×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

The Hackers Who Recovered NASA's Lost Lunar Photos

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the best-thing-to-come-out-of-a-mcdonald's dept.

Moon 89

An anonymous reader sends this story from Wired: "The Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project has since 2007 brought some 2,000 pictures back from 1,500 analog data tapes. They contain the first high-resolution photographs ever taken from behind the lunar horizon, including the first photo of an earthrise. Thanks to the technical savvy and DIY engineering of the team at LOIRP, it's being seen at a higher resolution than was ever previously possible. ... The photos were stored with remarkably high fidelity on the tapes, but at the time had to be copied from projection screens onto paper, sometimes at sizes so large that warehouses and even old churches were rented out to hang them up. The results were pretty grainy, but clear enough to identify landing sites and potential hazards. After the low-fi printing, the tapes were shoved into boxes and forgotten. ... The drives had to be rebuilt and in some cases completely re-engineered using instruction manuals or the advice of people who used to service them. The data they recovered then had to be demodulated and digitized, which added more layers of technical difficulties."

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

Hackers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46827315)

"Hacker" can't have two meanings and the efforts to muddy the definition is a transparent attempt to lessen the stigma attached to breaking into computer systems and stealing other people's shit.

Re: Hackers (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46827395)

This is why there has always been a distinction among the technocrati between hackers (people who like figuring things out) and crackers (who figure out the exploits for personal gain).

You're absolutely and completely positively right, "hacker" can't have two meanings... except that there are many words in the dictionary with 2 or more meanings.

The technocrati dislike words with multiple meanings, so they tried to make multiple words for the concepts. But nobody listened, and now we're stuck with it. Want to fight it? Use the words as originally designated, not as mispopularized.

Of course, that would mean that you would have to back off from your misunderstanding, and there's no possible way you could ever be wrong, so we have to deal with the impreciseness.

Good job.

Re:Hackers (4, Insightful)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 8 months ago | (#46827509)

Check your dictionary. Lots of things have two or more meanings.

Among readers here, the preferred IT meaning is roughly "an expert who uses his knowledge to do things requiring extraordinary skills." It's not "the kid who tricked you into giving him your Facebook password."

I'm curious, are you just a confused child, or a troll?

Re:Hackers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46827977)

I am a confused child who thinks that hacking has a negative connotation as in: a computer nerd who attempts to gain unauthorized access to computer systems.

Re:Hackers (3, Informative)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 8 months ago | (#46828063)

Ah. Well, that's one of many. You'll also find "a person who chops wood", and the occasional uses of "a low quality writer" and "a taxi driver" Those last two are usually hacks, not hackers, but I've heard them referred to both ways.

Re:Hackers (1)

swillden (191260) | about 8 months ago | (#46828209)

I'm curious, are you just a confused child, or a troll?

Troll, clearly. An unsubtle, but successful, troll.

Re:Hackers (1)

mikesum (840054) | about 8 months ago | (#46830103)

But the negative connotation has been associated with the word hacker from it's first printed use in the 60s. [duartes.org] Checkmate Athiests.

Re:Hackers (1)

kyrsjo (2420192) | about 8 months ago | (#46831309)

What on earth has Atheism to do with this piece of terminology?

Even the article you link to, states that the word is used by both groups to self-identify.

Words with two meanings. (1)

N Monkey (313423) | about 8 months ago | (#46831139)

Check your dictionary. Lots of things have two or more meanings.

Indeed. As explained by Barry Crocker and the Doug Anthony Allstars [youtube.com] . ;-)

Re:Hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46839457)

Just another brilliant Microsofter.

Re:Hackers (4, Funny)

Zak3056 (69287) | about 8 months ago | (#46827745)

"Hacker" can't have two meanings

Which of course is why "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" [wikipedia.org] is not a valid sentence. Or, as Samuel L. Jackson would say, "English motherfucker! Do you speak it?"

Re:Hackers (2)

Kuroji (990107) | about 8 months ago | (#46827839)

If you actually used that sentence in public they'd have you committed.

Re:Hackers (4, Funny)

pjt33 (739471) | about 8 months ago | (#46828087)

I've never heard Samuel L. Jackson say that, although I have heard him say, "English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?"

Re:Hackers (4, Funny)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 8 months ago | (#46828349)

Sometimes the comma gets lost in an accent.

Re:Hackers (1)

PPH (736903) | about 8 months ago | (#46829065)

Where is Victor Borge when we need him?

Re:Hackers (1)

Kittenman (971447) | about 8 months ago | (#46829821)

Where is Victor Borge when we need him?

Phonetic punctuation... I'm here for you...

Re:Hackers (2)

Zak3056 (69287) | about 8 months ago | (#46829785)

I've never heard Samuel L. Jackson say that, although I have heard him say, "English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?"

You know, I noticed the missing comma the second after I hit submit, and, this being slashdot, I was absolutely sure someone would call me on it. Punctuation is the difference between saying, "Let's eat, grandma," and "Let's eat grandma!" just like capitalization is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse, and helping your uncle jack off a horse.

Re:Hackers (0)

twotacocombo (1529393) | about 8 months ago | (#46828845)

"Hacker" can't have two meanings... stealing other people's shit.

"Shit" can't have two meanings and the efforts to muddy the definition is a transparent attempt to lessen the stigma attached to excrement. So, obviously, you mean to say that "hackers" are hellbent on stealing the feces of strangers, to which I am not in a position to either prove nor disprove, but wrinkle my nose to it just the same.

Re:Hackers (2)

MrKaos (858439) | about 8 months ago | (#46829315)

"Hacker" can't have two meanings and the efforts to muddy the definition is a transparent attempt to lessen the stigma attached to breaking into computer systems and stealing other people's shit.

I think your comment is the epitome of the evolving idiocracy that ignorance and anonymity allows. What's it like to be on the cutting edge of stupid?

Long before you even heard the word "Hacker" the saying went You hack to learn, you don't learn to hack. Repeat this over and over.

To All You Stupid Cunts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46831955)

Who think Hacker is a good term. Ask anyone passingly familiar with computers what the words means and they'll tell you, some fuck who breaks into other people's computers and steals their shit. All your bullshit won't change that.

And it's clear that the idiot who posted the story with that headline was trying to portray hackers in a good light.

So fuck you all, and may your dicks rot off.

Hackers? (3, Insightful)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 8 months ago | (#46827319)

Given the negative connotations of the word "hackers" - how about "dedicated engineers" instead?

Re:Hackers? (4, Insightful)

ThatsDrDangerToYou (3480047) | about 8 months ago | (#46827467)

Given the negative connotations of the word "hackers" - how about "dedicated engineers" instead?

I prefer restoring the original meaning of the "hacker" badge to its original lofty meaning as "one who hacks and hacks and hacks in the manner of a dedicated engineer until it rocks." ... and this clearly rocks.

Re:Hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46827751)

You mean the original use of hacker as a shitty golfer?

Re:Hackers? (2)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | about 8 months ago | (#46828401)

I agree with you, but you and I don't get a vote. The next time someone convinces someones grandmother to give out their bank password there will be one more story in the media about evil hackers.
Perhaps it is time to surrender. I gave in when they started calling this "." a dot. It hurt, but I got over it... Mostly.

Dot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46830191)

A tittle or superscript dot is a small distinguishing mark, such as a diacritic or the dot on a lowercase i or j. The tittle is an integral part of the glyph of i and j, but diacritic dots can appear over other letters in various languages. In most languages, the tittle of i or j is omitted when a diacritic is placed in the tittle's usual position, but not when the diacritic appears elsewhere.

Re:Dot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46831311)

And "." is neither a tittle over an i or a j, nor a diacritic. It is a fucking period. So what is your point?

Re: Dot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46834649)

No it's not. A period is a length of time. The punctuation mark you are referring to is a full stop.

re: Hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46831701)

Yes. There are "evil hackers" that use their skills to empty bank accounts, and "good hackers" who do extraordinary feats of engineering.

Either kind of hacker uses expert knowledge to acheive something unusual. "Hacking" is neither good or evil on its own. Hacking is similiar to explosives - useful for both good and bad purposes, and often in a spectacular fashion.

The Original Meaning of "Hacker" (-1)

Sanians (2738917) | about 8 months ago | (#46829387)

I prefer restoring the original meaning of the "hacker" badge to its original lofty meaning

I know that "hacker" originally meaning "talented programmer" is common knowledge on Slashdot, but is this story actually true?

The idea just seems like a popular meme. Slashdot is full of nerds. Nerds like to call themselves "hackers" because it sounds cool. Then someone introduces them to the idea that they're not calling themselves criminals because that's not what the word "hacker" originally meant, and they absorb that supposed fact without question because they so deeply want it to be true.

Is it actually true? Are there any references that support this history of the word's meaning that are of higher quality than "everyone on the internet says it's true?"

Even the Wikipedia article about the definition controversy [wikipedia.org] lacks any citations relevant to the supposed original meaning, even as it makes statements like "the positive definition of hacker was widely used as the predominant form for many years before the negative definition was popularized" which just scream for a "citation needed" tag.

Re: The Original Meaning of "Hacker" (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 8 months ago | (#46830329)

A hacker is someone that hacks things together. It's not about talent, it's about organizing coding as a rough and ready jumble.

"Hacker's Heaven" (2)

Ozoner (1406169) | about 8 months ago | (#46830707)

The term "Hacker" has multiple meanings, but in this context it originally referred to hardware guru's,
eg, Amateur Radio enthusiasts, etc. It dates back to well before software hobbyists.

I remember a wonderful electronics hardware shop that called itself "Hacker's Heaven".

Apparently it had to change it's name when the idiot media gave the term a negative context.

Re:The Original Meaning of "Hacker" (1)

cusco (717999) | about 8 months ago | (#46830339)

When I got into computing in the mid-'90s 'hacker' was synonymous with 'computer wizard'. Good or bad, didn't matter. Of course computing included a lot more hardware then than it does now, so the term was being extended to hardware hackers of various types, even including radio hams. Now Hollyweird has taken a perfectly good word and changed it to suit their dramatic needs.

Re:The Original Meaning of "Hacker" (1)

Ozoner (1406169) | about 8 months ago | (#46831313)

> so the term was being extended to hardware hackers of various types,

In the 60's and 70's the term applied exclusively to hardware types.

Re:The Original Meaning of "Hacker" (1)

Sanians (2738917) | about 8 months ago | (#46831751)

The Original Meaning of "Hacker" (Score:-1)

Wow... Suggest that everyone's happy delusion might actually be false and not only do you get no evidence to the contrary of your suggestion, but you get modded down as a troll as well. So much for discussion and the search for truth. I guess I'll have to find another web site if I want that.

It's not that simple (1)

Eskarel (565631) | about 8 months ago | (#46830875)

In defense of those 'misusing' the word, the line between the two is thin and blurry in a lot of cases both historical and current. Hackers have always had a tendency to at least bend the rules in pursuit of knowledge. Only in the world of computers do we differentiate people who break into your computer by their intentions. We don't have white hat burglars or white hate rapists, but white hat hackers will sure as hell download your credit card details, 'to prove they can'.

Re:Hackers? (4, Insightful)

excelsior_gr (969383) | about 8 months ago | (#46827479)

The negative connotation to the word was given by the media. The people that know what they are talking about don't see it as negative.

Re:Hackers? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 8 months ago | (#46830785)

Which is now the problem as people who know what they are talking about are a massive minority in this world.

Thus the word has negative connotations. Though Slashdot and Wired is the proper forum for using the original definition of the word.

Re:Hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46831339)

The l337 are by far the minority. Their voice is never going to be heard despite the current in-vogue dweeb TV shows. The word will always have negative connotations. Get used to it. Tell the OP to use the correct words: skilled engineers.

Re:Hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46827533)

Note the skull flag in the video. You can see it first time at 0:04.

Re:Hackers? (3, Funny)

cream wobbly (1102689) | about 8 months ago | (#46827679)

The Jolly Roger as we call it? Ah there's the proof then. They're clearly crackers.

Re:Hackers? (2)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 8 months ago | (#46827555)

Well, it is time to bring back the positive connotations of the word "hackers"

Re:Hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46827749)

Given the negative connotations of the word "hackers" - how about "dedicated engineers" instead?

Fuck that. I don't accept the re-assignment of meaning to words by people who don't know what they are talking about.

Re:Hackers? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46827917)

You retarded right wing wacko teabagger..

The constitution is a "living" document you know.. It means what we think it means, not what the authors intended it to mean.

OF COURSE "hacker" is bad...That's how the media uses that word.. Just like Republican, Teabagger, racist etc..

(PS.. For those who think I'm *serious* think again..)

Re:Hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46828763)

I thought we called them "researchers"

Enhance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46827375)

It probably went something like this [youtube.com] .

Back to the Future (1)

AZScotsman (962881) | about 8 months ago | (#46827385)

"Old School" FTW!!

Somewhat dissappointing headline (4, Informative)

excelsior_gr (969383) | about 8 months ago | (#46827455)

After reading the headline I thought that the lost Lunar landing footage was recovered, but it is sadly not the case.

The actual story is still pretty cool, however.

Re:Somewhat dissappointing headline (2)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | about 8 months ago | (#46827979)

The actual story is still pretty cool, however.

I love the photos, but I'd also like an article about the machines they restored/re-built/hacked to recover this stuff.

Uh-huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46827665)

So hard to do this tape chit and yet, 45 years ago Neil and Buzz walked on the mooh. Forty-Five Motherfucking Years Ago. Forest, meet tree.

hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46827723)

you mean somebody or a group of people broke into NASA's servers and stole the photos? Will the thieves be prosecuted or arrested?

Re:hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46828951)

Perhaps these evil hackers infringed on some company's intellectual property while reverse engineering how to read the tapes or decipher the data...

Some patent troll is encouraging some peckerwood cop to arrest them in the hope of supporting their forth-coming litigation

but remember, hackers == BAD, patent trolls == GOOD

Was this cheaper or more productive than ... (3, Insightful)

mmell (832646) | about 8 months ago | (#46827759)

... just going back and taking more pictures?

Probably.

Is it as satisfying? No. I say it's time we go back for another firsthand look. Perhaps even land there and start doing more research - not into "what is the moon made of" or "where did the moon come from". More along the lines of "how can I build a profitable luxury hotel here?"

Re:Was this cheaper or more productive than ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46827877)

how can I build a profitable luxury hotel here?

really? why? we've trashed one planet, let's leave it at that.

why not ask how we can set up a stock trading floor on the moon? you know, for the PROFIT!

you really think very very small.

Re:Was this cheaper or more productive than ... (4, Funny)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about 8 months ago | (#46828089)

why not ask how we can set up a stock trading floor on the moon? you know, for the PROFIT!

Well supposedly they are the most important part of our economy, and so if we want to start an economy up there then we really should start with the basics right?

I suggest we send all the bankers and major stock brokers/exchanges up there first. Maybe we could even send them all the politicians, judges and lawyers thery need. Once they establish an economy we can send them less important things, like food, shelter, healthcare, breathable air, etc. ):D

Re:Was this cheaper or more productive than... (3, Funny)

bikin (1113139) | about 8 months ago | (#46828599)

But remember to keep the phone sanitizers.

Re:Was this cheaper or more productive than ... (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 8 months ago | (#46833469)

You know, that might not be a bad idea for colonizing the moon. All the high-frequency traders would immediately be emigrating there in order to get ultra-low latency.

Then we could blow it up.

Re:Was this cheaper or more productive than ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46827969)

"how can I build a profitable luxury hotel here?"

Find some suckers to foot the bill, willingly or not.

Re:Was this cheaper or more productive than ... (2)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about 8 months ago | (#46828161)

"how can I build a profitable luxury hotel here?"

Or how about a "for profit" prison?
We send up low level criminals like students, pot users, computer hackers, political dissidents, etc up there... While they are in prison they can be taught a trade, like computer programming. Then when they get out tell them they have a debt to society for the trip up, housing, food, water, air, waste disposal, etc, not to mention if they want to return to earth... I'm sure only a few will pull together the required funds.
Might not be legal in most countries on earth, but the moon doesn't have any laws, right?

Damn, I'm feeling evil today >:D

Re:Was this cheaper or more productive than ... (1)

cusco (717999) | about 8 months ago | (#46828361)

What laws wilI have to break to get sent there?

Re:Was this cheaper or more productive than ... (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 8 months ago | (#46830591)

So... you want to turn the moon into Australia 2.0 ?

Re:Was this cheaper or more productive than ... (1)

terjeber (856226) | about 8 months ago | (#46830787)

Or how about a "for profit" prison?

And suddenly half of the worlds geeks go and murder someone to get to the moon. Sounds like a great idea.

Re:Was this cheaper or more productive than ... (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 8 months ago | (#46830819)

Or how about a "for profit" prison? [...] Might not be legal in most countries on earth, but the moon doesn't have any laws, right?

Damn, I'm feeling evil today >:D

You fell asleep watching Fortress 2 [imdb.com] on TV, again, didn't you?

Re:Was this cheaper or more productive than ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46832145)

"how can I build a profitable luxury hotel here?"

Or how about a "for profit" prison? We send up low level criminals like students, pot users, computer hackers, political dissidents, etc up there... While they are in prison they can be taught a trade, like computer programming. Then when they get out tell them they have a debt to society for the trip up, housing, food, water, air, waste disposal, etc, not to mention if they want to return to earth... I'm sure only a few will pull together the required funds. Might not be legal in most countries on earth, but the moon doesn't have any laws, right?

Damn, I'm feeling evil today >:D

Just make sure they don't start building a mass driver. [amazon.com]

Re:Was this cheaper or more productive than ... (1)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 8 months ago | (#46832519)

Of course, after so long in Lunar gravity they will be physically unable to return to Earth, and be stuck in servitude in Luna. Eventually they will rebel and found their own republic, with the help of a sentient computer. Earth will capitulate when they threaten to drop moon rocks on major cities. The Moon is indeed a harsh mistress.

Re:Was this cheaper or more productive than ... (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about 8 months ago | (#46828327)

Was this cheaper or more productive than ... just going back and taking more pictures?

We're already doing that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Was this cheaper or more productive than ... (5, Interesting)

mjmcc (1699468) | about 8 months ago | (#46828379)

These images contain irreproducible (and thus priceless) data. They show the moon as it appeared in 1966, which allows comparisons to be made to the same lunar areas today. Although the surface of the moon changes very very slowly, it does change. And these pictures may allow us to measure that change. Furthermore, as the article points out, some of the pictures also show the earth as of 1966, allowing comparisons to be made with the earth of today (i.e. the extent of Arctic ice).

Re:Was this cheaper or more productive than ... (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 8 months ago | (#46833495)

And those changes in the moon might allow us to more accurately predict the odds of a major impact event with the earth

Re:Was this cheaper or more productive than ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46831837)

Actually, I find this MORE satisfying that going back and taking more pictures.

Fuck a DOlL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46827775)

has brought upon of user base for Very own shiiter,

"rogue team of hacker engineers"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46827907)

have the writers at wired.com always sounded like noobs?

Conspiracy theory (2)

MidSpeck (1516577) | about 8 months ago | (#46827981)

Don't worry, there will still be people who claim the moon landings were faked.

Re:Conspiracy theory (1)

twistedcubic (577194) | about 8 months ago | (#46830759)

Not anymore since they recently found pictures to prove it!

A foretaste... (5, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | about 8 months ago | (#46828139)

...of what's to come.

This data's barely 50 years old, of extremely high value (thus worth the extraordinary effort), and relatively low Size.
We're talking about a couple of thousand high-resolution pictures, so what, each is perhaps what, 10 megabytes (they're all b&w)? So total of 20 gigs of images?

I know people that take more picture data than that in a single 1st birthday party.

And in 50 years, will it be gone?

Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46828307)

We are in an era known as the digital dark age.

Re:A foretaste... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 8 months ago | (#46828637)

...of what's to come.

This data's barely 50 years old, of extremely high value (thus worth the extraordinary effort), and relatively low Size.
We're talking about a couple of thousand high-resolution pictures, so what, each is perhaps what, 10 megabytes (they're all b&w)? So total of 20 gigs of images?

I know people that take more picture data than that in a single 1st birthday party.

And in 50 years, will it be gone?

In 50 years no one will care

Not all data is created equal. Most of it is useless noise destined to fade away forever, just like old photos, diaries, properties, people, etc.

Re:A foretaste... (2)

hawguy (1600213) | about 8 months ago | (#46828679)

...of what's to come.

This data's barely 50 years old, of extremely high value (thus worth the extraordinary effort), and relatively low Size.
We're talking about a couple of thousand high-resolution pictures, so what, each is perhaps what, 10 megabytes (they're all b&w)? So total of 20 gigs of images?

I know people that take more picture data than that in a single 1st birthday party.

And in 50 years, will it be gone?

When my grandmother died and we cleaned out her attic, we threw away a lot of old photos and 8mm movies because no one alive still knew who was in the pictures.

Someday my thousands of digital photos will suffer the same fate -- when my computer is sold off for scrap and the credit card that pays my dropbox bill is canceled, they will all dissappear except for images that I've specifically chosen to pass on... as they should.

Re:A foretaste... (2)

uglyMood (322284) | about 8 months ago | (#46829919)

Unfortunately, most people have the same impulse as you and your family: if they don't recognize the person in the photo, out it goes. What you need to realize is that in most cases it's not who the people in the photographs are that is important, it's what is behind them. The vast majority of lost information about the past is because no one at the time thought it was worth saving.

Re:A foretaste... (3, Interesting)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 8 months ago | (#46830605)

Don't be so sure, we think of history as the big things politicians, generals and kings do - but historians tend not to care much about those, if only because they are already as well documented as they are going to be.
Generally historians are more interested in the end in how ordinary people LIVED at that time.

One of the most valuable archeological digs ever found from the Roman occupation in Britain was an old trash-heap, because on it we found lots of things which were thrown away as worthless then - but because of that were valuable now as they hadn't been preserved through the usual channels. We found a letter sent from Rome to the wife of a Roman soldier telling stories of what the family has been up to. We found an early forerunner of the ipad (a wax covered slab on which you could scribble notes with a stylus, a quick heat-up let you smooth out the scribbles and reuse it).

Some of the most insightful pictures we have of more recent events like the American Civil War or the Anglo-Boer war were pictures no newspaper would publish - family pictures which show what the fashions were for example.

The point is - there is absolutely no way of predicting upfront what will have historical value someday, and the things we tend to assume will have none have a tendency to become the most valuable EXACTLY BECAUSE it was NOT valued at the time and this means that to future historians - those will be rare finds.

Re:A foretaste... (1)

Pope (17780) | about 8 months ago | (#46832005)

Back in the film days, people didn't take thousands of pictures. Best thing to do with digital is sort through them and only keep a few meaningful ones, and print them out on archival paper.

10 megabytes? (2)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 8 months ago | (#46830297)

I wouldn't want to be the one to give an estimate on how much bytes are required to adequately store the analogue data on the tapes. It could very well be ten times as much or even more. Depending on the quality of the recording, it could very well be that you'd need 32 bits per pixel and the sample rate you could achieve might mean there could be billions of pixels per image in useful data in the recordings. All of a sudden you could be dealing with multiple gigabytes per image in raw data. Derivatives with processed image data might raise that number substantially again.

Re:10 megabytes? (2)

Tunefix (3629429) | about 8 months ago | (#46830951)

According to this page: http://www.moonviews.com/2013/... [moonviews.com] the images are ~600MB in a tiff format. So for 2000 images, that adds up tp 1,2 PB (Or 1,144 PiB)

Re:10 megabytes? (1)

Tunefix (3629429) | about 8 months ago | (#46830963)

Ooops, Not PB(PiB), I meant TB (TiB)

Re:A foretaste... (3, Interesting)

cusco (717999) | about 8 months ago | (#46830353)

I like the difference this demonstrates between this White House administration and the previous one, which first instructed NASA to "dispose of" old Mariner data and were so upset that NASA handed it over to the Planetary Society rather than shred it that they directly instructed NASA to destroy the still-unanalyzed Pioneer data later. (NASA administrators risked their jobs and pensions to get that data to the Planetary Society as well, with the result that today we have a likely solution to the 'Pioneer Anomaly'.) Obama ain't much, but he's better than what we had.

Re:A foretaste... (1)

kyrsjo (2420192) | about 8 months ago | (#46831333)

Link?

Re:A foretaste... (2)

scsirob (246572) | about 8 months ago | (#46830639)

Fully agree with you here. Add to that the recent advances in technology that gave us the 'benefits' of encryption, DRM, proprietary formats etc, and you can rest assured that no-one will be able to recover data from this era one hundred years from now. We are living in the digital Dark Age right now.

Interesting comments on the satellites they used (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 8 months ago | (#46828277)

The brilliant and ballsy engineering was typical of NASA during its golden age, a time when it was also more closely linked to other government agencies with an interest in taking pictures from space.

“These guys were operating right at the edge,” Cowing says with a reverence for these NASA engineers that’s shared by his team. “There’s a certain spy program heritage to all this, but these guys went above that, because those spy satellites would send their images back. These didn’t. They couldn’t. They were in lunar orbit.”

So NASA sent a few extra spy satellites to the Moon to do a little snooping around. That makes this even better.

Re:Interesting comments on the satellites they use (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | about 8 months ago | (#46829835)

Electronic readout of on-board film processing was not a new idea, even at the time.

        Brett

Re:Interesting comments on the satellites they use (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 8 months ago | (#46831907)

I don't think that's what they did though; early spy satellites didn't process the film onboard, they dropped it for recovery and processing on Earth. It sounds like these guys used the optics they had and coupled them to some kind of analog sensors.

Hackers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46828385)

Oh it's okay, I'm takin it back! - Randall G.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?