Slashdot Mirror
Inside the World's Most Advanced Planetarium
notthatwillsmith writes "Earlier this month, the most technologically-advanced digital planetarium in the world opened in San Francisco's California Academy of Sciences. The new Morrison Planetarium's 75-foot screen replaces the traditional Zeiss projector with an array of 6 high-resolution DLP projectors arrayed around the edge of the theater, which are powered by three very different, but interesting computing clusters. The three clusters allow for projection of traditional planetarium shows, playback of ultra-high resolution movies, and display of anything from current atmospheric conditions on Earth to a (greatly accelerated) trip to the farthest reaches of the universe, all rendered in real-time on an 8800 sq. ft. dome. Maximum PC went on a behind the scenes tour with the engineers who built the systems that do everything from run the planetarium lights to the sound systems to the tech behind the screen to show you how it works and what it's like to drive, well ... the universe."
I was seriously annoyed when I saw that. It is perfectly legitimate to argue that federal money shouldn't(or should) be spent on planetarium hardware; but describing a planetarium projection system as an "overhead projector" is seriously pushing the bounds of honesty. If you think that educational hardware is a bad use of federal money, fine, come out and say so; but don't set up a ridiculous strawman(actual overhead projectors cost less than $500, anybody would be stupid to pay $3,000,000).
Since when were the presidential debates about honesty?
"My religion is to live --and die-- without regret." -- Milarepa
You see the fruit not of amusement park designers but of decades of educators trying to make education 'fun' rather than educational.
"He did mention that it was for a planetarium the time I seen him mention it. If you can't put 2 and 2 together to get what he was talking about it probably didn't matter what he called it."
I disagree. He chose the wording projector specifically because it implies a cheap device and therefore enforces the idea that this is wasteful spending. Plus, by questioning an institution devoted to intellectual pursuits he gets to attack those darn intellectuals modern Republicans seem to hate so much.
"Secondly, for all the bitching and moaning I see going on around here about space exploration being a drain funds for fattening up the poor, I find it odd that most slashdotters don't see they value in buying a couple thousand PCs and copies of Starry Night Backyard for each one of them for 3 million."
You seem to be implying that spending money making sure American's aren't living in absolute poverty (thus reducing the chances that their children become criminals) is more important than a space station that could easily be replaced by cheap unmanned satellites and a major push by NASA to go back to the moon to address our insecurities in regards to China's proposed landing there decades after we have. Is that correct or am I missing something?
"I think the planetarium, just like the public library, is becoming more and more outmoded by the home PC."
Have you ever seen a young child at a planetarium? Especially an academically inclined one? I can think of few better ways of addressing the United State's lack luster performance in turning out scientists and engineers than to expose children to stuff like this. We are a long ways off in home PC technology in instilling the awe of the universe that a planetarium can provide.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.