Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japanese Probe Returns First HD Video of the Moon

Posted by Zonk on from the finally-we-can-see-the-cheese dept.

Riding with Robots writes "The Kaguya probe, now in lunar orbit, has sent down the first footage of the moon's surface from its onboard high-definition TV camera. The Kaguya mission, which consists of a main orbiter and two smaller satellites in a 100-km-high, polar orbit, is slated to officially begin its science phase in December."

206 comments

  1. And while up there. . . by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 3, Funny

    it caught a glimpse of a Transformer.

    --
    Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
  2. I don't see any stars is this a fake video of the. by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't see any stars is this a fake video of the moon.

  3. nuked by blhack · · Score: 1, Funny

    Don't we have a rule against linking directly to videos? The video is almost dead already, and as of now there aren't even any comments yet!

    on another note.

    I can has space race?

    --
    NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    1. Re:nuked by drakaan · · Score: 1

      when in doubt, check for a mirrored version...typically, if you add ".nyud.net" to the hostname (or "fully qualified domain name", for the truly picky) of a slashdotted, dugg, or farked link, you'll get a cached version, if it's popular and had decent bandwidth at the beginning.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    2. Re:nuked by White+Yeti · · Score: 1

      Eh. All I get is "Click here to load plugin."

  4. flag by Noishe · · Score: 5, Funny

    So when to we get a picture of the american flag that's implanted on the surface somewhere.

    1. Re:flag by chris411 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That thing's been there for 40 years, it's not going anywhere. Though by the looks of it, it'll be another 40 years before another American astronaut even comes close to touching it. Here's hoping you don't blow up too many rockets and shuttles in the meantime.

    2. Re:flag by heretic108 · · Score: 5, Funny

      So when to we get a picture of the american flag that's implanted on the surface somewhere.
      Be another few hours yet - Weta Digital have just received the raw footage, and a spec and a letter of credit from the NSA - they've done the wireframes, fills and colour correction, now they're working on the gentle waving movements, and tweaking the lights to make the edges realistic. Next, the discarded bottom half of the Lunar Excursion Module...
      </conspiracy-theory>

      --
      -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
    3. Re:flag by mrslacker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gotcha. New Zealanders were responsible for splitting the atom, first up Everest (probably), first powered flight (very dubious), pissing off the US with their anti-Nuclear stance _and_ faking the moon landings.

      (NZer in US)

    4. Re:flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget about the flag I want to see when one of the Transformers come out and smash it and we go into high alert about a threat against man and machine!

    5. Re:flag by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      So when do we get a picture of the american flag that's implanted on the surface somewhere.

      It's hard to identify now because someone/something spray-painted "Go Home Yankey" on it.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    6. Re:flag by rleibman · · Score: 1

      That thing's been there for 40 years
      Sorry, 38 (and change). I was born in '69, please don't take me into my forties before it's time.

    7. Re:flag by s0lar · · Score: 1

      Dude, Weta is a Kiwi complany. Surely they'll tell NSA to piss off :)

    8. Re:flag by kartune85 · · Score: 0

      Dude, looking at that footage, I don't think you're far off. It so does look like CGI.

      While watching the footage, I was waiting for the scary face to pop-up and start screaming at me. Although, that's not a bad idea... I wonder if I can download a copy of that footage.

      Q: Maybe I haven't looked hard enough, but why haven't I seen updated footage of dudes walking on the moon, preferably next to the flag that was placed there all those years ago?

      --
      "Failure to conform to majority belief does not make you a troll."
    9. Re:flag by dintech · · Score: 1

      So when to we get a picture of the american flag that's implanted on the surface somewhere.

      I think it's obscured by that mosaic effect...

    10. Re:flag by david.given · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That thing's been there for 40 years, it's not going anywhere. Though by the looks of it, it'll be another 40 years before another American astronaut even comes close to touching it.

      That's okay --- just ask the Chinese to take a picture of it for you...

    11. Re:flag by Alsee · · Score: 1

      The "'55 Science Paper Retracted to Thwart Creationists" thread is old and closed to new posts. Replying here.

      You insist that everyone should blindly accept an old earth

      Absolutely not! This whole discussion I have been talking about opening eyes, this whole discussion I have been saying there is massive proof everywhere.

      Take a look at this page. You can literally see the summer/winter snow cycles in the arctic ice layers. An additional point not mentioned in that article is that each summer a fine dusting layer of pollen and dust blows in from the rest of globe.

      The arctic ice pack has more than 100,000 summer/winter cycles.

      The arctic ice pack has more than 100,000 yearly layers, the ice pack is more than 100,000 years old, the earth is more than 100,000 years old.

      You agree that the Young Earth Creationists are wrong in trying to explain away the Grand Canyon as being carved by Noah's flood. You try to explain it away as some sort of collapsed underground tunnel. Setting aside the fact that you are making out trained expert geologists to all be blind as bats and mindbogglingly stupid, the Grand Canyon walls are littered with fossils. The Grand Canyon was carved down into the rock after the rock formed with embedded fossils. Geologists are not stupid. The Grand Canyon in every aspect bears the evidence of millions of years of slow erosion and weathering of solid rock.

      As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are bodies of water that show distinct summer/winter cycle sediment layers, tens of thousands of years of visible countable layers.

      We discussed mountains. Last post you offered the "correction" that you meant they didn't grow like developing organisms. However that has absolutely no material bearing on what you said, or my reply to it. You said mountains had to have been created tall like that, which was wrong, and you implied that science didn't know how mountains were formed, which was wrong too. In fact mountains too prove Old Earth. I explained how mountain growth works, and the the rock layers in earth show millions of years of buckling and folding and uplift.

      The Egyptian civilization written history is continuous going back more than 5000 years, blowing a hole straight through any Young Earth Flood timeline, and there's a hell of a lot more than 1,000 years of pre-written human civilization prior to the start of written Egyptian history.

      Carbon-14 smoothly dates history back to about 60,000 years ago, and a variety of other radioactive isotopes carry that timeline smoothly back through millions of years.

      You keep assuming science doesn't know anything, and assuming that science has nothing to back up what it does know. There is a vast realm of science of which you are unfamiliar. You don't even need to be a scientist or take any college science classes. I doubt there's much I've said here that hasn't already aired on Discovery Channel or one of the other pop-sci cable TV channels. All it takes to know that the Earth is Old are open eyes. It's unfortunate that some highschools don't bother covering some of this stuff, but any scientifically inquisitive highschool kid could seen all of this and more on cable TV. If we really wanted to slog through it, and if it would make a difference, I could supply a link every single day for the next YEAR documenting different things that show the Earth is Old.

      if you look at what is written in the Bible, it is explicitly contradictory to many writings in the Old and New Testament.

      Your argument does not differ in the least from the unanimous conclusion of the committee that deemed Galileo's ideas "philosophically and formally heretical inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrine of the Holy Scripture in many passages, both in their literal meaning and according to the general interpretation of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology."

      They fou

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    12. Re: Flag by kartune85 · · Score: 0

      You agree that the Young Earth Creationists are wrong in trying to explain away the Grand Canyon as being carved by Noah's flood. You try to explain it away as some sort of collapsed underground tunnel. Setting aside the fact that you are making out trained expert geologists to all be blind as bats and mindbogglingly stupid, the Grand Canyon walls are littered with fossils. The Grand Canyon was carved down into the rock after the rock formed with embedded fossils. Geologists are not stupid. The Grand Canyon in every aspect bears the evidence of millions of years of slow erosion and weathering of solid rock.

      Haha! Dude, I never said I don't agree with the theory that the Grand Canyon was carved by the flood, I said "I don't particularly stand by the theory". I haven't looked at the evidence they've put forward to be able to judge for myself whether I think they may be right or wrong.
      Also, I explicitly used the words "speculative possibilty" when making that statement. Although, now that you mention that the Canyon walls are littered with fossils, that does make me lean towards the Creationist theory, seeing as there was no death before the fall of man, so it would have had to come sometime after Adam and Eve sinned.

      The Egyptian civilization written history is continuous going back more than 5000 years, blowing a hole straight through any Young Earth Flood timeline, and there's a hell of a lot more than 1,000 years of pre-written human civilization prior to the start of written Egyptian history.

      You may want to investigate this claim further. The "Egyptian civilization" could only have come about after the Tower of Babel, in which the original language was confused and the people were scattered over the earth, which was also after the flood. If it's worldly history and evidence you want, based on majorities, you may want to check out - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology). Quote: "A large percentage of the world's cultures past and present have stories of a "great flood" that devastated earlier civilization.". If you have a look into it, you'll find many ancient cultures, for some reason or another, say that there was a "great flood" at some point in their history.

      Genesis 11:1-9
      The Tower of Babel
      Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.
      They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
      But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
      So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel --because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

      You keep assuming science doesn't know anything, and assuming that science has nothing to back up what it does know. There is a vast realm of science of which you are unfamiliar... If we really wanted to slog through it, and if it would make a difference, I could supply a link every single day for the next YEAR documenting different things that show the Earth is Old.

      And yet the majority of the "evidence" would continue to be heavily based on speculations. I don't assume that science knows nothing, I don't know why you keep assuming that, science is good for trying to understand how the things aro

      --
      "Failure to conform to majority belief does not make you a troll."
    13. Re: Flag by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      For crying out loud, are you ever going to grow up and face reality?

      Yes, many cultures have a story of a great flood. It's a shame no two cultures can put a similar cause, effect or salvation story together to account for their civilizations survival from it. When your entire world is 3 villages on one section of riverside flatland, a flood that drowns the world is pretty much guaranteed every two or 3 generations.

      Lets see now, which is more likely... The entire Chinese, Egyptian and multiple others 5 to 10 millennium long histories are faked, or the flood that Noah allegedly stashed two of every creature (7 or 14 of the edible ones depending on your translation) from was actually a stream bursting it's banks and drowning his little village, or (most likely of all) never occurred.

      Are you genuinely stupid enough to believe that all races were one race that built a zigguraut tall enough to upset your sky-pixies ego leading to (a rather poor job) of fracturing their language to separate tongues? Did it really never cross your mind to question why this should be considered more plausible than the delivery, once per year, of chocolate eggs by deranged bunnies?

      God's Word does not require evidence to validate what it says, rather we take what God says through His Word by faith.
      Translation : It's an obvious fallacy to anyone who thinks, so no thinking allowed. Burn the heretics!

      We've already (in previous threads) shown you that the wholly babble is incontrovertibly flawed and falsifiable, but in standard fundie mindlessness you have conveniently forgotten that completely and reset to mindless drooling unthinking credulousness. Why do you waste your time? Learn and remember what you have learned and you will be free of your cult in a year. Of course, you won't because you are too weak of will and mind to ever dare try and deal in reality. Moron.

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    14. Re: Flag by Alsee · · Score: 1

      A brief violent torrent of water will blatantly blast in straight lines, whereas millions of years of slow erosion by a gentle river will meander in U-turns and erode and weather rock in exactly the way we see in the grand canyon, yet you close your eyes and hope it will go away somehow.

      The arctic ice blatantly shows hundreds of thousands of yearly layers, yet you close your eyes and just plain ignore it.

      There is over 5000 years of written Egyptian history, yet you close your eyes and tell me to "investigate" because you simply do not WANT it to exist. Go investigate it yourself, here's a good starting link, or go to your local library and open any history book, or go visit any major museum.

      As I explained the very mountains record millions of years of tectonic folding and uplift, yet you close your eyes and just plain ignore it.

      I mentioned that some bodies of water have tens of thousands of visible yearly cycle sediment deposits and glossed over about a half dozen similar examples, I haven't provided links but I absolutely could dig them up, but why should I bother when all you do is close your eyes and completely ignored them all. You didn't ask me about any of them, you didn't challenge any of them, you didn't doubt any of them, you didn't accuse me of lying about any of them, you just plain completely ignored them all.

      Way-back-when at the start of this thread you were all eager to embrace Carbon dating when you thought it crapping-out at "several thousand years" might mean six thousand years. Yet you promptly closed your eyes and FORGOT it out of existence when it turned out that "several thousand years" meant documenting SIXTY thousand years of continuously documented carbon dated history.

      You accused me of insist[ing] that everyone should blindly accept an old earth. You are being willfully blind, ignoring the existence of anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas of what should and should not exist. It is truly astounding logic to accuse me of asking people to blindly accept an old earth without evidence by the magic of you simply ignoring everything I've said out of existence.

      Lets expand on the ice cores, just to drive the point home some more. If you look at the top 70-odd layers of arctic snow, you find that lead contamination in the ice suddenly shoots up for most of that period, then drops back down. In the 1930's we started using leaded gasoline. The lead contamination in the ice exactly mirrors the use of leaded gasoline, snow contaminated with atmospheric fallout of lead. If you look at the top few hundred yearly layers of snow you can find traces of soot and other contaminants exactly mapping the history of various human activities such as coal burning, and the yearly layers also document traces of ash from historically recorded volcanic eruptions. In each and every case the number if layers down in the ice exactly matches that number of years ago and trace contaminants exactly match the known historical events of those years. If you count down the layers and look at the range from 1700 to 2500 layers down you also find lead contaminants - exactly matching the Greek and Roman mining and smelting of lead and silver from 500 B.C. to 300 A.D.. 2500 layers down equals 2500 years ago equals 500 B.C. and records atmospheric lead contaminants from historically documented Bronze Age primitive metal processing. And from 2500 layers down the layers just keep going and going. A hundred thousands layers and more, and each and every one is a year.

      You are just plain closing your eyes. You are just plain ignoring blatant PROOF that doesn't happen to fit the answer you wanted.

      I defy you to offer any intellectually honest justification to dismiss the ice cores and persist in denying an Old Earth.

      science is good for try

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    15. Re: Flag by kartune85 · · Score: 0

      A brief violent torrent of water will blatantly blast in straight lines, whereas millions of years of slow erosion by a gentle river will meander in U-turns and erode and weather rock in exactly the way we see in the grand canyon, yet you close your eyes and hope it will go away somehow.

      The arctic ice blatantly shows hundreds of thousands of yearly layers, yet you close your eyes and just plain ignore it.

      As I explained the very mountains record millions of years of tectonic folding and uplift, yet you close your eyes and just plain ignore it.

      I mentioned that some bodies of water have tens of thousands of visible yearly cycle sediment deposits and glossed over about a half dozen similar examples, I haven't provided links but I absolutely could dig them up, but why should I bother when all you do is close your eyes and completely ignored them all. You didn't ask me about any of them, you didn't challenge any of them, you didn't doubt any of them, you didn't accuse me of lying about any of them, you just plain completely ignored them all.

      Way-back-when at the start of this thread you were all eager to embrace Carbon dating when you thought it crapping-out at "several thousand years" might mean six thousand years. Yet you promptly closed your eyes and FORGOT it out of existence when it turned out that "several thousand years" meant documenting SIXTY thousand years of continuously documented carbon dated history.

      Everything you have listed here is "evidence" that can have arguments for or against. In each case, it is a matter of how the "evidence" is interpreted, using fallible human logic and understanding. This is not the type of factual "evidence" that I want to base my beliefs on, I choose not to blindly follow the understanding of a few scientists who have had to use their fallible understanding and research to speculatively concoct theories based on assumptions on how historical events may have possibly occurred.

      There is over 5000 years of written Egyptian history, yet you close your eyes and tell me to "investigate" because you simply do not WANT it to exist. Go investigate it yourself, here's a good starting link [wikipedia.org], or go to your local library and open any history book, or go visit any major museum.

      I did actually read that link before you posted it. You stated, "...and there's a hell of a lot more than 1,000 years of pre-written human civilization prior to the start of written Egyptian history.", that was what I was refferring to when I said you should investigate it further. If you look at the wiki article on 'History of ancient Egypt', it starts out, "Archaeological evidence indicates that a distinct culture was developing in the Nile valley from before 5000 BC.". This is more of those speculations and assumptions I have been insisting on, archaeological evidence is not quite the same as historically documented evidence.

      You accused me of insist[ing] that everyone should blindly accept an old earth. You are being willfully blind, ignoring the existence of anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas of what should and should not exist. It is truly astounding logic to accuse me of asking people to blindly accept an old earth without evidence by the magic of you simply ignoring everything I've said out of existence.

      Don't get me wrong, I am not blindly ignoring the existence of such things, I am well and truly aware of the battle going on in this world against the Truth, not the truth according to the world, but the Truth according to the Bible. These preconceived ideas you refer to, are not things I have constructed in my mind, rather they are recorded in the Inspired Word of God.

      You are just plain closing your eyes. You are just plain ignoring blatant PROOF that doesn't happen to fit the answer you wanted.

      I defy you to offer any intellectually honest justification to dismiss the ice c

      --
      "Failure to conform to majority belief does not make you a troll."
    16. Re: Flag by Alsee · · Score: 1

      labelling someone a troll because they don't agree with your PoV is too easy to do

      Agreed.

      There have been a few times in the past I have caught myself having a short fuse and being less than polite and reasonable and productive in a new discussion with a new person because of left over frustration from a previous discussion with some other person who was unable or unwilling to engage in reasonable rational discussion. I consider it a personal failing if I do that with a new (and potentially polite reasonable rational person) simply because they have the same PoV as a previous obnoxious troll.

      I have gone far above and beyond all reasonable efforts trying to accommodate you in a reasonable rational discussion. I have specifically monitored myself and specifically made an effort to be polite and meet you more than half way trying to establish a productive discussion.

      You are not a troll because I disagree with your PoV.

      You are a troll because you refuse to participate in reasonable rational discussion.

      You are a troll because you are impervious to any and all possible facts and evidence and rational argument. No... before you jump to the conclusion... NOT merely that you find flaw in *my* evidence and *my* reasoning... you are a troll because you are impervious to ALL facts and ALL evidence and ALL reason and ALL logic.

      You ADMIT this. You have CATEGORICALLY dismissed the entirety of material reality as a basis of productive rational discussion. "not the type of factual 'evidence' that I want to base my beliefs on".

      I have been here on Slashdot for many years and over ten thousand posts. Over ten thousand posts... you can go ahead and take a wild guess how many different people I have had discussions with and how many different PoVs that represents...

      Congratulations, you are the FIRST person I am using the Slashdot Foe system to tag. You are a Troll. You are a troll and you effectively admit you are a troll. You admit that you are pathologically unwilling or unable to participate in rational productive discussion, that you categorically ignore all facts and all evidence. I do not want across you again a year from now and accidentally attempt to engage in a reasonable rational discussion with someone who simply and admittedly ignores material reality.

      And just because it amuses me, there is another comment I want to reply to:
      Please show me the post where I have asserted that Galileo opposed the Word of God

      Sure! You can find it in this post, your paragraphs 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and final paragraph 10. In fact each and every paragraph except paragraph 2 are, in whole or in substantial part, arguments against Galileo. You are just too blind to look in the mirror and see that you are replaying the Galileo witch trial argument-for-argument.

      It's also hysterical how you earlier commented that Galileo's moving earth is somehow magically "proven" by the very sort of "evidence" that you here categorically reject as unable to ever prove anything.

      And for whatever it's worth I'll offer a bit of advise, take it or ignore it as you wish. I expect you will continue to be modded troll around here, as your sig mentions, that you and most of the Slashdot community will not much enjoy each other's company. I believe it would be much the same at Wikipedia. However I can suggest you may find FreeRepublic.com and Conservapedia.com more to your liking, and they too will likely find you more to their liking.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    17. Re: Flag by kartune85 · · Score: 0

      I have gone far above and beyond all reasonable efforts trying to accommodate you in a reasonable rational discussion. I have specifically monitored myself and specifically made an effort to be polite and meet you more than half way trying to establish a productive discussion.

      That's cool dude, I found this discussion enlightening, and for me, it reinforces what I believe. I'm sorry if my version of logic and rationale differs to yours, it appears as though your logic and rational thinking is based around scientific findings and research, whereas, although I am well aware of the the "evidence" and "proof" put forward by men in this world, I choose to view and interpret the things of this world through the revelation of God's Word.

      You are a troll because you are impervious to any and all possible facts and evidence and rational argument. No... before you jump to the conclusion... NOT merely that you find flaw in *my* evidence and *my* reasoning... you are a troll because you are impervious to ALL facts and ALL evidence and ALL reason and ALL logic.

      I'm still not so sure that that makes me a troll. Because I choose not to be mislead and taken away by theories constructed by men of this world, rather choose to interpret this world through the use of God's Word, which has withstood thousands of years of oppression and persecution, and is still around today, and continues to be opposed by men.
      You are entitled to your opinions and beliefs in research and theories brought forward by men, but could it not also be said, by opposing and rejecting what the Scriptures teach and instead following these speculative theories concocted by men, you are contravening, or even invalidating your claim that it is I who is the troll?

      You ADMIT this. You have CATEGORICALLY dismissed the entirety of material reality as a basis of productive rational discussion. "not the type of factual 'evidence' that I want to base my beliefs on".

      You know well the points I have been making in all my posts. When I put the word evidence in quotes, I was referring to the "evidence" claimed by men, which in fact, and this is absolute fact, much of their theories are based on assumptions of history, and educated speculations. Let me make that statement a bit clearer, I will not base my beliefs on theories based on assumptions and speculations, rather, on the infallible Word of God.

      Congratulations, you are the FIRST person I am using the Slashdot Foe system to tag. You are a Troll. You are a troll and you effectively admit you are a troll. You admit that you are pathologically unwilling or unable to participate in rational productive discussion, that you categorically ignore all facts and all evidence. I do not want across you again a year from now and accidentally attempt to engage in a reasonable rational discussion with someone who simply and admittedly ignores material reality.

      Don't fall apart on me, this discussion has been not only productive for myself, but believe it or not, you will find it has also been productive for you. Whether you choose to use my objections to assist you in future discussions, or whether you actually choose to accept the Bible as the only truth in this world and believe that it contains the only answer that leads to eternal life.
      I've benefited greatly from this discussion, and for me, it has reinforced that what I believe is the truth.
      It's amazing the lengths that people will go to oppose the Word, and reject the Gospel.

      Sure! You can find it in this post, your paragraphs 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and final paragraph 10. In fact each and every paragraph except paragraph 2 are, in whole or in substantial part, arguments against Galileo. You are just too blind to look in the mirror and see that you are replaying the Galileo witch trial argument-for-argument.

      I see where you're coming from, but not only did I not refer to Galileo in that whole post except for the

      --
      "Failure to conform to majority belief does not make you a troll."
  5. Oh...Look! by graviplana · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now we can finally track http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceGodzilla in High Definition detail!

    --
    "Time is nothing; timing is everything."
  6. but the video clip is SD rez? by VMaN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's like benchmarking picture quality of a HDTV thrugh an SD tvshow.

    1. Re:but the video clip is SD rez? by berashith · · Score: 1

      If you played it in full HD on a big enough screen, you could see the tiny writing "image simulated".

    2. Re:but the video clip is SD rez? by click2005 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I couldn't read the kanji & was waiting for a fansubbed version.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
  7. Psh, obviously fake by Mayhem178 · · Score: 3, Funny

    This was filmed in the desert in Arizona. Everyone knows the Radar Men don't allow spacecraft to fly near their moon.

    --

    "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

    1. Re:Psh, obviously fake by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      This time it won't be so "windy" in Arizona. Either they will put up wind breaks, or the flags will be made of steel.

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    2. Re:Psh, obviously fake by smackt4rd · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you can see a 4x4 trail just before the image goes black halfway through. :D Seriously, though. I wonder if those are tracks from one of the moon rovers.

  8. Note to JAXA by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
    Needs subtitles....

    Nice images, though.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Note to JAXA by aksenkto! · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Kaguya" HD Camera footage.
      Titled: "Ocean of Storms", western side

      Filming Start Time: 20:51 (GMT) October 30, 2007
      Filming End Time: 20:59 (GMT) October 30, 2007

      Filming Start Location: 250degN, 275-282deg E
      Filming End Location: 49deg N, 275-283deg E

      "Kaguya" altitude: 110km (68 mi) above moon surface
      8 minutes of footage edited down to 1 minute (8x speed).
      ---
      Located in the left section of the Northern hemisphere of the moon, the western-most part of "Ocean of Storms" was filmed while navigating a South to North direction. The right side of the screen show the shadowy "dark oceans" and the sun-lit areas are the highlands.

      ---

      "Kaguya" HD Camera footage.
      Titled: Lunar North Pole

      Filming Start Time: 19:07 (GMT) October 30, 2007
      Filming End Time: 19:15 (GMT) October 30, 2007

      Filming Start Location: 66deg N, 274-288deg E
      Filming End Location: 87deg N, 26-161deg E

      "Kaguya" altitude: 110km (68 mi) above moon surface
      8 minutes of footage edited down to 1 minute (8x speed).
      ---
      The following was filmed while navigating from the northern area of "Ocean of Storms" to the north pole of the Moon. Due to the higher latitude of this voyage, the lower angle of the sun caused the crater formations to cast long shadows.

    2. Re:Note to JAXA by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
      Well thank you.P>

      A thousand internets to you!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Note to JAXA by DanielJosphXhan · · Score: 2, Funny

      I enjoyed your fansub, and would like to subscribe to your moonletter.

      --
      [ think ]
    4. Re:Note to JAXA by aksenkto! · · Score: 1

      haha. dubbed version coming soon!

  9. Real Time? by __aawbkb6799 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is there anyway to find out if this video is sped up, or is that thing just flying over the surface really fast?

    1. Re:Real Time? by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to another poster here, it's a 8x speed.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  10. Above the movie, it says: by diesel66 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Above the movie, it says:

    Moving image of the Moon shot by the HDTV camera (no audio)

    No audio? That sucks. I really wanted to hear the 'whooshing' noise of the probe speeding through the moon's atmosphere!

    (In space, nobody can hear your sarcasm.)

    --



    eleven plus two / twelve plus one
    1. Re:Above the movie, it says: by MiniMike · · Score: 5, Funny

      > (In space, nobody can hear your sarcasm.)

      That wasn't sarcasm, that was a vacuous joke...

    2. Re:Above the movie, it says: by Xzzy · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is how a 480x270 video can be considered "HD".

      Maybe I'm just being grumpy but I was hoping to get at least a 720p sized frame.

    3. Re:Above the movie, it says: by tknd · · Score: 1

      (In space, nobody can hear your sarcasm.)

      Never underestimate the power of the Schwartz!

    4. Re:Above the movie, it says: by moco · · Score: 5, Funny

      No audio? That sucks. I really wanted to hear the 'whooshing' noise of the probe speeding through the moon's atmosphere! Not only that, the video is recorded in black and white...

      --
      moi
    5. Re:Above the movie, it says: by quo_vadis · · Score: 1

      > (In space, nobody can hear your sarcasm.)
      That wasn't sarcasm, that was a vacuous joke...

      Maybe it was too alien for your sensibilities...
      --
      Legally obligatory sig : My opinions are my own... etc etc
    6. Re:Above the movie, it says: by ThirdPrize · · Score: 2, Funny

      I want a 5.1 recording of the sounds in outer space to go with it. Oh wait, ...

      --
      I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
    7. Re:Above the movie, it says: by burndive · · Score: 1

      The published footage is obviously downscaled: and clearly not anti-aliased in the process.

      I would bet that they filmed it in at least 1080p, and the true HD footage will be coming to you in the form of HD DVDs (and Blu-Rays, until it goes the way of UMD) that license the content.

      If you want to put together an HD production, you have to find HD material, and right now, they're the only ones with HD moon probe footage.

      --
      ...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
    8. Re:Above the movie, it says: by default+luser · · Score: 1

      Well, anything is "HD" compared to that shitty feed they got during the Apollo missions. Fortunately, we've had time to invent digital compression and high-capacity storage, so transmission bandwidth is no-longer a limiting factor.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

  11. Speed? by sqrt(2) · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How fast is this video played at? How long does it take the probe to complete a full orbit? It might say that at the beginning of the film, but I can't read moon-runes, maybe someone here could translate. Pretty cool video anyway.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Simple. You start with the energy equation:

                E = v^2/2 - mu/r = -mu/(2*a)

      E is the energy, mu is the gravitational constant, G, multiplied by the mass of the moon. a is the semi-major axis of the orbit, which is just the radius of the orbit if we assume it's circular (which may or may not be the case). Then

                v_circ^2/2 - mu/r = -mu/(2*r)

      Which becomes

                v_circ = sqrt(mu/r)

      For the moon, mu=4.903e12 m^3/s^2. The radius, r, would be the moon's radius, 1738km, plus the altitude of the orbit, 50km for example.

                v_circ = 1.656 km/s

      Then for a circular orbit the orbital period, T, is

                T = (2*pi*r) / v_circ = 6784 s = 113 minutes.

      I know no one cares, but I didn't TA astrodynamics for nothing. I live for this crap.

    2. Re:Speed? by rapid_snail · · Score: 1

      8 minutes of video compressed to run at 1 min - according to the text on the screen. So 8X-speed video.

  12. I'm surprised... by quickpick · · Score: 0

    No Godzilla, Mothra, Ghidra, or other space alien to attack the Imperia...I mean Japan Self Defense Forces?

  13. It almost looks as if... by athloi · · Score: 4, Funny

    The moon was once inhabited by an intelligent but thoughtless species that developed technology, covered the planet in concrete, and then died of their own selfishness, leaving behind a barren gray wasteland that resembles an asteroid-pocked version of Houston, Texas...

    --
    technical writing / development
    1. Re:It almost looks as if... by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      If you look carefully, you can see vast expanses of flat, gray, featureless land surface. These were the aliens' Wal-Mart parking lots. They are all that remains of the former Lunar society, edifices to what was a noble and advanced race, before it destroyed itself in a conflagration of bargain shopping.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:It almost looks as if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read Mutineer's Moon by David Weber.
      http://www.amazon.com/Mutineers-Moon-Dahak-David-Weber/dp/0671720856

    3. Re:It almost looks as if... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      once inhabited by an intelligent but thoughtless species that developed technology, covered the planet in concrete, and then died of their own selfishness, leaving behind a barren gray wasteland

      Sounds like a decent plan to me . . . . well, except the dying-off part.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:It almost looks as if... by plover · · Score: 3, Funny

      Could you please write a coherent statement that distinguishes between "a [concrete covered] barren gray wasteland that resembles an asteroid-pocked version of Houston, Texas" and "Houston, Texas"? 'Cause I'm having trouble telling the two apart.

      --
      John
  14. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Idiot or troll? Can't decide.

    Just in case of "idiot": Stars are not that bright and require a longer exposure time. The moon is actually very bright and a short exposure time is required to prevent the image from being washed out. The result is the stars don't appear because the camera has been desensitised to take clear pictures of bright things.

    Take a picture of any brightly lit object on a starry night and you'll likely find the stars aren't in the photo.
    =Smidge=

    P.S. Whoever gave the parent an "Insightful" mod was definately an idiot.

  15. No Audio? by Danathar · · Score: 3, Funny

    The site says there is no audio. I thought there was at least a hissing sound like in 2001 and maybe some "Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"

  16. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Irony.

  17. Android and OpenSocial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    F.A.K.E. This is about as fake as the Android and OpenSocial technology.

  18. Roads on the moon? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    Just near where the first part of the movie blanks out, there is a very interesting linear feature that spreads across a good quarter of the shot. If I was on a plane flying over a terrestrial desert and saw something like that I would say it was a road. Can anyone give a better explanation than Moon Highway #1?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Roads on the moon? by Liquidrage · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I saw that same spot and actually paused it and rewinded it a few times to get a better look.

      It's very possible a collapsed lava tube, they call them sinuous rilles.

      http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/planet_volcano/lunar/sin_rilles/Overview.html

    2. Re:Roads on the moon? by Applekid · · Score: 1

      Can anyone give a better explanation than Moon Highway #1? Guh. It's the trading route used by the whalers on the moon.
      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    3. Re:Roads on the moon? by Jerry · · Score: 1

      If you ZOOM IN you'll see that it is made of tiny pixels.

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    4. Re:Roads on the moon? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      "My God! It's full of pixels!"

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  19. sheesh. by apodyopsis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Reading these comments you'd think we're a bunch a sad obsessed geek tosspots always looking for a cheap laugh. Sheesh.

    On a more serious note, congratulations to the team for a real achievement and kudos for the excellent movie.

    If only they had aligned it slighter further to the right we could of seen the giant "Kilroy was here" on the darkside of the moon, now that would of been cool..

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

      Reading the comments, you learn that the person most likely to hit that "Submit" button IS a sad, obsessed geek tosspot looking for a cheap laugh.

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

      Do we get bonus points for doing it anonymously?

    3. Re:sheesh. by volpe · · Score: 1

      Could *HAVE* seen.
      Would *HAVE* been cool.

      "Sheesh" indeed.

  20. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by sarahbau · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why is this modded insightful? There are no stars in the video because their luminosity is very low compared to the light reflected from the moon. The moon would be overexposed if stars were visible, which would make the video pointless. They wanted to video the moon, not a big glowing white ball with stars behind it.

  21. Luna Park by anton544 · · Score: 1

    While the probe is on the moon, maybe it can shoot some pictures of Luna Park. "That is a sinfull, wicked place. The Tilt-a-Whirl's okay, but the rest is mighty wicked."

    1. Re:Luna Park by Mayhem178 · · Score: 1

      Hope the probe is made of dolamite, though. It's that righteous mineral that doesn't cop out when there's heat all about.

      --

      "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

  22. The moon is nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But HD video of Uranus would be better.

  23. Where's the HD? by heroine · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is not HD. It's a tiny 480x272 Web 2.0 flash movie.

    1. Re:Where's the HD? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      I've been trying to save it off, but have a player and a 11 meg file in my cache, which I expect is the video.

      Hmm. They're getting trickier and tricker.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Where's the HD? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I want to see the raw video footage even if it is GB size. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:Where's the HD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so tricky. A Flash grabber like Replay Media Catcher downloads the .flv file without any problem.

      Why they downsized it to shitty 480x270 is beyond me -- bandwidth shouldn't be an issue nowadays. Is there anything secret about the surface of the moon?

  24. Nice Video by bostons1337 · · Score: 1

    Very nice video, great quality. I think its a benefit to everyone that more countries are getting involved in the space frontier. We don't have to rely just on NASA to view space related content anymore.

  25. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by Speare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't see any stars is this a fake video of the moon.

    I don't know why this is modded at least +2 Insightful. It's either very poorly informed, or a reference to a common misconception. You generally don't see stars in space images, unless there's NO other sun-illuminated object in the near foreground (a moon, a satellite, etc.), because of the sensor's dynamic range. Any moonshot on the sunny side is like a very bright sunny day on off-white snow, and the stars just can't compete for exposure.

    The stars are a millionth the brightness of any nearby object that is sunlit. If you tune up the sensitivity to catch the faint stars, the sunlit objects overpower the sensors and you get solid white or big streaky blotches.

    The human eye's biggest advantage to manmade cameras is that of dynamic range. We have many components to our eye anatomy and physiology that let us cope with extreme differences in brightness; we can see some of the brightest stars even while fairly bright objects are nearby. We do this in part with better dynamic range, but we also cope by moving our head, shielding our eyes, squinting, and not paying attention to the brightest parts of the scene when interested in the dimmer elements. Cameras can't do all that and catch a single image.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  26. The press release by arsheive · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's shot at 8-fold speed, the following is from: http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071107_kaguya_e.html

    The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) have successfully performed the world's first high-definition image taking by the lunar explorer "KAGUYA" (SELENE,) which was injected into a lunar orbit at an altitude of about 100 km on October 18, 2007, (Japan Standard Time. Following times and dates are all JST.)

    The image shooting was carried out by the onboard high definition television (HDTV) of the KAGUYA, and it is the world's first high definition image data acquisition of the Moon from an altitude about 100 kilometers away from the Moon.

    The image taking was performed twice on October 31. Both were eight-fold speed intermittent shooting (eight minutes is converged to one minute.) The first shooting covered from the northern area of the "Oceanus Procellarum" toward the center of the North Pole, then the second one was from the south to the north on the western side of the "Oceanus Procellarum." The moving image data acquired by the KAGUYA was received at the JAXA Usuda Deep Space Center, and processed by NHK.

    The satellite was confirmed to be in good health through telemetry data received at the Usuda station.

    --
    @AlexSheive
    :wq
    1. Re:The press release by KingofSpades · · Score: 1

      The satellite was confirmed to be in good health through telemetry data received at the Usuda station. Hmmm. The moon's doing fine ? Yes, I already know that.
    2. Re:The press release by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The image shooting was carried out by the onboard high definition television (HDTV) of the KAGUYA, and it is the world's first high definition image data acquisition of the Moon from an altitude about 100 kilometers away from the Moon.

      What I can't seem to find anywhere (which means it's obvious and I missed it) is what the dang resolution of the image is. HD is cool, buzzwordy, geeky, flavor-of-the-month, etc... etc... But what matters for science is the resolution of the resulting images, not the tech used to obtain them.
  27. 480 x 272 is not HD by btempleton · · Score: 1

    Hello? Earth to Kaguya. Earth to Kaguya. That's not HD. 272 lines is not even SDTV resolution! The HD specs require 720 lines, and frankly I would like to see 1080.

    --
    Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
    1. Re:480 x 272 is not HD by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 1

      how long do you think their server would survive if they put the original 1080p footage on?

      --
      -- the cake is a lie
    2. Re:480 x 272 is not HD by networkz · · Score: 1

      Torrent. Job done.

    3. Re:480 x 272 is not HD by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 1

      actually 480P is also considered an HD format.

    4. Re:480 x 272 is not HD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not. Standard definition is 480 lines, and so is 480p. The only difference is that 480p is progressive, but that doesn't mean increased resolution.

      Besides, you're confusing horizontal resolution with vertical resolution. 480p is 720x480.

    5. Re:480 x 272 is not HD by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 1

      No I am not confusing horizontal with vertical, although I do think it is silly to measure HD resolutions by Y and not X since in X/Y measurements X is supposed to come first. but ok I am partially wrong to classify it as HD, it is not SD but ED. While it is still the same resolution as SD it is a different signal not in the SD classification. I checked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/480p

    6. Re:480 x 272 is not HD by btempleton · · Score: 1

      But there are only 272 lines!!!!

      It is not SD or ED, it is below either of these, and surely not HD. It may have been sourced from HD and is digital, so the 272 lines may look as good as what you are used to from say 480 lines of VHS, but it's not even SD.

      --
      Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
    7. Re:480 x 272 is not HD by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 1

      haha yes I am aware that the actual resolution on the webpage is not HD, this was just a response to HD being at least 720.

  28. Re:SLASHDOT SUX0RZ by Pojut · · Score: 1

    Definately the most funny of the recent rash of goatse ascii art (puns both intended)

    --
    Living With a Nerd
  29. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by corifornia2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its a farse on all the douchebags that say the moon landing is fake.

  30. USA HD back in 1969 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Erm. Actual live astronauts took film pictures from the surface of the moon with a Hasselblad camera back in July 1969. Present day HD 1080p doesn't even come close.

    Not bad, even so...

    1. Re:USA HD back in 1969 by joshv · · Score: 2

      If only they were able to take about 24 pictures per second with their Hasselblad's, you might have a point.

    2. Re:USA HD back in 1969 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Things don't change too often on the moon, there's not much motion to capture.

  31. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by moranar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Reflections are all wrong. Definitely photoshopped.

    --
    "I think it would be a good idea!"
    Gandhi, about Internet Security
  32. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its funny and insightful at the same time!

  33. The things you notice in HD by xPsi · · Score: 1

    Wow. Very cool. However, as I expected, HD really highlights the serious crop circle problem on the moon. Looks like a Led Zeppelin CD box set down there.

    --
    i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
  34. mod parent up by arsheive · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is +5 funny. The people responding to it as a serious post must have never heard any of the moonlanding hoax arguments, or are the kind of assholes that just can't keep themselves from correcting things for long enough to consider the possibility of irony. If they're the former... new to slashdot?

    --
    @AlexSheive
    :wq
    1. Re:mod parent up by mevets · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree - 'not getting it' is as slashdot as, well, / and .

    2. Re:mod parent up by toadlife · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Whenever you want information on the net, don't ask a question. Just post a wrong answer."

      -- Cancer Omega

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    3. Re:mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that's the wooshing sound I heard while watching the video. And here I thought it was the sound of satellite zooming through the moon's atmosphere.

    4. Re:mod parent up by $0.02 · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? I don't get it.

      --
      If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
    5. Re:mod parent up by dintech · · Score: 1

      Updated for 2007:

      "Whenever you want information on the net, don't ask a question. Just write a wikipedia article."

  35. In Related News by VoxMagis · · Score: 2, Funny

    In related news, George Lucas has announced that he will be 'updating' this video, adding little green men and trying to show that the Moon shot first.

    --
    -- I really need to bleed off some of this /. karma.
    1. Re:In Related News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'll change it so unrecognizably that when we watch it, we'll all go "That's no moon..."

  36. 2010 by Stooshie · · Score: 1

    All these vid's are yours, except Europa. Attempt no filmings there.

    I for one welcome our black monolithic overlords.

    --
    America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
  37. What are they looking for ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    Sailor Moon ? AHAahaha aha ahahahahhhh.

    allright allright. im leaving my geek membership card at the reception ...

    --
    Read radical news here
  38. "...and do the other things..." by starglider29a · · Score: 1

    I remember men landing on the Moon. I remember a listening to a record pressed onto a sheet of vinyl from a book with the voice of JFK saying "We choose to go to the Moon in this deCADE..." I became a rocket scientist to help us continue to go.

    But if we had had this video, I wonder if we would have found something better to do with our time. I don't see any enticement to heave stuff up there.

    Forgive me, follow rocket scientists, but the only "opportunity" I see here for space is for G00gl3 to launch a series of high speed projectiles to craterize (print) Adwords at 1 pixel per 30m.

    1. Re:"...and do the other things..." by sighted · · Score: 1

      I hadn't remembered that vinyl recording until you mentioned it. Was it narrated by Walter Cronkite? What about missions to other planets? And is it human missions you especially object to, or all space exploration, even robotic probes?

      --
      Saddle up: Riding with Robots
    2. Re:"...and do the other things..." by starglider29a · · Score: 1
      I don't object to them. I have just lost the vision of why we want to go there. I worked with Greg Jarvis at Hughes. I worked at the Cape and KSC. I became disillusioned at the politics and BS it took to get a kilogram of payload up. And for what in return?

      The Laws of Celestial Mechanics are as unforgiving as the laws of Trickle-down economics. There is nothing out there worth the price of going. Does that mean we don't go? No, it just means we've passed the Point of NO return on Investment. -- A HREF="http://af2k.com/gavonslaws.asp">AF2K.com Now I'm involved in a not-for-profit which is trying to raise 4 billion people out of poverty. I guess I'd better turn in my Spacer's membership card.
    3. Re:"...and do the other things..." by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      we went there because it was hard to do.

      Do you know how much money people have made because of the Apollo program? are still making today?
      You know as well as I do many new technologies were developed specifically because of a need for the mission. many of those technologies allow whole industries to be born. Industries that need people to work for them;which in turn gave people more money to spend on thing like helping people. The tax return on the Apollo investment is many, many times it's cost.

      To advance, we need a goal, the larger the better.
      We need to send men to Mars and return them safely for the goal, for the international cooperation that would be needed, and for the investment into sciences and engineering that will bring us new idea. Ideas that will create new markets.

      You want o help the poorest people in the world? You should be the flag waiver for a Mars mission.
      They will need:
      Better recycling of waste.
      Better ways to store transport and grow food on extremely limited resources, develop better plastic, metals, and maybe some new materials. Better energy storing, and creating devices.

      Poor billions into those industries will HELP the poorest people in the long run by lessoning the amount of time needed for day to day survival and give more free time to create. Create markets, create inventions, create a society that can advance beyond survival.

      The biggest key for you maybe be the needed international cooperation. The more cooperation, the more ways there will be to cooperate.

      The problem with people in poverty isn't a resource one, it's a political one.

      "The Laws of Celestial Mechanics are as unforgiving as the laws of Trickle-down economics."

      I love the fact that that poster
      Trickle-down economics, which is a farce and was called 'VooDoo economics' by George Bush Sr. for a reason. His whole point is also wrong and ignorant.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:"...and do the other things..." by starglider29a · · Score: 1

      Industries that need people to work for them;which in turn gave people more money to spend on thing like helping people. The tax return on the Apollo investment is many, many times it's cost. Funny, this sounds like Trickle Down economics. If the tax return supposition is true, that is a perpetual motion machine, minus the entropy of politics. Which was my initial point anyway. Gee, maybe I wasn't so wrong and ignorant after all. :-P
  39. The Herbaliser - Goldrush by Carthag · · Score: 1

    was playing on my computer. It fits really well.

  40. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by drakaan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know why this is modded at least +2 Insightful. It's either very poorly informed, or a reference to a common misconception...

    ...or, the <humor> tag was missing and certain people are *way* too serious sometimes.

    --
    "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  41. I really want to go to the moon by Tejin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I really really want to got explore the moon. It's one of the three great adventures forseeable within my lifetime (the other two being the bottom of the ocean and Mars). What's even more exciting is that by the time I'm done my education, Canada will likely make another call for astronauts.

    --
    The seekers do no need truth, the seekers do find truth and the finding do be painful
    1. Re:I really want to go to the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All these locations are far more efficiently explored with robots--remotely controlled (moon, ocean), or smart (Mars).

      And think about astronaut careers carefully: long, dull training for a slim chance of going to the moon for a few days and running other people's experiments.

      If you're interested in space, go into robotics, not astronaut training.

    2. Re:I really want to go to the moon by Tejin · · Score: 0

      I'm currently in robotics, Mechatronics Engineering in fact, but I still hope to go to space. Just because the unwashed masses wet themselves over anything resembling risk these days doesn't mean that those who wish to explore should be held back.

      --
      The seekers do no need truth, the seekers do find truth and the finding do be painful
  42. OMFG...Where is the lunar lander? by DrPeper · · Score: 0

    There is no Lunar Lander visible, even by close up HD video! So the lunar landing conspiracy people were right!

    1. Re:OMFG...Where is the lunar lander? by DrPeper · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wait... is that... is that a face?

    2. Re:OMFG...Where is the lunar lander? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      I know you're joking, but it would at least be nice.

      If, for no other reason, you could use it as a frame of reference for the scope of the imagery.

      To omit it on purpose would be almost insulting. I'm not saying they did or did not, but of the features on the moon is it somehow not worthy of sightseeing? Isn't anyone at all curious as to how well that stuff has held up out there?

    3. Re:OMFG...Where is the lunar lander? by DrPeper · · Score: 0

      You make some excellent points. If we could see any of the landers/rovers, that would be a testament to how good the video was. It would show scale as well. It would also show how the equipment has held up over the years. Excellent points!

      Now with this just being a "teaser" video, I'm betting that they do have or will have video of the lander sites, eventually... hopefully. I haven't checked the orbital path to see if the probe would pass over them. I would be surprised if at that distance you could clearly make them out. But it is the closest thing to the sites, has the best resolution (supposedly), and thereby the best chance of getting anything. I'm betting the shadows created by the structures would be more visible then the structures themselves. But then I also didn't check the solar angle to the lunar landing sites.

  43. Second half is better by SiliconEntity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I thought the second half of the footage was better, where the probe flies over the terminator into the dark side of the moon. The funny thing was at first in that segment I had the illusion of inverted relief, as though the craters were bumps. I kept telling myself that the sun was shining from over my right shoulder but I couldn't see it. Then suddenly as we get very close to the terminator and things were quite dark below, the terrain "popped" into correct relief and craters looked like craters again. An amusing optical illusion which often shows up when viewing alien landscapes, rather rare to see it disappear spontaneously like that.

  44. WTF? No Audio??!! by alta · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can someone let me know when they get the damn Mic fixed? We're living in a multimedia age, there's just no excuse for this half ass attempt at entertainment.

    Stereo at a minimum, preferably 7.1 THX Dolby noise reduction AC3 FLAC Lossless Acustimass full dynamic range phonographed...

    I'm hoping that they didn't have the bandwidth for the audio too and they'll upload that when they get back with the tapes. I hope it's on DAT, the only true way to record.

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
  45. "Japanese Pron Returns First HD Video of her Moon" by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    much better title, much more interesting story

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  46. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its a farse on all the douchebags that say the moon landing is fake.

    Then it should have been modded funny instead of insightful.
  47. Youtube link by chris411 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here.

    1. Re:Youtube link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! It's as if I am watching a DVD quality anime uploaded to youtube! Except that it is HDTV quality.

    2. Re:Youtube link by PhotoGuy · · Score: 1

      Because, youtube is where we *all* go, when we're looking for HD content. :S

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  48. It's just missing one thing... by DrPeper · · Score: 0

    A big honking "All your (lunar) BASE are belong to us!" sign.

  49. Whats the point of recording in HD by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

    What's the point of recording in High-Def it's zoomed out and all in monochrome? It's kind of like recording the greatest rock concert ever with just one (albeit really good) microphone stationed way up in the bleachers.

  50. Hand in your geek card by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    explain that einstein?

    He just did.
    This is "News for Nerds".
    If you don't understand why he's right, /. is not for you.
    You're looking for USA Today.

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
  51. It's a Japanese probe by caffeine_monkey · · Score: 1

    Does that mean it comes with fuzzy logic?

    1. Re:It's a Japanese probe by DrPeper · · Score: 0

      I think you mean "fuzzy Rogic"?!

  52. No audio by Beached · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I like that, its cute. Makes me think, if a tree fell on the moon and everyone was there would you hear it. Forgetting about how the tree got on the moon in the first place and how the people are there too.

    --
    ---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
  53. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by jythie · · Score: 1

    The tricky part with humor like this is there are a significant number of people who will say pretty much the exact same thing in complete seriousness. Even on a tech site you can still get that thought process.

    That is one of the problems with text... without hearing the voice one can read in either satire or serious from the same piece.

  54. A Tremendous Achievement... by dynamator · · Score: 1

    that we are seeing HD images from lunar orbit. A lamentable tragedy that we are doing this in the year 2007.

    1. Re:A Tremendous Achievement... by SleptThroughClass · · Score: 1

      A lamentable tragedy that we are doing this in the year 2007.
      Well, the legislation did not require the Moon to begin providing HD video until 2007. The USA will be available in HD video in five more years.
    2. Re:A Tremendous Achievement... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The HD images from lunar orbit is the achievement. Not getting to lunar orbit.
      Just as HD images from the Challenger deep would be a an achievement.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:A Tremendous Achievement... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      that we are seeing HD images from lunar orbit. A lamentable tragedy that we are doing this in the year 2007.

      Well, there's always crashing...

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  55. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    certain people are *way* too serious sometimes


    If by "serious" you mean "too stupid and ignorant to comprehend the joke," I agree.
  56. Low Budget Movie by ABasketOfPups · · Score: 1

    Haven't you been making a low budget movie for like, the last century? Couldn't you have completed "Lord of the Rings: The unabridged and extended by Stephen King" version by now? :)

    1. Re:Low Budget Movie by ThirdPrize · · Score: 1

      Yes, when is this film of yours due out?

      --
      I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
  57. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    *WHOOSH!*

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  58. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by kenmac · · Score: 1

    Well, considering good sarcasm has so much to do with inflection, tone of voice, facial expressions, etc, it is not always so obvious in plain text on a comment thread when someone is being sarcastic. I've experienced this myself in response to my own facetious comments enough that I've realized that expressing sarcasm in writing that is generally understood to be tongue-in-cheek by all who read it is not necessarily an easy thing to do.

  59. NO! They'll just prove the hoax theory!!! by AgentBif · · Score: 2, Insightful

    now they're working on the gentle waving movements

    Ah yes, nothing like a fresh lunar breeze...

    --
    Privacy Statement: We value your privacy! It is very valuable. That's why we try to sell it whenever we can.
  60. srashdotted? by notthepainter · · Score: 1

    I hearby apologize to all Japanese people for the slashdot readers who created this tag. Not all geeks find that funny, and some of it find it very offensive.

    1. Re:srashdotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Japanese friends found it hilarious.

      It's almost as offensive as you apologizing for someone else.
      It's people like you that allow nanny states to rise up, and for generic khaki wearing to become the only acceptable dress and behavior.

      Fucking Mac using hippie.

    2. Re:srashdotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your politically correct comment offended me. Apologize at once.

  61. HD???? by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    Call me cynical but when I read "HD Video" I expect some 720p goodness at the least. This little baby window is not HD.

    Anyone have a link to the actual 720p video?

  62. Narrow minded. by AgentBif · · Score: 1

    but the only "opportunity" I see here for space is for G00gl3 to launch a series of high speed projectiles to craterize (print) Adwords at 1 pixel per 30m

    If that's all you can think of then you're just jaded... has all the creative spirit been bled out of you? Just try to think out of the box a little...

    For example: it would make a REALLY cool site for a McDonalds!

    --
    Privacy Statement: We value your privacy! It is very valuable. That's why we try to sell it whenever we can.
  63. Torrent by bdjacobson · · Score: 1

    Regardless, it's been Slashdotted, and even if the nothing moves on the moon, it's more interesting to me than the trees outside and that oblong piece of leather people throw at eachother.

    I think a new meme needs to be added to the usual. Example:

    "But where is the torrent?"

    Seriously, if there were ever a better reason for a torrent than a high definition video of the moon.

  64. mmm by jagdish · · Score: 1

    HiDef Cheese


    Seriously though, where can I download this video. They should put up a mpeg4/raw avi video up. I don't like watching videos in flash. (Especially HiDef.)

  65. MTV? by DrPeper · · Score: 0

    Where is the flag with the MTV logo??!

  66. This is good news! by harshmanrob · · Score: 1

    It is nice to know at least some segments of the human race are interested in progress. Here in the US, Christianity and Neoconservatives will keep us in the stone age for the next 100 years. I expect witch burnings sooner or later. Maybe textbooks explaining why Muslims are barbarians and the world is flat.

    Keep God out of America (or at least Ohio)!

    1. Re:This is good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A couple of years ago, I drove from NH to TX, and I recall that as soon as I passed from PA into OH, I started seeing billboards telling me I was a sinner and was going straight to hell. So, it seems like you've lost that fight :-(.

    2. Re:This is good news! by harshmanrob · · Score: 1

      You have the 10 commandments and "you're going to hell boards" all over the place when traveling between cities. What fight did I lose?

  67. No UFO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What ever happens to those moon base and UFO ?

  68. Preparation H by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long does it take the probe to complete a full orbit?


    Faster than it takes to probe Uranus.
  69. my girlfriend... by DrPeper · · Score: 0

    My girlfriend has a Japanese Probe, and she is really happy with it.

  70. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Idiot or troll? Can't decide."

    Apparently that was intended as a joke. However, I can decide about you: idiot!

  71. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by TalonJasra · · Score: 1

    I can see stars! oh, wait...thats the dust on my screen. nvm.

  72. Not getting any video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep getting a blank screen when I visit the linked page.

    Must be night time there.

  73. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by burtosis · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging Typically done by merging two or more exposure times into a single frame, it would allow you to see stars as well as bright objects at a reduced number of frames per second. You would also need smear rejection and other fancy features on the CCD to prevent bleeding of the bright portions. My guess is that features of interest are not dim so there would not be a benefit in using this technology.

  74. Goatse in HD? by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

    Thanks, dude! No I have to go rinse my brain out with soap.

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
  75. Redundant, repetitive, already posted information. by Web+Goddess · · Score: 1

    I don't see why you are modded +4 Informative,
    as you just posted triply redundant information. <rolleyes>

  76. Worked for me by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Funny

    Stereo at a minimum, preferably 7.1 THX Dolby noise reduction AC3 FLAC Lossless Acustimass full dynamic range phonographed...

    I got perfect 7.1 THX dolby in my player. Sounded exactly like a satellite passing through space above the moon, I felt as if I were there with my eyes closed.

    The audio was even more pristine than my 7.1 copy of 4'33"...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  77. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

    That is one of the problems with text... without hearing the voice one can read in either satire or serious from the same piece.
    Yeah, we need something like red sarcasm letters
    --
    Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
  78. Dreamy by bytesex · · Score: 1

    That's a very dreamy video, that is. You can almost imagine yourself gliding - no sound, just you and the moon. I love it !

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    1. Re:Dreamy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recommend Gargarian's Music

  79. Re:me either,I dont see any stars in this fake vid by homebrewmike · · Score: 1

    Tick... Tick... Tick...

    Tinfoil hats are back in season!

  80. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by bcat24 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe, but many people mod humor as insightful, not funny. This probably has something to do with the fact that a funny mod doesn't add to a user's karma.

  81. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't get karma for funny mods.

  82. Asperger's syndrome? RE: "idiot or troll" by RudeIota · · Score: 1

    "Idiot or troll? Can't decide."
    It was meant to be FUNNY... So neither.

    Individuals with Asperger's Syndrome have difficulty picking out jokes like this - perhaps you are afflicted? 'Not getting it' isn't the only clue here - your pedantic response and detailed explanation are also clues.

    I KNOW there HAS TO BE a disproportionately large amount of /.ers with AS... I happen to be one. But being aware of how I think differently than 'non-aspies' has helped me understand jokes like this reasonably well. It is certainly not definitive, but if you find yourself socially awkward or display mildly autistic traits, it might be worth your time to be evaluated.
    --
    Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
  83. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, that Shakespeare fellow was pretty terrible at expressing sarcasm through the written word.

  84. As a Fat, Lazy, Loud, Idiotic American Cowboy... by ShagratTheTitleless · · Score: 1

    I hereby revoke your apology on behalf of all people who have not replaced their sense of humor with hyper-sensitive guilt. Differences between groups are almost always funny. Especially if the stereotype stems from truth (as opposed to something made up to demean a group) as is the case with Japanese people having trouble differentiating between r and l sounds. So have a little chuckle at the funny foreigners, for laughter will help you live longer, and give the funny foreigners more time to laugh at you.

    --
    Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
  85. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by failedlogic · · Score: 1

    I believe this is an improvement of the original fake with a better set and special effects. I can't get over how well this was filmed.

    I'm a Hollywood producer*, and I know where the original film was shot. But between myself and other Oscar nominated directors, we have no idea which Hollywood studio shot this film. If it was under tight security, we would know. Further, we're not familiar with any landscape that could be used to film a similar surface. The only location I'm familiar with would be the Epcot center, but there are too many "stars" in the background and its expensive to take them out of the footage.

    *for the purposes of this post

  86. The Green Slime by Fishbulb · · Score: 1

    This deserves a congratulatory screening of The Green Slime!

  87. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by hondo77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I believe this is an improvement of the original fake with a better set and special effects. I can't get over how well this was filmed.

    Funny thing is, if it actually was a product of Hollywood it would look a lot better...and have explosions.

    --
    I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  88. Angels and Clouds by psychicsword · · Score: 1

    Was there angels in wings and clouds or a reporter claiming to be in heaven?

  89. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by TarZ · · Score: 1

    ...and have explosions.
    ...and have sounds. :-)
  90. First? I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I pointed my Sony HD handycam at the moon weeks ago.

  91. yeah i suck by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i need some free time man

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  92. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thankyou! What is it with that word and so many people using it incorrectly? I'm looking at you, Alanis!

  93. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or this one

  94. Use HDR methods then.... by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Take 3 concurrent shots with 3 diff exposures, mix it smartly back on earth, you will see all dark areas aswell as stars.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  95. Anyone know what the resolution of the video is? by doobydoobydoo · · Score: 1

    A quick back-of-the-envelope gave me just over 300m per pixel, left-to-right (a lot more top to bottom because of the curvature of the surface), based on the curvature of the horizon in the video, the radius of the moon, and an assumption that the image is not distorted. But I may well have screwed up. I was interested in knowing the real size of the features (craters, etc.). Anyone know what the approximate scale is?

  96. Why they never film the Apollo landing sites? by master_p · · Score: 1

    A single picture of the Apollo landing sites and all the equipment left there by the Apollo missions would permanently shut hoax supporters up. Why nobody has done it so far?

    1. Re:Why they never film the Apollo landing sites? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      ?

      Why would people who ignore the original footage care about new footage?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  97. Re:Asperger's syndrome? RE: "idiot or troll" by Loke+the+Dog · · Score: 1

    Lots of people without aspergers do this too. Don't be so quick to call everything aspergers, sometimes people just don't get the joke.

  98. What are the techical reqs for this? by jokkebk · · Score: 1

    Seriously, when we have satellites that can read licence plates from space, how hard it would be to get some imaginery from the moon landing site and the flag?

    Could someone who actually knows educate us about:

    A) Is the landing site visible when looked from the earth (so you could perhaps use a huge telescope from earth, or Hubble)

    B) What kind of zoom we would need if taking pictures from orbit, for example compared to the licence plate on earth?

    --
    http://codeandlife.com
  99. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *WHOOSH!*
    Score: 5, Insightful

    Go figure. ;-)

  100. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is ironic is that you use "irony" incorrectly. Just like Alanis Moronis.

  101. Re:Asperger's syndrome? RE: "idiot or troll" by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    I particularly liked the "if you find yourself socially awkward" bit - so aspergers is the medical term for shyness now?

    I don't know about the proportion of slashdot users with Aspergers, but I get the distinct feeling that the proportion who are self-diagnosed is way too high...

    --
    It's official. Most of you are morons.
  102. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by dintech · · Score: 1

    In space no-one can hear a golf clap.

  103. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by Raenex · · Score: 1

    I don't know why this is modded at least +2 Insightful. Because Zonk was moderating?
  104. Re:Asperger's syndrome? RE: "idiot or troll" by KrazeeEyezKilla · · Score: 1

    every nerd thinks they have Asperger's most of them are just normal losers

  105. What! - No audio?!?!?!? by spineboy · · Score: 2

    I'm just ticked off that they didn't bother with any audio. I was looing foward to hearing the zooming/swooshing spaceship noise, and the eerie background tone that I always heard on Trek (TOS)

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  106. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    I see this word constantly used when it shouldn't be.
    I'm pretty sure what you're looking for was actually
    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm

  107. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by X'16435934 · · Score: 0

    OMG!

    I also noticed that the small Japanese flag attached to the probe was WAVING! LOOK!
    Clearly this has been staged, and the dumb Japanese scientists forgot about the breeze!

    And please don't quote that charlatan Phil Plaitt ...
    He's obviously in on the NASA/Japanese conspiracy!
    You'd think after 40 years, these stupid studio guys would learn something!
    But, noooo....!


    --
    - Ecsad Essemal
    The Hexadecimal TV-REMOTE!
  108. Re:Asperger's syndrome? RE: "idiot or troll" by RudeIota · · Score: 1

    [quote]I particularly liked the "if you find yourself socially awkward" bit - so aspergers is the medical term for shyness now?[/quote]Your honor, Exhibit A.
    Not all people are women, but all women are people

    Exhibit B.
    Not all awkward, pedantic people who don't get jokes are aspies, but all aspies are awkward, pedantic people who don't get jokes.

    No one said it was 'for certain' or even 'likely'. But he'd certainly be more likely than someone who didn't exhibit some of the symptoms. This is much like seeing someone with a persistent cough and a nasal voice - It might be a little bit of a stretch to assume they have a overactive post nasal drip, but the symptoms are there and there's nothing wrong with suggesting it. Sure, it might be a cold... Might be polyps... Might be any combination thereof... But why not consider it a possibility?

    --
    Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
  109. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by Walter+Carver · · Score: 1

    You can make the stars appear by taking a set of photographs with different exposure times (not aperture values because it might change the depth field of the picture) and combine them to create something more close to what the human eye sees.

    This is usually called HDR for High Dynamic Range. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging

  110. Re:I don't see any stars is this a fake video of t by mannd · · Score: 1

    If it were done by Hollywood it would also have audio too, and you would hear the explosions.

    --
    Sig expected Real Soon Now.