Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Moon Businesses Google Space The Internet

Entire Moon Added To Google Earth 109

Posted by Soulskill
from the no-sign-of-a-fully-operational-battlestation dept.
CNETNate writes "Complete with Street View-like panoramas, 3D models of spacecraft now left abandoned on the moon's surface, and guided tours from the voices of Apollo astronauts, Google's recent update to Google Earth marks the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing with an enormous update. It's a collaboration with NASA and other agencies, and follows the launch of Google Earth 5.0 which, amongst other things, added the ability to explore our planet's oceans. There are a number of original creations — such as the 3D mock-up of the Apollo 11 spacecraft and its astronauts — and you can download the new version from Google now."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Entire Moon Added To Google Earth

Comments Filter:
  • yahoo... (Score:3, Funny)

    by kevvraja (1101661) on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @10:52AM (#28769945)
    yahoo....
  • But in the new version of the Google Moon, when viewed at the highest resolution setting, does it use a very interesting and surprising texture map? People who have seen it know what it is, for others I don't want to spoil the surprise.
    • by qoncept (599709)
      Not anymore, last I checked.

      It's neat that Google does interesting things like this, but it blows my mind how a company that plays so much can survive.
      • by maxume (22995)

        It just shows how utterly shitty all previous attempts at internet advertising were (Adwords appears to do a very good job of detecting both advertisers that are willing to pay a lot and of finding lots of places to advertise; some systems did either of those, but not both of them well).

        They are probably benefiting from quite a bit of momentum at this point.

      • by lorenlal (164133) on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @11:27AM (#28770371)

        It's neat that Google does interesting things like this, but it blows my mind how a company that plays so much can survive.

        It could also be why they survive so well. If it's okay to play a little like that, and you *gasp* enjoy what you do at work...

      • by Thomas M Hughes (463951) on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @11:45AM (#28770651)

        It's neat that Google does interesting things like this, but it blows my mind how a company that plays so much can survive.

        Keep in mind that the vast majority of the Internet has some form of Google advertising on it somewhere. So, it's not an exaggeration to say "Time you spend on the Internet, in almost any form generates profit for Google." Thus, it's in their interest to encourage you, in a wide variety of ways, to spend time on the Internet.

        So, Google Earth allows you to play with various maps. That may cause you to become interested in a specific location, which causes you to use Google Search (+profit) to find a website (+profit) that discusses the location that you were interested in. Interested in the moon? Again, Google Earth to the Apollo Lander, Google Search Apollo Program (+profit), find various websites about the Apollo Program. Some, if not most, of these sites will have adsense (+profit).

        I suppose what may be more surprising is that this business plan is actually wildly profitable, instead of just speculative.

        • by qoncept (599709)
          That's the thing, though. No one is profiting unless you are buying at something. Or at least clicking on an ad.
      • by camperdave (969942) on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @12:01PM (#28770907) Journal
        I think it's kind of sad that they removed the cheese, and the "swim across the Atlantic" gags from Google maps. When a company takes itself too seriously, they get stale and stuffy and set in their ways.
    • by doti (966971) on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @11:10AM (#28770169) Homepage

      Just checked it now, and it was removed.
      Now that there's nothing to spoil: when you zoomed close enough, it showed the moon surface made of cheese.

      • by skine (1524819)

        Gromit, that's it! Cheese!

        We'll go somewhere
        where there's cheese!

        Where were we...?
        Places you find cheese...

        Lancashire, Cheddar, Wensleydale,
        Philadelphia, Tesco's....

        Everybody knows
        the moon's made of cheese.

      • Finally that myth can be dispelled and people can finally come to terms with the fact that the moon is made of soy.

        - RG>

  • So Fake (Score:5, Funny)

    by Stu1706 (1392693) on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @10:55AM (#28770001)
    This is so fake. We did not go to the moon. I looked all over and could not find the dark side either. And where is all the cheese?
    • by gubers33 (1302099)
      Ummm they only did it when each side was lit up so you could walk around without falling into a moon crater and get eaten by E.T. or a Transformer DUH!
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "I looked all over and could not find the dark side either."

      There is nodark side of the moon really, matter of fact its all dark.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ls671 (1122017) *

        > There is no dark side of the moon really

        Very true, like any other planet, there is sunlight on half of the surface of the moon at all times unless the Earth hides part of that sunlight ( moon eclipse ).

        When we only see half of the moon in the sky, it means that half of what we call "the dark side of the moon" is actually under sunlight.

        When we can't see the moon, it means that 100% of "the dark side of the moon" is actually under sunlight. Only at full moon is it actually completely dark on the "the da

        • Re:So Fake (Score:4, Informative)

          by iknowcss (937215) on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @11:52AM (#28770769) Homepage
          The likelihood of the moon forming with the same rotational period as its revolution period is very slim. The moon had a much shorter rotational period originally, but tidal forces dragged at it and slowed it down. Now the two are in lock-step. I remember hearing that eventually the earth will do the same thing, so anyone standing on the moon would always see the same side of the earth.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by DavidTC (10147)

            No, the earth will lock to the sun first, and one side of the planet would boil.

            ...except it won't, because the sun will supernova first, but pretending it didn't, the earth would stop spinning in relation to the sun.

            After that, the moon's orbit would continue to slow down until it, indeed, could only see one side of the earth. I.e., what you described, except it's not the earth stopping turning in relation to the moon, it's that the moon stopping moving around it.

            ...except, of course, it would have alre

            • by DavidTC (10147)

              Oh, and for all you disappointed people that the sun will supernova before the earth tidal locks...it's entirely possible that Mercury will tidal lock to the sun before that. It's already spinning so slowly we thought it was tidal locked for a very long time. A day takes 2/3rds of its year, and it's just going to get longer and longer until it takes exactly one year.

              • by RockDoctor (15477)

                it's entirely possible that Mercury will tidal lock to the sun before that. It's already spinning so slowly we thought it was tidal locked for a very long time. A day takes 2/3rds of its year, and it's just going to get longer and longer until it takes exactly one year.

                http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6994/full/nature02609.html [nature.com]
                Abstract of the abstract : Mercury is tidally locked to the sun because of it's orbital eccentricity, and it has it's orbital eccentricity as the most-likely outcome (p=55%)

            • by Chris Burke (6130)

              After that, the moon's orbit would continue to slow down until it, indeed, could only see one side of the earth. I.e., what you described, except it's not the earth stopping turning in relation to the moon, it's that the moon stopping moving around it. ...except, of course, it would have already crashed into the earth at that point, having no orbital velocity. You can't just sit there in orbit not moving.

              Well for the moon to always see the same side of a tidally-locked-to-sun earth, then it wouldn't be not

        • I have always wondered what were the odds of such an equality in the 2 periods.

          I would put money on pretty common for satellites made the way ours is guessed to have been made. You can try this at home, take two marbles and have one just sitting there and take the other and smack the first one by rolling the second marble. It may take a few tries but if you hit the marbles the right way they orbit each other, slow down, and spin at the same rate away from each other.

          To better simulate this you can take one bigger marble and one smaller marble and let the bigger one be the one th

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by ls671 (1122017) *

            > I have no idea what this is called but I am sure
            > someone who is more gifted in physics can explain better.

            Well the poster just above your post explained it quite well, I also found this link which tends to confirm the other poster explanation ;-)

            http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=289183 [physicsforums.com]

            Basically, tidal forces leading to a lock-step. The periods would not have to be the same in the beginning.

            I hope that you will forgive me, but I haven't had time to try your marble experience, thanks anyw

    • I looked all over and could not find the dark side either.

      Sigh... The moon doesn't have a dark side. It is tidal locked to the Earth, not the Sun. It has a near side and a far side. Someone should have taught that band some basic celestial mechanics.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ls671 (1122017) *

        I think the term existed before the music album ;-)

      • Does so (Score:2, Informative)

        by NotQuiteReal (608241)
        The moon doesn't have a dark side

        Yes it does. It is the side that is not light (at the moment).
      • by Wraithlyn (133796)

        Good lord, stop being such a literalist. "Dark" can refer to more than the absence of visible light. Ie, from answers.com:

        7) Difficult to understand; obscure: stories that are large in scope and dark in substance.
        8) Concealed or secret; mysterious: âoethe dark mysteries of Africa and the fabled wonders of the Eastâ (W. Bruce Lincoln).

        The far side of the moon is "dark" in the sense that it is cannot be observed from Earth. It is also "dark" in the sense of radio transmissions with Earth.

    • Re:So Fake (Score:5, Funny)

      by interkin3tic (1469267) on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @12:31PM (#28771269)

      We didn't go to the moon? Alright smart guy, how do you think google got the street view team driving around the moon then?!?

    • by SkyDude (919251)
      You must be this guy [youtube.com]
  • I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

    No, really.

  • by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @10:57AM (#28770035)
    So sweet. Finally together, after billions of years apart!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Opportunist (166417)

      Well, unless something akin to Space 1999 happens, they will eventually be together again. I just hope I won't be there to witness it, it would probably be a very brief joy.

      • Well, unless something akin to Space 1999 happens, they will eventually be together again

        IIRC, the moon is slowly moving away from Earth. If the trend continues, Earth will eventually be moonless.

        • by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @12:29PM (#28771243)
          I doubt. The moon is indeed slowly moving away, but this is due to energy and angular momentum transfers between Earth and Moon. Moon can't suddenly get twice the kinetic energy it has now and fly away. It has been calculated that the Moon's orbital period would stabilize at approximately 47 days, after enough energy will have been transfered that the rotation of Earth will match the movement of the Moon, thereby effectively stopping all the tidal interactions. I said "would stabilize" because this is supposed to happen well after Sun's red giant phase which has the potential to throw these calculations off a bit (i.e., Moon is likely to experience some drag at that time). (I don't know whether this factor has been included into the calculations, Wikipedia references dead tree materials I don't have handy, but these numbers seem trustworthy.)
          • by DavidTC (10147)

            That does not sound correct to me.

            I mean, it does by itself, but I thought the earth was also tidal-locking itself to the sun at the same time, and is going to do that first.

            And obviously the earth can't both be tidal-locked to the sun and the moon unless the moon stops moving through orbit, which would, in fact, cause it to fall on us. (Or, rather, slowly come in until it hits the atmosphere and have everything fall apart.)

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            I thought the sun's red giant phase was supposed to envelope the Earth? Seems like such a thing would certainly throw off those calculations.

      • Hmm interesting. I'm assuming you are saying that the earth and moon are getting closer and gravity will eventually pull them together? If this is in fact true, what would happen to earth? Now before I'm laughed out of my chair, give me a moment. I'm assuming that they wouldn't collide head on at 10,000 mph or whatever, but that the moon would orbit closer and closer until it came to a sort of rolling along the surface collision at 10k mph or whatever. Would this be instant extinction of everything, or only
        • by DavidTC (10147)

          Actually, it would hit the atmosphere and start falling a good deal more rapidly as drag slows do the orbit, and it would also start ripping the atmosphere away.

          People would be long dead by then, though, as tidal effects cause massive earthquakes and tides.

          The actual 'collision' would be pretty moot to anyone who actually lived here, but it would probably, indeed, destroy all existing continental shelves as it plowed a huge gash around the entire planet attempting to slow down. The safest place would be a

    • Yeah, it's like a Venn diagram of celestial bodies. Shame about Europe though... Ah well, I guess the two had to intersect somewhere!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @10:57AM (#28770041)
    And just as in Google Earth, if you go to the right places you'll find surprises. For example, the two space hookers standing in the Copernicus crater.
  • Would be to add Mars, Venus, etc to it, right?

    Gotta rename it then...might I humbly suggest Google Galaxy?

  • Update needed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SEWilco (27983) on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @11:04AM (#28770101) Journal
    If they're showing astronauts on the Moon they need a more recent update than the 1970s.
  • NASA and google are obviously in a joint venture to cover the moon landing faking! I knew it!
    • by furby076 (1461805)
      If you look at the shadows you can obviously tell this was made in a movie studio.
      • by DavidTC (10147)

        It's obviously computer generated. Try disconnecting your internet connection, and the damn thing won't even work, cause it can't talk to whatever supercomputer is generating all this fakery to get it to make more.

  • by Kligat (1244968) on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @11:20AM (#28770291)

    NASA World Wind and its add-ons tend to use a single data set for each layer rather than a pastiche of the highest resolution imagery available like Google Earth's, so when I compared it to Mars in 5.0, it had a more cohesive view with a more navigable user interface, with no load time since you can download the entire cache as an add-on [worldwindcentral.com].

    • Plus, the java version runs in more O.S., and can be embedded on a web-pages with browsers running in those O.S.
  • I hope they don't plan to incorporate this database into Google maps. Their driving directions are strange enough as it is.
  • is the impossible task to map yo momma! :P

  • Sheep! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @12:03PM (#28770931)

    Why are you all such mindless sheep? We never went to the moon, period. Think for yourself for a change why don't you? The information is out there, you just need to know where to look. Start with obscure self-published books and newsletters, and work your way up to poorly designed websites with blinking text. There is an absolute wealth of pseudo-science out there people that clearly proves the moon landings were a hoax contrived by the Pentablet at their secret meeting place called "The Meadows". Turn the TV off and go learn the truth...

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by DavidTC (10147)

      We never went to the moon, period.

      You know, you're actually right. We certainly didn't go to the moon. I wasn't even born in the 1960s.

      People keeping saying we went to the moon....no, I really did not. I don't know what the hell you were doing, but I certainly didn't, keep me out of your moon alibi, I'm not going to pretend I was at this 'moon' you keep asserting we were at together. (If this is some legal thing, I will gladly testify in court that I was not on the moon at any specific date, because I h

  • by whowantscream (911883) on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @12:05PM (#28770951)
    I bet you Dick Cheney's moon base is blurred out...
    • by Kingrames (858416)
      Dick Cheney doesn't have to censor his secret moon base.
      He's so evil, nobody says anything out of sheer terror.
  • Now with street view (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    http://maps.google.co.uk/moon/

  • A Bit Buggy (Score:4, Funny)

    by DynaSoar (714234) on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @12:09PM (#28771003) Journal

    It's got a few problems still.
    I set my home location.
    I set a location on the moon -- Tranquility Base.
    I set it to give me directions.
    Rather than telling me to go to Cape Canaveral and turn up or some such, it placed Tranquility Base somewhere in Africa.

    • by Sabathius (566108)

      it placed Tranquility Base somewhere in Africa.

      Ah ha! So that's where they "really" filmed the landing! I knew the truth would come out sooner or later!

    • by sharkey (16670)
      Didn't you notice it asking if you meant TMA-0 instead?
  • Can't wait until they put some good LRO imagery on GE, it's going to be fuckin' awesome. I'm going to download the landing sites' pics, engrave them on a marble slab and then use it to bash in the skull of the first moon hoaxer I run across.
    Then I'll shit on his face, take a picture, upload it on Panoramio and file it under "contemporary art".

  • I can't stop enjoying flying F-16 over moon and mars. Pretty funny for geographical program...
    • Sigh. Typical software engineers, ignoring the fact that an F-16 can't fly on Mars. :)

      You can, however, fly an airplane on Mars. Unfortunately, it would need to be extremely light, have a huge wingspan, and be electrically powered. With the atmospheric density of Mars being so low, it is much harder to keep an airplane up. With there being no oxygen to burn, you can't use a combustion engine for power.

      • by toxygen01 (901511)
        Well, having flown all Flight Simulator series (at least in last 10 years) I realize that you can't fly a plane on a mars :) Indeed it's nice that Google Earth has this feature.
  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by DavidTC (10147)

      Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950.

      WRONG.

      The original Moon was launched as part of the Second New Deal as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. It was launched in the 1934 or 1935. (Accounts differ.) The 'Multiply Optics Organization' was created as way to allow farmers, many of whom still had not electrified their houses, have enough light to see by using mirrors. It started ou

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by DavidTC (10147)

        Oh, and, of course, I am only talking about the American moons. There have been at least six other objects placed in the sky thought history, that were somewhat like the current 'moon'.

        The most famous, of course, being da Vinci wooden structure intended to defend Milan against attack, launched in 1497. Sadly, he could never figure out how to reach it after it was launched, spending the rest of his life attempting to construct some sort of flying device that would let him get up there. We are unsure what ha

    • I think your joke needs some work.

      four-week cycles

      29.5306 days != four weeks

      God-fearing Americans [...] there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950.

      Genesis 1 [biblegateway.com] states that God created a "lesser light to govern the night". Where else is your God mentioned?

      • Seriously, dude. This is like arguing "The internet is like a series of tubes" jokes aren't funny because "The ethernet cables are a lot like tubing!"

        Besides, have you actually listened to the people he's satiring? After some of the stuff I read just scant days ago debunking the faked landing myths, I'm surprised this wasn't actually one of the arguments presented! I mean, really. Did you know there are people out there who really, seriously believed that the Galileo space probe that was deorbited into Jupi

  • Sure, they can put the whole moon into Google Earth, but can they get it to tell you the name of the river outside your window?

    No, didn't think so.

    I love G.Earth, but it's still a toy. It could be so much more, but they go for flashy stuff like this over solid geographical info.

  • I looked at it briefly. I saw little info. Pictures weren't sharp. Hopefully they'll increase the detail as time goes by.

  • I can see some pins I've put on earth, that are shown on the moon ! (One of them was in Japan; I guess the coordinates are similar) Including the famous extension for North Korea ! That got me for a moment !
  • Google Moon (Score:3, Informative)

    by T.E.D. (34228) on Tuesday July 21, 2009 @01:44PM (#28772333)
    Shouldn't that be "Google Moon" instead? Go ahead and try it: http://moon.google.com/ [google.com] . It works.
  • Where are the blaster towers, and the small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port?
  • I'm waiting for Google Uranus.

  • Don't forget that Google (once a friend, now a dubious acquaintance) has gone the way of evil microsoft: You no longer can just download their programs, you get a downloader, who installs services on your computer - last i checked it even installed a service and didn't remove it when i CANCELED the install.

  • Can someone please point me to a _current_ offline installer that won't force me to have google update hogging my machine?

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Working...