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!

Citizen Scientists Help Explore the Moon

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the given-enough-eyeballs-all-craters-are-shallow dept.

Moon 60

Pickens writes "NPR reports that NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is doing such a good job photographing every bit of the moon's surface that scientists can't keep up, so Oxford astrophysicist Chris Lintott is asking amateur astronomers to help review, measure, and classify tens of thousands of moon photos streaming to Earth using the website Moon Zoo, where anyone can log on, get trained, and become a space explorer. 'We ask people to count the craters that they can see ... and that tells us all sorts of things about the history and the age of that bit of surface,' says Lintott. Volunteers are also asked to identify boulders, measure the craters, and generally classify what is found in the images. If one person does the classification — even if they're an expert — then anything odd or interesting can be blamed on them. But with multiple independent classifications, the team can statistically calculate the confidence in the classification. That's a large part of the power of Moon Zoo. Lintott adds the British and American scientists heading up the LRO project have been randomly checking the amateur research being sent in and find it as good as you would get from an expert. 'There are a whole host of scientists ... who are waiting for these results, who've already committed to using them in their own research.'"

cancel ×

60 comments

First post! (1)

mike.mondy (524326) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331360)

What's the chance that volunteers will "discover" that the man in the moon is actually Colbert?

(First post!)' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32332478)

Zero.

Uranus? (0)

antirelic (1030688) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331368)

Will citizen scientists help explore Uranus?

waka waka

Re:Uranus? (3, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331402)

I'm sorry,but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all. It's now called Urectum.

Re:Uranus? (4, Funny)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331820)

I'm sorry,but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all. It's now called Urectum.

Reminds me of the game Mass Effect 2. They had a little Easter egg in there.

You had to harvest planets for mineral resources in order to have the raw materials for upgrading your equipment. You harvest a planet by orbiting it and sending robotic probes to the surface that presumably bring back the raw materials from their landing sites. When you send a probe down to any planet, your ship's computer (an AI) says things like "launching probe" or "probe launched".

You can visit the Solar System in this game. If you orbit Uranus and launch a probe there, the computer voice says "Now Probing Uranus". It says that only once and it's the only time it says anything other than the standard phrase.

Re:Uranus? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32332286)

You read a Futurama quote and think of some shitty xbox game?

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I'm going to half to ask you to turn over your geek card.

Re:Uranus? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32336358)

The computer only says "Probing Uranus" once, but if you keep trying it eventually says, "Really, commander?" ...usually somewhere around the third attempt; I'm not trolling to get people to click endlessly.

Re:Uranus? (1)

Phoghat (1288088) | more than 3 years ago | (#32348988)

It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

When I think back on all the crap I've learned in high school It's a wonder I can think at all Though my lack of education hasn't hurt me much I can read the writings on the walls

Plus qua change, plus ca meme chose

This is great!!! (4, Funny)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331372)

Now we will able to see all the alien moon bases before NASA and their NWO friends have a chance to PhotoShop them out.

Re:This is great!!! (4, Funny)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32332480)

Or we Photoshop them in and then claim that they Photoshopped them out. Either one is entertaining to me...

Paper-hungry grad. student (1)

Extremus (1043274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331430)

Would they put my name as a coauthor of the papers? Yes? Deal!

Re:Paper-hungry grad. student (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32333936)

No. Not even likely to get recognized at all. I joined solar stormwatch a few months ago, run by the same people. I work third shift, so pretty much the only time I can view the data is around 4 or 5 am, (US) after work. One day I pull up the data, and a box pops up saying that I am the first person to view this near real time data from the stereo probes. Sure enough, I spot a coronal mass emission. Small one, no doubt, but definitely there. So I send my results in. A day or two later, I see pics showing the first solar prominence of 2010, which resulted in a small cme. I never even got an email saying that I had actually found something, let alone thanks from the ISS astronauts who didn't get irradiated or co-author on a paper. Haven't been back since. Now I understand completely that if I hadn't seen it, someone else would have five minutes later, but not even an atta boy? Come on.

Re:Paper-hungry grad. student (1)

RJFerret (1279530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32335812)

Why would you expect co-authorship or an email for basic data processing? Meanwhile, they HAVE recognized I've contributed to detection of seven CME's, but I am just one of over 210 people who collaborated. Their appreciation was considerate but hardly necessary.

However I bet the data used to confirm the solar prominence you referred to didn't come from them, afaik they are only working on historical CME data. The "Spot" and latest "Incoming" data aren't even being applied yet.

As for the "you are the first person to view this data", since those video feeds get updated regularly as the satellites download the data, it's common to receive that message--I'm more surprised when I don't see it. But only the last few seconds of the feed actually is new, most of it covers the previous few days of real time (it's time lapsed).

It seems your expectations might not have been in line with reality? You might have asked in their forums, their team is VERY responsive and appreciative of all input.

Re:Paper-hungry grad. student (1)

kaitos (185784) | more than 4 years ago | (#32342444)

They select 50 random contributers as coauthors for papers.

Mutual Benefit (3, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331436)

From the faq (http://www.moonzoo.org/faq):

Q: What happens to the classifications I provide?

A: They're stored with those provided by everyone who comes to Moon Zoo. The Moon Zoo team will carefully analyse the results to make sure that collectively we're producing results that are useful to scientists -- keep an eye on the Moon Zoo blog for details. All results will eventually be made public for anyone to use.

I think the problem here is that it is all take and no give. Categorize our images for us! We'll give you the data "eventually". Crazy idea, how about doing the statistical correlation of multiple contributors in realtime and display that information on an overall map of the Moon so there's some sense of progress at the task.

Re:Mutual Benefit (1)

Zakabog (603757) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331722)

Crazy idea, how about doing the statistical correlation of multiple contributors in realtime and display that information on an overall map of the Moon so there's some sense of progress at the task.

Sure sounds good in theory but it's much easier to have a bunch of people skew the results if they're posted in real time. Imagine the Colbert Report picking up on this and deciding to tell the viewers to classify every crater as being Stephen Colbert's age... It'd make the automated process much harder and they'll have to spend much more time combing the skewed results.

Re:Mutual Benefit (5, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331822)

I think the problem here is that it is all take and no give. Categorize our images for us! We'll give you the data "eventually".

It sounds a bit childish, really. How can you say it is all take and no give, and then immediately say that they WILL be giving you the results, but only after it has gone through that pesky scientific process.<WHINE>But I want it now!</WHINE>

What is the problem with waiting for the right answer? Zakabog has already pointed out that a real time display could be used maliciously, but it could even skew the results by well-intentioned people. If the first person who submits a result for a given region makes a mistake, then the next person who analyses that region might compare their results with the first and "correct" their own mistake. If you use statistics to build confidence in the results then the last thing you should do is tell the subjects what you are currently expecting them to do. That only uses statistics to compound errors.

Re:Mutual Benefit (-1, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331966)

Umm.. it's called elitism. The public are for grunt work and the important NASA scientists are doing the terribly complicated math.

I, for one, would love them to release a small portion of their results immediately so I could see if this is a task that could be easily automated. It really *looks* like a task that could be easily automated.. using SVMs for example..

Re:Mutual Benefit (2, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32333322)

Because it is basic game theory? You want the little hamster to continue running around the little wheel you give him a cookie to work for. If he gets little nibbles of the cookie he'll work HARDER trying to get more cookie, thus giving you more work. Hell nobody is saying they have to give them the actual recorded data in real time, just throw the monkey a reward for pushing the button. Maybe something that ONLY shows how you are doing? Surely that would discourage the cranks while giving the hamster a reason to keep running the wheel.

For those that would like to do a little amateur astronomy themselves, or just haven't heard about it and would like to try some really cool FOSS, give Stellarium [sourceforge.net] a go. The amount of detail it gives is just insane, with my retired NASA engineer neighbor actually able to plan his viewings of Jupiter's moons by running Stellarium simulations beforehand to allow him to find the best times for viewing in our area. It works on Linux, OSX and Windows, is free, and will actually run decently on 5 year old laptops. I'll have to see if the Stellarium guys would like a copy of his latest project, which is using Stellarium to give a visual representation of the objects he is doing spectral analysis of. Stellarium really gives a great presentation and helps the non astronomers to understand what the college astronomy club is doing and the college kids really love it.

If any of the Stellarium guys read this, great work guys. Your software really is top notch and professional. Oh and he is giving full credit to Stellarium for the visuals, as well as making sure the website is printed on all material. He also made a really nice set of graphic art CD covers for Stellarium, which I'll have to find a place to upload.

Re:Mutual Benefit (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 4 years ago | (#32335078)

Because it is basic game theory? You want the little hamster to continue running around the little wheel you give him a cookie to work for. If he gets little nibbles of the cookie he'll work HARDER trying to get more cookie, thus giving you more work. Hell nobody is saying they have to give them the actual recorded data in real time, just throw the monkey a reward for pushing the button. Maybe something that ONLY shows how you are doing? Surely that would discourage the cranks while giving the hamster a reason to keep running the wheel.

Galazy Zoo [galaxyzoo.org] , which pioneered this kind of crowd-sourced classification, seems to disprove that need. Most of the people are astronomy fans, and the joy of looking at raw telescope pictures was reward enough. Eventually they did add a list of previously viewed galaxies, and let you mark your favorites for later viewing. Besides, it had 250,000 users. Get each person to look at 20 galaxies on average (just a few minutes time, easy to do) and you have 5 people looking at each of 1 million galaxies.

In other words, crowd-sourcing this kind of stuff either provides its own reward (pretty pictures) or needs no continued participation (because the work can be done by lots of people instead of people spending lots of time).

Re:Mutual Benefit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32333492)

think the problem here is that it is all take and no give.

What are you talking about?? They're providing these amazing pictures, and I'm providing useful info by looking at them. I'm excited just to have the opportunity. THAT'S what they're "Giving".

Where's your FOSS philosophy ??

Re:Mutual Benefit (1)

RJFerret (1279530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32335858)

Aside from the other respondents showing issues with this idea, I can tell you that with the Solar Stormwatch program they run, our data was compiled and recognized sooner than I was expecting (my participation, along with over 210 other collaborators, confirmed seven CMEs).

fuck this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32331512)

since when did citizen mean amateur?

scientists are citizens too, you know. amateur scientists are not scientists, however.

Re:fuck this (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331844)

since when did citizen mean amateur?

scientists are citizens too, you know. amateur scientists are not scientists, however.

Generally the difference between a skilled amateur and a professional is that the professional is getting paid. Of course there are unskilled amateurs, but for that matter there are also unskilled professionals.

Anyone who follows and correctly applies the scientific method is a scientist. Money changing hands has nothing to do with it. Think about it, if it were otherwise then why would NASA bother to solicit the input of amateurs for a scientific project?

Re:fuck this (4, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331884)

amateur scientists are not scientists, however.

Why? According to :

A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy.

Surely if they do this, then it doesn't matter that they aren't paid or haven't been formally trained in a scientific field. There are limits to what you can achieve without an education, but what defines a scientist is the search for knowledge, not already having knowledge.

Re:fuck this (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32332450)

Why? According to the world's greatest aspy gathering:

There, fixed that for you. As for actually answering your question:

Surely if they do this, then it doesn't matter that they aren't paid or haven't been formally trained in a scientific field.There are limits to what you can achieve without an education, but what defines a scientist is the search for knowledge, not already having knowledge.

Of course. This is all 100% true. However, what is also true is that when people speak of scientists, they are really speaking of experts. The OED definition of scientist is "A person with expert knowledge of a science". The OED defines an expert as "One whose special knowledge or skill causes him to be regarded as an authority."

Put it this way. If by scientist people really meant "anyone employing the scientific method", this article wouldn't be "Citizen Scientists Help Explore the Moon"; if by astronomer people meant "any retard with eyes and a clicking finger" the article wouldn't be talking about amateur astronomers.

But when you read this, your Assburger's is probably going to flare up and another little "but language is alive!!" / "the meaning of 'scientist' is changing!" turd will form in your head.
 

Re:fuck this (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#32332662)

Surely if they do this, then it doesn't matter that they aren't paid or haven't been formally trained in a scientific field. There are limits to what you can achieve without an education, but what defines a scientist is the search for knowledge, not already having knowledge.

I'd argue that the scientific method is what makes a scientist, not "systematic activity to acquire knowledge"

Otherwise you end up with crap like "creation science" which starts with premises that ignore observed/tested facts and then runs off giggling into fantasy land.

Re:fuck this (1)

Darth Hamsy (1432187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32333282)

Amateur scientists aren't professional scientists; they don't make a living doing science. That's the distiction being made by the grandparent.

Re:fuck this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32333650)

If that's the distinction being made by the grandparent, then why didn't he say so? He said, very clearly: "amateur scientists are not scientists".

Re:fuck this (1)

RJFerret (1279530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32335976)

Yet having knowledge provides context in the search for knowledge.

A great example of this is with the same organizations "Solar Stormwatch" program, frequently people will ask in the forums for confirmation of their interpretation of something they've seen. Someone with experience can say, that is "X", mark it, or ignore it, as appropriate.

The purpose is to improve the signal to noise ratio, which increases the productivity of researchers.

Statistical confidence (2, Informative)

macraig (621737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331576)

Maybe they learned this from the distributed computing folks? SETI@Home and World Community Grid take advantage of the same process.

Re:Statistical confidence (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331626)

Maybe they learned this from the distributed computing folks?

More likely they learned it from the Galaxy Zoo [galaxyzoo.org] folks.

Re:Statistical confidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32331734)

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the same folks are working on both. Galaxy Zoo has had some pretty impressive successes using this method; it would be logical to try it on such a similar problem.

Re:Statistical confidence (2, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32332158)

How long has GalaxyZoo been around? Longer than SETI@Home? It's more likely both projects took the hint from how SETI@Home processes data. As another commenter correctly pointed out, these two projects do with spare eyes and brain cycles what SETI@Home does with spare CPU cycles, and all of them rely on having multiple redundant results for the same dataset to verify integrity of the result. It's not exactly rocket science to figure out such a technique would be useful, but SETI@Home has been around for a LONG time, and it's not exactly unknown especially in astronomy circles.

Re:Statistical confidence (1)

InfoJunkie777 (1435969) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331748)

I do the same thing occasionally with GalaxyZoo (www.galaxyzoo.org). After being trained you classify galaxies. The second version is much better than the first iteration and goes into more detail. I like the "progress indicator" idea in the post above, but see no practical way for it to work.

Re:Statistical confidence (1)

bughunter (10093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331828)

Yep. Except instead of putting spare CPU cycles to work like SETI@Home, Boinc, etc., the Zooniverse projects put spare user cycles to useful work.

I many times enjoyed getting a buzz and staring at mind staggeringly distant galaxies [galaxyzoo.org] for an hour or two, with some freakishly talented electric guitarists [blogspot.com] providing some recorded accompaniment. While I consider it "down time," my friends the astronomers consider it useful work.

Hey guys! (1)

pizza_milkshake (580452) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331676)

I think I found an important rock! Oh wait, it just a regular rock. Nevermind.

A better use of the public's time... (4, Interesting)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331724)

...would be to use the statistically-validated user input in a feed-forward image recognition neural network utilizing error feedback that would "learn" to identify the various features of interest. Use edge detection to identify the features of interest (for instance, by number just like a paint-by-number canvas), and have users "identify" what they see. We're talking about invariant scale here, which vastly simplifies the learning process as well as automated feature measurement.

I was doing this in the '90s using multi-band spectral imagery from LANDSAT with good success. I would imagine there have been some advances in this area since that time.

Re:A better use of the public's time... (1)

FleaPlus (6935) | more than 4 years ago | (#32333416)

...would be to use the statistically-validated user input in a feed-forward image recognition neural network utilizing error feedback that would "learn" to identify the various features of interest. Use edge detection to identify the features of interest (for instance, by number just like a paint-by-number canvas), and have users "identify" what they see. We're talking about invariant scale here, which vastly simplifies the learning process as well as automated feature measurement.

I was doing this in the '90s using multi-band spectral imagery from LANDSAT with good success. I would imagine there have been some advances in this area since that time.

Actually, since the '90s people have largely switched from using neural nets to support vector machines [wikipedia.org] (or maybe a restricted Boltzmann machine [wikipedia.org] ). ;) I do agree that it'd be an interesting training set for a machine learning algorithm, though.

Re:A better use of the public's time... (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32335342)

You'd think that would be the case, but there are several reasons why humans are a better solution to this than a computer program:

1. Recognition like this requires complex interpretation. Computers might be able to interpret them, but you have no way of validating that interpretation, and computers are pretty literal about it anyway. Multiple humans with cross-checked results are going to give you (by and large) more accurate results. If we can't manage it with OCR of clearly-written and cleanly-scanned written words (hence projects like "distributed proofreaders" - http://www.pgdp.net/c/ [pgdp.net] - to put OCR scans of books through multiple human validations to make sure the OCR worked), we're surely not going to do terribly well scanning imperfect photographs of novel landscapes for hard-to-recognize features.

2. Programming such recognition costs time and money. Showing volunteers pictures costs a lot less time and money.

3. Having people volunteer and become actively involved in any aspect of science is good for the popularity of the science. Look at SETI @ Home.

Yes, they probably could get the recognition to acceptable levels. But why bother when there are hordes of free labor willing to do a better job?

Re:A better use of the public's time... (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32335374)

Drat, I managed to reply to the wrong post, thereby partly disproving my own theory about the accuracy of humans. ;)

This was meant to be in reply to "Crazy idea..." below.

Crazy idea.... (1)

SlayerofGods (682938) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331764)

Why not just use a computer to count craters? The current algorithms for optical recognition should work rather well for 'find circles'. Not that it's nice that they're involving us normal folk in their fancy science, but this is the sort of mundane task that computers are made for....

Re:Crazy idea.... (4, Informative)

war4peace (1628283) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331904)

You might want to check out some of those pictures before jumping in with speculations.
Craters are being lit from various dirns, depending on the latitude, longitude and Sun position. This sort of imagery needs a human mind to correctly process it. Furthermore, it's not only about "counting craters", but identifying other interesting features (such as crater bouldery, artificial structures, linear features, moulds and so on). Plus, images have varying degrees of clearness (I found some corrupt images as well, pity you can't report them). The "Boulder Wars" minigame itself is rather interesting too.

Re:Crazy idea.... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#32332574)

And you'll note that every image has already been tagged with each of those variables, so all you need to do is train a model for each.

Re:Crazy idea.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32335388)

Don't you need the correct answers to a largish sample to train an algorithm first? And the only way to get that sample is (painstaking?) human effort.

Or.... (1)

columbiatch (853270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331792)

...these citizens could spend their time volunteering their time and skills in their community and actually make a fellow human's life better on this planet. While this might be a good ploy to pique the interest of some students, I'm trying to figure out how this effort won't be moot in a few years when the computer image recognition/analysis software can do the same task much more efficiently.

Re:Or.... (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32331826)

And how often does volunteering actually end up really helping people in the long term?

There aren't too many opportunities to teach skills which will help people to actually get ahead.

Such things I'd support, but all "volunteering" has turned into is just giving handouts, these don't help humanity but rather hinder progress.

Re:Or.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32339566)

A cynic can find the bad in everything.
You sound like a desperate hoarder, eager to protect YOUR rung on the ladder. A typical AE type personality.
Grow Up and get real.. no-one owns the earth, its the only mothership we've got right now.

Re:Or.... (1)

realsilly (186931) | more than 4 years ago | (#32334668)

Free help is pretty effective. You're helping to educate the public. You're involving the public in the resulting science. This is a very smart way of doing things. Based on your attitude we should wait on doing anything useful until our machine overlords are here and doing it for us, doh!

Training.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32331856)

The training involved isn't that difficult. If it is something you are interested in, I would say it is easy. The confidence analysis is quite compelling and very accurate. (As accurate as you can get with statistical analysis. I plan on having an error rate of about .5% Which is pretty good.

    However, Once every two hundred times, I am going to find an interesting anomaly that would make Richard Hoglan proud.

Think of the grad students! (4, Funny)

plopez (54068) | more than 4 years ago | (#32332016)

This is exactly the sort of mind numbing work grad students should be doing for a pittance. This will put them out of work! We are not providing the right incentives to create our next generation of scientists.

(that was supposed to be humor)

Beware the whalers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32332456)

The whalers on the moon, they carry harpoons!

Oh wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32332502)

I cant wait to see how 4chans skriptkiddy army is going misuse this...

Chris Lintott (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32332688)

For those who don't know, Chris Lintott [wikipedia.org] is one of the people behind the related project Galaxy Zoo [wikipedia.org] , and for the past 10 years has been a presenter of the BBC astronomy programme The Sky At Night [wikipedia.org] .

Sounds like busy work (1)

niftydude (1745144) | more than 4 years ago | (#32332820)

FTA:

And why not use computers? Lintott says they can only identify what they are programmed to look for, and might miss the unusual. "Computers don't make discoveries," he says. "They don't point at the thing in the corner and ask the question: What's that?"

Computers can however, identify what they are programmed to look for, and then indicate any areas which have features which they do not recognise. At the very least he should write a filter to parse out the completely typical images before getting the general public to do his work for him.
This guy is either too lazy or cheap to write some image analysis software, or a luddite who doesn't trust computers.

More projects like this at Zooniverse (1)

RCourtney (973307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32333628)

Moon Zoo is one of many projects on http://www.zooniverse.org/ [zooniverse.org]

It's a great way to learn about the various images/data being captured, both in our solar system and beyond, while actually contributing something to the scientific community. There is something extremely exciting about watching a clip of the sun and seeing a comet appear out of nowhere and zoom around the sun with its tail pointing away. Or being among the first to notice a new solar storm which might affect astronauts in orbit. Or spotting tiny little foot prints on the lunar surface from one of the Apollo missions in one of the images presented! It does get tedious at times, but the little discoveries make it interesting and rewarding overall. Plus they are great learning tools for curious people, both young and old - the scientists seem to frequently answer all sorts of questions on the forums regarding the images, projects and basic science surrounding them.

I'm not associated with any of the projects, I just find them interesting from time to time. I've learned a lot from the projects and have SEEN a lot more of the Universe around me because of them.

There is Nothing New About This! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32336118)

We have Moon image data from the 1960s rotting away on magnetic tape that
has NEVER been analyzed due to lack of time and priority on the scientists' part.
Data from satellite/manned missions has ALWAYS overwhelmed the processing and
analytical stages. This is one "dirty secret" NASA has never really admitted.

Privacy Alert (1)

slashdotjunker (761391) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337692)

I created a required Zooniverse account in order to try out the Moon Zoo. New Zooniverse accounts have "show email" and "receive newsletters" automatically enabled by default. Shame on them.

Who is that... (1)

Cyclloid (948776) | more than 4 years ago | (#32342912)

Is that Roger Waters on The Dark Side of the Moon?

stardust@home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32353612)

why isn't there a mentioning of the similar (older) project stardust@home?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust@home

shame on you /. moderators

Check for New 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...