Let's Take A Tour Of The Moon In 4K

Submitted by: Gerry1of1 3 months ago in Science


What say you? A high def tour of the moon thanks to science, or just more lies from NASA because we never went there? Still worth watching either way.
There are 97 comments:
Male 552
Fascinating. The soundtrack is great, too
0
Reply
Male 5,369


chug a lug! grasp delusion vortex mega tuna fisk carlton ultra wig fart beef CLUTCH

2
Reply
Male 5,369
rumham in HONOR OF KALRON! WOOOO PARTY BROZ! HASHTAG HASHTAG
0
Reply
Male 11,045
meh, anyone can make 3d images these days.  

Lets see a moon base, which actual people going to the moon, and living there.  Actual real working people, not a 'select few' like how only supposedly around 500 people (of billions) have gone to space.  That's pretty dismal for 50+ years of the 'space age' huh?

After 50 years of crossing the Atlantic, there were a LOT more than 500 people in the new world.
0
Reply
Male 5,369
monkwarrior right on dude!!!
0
Reply
Male 5,369
monkwarrior trolly mctroll warrior needs an argument to pass the time on his lonely evening
0
Reply
Male 5,369
monkwarrior four simple letters. D-E-R-P
0
Reply
Male 11,045
rumham you wasted all this time trolling but spent no time synthing?
0
Reply
Male 2,991
monkwarrior "meh, anyone can make 3d images these days."

I look forward to your video.
1
Reply
Male 11,045
jaysingrimm spoken like someone who has never heard of http://www.blender.org
0
Reply
Male 2,991
I don't care if you use an old copy of Bryce 3D. I'd love to see what you can come up with.
0
Reply
Male 11,045
jaysingrimm you won't, because i don't post what i do for people to find. I've made a number of planets with textured bump mapping, and it's quite easy to make them.  Literally a sphere with the texture/depth map applied to give it its valleys and peaks.  The render time for 4k would be a bit on the high side, but something like this video could be quite doable.
0
Reply
Male 2,991
monkwarrior 
Please, I'd love to see these spherical planets that you've rendered.
0
Reply
Male 11,045
jaysingrimm you won't, like i said.  But don't worry, because as i said, just about anyone can do it these days with a bit of dedication
0
Reply
Male 2,991
monkwarrior 
Too bad. I was looking forward to seeing something from you.
0
Reply
Male 11,045
jaysingrimm i don't put personal things on the internet.
0
Reply
Male 2,991
0
Reply
Male 43,280
monkwarrior    I agree 500 is dismal. Funding died by short sighted people who could not see the benefits of space exploration
0
Reply
Male 552
Gerry1of1 But....muh tax cuts!
0
Reply
Male 1,381
monkwarrior Money.  there was boatloads of money to be made in the New World.  Period.

Currently, there is no viable way to make money going to the moon - at least not with the rate of returns to justify the risk.

So until there is a serious wealth grab in space, it will be limited to the select few who work for governments that still believe in the value of publicly funded science.

Like the China and India - you know, two countries with space programs that have moon landings in their schedule.
0
Reply
Male 11,045
punko money is the common excuse.. but do you really think you can know all there is about the entire moon just by supposedly spending a few days there?  a presence was required for early settlers to even begin really exploring the land.
0
Reply
Male 5,369
monkwarrior i know right?!?!
0
Reply
Male 1,381
monkwarrior No. Sailors found the fish, and the forests, and the game.  They didn't see cities or fleets.  They new it was 'empty' land for the taking.  They saw trees that looked like their trees.  The deer, and bears, were like their own deer and bears.  The species were slightly different, but they knew enough to realize they could live here, if there was  only a way to make money.  The fur trade, tobacco, timber would lead the way. They didn't really understand how large it was until much later.  Permanent settlements were founded by private groups looking to make money and later by religious groups looking for areas to practice  their non-mainstream beliefs.

If the New World was entirely like Antarctica is today, or entirely like the outback of Australia, there would not be anything like the north America we know today.  Without the economic drive to live here, it would be as populated as the Outback or Antarctica.

Now when you've changed to the way we learn about the moon, we can all agree that having a permanent base, somewhat like the Antarctic bases we currently have would be nice.  However, with anti-science sentiment growing in the US since the 70's and the 'winning' of the cold war, the US decided to cut back on science for the sake of knowledge and instead decided to focus first on science for future tech profits, then pushing science into the hands of private groups as much as possible.

0
Reply
Male 7,254
monkwarrior In support of Punko's earlier comment:

  • No land presence was required for European nations to recognize the profitability of the New World. Europeans began to fish the coasts and bays before they put settlers ashore and were amazed by the quantity of fish. Similarly, they recognized, just by looking from aboard their ships, that the territory around Nova Scotia would be filled with animals that would support a fur trade.
  • Meanwhile, down in Jamestown, the English almost gave up on land-based settlements because no gold had been found and they couldn't find any way to make a profit. What turned things around, saved the settlement, and spurred renewed English interest in colonizing the mid-Atlantic region? Tobacco. It had been introduced to the Old World and unexpectedly became a sensation overnight. You couldn't grow it in chilly England, but the climate in Virginia was perfect.
0
Reply
Male 11,045
squrlz4ever more excuses.
0
Reply
Male 5,369
monkwarrior excuses suxorz?!?!? i know bro!
0
Reply
Male 7,254
monkwarrior Not what I'd call excuses. Rather, they are refutations of your claim that "a presence was required for early settlers to even begin really exploring the land."

The point of all this is that the profitability of colonies in the New World was a lot more apparent than it is for colonies on the Moon. In addition, the history of Jamestown both prior to and after the popularity of tobacco illustrates how closely linked colonization and profit have been in man's history.

You're welcome to call these excuses if you want, and I suspect you probably will. If you want to do away with "the economic excuse," as you might call it, please pony up the USD $35B that a Moon base is estimated to cost, so that governments and legislators don't have to somehow convince the voting public that such a financial outlay is sensible.

Don't have the $35B? You consider such a suggestion absurd? Then perhaps you can appreciate that such money is hard to come by and that expense has been, and continues to be, a serious factor in the slow pace of space exploration these past 46 years.
0
Reply
Male 11,045
squrlz4ever  do you really think you can know all there is about the entire moon just by supposedly spending a few days there?  
0
Reply
Male 5,369
monkwarrior i know right?!?!? the moon is more than more days delusion clutch
0
Reply
Male 11,045
rumham synth through it.
0
Reply
Male 7,254
monkwarrior Definitely not. I don't think any of the Apollo astronauts has been of that opinion, nor do I think any of the NASA scientists are of that opinion.
0
Reply
Male 11,045
squrlz4ever then that should be the goal.
0
Reply
Male 5,369
monkwarrior goals are western fallacious

0
Reply
Male 11,045
rumham all this time could have got you at least one bar of a synth
0
Reply
Male 5,369
monkwarrior science field?
0
Reply
Male 11,045
rumham is that the name of your synth?
0
Reply
Male 5,369
monkwarrior beeftip
0
Reply
Male 11,045
rumham when do you plan on finishing your masterpiece?
0
Reply
Male 5,369
monkwarrior chewbacca
0
Reply
Male 11,045
rumham do you mean his age, 180 or so years?  i know it takes time to do a good job, but isn't that a bit of a long time to work on just one synth?
0
Reply
Male 5,369
0
Reply
Male 11,045
rumham you tell me, you're the synther!
0
Reply
Male 1,381
monkwarrior Who's goal? While we can all agree that a moon base would be nice, is it more important than other causes?  Representatives were elected to make decisions and those decisions did not include a moon base.  Rich folks of all stripes could have invested  privately to do it.  Why didn't they?  No profit.

We now have several private companies competing to deliver services to low earth orbit.  Why?  They've figured out that tourism to the edge of space can make enough money to warrant its development.  tourism to the moon?  Sure, just as soon as 1) the 1% can afford to pay for the 90% of the cost of the ship.  The ocean liners were private corporations that made their money by depending on the 1st class who paid huge premiums for comfort on those ships, who would then fill out the ship with 100 times more paying 100 times less.  Without the 1% on board, ship lines faltered.  Who was more luxurious, who was fastest, etc. these were how the shipping lines competed for the cross Atlantic routes. folks in steerage barely paid for the cost in fuel to move them, but the liner profits were made on the rich.

You want to have regular and affordable (relatively) lunar flights? Find a way that the rich will want to go and then use the liner/airline model to build it. 

Why did the Concorde fail?  Ultimately, the time savings offered by the faster flights couldn't cover the significant cost premium to operate the airline, and not enough of the 1% thought it was worth it.  The plane couldn't carry enough passengers at lower rates to make it cost effective.  When you're stuck on a 7 hr flight on top of 2-3 hrs on each end due to security theatre, you're spending 12 hours.  With a flight that went twice as fast, you r 7 hr flight turns to 3.5 hrs.  BUT the damn 2-3 hrs at each end remain. so 9 hr vs 12 hours but paying 3x as much for less comfort?  Not a good model.
1
Reply
Male 11,045
punko uh the moon is commonly understood as the first and most logical stepping stone away from earth (assuming we can even get there in the first place).
0
Reply
Male 1,381
monkwarrior "commonly understood" only by those who don't understand astrophysics
0
Reply
Male 11,045
punko by most of the scientific community.
0
Reply
Male 1,381
monkwarrior No.  Simply no.  Going down into the gravity well on the moon achieves nothing.  Now a large space station with ship docking/repair/refueling etc. in high orbit around the moon would be helpful.

If we are considering 'leaving  earth' the moon's surface doesn't help us at all
0
Reply
Male 11,045
punko Says you.  But the scientific community has a desire to focus on the moon (if it's possible to even get there at all, since after alll, nasa people admitted they can't go to the moon "lost the technology" - as if some foreign raiders raided and destroyed traces of that 'information')
0
Reply
Male 645
monkwarrior Says also me, who is a member of the astrophysics community. Another reason the Moon is undesirable is the expected cost of building on its surface. 

NASA hasn't lost the technology, that is an absurd claim. 

A base at the Moon is a logical launch-point into deep space, but it makes no sense to build on its surface -- except perhaps for a small output/storage facility that is semi-permanent. 
0
Reply
Male 11,045
BuckeyeJoe looks like the absurdities are yours : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16MMZJlp_0Y "we don't have the technology anymore" - nasa dude.
0
Reply
Male 1,381
monkwarrior The "scientific community" is not a singular thing. If you ask someone if there is a scientific benefit to going to the moon, the answer if if course, yes.  I agree with that.  However, we do not have universal access to everything we want.  If you are looking to get out of the solar system to move humanity past the 4B year deadline, then the moon can teach us virtually nothing that we cannot learn elsewhere while learning things that we cannot learn on the moon.
0
Reply
Male 11,045
punko yet it's still our first step 'out there' (assuming we can even get there)
0
Reply
Male 1,381
monkwarrior No its not.  It is easier to get to the moon, but easier doesn't mean better.  We've done that and learned a lot.  Mars has an even smaller gravity well, so as a stepping stone has more advantages.
0
Reply
Male 11,045
punko the risk is also much higher without having formulated an understanding of how to live on a celestial body.
0
Reply
Male 1,381
monkwarrior Except living on mars very different than living on moon.  In both cases, you start by living in orbit around them

0
Reply
Male 11,045
punko in the case of the moon, supposedly 3 days away, it's not necessary, you can go to the moon (assuming you can get there in the first place).  Mars?  We don't even know if a human can survive a trip like that, it's almost certain suicide.  Also only certian times can the mars trip be made, outside those windows, even longer of a wait.  Moon?  help is 3 days away.. returning to earth can happen within 6 days of a problem, any day of the year.  Much better chance of survival. Ultimately though it would be best to learn to live on the ocean floor.  Technically that would be the best first step.  Help is hours away, and the habitat can be throughly tested.
0
Reply
Male 1,381
monkwarrior The moon is closer, yes.  Help is closer yes.  Your point?  There is greater risk going to Mars.  that risk is not substantially reduced by going to the moon first.  It doesn't' make Mars closer, or change the conditions on Mars to be more like the moon. 

Put infrastructure in place above most of the planet/moon's gravity well.  From there develop downward to the surface, if that is where your focus is to be.  Orbital elevator systems can be constructed on Mars with current materials, as opposed to earth.  You build a rocket-free way of getting mass from surface to geostationary orbit, you now have a pathway to real space exploration.
0
Reply
Male 11,045
punko but wouldn't the moon be a viable test area? if it doesn't work there, no point going all the way.
0
Reply
Male 1,381
monkwarrior As before " that risk is not substantially reduced by going to the moon first. "
0
Reply
Male 11,045
punko But it's substantially increased by going to mars first.
0
Reply
Male 1,381
monkwarrior The risk of going to mars is increased by going to mars first?  Previously said that going to the moon first does not substantially decrease the risk of going to mars.
0
Reply
Male 11,045
punko this is pointless, we probably can't even get past LEO, assuming we can even do that.  If the line of thinking is "well it's been 50 years since we went to the moon, and now we lost all the technology, lets just go to mars because it's not as much as a risk as going to the moon" that's complete baloney. Any way you cut it, the moon is less riskier (assuming we can even get there  at all).
0
Reply
Male 1,381
monkwarrior <shrug>  We have been to the moon. we have the ISS in LEO (watched it go past overhead last night, as a fluke) , we have had probes reporting back from Mars for years.  Within my lifetime we will have men walking on Mars. 

However, we will not have a continuously manned "Mars base" and certainly not a continuously manned "moon base".

As a species were are doomed with this solar system, because I doubt we will ever take the steps to create a generation ship to take the multi-century long trip to another solar system to colonize.  FTL travel is impossible and the nearest star is over 4 light years away.
0
Reply
Male 11,045
punko a moon base would help speed things up in that respect (assuming we can get there at all)
0
Reply
Male 1,381
monkwarrior No, it wouldn't.  It would simply redirect funds and effort that would be better spent.
0
Reply
Male 11,045
punko all dreaming aside, most scientists agree that the moon would be the most logical step (assuming we can even get there in the first place).
0
Reply
Male 1,381
monkwarrior It depends on your goals, as stated above.  When speaking with astrophysicists and mission planners, the moon is problematic.
0
Reply
Male 7,254
monkwarrior I think we're in agreement that a Moon colony is needed. I think we're also in agreement that it would be a sensible first step in the colonization of the solar system--although it looks like the tide of history has us going to Mars first.
0
Reply
Male 11,045
squrlz4ever conveniently enough.  almost as if too many people could watch over a moon landing today, compared to 1970's, but only the 'authority' can watch over a mars landing today.
0
Reply
Male 1,381
monkwarrior  In what way would the moon and mars be different that way? If they really wanted to hide from you, they could have simply said they were working on the far side of the moon. Mars is far more visible than the far side of the moon.

0
Reply
Male 11,045
holygod in ways like i said.
0
Reply
Male 942
monkwarrior yet, your bearded buddy makes sense to you. Yep, nobody fools you, huh? 
1
Reply
Male 11,045
bearbear01 i have no bearded buddys.
-1
Reply
Male 942
monkwarrior well that's a fiery step for you. 
0
Reply
Male 11,045
bearbear01 more like for you.
0
Reply
Male 570
Awesome.  A series that's on right now that I'm loving is "One Strange Rock" directed by Darren Aronofsky with National Geographic.  It's about how amazing planet earth is.  Must be watched on the largest of screens.
2
Reply
Male 164
What an awesome video. Great Job Gerry.
2
Reply
Male 43,280
I would seriously love to go to the moon.
I know it's a long trip with little to do when you get there
but it's still better than Blackpool.
0
Reply
Male 7,254
Loved this. Absolutely beautiful imagery. Go, NASA! Great post, Gerry.
0
Reply
Male 6,425
I really don’t understand people who don’t believe that we went to the moon. All their arguments have been disproved. For instance any decent photographer can explain why stars can not be seen in the photographs where the focus is on the subjects not the stars. What really gets me is how they don’t understand that it would be impossible for the 400,000+ people involved in the mission to keep it a secret more than a couple years.
2
Reply
Male 11,045
markust123 the bottom line is that the evidence is questionable.  While i can agree that many people think the evidence is not questionable, others don't.  When i hear of how the achievement is spoken of with loud voices i would expect to see and examine solid, hard-core, undeniable facts of the achievement, and growing repeats.  Yet here i am with flimsy evidence requiring belief, an 'authority' in suspect, no one going past low orbit since these 3-4 supposed years (going on 1/2 a century now), and people who can't even prove that's true without the authority, who uses group dynamics and flashy animations fed through the media to keep the cheering going. This achievement is supposedly a scientific matter, not a spiritual one, there is reason to question the evidence of the 'achievement'.

But it i've said it at least a few times, the best way to solve this is to go back and make a presence that is undeniable, like a bright city or two on the moon that everyone can see.  It's not like i'm the only one who could see the scientific benefit of having a presence on the moon, the most obvious first step choice for humankind's growth beyond earth - that is, assuming we can even get there in the first place.  
-1
Reply
Male 645
monkwarrior That's just stupid. Science is not going to bankrupt its efforts just to make a sparkly city we can see on Earth.

What a childish take on science.

There is not much scientific benefit to establishing a colony on the moon. I got a newsflash for ya: there really isn't much benefit to making one on Mars either! There is much more science that can be done on the ISS - just by being in zero gravity.

You really don't know much about science.

We'll still go to Mars, of course. The allure of setting foot on another planet appeals to our human instinct for exploration. We'll do as much science there as we can squeeze out of it. Scientists are opportunists.

You can't get over the whole "If I don't see it with my own eyes or feel it in my heart than it isn't true."

It's like you don't understand what "truth" is as a concept. 

It's why you're so stupid. Now hush, the adults are talking.
0
Reply
Male 11,045
BuckeyeJoe you're not an adult, but juvenile.
0
Reply
Male 5,369
monkwarrior yes, clearly
0
Reply
Male 12,053
markust123 Have you SEEN it though? If I don't see something then I don't believe it.

For example I whole-heartedly believe the 5 thousand year old creatio myths that were passed down over thousands of years through hundreds of generations verbally, and then written down, repeatedly translated, and abridged / edited. However, you expect me to believe scientific evidence, numerous photos and videos, and the eye witness testimony of people still alive? Fallacy!
3
Reply
Male 7,254
markust123 Shhhhh! 400,000 people are sworn to secrecy because... because... reasons!
0
Reply
Male 7,924
markust123 There's been a fair amount of work done on the psychological workings of conspiracy theorists,  it's important to understand as the same tendency to reject evidence and huddle into like minded groups is increasingly part of our political and social discourse.  Always has been,  I guess,  but has recently become amplified beyond reason. 
1
Reply
Male 11,045
LordJim There is also corruption in this world, and to ignore everything you think may be a conspiracy theory, may actually provide a conspiracy a perfect cover for its goal.  In fact i wouldn't be surprised if that was happening in several places right this very minute.  We're in an age of sin, and greed and pride is a huge part of it, bringing conspiracy and corruption.
0
Reply
Male 645
monkwarrior This is a well known fallacy; a version of argumentum ad populum. 

It's not possible that ALL conspiracy theories are false!

Yes, yes it is. Each one is evaluated on its own merits, not on how many of them there are.

I can make 1000 claims about you (they will all be some version of: you are an idiot), and that doesn't mean that can't all be false.

Well, in this case, they would all be true, wouldn't they. 
0
Reply
Male 11,045
BuckeyeJoe delude yourself what whatever lies you want.
0
Reply
Male 12,053
LordJim I think "stupid people are stupid" is a pretty fair explanation.
0
Reply
Male 7,924
holygod I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. 
0
Reply
Male 492
Awesome....maybe someday there will be a google moon, then we can just fire up the ole laptop and take a look at whatever we want when we want to. Great post Gerry....interesting stuff here.
0
Reply
Male 9,641
rukittenme Actually, Google Earth has settings where you can explore the Earth, Sky, Mars and Moon.  (View>Explore>Moon).

It includes some satellite imagery, probe and manned exploration imagery.
4
Reply
Male 492
megrendel Thanks........I have Google Earth on the laptop and didn't even know that......I guess I have been spending too much time on here to notice....hahaha....
0
Reply
Male 7,924
Good stuff. 
0
Reply
Male 4,958
Very cool.
0
Reply