Gore pushed a program called the Digital Earth, which has subsequently collapsed under its own weight, and the arrival of President Bush. Triana, a satellite that was supposed observe the Earth from L1, has been postponed because the International Space Station has priority over shuttle flights.
The Earth Observatory started as a collaboration between a few outreach specialists (government speak for a combination of marketing and education) and our scientist bosses to make NASA Earth science more available to the public, since NASA has A LOT of very interesting data that's almost impossible to get at.
for one thing, it's an innacurate quote. for another, the data used in the blue marble is 1km per pixel resolution, which is different from what an astronaut aboard the shuttle (which itself is different from an apollo flight halfway to the moon) is capable of seeing.
From the journal _Science News_, December 24 & 31, 1994, volume 146, nos. 26 & 27, pages 417-448, in the article entitled *Earthmovers: Humans take their place alongside wind, water, and ice*, pp 432-433, we have, cited under fair use or whatever it is:
(begin quoted material)
Twenty-five years after his historic moonwalk, Buzz Aldrin wants to put to rest a nagging myth. For the record, Apollo astronauts could not see the Great Wall of China or other evidence of human existence from a distance of 400,000 kilometers. "That's a misconception. Journalists have fallen into that trap just to be sensationalistic," he decries.
If truth be told, Aldrin didn't spend much time peering homeward or cogitating his place in the cosmos. "The human astronaut is not able to look for the Great Wall on Earth. He's not able to philosophize on the meaning of life. He's focused on his job in front of him, which is not tripping over the television cable."
From their vantage point only a few hundred kilometers above Earth's surface, astronauts aboard the space shuttle can easily make out *Homo Sapiens'* handiwork. Urban sprawl, ribbons of roads, quilted cropland, razed patches of forest, and some national boundries show up. Yes, even the Great Wall stands out amid the Chinese countryside when the sun hits it just right.
"We do clearly see ways in which human beings are changing the surface of the planet," says shuttle asronaut Jeffrey Hoffman.
Unfortunately, I didn't have time to make all the views I would have liked: one centered on each continent, one centered on each ocean, probably a couple for the Pacific, versions with ocean bathymetry, with and without cloud, etc. etc. etc. Sorry you got left out.
It's a specular highlight. No, it's not a 100% physically accurate specular highlight, but the oceans and other water bodies have pronounced sunglint which does a good job of mucking up certain types of satellite measurements. In fact, even forests have some glint.
At least two of the satellites involved--Terra [with the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument] and Landsat 7 [with the Enhanced Thematic Mapper plus (ETM+)]--have an orbital revisit of once every 16 days. Due to the field of view, low resolution data - 250 km per pixel (MODIS) - is produced every day or so. Medium resolution (15 meters per pixel, ETM+) every 16 days (well, maybe 9). IKONOS, which provides 1 meter data, is a commerical mission, and I don't know the specifics, but the revisit time is even less frequent.
As cool as iTunes and the iPod are MP3 is a lossy format, even at the highest sampling rate, it tosses out some information (=sound) from the ripped CD
both iTunes and iPod allow playback of uncompressed audio.
Computer graphics can-of course-be art. However, most computer
graphics currently produced are either commercial art/graphic design,
Hollywood special effects, or adolescent tinkering, and graphics are an
infant art form that have yet to find a "voice".
Design is sometimes accepted as fine art, especially after several
generations have passed. The recent art nouveau exhibit at the National
Gallery of Art in Washington, DC featured posters, furniture, jewelry,
books, etc. With 100 years of hindsight it's easy to pick outstanding
examples of a commerical genre and designate it art. Film special
effects are usually produced by a team of technicians under strict
direction in an effort to realize someone else's vision. I don't
see that as a condusive environment for producing art, which is largely
an expression of individual creativity. 3D chrome balls, fractal
patterns, photoshop filters, and the like may produce interesting
images, but I don't think they are art, since they are largely devoid of
content. (In my opinion the algorithms that generate fractals are more
artistic than their output.) The traditional fine art establishment sees
these examples of computer graphics, and dismisses the genre
offhand.
Another obstacle to the acceptance of computer graphics is the short
history of the art form. Video displays are about 30 years old,
widespread personal computers maybe 15. This has two effects: artists
don't know what to do with the technology, and the conventions of the
genre aren't established (conversely, the conventions are not regarded
as fine art). Right now one emphasis of computer graphics is to emulate
photography, for instance the various depth of field and focal length
options available in 3D programs. In my mind, it's more appropriate to
focus on the unique strengths and weaknesses of computers. (here's one
artist who is making that attempt:
http://www.art.net/~jeremy/cg/rndspoon.html)
Eventually, CG will mature, and we'll focus on the quality of the
art, not the viabiltiy of the medium.
Slashdot Mirror
Gore pushed a program called the Digital Earth, which has subsequently collapsed under its own weight, and the arrival of President Bush. Triana, a satellite that was supposed observe the Earth from L1, has been postponed because the International Space Station has priority over shuttle flights.
The Earth Observatory started as a collaboration between a few outreach specialists (government speak for a combination of marketing and education) and our scientist bosses to make NASA Earth science more available to the public, since NASA has A LOT of very interesting data that's almost impossible to get at.
for one thing, it's an innacurate quote. for another, the data used in the blue marble is 1km per pixel resolution, which is different from what an astronaut aboard the shuttle (which itself is different from an apollo flight halfway to the moon) is capable of seeing.
f ro m.space/great_wall_from_space.html
http://www.urbanlegends.com/science/great.wall.
From the journal _Science News_, December 24 & 31, 1994, volume 146, nos. 26 & 27, pages 417-448, in the article entitled *Earthmovers: Humans take their place alongside wind, water, and ice*, pp 432-433, we have, cited under fair use or whatever it is:
(begin quoted material)
Twenty-five years after his historic moonwalk, Buzz Aldrin wants to put to rest a nagging myth. For the record, Apollo astronauts could not see the Great Wall of China or other evidence of human existence from a distance of 400,000 kilometers. "That's a misconception. Journalists have fallen into that trap just to be sensationalistic," he decries.
If truth be told, Aldrin didn't spend much time peering homeward or cogitating his place in the cosmos. "The human astronaut is not able to look for the Great Wall on Earth. He's not able to philosophize on the meaning of life. He's focused on his job in front of him, which is not tripping over the television cable."
From their vantage point only a few hundred kilometers above Earth's surface, astronauts aboard the space shuttle can easily make out *Homo Sapiens'* handiwork. Urban sprawl, ribbons of roads, quilted cropland, razed patches of forest, and some national boundries show up. Yes, even the Great Wall stands out amid the Chinese countryside when the sun hits it just right.
"We do clearly see ways in which human beings are changing the surface of the planet," says shuttle asronaut Jeffrey Hoffman.
(end quoted material)
Unfortunately, I didn't have time to make all the views I would have liked: one centered on each continent, one centered on each ocean, probably a couple for the Pacific, versions with ocean bathymetry, with and without cloud, etc. etc. etc. Sorry you got left out.
It's a specular highlight. No, it's not a 100% physically accurate specular highlight, but the oceans and other water bodies have pronounced sunglint which does a good job of mucking up certain types of satellite measurements. In fact, even forests have some glint.
At least two of the satellites involved--Terra [with the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument] and Landsat 7 [with the Enhanced Thematic Mapper plus (ETM+)]--have an orbital revisit of once every 16 days. Due to the field of view, low resolution data - 250 km per pixel (MODIS) - is produced every day or so. Medium resolution (15 meters per pixel, ETM+) every 16 days (well, maybe 9). IKONOS, which provides 1 meter data, is a commerical mission, and I don't know the specifics, but the revisit time is even less frequent.
b le/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/AM1/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Landsat/
and in response to the target remark, we are no longer allowed to post labelled satellite images of NASA centers.
More cool related imagery (shameless plug): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMar
As cool as iTunes and the iPod are MP3 is a lossy format, even at the highest sampling rate, it tosses out some information (=sound) from the ripped CD
both iTunes and iPod allow playback of uncompressed audio.
Computer graphics can-of course-be art. However, most computer graphics currently produced are either commercial art/graphic design, Hollywood special effects, or adolescent tinkering, and graphics are an infant art form that have yet to find a "voice".
Design is sometimes accepted as fine art, especially after several generations have passed. The recent art nouveau exhibit at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC featured posters, furniture, jewelry, books, etc. With 100 years of hindsight it's easy to pick outstanding examples of a commerical genre and designate it art. Film special effects are usually produced by a team of technicians under strict direction in an effort to realize someone else's vision. I don't see that as a condusive environment for producing art, which is largely an expression of individual creativity. 3D chrome balls, fractal patterns, photoshop filters, and the like may produce interesting images, but I don't think they are art, since they are largely devoid of content. (In my opinion the algorithms that generate fractals are more artistic than their output.) The traditional fine art establishment sees these examples of computer graphics, and dismisses the genre offhand.
Another obstacle to the acceptance of computer graphics is the short history of the art form. Video displays are about 30 years old, widespread personal computers maybe 15. This has two effects: artists don't know what to do with the technology, and the conventions of the genre aren't established (conversely, the conventions are not regarded as fine art). Right now one emphasis of computer graphics is to emulate photography, for instance the various depth of field and focal length options available in 3D programs. In my mind, it's more appropriate to focus on the unique strengths and weaknesses of computers. (here's one artist who is making that attempt: http://www.art.net/~jeremy/cg/rndspoon.html)
Eventually, CG will mature, and we'll focus on the quality of the art, not the viabiltiy of the medium.