DescentBB

It bugs me when people say NASA is wasted money when you see things like this:

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/0 ... _mark.html

Places you will never be or see in person but brought to you in ever clearer and amazing photography by NASA.

Fantastic shots! They said they had a good camera onboard...

I can't believe 4 years has gone by already.

NASA never wastes money (well, in context). Everything they do progresses the population, in a semi-trickle-down effect. We wouldn't have half the technology available to us, the public, if it weren't for NASA missions. The people who think NASA is a waste still believe the Earth is 6000 years old.

Agreed. The stuff NASA does to forward science and technology is just amazing. The fact that they do it on a budget which gets tighter and tighter every few years is just incredible.

I support any type of scientific work. It's the future.

The one thing about these kind of images is, like Will Wright said, they're still, 2D images. You don't get to see them moving naturally, or how far away they are, or how often you get to see them. It's why I'm more interested in 3D digital recreations than 2D real images.

They can't do 3D recreations without images of the original.

We want video!

Those are amazing pictures. Thanks for the link.

TIGERassault wrote:The one thing about these kind of images is, like Will Wright said, they're still, 2D images. You don't get to see them moving naturally, or how far away they are, or how often you get to see them. It's why I'm more interested in 3D digital recreations than 2D real images.

i assume it to be pretty difficult to achive proper 3D-images (or animations for that matter) in that timescale at the currently possible velocities, given the dimensions of the universe. object distance, viewpoint, angular velocity->track velocity, etc. you do the math

on the other hand, i can see moving rocks here on earth, too.

Foil wrote:They can't do 3D recreations without images of the original.

Good point.

Floyd wrote:i assume it to be pretty difficult to achive proper 3D-images (or animations for that matter) in that timescale at the currently possible velocities, given the dimensions of the universe. object distance, viewpoint, angular velocity->track velocity, etc. you do the math

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of generated planets and planet landscapes than to do actual planets in the solar system.

I guess you'd have my obsession with Spore to blame for all that. Ever since I could properly comprehend the sheer magnitude of the universe that's generated in that game, I've lost some interest in much simpler things like these images.

Those are awesome. Thanks TB. Has anyone else been watching \"When we left earth\" on the Discovery Chanel? It's on Sunday nights at 2100. Really great shoe.

ThunderBunny wrote:It bugs me when people say NASA is wasted money when you see things like this:

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/0 ... _mark.html

Places you will never be or see in person but brought to you in ever clearer and amazing photography by NASA.

Tru' dat!

CDN_Merlin wrote:I support any type of scientific work. It's the future.

Tru' dat!

People who think NASA wastes money should have bricks chucked at them

TIGERassault wrote:I guess you'd have my obsession with Spore to blame for all that. Ever since I could properly comprehend the sheer magnitude of the universe that's generated in that game, I've lost some interest in much simpler things like these images.

With all due respect, I am in awe.

Foil wrote:Agreed. The stuff NASA does to forward science and technology is just amazing. The fact that they do it on a budget which gets tighter and tighter every few years is just incredible.

When you think about it, the fact that we got to the moon on 1960s technology makes the accomplishment even more awe-inspiring.

Gooberman wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:I guess you'd have my obsession with Spore to blame for all that. Ever since I could properly comprehend the sheer magnitude of the universe that's generated in that game, I've lost some interest in much simpler things like these images.

With all due respect, I am in awe.

Hehe, me too.

European space cameras are pretty good too. Link is to a photo gallery. Scroll through index and look at some of the Mars images:

http://tinyurl.com/4xwcee

Discovery HD Channel has been running a series called 'When We Left Earth' and has been showing hi-def NASA film footage from the moon walks and the runup to them. First time I've seen these films in such good clarity. Nice, especially the Saturn Rocket liftoffs, the moon flyovers at low orbit, the moon Rover running around, the Lunar Lander liftoffs from the moon from a camera ON the moon, and the Sky Lab Station. Maybe they'll repeat it. I think this weekend they're showing the Shuttle program.

Saay, on a related matter, hows the space station coming along? I haven't been paying enough interest to it recently.

The ISS is a POS, and should be scuttled!

Spidey wrote:The ISS is a POS, and should be scuttled!

I don't know, I kind of agree with that. I don't understand why we didn't build a moon base instead. I have to believe that in the far off future, we'd be interested in colonizing planets. The ISS is like a houseboat.

Kyouryuu wrote:The ISS is like a houseboat.

... which is a habitat in space to conduct experiments that might come in handy when space colonization begins. it's cheap in comparison to a moon base (which is all that counts these days). it's closer and therefore faster to reach in an emergency case. it's an experiment itself as to living in space, which is necessary to endure the longer trips to mars. every little detail they learn in earth orbit helps future endeavours. i say it's a good thing.

Kyouryuu wrote:I don't know, I kind of agree with that. I don't understand why we didn't build a moon base instead. I have to believe that in the far off future, we'd be interested in colonizing planets. The ISS is like a houseboat.

For one thing, the surface of the moon isn't zero gravity. One of the biggest reasons the ISS is being constructed is because many experiments and such require a zero gravity condition, which could only be conducted in a space station or shuttle (which is what those astronauts do in their spare time).

BTW the reason I say what I do about the ISS is…have you seen the inside of that thing, it’s a mess ever since the power trouble that took out the computers that time, and is jury rigged with a crapload of laptops…I had to laugh the last time I seen pictures. Also the Russians gave us the shaft, in regards to that thing, leaving most of the expensive stuff to us.

Awesome pictures!

I forgot that the Discovery channel are doing the series \"When We Left Earth\". What time zone is this 2100 in? I'd like to try to watch the show on Sunday.

Kyouryuu wrote:I don't know, I kind of agree with that. I don't understand why we didn't build a moon base instead. I have to believe that in the far off future, we'd be interested in colonizing planets. The ISS is like a houseboat.

I agree, the ISS is a POS high-tech space-house-boat. Though, the only reason for this is lack of support, both monetary and moral.

TIGERassault wrote:One of the biggest reasons the ISS is being constructed is because many experiments and such require a zero gravity condition, which could only be conducted in a space station or shuttle

I also agree here. However, there is one more thing I would like to add, and that is this: a space station in Earth orbit also gives NASA a "rest stop/gas station", of sorts. They can use it as an orbital shipyard eventually. They can fly materials and such up there and build a massive interstellar spacecraft, if they ever decide to do so. There's all kinds of cool ways to put a space station to use. Who knows, maybe one day they'll start constructing Pyros.