Slashdot Mirror


A Half-Gigabyte View of the Moon

An anonymous reader writes "A new 24,000-pixel-square half-gigabyte mosaic from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter shows the Moon's nearside as never before. The 1,300 black-and-white frames were acquired during a two-week period in December 2010. There is also video of the half gig moon."

112 comments

  1. Half GB worth of pictures? by Shikaku · · Score: 1

    Slashdotted in 3, 2, 1....

    1. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by DanTheStone · · Score: 1

      It's actually a single, gigantic .tif file.

    2. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      Mirror here: moon

    3. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by xMrFishx · · Score: 0

      That's no moon...

    4. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1-pi/4 of it is black, I feel cheated!

    5. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's Edward James Olmos's face.

    6. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by some_guy_88 · · Score: 1

      In that case, tif should have done a good job compressing it so most of the half gig should be on the rest.

    7. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by ghmh · · Score: 1

      There's a clone of Sam Rockwell there too

    8. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's yo mama.

    9. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by C_amiga_fan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      >>>It's actually a single, gigantic .tif file.

      Looks like one giant Gray glob on dialup.... Oh wait - forgot to turn off the IMG compression.

      --
      FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
    10. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If ever there was a perfect time for the -1 Overrated mod, this is it. Not offtopic enough to be offtopic, but good god, why on earth would anyone care? Why would you even post that? It's like that one guy who doesn't have a TV. You're still in the stone age. We get it. We don't care.

    11. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by commodore6502 · · Score: 0

      >>>a perfect time for the -1 Overrated mod

      It was a JOKE anon.coward. "24,000 pixels x 24,000 pixels and it still looks a giant gray blob on dialup." Jeez

      Thanks for the -1 "lacking a funny bone" mod Mr. AC. One of these days I'll discover your read UserID and -1 all your posts, as you do to me day-after-day-after-day.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    12. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ha ha... oh wait, nobody's laughing.

      oh hey i accidentally on purpose forgot to toggle the 0x20 capitalization bit in my message, aren't i funny.

    13. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by Technician · · Score: 1

      They have a good server. I just finished the download in about 15 minutes. All I can say is wow!

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    14. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by Technician · · Score: 1

      Someone has a stretch of the number 1/2 gig.. Here is the size of the TIFF..
      155.5 MB (163085739 bytes)

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    15. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Your download must be broken, it should be around 550 MB.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    16. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are another commodore sock, trolling yourself in a sad, failed attempt to garner sympathy for the parent account.

    17. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it, you used to be very sympathetic towards C64_love. What happened?

    18. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One of these days I'll discover your read UserID and -1 all your posts, as you do to me day-after-day-after-day.

      As I have stated many, many times before, I do not actually enjoy modding you down. But you leave me no alternative. You are doing more harm than good towards our mutual views.

    19. Re:Half GB worth of pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to need the picture of Olmos's ass back...

  2. Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    map it. Anyone ?

  3. That's no moon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wait... it is a moon.

    1. Re:That's no moon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is not the moon you are looking for...

    2. Re:That's no moon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait. These pictures indicate it it is. Sorry, every@#$2^ 6
            $ & +
                % "
                # dropped carrier

      There, fixed that for you...

  4. Resolution by Seumas · · Score: 1

    It can resolve the surface at 2 feet (0.5 m) per pixel — good enough to reveal even the paths worn in the lunar soil by the astronauts' boots.

    Holy crap.

    1. Re:Resolution by xMrFishx · · Score: 1

      Time to find them, and then for the crowds to scream "shopped". Shotgun not looking.

    2. Re:Resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It can resolve the surface at 2 feet (0.5 m) per pixel — good enough to reveal even the paths worn in the lunar soil by the astronauts' boots.

      Holy crap.

      I agree. Those are some HUGE boots.

    3. Re:Resolution by SimonTS · · Score: 1

      2 feet per pixel? Is that 2 left feet, 2 right feet or one of each? I guess it would depend on whether the astronauts were taking giant steps or jumping at the time.

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

      They were not exactly 'walking' more jump shuffle...

    5. Re:Resolution by Zcar · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not this image.

      This is a mosaic from the LROC's wide angle camera. A rough, back-of-the-envelope calculate dividing the diameter of the moon by 24000 pixels suggests a spatial resolution around 140m.

      The 0.5m resolution is from the main camera. A 0.5m mosaic of the entire Earth-facing side of the moon would be on the order of 7000000x7000000 not 24000x24000.

    6. Re:Resolution by Draconis183 · · Score: 1

      Obviously those are shopped in there. We all know we never really went to the moon. Ever. :)

    7. Re:Resolution by kent_eh · · Score: 2

      I'm waiting until the pictures are good enough to find that damn lost golf ball.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    8. Re:Resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh. Those are either some awfully small feet or awfully big metres.

    9. Re:Resolution by smitty97 · · Score: 1

      Giant leaps for mankind, of course

      --
      mod me funny
    10. Re:Resolution by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Well, by the math they're using in that article, one meter is equal to four feet which is pretty inaccurate ( 1 meter actually is about 3.3 feet).

    11. Re:Resolution by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Neil Armstrong must have had some pretty big feet!

      (Never mind, as someone else pointed out, it's incorrect. 24000 pixels doesn't give that kind of resolution)

    12. Re:Resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they weren't shopped. Its all rendered. :P

    13. Re:Resolution by mmj638 · · Score: 0

      When you say "back-of-the-envelope" you mean Windows Calculator don't you ...

    14. Re:Resolution by Zcar · · Score: 1

      Google, actually. Try it: "diameter of the moon / 24000".

      Of course, I meant "back-of-the-envelope" to mean it was an approximation, not taking into account things like differing spatial resolution as you move across the image, etc.

  5. Anyone know the location of the moon landings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It should be high rez enough to see the leftover junk from the manned landings. If this doesn't shut the moon landing conspiracists up, nothing will.

    1. Re:Anyone know the location of the moon landings? by jdgeorge · · Score: 2

      ... nothing will.

      Correct! We have a winner!

    2. Re:Anyone know the location of the moon landings? by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      Why is that? Because photos can't be doctored? Seriously, anyone that believes that the moon landings were a hoax will continue to come up with conspiracy theories and claim falsified evidence. There really is no way to argue with or convince them short of flying them up there for a personal look-see, and of course that would never happen. It's not even worth wasting time on them.

    3. Re:Anyone know the location of the moon landings? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      There really is no way to argue with or convince them short of flying them up there for a personal look-see, and of course that would never happen.

      Why would that convince them? They'll claim that you flew them to the Arizona desert and are just pretending it's the moon.

    4. Re:Anyone know the location of the moon landings? by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 1

      Open the window.

      --
      --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
    5. Re:Anyone know the location of the moon landings? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      It should be high rez enough to see the leftover junk from the manned landings. If this doesn't shut the moon landing conspiracists up, nothing will.

      I appreciate your optimism, but these guys got the backing of a self-proclaimed photographer who doesn't understand how bounce cards work to offer his testimonial. I don't think that group is going anywhere no matter what is found.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    6. Re:Anyone know the location of the moon landings? by nido · · Score: 1

      If this doesn't shut the moon landing conspiracists up, nothing will.

      All the interesting stuff is on the far side of the moon. Wonder when they'll release those high-resolution photos...

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
    7. Re:Anyone know the location of the moon landings? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      They are not going to show you the masonic lodge and the giant space communications array that the aliens built in 1207. Just give it up. You will have to join and become a master mason in order to even see the photos of it, and become worshipful master before you can go there.

      Now I need to go kill myself as I have revealed far too much. My brothers will be here shortly to torch the house... hopefully they torch the right one this time.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:Anyone know the location of the moon landings? by mbone · · Score: 1

      All of the Moon landing sites have high res images from LRO.

      Heck, they even found the long missing Lunakhod 1, enabling it to be recovered by LLR.

    9. Re:Anyone know the location of the moon landings? by mbone · · Score: 3, Informative

      All the interesting stuff is on the far side of the moon. Wonder when they'll release those high-resolution photos...

      Like this one ?

      They are all available - I would suggest you start by browsing the gallery.

    10. Re:Anyone know the location of the moon landings? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      One would imagine that the gravity differences would make it clear, too, but they're also welcome to keep walking until they find the walls.

  6. Why black and white? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the NASA article,

    the WAC maps nearly the whole Moon every month, in 7 wavelengths

    Why do they give us only one?

    1. Re:Why black and white? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, first, your vision system is incapable of separating more than three colors (or four if you're one of the lucky chicks).
      Second, your computer's graphic system only displays three colors,.for that reason.
      Finally, since those three colors in all probability do not correspond to the observed wavelengths, picking 3 of the observed wavelebgths and dumping them in would result in a weird false-color experience that does not look like the moon.

    2. Re:Why black and white? by node+3 · · Score: 1

      According to the NASA article,

      the WAC maps nearly the whole Moon every month, in 7 wavelengths

      Why do they give us only one?

      White isn't a wavelength. They most likely took some or all 7 of the wavelengths and processed them together into this greyscale image.

      These sorts of "cameras" don't take normal photographs. They are scientific instruments, and the data has to be heavily processed if they are to be made into useful and appealing images. None of the images from Hubble are how the things it's showing look, they are all false-color, which means the scientists gave each wavelength a color, and processed them together to give a coherent image. This is because the filters (which only allow certain wavelengths to reach the sensor) are not red, green, and blue, like on your digital camera (or cyan, yellow, and magenta, like on your printer), because RGB (or CYM) are not scientifically useful wavelengths. For Hubble, the wavelengths of things like Hydrogen are far more useful. These false-color images work great with something like a nebula, but don't work well at all with the Moon, unless you'd find a psychedelic image of the Moon useful.

      If the camera on the orbiter has RGB or CYM, then it's possible to make a full-color image. The regolith on the Moon isn't terribly colorful, so even if it were in color, it would look pretty much like it does now, but at three times the file size. That's assuming the scientists chose to add three primary colors to the set of filters, each of which adds cost, complexity, and weight to the mission.

  7. Re:Flag or Rover by xmgarcia · · Score: 1

    Let's wait for the superzoomers to answer that... but I would say it was really unlucky if there isn't any...

  8. Alternate to download... by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Alternative to downloading 500+ MB .tif from overwhelmed server...

    Moon

    1. Re:Alternate to download... by radl · · Score: 1

      I often wonder why such content is not published as a torrent. Net effect ftw...

      --
      1266953+17
    2. Re:Alternate to download... by PreparationH67 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it seems like their whole site has ground to a halt. wget is currently stuck :(

  9. SWEET! Google Moon! by teaserX · · Score: 2

    ...or maybe GoogleMaps craterview would be cool

    --
    We really need your help
    http://www.gofundme.com/help-sherry
    1. Re:SWEET! Google Moon! by chogori · · Score: 1

      One word: Seadragon. Please, please, please!

    2. Re:SWEET! Google Moon! by molo · · Score: 2

      You mean like this?

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    3. Re:SWEET! Google Moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er... http://zoom.it/7Ze7

  10. Check out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ [for March 3, 2011]

  11. So, where are the.... by cooperaaaron · · Score: 0

    aliens ? Only 1/2 of the moon ? What's on the other half ?

    1. Re:So, where are the.... by gregthebunny · · Score: 1

      Pink Floyd, apparently.

  12. Misread the summary by itsenrique · · Score: 1

    shows the Moon's nearside as never before.

    Anyone else misread that as rearside? Time to lay off the porn.

    1. Re:Misread the summary by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Anyone else misread that as rearside? Time to lay off the porn.

      Well, that kind of porn, anyway.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Misread the summary by itsenrique · · Score: 1

      Hey, it was "of the moon" in the title ;-).

  13. Photoshopped! by objekt · · Score: 1

    "good enough to reveal even the paths worn in the lunar soil by the astronauts' boots."

    Yeah, right! It's Photoshopped.

    --
    -- Boycott Shell
    1. Re:Photoshopped! by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows the wind would have blown the tracks over. Of course it's Photoshopped.

  14. Two observations by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

    One looks like a deep dry river bed around Archimedes. WTF is that? It's not shallow like the others (I guess lava flows?). Second, I see a short crater rows. I guess this is from a stream of some disintegrated meteor?

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Two observations by mbone · · Score: 4, Informative

      Crater rows are typically secondary craters (i.e., the stuff splashed out of some larger impact).

    2. Re:Two observations by Kagura · · Score: 1

      What? The OP was right. Crater rows are from disintegrated meteors (tidal forces, etc.), like Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 and hundreds of other real-life examples. What you are talking about, large impacts causing secondary craters, does not happen.

  15. LIES! by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    From the article : "The combined image shows slight banding where the 1,024-pixel-wide swaths were stitched together."

    BULL! those are where the moon farmers were harvesting their moon wheat! It's all a coverup!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:LIES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. That's a trail left by the whalers on the moon!

  16. we need a torrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so here it is

    http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6216436

  17. 24000^2 - 3.14159 (24000/2)^2 pixels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah well 123,610,657.88 (21.46%) of those pixels are completely black.

  18. Slashdot Effect by Mordocai · · Score: 1

    Well, the slashdot effect definitely hit the .tif's site (lroc.sese.asu.edu) for a bit(got to the point where wget lost the connection, and was dial-up speeds before that), but it seems they've mostly recovered! Getting about 2Mbps on the download now.

  19. That's no moon... by aztektum · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wait. These pictures indicate it it is. Sorry, everyone! False alarm.

    I'm so embarrassed.

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
  20. Libration by tessellated · · Score: 2

    I wonder how they compensated the libration in the timeframe they took the images.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration

    And no, I didn't read TFA.

    --
    'When the Going gets Weird, the Weird turn Pro.' - Hunter S. Thompson
    1. Re:Libration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They didn't take pictures from the Earth, they took them from lunar orbit... So there is no libration.

    2. Re:Libration by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Libration would apply to pictures taken from earth, not to pictures taken by an orbiting reconnaissance module.

    3. Re:Libration by mbone · · Score: 1

      Librations are small variations in the rotation of the moon, either real ("physical librations") or apparent (the apparent ones - the "geometrical librations" - are caused by variations in the Moon's orbital motion, which is not uniform, and which changes slowly with time).

      For a Lunar orbiter, the geometrical librations are irrelevant, and the physical librations are accounted for in the spacecraft ephemeris.

    4. Re:Libration by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      The pictures were taken from a spacecraft orbiting the moon, not from earth. Libration won't effect the spacecraft and more than it affects the sats that give us Google Earth images.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    5. Re:Libration by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      It's assembled from orbital images, so they just matched up one image to an adjacent one. (OK, so it's not actually that simple, but that it the general idea.) Libration isn't an issue.

    6. Re:Libration by dylsexia · · Score: 1

      And you'll sometimes find that tropical libations are served with cute little umbrellas.

  21. Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Turn off the sound first.

    1. Re:Video by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      There's sound in space?

  22. She didn't read it properly by SimonTS · · Score: 1

    My wife got all excited by this story. She'd always told me that there were pixies on the moon.

  23. Canada by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

    I'm going to send an email to everyone I know in Canada

  24. Fast, smooth, zooming version at zoom.it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    A zooming version is available at zoom.it

  25. mirrors needed by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    Man, they need some mirrors badly. Only getting 500KB/sec.. gonna take forever to download.

  26. You won't be able to see the moon landing site by rimugu · · Score: 2

    Off course you won't be able to see the moon landing site.
    Some will tell you is because of resolution.
    I say it is because New Mexico is not in the moon.

    1. Re:You won't be able to see the moon landing site by slb · · Score: 1

      Of course, conspirationists don't RTFA where the first link point you to a high res image of a landing site.
      Now how your trolling has been moderated positive to this point is beyond my understanding....

      --
      http://www.transparency.org
  27. Just Amazing by stargazer1sd · · Score: 1

    I can see my house in that picture.
    Once I get my grubby paws on the entire mosaic, my copy of Rukl's lunar atlas is going up on Cloudy Nights.

    --
    Play it cool, play it cool, 50-50 fire and ice.
  28. Re:WARNING : FLASH SITE by mbone · · Score: 0

    Uh, because official Arizona State University sites paid for by NASA are not prime goatse territory ?

  29. Similar Earth image by gstr · · Score: 1

    Any super resolution image for the Earth around?

    1. Re:Similar Earth image by speederaser · · Score: 1

      Any super resolution image for the Earth around?

      Here's one:
      http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/136214main_BlueMarble_2005_west.jpg

      And here's another (seriously, download it!):
      http://www.google.com/earth/index.html

      Enjoy!

    2. Re:Similar Earth image by gstr · · Score: 1

      First one partially answers but I need more resolution in one image http://gigapan.org/ this has some local interesting photos.

  30. Black and White fotos!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "black-and-white frames" doesn't NASA have color cameras???

  31. Half a gig sounds impressive, but ... by mmj638 · · Score: 1

    If this were a JPEG it'd be around 40 MB.

    1. Re:Half a gig sounds impressive, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And 270 MB PNG.

  32. So little from China by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    And so much from NASA. Seriously, NASA releases just about everything, while CHina gives just enough to try and make themselves sound nice. Yet, it is a fraction of what they recover. WHy? Because their space program is a MILITARY system, not a civilian one. For you westerners pushing for us to work with China on space, keep in mind that you are helping on weapon systems that will be pointed at us.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  33. ya mines 549 meg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and i grabbed a lot a neat images form it and might even print it all off and make a floor wall ceilling of it

  34. Ah a TIF file and an iPad. I've an app for that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the author of a number of iPad TIF readers this 549 megapixel image was yet another challenge. Fortunately we spent a few weeks in February dealing with Petroleum well logs which can be 2530x186,000 pixels, largest we worked with was about 425 megapixels, so what's another 100 megapixels?

    In our stable of products "Well Logs" for the iPad/iPhone is the only app that will let you open the file as it's optimized for 500 megapixel TIFF files where as our other products only work up to 250 megapixels.

    http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/well-logs/id419051479?mt=8

    (a) the thumbnail is wrong, oh well, math for long skinny truncate is wrong for a rectangle.

    (b) It takes about 3 hours to pre-render the TIFF into a meta-file. We'll have desktop support for that step in April sometime.

    Still once it's done, then re-opening is lightning fast and zoom zoom zoom...

  35. Amazing results from a small camera size. by popoutman · · Score: 1

    I really do think that it's amazing what the right hardware in the right place can do for increasing our knowledge. The optics on this spacecraft that generated the data, are no larger than an average webcam at ~1.2mm aperture, F/5 focal ratio described as a telescope (6mm f/5 described as a camera lens). Really impressive dataset.
    I can't wait for the Virtual Moon Atlas to have this dataset available..

    --
    - This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
  36. Blue cheese? by bjb · · Score: 1

    And after all these years I was convinced that the moon was made of blue cheese...

    --
    Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...