Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Space

Panoramic Photos From The Apollo Missions 320

Posted by timothy
from the monty-have-you-heard-about-this-one dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Panoramic Photos From The Apollo Missions

Comments Filter:
  • by Quasar1999 (520073) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:22PM (#11614420) Journal
    How they got panoramic shots of the fake moon set without getting any of the lights or equipment in the shots... ;)

    Let the conspiracy theorists loose... this should be fun... ;)
    • Re:Now I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)

      they simply lit it with spotlights from above where the panorama shows, or even simpler, they moved the cameras as they took the panarama shots. /conspiracy

      I actually do believe we landed on the moon of course.
    • by PepsiProgrammer (545828) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:33PM (#11614533)
      The real mystery is why it took NASA only 7 years after jfk's speach in 62 to make it to the moon. But they estimate it will take 15 years here in 2005 to go again. I bet we could get up there in four years if we thought there was oil.
      • I bet we could get up there in four years if we thought there was oil.

        See the craters? I think we've already been there...
      • Re:Now I wonder (Score:4, Insightful)

        by fm6 (162816) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:50PM (#11614675) Homepage Journal
        Since the whole "back to the moon" thing is pure political flimflam, Bush has to say 15 years. If he said, 7 years, he'd have to make real progress while he's still President. This way he can just order a few bogus studies and projects, and claim to be the new JFK.
      • Re:Now I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Uhlek (71945) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @11:08PM (#11614815)
        The Apollo missions, like most of our early space program, were largely a kludge, and, in some opinions, a huge waste of time and resources.

        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.
        • by iocat (572367)
          What about Tang! And that foam they make those expensive matresses out of! And that pen that writes upside down!

          Frankly, I am quite pleased with the civilian dividends of the Apollo Program.

      • Re:Now I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)

        by el-spectre (668104)
        and the answer for $200....

        Because we don't want to spend several percent of the GNP to do it.
      • Blame Canada! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Morris Schneiderman (132974) on Wednesday February 09, 2005 @12:54AM (#11615479)
        "it took NASA only 7 years" because they hired many of the engineers and middle managers that had been fired by Avrow in Toronto when the new Canadian government cancelled production of the Avrow Arrow jet fighter.

        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)

          by isaacwith2as (543482)
          It also had the first fly-by-wire system, and the next plane to have similar performance was a Soviet interceptor from the 80's. Way ahead of it's time.
      • Re:Now I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)

        by FleaPlus (6935) on Wednesday February 09, 2005 @04:13AM (#11616236) Journal
        The real mystery is why it took NASA only 7 years after jfk's speach in 62 to make it to the moon. But they estimate it will take 15 years here in 2005 to go again.

        (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.
      • Bugger the oil, I want them to bring me back some of those moon women and moon cheese, in that order.
    • All I know is, I can't even look at the fake panoramic shots of a fake moon mission because of the /. effect, so it really maybe it IS all a fake.

      Or is there some kind of double-negative rule kicks in here, and they're real, but I am not?

    • No you idiot, they sent Gundam 01 to take the shots.
  • by theparanoidcynic (705438) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:22PM (#11614425)
    By the time I reboot into XP or start my Mac that site will be toast.
  • by muntumbomoklik (806936) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:23PM (#11614436)
    I've got a beer in my hand and three slices of pizza on a plate in front of me. I can also breathe without a helmet and can't bounce around.

    So unless my version of Quicktime is missing a few extra plugins.....
    • You must not have the gravity control peripheral.

      It comes with the beta version of Duke Nukem Forever.

      Pretty cool, but really doesn't live up to the hype.
    • Yeah, where's the smell-o-vision plugin?

      I'm visualizing stale sweat, Catastrophic Ancient Body Odor, lubricant smells, the wonderful odor of ozone from electronics (just to add some spice :), and that oh-so-subtle "Somebody's Lived In This Suit Before" odor, which, of course, defies description unless you've experienced it. It can be catastrophically mind-altering :)

      Ditto on the beer, but instead I have a 12" Quiznos TBG sub in front of me :) Pizza, meh :) /begin_flamewar Quiznos rules :)

      Cheers,
      SB
    • I've got a beer in my hand and three slices of pizza on a plate in front of me. I can also breathe without a helmet and can't bounce around.

      Yeah... That's pretty much what it was like for the astronaut inbetween takes. (You do believe this guy [geocities.com], don't you?)

  • I thought these were screenshots of Myst VII.
    • Sorry, Myst 5 [ubi.com] will be the last in the series according to Cyan Worlds. A shame, but I guess all good things must come to an end. It would be even worse to draw the franchise out (a la Star Trek).
  • Better Make Sure... (Score:3, Informative)

    by dcigary (221160) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:24PM (#11614443) Homepage
    ....they don't violate The IPIX Patent [virtualproperties.com]
  • NYUD Links (Score:5, Informative)

    by bucklesl (73547) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:27PM (#11614465) Homepage
  • by Fookin (652988) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [nikoof]> on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:36PM (#11614548)
    Ahhh ... watching the moon while listening to some Pink Floyd. How trippy! :D
    • by Tackhead (54550) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:48PM (#11614659)
      > Ahhh ... watching the moon while listening to some Pink Floyd. How trippy! :D

      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*)

  • Cool.

    Any recs for Linux software to create BIG prints (panoramas or posters) using regular 8.5x11" paper printers?

  • by bwcarty (660606) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:38PM (#11614573)
    from the monty-have-you-heard-about-this-one dept

    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.
  • by hedley (8715) <hedley@pacbell.net> on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:40PM (#11614591) Journal
  • by Samrobb (12731) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:41PM (#11614597) Homepage Journal

    "That's one small click for a man, and a giant slashdotting for a completely unprepared webserver."

  • Crosshairs (Score:3, Funny)

    by superultra (670002) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:45PM (#11614628) Homepage
    This link lets you experience the moon just as the Apollo missions' astronauts did -- almost as you were there

    The moon blows. Who wants to see crosshairs everywhere?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:46PM (#11614645)
    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.
    • 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.

      *Sigh*

      I know ... I know ... I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I just can't help it, I'm bored outta my skull.

      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
  • by Beebos (564067) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:47PM (#11614648)
    Is there a big CHA on it?

    SPOOOOOOOONNNN!!!!!!!!
  • But how (Score:5, Funny)

    by dmccarty (152630) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:48PM (#11614658)
    Amazing! How did they make them in that warehouse?
  • "This link lets you experience the moon just as the Apollo missions' astronauts did..."

    I didn't realize that accessing the moon was such a slow process. Kudos to the Apollo astronauts for putting up with the /. effect so effortlessly.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:51PM (#11614678)
    MOooooooooON
  • by jmichaelg (148257) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:51PM (#11614681) Journal
    When I was in high school, Neil Armstrong took the first steps on the moon. In my youthful ignorance, I thought the delay between Houston asking him a question and his response was due to the moon being so far away. Now 35 years later, as I experience the delays again, I realize it's just that the link to the moon had been slashdotted.
  • What we really need is warp drive so we can meet real cute vulcans that can't be discontinued!
  • All I saw was a green 8bit retro game charagcter flipping me the bird.

    "Some would say the Earth is our Moon, but that would belittle the Moon"
  • Stars? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TekMonkey (649444)
    Why are there no stars or other cellestial bodies (other than the glaring Sun) in any of the photographs?

    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)

      by BlacKat (114545) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @11:31PM (#11615000)
      Here is a link that explains this phenomenon, which is often used to try and claim the moon landings were faked:

      http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae3 23 .cfm

      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. :)
    • Glare.

      When the sun is up you have to turn down the contrast so you can see anything.
    • Shutter Speed. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Boinger69 (673392)
      In a nutshell, the amount of light coming from the sun/earth/moon overwhelms the stars, to expose the film long enough to capture stars would cause everything else to be way overexposed.
    • Re:Stars? (Score:5, Funny)

      by uberdave (526529) on Wednesday February 09, 2005 @12:09AM (#11615246) Homepage
      Exposure. You can't have really bright objects and really dim objects show up on the same photo.
      ...Unless you're taking a photo of Bush shaking hands with Stephen Hawking :-)
  • by sootman (158191) on Wednesday February 09, 2005 @12:01AM (#11615193) Homepage Journal
    Did someone mention "linking to space panoramas on slashdot" under the "Most Common Ways to Kill a PC" story?
  • torrent (Score:2, Informative)

    by lemist (638625)
    I made a torrent through exeem, exeem://47/8a75d11fba5c29e351dd4046b45de1bcfd62c55 a/Apollo11.zip
    Sorry about it not being a link, something wasn't working right with it, so just copy and paste.
  • from the panoramas.dk viewer window go to the Mardis Gras link in the pull-down menu. the goods were in the last frame of the qtvr rendering - but I just knew they had to be coming as the qtvr began to load.

    a quick google for qtvr porn didn't produce much, anyone know if there is a niche for this?
  • Some Claim we got nothing from the apollo program. For them I direct your attention to theTop 10 Apollo scientific discoveries [si.edu]
  • by mindpixel (154865) on Wednesday February 09, 2005 @09:10AM (#11617089) Homepage Journal
    The most amazing sight I have ever seen I saw standing on the nazimuth platform of one of the VLT unit telescopes. There was no instrument for that particular focus, so the Paranal opticians made a ground glass plate more than a meter in diameter and mounted on the telescope as a projection screen. When pointed at the full moon, the 8.2 meter primary mirror projected the moon about a meter in diameter at infinite resolution. To see the moon a meter in diameter, without this system, one would have to be in a lunar insertion orbit...

For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out. -- Andy Capp

Working...