Thinking of a scanner
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Iphoto 08 to iPhoto 09
Next: Apple Tech Support?
From: Tim Streater on 4 Mar 2010 09:38 On 04/03/2010 13:38, Rowland McDonnell wrote: > Tim Streater<timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > >> Rowland McDonnell wrote: >>> Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> Did you see that thing about the original JPL scans of the moon to >>>> prepare for the moon landings? >>> >>> Scans? Really? A lot of that work was hand-drawn astronomical >>> observations from amateurs, including one young observer called Patrick >>> Moore. >>> >>>> All the data was held on tapes for a >>>> really expensive machine, and nasa through it all out after apollo was >>>> scrapped. One woman hung onto the data and one of the machines in her >>>> garage, then 20 years later when they realised they needed the data she >>>> had it all, and the only machine to read it >>> >>> In that case, I would have assumed that the `scanned' data was backed up >>> by keeping the much more robust and easy to store paper originals. >>> >>> Did they not do that? >> >> There were no paper originals, > > But I have seen some of the paper originals, admittedly on a telly > programme about Apollo. > >> we're talking about the Lunar Orbiter pix >> taken just before Apollo. > > Ah - well, you didn't actually make that clear before now. Um, I thought that was what this (sub)thread was about. Well, no matter. > The reference was to observations made in preparation for the moon > landings, and I assumed that what was being talked about was digitized > images derived from hand-drawn astronomer's notes. > > Odd to do in the mid to late 60s given the cost of computing hardware > esp. storage back then, but then again, have you seen just how madly > huge and expensive a Saturn V/Apollo stack is? If they're willing to > build one of them and fly to the moon, why not scan in the diagrams? > >> All these orbiters were then crashed into the >> Moon. Which is therefore where the originals are. > > <puzzled> Eh? Do please explain. Have a look at this and also look for "Lunar Orbiter Program" in Wikipaedia. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/22/destination_moon/ > Almost all the observations made of the moon in preparation for the > Apollo landings were made by amateurs using telescopes here on planet > Earth, from what I've heard. There were five orbiters that took hi-res photos of the lunar surface from 30-40 km up. Having completed their work, they were crashed into the Moon to avoid and potential collision issues with later Apollo flights. Since the photos were taken onto film that was developed and scanned onboard, the originals went down with the ship, so to speak. The image data was saved onto mag tape, that was carefully saved, but the tape drives nearly went into a skip. Luckily they didn't so the original data was available and used quite recently to make make rather better images than was possible in 1967. -- Tim "That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament" Bill of Rights 1689
From: Rowland McDonnell on 4 Mar 2010 11:05 Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > Tim Streater<timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > > > >> Rowland McDonnell wrote: > >>> Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>> [snip] > >>> > >>>> Did you see that thing about the original JPL scans of the moon to > >>>> prepare for the moon landings? > >>> > >>> Scans? Really? A lot of that work was hand-drawn astronomical > >>> observations from amateurs, including one young observer called Patrick > >>> Moore. > >>> > >>>> All the data was held on tapes for a > >>>> really expensive machine, and nasa through it all out after apollo was > >>>> scrapped. One woman hung onto the data and one of the machines in her > >>>> garage, then 20 years later when they realised they needed the data she > >>>> had it all, and the only machine to read it > >>> > >>> In that case, I would have assumed that the `scanned' data was backed up > >>> by keeping the much more robust and easy to store paper originals. > >>> > >>> Did they not do that? > >> > >> There were no paper originals, > > > > But I have seen some of the paper originals, admittedly on a telly > > programme about Apollo. > > > >> we're talking about the Lunar Orbiter pix > >> taken just before Apollo. > > > > Ah - well, you didn't actually make that clear before now. > > Um, I thought that was what this (sub)thread was about. Well, no matter. I had no idea that's what you thought, and I can't see any specific mention of it before your recent post. [snip] > >> All these orbiters were then crashed into the > >> Moon. Which is therefore where the originals are. > > > > <puzzled> Eh? Do please explain. > > Have a look at this and also look for "Lunar Orbiter Program" in Wikipaedia. > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/22/destination_moon/ <blinks> Blimey. > > Almost all the observations made of the moon in preparation for the > > Apollo landings were made by amateurs using telescopes here on planet > > Earth, from what I've heard. > > There were five orbiters that took hi-res photos of the lunar surface > from 30-40 km up. Having completed their work, they were crashed into > the Moon to avoid and potential collision issues with later Apollo > flights. Since the photos were taken onto film that was developed and > scanned onboard, the originals went down with the ship, so to speak. Uhuh. > The image data was saved onto mag tape, that was carefully saved, but > the tape drives nearly went into a skip. Luckily they didn't so the > original data was available and used quite recently to make make rather > better images than was possible in 1967. <cough> Better than was /economically and techically practical in the time available/. `Possible' - umm, they could have done better back then, if they'd put the brains on to it. Applies to everything in practical engineering. They got images back that were up to the job in hand. But now I know. How come I'd missed all this? Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Tim Streater on 4 Mar 2010 11:11 On 04/03/2010 16:05, Rowland McDonnell wrote: > Tim Streater<timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: [snip] > <cough> Better than was /economically and techically practical in the > time available/. `Possible' - umm, they could have done better back > then, if they'd put the brains on to it. Applies to everything in > practical engineering. They got images back that were up to the job in > hand. > > But now I know. How come I'd missed all this? Just before you were born, perhaps? Also, the Orbiters were not so well publicised as the later Apollos. But I was around 20 at the time and quite interested, so I knew it was happening - but I didn't know anything like the detail of how it worked. -- Tim "That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament" Bill of Rights 1689
From: Pd on 4 Mar 2010 12:20 Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote: > Oh, what a noble mind is here o'erthrown! [...] > And I [...] now see that noble and most sovereign reason > Like sweet bells jangled, out of tune and harsh; > That unmatched form and feature of blown youth > Blasted with ecstasy. I think this was written about that bloke who's swallowed something like 40,000 pills and has almost zero short-term memory left. Although I don't think his mind was all that noble before he started. -- Pd
From: bella jonez on 4 Mar 2010 16:45
Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote: > > > Oh, what a noble mind is here o'erthrown! [...] > > And I [...] now see that noble and most sovereign reason > > Like sweet bells jangled, out of tune and harsh; > > That unmatched form and feature of blown youth > > Blasted with ecstasy. > > I think this was written about that bloke who's swallowed something > like > 40,000 pills and has almost zero short-term memory left. Although I > don't think his mind was all that noble before he started. Pd, you are an utter xhiy |