I noticed in that paper when you posted it before that even with all that big fancy apparatus they still only got 100 pixels across the moon. Heck, I get 75-80 pixels with my little F/5.6 100mm ZnSe lens. Ha, ha, ha... BUT of course I CAN'T read the temperature of the cold space around it or much detail in temperature differences across the surface of the moon. But for what I paid it's kind of cool.
I took some shots of the full moon last week and I think they would have been more interesting if the sky had been truly clear. There was thin cloud cover as well as the ongoing haze. I should have taken a visible shot to show the glow around the moon from the haze & cloud.
The first image below makes it look like the moon is melting & dripping. :~) The last image is with one of the more common smooth palettes that everyone else uses. It's easier to see "one bit" deltas with my palettes. I should have gotten a couple with the smoothing off too...hopefully another time.
The temperatures, of course, are wrong due to the extra tight aperture of that lens. What I don't understand is why the calculated temperatures don't end up far colder since the "radiance" hitting the sensor is so much lower than with the stock F/1.4 lens. It must have something to do with how I determine the temperature but I have not figured it out yet & need to run some more tests.