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!

Has NASA Found the Lost Moon Tapes?

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the don't-you-mean-the-b-roll? dept.

Moon 222

jra writes "For over 5 years, various people both inside and retired from NASA have been engaged in a quest. They were looking for the long-lost original slow-scan video tapes from the Apollo 11 moon landing, which went missing in a record-keeping snafu, covered in unreasonable detail in a Wired article a couple years ago. Well now, according to the UK's Sunday Express newspaper, some tapes may or may not have been found which may or may not be the Apollo video. Apparently — I love the British press — the NASA boffins are a bit put out that it leaked; they were hoping to blow everyone's minds with the scoop themselves."

cancel ×

222 comments

Boffins? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28505749)

If someone called ME a boffin, I might be obliged to bandy their knickers a bit.

But this begs the question - can anyone at NASA do the moonwalk convincingly?

Impetuous minds want to know.

Re:Boffins? (0, Offtopic)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#28505769)

If someone called ME a boffin, I might be obliged to bandy their knickers a bit.

But this begs the question - can anyone at NASA do the moonwalk convincingly?

Impetuous minds want to know.

It's boffn, not boffin! Did you miss the whole Web 2.0 thing [techcrunch.com] .

We have had the videos *all along* you IDIOT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28505917)

Remember the Australian who had them in his archive [nimp.org] for over thirty years? Oh wait, already covered HERE [softpedia.com] .

Re:We have had the videos *all along* you IDIOT (5, Informative)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506049)

MALWARE WARNING! DO NOT CLICK ON PARENT'S LINKS!

not yelling not yelling not yelling not yelling not yelling not yelling not yelling not yelling not yelling not yelling

Re:We have had the videos *all along* you IDIOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506185)

MALWARE WARNING!

But, does it run on Linux?

Re:We have had the videos *all along* you IDIOT (1)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506217)

Curiosity killed the cat, it appears to be MacOS compatible. It is your standard launch a bunch of browser windows and play nasty stuff type thing.. Also tries to launch your mail app.

Re:We have had the videos *all along* you IDIOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506353)

Do your part and report the site to google,
http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/report_badware/

Re:We have had the videos *all along* you IDIOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506439)

so the malware I got... a bunch of text overflowed my screen and I had to RTFA!

You insensitive clod!

Re:We have had the videos *all along* you IDIOT (1, Funny)

jra (5600) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506731)

I'm going to assume that whatever you're going on about here is a posting that someone has already deleted...

Re:We have had the videos *all along* you IDIOT (1)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506917)

Nope, it is the post titled "We have had the videos *all along* you IDIOT (Score:-1, Troll)"

The link in the sentence a "Remember the Australian who had them in his archive [nimp.org] for over thirty years?" is malicious.

Re:We have had the videos *all along* you IDIOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506323)

Those links open a lot of windows even in firefox, and emails and chatzilla if you have it, don't even click on them.

Re:Boffins? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506119)

Offtopic? Did the mod even read the link? Yahoo is an idiot.

For the moderating impaired: Yahoo owns flickr.com, not flicker.com

Re:Boffins? (4, Funny)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506023)

If someone called ME a boffin, I might be obliged to bandy their knickers a bit.

That's why people call you pervert ;)

Hope (5, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#28505753)

That would be great if true. To lose the originals of the greatest technological and exploration achievement event since Columbus is a gut-wrenching thought. (And the existing copies are poor quality.)

Re:Hope (2, Funny)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#28505881)

Greatest achievement since Columbus? Columbus and the Apollo programs were the exact opposites of each other. The Apollo engineers had a pretty accurate idea of what they were setting out to accomplish, while Columbus stumbled across the New World despite sheer ignorance and wrongheadedness and was really lucky not to die through sheer incompetence.

Also, despite the incompetence, subsequent colonization of the New World has resulted in something substantially useful (the US GDP alone is over $13 trillion!) Granted, sure, the Moon hasn't had long enough to catch up, but it's got a long way to go... and no, a few random spinoff NASA technologies aren't really worth talking about.

Re:Hope (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28505905)

a "few" random spinoff technologies? Funniest thing I've ever read. Thank you sir!

Re:Hope (5, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#28505987)

while Columbus stumbled across the New World despite sheer ignorance and wrongheadedness and was really lucky not to die through sheer incompetence.

He was one of the best navigators in the business at the time, and had a very experienced crew. It's just that he was missing a few pieces of the puzzle. On his second mission, he used his knowledge of celestial mechanics and eclipses to fool some island tribes into thinking he was a god, saving his crew from torture or starvation.

Further, Neal Armstrong was once quoted as saying he felt they had a 50/50 chance before the trip. Many things did almost go wrong on the first flight, including an overloaded computer and insufficient landing fuel. Luck, skill, and experience overrode those. Apollo 11 was hardly a sure thing.

They were *all* gamblers.
     

Re:Hope (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506063)

He was a good navigator; but he also believed in a number for the earth's circumference that was wildly wrong(and this wasn't just a "product of his time" error, superior numbers were widely available, and he was kind of a crank for not using them). It was sheer luck that the Americas happened to exist right about where Asia wasn't.

Re:Hope (3, Informative)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506173)

It was sheer luck that the Americas happened to exist right about where Asia wasn't.

If it wasn't, they'd probably just turn around, head back, and we'd never hear about it in history books. The crew was getting edgy near the end of the trip because they were running out of enough supplies to turn back without a shore-stop, but they kept seeing plant debris in the water that suggested shore was near. If not for the debris, they would probably have turned around a bit sooner and simply gave up, barely making it back before starving.

Thus, they "mostly" knew what they were doing.
   

Re:Hope (5, Informative)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506281)

If not for the debris, they would probably have turned around a bit sooner and simply gave up

Ironically, Neal faced a similar decision. The computer was signaling an unknown overload and they were also running tight on landing fuel as he spotted some large boulders he wanted to avoid. He could have called to abort the mission, using the ascent engine to return to moon orbit. In fact, "abort" would have been the "right" decision in my opinion based on what was known at the time.

He gambled that the computer was still returning useful info despite the overload[1], and that he could manage his way to a landing on short fuel. I remember him saying afterward that even if he ran out of fuel, he was close enough to the ground for a "bounce" landing while jetting around the boulders, and thus mostly ignored ground-control's warnings. (The main ground announcer even joked about ground control "turning blue" just after landing because of the late landing.)

He was possibly thinking he might never get a second chance, and thus took on excessive risk.

[1] (It turned out the computer was still sufficient despite the overload, but they didn't fully know it then because they didn't know the cause yet. The cause turned out to be an extra un-docking service that they accidentally left on that wasn't needed for landing.)
               

Re:Hope (2, Informative)

HonIsCool (720634) | more than 5 years ago | (#28507061)

Would work great as a cinematic piece, but the truth is that it was not Neil Armstrong that made such a decision. The 1202 and 1201 master alarms meant that the Apollo Guidance Computer was getting overloaded because the rendezvous radar was inadvertently left in the wrong setting. The master alarms shook everyone up seriously, but Steve Bales in mission control recognized that it was okay to go ahead and made that call.

Re:Hope (2, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506479)

"It was sheer luck that the Americas happened to exist right about where Asia wasn't."

Tell that to IT job positions, someone gave them Columbus's old map and they carried on in the search for India from the place where Columbus had stopped.

Re:Hope (1)

dword (735428) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506247)

Further, Neal Armstrong was once quoted as saying he felt they had a 50/50 chance before the trip.

They could have either succeeded or failed. Whatever would have happened, his 50/50 would have been right.
</joke>

Re:Hope (2, Informative)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506495)

Joke aside, Armstrong had been through some rough times in other missions or tests, and that's probably why they selected him. The first was when a leak caused a Gemini (?) capsule to spin out of control. He was eventually able to bring it back under control despite enough G's to potentially pass out. The second was some kind of experimental moon lander that crashed in tests. He survived, and after being patched up, went right back to work as if nothing happened. This attitude got him the reputation for having nerves of steel. But I'm sure he understood that "bleep happens" after all that.
   

Re:Hope (4, Funny)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506427)

and no, a few random spinoff NASA technologies aren't really worth talking about.

Oh yeah, smart guy? What about about Jack Klompus's astronaut pen? It writes upside down...

Re:Hope (4, Insightful)

frieko (855745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506749)

So does a pencil.

Re:Hope (1)

gemada (974357) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506913)

not to mention all the 'fun" that Columbus brought to the inhabitants of North America at the time.

Re:Hope (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28507009)

fuck you

Re:Hope (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#28505915)

Unfortunately, the tape player is still lost, and the one at the local library is broken. And there's no money in the budget for a new one, so everyone will just have to wait until the one at the library gets fixed.

Re:Hope (1)

jra (5600) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506603)

In fact there is *one* remaining tape deck which can play those tapes; at Goddard, I think; and there's one guy (a retiree) who lovingly maintains that deck, waiting paitently for these tapes to surface.

In fact, oddly enough, I *just the other day* wrote a note to the author of the Wired piece, asking about an update.

And, credit where due, I got the Express link from half a dozen twitterers this morning.

Re:Hope (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#28507073)

An insightful whoosh! :-)

One Giant Screwup for Mankind (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28505933)

Wired's article is not unreasonable. When a group collectively acts like they have an IQ of 1 they deserve the condemnation. Everyone responsible for the loss should have lost their job and pension. Maybe if NASA had been decapitated then we'd have a better NASA now.

Re:One Giant Screwup for Mankind (2, Interesting)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506095)

Everyone responsible for the loss should have lost their job and pension.

It's possible that nobody was formerly responsible. The TV camera thing was kind of a last-minute decision because of concerns over weight, and thus no formal media archiving procedure was set up for it. The whole landing was kind of a rush-job to meet the deadline, and thus such "afterthought" details kind of fell through the cracks.

Re:One Giant Screwup for Mankind (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506537)

nobody was formerly responsible

The word you are looking for is formally.

Re:One Giant Screwup for Mankind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506745)

What's up with people screwing up formerly/formally (it's usually "formally" when formerly is meant)? It's gotten so fucking common, it's the new apostrophe abuse.

Re:One Giant Screwup for Mankind (4, Informative)

Fnordulicious (85996) | more than 5 years ago | (#28507017)

It happens because 'formerly' has a rhotacized schwa in the second syllable, and 'formally' has an unrhotacized schwa. Since the following syllable begins with an apical consonant that also includes velar articulation, the rhotacized schwa tends to lose its rhotacization due to anticipatory reduction. With this one feature lost, the two words become homophonous. In many (all?) non-rhotic dialects like Received Pronunciation, Australian English, etc., the two words are already homophonous.

Re:Hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506951)

... the greatest technological and exploration achievement event since Columbus ...

What was the greatest achievement of Columbus? Is it colonizing a world already discovered and inhabited by native Americans centuries before the whites wiped their civilizations?

I'd compare the achievement of Yuri and that of Appolo programs.

FYI (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28505777)

The Sunday Express is hardly our fair isle's most reliable newspaper.

Re:FYI (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#28505913)

The Sunday Express is hardly our fair isle's most reliable newspaper.

I tried to find a second source and I thought I had one:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/818 [cosmosmagazine.com]

But then saw the 2006 date. Fooey!
       

Re:FYI (2, Informative)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506157)

Yes, if you read that one again, it refers to data tapes, not the original video footage recordings itself:-

A last minute search instead has scientists in Western Australia dusting off several boxes of 'lost' NASA tapes which record surface conditions on the Moon just after Neil Armstrong stepped into space history on 21 July 1969.

After addressing Earth, the American astronaut set up a package of scientific instruments, including a dust detector designed by an Australian physicist. The data collected by the detector was sent back to ground stations on Earth and recorded on magnetic tapes - copies of which are as rare as [i.e. not the same as] the 'misplaced' original video footage of the 1969 touchdown.

Anyway, I was very happy when I first read this report. Having considered it again, the fact it's in the Sunday Express makes me slightly worried; although I don't believe that they'd fabricate something like this outright, it's possible that they might have got the facts wrong and/or overstated them. Plus

If [my emphasis] the visual data can be retrieved, Nasa is set to reveal them to the world as a key plank of celebrations to mark the 40th anniversary of the landings next month.

Hope it goes well.

Either way, it's truly gobsmacking that NASA spent countless billions (in *1960s* money) on the moon mission and yet were so damn careless with their source data. For anyone who doesn't know the story and hasn't read the linked Wired article (and you should- for a Wired article, it's surprisingly informative), let me emphasise why this is such a big deal. The footage we see of the moon landings today is (supposedly) far inferior to the original video transmissions. On its reception, it was converted to NTSC (using primitive late-60s technology), then compressed further for transmission from Australia to to the US... and then finally, for archival, this was stored by pointing a 16mm film camera at a monitor.

I can quite believe that the original footage would be much better quality.

I mean, think about it- they lost the original, high-quality video footage of the first moon landing and we've had to rely on third- if not fourth- generation conversions.

Unbelievable.

Re:FYI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506361)

The Sunday Excrement hardly constitues a newspaper.

Re:FYI (2, Informative)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506797)

...and then finally, for archival, this was stored by pointing a 16mm film camera at a monitor.

No, that was for transmission, the second step in the chain after reception. The Apollo 11 camera had 10fps, and
as there was no easy way to do real-time frame rate conversions in the 1960s, the solution was to point a camera at a
display [wikipedia.org] at Honeysuckle Creek Station [wikipedia.org] in Australia.

This filmed-from-a-display feed is the only source of Apollo 11 video we know today.

The lost tapes supposedly contain a direct recording of the 10fps video stream from the lander.

NASA's credibility (1)

juanergie (909157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28505787)

As an Space Program advocate, I certainly hope they find them-- the public needs to trust NASA again; knowing that NASA can keep track of its mission assets would be the very basic start.

Whoever found the tapes (if they really were found) should not feel disappointed about not breaking the news him or herself. It is a shame they were lost in the first place, and finding them is nothing to feel proud about. I cannot imagine loosing my baby in the supermarket and then feeling like a real smart, witty person for finding her two years later.

Re:NASA's credibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506393)

Yeah, well, the Onion is gonna rip them a new one (again) either way.

http://www.holylivingfuck.com

Re:NASA's credibility (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506723)

I cannot imagine loosing my baby in the supermarket and then feeling like a real smart, witty person for finding her two years later.

This isn't losing the baby in the supermarket. This is losing some photographs of baby's first steps along with a few other personal items during a move across the Atlantic. It's a disappointment when one discovers that the images are lost. And it's a joy when they are uncovered. But the imagery isn't the real focus of the activity.

good news bad news (3, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#28505819)

The good news is they found the tapes. The bad news is Kim Jong-il has them and wants 20 billion dollars, part of South Korea, and a lock of Michael Jackson's hair.
     

Re:good news bad news (2, Funny)

basil64 (1061038) | more than 5 years ago | (#28505855)

...or He will unleash a 'Rain Of Fire' and destroy the moon. ( Once they figure out that whole ballistics/propulsion thing.... )

Re:good news bad news (2, Funny)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506025)

RAAAAIIIIIINNNNN! Colbert shakes fist....

Re:good news bad news (0, Redundant)

jra (5600) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506639)

America... fuck yeah.

Re:good news bad news (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506109)

The good news is they found the tapes. The bad news is Kim Jong-il has them and wants 20 billion dollars, part of South Korea, and a lock of Michael Jackson's hair.

   

I say offer the whole Jackson family and see if he'll go for it. I'd say to offer to throw in Brittany Spears but that might be pushing our luck.

Re:good news bad news (1)

basil64 (1061038) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506219)

Okay, then scratch Britney and throw in the Jonas Brothers and that ought to clinch the deal.

Re:good news bad news (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506909)

We don't have the money so give him the whole corpse and a third equity in the reformed GM. Then Kim and Jacko can go cruising around NK in a hummer, ala Weekend at Bernies, while the rest of us enjoy quality video of a more triumphant era.

HD (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28505821)

It just means that NASA re-shot the moon landing using HD on the Hollywood back lot.

Re:HD (2, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#28505875)

It just means that NASA re-shot the moon landing using HD on the Hollywood back lot.

Hopefully they also added the explosions and giant space worm I keep asking for. I thought of a green 3-breasted moon-babe, but realized that may be over-doing it.
     

Re:HD (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506305)

It just means that NASA re-shot the moon landing using HD on the Hollywood back lot.

And the only question remaining is: does Buzz Aldrin shoot first in the new version?

Conspiracy theory (3, Insightful)

veektor (545483) | more than 5 years ago | (#28505857)

Crucially, they could once and for all dispel 40 years of wild conspiracy theories.

New facts would never dispel a perfectly good conspiracy theory. Instead, the new facts are evidence that the conspiracy is still on-going.

Up your k1lt!

Re:Conspiracy theory (1)

lxs (131946) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506547)

Of course, they had to wait for HD editing equipment to be affordable to re-fake the moonlanding in high quality.

That's why it took them five years. Even with help from the Greys.

May "or may not" (4, Insightful)

uberdilligaff (988232) | more than 5 years ago | (#28505903)

Wouldn't it be nice if people (such as the summary writer) understood that "may" inherently includes the uncertainty as to whether it actually "does", or perhaps "does not"? Then they wouldn't feel compelled to append the completely redundant "or may not" every time.

Grammer Nazi's are a bore. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28505985)

Gimmer Nazi's are too.

Feel the PAIN: http://www.brenz.net/l337Maker.asp [brenz.net]

U$3 7|-|1$ L337 5P34|0r3r'$ 70|\|9U3, 0r 70 3|\|9L1$|-| Ph0r 7|-|3 r3\/3r$3.

You do know that having a .asp extension means they are not leet, just babies Microsoft raped.

Re:Grammer Nazi's are a bore. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506195)

Feel the PAIN: http://www.brenz.net/l337Maker.asp [brenz.net] [brenz.net]

U$3 7|-|1$ L337 5P34|0r3r'$ 70|\|9U3, 0r 70 3|\|9L1$|-| Ph0r 7|-|3 r3\/3r$3.

But if you need to use the site to go back "to English for the reverse", then that just proves that you aren't l337.

Re:May "or may not" (1)

snaz555 (903274) | more than 5 years ago | (#28505999)

Wouldn't it be nice if people (such as the summary writer) understood that "may" inherently includes the uncertainty as to whether it actually "does", or perhaps "does not"? Then they wouldn't feel compelled to append the completely redundant "or may not" every time.

It wasn't expressed with a high rate of accuracy.

Re:May "or may not" (2, Funny)

KritonK (949258) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506027)

I demand that these tapes may or may not be the Apollo video!

Re:May "or may not" (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506231)

You are technically correct. However, there is a subtle difference between 'may' and 'may not'.

While both imply uncertainty, I think 'may' is generally more certain than 'may not'.

Think of it this way:
'may' - 75% certain
'may not' - 25% certain
'may or may not' - 50% certain.

Re:May "or may not" (1)

Gravedigger3 (888675) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506411)

[Citation Needed]

Re:May "or may not" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506343)

But what if they want the exclusive-may? Saying "XOR" in casual conversation still isn't accepted, so it's probably going to be a long time before Xmay is accepted. It might help Xmay that Xma is in common parlance, though you usually only see lots of Xmas late in the calendar year.

Re:May "or may not" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506397)

Maybe. Or maybe not.

True, but possibly unimportant. (3, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506517)

If there's data on them, it's data that was lost from some mission or other. There are plenty of missions (such as the Venus landings) where a bucket of extra data spools could provide massively valuable scientific data, even to this day.

Now that the moon has been (at least partially, if not fully) mapped in high-def, and a host of other probes have been sent to collect all kinds of other data, moon tapes would be really more interesting from a historic standpoint. Nothing wrong with that, especially as staggering achievements tend to wake public interest and open the money taps, but from a scientific standpoint there must be huge numbers of reels of tape that would actually be of greater value to NASA.

Re:May "or may not" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506729)

These are pretty rare tapes, AFAIK 1 device in the world still exists to read it, they really don't know.

Re:May "or may not" (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#28507125)

It can have different connotations, more strongly emphasizing the negative possibility. For example, if I say "This book may be what you're looking for" versus "This book may or may not be what you're looking for", the 2nd suggestion is phrased in a way that makes me sound much more ambivalent about whether I actually think the book is what the person I'm addressing is looking for.

Obligatory (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28505995)

"some tapes may or may not have been found which may or may not be the Apollo video."

That's no Moon tape! (But - seriously - if it is, it will be great to see the thing finally in HD, or whatever NASA called "high quality" at that time. :))

Re:Obligatory (1)

basil64 (1061038) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506127)

Grainy 8mm film, and in 16 glorious colors!

Re:Obligatory (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506197)

But - seriously - if it is, it will be great to see the thing finally in HD, or whatever NASA called "high quality" at that time. :)

It's not HD; actually, according to the Wired article, the video is a mere 320 lines, 10 frames per second. (There wasn't enough bandwidth for a full NTSC-quality signal).

Even so, *if* these are the tapes of the original moon landing, then it'll let us see it in much higher quality than we could originally.

Re:Obligatory (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506519)

I was just joking. I am a bit familiar with Apollo-era telemetric equipment, and it is my understanding that seeing these tapes will be like having a 1999 RealMedia movie downloaded from the Net upgraded to a brand new VHS rip in MPEG1.

"Scoop" ? (4, Insightful)

jimhill (7277) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506035)

Apparently someone forgot to tell NASA that they're a government agency and not some kind of mass-media Nielsen-dependent agency that relies on "scoops" and "special announcements". When they find something, they should announce it immediately. Suppose they'd found these tapes on July 21...would they have thought it appropriate to sit on them until July 20, 2019, just to have something special to go with the 50th anniversary?

Re:"Scoop" ? (1)

basil64 (1061038) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506069)

Damn you, now they need something to replace that on the 50th anniversary extravaganza...scooped again!

Re:"Scoop" ? (1)

criptic08 (1255326) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506239)

Give them a break. They already have a hard time getting their fair share of attention from the public.

Re:"Scoop" ? (5, Insightful)

Somegeek (624100) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506401)

If only we lived in a world where government agencies got the funding that they needed regardless of current taxpayer whim. In one example, if NASA drops in popularity then they become an easy target for Senators looking to make a name for themselves as budget cutters.

Thus any scoops or special announcements that they can come up with help keep them popular in the taxpayer's eye and help keep the budget cutters away.

Re:"Scoop" ? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506725)

That's fine that you want to pay for NASA. I don't.

It's unethical for you to vote away my money on projects that you think are cool.

Re:"Scoop" ? (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506769)

Every single Government agency that exists is worried about how they appear to the public. They exist at the public's whim. Even an agency that does a decent job will lose funding if some over-eager reporter manages to portray them as incompetent and ineffective.

With that said - are you really, really sure this is the situation? Read that article again. Pay close attention to this:

Perhaps unhappy that a secret they had planned to grandly announce in three weeks had been rumbled, he added: "At this point, I'm not prepared to discuss what has or has not been found.

"The research team is preparing its final report and we'll release those findings publicly in the coming weeks."

Note how much the reporter is reading in to what is actually said. This could be NASA wanting to be thorough as much as them playing up a "mass-media" event.

Re:"Scoop" ? (1)

mikael (484) | more than 5 years ago | (#28507065)

They need "eye candy" for the public to appreciate what they are doing. A graph of the chemical composition of moon rocks will be meaningless to most of the public. A multi-color cartographic map of the moon with different rock compositions in different colors looks cool on a teenagers bedroom wall. But just about everyone can appreciate high resolution images on a webpage or Google Moon.

What they don't tell you (2, Funny)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506081)

What they aren't saying is that the Sunday Press borrowed them all along, and never returned them.

They didn't even bother to rewind, those selfish jerks.

Promotional material (2, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506091)

It's great that these tapes are found (and shocking that they were ever lost). But I find it a remarkable and wholly unbelievable coincidence that they were found just before the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing.

Yeah, no wonder NASA is pissed at it leaking now. Their marketing droids must be furious.

Re:Promotional material (2, Funny)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506241)

>But I find it a remarkable and wholly unbelievable coincidence that they were found just before the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing.
Hey, would *you* check the time capsule?

Re:Promotional material (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506587)

and shocking that they were ever lost

I think there were more tapes (from robotic missions [slashdot.org] ) that were either lost or that were saved "at the last moment". Even though I understand that sometimes the new results simply obsolete whatever he had, one has to wonder whether it is really such a problem to keep the memorable bits safe (especially when they keep on shrinking exponentially - at least compared to our growing storage capacity).

I've see quite a few 'shops in my time... (1)

Progman3K (515744) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506161)

Just a shame the moon conspiracy-believers will claim that "Of course they've found the tapes NOW, now that computers are powerful enough to fake it properly"

Re:I've see quite a few 'shops in my time... (0, Troll)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506385)

Yes that was the plan all along :

1. Announce a fake moon landing backed by low quality footage
2. With the help of Intel and IBM (they're part of the conspiracy too, you need to look at the bigger picture dude), improve computers for 40 years until they're capable of generating photorealistic renderings of anything
3. Release a HD version of the same fake footage 40 years later
4. ???
5. Profit!

Hey! Me too! (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506209)

I also may or may not have found tapes which may or may not be the Apollo videos.

Next time, get the team to read 'Efficient POVRay' (1)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506299)

...before you start the renderfarm. ;-)

For over 5 years [...] NASA have been engaged in a quest.

May or may not be? (3, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506381)

some tapes may or may not have been found which may or may not be the Apollo video.

Vroomfondel, is that you?

We all know the moon landings were faked... (1)

Terminus32 (968892) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506421)

...so which studio was this filmed in?

So, Is There Hope...? (3, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506443)

So, Is there hope for finding the missing Dr Who episodes?

Re:So, Is There Hope...? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28507039)

Why not? All it takes is really some box in an attic noone remembers what is or why it could be important. People have found extremely rare stamps and coins and whatnot before, why not old video tapes? I just wouldn't put money on it...

No human has ever been to the moon (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506451)

Why were they lost in the first place?

They're fake. And the government doesn't want that truth exposed.

Found ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506461)

... in the Universal Pictures studio vault, mis-labeled as a Michael Jackson video.

Re:Found ... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506595)

Well, actually they were not mis-labeled. But when the librarian saw the label "Moon Walk" he just though "Michael Jackson" and put it into the music section of the library..

Out On a Limb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28506581)

"...some tapes may or may not have been found which may or may not be the Apollo video."

You're really going out on a limb there chief. I may or may not have decided that you may or may not have your head up your ass.

Re:Out On a Limb (1)

jra (5600) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506761)

I was merely accurately characterizing TFA, in valiant, but ultimately misguided and useless attempt to head off postings like "well, TFA doesn't actually say that they were found".

Yes, I know that; did you read my slug?

If so, (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#28506677)

I'd like to hire the finders to find the TV remote.

now... (1)

hh4m (1549861) | more than 5 years ago | (#28507007)

... in HDTV!

Boffins?!!! (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 5 years ago | (#28507077)

I really hate the term Boffins. A word like that hardly encourages people to strive to engineer a better life for us all.
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...