Slashdot Mirror


Earth Departure Movie From MESSENGER Spacecraft

A reader writes:"The Mercury-bound MESSENGER spacecraft took 358 images during a gravity assist swingby of Earth on Aug. 2, 2005. Those images were sequenced into an MPEG movie showing the view from MESSENGER as it departed Earth."

193 comments

  1. Ummm by ciroknight · · Score: 0

    Cool, I guess.. This really isn't news, but eh, it's still pretty neat.

    Sad to say I've never even heard of the MESSENGER spacecraft before today.

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    1. Re:Ummm by Haydn+Fenton · · Score: 1

      Me neither. The page linked to in the article (if the server doesn't melt) shows "2 Clicks Today (Updated Hourly)" for the MESSENGER link. I'm interested to see just how much that number will increase after a slashdotting. Although given our love for not RTFA, I don't suppose it'll move much at all.

    2. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Cool, I guess.. This really isn't news, but eh, it's still pretty neat.

      > Sad to say I've never even heard of the MESSENGER spacecraft before today.

      You just contradicted yourself!

      Yesterday you hadn't heard of it, today you have. Therefore it's "news to you."

    3. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a really cool low cost mission to orbit the planet mercury.

      So sad that space exploration gets no one's attention these days.

    4. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What is there to pay attention to besides the launches and space walks?

      I'm not going to sit around waiting for NASA to post pictures of rocks on their website.

      Space exploration is only exciting for the scientists and engineers involved.

    5. Re:Ummm by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Cool, I guess.. This really isn't news, but eh, it's still pretty neat.

      It's not news, it's fark... oh wrong site.

  2. Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Corale Cache everyone!!! MESSENGER Flyby

    1. Re:Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Thanks! Did you happen to cache the other half of Earth as well?

    2. Re:Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  3. Re:Whitey on the moon ... by tomstdenis · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The way it should be. I'm so tired of this "oh the whiteman did this"...

    You know what, I'm sorry but if you have a family and can't scrap up the 50$ for a bus ticket out of town then you're obviously not fit to be a parent.

    This "oh it's my right" bullshit... Having a family is something you have to actually think about. If you can't afford it then clearly you're doing everyone a disservice. And if you're a negro, single with no kids, how can you not afford it? Whitey didn't put roadblocks up. Stupid [black and white] people who can't manage 50$ to their name and/or thought they could ride it out are to blame.

    But I guess it's all to easy to sit on your ass, let the tide role in [literally] then blame everyone else for your problems. Seems to be the way of things [everywhere, not just in New Orleans].

    That and what the fuck is with the shootings? Is that how you ensure you get timely help by trying to MURDER those who are bringing the help?

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  4. Slashdotted already? by nystagman · · Score: 5, Funny

    I count a grand total of one reply in this thread, and already the site seems to be slashdotted. I guess this just proves that the existence of the silent majority of ./ readers who actually try to RTFA before they post. My faith in humanity is restored!

    --
    Theory and practice are the same in theory, but different in practice.
    1. Re:Slashdotted already? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Informative
      already the site seems to be slashdotted

      I just pulled the mpeg in at 600k/s, not bad for a 5 meg file on the front page of Slashdot.

      Cool video. It's a keeper. Just gotta keep reminding yourself that it's real, not SFX.

    2. Re:Slashdotted already? by thiophene · · Score: 1

      It was slashdotted when I tried to see it.

      But then again, isn't that what mirrordot is for?

    3. Re:Slashdotted already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be so quick to define such a direct cause and effect link without further studies. It's quite possible that /. viewers click on the link and download TFA, but never actually read TFA.

    4. Re:Slashdotted already? by sfled · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The site owners are getting their new movie ready, "A View of Earth Departure From Our Slashdotted Server".

      --
      I'm not really a web designer, I just play one on the Internet.
    5. Re:Slashdotted already? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      The R in RTFA stands for "read". We're talking a movie!

    6. Re:Slashdotted already? by cdogg4ya · · Score: 1

      Actually, all it really proves is that Slashdotters tend to watch the movie before they read the book...

  5. And as always... Slashdotted into Oblivion. by wschalle · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the cache. Movie

  6. Mirror by dr_d_19 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since the editors still think that 640kb of memory should be enough for everyone (including themselves, considering dupes and always forgetting about mirrors), here's the Coral cache.

  7. Beautiful.... by ClaraBow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These images have a calming, peaceful effect. It is amazing how beautiful the earth looks from a far and how chaotic it seems when your in it! Get me out of here :)

    1. Re:Beautiful.... by BewireNomali · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I agree. this is the most beautiful thing I've seen in a long while.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    2. Re:Beautiful.... by concreationist · · Score: 1

      Indeed, although I was a little disappointed that the footage was taken from so far away. What I would love to see is a continuous video from the start of a space craft until it is out in the blackness space.

      --
      ...what if there were no rhetorical questions?
    3. Re:Beautiful.... by mikerich · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Wow - that is stunning!

      I couldn't help but think of a short essay written by Carl Sagan after he saw an image of the Earth taken by Voyager. It's spine-tingling stuff:

      'Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

      'The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

      'Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

      'The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

      'It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.'

      Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, 1994

  8. Interesting by slavemowgli · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Interesting. If I didn't know better, I would've said that this is a POV-Ray animation...

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    1. Re:Interesting by DaneelGiskard · · Score: 1

      I agree, it really looks like a 3D animation. How come that the reflection of the sun (?) is so regular, no matter if water or mountains are below it? Does it reflect off the athmosphere?

    2. Re:Interesting by matman · · Score: 1

      Because the mountains are really really small compared to the Earth.

    3. Re:Interesting by Queer+Boy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If I didn't know better, I would've said that this is a POV-Ray animation...

      Really, because I didn't know that the sun made such a "hotspot" reflection on the earth. Interesting. All the other pictures I've seen from outer space of the earth make it look less "plastic".

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    4. Re:Interesting by BenJeremy · · Score: 2, Informative

      The "hotspot" is from the oceans. Pay attention and you'll see, toward the very end of the clip, that the land mass glides through the edge of the hot spot.

      Also, while most cloud formations are not in the light long enough to see real change, one formation does appear to dissipate before hitting the terminator.

      This appears to be quite real.

    5. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no--if you look closely, you can see my house. That's me in the backyard mooning the Messenger.

    6. Re:Interesting by alfboggis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, the earth is actually pretty smooth. Its diameter is 13,000 km, while Mount Everest is only about 9km high -- just 0.07%. Clouds cling very close to the surface at about 5km. That's about the thickness of a piece of paper compared to a basket ball.

    7. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Now I hate to be the one to quote Ani Difranco on slashdot, because it probably hasn't happened before, but here you go:

      From the depth of the pacific
      to the height of everest
      and still the world is smoother
      than a shiny ball-bearing
      so i take a few steps back
      and put on a wider lens
      and it changes your skin,
      your sex, and what your wearing
      distance shows your silloutte
      to be a lot like mine
      like a sphere is a sphere
      and all of us here
      have been here all the time

    8. Re:Interesting by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      The reflection is in the wrong place to be the sun - look, the earth is less than half full, which means that the sun is on the other side of the earth from the sun. My guess is that it's a reflection of the moon; looking at Celestia, I think the angle's right. Anyone who knows what they're talking about care to correct this?

    9. Re:Interesting by jhalme · · Score: 1
      Indeed! The yellow specular highlight immediately caught my attention as well and screamed "ray-tracing" in my mind. At one point, however, you can see Australia pass through the hightlight, revealing that it's visible only on water. Also, clouds appear to obscure it slightly.

      Now that I think about it, the reflections on the water are very bright when at a seashore, looking towards the sun. Very interesting to find out how visible it actually is from space.

    10. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if the Sun was slightly on the other side as noted by earth being less than half full, if you imagine drawing a perpendicular line strait out from the left side of the Earth and measure the angle between this perpendicular line and the Sun, you will find the angle less than the angle between same perpendicular line and the camera. The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. Add the two together and divide by two and that puts the reflection on this side of the earth right where you see it. Had the angles been equal, the reflection would be on the horizon and had the angle on the Sun side been bigger than you would not see the reflection.

      In other words the Sun is slightly on the other side and the earth is being illuminated with a diffuse light but we also get a specular reflection due to a nice smooth surface and the angle is such that the reflection is on this side. It's all good.

    11. Re:Interesting by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      The reflection is in the wrong place to be the sun - look, the earth is less than half full, which means that the sun is on the other side of the earth from the sun. My guess is that it's a reflection of the moon; looking at Celestia, I think the angle's right. Anyone who knows what they're talking about care to correct this?

      The very fact that you can see an illuminated portion of a sphere indicates that, if the sphere is sufficiently reflective, you will see a reflection of the light source. The only way you wouldn't would be if the light source were behind the sphere, fully eclipsed.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    12. Re:Interesting by yotto · · Score: 1

      Anyone who knows what they're talking about care to correct this?

      Sure, I'll correct you. That reflection is the Sun. You can prove it to yourself. Draw a circle on a piect of paper to represent the Earth. Draw a bunch of parallel lines that represent sunlight heading towards your cicrular earth and when they hit the edge, reflect them off at the same angle they hit (We're pretending the Earth is a spherical mirror here). Note that, from the angle of the spaceship, you'll get a bright "hot spot" about where you see one on the images.

      Someone with access to an art program care to draw a diagrom for this? I would, but I'm at work right now.

    13. Re:Interesting by LocoMan · · Score: 1

      First thing I though when seeing it was that if I made a 3D animation looking exactly like that, people would say that it looks too fake... :) Goes to show that when you do 3D imagery things don't have to be like they really are, but how people would expect them to be... :)

    14. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The reflection is in the wrong place to be the sun...
      > Anyone who knows what they're talking about care to correct this?

      Ahhh, nothing like a good space- and physics-related article to get the /. punters talking out of their arses!

    15. Re:Interesting by PCMeister · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that all the space junk, spy satellites, LEO satellites, etc. have completely vanished.
       
        If this were truly be the case, the following article would be considered disinformation.

    16. Re:Interesting by CFTM · · Score: 1

      To put things in perspective with regard to just how "round" the earth actually is; if you were to take a standard pool ball and blow it up to the same size as the earth it would have deeper valley's and higher peaks. The earth is pretty damn round/smooth :)

  9. un /.'ed version by smoondog · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can be found here

    -Sean (OutdoorDB - The Outdoor Wiki

  10. In other news... by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The MESSENGER MPEG-hosting server took 358 images during a slashdot assist launch off of Earth on Sep. 5, 2005. Those images were sequenced into an MPEG movie showing the view from the MESSENGER MPEG-hosting server as it departed Earth."

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:In other news... by nherm · · Score: 1

      An image of the slashdotted server viewed from MESSENGER spacecraft can be found here

  11. Re:Another Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that the new goatse?

  12. Ob. DNA - How to Leave the Planet by Haydn+Fenton · · Score: 4, Funny

    1. Phone NASA. Their phone number is (713) 483-3111. Explain that it's very important that you get away as soon as possible.
    2. If they do not cooperate, phone any friend you may have in the White House -- (202) 456-1414 -- to have a word on your behalf with the guys at NASA.
    3. If you don't have any friends in the White House, phone the Kremlin (ask the overseas operator for 0107-095-295-9051). They don't have any friends there either (at least, none to speak of), but they do seem to have a little influence, so you may as well try.
    4. If that also fails, phone the Pope for guidance. His telephone number is 011-39-6-6982, and I gather his switchboard is infallible.
    5. If all these attemps fail, flag down a passing flying saucer and explain that it's vitally important you get away before your phone bill arrives.

    1. Re:Ob. DNA - How to Leave the Planet by SpooForBrains · · Score: 1

      Remember, Dentrassi hate Vogons. Don't forget your electronic sub-ether device, or your towel, and you're golden ...

      --
      "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
    2. Re:Ob. DNA - How to Leave the Planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI: NASA is no longer in the 713 Houston area code, but in the 281 area instead. The 483 part is correct, lots of people have numbers with 483-xxxx. I never called the "main line" while working there, so I can't speak for the 3111.

    3. Re:Ob. DNA - How to Leave the Planet by DiarmuidBourke · · Score: 0

      Why not try.. the ESA.

    4. Re:Ob. DNA - How to Leave the Planet by uberdave · · Score: 1

      The ESA cannot get you off-planet. They don't have any rockets suitable for people. That's why ESA astonauts get rides with the Americans and Russians.

    5. Re:Ob. DNA - How to Leave the Planet by Leebert · · Score: 1

      Besides the fact that you'd probably want NASA Headquarters in DC anyhow. 202 358 0000

    6. Re:Ob. DNA - How to Leave the Planet by DiarmuidBourke · · Score: 0

      I'm sure they could fit you in somewhere if you were desparate. Who's up for riding in the fuel tank?

  13. Doesn't appear to be any stars or moon? by xtal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm assuming the earth was probably too bright to get stars .. and it looks like this might have been inside the moon's orbit.

    Breathtaking video though. Very cool.

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:Doesn't appear to be any stars or moon? by aztektum · · Score: 1

      It says right on the main page that the last of the frames were Aug 3rd when it was outside the moons orbit.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    2. Re:Doesn't appear to be any stars or moon? by dq5+studios · · Score: 1

      Correct. If you have the sun or anything reflecting large amounts of sunlight in the camera's view, it will overwelm the faint light given off by the stars. It's a simple matter of contrast.
      Phil Plait has a bit on his site about it.

  14. Impressive! by Henriok · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is the real deal! The Earth is getting smaller in a realistic manner witch I've never seen before. I wonder what kind of acceleration and speed we are taling about here? These would be completely different figures in the movie and the real event. Someone care to do the math?

    Don't you just love the reflection of the Sun? And the absence of a "glowing" atmosphere halo? This is what the Earth really look like. Please render planets like this when you do SciFi flicks in the future!

    --

    - Henrik

    - when the Shadows descend -
    1. Re:Impressive! by stupid_is · · Score: 4, Informative
      From TFA:

      The movie starts when MESSENGER was 40,761 miles (65,598 kilometers) above South America on Aug. 2. It ends when the probe was 270,847 miles (435,885 kilometers) away from Earth - farther than the Moon's orbit - on Aug. 3.

      Looking at the mpeg with the timestamps, it was pretty much exactly (8mins out) 24 hours, so that makes it travelling at an average speed of roughly 4.29 km/s.

      --
      -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
    2. Re:Impressive! by BACPro · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pretty static weather as well.
      They forgot to make the clouds move.

    3. Re:Impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there any other witches you haven't seen before?

      You fucking stillbirth.

    4. Re:Impressive! by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "They forgot to make the clouds move."

      There's a movie on MST3K that showed an OLD Universal logo without any clouds. Crow said "It's the best weather Earth has ever had!"

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:Impressive! by tzot · · Score: 1

      Your post was marked as funny, but it should be marked as insightful. This was my first thought too, considering that this 11" video spans about 24 hours. Any cloud formation should move noticeably at ~7800x...

      --
      I speak England very best
  15. BitTorrent! by mwilliamson · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:BitTorrent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Do you want to add any more file extensions there?

  16. I'd love to oblige by vikstar · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think slashdot news posters must *love* to get people posting comments about their links getting slashdotted. So, here is another rant... "ah, slashdotted already".

    Either that or they have a running king-of-the-hill contest on who can slashdot a site the fastest.

    --
    The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
  17. No sound?!? by jemnery · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't get it - where is the audio on this thing? In the background there must have been either:

    1. A swooshy spaceship noice

    or

    2. The opening bars of the Star Trek: TNG theme tune

    1. Re:No sound?!? by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Funny

      If it was from an alien spaceship, I would imagine something translated into...

      "Are we there yet?

      no

      Are we there yet?

      no ...

      Are we there yet

      NO!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:No sound?!? by gowen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I just lowered the frame rate on the MPEG, and put the "Blue Danube Waltz" on the CD player...

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    3. Re:No sound?!? by Stefman · · Score: 1

      I would put the 2001: Space Odyssey theme

  18. Underwhelmed by Linker3000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With the current state of CGI and a world awash with 'fake' scifi images running all the way back to 2001: A space Odyssey, it's a shame that this footage just looks so 'plain' even though it's 'the real thing'. Mind you, I find Google Earth truly fascinating.

    --
    AT&ROFLMAO
    1. Re:Underwhelmed by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      " With the current state of CGI and a world awash with 'fake' scifi images running all the way back to 2001: A space Odyssey, "

      Interesting choice of movie examples. They actually changed the visual effects to more resemble the Voyager footage that was just coming in at the time. In fact, the Voyager probes are why the Discovery when to Jupiter instead of Saturn (like they did in the book).

    2. Re:Underwhelmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Interesting choice of movie examples. They actually changed the visual effects to more resemble
      > the Voyager footage that was just coming in at the time. In fact, the Voyager probes are why
      > the Discovery when to Jupiter instead of Saturn (like they did in the book).

      Must have been some other probes - Voyager 1 wasn't launched until 9 years after "2001" came out.

    3. Re:Underwhelmed by D'Eyncourt · · Score: 1

      Whaa? "2001: a Space Odyssey" was released in 1968. The Voyager probes reached Jupiter in 1979.

      Arthur C. Clarke (who co-wrote the movie's sceenplay with Kubrick) explained in his book _the Lost Worlds of 2001_ that the reason why Discovery went only to Jupiter was that the expense of creating _two_ sets of images of gas giants was going to be very high, so they settled on creating just one.

    4. Re:Underwhelmed by ashitaka · · Score: 2, Informative

      Much misinformation here and in other replies.

      1) The Voyager probes were launched 9 years after 2001 came out.

      2) Kubrick wasn't happy with the look of the effects of Saturn produced by Doug Trumbell so the destination was switched to Jupiter.

      3) Doug got better at producing Saturn imagery and used it in "Silent Running".

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  19. BitTorrent by barcodez · · Score: 1

    His is a torrent

    mdis_depart.mpeg.torrent

    --

    ----
  20. maybe you're rtight? is this fake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I couldnt help but notice that there was a spotlight effect on the center of the earth's sphere. I havent seen this in other images taken from spacecraft. Also the clouds dont seem to move at all ..though that part sort of makes sense .. i would expect to see some sort of minor relative movement .. though I havent examined this closely.

    I am not a space photography expert .. or expert in anything for that matter. I also didnt RTFA.

    Anyone else?

    1. Re:maybe you're rtight? is this fake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      other things to check for: there should be a 23 degree angle of rotation against sun. Land. land is significantly brifghter than ocean. I could see no signs of land.

      experts plz weigh in.

    2. Re:maybe you're rtight? is this fake? by Guinness2702 · · Score: 1

      How fast does the earth rotate? How fast do clouds move? How many butterflies are flapping their wings on the other side of the planet?

      --
      This space is intentionally left blank
    3. Re:maybe you're rtight? is this fake? by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, there was a great shot of Australia sweeping by and it was significantly darker before brightening again, because it has a relatively low specularity compared to the surrounding ocean (the hotspot was traveling over it.) The specular highlight was correct; the ocean does indeed have a highlight like that.

      I think calculating a 23-degree angle with absolutely no point of reference would be a bit of a challenge (it assumes the probe's camera is aligned to the solar ecliptic, which is pretty unlikely.)

      I think the problem is that most photos are very close and pretty much with the sun behind the photographer. Another good indication that this was real instead of animated - the complete lack of stars. Astronauts have commented that the reflected sunlight off of the earth completely drowns out the background stars - in other words, reality looks fake because it doesn't resemble the fake reality Hollywood has taught us to expect.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    4. Re:maybe you're rtight? is this fake? by millennial · · Score: 1

      Also, if you look closely, you can see dirt/dust spots on some of the later images.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    5. Re:maybe you're rtight? is this fake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do a bit of 3D with Lightwave (and have used other 3D programs), and my first impulse was that it was a fake as well.

      The dot of specularity looks a little too CGI for me.

      Further, you can see the earth turn, but none of the turbulence you can see in cloud views on the Weather Channel on any given day.

      It also doesn't have the rough timebase that many NASA animations have - c.f. the Titan landing - it looks perfectly smooth, and the earth is in a nice spot in the frame throughout.

      Finally, I can't think of a 3D geek who hasn't made a 3D Earth animation at some point - it's almost the "Hello World" (literally!) of CGI.

      That said, I'm not saying it's a fake, but suspicion is a reasonable reaction. Would be a dumb move by NASA in the face of all the Capricorn One nutjobs out there...

    6. Re:maybe you're rtight? is this fake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, it is a fake. The Earth is spinning way too fast. Come on, in that 11 seconds the Earth should have rotated only 360*11/86400 = 1/20th of a degree! You'd think that if they went to all that trouble to make the damn movie, they'd get the rotation correct.

    7. Re:maybe you're rtight? is this fake? by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points you'd get a funny

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
  21. Reverse It by N8F8 · · Score: 1

    Anyone know how tp reverse the video? I think it would look cool zooming into Earth too.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Reverse It by glass_window · · Score: 2, Funny

      Open the file in text editor and take all the characters from the end and put them one-by-one at the beginning until you've turned the entire file around.

    2. Re:Reverse It by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      Not withstanding the wrong direction of rotation...

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    3. Re:Reverse It by AsnFkr · · Score: 1

      Then turn it upside down.

    4. Re:Reverse It by PinkX · · Score: 1

      Dump it to a sequence of PNG files using mplayer and then reassemble it into a video using mencoder.

      Or you could just use quicktime to play it forwards/backwards at will.

    5. Re:Reverse It by lxs · · Score: 1

      I have it looping back and forth in the quicktime player, and it looks really nice.

      Especially the East African lakes glistening in the sun at around 7 seconds.

    6. Re:Reverse It by NSObject · · Score: 1

      In QuickTime player, Command-left arrow (mac) or Control-left arrow (windows) will do it.

  22. It's a conspiracy I tell you by sakahna · · Score: 0

    There are no stars because the Earth isn't real!
    This was filmed in some Hollywood studio!

    The tin-foil department.

  23. collision 27th frame from end by emptybody · · Score: 4, Interesting

    go frame by frame for some interesting events.
    most spectacular is the flash 27 frames from the end. looks like it could be lightning or a large meteor.

    --
    comment directly in my journal
    1. Re:collision 27th frame from end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Holy mother of god, if you zoom in on the earth at the flash point 27 frames from the end of the footage, you can just about make out (through the compression artifacts) the image of a Klingon battle cruiser breaking orbit and jumping to warp.

    2. Re:collision 27th frame from end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats really large. I tried to measure it on screen at 200% and got about 41mm polar diameter and 2.5mm length of the flare. Using a bit of math and wikipedia, the object is about (2.5mm/41mm*12713.6km) ~ 775km long!

    3. Re:collision 27th frame from end by Ariane+6 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If by 'collision' you mean 'collision of a cosmic ray with the detector, then yes.

      Any meteor big enough to be visible from that far away would have been noticed by a LOT of people.

      There is a nice flash over southern Africa when the Sun's specular highlight hits lake Tangaynika, though.

    4. Re:collision 27th frame from end by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Given the phase, shouldn't the specular highlight of the sun be on the other side?

    5. Re:collision 27th frame from end by Ariane+6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, if we saw a thin crescent Earth, then the solar phase angle (sun-earth-observer) would be nearly 180 degrees, and the specular highlight would be right on the western (left) horizon, just like you see on when watching sunset over the ocean on Earth's surface. Since we're seeing a less mature crescent, that means that the angle is in fact only slightly greater than 90, and the highlight hasn't gone that far yet.

      Phase = 0 --> highlight is directly below you

      Phase = 90 --> highlight is halfway between nadir and the western limb

      As phase tends to180 --> highlight disappears over the western limb.

    6. Re:collision 27th frame from end by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I think I can visualize this now.

    7. Re:collision 27th frame from end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://tinyurl.com/7hoqg contains 5 frames (PNG, no image data loss):
      328
      329
      330 - frame where you can see the red flash on the right side of planet Earth
      331
      332

  24. neat by JeffSh · · Score: 1

    i would've liked to see the entire approach as well, did they not take pictures of it? that would've been awesome.

    1. Re:neat by FreakBoy · · Score: 1

      Nope, the only color sequences were during the departure. There are tons of images during approach.

    2. Re:neat by Gilthalas · · Score: 1

      Other science - including some MDIS imaging (i.e. non-movie taking) was done on the approach. The movie seen here was done (obviously) after closest approach. With the amount of calibration activities that they had to do for the swing by, there was only so much time they could devote to taking the movie.

      Gilthalas

      --

      Gilthalas
      Software Engineer, Space Dept, JHU/APL
      Support Space Science!
  25. Not to mention... by mrjb · · Score: 1

    ...the Hollywood version probably cost less too. Still, pretty neat.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
  26. Good for the industry by CubicleView · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I love when nasa release pictures like these. As with many of the pictures the rovers have taken the scientific benifit is not very apparent (well to me anyway..) Often they're just cool pictures.

    I'm sure they could be taken as simply a successful test of the probes systems, but they also capture peoples imagination and help keep the space program going.

  27. Stop whining, use greasemonkey by eqisow · · Score: 2, Informative

    Greasemonkey
    Script to auto add mirrordot and coralcache links to stories.

    Seriously, stop whining and take matters into your own hands.

    1. Re:Stop whining, use greasemonkey by baadger · · Score: 1

      Confirmed this works with Opera 8 except for the "anchor.host" property for adding the coral cache link.

      Also the graphics are pretty damn aweful.

  28. Site is down, torrent available by uwtorrents · · Score: 0
  29. It always does. by Poromenos1 · · Score: 1

    The real thing always looks more plain than the fake scifi images. That's why they can't get 3D models to look human, they make them too perfect. It's too bad that we're so used to the fake images that the real ones look fake in comparison.

    --
    Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
  30. What is there to see? by kanweg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is that our planet? It is quite hard to distinguish anything.

    I think I can see the north-west part of Australia at about 1/3rd of the movie, the land being amazingly black. At about 2/3rds one can see (in the topleft "corner") Saudi-Arabia, followed by northern Africa, both golden/yellowish. Now why is that so much brighter than the deserts of Australia.

    I'm also surprised by the fact that we see the line where the sun goes down, which suggests that the Messenger is going into a retrograde direction. Isn't that unusual?

    I'd expect a satellite that is to go to an inner orbit to pass outside the earth's orbit. That seems to pan out, because we start with something more like a sickle, going to "half earth".

    Bert

    1. Re:What is there to see? by Ariane+6 · · Score: 1

      I'm also surprised by the fact that we see the line where the sun goes down, which suggests that the Messenger is going into a retrograde direction. Isn't that unusual?
       
      Now that you mention it, yes. It's definitely heading clockwise away from Earth. The Earth's phase indicates that it's also headed slightly radially outward from the sun. Odd.
       
      A few days ago my intro to planetary prof. was telling us how it was thought for quite some time that getting an orbiter to Mercury (as opposed to flybys) was next to impossible with current technology. MESSENGER does follow quite an elaborate trajectory to pick up the necessary delta-v. I had never heard of a retrograde segment, however.

    2. Re:What is there to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's definitely heading clockwise away from Earth.

      OMG, that guy just passed me on the highway! Doesn't that suggest that I'm going backwards???

    3. Re:What is there to see? by Ariane+6 · · Score: 1

      You're right, of course. I realized my error just a few minutes later (and mentioned it in another post). Silly me.

      (bangs head against the wall in frustration)

  31. Looks like that Orbiter simulator by flinxmeister · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Has anyone played with that Orbetor Simulator?

    Seeing this animation made me realize just how good that programmer is. The visualizations on that simulator nailed it pretty well. And it's free too!

    1. Re:Looks like that Orbiter simulator by Floody · · Score: 1

      Has anyone played with that Orbetor Simulator?

      Seeing this animation made me realize just how good that programmer is. The visualizations on that simulator nailed it pretty well. And it's free too!

      I concur, and have been an orbiter aficionado for years! While the rendering is certainly top-notch w/ a decent gl card, what I find incredibly remarkable about Dr. Schweiger's simulator is that it allows one to get the "feeling" of orbital mechanics beyond the pure math (as much as possible without the physical sensation of freefall).

      For example, once you've simulated low-earth-orbit rendezvous between two craft, you more fully appreciate the complexities and just how non-intuitive it is. While LEO is certainly a micro-gravity environment due to freefall, two nearby unconnected objects have different centers of gravity, are in very slightly different orbits and experience different tidal forces. This means that delta V between the two tends to act in a non-intuitive fashion and you can't just "let newton do the driving." Slight drifting (small acceleration without control input) rapidly compounds over time such that constant correction is required to prevent things from getting out of hand. This is one reason that real-life rendezvous is a slow, methodical and very carefully monitored process.

      Additionally, the simulator is very much like the "real thing" in this respect, because in real orbit you are in freefall and can't rely on the "seat of the pants" feeling pilots are accustomed to for attitude/velocity determination when flying terrestrial aircraft.

      Well, that, and the fact that if you haven't gotten past the adaptation period, there's a good chance you're constantly fighting the urge to vomit. ;)

      A quote once uttered by an ISS astronaut/cosmonaut seems particularly appropriate here:

      (in the context of performing an EVA outside the ISS)
      "It's kind of like trying to work while falling off a cliff which is itself falling and slowly tumbling end-over-end."

    2. Re:Looks like that Orbiter simulator by imsabbel · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Er, you do need to know about shit of programming to download nasa imagemaps and slap them on a sphere to make it look like earth... (and yeah, a specular map of the oceans).
      Orbiter was about the 214th program that did that....

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:Looks like that Orbiter simulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This means that delta V between the two tends to act in a non-intuitive fashion and you can't just "let newton do the driving.

      Oh, Newton's still driving. He's just a little drunk.

    4. Re:Looks like that Orbiter simulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, Newton's still driving. He's just a little drunk.

      Naw, Newton just thinks he's driving. Einstein gave him one of those little toy steering wheels so he wouldn't feel inadequate.

  32. Well, the Earth is here, but... by Karaman · · Score: 1

    ...where are the stars! Does anybody sees stars?! Anyone?

    --
    sex is better than war!
    1. Re:Well, the Earth is here, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than likely the exposure time required to photograph for a bright earth would not be long enough to pick up the relatively dull stars.

    2. Re:Well, the Earth is here, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its another NASA fake and they don't want to make the same mistakes they did with the moon landing simulation. There will most probably be government agents doing damage limitation with crazy stories about exposure and whatnot.

    3. Re:Well, the Earth is here, but... by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      You don't see the stars as the propbe has punched through the shell on which they are painted.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    4. Re:Well, the Earth is here, but... by Mechcozmo · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Earth is so bright, it overpowers the stars. If you play with your brightness and exposure, you may be able to see faint outlines of them, however the movie isn't the highest quality movie ever, so it may take a lot of fiddling with your controls. Rest assured however, I have not stolen them all yet.

    5. Re:Well, the Earth is here, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its another NASA fake and they don't want to make the same mistakes they did with the moon landing simulation. There will most probably be government agents doing damage limitation with crazy stories about exposure and whatnot.

      Ah, yes.

      It's obviously more propaganda to try to convince the general population that the earth is round, and other such nonsense....

      [rolls eyes, shakes head]

  33. Question! by nherm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok I got a question about the spacecraft's orbit!

    From the video, the spacecraft seems to be travelling at the opposite direction of earth's translation (i.e. clockwise in the ecliptic plane, viewing from sun's north to south hemisphere), because the dayside is at the left, and the Earth is, well, becoming smaller...

    But, this diagram of messenger's orbit from the article in wikipedia shows that the spacecraft travells in the counter-clockwise direction (same as the planets)... so, I would conclude that the spacecraft speed is less than the Earth's orbital speed.

    Question: is that correct?

    1. Re:Question! by jrboatright · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Orbital mechanics is "not obvious."

      as an object drops into a lower orbit they orbit in fewer seconds. Venus goes around the sun in fewer days than earth does, as does mercury...

      HOWEVER, the linear velocity of an inner orbit is slower than the linear velocity of an outer orbit.

      So, to go in, you slow down. Which results in dropping to a lower orbit, which results in your pulling out "in front" of the object you're seperating from leaving it both "above" you and "behind" you.

      So, accelerating spinwise is out, and slower.

      Accelerating anti-spinwise is in, and faster

      let us not get into what happens when you accelerate OUT or IN....

    2. Re:Question! by Ariane+6 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you nailed it. That would get it headed into the inner solar system, too. I feel stupid for not thinking of that earlier, actually (see post above).

    3. Re:Question! by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      Thank God I read Larry Niven's Smoke Ring novels or I would have never had even a tiny grasp of orbital mechanics! It's definately counter-intuitive to those of us who didn't spend a lot of time in free-fall as children.

    4. Re:Question! by 2008 · · Score: 1

      AKA playing Elite 2 :)

      --
      I quit!
    5. Re:Question! by Viadd · · Score: 1
      HOWEVER, the linear velocity of an inner orbit is slower than the linear velocity of an outer orbit.

      Actually, the linear velocity for an inner orbit is faster than for an outer orbit, on average. Earth is going 30 km/s around the Sun, while Mercury varies between 39 km/s (at its farthest to the Sun) and 59 km/s (at its closest).

      However, if a probe similar to Messenger were in an orbit that gets as far out as Earth, and as close in as Mercury, then it would be going much slower than Earth at Earth's distance, and much faster than Mercury at Mercury's distance.

      So to go from travelling alongside Earth to travelling alongside Mercury, without any of those fancy gravity assists, you would

      a) Fire your rockets against your direction of motion, to slow down from your circular Earthlike orbit

      b) Wait half an orbit as you swoop down to reach the distance of Mercury

      c) Again fire your rockets against your direction of motion, to slow down to the speed of Mercury's orbit.

      But the graity assists make it easier (in terms of how much rocket you have to carry--harder in terms of calculating the orbit).

  34. around the universe in 80 days! by xcentrics · · Score: 0

    Impressive..I mean space travels may really change your point of view.

    Buy the ticket today and change your point of view without reading any book and without installing unix!

    --
    "Kata ton daimona eay toy." (Be true to your soul).
  35. window reflection by thomasa · · Score: 1


    That artifact in the middle of the earth that
    looks like the reflection of a window. Is that
    supposed to be the sun? It looks more like a window to me. I can even see someone looking in.

  36. AviSynth by N8F8 · · Score: 1

    I'm trying to reverse it using AviSynth but keep getting an error that says "filter graph manager won't talk to me". I think it may have to be a missing audio layer or an unsupported audio codec.

    a=DirectShowSource("mdis_depart.mpeg", fps=25,seek=true,audio=false)
    return Reverse(a)

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  37. occlusion by dankelley · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's almost as if posting to /. increases the traffic on a site, making that site useless for a while. I wonder if anyone has invented a name for this effect?

    1. Re:occlusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you serious?
      It is called "slashdoting" or my site was "slashdotted."

    2. Re:occlusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call this the "Hawking effect"

    3. Re:occlusion by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yes ... technically it is known as a "Distributed Denial of Service Attack". Which is illegal in this country so I figure most of us should under arrest momentarily.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  38. Manual method by glass_window · · Score: 1

    Drag the progress bar from right to left?

  39. What would I learn doing that? by N8F8 · · Score: 1

    I could, but what would I learn?

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:What would I learn doing that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How to google "reverse video".

  40. Obvious hoax by dagnabit · · Score: 1

    Where are the stars in the background? (this link is for those who can't tell I'm joking)

    I do think it's amazing how quickly it's moving though; the visible weather patterns shown don't really change much...

  41. Funny... by connah0047 · · Score: 1

    Funny how those clouds aren't moving. Maybe they were glued on. If you look closely right at the end of the clip, you can see a reflection of Mickey Mouse waving.

  42. Guess I'm spending too much time playing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with Google Earth. I swear, I was trying so hard to stop that globe from spinning and zoom in again, clicking like crazy on it.

  43. What no stars?? Its obviously a fake! by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Quite obviously this was mocked up in a hideaway
    in the arizona desert where they faked the moon
    landings too. How stupid do they think we are?
    Everyone knows the earth is flat and was made in 7 days anyway. Pah, spacecraft my holy ass!

    1. Re:What no stars?? Its obviously a fake! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Earth was created in 6 days, and the sun goes around the Earth.

  44. real pictures or not by bjoeg · · Score: 1

    I mean it looks beautiful and all, but as many have written, where are the stars, and for myself why does the cloud pattern in the lower part of the globe seem to stay the same?

    1. Re:real pictures or not by mOoZik · · Score: 1

      Earth is too bright and drowns out stars.

    2. Re:real pictures or not by harborpirate · · Score: 1

      Anyone who's ever attempted photography at night will have learned this simple fact.

      You basically have two choices, when presented with super bright object(s), and other much less bright object(s):

      1. Expose the bright object(s) perfectly, leaving the other object(s) unseen because they are underexposed.

      2. Expose the less bright object(s) perfectly, leaving the very bright object(s) overexposed and thus, completely unintelligible. (A giant bright ugly blob)

      Well, I suppose you can also go for some exposure in between, but then you'll just end up with a bad photograph.

      So the designers of the spacecraft correctly decided to expose the Earth beautifully, and leave the stars absent because they are underexposed. They're just blue, yellow, red, etc dots anyway - we don't really need to see them since the Earth is the focus of our attention.

      Go ahead, take a few photographs of the sky at night. (Warning - do this with a digital camera, you're going to waste a lot of shots) Try taking pictures of the moon. If you get a decent one.. wait, where are the stars?
      Leave the exposure on long enough, you'll get the stars. But if you leave the apeture open that long, the moon will just be a tremendous white blob. Same deal with the Earth from space.

      --
      // harborpirate
      // Slashbots off the starboard bow!
  45. Background info on this video by Rocketguy2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was one of the team that worked hard to sequence this spacecraft operation, and I can assure you, it is quite real! MESSENGER, a NASA Discover program, was developed and is operated by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab, is headed to the planet Mercury; not an easy place to get to. This flyby is the first of 6 (1 Earth, 2 Venus, 3 Mercury) that are required to put the spacecraft into Mercury orbit. Once there, the spacecraft will go into an elliptical orbit and commence a series of science observations. The extensive payload includes the following: narrow and wide angle imagers, LIDAR, X-ray, gamma-ray, and neutron sensors, magnetometer, visible, near IR and UV spectrometers, energetic particle and plasma sensors. The spacecraft did not take an approach video for two reasons. First, there were extensive instrument calibration efforts going on during that time (e.g. lunar and magnetospheric observations) that required specific spacecraft pointing. In addition, the solid state recorder space is limited, so we chose to get the single 24-hour sequence you see in the movie.

    1. Re:Background info on this video by tjmcgee · · Score: 1

      Excellent work and Congratulations! It is a beautiful movie, I would love to see more like this. I really think that this is the type of thing that can get people excited about space exploration. Will you be able to capture any more of these on subsequent flyby's? Will you be capturing the Moon at all. How about one for the Mercury approach? It would be remarkable to capture an entire voyage in this manner, from liftoff to arrival. I realize that the technical challenges might be quite daunting, and I'm sure it would have questionable scientific value, but it would certainly be an amazing thing to behold. The closest I would ever get to witnessing it first hand. Keep up the great work!

  46. Slashdot Slashdot. by TheManifold · · Score: 1, Funny

    Meh. How come Slashdot is never slashdotted?

    1. Re:Slashdot Slashdot. by kanweg · · Score: 1

      Because your 44 character post is puny in comparison to an MPEG movie.

      That, and Slashdot knows it is slashdotted everyday instead of once in a blue moon, so they have a zippie server to handle things.

      Bert

    2. Re:Slashdot Slashdot. by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, I swear it is. Mostly whenever I try to preview or submit a comment and end up waiting 5 minutes. Lately, though, I've begun to suspect instead that the DNS server at work just has Alzheimer's.

    3. Re:Slashdot Slashdot. by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Well, lets see slashdot take a try on hosting some videos, a few high res pics and 2 or 3 filedownloads on the frontpage....

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  47. Wrong aspect ratio with mplayer by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you watch this with mplayer (at least version 1.0pre7), it will wrongly assume that the aspect ratio is 4:3. Just use the -noaspect option.

    I don't know whose fault this is, but I suspect that the movie is badly encoded.

    --
    There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
    1. Re:Wrong aspect ratio with mplayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Video Codec Type : MPEG1_Video
          Video Codec Name : MPEG-1
          Duration (hh:mm:ss) : 00:00:11
          Frame Count : 330
          Frame Width (pixels) : 512
          Frame Height (pixels) : 512
          Display Aspect Ratio ("DAR") : 1.091
          Frames Per Second : 30.000
          Video Bitrate (kbps) : 4608
          File Size (in bytes) : 5,146,371
          Base Type (e.g "AVI") : MPEG (.MPG/.MPEG/.VOB)
  48. More info at NASA... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    messenger at nasa.gov

    MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging mission.

    No wonder space research costs so much - it isn't easy to come up with these names!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:More info at NASA... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging mission.

      Why do government agencies feel the need to "retronym" every project name into an acronym? The name is obviously derived from its association with the mythological Mercury, messenger of the gods. Then, probably some mid level management PHB comes along and says "let's put a team together to turn that into an acronym". Apollo didn't need to be an acronym. Nor Voyager. Nor Pioneer. These childish acronyms are ridiculous. Have some digity!

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:More info at NASA... by daeley · · Score: 2

      Have some digity!

      Not to mention composre and decorm! ;)

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    3. Re:More info at NASA... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2
      Have some digity!

      Not to mention composre and decorm! ;)

      Heh. Not sure what composre and decorm mean*, but I think "having some digity" means to posess a plurality of fingers.

      * they sound like they might be UNIX utilities. e.g. "run 'composre -w -all' to flush the /dev/null cache", and "decorm functions just like rm, only with a 1930's architechtural flair"....

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:More info at NASA... by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      Mmm... the tingling sensatin of liquid behind expelled from one's nostrils... thanks! :D

      --
      Be relentless!
    5. Re:More info at NASA... by tzot · · Score: 1

      But Apollo was an acronym: A Prank Of Lying Luna Observers... wasn't it?

      --
      I speak England very best
  49. That is way too cool! by nubbie · · Score: 1

    This is awesome! Great pictures, can't wait 'til we all get the ability to get out there and see for ourselves.

    --
    'Go for the eyes, Boo, go for the eyes, aaarrrrrrrr!' -- Minsc
  50. Finally! by bikerguy99 · · Score: 1

    First "real and relable" evidence of actual Earth's rotation around the Sun and not vise versa... Kudos Copernicus!

  51. That would explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "hotspot" effect. Maybe some tan in your white ass would do you some good :-)

  52. Re: retrograde direction by D'Eyncourt · · Score: 1

    >which suggests that the Messenger is going into a retrograde direction. Isn't that unusual?

    Well, not quite. Remember that the Earth's orbital speed is about 19 miles/second, so Messenger's orbital speed around the sun is only a small fraction less than than.

    What you have to do in order to approach an object closer to the sun than you is lose the potential energy in your current orbit. This will drop you into a lower orbit which will have a greater velocity but lower potential energy. I haven't looked at the Messenger web site, but I wouldn't be surprised if NASA will be using Venus in a reverse slingshot (one that _loses_ energy) in order to get Messenger to Mercury.

  53. could be missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    6. ???
    7. profit!

  54. They forgot bump-mapping. by Skudd · · Score: 1

    The first things that popped out to me when I watched this video is:

    a) Lack of texture on the clouds: They're flat!
    b) EXTREME specular highlighting.

    I may try to duplicate this video later in Blender. Nice try, guys.

  55. OMG this is fake! by aztektum · · Score: 3, Funny

    Look there are no stars in the background! It's the same as with the moon landing videos! Space is filled with billions of stars! Where are they? I demand an investigation into what NASA is really spending our money on!!!

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
    1. Re:OMG this is fake! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG You're an idiot!

    2. Re:OMG this is fake! by ChiperSoft · · Score: 1

      Clearly somebody doesn't get the concept of satire...

  56. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ICQ takes 359 images of Mars to even the score

  57. Great Flick!! by usageman · · Score: 1

    I thought the short movie was pretty cool. WOrth the download time!! I hope one day we can see it taking off!!

  58. More Serene at Slower Speed by XBL · · Score: 1

    This thing zooms by way too fast! It was done before I had a chance to resize my window! Play at half or even quarter speed to get a better experience.

  59. Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But would have been cooler if started from just prior to liftoff, of course would have required video instead of snapshots then.

    1. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > But would have been cooler if started from just prior to liftoff, of course would have required video instead of snapshots then.

      Yeah, and it would have been a loooong video, considering they launched the thing a year ago.

  60. Check the weather by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 1

    Someone, less lazy that I, should check weather records to confirm. Also, I thought that night-side lights were supposed to be visible.

    --
    Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
    1. Re:Check the weather by Inigo+Montoya · · Score: 1
      Also, I thought that night-side lights were supposed to be visible.
      I suspect that the exposure time (or digital aperture) was very short for these pictures. Notice that there are no stars in the image, either. No stars and no nightside ground lighting. If they held the camera's aperture open long enough to collect starlight and ground lights from the dark side of the earth, then the lit side of the earth would likely be a solid white light.
  61. Re:Whitey on the moon ... by poopdeville · · Score: 1

    Good Gil Scott Heron reference.

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
  62. Only flyby movie ever taken by heroine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's hard to believe those images came from Messenger. We've never seen a view of Earth by an interplanetary spaceship flying by in such clarity. Normally the cameras are fixed to the exact focus needed by the mission and only record a few colors.

    1. Re:Only flyby movie ever taken by FreakBoy · · Score: 1

      The MDIS camera has autofocus and 12 filters

  63. Is this for real? by Techmaniac · · Score: 1

    Where are the stars??

  64. Wow, the Earth is jerky! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't realize that Earth stopped spinning then restarted like that. I guess that's why I fell down the other day.

  65. Timestamps. by rew · · Score: 1

    On the NASA site, a version is available with micro-second-resolution timestamps in the bottom of the frame.

    I deduce that the images were timestamped on the spaceship: The 3 millisecond longer speed-of-light delay for successive images to reach earth would have been very measurable.