Slashdot Mirror
Laser-Scanning U.S. Landmarks
MeanMF writes "The New York Daily News reports in this article that the National Park Service is creating detailed 3-D maps of national monuments such as the Statue of Liberty and Mount Rushmore using high-resolution laser scanners. Their goal is to create highly-accurate blueprints that can be used to reconstruct the monuments if they are damaged by a terrorist attack or other means." The same story is also available at Yahoo!.
Would we really want to replace them though? Seems to me this would be like rebuildign the World Trade Centers exactly like they were, and noone is suggesting that, so why would monuments be different?
Not to sound crass or anything, but is that really what people would want? If an historic monument is destroyed, replacing it doesn't mean that it never happenend, it just means that it was replaced.
I would think that if something like this were to happen, then some new, awe-inspiring monument could be built. However, It seems to me that there has been a dearth in people eligible for immortalization in a mountain face (for example) for quite a while now.
no one would know the replacements weren't *exact*, would they?
How many millions do they intend to spend to replicate every ding and pidgeon dropping aquired over decades and not intended by the original artist in the first place?
When you total your car, you can have it fixed or you can buy a new one, but attempting to *duplicate* the old one down to the placement of the least little old molocule not only pretty much defines "prohibitively expensive", but A: Isn't possible, and B: As an idea is just plain doofey.
KFG
Rather than destruction, think maintainence. After all the biggest threat to these structures is age. Documenting their condition now gives a benchmark to comapre against future conditions. That will make it possible to detect slow changes.
I agree, to some extent, that the idea of replacing the Statue of Liberty, Mt Rushmore, the Capitol Building, or any other well-known national monument as exactly as possible is slightly silly. The comment made about replacing a car after a crash, and not wanting to replicate all of the origonal dings and scratches is somewhat reasonable.
But I think you're missing the point about the symbolism and memories contained in these monuments. If my car was totaled, I would be sad not only because I would have lost simply a means of transportation, but I would have lost a location where memories were made. Driving on the highway while friends taunted the 18 year-old engine ("Wow! It hit 55! You think it can get to sixty?"), packing 7 people into a 2-door hatchback, etc. I'd miss all that had happened in the car, as well as the car itself.
Likewise, losing the Statue of Liberty to terrorists, a giant space-crane, Godzilla, or whatever won't simply mean there's new real-estate open on Liberty Island. It'll mean a national monument that watched over hundreds of thousands of immigrants, saw the USA through two World Wars, a presidential assasination, putting people on the moon, the Cold War, Vietnam, etc, etc, etc, will be gone.
I use the Statue of Liberty as an example because I think it's America's 'best' and 'most important' monument. I don't particularly care for Mt. Rushmore (I think it's vaguely creepy), and the Capitol Building doesn't impress me much. The Statue of Liberty represents ideals that America hasn't always been great holding true to, I admit. I'll be the first to criticize the current administration and have no problem pointing out ways we've screwed up in the past. We've fucked up a lot, both internaly and with the rest of the world, and I'm sure we'll continue doing it. But I think the Statue of Liberty, or the Lincoln Memorial, or the Jefferson, or the Washington represent what is, has, and (I _really_ hope) will continue to be great about the USA.
So. I don't think mapping these monuments down to a quarter inch is 'silly' or 'stupid' or a 'waste of time.' Having recently visited New York and seen Lady Liberty up close, and still strongly remembering my 8th grade clase trip to Washington D.C., I would be heartbroken if any of a number of our national monuments fell. I can't honestly say I would support rebuilding the Statue of Liberty exactly as she stood. It would be kind of weird, I recognize that.
But I definatly think we should have the option. At the very least, it will allow for faithful 3D models to be replicated. Maybe someday my kids will be able to walk through a 3D model of New York City _exactly_ the way it stood on September 10th, 2001.
So maybe these 3D models will be completely useless, either because the monuments will not be attacked or because people won't want to rebuild them exactly the same.
But I think it would be a horrible shame not to have the option.
-Trillian
Too late.
If our monuments are destroyed, we have to build them again exactly as they were before. That's because the key thing about monuments is not what they represent, but their particular physical specifications. By rebuilding exactly as before, we send a message to the terrorists that we keep very good records, and aren't afraid to use them.
I assume that everyone realizes that this has little or nothing to do with terrorism. It's almost certainly simply that the Park Service wanted to produce maps of the damn things (to fix stuff later on, to let people build models with, etc), and couldn't get the funding. The way everyone has been getting funding for the past two years is claiming a terrorist tie-in, so the Park Service went for it.
May we never see th