Panoramic Photos From The Apollo Missions 320
Ant writes "This link lets you experience the moon just as the Apollo missions' astronauts did -- almost as you were there -- with QuickTime panorama views. Less known is that during all the missions they made image sequences which with todays computer technics can be stitched together into 360-degree interactive panoramas giving you the possibility to view the moon almost as you were there. Many of these panoramas have been published before, but in low resolution and displayed in small sizes. During the last year the original films have been rescanned in large resolution and the Apollo 11 images were released the week before the 35 year anniversary."
Now I wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Let the conspiracy theorists loose... this should be fun...
Re:Now I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually do believe we landed on the moon of course.
Re:Now I wonder (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Now I wonder (Score:2)
bah.
Re:Now I wonder (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Now I wonder (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Now I wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Great idea!
I'm a skeptic! Can I go? Please?
Erm...I mean, prove it to me, you lying bastards.
Re:Now I wonder (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a skeptic! Can I go? Please?
Read the fine print, or you might overlook a crucial fact about the "Proof" mission: it's a one-way ride.
The Moon is a fascinating place, but it gets progressively less interesting as your oxygen runs out.
Re:Now I wonder (Score:2)
Re:Now I wonder (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Now I wonder (Score:3, Funny)
See the craters? I think we've already been there...
Re:Now I wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Now I wonder (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Now I wonder (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Now I wonder (Score:2)
Re:Now I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
New technologies and PR aside, the Apollo program accomplished very little except getting some footprints on the moon. We'd focused all our energy on sending people to the moon, once that was accomplished, we were ten years behind in establishing a support base upon which to implement constant space exploration, and lack of motivation kept us slipping past that. We never really recovered, and today we aren't much further along than we were in 1962, except in terms of technology. The shuttle is of limited use, and the space station itself is nearly useless as an orbital base (thanks to its orbit and lack of any crew transfer mechanism except the oversized, over-expensive shuttle). Can't recall where I'd heard it, but there's a comparison to using the shuttle to get to the space station like using a semi to get to work. It's impractical, we need a small commuter car, and maybe an SUV for the mid-sized jobs as well.
That's not to say that nothing good came out of the Apollo program. But, we spent so much money on it that once we got there, the "now what" train of thought kicked in, and other programs that were less exciting (space lab, etc) received less funding.
Instead of rushing to the Moon, if we'd focused first on establishing a permanent orbital presense along with a small suite of multipurpose reusable spacecraft (large cargo units like the Shuttle, along with small crewboats for crew transfers), and *then* gone to the moon, we'd be a lot further along now than we are.
Hopefully, NASA is looking further ahead than the next "big thing". Slow and steady wins the race, and planting feet on Mars will be meaningless if we don't follow it up with a continuious presence, a goal we abandoned following Apollo.
Re:Now I wonder (Score:2, Funny)
Frankly, I am quite pleased with the civilian dividends of the Apollo Program.
Sam and Max (Score:2)
Re:Now I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
Because we don't want to spend several percent of the GNP to do it.
Blame Canada! (Score:5, Informative)
Those guys had considerable experience pushing aerospace technology. In 1949 (yes, you read that correctly) they completed construction and successfully flew a 40 passenger jet airplane with a range of 1400 miles and an air speed of 427 mph.
The Avro Arrow jet fighter first flew in July, 1952 (yes, you read that right, too). It was a fully armoured, mach 2.0 fighter jet.
Other projects COMPLETED by their engineering department included:
1955 Small subsonic jet transport (business jet) 1955 VTOL fighter project 1956 Long range jet transport 1957 P-13 anti-missile missile 1958 Monorail 1958 Supersonic cheap interceptor missile 1958 Ballistic drag re-entry vehicle 1958 Space threshold vehicle 1959 Supersonic trans-atlantic transport studies
Now you know why "it took NASA only 7 years" - and why they could not do it again today.
Re:Blame Canada! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Now I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
(copies old post)
Here are some good reasons for why it'll take longer this time:
1. They had pretty much all the funding they could possibly want during the space race. This time they don't have that luxury.
2. Much greater safety paranoia now. When the crew of Apollo 1 was killed, NASA fixed the problem and moved on with the program. They didn't paralyze their manned spaceflight program, go into a period of national mourning, and launch congressional investigation committees.
3. Von Braun and the other German rocket geniuses who essentially designed and built the rockets they used are just about all dead. Granted, there's some folks around who trained under them, but there's no one with their sheer amount of experience.
4. NASA is much more diversified now than it used to be. Back then, landing on the moon was their one and only goal, and they were able to focus all their resources towards achieving that goal. Nowadays, it's almost impossible to cancel old programs and refocus on something else, because some constituency is going to have NASA's head on a platter.
5. The last time around, all they cared about was getting on the moon. This time, we want to not only land a brief mission on the moon, but we want to create a permanent, self-sustaining settlement there. We want to be sure that the systems we develop are not just going to be suitable for a one-shot quick landing, but that they'll also be useful for a permanent moon settlement.
Moon Cheese (Score:2)
Re:Now I wonder (Score:2)
Re:Now I wonder (Score:2)
Or is there some kind of double-negative rule kicks in here, and they're real, but I am not?
Re:Now I wonder (Score:2)
Damn you Quicktime! Damn yoooooouuuu! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Damn you Quicktime! Damn yoooooouuuu! (Score:2, Offtopic)
video/quicktime Quicktime mov Yes
video/x-quicktime Quicktime mov Yes
image/x-quicktime Quicktime mov Yes
video/quicktime Quicktime mp4 Yes
video/quicktime Quicktime - Session Description Protocol sdp Yes
application/x-quicktimeplayer Quicktime mov Yes
video/x-ms-asf-plugin Windows Media asf,asx Yes
video/x-msvideo AVI avi Yes
video/msvideo AVI avi
Re:Damn you Quicktime! Damn yoooooouuuu! (Score:4, Funny)
"It's dead already!"
Plus if you do manage to open the website you'll flood the whole compartment.
With what? Hell if I know but it killed that server!
Re:Damn you Quicktime! Damn yoooooouuuu! (Score:5, Funny)
I believe the future tense is uncalled for in this situation.
Re:Damn you Quicktime! Damn yoooooouuuu! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Damn you Quicktime! Damn yoooooouuuu! (Score:2)
Re:Damn you Quicktime! Damn yoooooouuuu! (Score:2)
It does bring me to the obvious question: what is there to view this under Linux? mplayer works for some things Apple, but does it work for this???
I'd really like to know the answer to that question before I contribute to the slashdotting of their server.
Re:Damn you Quicktime! Damn yoooooouuuu! (Score:2)
apt-get install mplayer w32codec
Re:Damn you Quicktime! Damn yoooooouuuu! (Score:4, Funny)
Never mind
(crawls back under rock)
Re:Damn you Quicktime! Damn yoooooouuuu! (Score:2)
Almost as I was 'there'? (Score:5, Funny)
So unless my version of Quicktime is missing a few extra plugins.....
Re:Almost as I was 'there'? (Score:2)
It comes with the beta version of Duke Nukem Forever.
Pretty cool, but really doesn't live up to the hype.
Re:Almost as I was 'there'? (Score:2)
I'm visualizing stale sweat, Catastrophic Ancient Body Odor, lubricant smells, the wonderful odor of ozone from electronics (just to add some spice
Ditto on the beer, but instead I have a 12" Quiznos TBG sub in front of me
Cheers,
SB
Re:Almost as I was 'there'? (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah... That's pretty much what it was like for the astronaut inbetween takes. (You do believe this guy [geocities.com], don't you?)
Re:Almost as I was 'there'? (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, the Moon... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh, the Moon... (Score:2)
Better Make Sure... (Score:3, Informative)
NYUD Links (Score:5, Informative)
Already slow...
http://www.panoramas.dk.nyud.net:8090/fullscreen3/ f29.html [nyud.net]
Very nice ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Very nice ... (Score:5, Funny)
And if the colo breaks down gigabytes too soon,
And if you cannot foot the bandwith bill,
And if your site explodes, slashdot the cached one too,
We'll see you on the dark side of the moon!
(I can't think of anything to say except... PWN3D! *snork*)
Re:Very nice ... (Score:4, Funny)
fading heartbeat...
Software to print panoramas under Linux? (Score:2)
Any recs for Linux software to create BIG prints (panoramas or posters) using regular 8.5x11" paper printers?
Someone got the dept. mixed up (Score:3, Insightful)
Timothy,
You're mixing two songs from R.E.M.'s Automatic for the People. The line from Man on the Moon is, "Andy, did you hear about this one?"
Monty is from track 7 (Monty Got a Raw Deal)...my personal favorite on the album.
We like the moon (Score:3, Funny)
Neil Armstrong said it best... (Score:5, Funny)
"That's one small click for a man, and a giant slashdotting for a completely unprepared webserver."
Crosshairs (Score:3, Funny)
The moon blows. Who wants to see crosshairs everywhere?
The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (Score:5, Funny)
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
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.
Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (Score:2, Insightful)
*Sigh*
I know
Here are but a few examples from a relatively historical document: The Bible
Genesis 37:9 - And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream m
Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (Score:2)
Damn clever, these revisionists.
Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (Score:2)
Is there a big CHA on it? (Score:3, Funny)
SPOOOOOOOONNNN!!!!!!!!
But how (Score:5, Funny)
Just as the Apollo missions' astronauts? (Score:4)
I didn't realize that accessing the moon was such a slow process. Kudos to the Apollo astronauts for putting up with the
Re:Just as the Apollo missions' astronauts? (Score:2)
Here is the google cache version.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here is the google cache version.... (Score:5, Funny)
You need to make it funny AND informative, like this:
MOooooooooON [66.102.7.104]
Moon was delayed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Moon was delayed (Score:2)
SB
Warp drive and vulcans (Score:2)
Re:Warp drive and vulcans (Score:2)
What I saw... (Score:2)
"Some would say the Earth is our Moon, but that would belittle the Moon"
Re:What I saw... (Score:2)
How about. "Point is: we're at the center, not you."
Stars? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know very much about this type of thing, so please excuse me if the answer is an obvious one.
Re:Stars? (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae
Essentially, you can see some stars when on the moon when facing away from the Sun and/or Earth. However, since the Earth reflects so much sunlight the stars do not have enough exposure on the film to become visible and are only faintly visible with the naked eye.
Re:Stars? (Score:2)
When the sun is up you have to turn down the contrast so you can see anything.
Shutter Speed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stars? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stars? (Score:2)
Re:Stars? (Score:3, Informative)
dead already, of course (Score:3, Funny)
torrent (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry about it not being a link, something wasn't working right with it, so just copy and paste.
heck with the moon, check out the terrestrial mtns (Score:2)
a quick google for qtvr porn didn't produce much, anyone know if there is a niche for this?
Apollo Science discoveries (Score:2, Informative)
Looking at the moon with the VLT (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Obligatory conspiracy theorist comment (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Another few years... (Score:2)
Re:Another few years... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:But, we never went to the moon (Score:2, Informative)
Re:But, we never went to the moon (Score:5, Insightful)
The Van Allen belts are actually mostly located over the equator- or atleast that's where they are strongest. By carefully choosing their trajectory, NASA were able to avoid the worst of the belts. However the astronauts still got about 1% of the dose necessary to get radiation poisoning.
* One movie shows the astronauts blasting off from the moon on their way home and the camera, which was on the moon, tilted up to follow the space craft. Who was left behind so they could tilt the camera up to follow the space craft?
It's an automated camera. Amazing what technology they had in those days! Lucky that, otherwise they would have had to leave a cameraman behind to die :-)
* The engine that was used to slow the Lunar Module down, so it didn't crash into the moon surface, puts out thousands of pounds of thrust. Where is the crater under this engine on the moon's surface? The surface dust wasn't even disturbed.
Look, gravity is only 1/6 of that on the earth. A helicopter flies by throwing its own weight in air downwards every second, which is similar to what the lander does; but the helicopter applies about 6x *more* force on the ground than the Lunar Module does with its landing rocket. Why doesn't the ground blow away when a helicopter lands?
* Supposedly, the temperature on the moon's surface is -200 degrees in the shade and over 200 degrees in the light. This means, since there is no atmosphere, there is nothing to hold the heat onto the surface.
Wrong! The surface itself holds the heat. And don't forget- it's in a vacuum, so it loses heat more slowly... just like a thermosflask.
So, when I am facing the light (sun), the front of my suit would be over 200 degrees and the back of my suit (shade) would be -200 degrees. My front would be toast and my back would be ice, instantly, since there is no atmosphere.
No, the heat of the sun is much the same on the moon since the moon is very nearly the same distance from the sun as the earth is. Actually you get reflection of the sun off the ground around you on the moon too, so it isn't so clearcut. The suits actually had airconditioning system in the backpack to keep the astronauts cool (it boiled water to the vacuum to take their heat away, and that of the sun- again because it's hard to cool down in a vacuum.)
* The surface of the moon is covered with dust. This dust was easily "kicked up", as shown by the astronauts. Why isn't there any dust settled on the space craft after the landing?
Actually that's pretty cool. If you look at the dust kicked up it goes in a tiny parabola away from the boot and then lands. It looks very different from what happens on earth due to the lack of air to hold it up. Any dust kicked up from the space craft would fly in a parabola and land directly away from the spacecraft. There's no easy way for it to come back towards the spacecraft, unless it bounced off a rock or something.
Re:But, we never went to the moon (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, it wasn't automated. It was manipulated manually by an operator at mission control on earth. It was not an easy job because he had to account for the signal transmission delay. This was noted in the excellent series "From the Earth to the Moon."
Re:But, we never went to the moon (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither did the Lunar Lander. Don't forget it only had to put out it's own weight on earth, divided by 6. Rocket engines are about 30x lighter than gas turbines, as used in helicopters, and the lander's fuel tank was practically empty by the time it touched down.
Typical government types.
LOL. I'm in the UK, where I was born, and I was 3 when it landed, and I have never worked for *any* government. :-)
Re:But, we never went to the moon (Score:3, Informative)
For those interested, Bad Astronomy [badastronomy.com] has some good explanations and links. Not that it matters, because if you believe we didn't land on the Moon, then hard facts arn't going to change your mind.
Also, if the missions were faked, the Russians would have called us out since they were our biggest (and only) competition to the Moon.
Re:But, we never went to the moon (Score:2)
It is unfortunate that most of you people who believe we didn't go have watched some half arsed documentry (from Fox networks - I mean come on the clue is in the name) and taken it as gospel, and you've decided that no matter how much real sc
Re:But, we never went to the moon (Score:2)
And just because you typed "fake apollo missions" in Google and it returned results full of (false) information doesn't make it true either.
Re:But, we never went to the moon (Score:2, Insightful)
Sent a powerful laser beam to the moon, aimed at the landing sites of either Apollo 11, 14 or 15.
It will be reflected back.
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/Apoll oLaser.html [nasa.gov]
http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/satellite_missions/list_ of_satellites/lunar.html [nasa.gov]
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo15/A15_Exper iments_LRRR.html [usra.edu]
Re:But, we never went to the moon (Score:2)
Re:really neat (Score:2)
Video cameras? (Score:2, Informative)
Apollo Cameras [si.edu]
The astronaut would stand in one spot, take a picture, turn a little, take another, and so on for a full 360 degrees.
Re:So... (Score:2)
Re:Toast (Score:2)
Re:Toast (Score:2)
Better believe it. I've read the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal [nasa.gov] where one of the astronauts mentions that the skin of the lander was so thin that when they decompressed it to commence an EVA it would make popping noises like a jerry can. That's not much protection between you and vacuum.
Utah never looked so good... (Score:3, Funny)
since the 1970's has made these "flybys"
a "reality".
I, for one, welcome our new Pixar masters!
Re:Bust. (Score:2)