Slashdot Mirror
Panoramic Photos From The Apollo Missions
Ant writes "This link lets you experience the moon just as the Apollo missions' astronauts did -- almost as you were there -- with QuickTime panorama views. Less known is that during all the missions they made image sequences which with todays computer technics can be stitched together into 360-degree interactive panoramas giving you the possibility to view the moon almost as you were there. Many of these panoramas have been published before, but in low resolution and displayed in small sizes. During the last year the original films have been rescanned in large resolution and the Apollo 11 images were released the week before the 35 year anniversary."
How they got panoramic shots of the fake moon set without getting any of the lights or equipment in the shots... ;)
;)
Let the conspiracy theorists loose... this should be fun...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
By the time I reboot into XP or start my Mac that site will be toast.
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
I've got a beer in my hand and three slices of pizza on a plate in front of me. I can also breathe without a helmet and can't bounce around.
So unless my version of Quicktime is missing a few extra plugins.....
I thought these were screenshots of Myst VII.
"Any man who says he can see through women is missing a lot" Groucho Marx
....they don't violate The IPIX Patent
Well there is more intellegent life on the moon than in Hollywood.
Already slow...
http://www.panoramas.dk.nyud.net:8090/fullscreen3/ f29.html
help fill in hidden movie endings @ End of the Credits
(Doing my best Scotty voice)
"It's dead already!"
Plus if you do manage to open the website you'll flood the whole compartment.
With what? Hell if I know but it killed that server!
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
By the time I reboot into XP or start my Mac that site will be toast.
I believe the future tense is uncalled for in this situation.
Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)
Ahhh ... watching the moon while listening to some Pink Floyd. How trippy! :D
from the monty-have-you-heard-about-this-one dept
Timothy,
You're mixing two songs from R.E.M.'s Automatic for the People. The line from Man on the Moon is, "Andy, did you hear about this one?"
Monty is from track 7 (Monty Got a Raw Deal)...my personal favorite on the album.
http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/
"That's one small click for a man, and a giant slashdotting for a completely unprepared webserver."
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
This link lets you experience the moon just as the Apollo missions' astronauts did -- almost as you were there
The moon blows. Who wants to see crosshairs everywhere?
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
.. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
Is there a big CHA on it?
SPOOOOOOOONNNN!!!!!!!!
Amazing! How did they make them in that warehouse?
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
"This link lets you experience the moon just as the Apollo missions' astronauts did..."
/. effect so effortlessly.
I didn't realize that accessing the moon was such a slow process. Kudos to the Apollo astronauts for putting up with the
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
MOooooooooON
When I was in high school, Neil Armstrong took the first steps on the moon. In my youthful ignorance, I thought the delay between Houston asking him a question and his response was due to the moon being so far away. Now 35 years later, as I experience the delays again, I realize it's just that the link to the moon had been slashdotted.
It's interesting how President Bush says he wants us to go back to the moon and to Mars, then he cuts NASA's budget.
Why are there no stars or other cellestial bodies (other than the glaring Sun) in any of the photographs?
I don't know very much about this type of thing, so please excuse me if the answer is an obvious one.
um... NASA's budget went up... Not by much but it did go up
Oh, quicktime VR.
Never mind
(crawls back under rock)
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Congradulations Slashdot. You've destroyed the moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_b elt#The_Van_Allen_Belt.27s_Impact_on_Space_Travel
Im more inclined to believe wikipedia then you.
In a nutshell, the amount of light coming from the sun/earth/moon overwhelms the stars, to expose the film long enough to capture stars would cause everything else to be way overexposed.
The Van Allen belts are actually mostly located over the equator- or atleast that's where they are strongest. By carefully choosing their trajectory, NASA were able to avoid the worst of the belts. However the astronauts still got about 1% of the dose necessary to get radiation poisoning.
* One movie shows the astronauts blasting off from the moon on their way home and the camera, which was on the moon, tilted up to follow the space craft. Who was left behind so they could tilt the camera up to follow the space craft?
It's an automated camera. Amazing what technology they had in those days! Lucky that, otherwise they would have had to leave a cameraman behind to die :-)
* The engine that was used to slow the Lunar Module down, so it didn't crash into the moon surface, puts out thousands of pounds of thrust. Where is the crater under this engine on the moon's surface? The surface dust wasn't even disturbed.
Look, gravity is only 1/6 of that on the earth. A helicopter flies by throwing its own weight in air downwards every second, which is similar to what the lander does; but the helicopter applies about 6x *more* force on the ground than the Lunar Module does with its landing rocket. Why doesn't the ground blow away when a helicopter lands?
* Supposedly, the temperature on the moon's surface is -200 degrees in the shade and over 200 degrees in the light. This means, since there is no atmosphere, there is nothing to hold the heat onto the surface.
Wrong! The surface itself holds the heat. And don't forget- it's in a vacuum, so it loses heat more slowly... just like a thermosflask.
So, when I am facing the light (sun), the front of my suit would be over 200 degrees and the back of my suit (shade) would be -200 degrees. My front would be toast and my back would be ice, instantly, since there is no atmosphere.
No, the heat of the sun is much the same on the moon since the moon is very nearly the same distance from the sun as the earth is. Actually you get reflection of the sun off the ground around you on the moon too, so it isn't so clearcut. The suits actually had airconditioning system in the backpack to keep the astronauts cool (it boiled water to the vacuum to take their heat away, and that of the sun- again because it's hard to cool down in a vacuum.)
* The surface of the moon is covered with dust. This dust was easily "kicked up", as shown by the astronauts. Why isn't there any dust settled on the space craft after the landing?
Actually that's pretty cool. If you look at the dust kicked up it goes in a tiny parabola away from the boot and then lands. It looks very different from what happens on earth due to the lack of air to hold it up. Any dust kicked up from the space craft would fly in a parabola and land directly away from the spacecraft. There's no easy way for it to come back towards the spacecraft, unless it bounced off a rock or something.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Did someone mention "linking to space panoramas on slashdot" under the "Most Common Ways to Kill a PC" story?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
You're probably just a troll, but you bring up some of the most common and worst arguments against the Apollo missions.
:)
For those interested, Bad Astronomy has some good explanations and links. Not that it matters, because if you believe we didn't land on the Moon, then hard facts arn't going to change your mind.
Also, if the missions were faked, the Russians would have called us out since they were our biggest (and only) competition to the Moon.
Neither did the Lunar Lander. Don't forget it only had to put out it's own weight on earth, divided by 6. Rocket engines are about 30x lighter than gas turbines, as used in helicopters, and the lander's fuel tank was practically empty by the time it touched down.
Typical government types.
LOL. I'm in the UK, where I was born, and I was 3 when it landed, and I have never worked for *any* government. :-)
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"You want direct evidence?
l oLaser.html _ of_satellites/lunar.html r iments_LRRR.html
Sent a powerful laser beam to the moon, aimed at the landing sites of either Apollo 11, 14 or 15.
It will be reflected back.
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/Apol
http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/satellite_missions/list
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo15/A15_Expe
Those guys had considerable experience pushing aerospace technology. In 1949 (yes, you read that correctly) they completed construction and successfully flew a 40 passenger jet airplane with a range of 1400 miles and an air speed of 427 mph.
The Avro Arrow jet fighter first flew in July, 1952 (yes, you read that right, too). It was a fully armoured, mach 2.0 fighter jet.
Other projects COMPLETED by their engineering department included:
1955 Small subsonic jet transport (business jet) 1955 VTOL fighter project 1956 Long range jet transport 1957 P-13 anti-missile missile 1958 Monorail 1958 Supersonic cheap interceptor missile 1958 Ballistic drag re-entry vehicle 1958 Space threshold vehicle 1959 Supersonic trans-atlantic transport studies
Now you know why "it took NASA only 7 years" - and why they could not do it again today.
I made a torrent through exeem, exeem://47/8a75d11fba5c29e351dd4046b45de1bcfd62c55 a/Apollo11.zip
Sorry about it not being a link, something wasn't working right with it, so just copy and paste.
"Anything that's invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things" - Douglas Adams
It's an automated camera. Amazing what technology they had in those days! Lucky that, otherwise they would have had to leave a cameraman behind to die :-)
Actually, it wasn't automated. It was manipulated manually by an operator at mission control on earth. It was not an easy job because he had to account for the signal transmission delay. This was noted in the excellent series "From the Earth to the Moon."
Some Claim we got nothing from the apollo program. For them I direct your attention to theTop 10 Apollo scientific discoveries
and vast improvements in CG technology
since the 1970's has made these "flybys"
a "reality".
I, for one, welcome our new Pixar masters!
Apollo Cameras
The astronaut would stand in one spot, take a picture, turn a little, take another, and so on for a full 360 degrees.
The most amazing sight I have ever seen I saw standing on the nazimuth platform of one of the VLT unit telescopes. There was no instrument for that particular focus, so the Paranal opticians made a ground glass plate more than a meter in diameter and mounted on the telescope as a projection screen. When pointed at the full moon, the 8.2 meter primary mirror projected the moon about a meter in diameter at infinite resolution. To see the moon a meter in diameter, without this system, one would have to be in a lunar insertion orbit...
Most of the Apollo pictures of the moon were taken with *film* cameras, not digital cameras. As a general rule, properly exposed film tends to produce higher resolution images than most consumer digital cameras.
As far as the Huygens images go, those images *were* compressed before they were transmitted.