Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

View the Moon in 3D on Your Desktop

Posted by samzenpus on Thu Nov 03, 2005 05:59 AM
from the explore-from-your-seat dept.
NASA Space The Internet
TheBeansprout writes "You can now view the moon in 3D With NASA World Wind with two sets of Clementine data and full placenames. "We have just digested the best of the images, so we can now deliver the moon at 66 feet (20 meters) of resolution" says Patrick Hogan, World Wind project manager at NASA Ames. "This is a first. No one has ever explored our moon in the 3-D interactive environment that World Wind creates," he adds. Download World Wind and view the quick tutorial or tour to interact, and there's some moon screenshots available too. A linux version of World Wind is slated for early 2006."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

View the Moon in 3D on Your Desktop 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Great (Score:4, Funny)

    by Muppski (918156) on Thursday November 03 2005, @06:01AM (#13939745)
    Now I dont even have to move to the window to see the moon

  • ...while we wait for Linux version, is anyone working on getting this stuff to Celestia [sourceforge.net]? Would rock if the two programs could easily use the same data though.

    The screenshots seem nice, but regrettably not really too much more impressive than what you can already do with Celestia. =(

    • Re:In the mean time... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bungopolis (763083) on Thursday November 03 2005, @06:22AM (#13939789)
      Celestia is a "universe" explorer, and it's very good at its job. WorldWind is a "world" explorer, and it's very good at its job.

      WorldWind has two primary advantages over Celestia for exploring the Moon:

      * Streamed imagery - data is downloaded as you view, which makes it possible to support extremely high resolution and detailed data that, if downloaded all at once (as would have to be the case with Celestia), would span hundreds of gigabytes.

      * Topographic projection - WorldWind supports topographic data for both the Earth and the Moon. This means that if you can see craters and mountains in 3D, which is what really sets it apart from viewing a flat image. Even viewing a flat image projected onto a simple sphere (as in Celestia) is not much more enlightening than viewing a flat photograph of the sphere itself.
      • I think it would be cool if the functionality of the two was merged. Just imagine have finished looking at our solar system, being able to come back to Earth and zoom into your house :)

  • An even closer view (Score:5, Funny)

    by KiloByte (825081) on Thursday November 03 2005, @06:14AM (#13939775)
    Mandatory Wikipedia link [wikipedia.org].

  • Better then google moon (Score:4, Funny)

    by bvdbos (724595) on Thursday November 03 2005, @06:14AM (#13939776)
    Of course they couldn't stay behind after Google released Google Moon [google.com] but this looks way more promising...
    Let me just say: Cool!!! (-9F, 451R, -23C, 250K on the average that is...)

  • Linux and Mac Versions (Score:4, Informative)

    by kf6auf (719514) on Thursday November 03 2005, @06:22AM (#13939791)
    According to the Wiki FAQ [worldwindcentral.com] anyone is encouraged to work on the port of the current version with some resources [worldwindcentral.com] they have made available and the next version (January 2006) should be cross-platform.
    • Quite correct. The thing with World Wind is that it's community-driven, so if people want ports then they need to step up and join in. In addition to your links there's also a forum section [nasa.gov] for ports and a how to get involved [worldwindcentral.com] page on the Wiki. We welcome all the help we can get - I came to WW from the Slashdotting 12 months ago, so let's see what this time can bring :)
  • It is indeed heartening to note that there is a plan to push out a Linux version, unlike Google which altogether seems to have forgotten the linux user.
    What is even sadder about Google is that it being a Linux shop, having derived so much benefit from the existence of Linux, refuses to actually return anything to the user community.

  • data data data only 22 CDROMs (Score:5, Informative)

    by rednuhter (516649) on Thursday November 03 2005, @06:23AM (#13939796) Homepage Journal
    the 22 CD ROMs from the Clementine project can be accessed from here

    http://starbase.jpl.nasa.gov/archive/clem1-l-h-5-d im-mosaic-v1.0/ [nasa.gov]
    (jpegs are in the browse directories)

    or if you have not the got the bandwidth they are only 220 USD from

    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/cd-rom/web_store.cgi?ca tegory=hires [nasa.gov]

    now if only I could find a the above as a DVD torrent, hmmm
  • "so we can now deliver the moon at 66 feet (20 meters) of resolution."
    I hope this is just press conference talk. Otherwise they should better not put metric in parenthesis but imperial measures. Just mod me flamebait not yet, there have rockets lost before because of this.

  • Developers are forking code to use java and c#! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by christophercook (21090) on Thursday November 03 2005, @06:54AM (#13939869) Homepage
    According to the developer they are planning to create a Java version for linux as well as the C#/DirectX version they have now:
    http://mail.worldwindcentral.com/pipermail/worldwi nd-dev/2005-September/000736.html [worldwindcentral.com]

    This is nuts! Trying to make one big complicated from work is hard enough, making two versions of it written in different languages is inexplicable! The only real reason hinted at is that Microsoft wouldn't like NASA using Mono for an official application. Does Microsoft really want NASA to use Java just to spite Mono?

    Download the code for WorldWind and have a look, then consider porting it to Java/OpenGL/Java3D. Then consider just using Mono with OpenGL bindings. Or consider funding Wine so it supports .Net based apps (maybe not that far off? Wine DirectX already works for many modern games).

    Somebody talk some sense into them. Or tell me why I'm wrong, either way someone has to sort this out otherwise it's going to be a massive waste of time and money.

    I'm ranting, I know - can anyone else see how backward this is?

  • First? (Score:5, Funny)

    by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Thursday November 03 2005, @06:57AM (#13939877) Homepage Journal
    "This is a first. No one has ever explored our moon in the 3-D interactive environment that World Wind creates,"

    I think Neil Armstrong would have something to say about that.

  • Pink Floyd (Score:3, Funny)

    by aktzin (882293) on Thursday November 03 2005, @07:09AM (#13939905)
    "There is no dark side on the Moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark."
  • That's the real reason BillG named his O/S Windows! he knew some day we are gonna look at the screen and view the physical world, including the moon...
  • "... so we can now deliver the moon at 66 feet (20 meters) of resolution ..."

    "Lord Vader, is our conquest complete?"
    "The moon is to be delivered into our hands tonight, my Master"

    Odd choice of words there, but whatever. This is teh cool3st. Can't wait for the Linux version!

  • A goatse image on the Road Map page within 30minutes of the Slashdotting. You're getting slow dudes :p

    I didn't mention in the article, but there is a partial clone of World Wind for Linux done by a community member.See the thread here [nasa.gov] for more info.

    People can also join #worldwind on irc.freenode.net. That's probably the best way to get involved with developing and find out what's where.

    And lastly...yes, Mars is on the way. Stay tuned.

  • The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. (Score:5, Funny)

    by AEton (654737) on Thursday November 03 2005, @07:23AM (#13939932)
    It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

    Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

    Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

    Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

  • 20 METERS? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Da Fokka (94074) on Thursday November 03 2005, @07:30AM (#13939951) Homepage
    For the last couple of months I have been checking obstinately if high-resolution data was finally available for my location - Utrecht, the Netherlands. But to no avail, I still have to manage with a measly 30m resolution. I can't quite see my house from up here!

    I understood the general reason for it - You start with the large cities and work down from there. There is little reason to provide hires data of the Sahara.

    But now we have been taken over by THE FRIGGIN' MOON! The data of that desolate celestial body is more accurate than the data of the Netherlands.
    • Hey, I'm a WW Dev, I do mostly imaging stuff.
      Hate to break it to you, but the reason their is no imagery for your area is because of _Your Government!_ The US Government has released most of the imagery (non-classified) that it has for the whole country, and thus, we have it in World Wind. I believe New Zealand has also done such a thing. We also have some imagery from South Africa. Sine we're not google, we cant pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase the imagery from Digital Globe and the other
    • But now we have been taken over by THE FRIGGIN' MOON! The data of that desolate celestial body is more accurate than the data of the Netherlands.

      For what it's worth, the Moon has a surface area of a bit less than forty million square kilometers. The Earth has a surface area of more than five hundred million square kilometers. The Moon's a way easier job. If it makes you feel better, the resolution of the Netherlands (er, images thereof...) is proportionately quite a bit better than the Moon data.

      ...A

  • I enjoy listening to Pink Floyd while exploring the moon.
    I have found that it is not made of cheese, it is made of pixels.

  • Interesting outliers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by greg_barton (5551) <greg_bartonNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Thursday November 03 2005, @10:27AM (#13941008) Homepage Journal
    I'm always fascinated by tiny inconsistencies. For instance, in this [worldwindcentral.com] picture of the dark side of the moon, there are a few areas that haven't been photographed. The areas are in relatively consistent patterns, where the sattelite's camera may have malfunctioned or the orbit didn't cover certain areas. All except for one. Check out the top right, on the left side of a large crater. It's an outlier, all by itself, smack in the middle of an interesting formation. Wouldn't they have tried to get that spot again, on a second go around? Why is it missing? And why isn't it part of a patern like the others?

  • The Moon, only in three dimensions? (Score:3, Funny)

    by payndz (589033) on Thursday November 03 2005, @10:42AM (#13941167)
    Inignot: You and your third dimension.
    Frylock: What about it?
    Inignot: Oh, nothing, it's cute. We have five.
    Err: Th... thousand.
    Inignot: Yes, five thousand.
    Err: Don't question it.
    Frylock: Oh, yeah? Well, I only see two.
    Inignot: Well, that sounds like a personal problem.

  • Great (Score:3, Funny)

    by Cro Magnon (467622) on Thursday November 03 2005, @11:55AM (#13941932) Homepage Journal
    So, now we're getting mooned from our own computers? What will they show us next? Uranus?

    • Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sockatume (732728) on Thursday November 03 2005, @06:27AM (#13939812) Homepage
      I'd say it's mainly because the instruments used to take the images have a 20m resolution. When there's a camera which can take pictures of the landing sites from earth, there will be pictures of the landing sites from earth. Not before.

    • that is easy (Score:4, Funny)

      by spectrokid (660550) on Thursday November 03 2005, @06:55AM (#13939872) Homepage
      they are not finished yet photoshopping the phoney lander in!

    • Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... (Score:5, Informative)

      by NeoThermic (732100) on Thursday November 03 2005, @07:29AM (#13939948) Homepage Journal
      >I guess this means we still won't be able to see the landing sites in enough detail?

      Correct. The largest object that is on the moon is the 14036kg SIVB from Apollo 15. Located at 1.51S 17.48W (or as a WWURI: worldwind://goto/world=Moon&lat=-1.51&lon=-17.48&a lt=13402 ), it isn't actually visible, possibly because that is its impact place, rather than a resting place (so it could well be smashed).

      The largest intact objects is the Lunar Rovers, and there's three of them ( Apollo 15's rover (worldwind://goto/world=Moon&lat=26.08&lon=3.66&al t=13402), Apollo 16's rover (worldwind://goto/world=Moon&lat=-8.97&lon=-15.51& alt=13402) and Apollo 17's rover (worldwind://goto/world=Moon&lat=20.17&lon=-30.77& alt=13402), however at about 2 meters in length, on a 20m/pixel basis they are a 10th of a pixel.

      So in short, if you're looking for 'evidence', you'll be waiting for higher-res images :)

      NeoThermic

      P.S. Sorry for the non-clickable URL's, but slashdot strips out the usefull characters, so WWURI's end up as: worldwind:gotoworldMoonlat-151lon-1748alt13402, which is useless

      • Small correction on myself. The offical design documentation lists the length of the rovers at 122 inches, which is 3 meters, so thats a 6th of a pixel at 20m/pixel; or still too small to see.

        NeoThermic
      • The largest intact objects left on the moon after the landings were not the LRVs but the descent stages for the LMs, one from each of the six successful landings. These are about 4 meters across. Other unintact items from the landings were the ascent stages of the LMs which were intentionally crashed into the moon to provide seismic data.

        http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/pages/aain dex/home1.html [okstate.edu] has impact point data for the ascent stages.
        • >The largest intact objects left on the moon after the landings were not the LRVs but the descent stages for the LMs

          Good point, but if they were visible, you would see them by looking where the rovers are (since all rovers were parked a few hundred meteres from the descent stages).

          I do find it intresting that the SIVB never left a large enough mark to make an impression on a 20m/pixel view, on the consideration that they weighed some 14,000 kg and (according to wikipedia) were 17.8m in length and a 6.6m

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.