic.

(Apparently in the middle ages, some priests would screw with people by insisting that if you were pure of heart, the moon looked featureless, and if you saw seas, it was your own sin you were seeing.)

 

[Ken Fabian]

If it were orbiting Earth it would not be like it is, although the high sulfur content may have coloured those Lunar Maria and given a yellow/orange appearance.

 

[Ken Fabian]

I don't think so. There is no culture that sees pock marks or sores or splotchy skin as being attractive. Animals or people who are attracted to such things do not leave many offspring. Io genuinely looks like human disease, whereas the moon is a purley white disk with barely visible details. I'm Io-phobic.

(Apparently in the middle ages, some priests would screw with people by insisting that if you were pure of heart, the moon looked featureless, and if you saw seas, it was your own sin you were seeing.)

The comparison to human skin is yours - it never occurred to me. Ugliness is in the eyes of the beholder and familiarity brings with it acceptance of things as they are.

 

[Algr]

Perhaps, but there is a limit to that.
"My dear, I look into your eyes and see you have a face like Io."
:: Gets slapped. ::

 

[OmCheeto]

TThat

That's Io, Jupiter's moon. Looks like a spherical pizza that overstayed in the oven.

Did you cheat and paraphrase Ai?

I googled; "what does Io look like without enhancements"

Ai replied; "Jupiter's moon Io, stripped of its digitally processed enhancements and viewed with the human eye, looks like a violently mottled, radioactive "moldy pizza"."

For once in my life, I agree with AI.
(been there, done that)

 

[Ibix]

The strong volcanic activity is driven by tidal heating due to being in a pretty tight orbit (~400,000km, similar to our moon) around the very massive Jupiter (more than 300× the Earth's mass). So I agree with @Ken Fabian that it probably wouldn't look like that if it were here.

I googled; "what does Io look like without enhancements"

Ai replied; "Jupiter's moon Io, stripped of its digitally processed enhancements and viewed with the human eye, looks like a violently mottled, radioactive "moldy pizza"."

It's worth noting that this is a post-processed image mosaic taken by a camera that isn't purely optical (see the detailed caption at Wikipedia. It's supposed to be about what we'd see, but calling it "stripped of its digitally processed enhancements" is a little misleading. It's more a case of "with the edits that ought to correct for the difference between our instruments and the Mk I eyeball".