Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA Opens Space Image Library

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the pretty-pictures dept.

NASA 105

slatterz writes with an excerpt from a brief PC Authority article: "NASA is to make its huge collection of historic photographs, film and video available to the public for the first time. A partnership with the non-profit Internet Archive will see 21 major NASA imagery collections merged into a single searchable online resource. The NASA Images website is expected to go live this week. The content of the site covers all the diverse activities of America's space program, including imagery from the Apollo missions, Hubble Space Telescope views of the universe and experimental aircraft past and present." The site is working already, and it looks fantastic. Don't hesitate to share any interesting pictures or movies you find.

cancel ×

105 comments

Enjoy your (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24346607)

Roasted silica NASA. Slashdotted.

Great use of tax payer money (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24346727)

Young poor black men are killing each other all over america, and the congress funds an agency to make pretty picture.

Re:Great use of tax payer money (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24347215)

Well then, those young black men should just stop killing themselves. It has nothing to do with NASA.

Re:Great use of tax payer money (0, Offtopic)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347357)

Discounting the racist tones of your message, if any population's youth is really determined to kill itself, the government should step out of its way and let nature do its job.

If those kids kill themselves before reproducing, any genetic tendency to aggression they had won't be passed to future generations. Unfortunately, it's expected that overly aggressive populations with high mortality rates in young ages will, given enough time, develop suitable mating behaviour that allows them to reproduce sooner.

Evolution has its own agenda, you know.

Listen !! Get some GOOD articles or I'm OUTTA HERE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24346615)

Capeesh ??

Good riddance (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24346753)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out... The site was stunning.

hopefully they'll start from the beginning (5, Interesting)

beanerspace (443710) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346635)

This is great, my only hope is that they start with the older stuff first.

I've got some old 8x10's my father would bring home - he was an engineer at NASA's Goddard Spaceflight Center from the beginning of the space race through to the Jupiter probe.

Now I have these wonderful images I can share with my young daughter of what an old computer looks like and the slide-ruled people who ran them.

I know I'm gushing, but this is going to be great in so many ways, as along with some spectacular shots of space - we'll also see down-to-earth images of the culture at the time that cannot be expressed even in 1000 words.

Re:hopefully they'll start from the beginning (3, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346771)

we'll also see down-to-earth images of the culture at the time that cannot be expressed even in 1000 words.

Obviously [mac.com]

Re:hopefully they'll start from the beginning (5, Funny)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#24349971)

The flag in that photo looks like it was Photoshopped.

Re:hopefully they'll start from the beginning (3, Insightful)

rts008 (812749) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347009)

I hope that they can find the missing tapes. :)

I am not only a NASA brat, but also worked at GSFC circa 1976-1976 for Bendix as a sub contractor at the NTTF facility there.
Neat stuff happening then, and now.

Hopefully your daughter can experience the 'cool, awesome, and wow' factor we went through...that job sparked my interest in astrophysics even though at the time I was working in Logistics fresh out of my high school.

Long before I was old enough to think beyond 'Wow-cool- ASTRONAUTS!!-I loved 'playing' in the Mercury and Gemini capsules when I went to work with Dad before I was old enough to be hired there. (circa 7th grade I think)

Dude! Talk to your Dad with your Daughter present. That was a great time for the Space Race!
Don't quash her spirit or ambitions....feed them instead!

I would not be surprised if my Dad had not known your Dad.

Rock on dude!...don't deny your daughter, but encourage her.

P.S.
This post hit me out of the blue so to speak...and I have been drinking,...But give your daughter all of the facts and guide her in her discoveries and provide her with the facts.

Astrophysics is an interesting and growing field now days. Help her out in the right direction! (my humble opinion-end lecture)

Re:hopefully they'll start from the beginning (0, Troll)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#24350049)

You sound like one of those carefully planted shills sent out by NASA to convince people that the moon landings were real. Great straw man :)

Re:hopefully they'll start from the beginning (2, Interesting)

Teancum (67324) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347815)

My father worked as a photographer for a NASA (& DOD) contractor and had access to a rather large set of high resolution photos that came from space as well. One of them was a high resolution image of the whole Earth taken at the Equator that shows nearly the entire western hemisphere. I think it was likely a weather satellite photo, but the resolution is simply outstanding as it is an actual photograph.

This photo, BTW, is now above my son's bed and has become a family heirloom.

My only regret was that I didn't get any more of those images, but in defense of my father a great many of those images were classified secret or top secret. I'm amazed what he brought out of that place and showed me as it was.

Re:hopefully they'll start from the beginning (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24350569)

When is Africa going to open up ITS space image library? Oh, I forgot... the "We're all the same" Africans have IQs below 80 and are too stupid and hate-filled to have managed to put anything into space yet... and they never will...

And the USA will be a third world country within thirty years.

THIRD WORLD PEOPLE = THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.

Anybody care to prove me wrong?

Amazing picture (1, Funny)

Negatyfus (602326) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346645)

I just went there and already found this [nasaimages.org] . I can't wait to find more.

Re:Amazing picture (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24346671)

I found this...
"Irregular Moons Discovered Around Uranus" [nasaimages.org]

'nough said...

Re:Amazing picture (1)

Negatyfus (602326) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346737)

Oh, nice one! :)

Re:Amazing picture (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346907)

I only see a black screen with some links to the side.

Re:Amazing picture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24347569)

Enable javascript.

Re:Amazing picture (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#24349601)

That's the point. I shouldn't have to. It's lame if I can't view a site because of poor design philosophies or principles. Some people decide to have navigation JavaScript oriented to impress their boss or to look keen or to introduce exploits. Their is no need or excuse to have poor Web design.

Re:Amazing picture (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#24349653)

BTW: NO, I will not enable javascript. Fuck them. Like some Web sites insist that you can only view their content with Internet explorer, and some sites (a vast minority) insist that you can only view their sites with Firefox, I build my sites to test if Javascript is enabled, and if it is enabled then I give instructions on how to dis-enabled it so that they can view the content on my site.

Best regards,

UTW

Re:Amazing picture (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#24351213)

Quick note:
I just visited a Web site (linked by a Slashdot member no less) saying that:
"It looks like you need to upgrade your browsers Flash Player."

It's a presumptuous and arrogant statement on behalf of the Web designers. Web designers can choose to make their Web sites multimedia friendly without the Bullshit. The ones who decide not to I have no sympathy with.

Re:Amazing picture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24347615)

They should really change the name of that planet.

Re:Amazing picture (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347617)

I know I'm going to hate myself for asking, but where's Uranus?

Re:Amazing picture (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#24349543)

Between Saturn and Neptune, orbit wise, about 2.8 billion kilometres away from the sun. Get yourself a copy of kstars, or starry night, or some other astronomy program if you need further details.

Re:Amazing picture (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#24350211)

Um, I meant in the picture. All I saw were a bunch of tiny dots. And surely, I expected a more snappy answer to a stupid question. You're no fun.

Re:Amazing picture (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#24349913)

I remember reading somewhere (probably before the [populous] Internet revolution, I'm thinking early or pre-1990's) that astronomers changed the official pronunciation of "Uranus" to make the "a" in "Uranus" short or unstressed. This was done for obvious reasons.

From Wikipedia:

The preferred pronunciation of the name Uranus among astronomers is [jrns], with the first syllable stressed and a short a (rns);[34] this is more classically correct than the alternate [je.ns], with stress on the second syllable and a "long a" (rns), which is often used in the English-speaking world.

Re:Amazing picture (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#24350161)

Off hand (in the vague recesses of my memory) I believe Steven Hawking mentioned that in the Brief History of Time. Maybe not, but Google isn't helping me here and I don't want to download (search for) a PDF version (to do a word search) just to validate my assumptions.

Re:Amazing picture (1)

scottrocket (1065416) | more than 5 years ago | (#24352597)

"I know I'm going to hate myself for asking, but where's Uranus?"

On the flip side of your venis.

Re:Amazing picture (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#24353029)

Best answer so far. Thank you. It's just that I couldn't find it in the picture. Maybe that's a good thing.

She's got it
Yeah, baby, she's got it
I'm your Venus, I'm your fire
At your desire

Rover tracks (5, Interesting)

CmdrSammo (1086973) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346667)

I really like this image [nasaimages.org] showing the rover tracks leading back to the Apollo 14 Lunar Module "Antares".

How anyone can look at this image in particular and claim the landings were faked is beyond me. It's a wonderful image, let's just hope we'll be back there soon to take more!

Re:Rover tracks (4, Funny)

Negatyfus (602326) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346695)

It's obviously shopped. I mean, the shadows are way off. I could do that in MS Paint.

Re:Rover tracks (3, Informative)

miraboo (1164359) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346791)

Come on mods this is funny, its xkcd ( http://xkcd.com/331/ [xkcd.com] ). And as we know this is slashdot and allusions to xkcd automatically go to +5.

Re:Rover tracks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24347399)

Q.E.D.

Re:Rover tracks (1)

laejoh (648921) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347551)

It was a soundstage on mars!

I'm more of a 202 or 307 kinda guy :)

Re:Rover tracks (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 5 years ago | (#24353399)

I bet you could tell by the pixels.

BTW, I resent image retouching being referred to as "photoshopping". I've done some really cool retouching with Paint Shop Pro (version 9 before Corel acquired it and totally ruined it).

Of course, it could be worse... it could be called "Gimping"...

Re:Rover tracks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24347007)

Needs moar lensflare

Re:Rover tracks (4, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347115)

I really like this image [nasaimages.org] showing the rover tracks leading back to the Apollo 14 Lunar Module "Antares".

Apollo 14 didn't have a rover. Those tracks would have been made by the MET (Modular Equipment Transporter).

The LRV was first flown on Apollo 15 and IMHO was about 1000 times more effective than working without a rover.

Re:Rover tracks (1)

CmdrSammo (1086973) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347151)

Yeah my bad, I knew I had it wrong when I looked a little closer at the image and saw giant footprints nearly filling the space between the tracks. Next time I'll read the caption before posting to /.!

Re:Rover tracks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24349557)

I really like this image [nasaimages.org] showing the rover tracks leading back to the Apollo 14 Lunar Module "Antares".

Apollo 14 didn't have a rover.

Doesn't that automatically mean it's fake?

The race is on... (0, Redundant)

jdh41 (865085) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346691)

... to find a galaxy which looks likes goatse.

Re:The race is on... (1)

krkhan (1071096) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346937)

Nasa is to make its huge collection of historic photographs, film and video available to the public for the first time.

Obviously this news is fake. I mean, they can't possibly think that goatse is not historic, right?

I hear that they have... (1)

MrKane (804219) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346705)

...an entirely separate datacenter and ip range,
just for the conspiracy theorists.

Taking bets on accidental UFO exposure... (1)

Adeptus_Luminati (634274) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346733)

Ok, I'm taking bets on how many days before NASA slips up some contraversial picture that raises questions about UFOs. You know, like some of these interesting NASA pics [ufocasebook.com] .

Hmmm, I wonder if volunteering photos will make, hacking NASA [blogspot.com] a little less likely going forward.

Re:Taking bets on accidental UFO exposure... (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347019)

Hmmm, I wonder if volunteering photos will make, hacking NASA [blogspot.com] a little less likely going forward.

SK: Do you have a copy of this? It came down to your machine.
GM: No, the gr aphical remote viewer works frame by frame. It's a Java application, so there's nothing to save on your hard drive, or at least if it is, only one frame at a time.
SK: So did you get the one frame?
GM: No.
SK: What happened?
GM: Once I was cut off, my picture just disappeared.
SK: You were actually cut off the time you were downloading the picture?
GM: Yes, I saw the guy's hand move across.

He can write a Perl Script and he hasn't heard of printscreen? Or, ya know, a digital camera? Video out?

Re:Taking bets on accidental UFO exposure... (1)

rhyder128k (1051042) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347297)

Take into account the over enthusiastic claims of a water finds that NASA has made in the past. I am of the opinion that if they had photo that in any way looked like might be proof of extra terrestrial life they would display it far and wide. Same goes for any anomaly that would increase people's interest in space.

Re:Taking bets on accidental UFO exposure... (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 5 years ago | (#24349229)

You know, like some of these interesting NASA pics

Do you have to be wearing the sunglasses from They Live in order to see the UFOs in those pictures? In a few of them (maybe 1/4 or less of the images) there are bright spots whose source isn't immediately obvious. In the others, I was left scratching my head. I could only assume that in many of them, the site's owner was trying to say that the sun/Earth in the sky or one of the background hills was a UFO.

These images aren't correct... (5, Funny)

Puffy Director Pants (1242492) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346743)

They photoshopped out the Aliens and the Moonbase and the spot where Superman had a fight with that evil blond guy.

Thank you NASA (3, Insightful)

node159 (636992) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346755)

I always found that the images from Voyager 1 put our insignificance in perspective. This is a wonderful thing for NASA to do and I hope it will inspire many of current and future generations.

Poor image quality on more recent images (3, Interesting)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346783)

These images are amazing! I'm curious why all the 'newer' images are always low quality (small). I know they have larger, higher quality images, and I've seen some of the larger images on the JPL and NASA site, however, the large images are usually older missions and there are quite a few poor images, Mars rover mission for instance, that are obviously smaller versions of the original. I hope I'm mistaken and these full resolution images are available, but I've looked pretty good and can't seem to find them, so if there there it's not obvious where they are. Can anyone enlighten me?

Re:Poor image quality on more recent images (5, Informative)

david.given (6740) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346841)

The old images were taken on real photographic film, which was then brought back to Earth and developed. Hugely expensive due to having to ship all that mass around, and only feasible at all on sample-return missions, but the quality is superb. The new images are taken using digital cameras, JPEG compressed, and transmitted back using the Deep Space Network; as a result, the quality is much lower. (On the other hand, shipping photographic film back from Mars is a little beyond our technical expertise right now.)

It is possible to take high-resolution pictures from Mars, but it's not done very often because it takes too long --- a couple of weeks for a decent panorama; dozens of low-resolution pictures need to be taken, transmitted back, and then pieced together (mostly by hand). It's far more cost-effective to use low-resolution pictures. At that distance bandwidth is the main limitation; they've just been upgraded to a 256kbps connection, and the DSN only listens to them in short windows.

This is less of a problem for spacecraft nearer Earth; JAXA's Kaguya lunar probe can send back HDTV video, for example, although still not live.

Re:Poor image quality on more recent images (2, Insightful)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346885)

What you're saying makes a lot of since. I didn't know the connections were so slow or intermittent. But even at 256kbps you should be able to download quite a few high resolution images, especially considering the amount of time they have had. Even with JAXA's Kaguya probe, they only released low resolution (low dimensions 800x600 for example), I only looked at the images when they came out a few months ago, but they were very small, maybe they released higher resolution images now.

This is a baseless guess, but I figured there was some monetary value attached to the full resolution image, and they were just waiting to auction it off to the highest bidder. And if that's ever been the case, seems like a publicly funded organization like NASA ought to act more like a library and less like the gift shop at Disneyland. I don't know they do that so it's just a suspicion, not trying to make accusations. It's not baseless though! We (the people) pay for the roads and sidewalks, but that does not stop the government from making parking meters.

I hope you're right and I'm just paranoid.

Re:Poor image quality on more recent images (2, Informative)

wsloand (176072) | more than 5 years ago | (#24348337)

It is not monetary value it's scientific value. Generally the scientist who is has the rights to the telescope time (or who has helped design or run the mission, etc.) has rights to the data for a limited time (I think it's 6 months). After that time the images are released for the (scientific) general public. The difference here is that it's put into a form that the really general public can access the materials.

No reason for paranoia in this case that I'm aware of.

Re:Poor image quality on more recent images (1)

GrAfFiT (802657) | more than 5 years ago | (#24348885)

Nasa imagery is public domain, as are all photographic works from the US government. See their statement [nasa.gov] . Wikipedia is very grateful for this.

Re:Poor image quality on more recent images (1)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 5 years ago | (#24349039)

it could be that they've anticipated an early rush of traffic and held some of the larger items back in order to keep the traffic somewhat under control

Re:Poor image quality on more recent images (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24349945)

On that film vs. digi cam bit, even the most crude disposable film cameras produce along the lines of 20 megapixels if I remember correctly while the most expensive OTS digital cameras are in the 12-13 megapixel range.

Resolution (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24346881)

I did not RTFA but will they upload those awesome images in higher resolution? It would be the best wallpaper site on the web...

Dammit captchas.

WOW! (1)

Projectuprising (1332559) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346931)

I look forward to wasting much time on the site looking at all the amazing sights!

Re:WOW! (1)

ATL_gadget_grrl (1122351) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347141)

Yep. My Saturday's pretty much accounted for, now. In short, this is impressive as hell.

Re:WOW! (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#24348189)

Yep. My Saturday's pretty much accounted for, now. In short, this is impressive as hell.

Mine's not. You all have slashdotted the site, you insensitive clods. Now I have to go back to work.

Remember (3, Insightful)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346935)

In spite of all the criticism, much of it deserved, something like this reminds us that NASA has had its share of triumphs. I hope they start to find their way again.

Re:Remember (1)

Turiacus (1316049) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347727)

This fascination for their past (Apollo) is not a good sign. They are so stuck in their old ways that at some point it might be best to turn NASA into a museum and build a new space agency.

If you want some light reading, try the paper available here [space-frontier.org] . It offers some illustrations of the inertia of the agency and of the damages it causes.

Re:Remember (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 5 years ago | (#24355985)

Thank you very much for the link. It's now living in the "Revisit" folder in my Bookmarks.

Finally (3, Insightful)

Xelios (822510) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346971)

One of the things that always annoyed me about NASA is that so little media gets released. You read news articles boasting how one of their probes has taken thousands of pictures, and maybe 10 of those ever get released to the general public. The public funds NASA, and I think a site like this can go a long way to convincing people that this funding is worth it.

HiRise [arizona.edu] is pretty cool too.

Re:Finally (1)

Tom90deg (1190691) | more than 5 years ago | (#24346987)

Well, the problem is that 90% of the photos are crap. And by that, I mean, overexposed, not centered in the shot, cut of or what have you. I've heard that National Geographic photographers consider it a good day when one out of 100 photos they've taken is good enough for NG.

Also, from a far more cynical point of view, do you really think NASA is going to give out the crappy out of focus pictures, or the crystal clear ones that inspire people to give them more money?

Remember, NASA has a budget of something like 1% of the Military budget. They can't afford to have public opinion go against them one inch.

Re:Finally (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347919)

In defense of NASA, a great many of those photos have been released... at least for current space probes. A great deal of what you are complaining about here has to do with the distribution of those images and not necessarily a secret conspiracy by NASA to withhold these images from the public.

All it takes is a little more digging to find those images you want.

What is frustrating is for photographs that weren't originally digital imagery, where often a rather lousy job of digitizing the media took place that may have been good by computer standards of 20 years ago, but look awful today in comparison.

Another problem, at least for some of the very early NASA probes, is that the file formats were often created explicitly for that mission alone and are completely incompatible with modern graphical file formats. If the data was preserved properly AND somebody bothered to write a good conversion utility that didn't lose too much information in the process, you might have some good photographs. But that is a huge if. I've seen some people with real expertise in media formats be able to clean up some of these early photos with enhanced image processing techniques that turned out better than what the originally publicity photos of the era looked like. That still takes somebody with the patience to pound out those images, however.

Re:Finally (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 5 years ago | (#24349361)

If the data was preserved properly AND somebody bothered to write a good conversion utility that didn't lose too much information in the process, you might have some good photographs.

It would be nice if NASA were willing to give the public a shot at the raw data for the files in formats that they don't have decoders for.

I've reverse-engineered proprietary image formats before for fun. I'm sure there aren't many people who do that, but I know I'm not the only one.

Re:Finally (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 5 years ago | (#24355071)

I've done some reverse-engineering of multi-media data formats (including some very obscure formats), and it can be quite frustrating.

I wouldn't mind a poorly scanned data format document put into a PDF that you could plow thorugh and then have access to some of the raw data files as well. I've seen some spectacular results for some enhanced processing of the Venera missions to Venus, where about 10%-20% of some of the images that were presumed to be corrupted data revealed some usable data. That is the kind of thing I would love to see "open sourced" when clearly NASA doesn't have the manpower to devote to these kind of efforts.

Unfortunately, some of the data files were analog on those older probes, and recorded on either audio or video tape machines with unusual standards even for those kind of recording machines. That kind of data processing could use some real help, but it would take a professional archivist with years of experience to be able to extract the data effectively.

Re:Finally (1)

swimsaturn (1239646) | more than 5 years ago | (#24348187)

It is true that a very small percentage of images are processed and released to the public (usually accompanied by a press release caption). But if you dig, you can almost always find that the raw images are available. The vast majority of images are unspectacular, and really not worth processing (color correction, etc) and putting in a press release. As I graduate student, I briefly worked on a project using ALL of the Voyager images of Saturn's icy satellites Mimas and Tethys. Most of the images were lousy: out of focus, too dark, too bright, too far, etc. Out of all the images, I'd estimate about 2% were useful for the project.

Re:Finally (1)

deglr6328 (150198) | more than 5 years ago | (#24355843)

Excuse me, why is the above twaddle modded up to a +3? This person obviously has not spent the better half of a single second actually looking for the images they decry as being "unreleased". Because if they had, they would've found even the most casual perusal of the websites for any of the recent space probe missions turns up TENS OF THOUSANDS OF RAWIMAGES for each one. Your incompetence in locating EASILY accessible information from NASA websites isn't their fault.

Page absolutely and totally broken (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24347035)

Everything the site shows are two links.
One how to enable javascript and one how to
enable javascript in firefox.

I do not get it why people think their site is
important enough to execute code from them.
And then give no explanation of their inability
to write proper webpages, but instead just instruct people how to enable javascript, without
giving an warning that this might be against their computers security guidelines and even a reason to get fired....

Re:Page absolutely and totally broken (1)

neumayr (819083) | more than 5 years ago | (#24348753)

So you're attempting to browse NASA's gallery from your employer's computer and are afraid of being fired for turning on javascript? ;)
This actually is the best web gallery I've seen so far, can anyone suggest an opensource work-/lookalike web gallery software?

an OT rant on FreeBSD (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24347155)

OT but it's friday morning and I need to make an AC rant.

Is it me, or is the whole FreeBSD project a clique of Dutch geeks who refuse to properly document the kernel lest easier access be made to the inner sanctum, combined with a bunch of half-witted hangers-on who lack imagination or development skill but know how to stroke ego?

While Linux has its fair share of GPL zealots, from an engineering PoV I've always found I'm able to easily help and get help when working within kernel space. When it comes to FreeBSD, it's like I'm reducing the size of someone's member every time I gain a little knowledge.

(Feel free to mod OT but I just wondered what others thought...)

Bummer (4, Funny)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347177)

No pics of the studio where they filmed the moon landing :(

Re:Bummer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24348177)

Nope, those are here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000410002943/flybyfoy.com/Foybits.html [archive.org]

(That is, there was a studio, with an LEM and some rocks, but no, they didn't fake it)

Re:Bummer (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#24351929)

I already posted one picture here [slashdot.org] , but they did not allow taking photographs, so the guy had to draw it from memory.

Lost in Space (1)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347209)

Hey cool! I've always wanted to find the background image of the end titles for the original Lost in Space series (colour version).
I wonder if it's not too old. I believe it was taken around 1959?

Ready-made searchable archive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24347509)

Since the NASA images are public domain, they could have saved themselves the trouble of setting up their own website by loading them to this media archive [wikimedia.org] .

Re:Ready-made searchable archive? (1)

strelitsa (724743) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347547)

At least they didn't make you go through an FTP site to get to them. After all, this is the US Government we're talking about here.

Yes, but... (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347607)

... I doubt they'll shwo the alien pictures too.

This would make the best t-shirt ever (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347675)

You are here [nasaimages.org]

With the exception of the spacecraft we sent out, and RF from our radio and TV, everything about us is on that tiny little grain of sand

Re:This would make the best t-shirt ever (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347745)

Sorry about this, but I gotta add that this should remind us how insignificant we are, and that we are living out our lives like those kids in "Lord of the Flies"

Will these go into Google Sky? (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347699)

I wonder how hard and useful it would be to merge these photos into Google Sky. They probably don't have exact coordinate info... or do they? ... and maybe Google already has deeper pictures, but wow, if all Hubble photos could be stitched together and made available with such a great interface, that would be awesome.

Annual NASA Greatest Hits Commemoration (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347799)

I've been advocating for publishing those archives for many years, since about 1991 when I met a NASA archivist at a Unix conference in San Jose, CA. I'm very pleased to see these archives opened for public use.

What I wanted since 1991 was to see NASA actually mail through the USPS a CD-ROM (later a DVD) once a year to every American household (minus those who mailed them back, postage free, opting out). A "greatest hits of 2008" etc, that would be collectible, useful for school assignments, and just a beautiful document. Free of charge - driving home the point that we'd all already paid for this work by NASA.

I'd have mailed them all to arrive just before the Income Tax Deadline, so people could see where their taxes were funding America's most inspiring work.

Maybe Archive.org can spur something similar, and at less cost. Like a "greatest hits contest", which lets the public make "playlists" of NASA content, judged by public voting influencing a celebrity panel or something (like American Idol). Then NASA or Archive.org could burn DVDs of the winners, selling them as "commemorative" to raise money for the project, or even proceeds earmarked to specific NASA projects the public wants to further subsidize.

So far my original idea now seems quite consistent with NASA's plans for its archives. Maybe my more specific ideas for them would also be timely and welcome.

Apollo 11 and 17 Landing Videos (3, Interesting)

florescent_beige (608235) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347835)

I browsed quickly through the site and didn't see any video.

Two of my very favorite things to watch, and I could literally sit and watch them over and over for weeks are the Apollo 11 and 17 landing videos.

NASA has placed online full video libraries for both Apollo 11 [nasa.gov] and Apollo 17 [nasa.gov] . *

The actual Apollo 11 landing is here [nasa.gov] (16 minutes).

The actual Apollo 17 landing is here [nasa.gov] (4 minutes).

The Apollo 17 video will send shivers up and down your spine I guarantee it.

* Most unfortunately, the videos are in Quicktime(tm) format. If you, like me, use Windows, go here [apple.com] to get Quicktime. If you have NoScript, disable it for that page because there is a script that autodetects your OS. Download the most basic player and uncheck all options because Apple tries to install all sorts of incredibly annoying nag- and crap-ware. Also make sure you do not select auto-update because thats another level of nagging to upgrade to a paid service. Finally, use Spybot to disable the Apple updater in your startup list.

Re:Apollo 11 and 17 Landing Videos (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 5 years ago | (#24353435)

If you, like me, use Windows, go here to get Quicktime.

Quicktime is horrible. I recommend QuickTime Alternative using the superb Media Player Classic. Just goes to show that Microsoft and Apple haven't done one good thing to media player UI in the last 10 years.

Re:Apollo 11 and 17 Landing Videos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24354785)

If you have Linux, Mplayer plays this with no problems. I am watching it on Kubuntu using Mplayer.

While I appreciate that they are saving the past (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#24347997)

I wish that they would spend more on the future.

Aliens (0, Troll)

Old Duck (957936) | more than 5 years ago | (#24348349)

I wonder if they will make the pictures of the aliens available? After all, they know about them!

I hear that they have... (1)

clint999 (1277046) | more than 5 years ago | (#24348403)

... I doubt they'll shwo the alien pictures too.

This is so bad ass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24348845)

USA!
USA!
USA!

Slashdot effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24349197)

Wow even nasa isnt safe from the effects of slashdot: NASA Images is experiencing high load, please wait 30 seconds and reload.

First time? Really? (1)

skelly33 (891182) | more than 5 years ago | (#24349517)

I mean really, really? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I know a NASA photographer who has been working there for darn near 40 years now and I've always understood that the entire photo library has always been freely accessible. I believe this is the first time they might be available over the INTERNET, but to the "public"? No more so than the public library is off limits because it is not published online. Anybody know better of this?

Audio Archive? (1)

Wasabi in my Pants (512714) | more than 5 years ago | (#24349595)

Is there a NASA audio archive available anywhere? I've been looking around, but have only found a few sites with a small number of audio clips. Having an Apollo moonwalk on my ipod would be sweet.

It's Overloaded Already (Slashdot effect) (1)

brewmaster64 (255697) | more than 5 years ago | (#24349597)

The top page opens OK, but so far haven't been able to access anything else. "NASA Images is experiencing high load, please wait 30 seconds and reload."

Oh, back in the days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24349747)

Started my days in the McDonnell Spacelabs, where Mercury and Gemini were built. Dad always said he'd get a computer when the NASA archive was available, since his tax dollars paid for it. Convinced him to get a TX-Instr. tape-drive machine, and a Commie-64, so he could do his tax returns, and then he got himself a Mac, one of those obnoxious non-alterable deskblobs. Still have it in the basement. Might be museum-quality.

Won't touch the archives unless and until They quit the quicktime bs. And I've multiple degrees in astrophysics/physics/materials. How dare they?
We paid for it once, already.

We run sid in this house; I'm the caregiver, and no proprietary formats are tolerated.

They will hear from me.

Compression (1)

Rebelgecko (893016) | more than 5 years ago | (#24350023)

I was able to get to look at a picture from a direct link someone posted even though the site was going very slow and downloaded a neat picture. For some reason, the jpeg file was in a .zip, so the "compressed" file was actually a bit larger (about 4 KB) than the actual picture, making the extra compression kind of pointless. Maybe that's why they're getting slashdotted so badly!

if only it was new content (1)

heroine (1220) | more than 5 years ago | (#24350941)

It's another packaging of the 160x120 videos they already have online. Now if they threw in the word "cloud" and some community sections, they'd have something.

Did they get an NOAA license for this? (1)

Hackerlish (1308763) | more than 5 years ago | (#24352787)

The NOAA takes its licensing claims very seriously. It's far more lucrative that ocean and atmosphears stuff. No. paperwork is where the real future lies. http://www.licensing.noaa.gov/ [noaa.gov]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...