Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lunar Flyby

nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 262 posts

Re: Lunar Flyby

#241

Post by zamadatix »

dylan604 wrote: post #126
zamadatix wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't mind some raw files but I honestly don't think they'll be too strikingly different than these (make sure you're looking at the full 20 MP images which should be several MB, not the 2 MP previews at ~200 KB).

I don't know what the Lightroom* skillz of the astronauts are, but I would not be surprised if they were shooting RAW+JPEG and only processed the JPGs in Lightroom. They probably had presets to export to smaller images that was created months ago and loaded onto their PCDs. I'd imagine 4 humans in a tincan have more things to do than to be developing RAW images by digging out the details in the shadows, push the expo…

In that case with the metadata I wonder if the astronauts already sent the raw files over the laser link and the images were just processed by the ground staff for posting on the site.

Re: Lunar Flyby

#243

Post by mathgeek »

1shooner wrote: post #205
palata wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No no no no, I can't let that go. Sending astronauts around the moon has nothing to do with "knowing more about the moon". We don't need people up there to observe the moon. In fact, it's a lot easier and better to have sensors go there and automatically make measurements (e.g. pictures). Now thinking about Mars, sending astronauts there is actually a net negative for science because it risks contaminating Mars. We s…

This FAQ from the NASA website seemed particularly intellectually dishonest: >Why do we need astronauts to view the Moon when we have robotic observers? Human eyes and brains are highly sensitive to subtle changes in color, texture, and other surface characteristics. Having astronaut eyes observe the lunar surface directly, in combination with the context of all the advances that scientists have made about the Moon o…

The word "may" does a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.

Re: Lunar Flyby

#244

Post by mathgeek »

habinero wrote: post #140
nsim wrote: post #122

What is the licence on these images? I can't seen anything on the site or in the HTML. I've been waiting for a new Earth Rise/Set shot (which is thankfully at least 5568x3712px from a NIKON D5). Edit: https://www.nasa.gov/nasa-brand-center/images-and-media/ > You may use this material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits, computer graphical simulations and…

There is none, they're automatically public domain.

Only the ones not containing the NASA logo or the astronauts are public domain.

Re: Lunar Flyby

#246

Post by gnabgib »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #245
xiaoyu2006 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe those are taken largely with Nikon z9?

D5. Old Skool. I think they are specially modified for use in space.

Both

Z9 - last minute flight add (https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/55194523579/)

D5 - two of them (https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/55194768276/)

GoPro HERO4 - Some (4?) on the solar (https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/55193566011/)

iPhone 17 Pro Max - Although, one failed the first day (https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/55193337359/)

Re: Lunar Flyby

#248

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ericd wrote: post #208
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then SLS would represent a ~17 year long program that cost at least 41 billion dollars that netted 5 mission launches SLS will never be worth it. But I'd discount from that price tag the continuity benefits of keeping the Shuttle folks around, and aerospace engineers employed, across the chasm years of the 2010s.

Yeah, it’d be really nice if we could somehow express the strategic capabilities maintained in these discussions. Because on the face of it, SLS looks terrible, but paying that much to maintain the national capability to make something like the shuttle and SRBs feels reasonable. Kind of similar to farm subsidies and the strategic implications there.

> paying that much to maintain the national capability to make something like the shuttle and SRBs feels reasonable

It’s reasonable to pay something. I’m unconvinced $41bn is the correct amount.

> Kind of similar to farm subsidies and the strategic implications there

There aren’t many. Countries in which farmers aren’t swing voters don’t have farm subsidies. I’ve been looking into buying some farmland and just collecting CRP on it, for example.

Re: Lunar Flyby

#249

Post by ericd »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #248
ericd wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it’d be really nice if we could somehow express the strategic capabilities maintained in these discussions. Because on the face of it, SLS looks terrible, but paying that much to maintain the national capability to make something like the shuttle and SRBs feels reasonable. Kind of similar to farm subsidies and the strategic implications there.

> paying that much to maintain the national capability to make something like the shuttle and SRBs feels reasonable It’s reasonable to pay something. I’m unconvinced $41bn is the correct amount. > Kind of similar to farm subsidies and the strategic implications there There aren’t many. Countries in which farmers aren’t swing voters don’t have farm subsidies. I’ve been looking into buying some farmland and just collec…

Yeah, there should've been a "more" in front of "reasonable". There are probably other ways to maintain knowledge of how to make SRBs.

Re: Lunar Flyby

#250

Post by jimbosis »

sgt wrote: post #167
Gagarin1917 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existing 16mm film from Apollo is roughly equivalent to 2K, and you can see dust kicked up pretty nicely!

Where can we see that in high quality? Generally if I look at YouTube it's compressed and poor quality.

Perhaps try the clips available at the "Video and 16-mm Galleries" from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal:

https://apollojournals.org/alsj/alsj-video.html

On the other hand, maybe don't get your hopes up--I've only tried a few, but even the large MPG files don't seem to be "super high quality," but maybe they will meet your expectations.

Post reply on HN