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!

From the Moon to Earth in HD

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the tiny-grey-marble dept.

Moon 156

Lucas123 writes "The Japan Space Agency's Kaguya spacecraft is currently orbiting the moon and its equipment is being tested in preparation for its real mission to map the moon with high-definition images later this month. Almost as an afterthought, the space craft has recreated one of the most memorable photos in the history of spaceflight — an Earth-rise from lunar orbit."

cancel ×

156 comments

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

SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21356761)

_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
here is another memorable moon [goatse.ch]

That's just (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21356765)

a high definition movie set in Japan!

Not in HD (-1, Redundant)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356767)

They seem to be low res graphics to me.

Re:Not in HD (5, Informative)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356841)

I was able to find two HD pictures:

http://www.selene.jaxa.jp/image/communication/img_071114_01.jpg [selene.jaxa.jp]
http://www.selene.jaxa.jp/image/communication/img_071114_02.jpg [selene.jaxa.jp]

1920x1080

Couldn't find anything else though. Disappointing.

Re:Not in HD (5, Informative)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356889)

For comparison, the original [nasa.gov] .

http://dayton.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/LARGE/GPN-2001-000009.jpg [nasa.gov]

The older image appears to be higher resolution.

Re:Not in HD (2, Informative)

fbartho (840012) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356933)

That older one looks like it was scanned in from a negative or a blown up film print. I don't know how you might accurately examine the real resolution comparitively.

Re:Not in HD (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356997)

The NASA one has stars.
Its obviously better ;)

Re:Not in HD (1)

kurzweilfreak (829276) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357965)

You mean an obviously better fake ;)

Re:Not in HD (2, Interesting)

Dieppe (668614) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357007)

The original photo was more than likely FILM, not digital. They had to wait for the astronauts to come home before developing it. From the probe they're doing "HD" resolution and the image is NOW baby! :)

I kind of like NOW over "film at 11"... but that's just me.

Re:Not in HD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21357103)

On the moon missions the astronauts used medium format Hasselblad cameras. Medium format has a significantly larger negative area. The most common aspect ratios are 6×6 cm (square) and 6×4.5 cm (rectangular). For comparison the phase one digital backs which often take the place of film in these cameras nowadays get up to about 40 megapixels. Much more then HD.

Re:Not in HD (2, Insightful)

fbjon (692006) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357759)

Yes, but those are still pics, nothing new there. This particular camera on Kaguya is 3CCD HD video, which is rather unusual to have in space.

Re:Not in HD (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21357277)

YAAY! I can see Australia

but it's upside down.... hmmm maybe Australia is on top of the world

(welcomes sarcasm)

Re:Not in HD (1)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 6 years ago | (#21359505)

Yes! Notice the cloud cover over the Eastern seaboard?
Well yesterday I had to mow the lawn because of all the rain we've had...
Geez I hate grass.
I reckon the Greeks and Italians (maybe the Egyptians) worked it all out 1000's years ago and put marble or stone or lots of sand.
Don't see any pottery with Greeks mowing grass do you?

Re:Not in HD (3, Interesting)

Solandri (704621) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357299)

More shots from the sequence [nasa.gov] scanned at approx 2400x2400 resolution.

Re:Not in HD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21356935)

To make it worse, they're blurry as hell. Like they took the blurry thumbnails, magnified them 4x in photoshop, and applied a few blur filters for good measure. WTF?

Re:Not in HD (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357003)

Huh? the second image is definitely HD but it's a still from a motion set so not extremely clear but you can make out continents and stuff which ain't bad from lunar orbit =)

Re:Not in HD (1)

kcbanner (929309) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357043)

Thats about as HD as my old digital cam. I guess they lower their standards for spacecraft.

Re:Not in HD (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357793)

It's a still from a video.

Re:Not in HD (1)

markbt73 (1032962) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357157)

Cool, thanks! I've been looking for a new desktop background.

Re:Not in HD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21357607)

thanks for the links. that first image is like standing on the moon, hardly disappointing!!

Re:Not in HD (3, Insightful)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357805)

I looked at the two screenshots. The spatial resolution at 1:1 isn't so hot on that camera, but hey it's orbiting the moon, so can't ask for much more right now. It will also look better in motion. Hopefully I can get the Discovery HD program somehow.

Comparing to the medium format still footage by Apollo's Bill Anders (Whom I've had the pleasure of briefly meeting when he was flying a P51 around here recently), Bill's photos are exposed more for the lunar surface than the earth. It appears that the white clouds of earth are overexposed when the moon is in correct exposure, at least in the one shot linked above. The HD camera probably has a comparable or a little less exposure leniency depending on whether the Apollo cameras used slide or negative film. (I think they were slide?)

The JAXA footage has the earth exposed nicely and the moon is out of peak range, with most features deep in a medium grey. This has an advantage of bringing out the contour features on the lunar surface better. Also, seeing the progression of sunrise really looks interesting with no atmosphere. Landing on the moon at the perpetual twilight line would give one unlimited time to walk around and frame the earth against numerous lunar features. With the enlarged size of the earth, it will take less telephoto length to capture it at a reasonable size in the frame.

--Mike

Max resolution (2, Informative)

Ruben3d (859906) | more than 6 years ago | (#21358237)

1920x1080 is the camera max resolution, you won't find anything better from this spacecraft. Info extracted from the bottom of this page: http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071113_kaguya_e.html [www.jaxa.jp]

Re:Not in HD (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21356879)

How can the 3rd Post Be Redundant? Being the other two wern about any topic.

Re:Not in HD (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356913)

How can the 3rd Post Be Redundant?

Well, one of the tags is !hd. But that's a stretch.

Never has Slashdot been so wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21356779)

> "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."

To which I can only say: BULLSHIT!

Re:Never has Slashdot been so wrong... (1)

Tribbin (565963) | more than 6 years ago | (#21358027)

Futurama is really funny where the future earthlings find the moon really boring and Fry wants to see the moons attraction park.

What kind? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21356837)

"What kind of spacecraft it that?"
"Why, it's a spacecraft spacecraft!"

country with no PD law (1)

TheRealZeus (1172755) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356839)

makes me wonder if these vids/images are going to be made avail to the public in HD

Re:country with no PD law (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356907)

makes me wonder if these vids/images are going to be made avail to the public in HD
Yeah, when I saw these yesterday at Space.com, I looked around for something suitable for a desktop image was available, but couldn't find anything...

Re:country with no PD law (2, Funny)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356915)

1. On the first image, click on the "Click Here" link
2. follow it to JAXA's site
3. ?????
4. see high res!

Re:country with no PD law (0, Redundant)

TheRealZeus (1172755) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356993)

since when is 420 high res?

Re:country with no PD law (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357057)

I would say 984x554 [selene.jaxa.jp] was reasonably high res. Fine, it's not ultra high res, but it's not bad.

Re:country with no PD law (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21358541)

Yeah, I was annoyed to see that the new "Moonrise" images have a big copyright stamp burned onto them.

You can say a lot of crap about NASA but at least they don't deface their images, and they're pretty good about sending sending press kits and other information out to anyone who wants it.

What's next, DRM on the videos?

Rifespan? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21356855)

Anyone know how rong it will be in runar orbit?

a bit misleading (4, Funny)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356877)

i thought it might have HD time-lapse of the earth rising... instead it just has some composite images of same at smaller resolution. I was all ready with my 2001-2010 quotes and music and everything!

Re:a bit misleading (1)

musther (961493) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357609)

Of course, there are vids... :-)
http://space.jaxa.jp/movie/20071113_kaguya_movie01_e.html [space.jaxa.jp]

Re:a bit misleading (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357981)

Yep, but those aren't HD. They are barely D. ;) Still nice.

Translated text in case of Slashdotting (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21356885)

The Japan Space Agency's (JAXA's) Kaguya spacecraft re-created one of the most memorable photos from space--an Earth-rise from runar orbit. But this one was taken for the first time with a high-definition camera.

JAXA's spacecraft is currentry orbiting the moon and its equipment is being tested in preparation for its real mission to map the moon with high-definition images rater this month. Two saterrites carried by Kaguya, including one that will eventuarry rand on the moon, have already been raunched into runar orbit to help the runar mapping project.

NHK, the Japan Broadcasting Corporation, deveroped HDTV for use in space. Crick here to see a video of the Earth-rise and Earth-set from the JAXA project site.

Re:Translated text in case of Slashdotting (1)

KudyardRipling (1063612) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357187)

NHK developed an analog signal HDTV back in the early 1980's. Whether it was in Popular Science or a trade magazine I don't remember, but it had 'Geisha doll' screenshots that compares NTSC, NHK and 35mm film. The problem was that it did not fit in the 6 MHz channel blocks in use at the time.

I asked a doctor
to take your picture
so i can look at you from inside as well

Apollo (4, Interesting)

kalpol (714519) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356891)

I'm curious if they'll be able to see the Apollo landing sites. Have we had a look at them since we left? That would be the first place I'd visit if I landed on the moon - there ought to be some interesting data available from the materials left out in baking space for 30-odd years.

Re:Apollo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21357037)

I don't think they'll find much... it was all faked! It's true too, Wikipedia told me.

Re:Apollo (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357119)

I'm curious if they'll be able to see the Apollo landing sites.

The optics package is probably not large enough to resolve to the required level of detail (unless that was a specific mission goal for them). Perhaps someone with more time and inclination could break out the old college physics textbook, flip to the optics section, and calculate the size of the lens necessary to spot a 3m^2 object from an orbital altitude of sixty miles?

Re:Apollo (4, Informative)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357169)

Not exactly what you were looking for, but relevant all the same. [cornell.edu] My compliments to hardburn [slashdot.org] for the link.

Re:Apollo (1)

zzottt (629458) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357745)

very cool find, thanks!

Re:Apollo (1)

kalpol (714519) | more than 6 years ago | (#21358787)

Very interesting, thanks.

Re:Apollo (1)

wandlerer (1036418) | more than 6 years ago | (#21359287)

I will probably be showing either my laziness or ignorance here, but what is the difference between looking for tiny stuff on the moon 250,000 miles away, and "seeing" tiny planets billions of miles away?

I hear that teams have seen planets the size of Jupiter and/or smaller, about 90,000 miles across or so, BIG numbers of light years away. Let's just play it one light year away - 6,000,000,000,000 miles or so. How do these ratios compare?

Diameter of Jupiter/one light year =
90,000 miles/6e12 miles = .000000015

Now apply that to the moon. At a distance of 250,000 miles, using the same ratio, that same telescope should be able to pick out something 19.8 feet across.

And that is only at ONE light year. There have been planets studied at thousands/millions/billions(?) of light years away. This would increase the resolution down to inches/cm, which either a) totally destroys the "can't see it on the moon" theory due to the resolution, or b) leads to speculation that something just isn't right when they publish all these findings.

I feel the need for some edumacation on this topic.

Thanks.

Re:Apollo (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21358097)

There are some specs on the sensor here: http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071113_kaguya_e.html [www.jaxa.jp]

CCD(1920x1080)
Fixed lenses (T: tele camera, W: wide camera)
FoV T: 51.23(horizontal) 30.17(vertical)
        W: 15.60(horizontal) 8.80(vertical)

So if I'm doing this right then,
T: tan(51.23*pi/180)*100km/1920 = 64.8m/pixel (horizontal)
      tan(30.17*pi/180)*100km/1080 = 53.8m/pixel (vertical)
W: tan(15.60*pi/180)*100km/1920 = 14.5m/pixel (horizontal)
      tan( 8.80*pi/180)*100km/1080 = 14.3m/pixel (vertical)

Neither anywhere near 3m^2. :(

-brandon

Re:Apollo (5, Funny)

Zordak (123132) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357183)

I'm curious if they'll be able to see the Apollo landing sites.
That thing has some pretty impressive cameras, but I don't think it's good enough to take hi-res pictures of Arizona.

Re:Apollo (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357343)

Tricky, with the Hollywood writers strike. I assume the studios knew about this Japanese probe in advance, though, and the special effects guys were able to work up something to put in the can. Now they just have to sneak it into the stream coming from this probe.

Re:Apollo (1)

zzottt (629458) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357347)

I was thinking the same thing. I want to see the tracks and stuff more then some ol crater

Re:Apollo (1)

TheGoodSteven (1178459) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357429)

I'm curious if they'll be able to see the Apollo landing sites.
I doubt that the Kaguya spacecraft can maintain a low enough orbit to enter the filming studio.

Re:Apollo (1)

scapermoya (769847) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357701)

that thing might not be able to see it, but there is a lab that regularly bounces laser light off of reflectors that were left there by americans and russians

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apollo.html [ucsd.edu]

here we go again.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21357735)

Boy, that sure is a nice shiny picture of the earth from the moon. A luminicent object in space that shows up just fine.. Question, where are all the stars again?

Oh yes, another photo in space without any stars in it. Great.

Re:here we go again.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21358151)

nice shiny picture of the earth from the moon

exactly. the earth, and more importantly the moon, is way too "shiny" for the brightest of the stars to show up on the picture.

some of us like to do a little thing i call "thinking" we post. do you?

Re:here we go again.. (2, Informative)

trawg (308495) | more than 6 years ago | (#21358631)

The industry standard rebuttal [badastronomy.com]

Already HD? (1)

maxrate (886773) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356923)

I didn't read the article - I've heard a few stories about things recently being filmed in HD. Why I am unclear about is, haven't we had HD capturing technology for a long time (if you had the money?) For instance, I'm certain that a lot of imaging arrays that NASA use are already HD, when I mean 'already' - I mean well before the average joe goes to circuit city and buys an LCD HD display. What am I missing here? Shouldn't we have already tonnes of HD footage?

IMAX (2, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357021)

IMAX [wikipedia.org] , could be scanned at 10000 x 7000 pixels, which definitely qualifies as HD.
And we already have quite a bit of IMAX footage.

Re:Already HD? (1)

F1_Fan (255672) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357073)

There's a big difference between still images and real-time 30fps HD video. HDTV requires a lot of horsepower (to capture and compress) and bandwidth (to transmit back).

Also, a lot of what we've seen as high-res older NASA stuff is scanned from film. Something like, 35mm film is easily capable of looking good at 1920x1080.

Any video (not stills, but video)that NASA transmitted electronically was much lower resolution. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think still images from Mars that looked high-res were actually composites of many exposures from a relatively low-res sensor that were stitched into a larger image.

Re:Already HD? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21357403)

"...haven't we had HD capturing technology for a long time"

Back in the Apollo days it was called a Hassleblad.

Re:Already HD? (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 6 years ago | (#21358645)

No, it was called slow-scan TV and the quality was terrible.

Public Relations (4, Informative)

iamlucky13 (795185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357693)

The HD camera on SELENE is a PR instrument [selene.jaxa.jp] . Video is useful for things that change. The moon, for the most part, does not change, and the HD camera does not produce scientifically useful images of the moon. SELENE can only take about a minute worth of video.

High Definition as a proper noun generally refers to 1920x1080 resolution, but the various space agencies have produced much higher resolution images for years. The 35mm film shot during the Apollo missions is being scanned into 3070x2044 pixel images, for example, and the medium format film is being scanned at a huge 12800x12800 pixels. The Mars rovers carry 1 MP (1024 x 1024) cameras, and the images are often stitched together into far larger mosaics. I've seen some that even as JPG's take up over 100 MB (and crash IE). The Hubble Space Telescope's highest resolution camera is also only 1024x1024 pixels, and I believe this was chosen to approximate the maximum resolution of the optics, but again, large mosaics are common.

The High Resolution Imaging Scientific Experiment (HiRISE) camera aboard the Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter takes a different approach and is what's called a "push broom camera." Instead of taking rectangular pictures every so often, it scans a single line of up to 20,000 pixels continuously at the rate the spacecraft moves over the ground. In this way it builds up images up to 40,000 pixels long (800 megapixels...now that's high def!), at which point the file has to be transmitted to earth or the camera runs out of memory.

Re:Already HD? (1)

BlackDogEngineering (975361) | more than 6 years ago | (#21359713)

Perhaps HD is in the eye of the beholder? The Clementine program mapped the moon about 15 years ago using a combination of UV IR and visible light cameras that were good to 125 m/pixel. That was all digital of course. You can get more information here http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Projects/Clementine/ [usgs.gov] and see some pretty cool photos at 1Km - 32Km per pixel resolution here: http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/clib/ [navy.mil]

These are fake! (3, Funny)

Mad-cat (134809) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356953)

These are obvious fakes! Everyone knows the moon doesn't exist and was just made as a fake destination so America could fake a landing on its surface to beat the Soviets!

Top that crazy conspiracy theory!

liberal anti-jesus propaganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21357033)

yet more proof that liberals hate america, god, jesus, and our beloved christian faith.

we might as well all go have sex with ferrets if this is the sort of thing that is allowed on the new 'HD' television.

Re:These are fake! (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357475)

I had to laugh when the conspiracy folks made a great stab at the lack of stars. The intensity of the stars and the intensity of the earth is no where near each other. To expose the stars, would severly overexpose the earth and moon in the photos. In properly exposing the earth and moon, the stars simply don't show up. If they did, I would know the photos were fake. Not mentioned, is the angle of sunlight matches properly in the photos to the illumination of the earth. I hope they take more photos with the earth at three quarters, half and quarther earth. I would like to see the moon better lit in some of these photos. The parts of the moon in direct sunlight is very interesting and matches the reports of how dark the lunar soil is. On the apollo missions, one of the things noted was the soil on the moon was very dark like black pavement. These photos show the same result as the original apollo missions, which tends to validate the earlier stuff as being real. The more data we get the better we can either prove or disprove the conspiracy theory. These latest photos are a plug for real, not fake.

The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (2, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357661)

As taken from this comment [slashdot.org] :

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:These are fake! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21358057)

You forgot the part about the fake soviets.

Earth doesn't move (3, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356981)

There's an interesting phenomenon that most people don't consider. Since the moon rotates about its axis at the same period as its orbit, the earth always appears at the same place in the sky when viewed from a given location on the surface of the moon (unless of course you were on the "dark" side of the moon).

That would be incredibly useful for navigation!

The article seemed to misstate this fact:
Since the moon's rotation matches the Earth's rotation of the sun, the Earth will always appear to be in the same spot if seen by an astronaut standing on the moon.

Doesn't that infer the moon's rotation is 365.25 days?

Dan East

Re:Earth doesn't move (2, Informative)

Technician (215283) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357285)

Doesn't that infer the moon's rotation is 365.25 days?

No. If you thing of the earth and moon as orbiting each other, the earth could be considered in geostationary orbit. The earth and moon as they circle each other has the same side of the moon facing the earth at all times.

http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/essential/earthspace/session7/closer1.html [learner.org]
Orbital period (days) 27.32166
Rotational period (days) 27.32166
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm [solarviews.com]

The moon has about 13 days a year.

Re:Earth doesn't move (3, Funny)

MojoStan (776183) | more than 6 years ago | (#21359501)

http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/essential/earthspace/session7/closer1.html [learner.org]
Orbital period (days) 27.32166
Rotational period (days) 27.32166
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm [solarviews.com]

The moon has about 13 days a year.

I think you'd increase your slash-cred if you explained it using a Futurama quote:
  • Leela: Our car broke down and we're low on oxygen. Can we borrow some?
    Moon farmer: Borry? Listen here, city girl. You can't just borry oxygen. Oxygen doesn't grow on trees. You'll have to work it off doing chores on my hydroponic farm. You can return to your precious park at sun-up.
    Fry: I guess we can do chores for a few hours.
    Leela: Night lasts two weeks on the moon.
    Moon farmer: Yep, goes down to minus-173 degrees.
    Fry: Celsius or Fahrenheit?
    Moon farmer: First one, then the other.

Re:Earth doesn't move (1)

k8to (9046) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357349)

Well the main problem is guessing what the "Earth's rotation of the sun" might mean. On the face of it, it is nonsense.

Re:Earth doesn't move (1)

niteice (793961) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357657)

(unless of course you were on the "dark" side of the moon).
There is no dark side of the moon really...matter of fact, it's all dark.

Re:Earth doesn't move (2, Interesting)

uselessengineer (1172275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21358417)

This is quoted from http://www.digipro.com/Trials/moon.html [digipro.com] because I don't want to /. their servers.

The moon is tidal locked with Earth.

When a given moon is small enough compared to the planet it orbits (Earth-Moon) the bigger object has the ability to drastically change the orbit of the smaller one. When two rotating bodies orbit each other, they raise tides in each other. These tides cause mechanical friction. So tidal activity absorbs a lot of energy out of the rotational energy of the bodies. In other words, the energy in the form of rotational inertia is partially converted into tidal, geophysical changes in the bodies involved.

The Moon's rotational inertia has been exhausted, converted into geophysical change in the Earth and Moon. The Moon, being much smaller than the Earth, long ago dissipated enough energy to lose rotation so that its tidal bulges are now always aligned with the gravitational pull of the Earth. The Earth still raises a "tide" in the Moon but it is in a balanced, steady state now and does not stretch the rock any more -- there's no more spin for the Moon to give up.

The tidal effect on the Moon is static because the Moon no longer rotates in relation to the Earth. All these exerted forces are costs in energy. They have to come from somewhere. The Moon did have a much higher rotation rate long before anyone was living on the Earth to observe it, but the tidal forces slowed it down until it reached an equilibrium point, i.e., where keeping the same face toward the Earth was the point of least expended energy. Both will still rotate, both keeping the same face toward the opposite body.

Re:Earth doesn't move (1)

JrOldPhart (1063610) | more than 6 years ago | (#21358817)

My Astronomy 101 taught that rotation was about an axis, and an satellite revolves about it's primary.
So the error was with semantics.

Am I the only one who was reminded of Star Strike? (1)

shotgunefx (239460) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356991)

Re:Am I the only one who was reminded of Star Stri (1)

SloppyElvis (450156) | more than 6 years ago | (#21358899)

Nope. Me too. Excellent video.

Blu-ray to venus? (1)

stormguard2099 (1177733) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357027)

Will Sony pull a similar stunt to stay competitive?

Re:Blu-ray to venus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21357163)

I don't know but thats a cool B movie name, If I've ever heard one. Although there should be an unnecessary reference to outer space. Blu-ray to venus ... In outer space!!

Re:Blu-ray to venus? (1)

Derek Loev (1050412) | more than 6 years ago | (#21358459)

They already have one of those, it's called "Ur Anus 7". And damn, it sure is more entertaining than those other HD photos.

Need better images (1)

JungleBoy (7578) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357051)

I'm still looking for the huge versions of these pictures. The best I've found are two 1920x1080 images [selene.jaxa.jp] on the agency website. While these are HD, I need something I can fit nicely on to my desktop (3840x1200). Some of the stills coming from the ISS are great for this.

Here's some real HD... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21357065)

... from 1968 (Apollo 8)!
http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/photos/b/as08-14-2383.jpg [nasa.gov]

... from 1976 (Viking)!
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/mars_surface_vik2_big.jpg [nasa.gov]

... from 1979 (Voyager)!
http://oursun.open.ac.uk/images/jupiterp_cassini_full.jpg [open.ac.uk]

What makes this new "first HD camera in space" so special (yes, I know the Apollo images are shot on film, but Viking and Voyager had video cameras)?

Re:Here's some real HD... (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 6 years ago | (#21358585)

I think the 30+ year old ones looked better than what we just got. Just think, 1970's images, I'm not 100% sure if that's some sort of old digital photo NASA used then (which is very impressive) or more like an analog TV transmission. If it was analog TV scan, I'm incredibly impressed with the old ones.

Mod parent up. (1)

Shandalar (1152907) | more than 6 years ago | (#21358703)

Yeah. Film is much more HD than an HD video camera or HD still digital camera.

So what? (1)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357145)

Excuse me for not exactly jumping for joy over the news of shiny new HD footage from the Moon. Is this actually an improvement over previous probes? What were they using before, consumer-grade camcorders? I would have thought film, which usually still has HD beat.

Re:So what? (1)

xealot (96947) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357379)

I believe the original famous picture shot from this perspective was shot with a Hasselblad. I think even with 1970's film stock, 120 film still qualifies as HD, probably even more so than this new digital picture. I could be wrong however...

Re:So what? (2, Informative)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357549)

120 film if properly scanned would qualify as way, way, way more than HD, especially if it was shot with decent glass (you can easily scan 120 film at 4800dpi, and it's 6 inches wide, you do the math...)

Re:So what? (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 6 years ago | (#21358603)

Still pictures don't qualify as HDTV. Those Hasselblads took impressive stills, but no HD video.

Re:So what? (1)

TarZ (954747) | more than 6 years ago | (#21358287)

film : Someone should carry the film. In a tight ship.
video : We can look 1.3sec later. At home.

Some movies (5, Informative)

wooferhound (546132) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357151)

Look on this page for High Res Pics
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071113_kaguya_e.html#pict01 [www.jaxa.jp]
and these movies of EarthRise and EarthSet
http://space.jaxa.jp/movie/20071113_kaguya_movie01_e.html [space.jaxa.jp]
http://space.jaxa.jp/movie/20071113_kaguya_movie02_e.html [space.jaxa.jp]

Re:Some movies (1)

HeyBob! (111243) | more than 6 years ago | (#21358717)

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the craters as bubbles at first (convex instead of the proper concave)?
I know they're craters, but it took about 30's to get my brain to see them as craters.

on TV in HD today (2, Informative)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357245)

it should be on in about half an hour (5pm PST) on Discovery HD for 30 minutes, not sure how much of the footage they're going to show (or if it's only on the Canadian Discovery HD) but it's on my cable box's IPG so do check it out, I seem to recall also that it will be repeated at least twice in the next few days.

Why is the Earth upside down? (0, Redundant)

christurkel (520220) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357341)

Okay, call me dumbo, but why is the Earth upside down in those pictures, I mean south pole up?

Re:Why is the Earth upside down? (1)

Neon Aardvark (967388) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357497)

A. It's not upside down. I can see the Arabian peninsula and africa, and they face the right way.

B. They could take an "upside down" picture of Earth by rotating the camera or orbiter 180 degrees. "Upside down" is fairly meaningless in space.

Re:Why is the Earth upside down? (2, Insightful)

JrOldPhart (1063610) | more than 6 years ago | (#21358687)

Why would you consider North to be up?

You fail the Kahn test. You are thinking two dimensionally.

Up would be away from the nearest gravity source.

Mini-series? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357513)

Rats, I thought this was about the miniseries [imdb.com] to HD. :P

Copyright JAXA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21357883)

I would never understand why a government needs copyright.

The Earth never rises from the Moon (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 6 years ago | (#21358295)

I assume that the concept of "the Earth rising from the Moon" is an artifact of the Satellite orbiting the Moon...

Stamps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21358735)

I'd love to set these images as my background, but the copywrite ruins it.

I hate to nitpick, but... (1)

pyite69 (463042) | more than 6 years ago | (#21359167)

on what planet is 550x309 considered "HD" ?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>