Beta
×

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!

View the Moon in 3D on Your Desktop

samzenpus posted more than 8 years ago | from the explore-from-your-seat dept.

NASA 168

TheBeansprout writes "You can now view the moon in 3D With NASA World Wind with two sets of Clementine data and full placenames. "We have just digested the best of the images, so we can now deliver the moon at 66 feet (20 meters) of resolution" says Patrick Hogan, World Wind project manager at NASA Ames. "This is a first. No one has ever explored our moon in the 3-D interactive environment that World Wind creates," he adds. Download World Wind and view the quick tutorial or tour to interact, and there's some moon screenshots available too. A linux version of World Wind is slated for early 2006."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great (4, Funny)

Muppski (918156) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939745)

Now I dont even have to move to the window to see the moon

Re:Great (1)

scumfuker (882056) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939756)

Windows? You actually let THAT much light in?

Re:Great (2, Funny)

Celt (125318) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939782)

The light, the light
IT BURNS IT BURNS!!!
arghhhhhhhhhhh

Re:Great (2, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939800)

My eyes...the goggles do nothing!!

Re:Great (1, Funny)

Celt (125318) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939757)

You can travel around the earth (maps.google.com) and explore the moon without leaving your PC, you'll never have to go outside again.
Ah the wounders of the Internet

Re:Great (1)

Patrik_AKA_RedX (624423) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939900)

You know about that "outside" thing? I've a few of these too, nicely behind glass ofcourse. I just wonder: do I have to feed all those moving things in there? Or do I have to water it? It seems like I can open those glass things, but I'm a bit cautious since I don't know for sure those things in there won't bite. Also is there a way to keep the light in there on a bit longer or is that harmfull to the little creatures?

Re:Great (1)

Spacejock (727523) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939861)

When you said full moon, I was expecting (dreading) something along the lines of goatse

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13940113)

I still have to use Windows? I'll wait for the linux version.

Oh great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13939751)

...time to eBay my new telescope.

So the Moon is at 20m per pixel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13939755)

...and Earth is at 500m per pixel (BlueMarbleNG)?

Re:So the Moon is at 20m per pixel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13939804)

Nobody's going to commit terrorist attacks on the moon with detailed information they garner from Worldwind.

Re:So the Moon is at 20m per pixel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13940002)

have you ever used worldwind? Just switch the dataset to one of the landsats, nearly as good as google earth.

Let me be the first to say... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13939762)

We like the moon coz it is close to us we like the moooon!

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

zeristor (646630) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940021)

I doubt the Americans have seen "The Mighty Boosh".

[O yes we have]
(O no you haven't)

British comedy, isn't that Monty Python? "Oh I really like Are you being served", etc, etc.

In the mean time... (2, Interesting)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939764)

...while we wait for Linux version, is anyone working on getting this stuff to Celestia [sourceforge.net] ? Would rock if the two programs could easily use the same data though.

The screenshots seem nice, but regrettably not really too much more impressive than what you can already do with Celestia. =(

Re:In the mean time... (4, Informative)

Bungopolis (763083) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939789)

Celestia is a "universe" explorer, and it's very good at its job. WorldWind is a "world" explorer, and it's very good at its job.

WorldWind has two primary advantages over Celestia for exploring the Moon:

* Streamed imagery - data is downloaded as you view, which makes it possible to support extremely high resolution and detailed data that, if downloaded all at once (as would have to be the case with Celestia), would span hundreds of gigabytes.

* Topographic projection - WorldWind supports topographic data for both the Earth and the Moon. This means that if you can see craters and mountains in 3D, which is what really sets it apart from viewing a flat image. Even viewing a flat image projected onto a simple sphere (as in Celestia) is not much more enlightening than viewing a flat photograph of the sphere itself.

Re:In the mean time... (1)

WindozeSux (857211) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940010)

...which is what really sets it apart from viewing a flat image. Even viewing a flat image projected onto a simple sphere (as in Celestia) is not much more enlightening than viewing a flat photograph of the sphere itself.

That's what bump mapping and parallax mapping are for.

Merge the two? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940651)

I think it would be cool if the functionality of the two was merged. Just imagine have finished looking at our solar system, being able to come back to Earth and zoom into your house :)

A Linux version?! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13939851)

You want the moon on a bloody stick?! :)

Robot dog barks at the 3D flat screen Moon! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13939771)

This helps much. Now Aibo the robot dog can bark at the moon without exposing himself to the dangerously dirty and humid environment outside. Saves on the repair bill tremendously.

View the Moon in 3D on Your Desktop (0)

SmilingMarsupial (882236) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939774)

pc

An even closer view (5, Funny)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939775)

Mandatory Wikipedia link [wikipedia.org] .

Re:An even closer view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13939809)

Mandatory Google Link [google.com]

Re:An even closer view (3, Funny)

Maavin (598439) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939984)

That's no moon!

What a cheesy joke...

Better then google moon (4, Funny)

bvdbos (724595) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939776)

Of course they couldn't stay behind after Google released Google Moon [google.com] but this looks way more promising...
Let me just say: Cool!!! (-9F, 451R, -23C, 250K on the average that is...)

Yeah but... (1, Informative)

kf6auf (719514) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939814)

When you zoom in all the way, is it made of cheese?

Try it. [google.com]

Re:Better then google moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13939923)

Just too bad World Wind had the Moon AND Mars as an add-on LONG before Google threw up their 1 small section of the moon.

That other celestial body (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13939779)

What, no Uranus joke yet??

Re:That other celestial body (3, Funny)

spot35 (644375) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939815)

WorldWind ... Uranus ... Naah, too easy.

Re:That other celestial body (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13940389)

goatse already gives us a close up of that..

Ha nothing new! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13939785)

I got 3D cheese in my frige! I did something before NASA could even do it! Na Na Na I am better than NASA! In your face NASA!

20m resolution and the landing sites... (1)

spot35 (644375) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939786)

I guess this means we still won't be able to see the landing sites in enough detail? Maybe someone with more knowledge can explain why we can't provide a higher resolution for these images if we can see celestial objects millions of light years away...

Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... (4, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939812)

I'd say it's mainly because the instruments used to take the images have a 20m resolution. When there's a camera which can take pictures of the landing sites from earth, there will be pictures of the landing sites from earth. Not before.

Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939819)

Where Earth = lunar orbit, I mean. I'm somewhat decaffienated.

Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939860)

Here [exploratorium.edu] you go.

Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13939867)

You cant see it because no one has ever landed on the moon.

that is easy (3, Funny)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939872)

they are not finished yet photoshopping the phoney lander in!

Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13939913)

Maybe someone with more knowledge can explain why we can't provide a higher resolution for these images if we can see celestial objects millions of light years away...

20m at 384,400km is like 0.05 LY at 1,000,000 LY. The question is whether we can resolve a celestial object millions of light years away *and* 0.05 LY across.

Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... (4, Informative)

NeoThermic (732100) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939948)

>I guess this means we still won't be able to see the landing sites in enough detail?

Correct. The largest object that is on the moon is the 14036kg SIVB from Apollo 15. Located at 1.51S 17.48W (or as a WWURI: worldwind://goto/world=Moon&lat=-1.51&lon=-17.48&a lt=13402 ), it isn't actually visible, possibly because that is its impact place, rather than a resting place (so it could well be smashed).

The largest intact objects is the Lunar Rovers, and there's three of them ( Apollo 15's rover (worldwind://goto/world=Moon&lat=26.08&lon=3.66&al t=13402), Apollo 16's rover (worldwind://goto/world=Moon&lat=-8.97&lon=-15.51& alt=13402) and Apollo 17's rover (worldwind://goto/world=Moon&lat=20.17&lon=-30.77& alt=13402), however at about 2 meters in length, on a 20m/pixel basis they are a 10th of a pixel.

So in short, if you're looking for 'evidence', you'll be waiting for higher-res images :)

NeoThermic

P.S. Sorry for the non-clickable URL's, but slashdot strips out the usefull characters, so WWURI's end up as: worldwind:gotoworldMoonlat-151lon-1748alt13402, which is useless

Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... (1)

NeoThermic (732100) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939994)

Small correction on myself. The offical design documentation lists the length of the rovers at 122 inches, which is 3 meters, so thats a 6th of a pixel at 20m/pixel; or still too small to see.

NeoThermic

Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... (3, Informative)

MikeyToo (527303) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940043)

The largest intact objects left on the moon after the landings were not the LRVs but the descent stages for the LMs, one from each of the six successful landings. These are about 4 meters across. Other unintact items from the landings were the ascent stages of the LMs which were intentionally crashed into the moon to provide seismic data.

http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/pages/aain dex/home1.html [okstate.edu] has impact point data for the ascent stages.

Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... (1)

NeoThermic (732100) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940234)

>The largest intact objects left on the moon after the landings were not the LRVs but the descent stages for the LMs

Good point, but if they were visible, you would see them by looking where the rovers are (since all rovers were parked a few hundred meteres from the descent stages).

I do find it intresting that the SIVB never left a large enough mark to make an impression on a 20m/pixel view, on the consideration that they weighed some 14,000 kg and (according to wikipedia) were 17.8m in length and a 6.6m diameter...

NeoThermic

Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... (1)

saider (177166) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940568)

I guess this means we still won't be able to see the landing sites in enough detail? Maybe someone with more knowledge can explain why we can't provide a higher resolution for these images if we can see celestial objects millions of light years away.

Because celestial objects are also very large. Galaxies span hundreds of thousands of light years, which is why they are visible.

(from wikipedia)
The angular resolution (in radians) of a telescope is roughly wavelength/diameter. Optical wavelengths are in the 500nm range.

The observed radian value of a distant object is given by object width/distance.

So a moon lander, say 5m wide, which is about 385,000km = 385,000,000m would need a resolving power of 5/385,000,000 = 1.29e-8 rad.

206,265 arcseconds = 1 radian

So the moon lander is about 0.002 arc seconds if observed from the vicinity of earth.

So using our equation above,

Radians = wavelength/diameter

or

diameter = wavelength/radians = 500e-9 / 1.29e-8 rad. = 38.75 meters.

That is a BIG telescope. Don't forget to account for atmosphereic effects. And please check my math.

Linux and Mac Versions (3, Informative)

kf6auf (719514) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939791)

According to the Wiki FAQ [worldwindcentral.com] anyone is encouraged to work on the port of the current version with some resources [worldwindcentral.com] they have made available and the next version (January 2006) should be cross-platform.

Re:Linux and Mac Versions (2, Informative)

TheBeansprout (926731) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939945)

Quite correct. The thing with World Wind is that it's community-driven, so if people want ports then they need to step up and join in. In addition to your links there's also a forum section [nasa.gov] for ports and a how to get involved [worldwindcentral.com] page on the Wiki. We welcome all the help we can get - I came to WW from the Slashdotting 12 months ago, so let's see what this time can bring :)

Thank you NASA for the Linux version (2, Insightful)

MarkKnopfler (472229) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939792)

It is indeed heartening to note that there is a plan to push out a Linux version, unlike Google which altogether seems to have forgotten the linux user.
What is even sadder about Google is that it being a Linux shop, having derived so much benefit from the existence of Linux, refuses to actually return anything to the user community.

Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version (1)

ben_evilben (924796) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939888)

Hmmm...summer of code?

Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version (1)

dev!null!4d (414252) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939920)

Nothing you say, taken from http://code.google.com/projects.html [google.com]

        * Google APIlity PHP Library for AdWords (google-apility)
        * google-coredumper (goog-coredumper)
        * google-perftools (goog-perftools)
        * google-goopy (goog-goopy)
        * google-sparsehash (goog-sparsehash)
        * google-mmaim (goog-mmaim)
        * google-sitemap_gen (goog-sitemapgen)
        * atomfeed (atomfeed)
        * google-ajaxslt (goog-ajaxslt)
        * google-kongulo (goog-kongulo)
        * google-adwords-api-client (goog-ad-api-cli)
        * google-prettify (goog-prettify)

Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version (1)

MarkKnopfler (472229) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940005)

If you notice my comment, you will find that I have mentioned linux user community, and not development tools. The growth of linux largely depends on its popularity/user base, which most of us here would like to see, expand. Linux has not, and will not gain wide acceptance if it is retained as a development/geek computing platform. Acceptance and popularity comes from the ready availability of tools and applications. I would have thought that Google, would be one company which would do that -- It has not. The examples being --

1. Google video. The application supposedly has portions of VLC in it, but does not have a linux port.

2. Google desktop search. They never bothered to bring out a linux port. We of course have stuff like Beagle now, but that is not from Google.

3. Google Earth. I understand that it is acquired software, but there is absolutely no plan to port it to Linux.

4. Google talk. No voice support. In fact, no google talk client on linux, you can go ahead and use a jabber client. If Skype can push out a decent voip phone application on linux, I do not see why the PhDs at google cannot do the same.

5. Picasa. No linux port nor do they have any plans for picasa on linux. In fact I use flickr since that gives me a flash interface that works fine on linux.

So, to review, Google has not (largely) done anything to provides its kick-ass tools on Linux. I guess it is prudent business but I had thought that Google as a company would have the conscience to do something to for the linux user also. I personally do not think it has.
Also, as a developer how often do you use the tools pushed out at code.google.com ? This is an unrelated query and not a part of the point that I am making. I am merely curious.

Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version (1)

dev!null!4d (414252) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940230)

I must admit, you've got a point. Sorry that my previous message came across a little harsh, I didn't mean it to sound that way.

I'm not a developer, so can't really comment I'm afraid.

Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version (1)

chmod u+s (211367) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940388)

So, to review, Google has not (largely) done anything to provides its kick-ass tools on Linux. I guess it is prudent business but I had thought that Google as a company would have the conscience to do something to for the linux user also. I personally do not think it has.

Because largely linux users don't need it. I'm glad you think google desktop is a kickass app, but to me it is just so much fluff. The only useful bit is the ability to search outlook email and I don't run outlook on linux. find . |xargs grep "whatever" works fine for me.

Google video? you mean video.google.com? how does that need a port?

Google Earth, Google talk eh, maybe. But really I could care less

Picasa? I used that software before it was acquired and it sucked.. I don't want a port of that turd

What about all of the great platform-neutral apps they have given you for FREE? Search, Gmail, Maps, Video, Images, blah blah blah... From my perspective they have given me a crapload of apps, just none that sit on my local machine. That being said, I am sure reasons will develop to not like google related to this.

Consider this syllogism: If knowledge is power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then it follows that absolute knowledge corrupts absolutely. Assuming an iff relationship between knowledge and power. Pass me the spliff man. ;)

Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version (1)

suezz (804747) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939971)

ya I totally agree - how long was it till they released the google bar for linux.

they should be releasing linux versions at the same time as windows if not before.

with their help desktop linux could take off. when the common joe user sees all this new stuff and it works on linux too it would help ease their fears about linux.

Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version (1)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939991)

If you do a Windows version you accomodate the vast majority of the desktops on the planet. It is pretty hard to justify increasing the workload very much to cover the remainder. Has anybody tried this application on Wine (http://www.winehq.com/ [winehq.com] ) ?

Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version (1)

RandoX (828285) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939996)

Let's face it, Google is a web service provider. Regardless of how much Linux Google uses behind its doors, the vast majority of its users are using Windows. Like it or not, that's the bottom line.

Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13940071)

I hope slashdot covers the launch of the linux version. If we slashdot the fuck out of them they'll realise where their true fanbase lies.

data data data only 22 CDROMs (5, Informative)

rednuhter (516649) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939796)

the 22 CD ROMs from the Clementine project can be accessed from here

http://starbase.jpl.nasa.gov/archive/clem1-l-h-5-d im-mosaic-v1.0/ [nasa.gov]
(jpegs are in the browse directories)

or if you have not the got the bandwidth they are only 220 USD from

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/cd-rom/web_store.cgi?ca tegory=hires [nasa.gov]

now if only I could find a the above as a DVD torrent, hmmm

I wonder (0, Redundant)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939798)

if you could see the remains from the lunar landings. Of course, for the tin foil hat crowd, that would mean that the images were of Arizona.

Re:I wonder (1)

spot35 (644375) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939807)

I'm pretty sure the 20m per pixel resolution will put paid to that. I don't think any of the landers were more than 20m along any one side, so I doubt they'd show up. And if they did, it wouldn't be in any easily discernable form.

Imperial strikes back (2, Insightful)

Crouty (912387) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939817)

"so we can now deliver the moon at 66 feet (20 meters) of resolution."
I hope this is just press conference talk. Otherwise they should better not put metric in parenthesis but imperial measures. Just mod me flamebait not yet, there have rockets lost before because of this.

Torrent Link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13939833)

I can't find a torrent link. Somebody care to oblige?

Hoooooooooraaaaay (0, Troll)

hdante (771422) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939859)

I use Linux !11/1/1;1!!!!1 I'm staying behind on the information superhighway !1!!!!

OS X (-1, Redundant)

xirtam_work (560625) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939864)

personally, I'd like a Mac OS X version. I use Windows at work, but only because I have to.

Re:OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13940279)

Windows users get the Earth [google.com] and the Moon [nasa.gov] . We get a spinning beachball [thexlab.com] .

Developers are forking code to use java and c#! (5, Insightful)

christophercook (21090) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939869)

According to the developer they are planning to create a Java version for linux as well as the C#/DirectX version they have now:
http://mail.worldwindcentral.com/pipermail/worldwi nd-dev/2005-September/000736.html [worldwindcentral.com]

This is nuts! Trying to make one big complicated from work is hard enough, making two versions of it written in different languages is inexplicable! The only real reason hinted at is that Microsoft wouldn't like NASA using Mono for an official application. Does Microsoft really want NASA to use Java just to spite Mono?

Download the code for WorldWind and have a look, then consider porting it to Java/OpenGL/Java3D. Then consider just using Mono with OpenGL bindings. Or consider funding Wine so it supports .Net based apps (maybe not that far off? Wine DirectX already works for many modern games).

Somebody talk some sense into them. Or tell me why I'm wrong, either way someone has to sort this out otherwise it's going to be a massive waste of time and money.

I'm ranting, I know - can anyone else see how backward this is?

Re:Developers are forking code to use java and c#! (1)

wackysootroom (243310) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939958)

I'm left wondering why Microsoft has so much power over what NASA develops their applications in. Also, I would think that MS would be more concerned about a Java port than being able to run the C# app in Mono.

Re:Developers are forking code to use java and c#! (1)

NeoThermic (732100) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939966)

It might sound backwards, but WorldWind also uses .net stuff that Mono hasn't yet ported, so even if you tried to hack at WW to work with OpenGL, there'd still be outstanding items to fix in relation to the missing support from Mono.

NeoThermic

Re:Developers are forking code to use java and c#! (1)

christophercook (21090) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940054)

I agree that porting stuff Mono doesn't have already would take time and effort, however that would likely take a few months to do (perhaps even several). On the other hand a java port that has to live alongside the C# version will be required to be maintained for the lifetime of WorldWind and will always need to be kept in sync with the C# version. Obviously if they make a wholesale move to Java then they need only work about the java version. I would argue that sounds a much bigger task than just getting the existing Worldwind to work using modifications to current tools.

Re:Developers are forking code to use java and c#! (1)

bitflip (49188) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940558)

If it's anything like other neat projects I've seen from various places, the initial concept was written in whatever language the guy who came up with, and then wrote it, was familiar with.

In other words, maybe this started out as some geek with an idea hacking at something in C#. Someone higher up got a look at it, and decided to offer it funding. Rather than start all over, they polished up and released what they had, and started working on the newer version.

Really cool stuff is seldom driven by committee. Its usually some guy scratching an itch (and we're all the better for it, aren't we?)

First? (5, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939877)

"This is a first. No one has ever explored our moon in the 3-D interactive environment that World Wind creates,"

I think Neil Armstrong would have something to say about that.

Re:First? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13939889)

I think Neil Armstrong had a better 3d environment than World Wind ever will so the statement still holds.

That's assuming he did in fact go there.

requires .NET 1.1 (1)

edharper() (787007) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939892)

Bring on the linux version - World Wind requires the hateful .NET v1.1, installing which has destroyed two of my Windows 2000 machines.

And the Sea of Tranquility... (1)

silasthehobbit (626391) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939896)

...is completely black! What a surprise! When you zoom in, there's nothing to see.

Move along now, nothing to see.

--
silas
hobbit

Re:And the Sea of Tranquility... (1)

TheBeansprout (926731) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939933)

Pop over to the forums [nasa.gov] if you need help :)

Pink Floyd (2, Funny)

aktzin (882293) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939905)

"There is no dark side on the Moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark."

The vision of Bill Gates finally becomes reality.. (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939914)

That's the real reason BillG named his O/S Windows! he knew some day we are gonna look at the screen and view the physical world, including the moon...

That's no moon ... (1)

ggvaidya (747058) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939916)

"... so we can now deliver the moon at 66 feet (20 meters) of resolution ..."

"Lord Vader, is our conquest complete?"
"The moon is to be delivered into our hands tonight, my Master"

Odd choice of words there, but whatever. This is teh cool3st. Can't wait for the Linux version!

Screenshots? (1)

om3ga (675900) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939921)

and there's some moon screenshots available too

So much for actually looking out the window to see what the moon looks like!

Wheeee & WW2D (2, Informative)

TheBeansprout (926731) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939924)

A goatse image on the Road Map page within 30minutes of the Slashdotting. You're getting slow dudes :p

I didn't mention in the article, but there is a partial clone of World Wind for Linux done by a community member.See the thread here [nasa.gov] for more info.

People can also join #worldwind on irc.freenode.net. That's probably the best way to get involved with developing and find out what's where.

And lastly...yes, Mars is on the way. Stay tuned.

They were asking for it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13939995)

A goatse image on the Road Map page within 30minutes of the Slashdotting.

An article about viewing the moon. A name that involves wind. And a wiki...

And you really thought this was not going to happen? You must be new here!

Re:They were asking for it... (0)

TheBeansprout (926731) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940143)

:D

I've been around /. for a few years, just created this new account because I forgot / never used the old one :)

The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. (4, Funny)

AEton (654737) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939932)

It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. (0)

SomeoneGotMyNick (200685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940125)

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

It isn't often I feed trolls, but here goes.... [online-literature.com]

A copy of this book was passed down through my family before it was sold off at a book exchange sometime in the 70's. It was printed in the late 30's.

Of course I understand that the original post may have been sarcastic, but then again, so was my response.

Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13940140)

You sir, are a moron.

Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13940592)

Well put.

Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. (1)

Mesinjah (927427) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940131)

You are either joking us (good one) or you are the world's most ignorant person. There are ancient scriptures that refer to the moon dating back ten thousand years, well beyond whoever the hell Joshua is... Not to mention thousands and thousands of references well before the 1950's INCLUDING - that Bible thing.

Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. (3, Funny)

Nuffsaid (855987) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940259)

Are you crazy?!? Do you _seriously_ believe in this liberal myth about the so-called "rotation of the Earth"? It is quite evident that Earth stands solidly still under my feet, as God created it 5000 years ago. Or was it 500?

20 METERS? (4, Funny)

Da Fokka (94074) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939951)

For the last couple of months I have been checking obstinately if high-resolution data was finally available for my location - Utrecht, the Netherlands. But to no avail, I still have to manage with a measly 30m resolution. I can't quite see my house from up here!

I understood the general reason for it - You start with the large cities and work down from there. There is little reason to provide hires data of the Sahara.

But now we have been taken over by THE FRIGGIN' MOON! The data of that desolate celestial body is more accurate than the data of the Netherlands.

Re:20 METERS? (1)

Crouty (912387) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940200)

There is little reason to provide hires data of the Sahara.

But now we have been taken over by THE FRIGGIN' MOON! The data of that desolate celestial body is more accurate than the data of the Netherlands.

Sahara, Netherlands, both flat and featureless. What's the difference?

;-) just kidding. I like Oranje. :-)

Microsoft Windows only...as usual (1)

Compile 'em all (834137) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939968)

No Mac or GNU/Linux versions. it is based on DirectX and .Net :-S

Re:Microsoft Windows only...as usual (1)

linforcer (923749) | more than 8 years ago | (#13939982)

That's ok. Us Linux geeks never go out and see the sun (that big yellow sphere in the ceiling). Why would we bother with seeing the moon?

Re:Microsoft Windows only...as usual (1)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940032)

to predict managerial behaviour?

Interesting (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13939993)

A woman is basically a type of human being with a hole in between the legs and virtually no brain activity whatsoever.

No-one sir! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13940025)

"No one has ever explored our moon in the 3-D interactive environment that World Wind creates"

Well I sure showed him!

Did they land on the moon? No... (0, Redundant)

Mesinjah (927427) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940090)

We should have images of the moon with left over equipment in view, such as rover vehicles and flags and Lunar modules. Why has nobody had any images of this stuff on the surface? They didn't go to the moon in the 60's lets face it. We would have had long range images from Earth showing all this crap still sitting there on the moon, but no... Nobody ever has seen that, just like this application doesn't see it. Without proof, it didn't happen!

Dark Side of the Moon (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940189)

I enjoy listening to Pink Floyd while exploring the moon.
I have found that it is not made of cheese, it is made of pixels.

View the moon in 3D with your EYES!!! (1)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940282)

It's called "looking up" folks!

Re:View the moon in 3D with your EYES!!! (1)

Use Psychology (873643) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940433)


at that distance the moon is essentially projected onto the celestial sphere... i.e. 2D. you cannot distinguish topology, just shading.

Re:View the moon in 3D with your EYES!!! (1)

TV_Slug (911583) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940691)

You can't "look up" to see the dark (far) side of the moon very well. Interestingly, you can't use this software to view certain areas of imagery that are conveniently missing from their data also. Notice especialy the left side of this shot with the strange pattern. http://www.worldwindcentral.com/hotspots/view_hots pot.php?id=1642&mode=full [worldwindcentral.com] And as already mentioned, in the upper right, they don't have the core of the big, obvious impact crater? Somehow I don't think so!

Hey! (1)

Nuffsaid (855987) | more than 8 years ago | (#13940294)

The so-called "Dark Side" of the Moon is actually dark! At least, stripes of it...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?