|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 18:28:01 -0600, Doug...
wrote: Sometime early on (I want to say in the second season) they moved the whole thing over onto computers, but kept the animation look and style from the original. ....They're doing it all on Maya these days, which from what I hear has Maya's creators reportedly working on a stripped-down version that will render faster and be far easier to use for animators, and will reportedly export directly to efficient Flash animation code. OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
OM wrote: ...The problem there is that the design of JWST is flawed in the fact that it's not intended to work in the visible spectrum, which is where the "holy ****!!!" pictures are truly born than catch the attention of Joe Punchclock, Ethyl Soapsjunkie and Hipster Treehugger and make them go "holy ****!!!' and for a brief time get addicted enough to know full well you don't **** with your pusher and they should quit bitching about their tax dollars going to NASA. Of course the "holy ****" pictures really come out of the NASA photo labs after the exaggerated and false colors are added to the really pretty bland Hubble pictures to make them look cool- a process that hit some sort of apex with this shot, which made it look like the HST was peering deep into Mordor: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...rglass_big.gif The public is under the impression that if Hubble had an eyepiece on it that they could look into like a backyard telescope, they would see things that looked like this, but although the detail would be there, the color wouldn't be. Pat |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Doug... wrote: p.s. -- Too bad you're not interested in much contemporary animation, Pat. I agree that a lot of what's running on Cartoon Network late at night is awfully lame (seems to have been written by 12-year-olds), but Family Guy is a truly innovative and funny show. I've seen quite a few of The Family Guy episodes; it's just at some point something in the back of my head asked "Are you learning anything by watching this, or just tossing away half an hour?" combined with "You are in your mid forties....this is a cartoon like you used to watch when you were six years old." and I pretty much gave up on television for entertainment purposes...I'll still watch some shows if I happen to notice they are running at the time, but don't go looking for them. Most of the time I'm either watching news shows or prowling around on the Discovery and History channels and their offspring. Pat |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote in : ...The problem there is that the design of JWST is flawed in the fact that it's not intended to work in the visible spectrum, which is where the "holy ****!!!" pictures are truly born than catch the attention of Joe Punchclock, Ethyl Soapsjunkie and Hipster Treehugger and make them go "holy ****!!!' and for a brief time get addicted enough to know full well you don't **** with your pusher and they should quit bitching about their tax dollars going to NASA. Those ground based telescopes are producing similarly dramatic shots (some 'enhanced' for dramatic effect, I'm sure); they're doing much better than I thought could be possible and they're the competition. An improved Hubble's got to compete for funding with that in mind; how much better could it be made without going to a much larger mirror and much greater cost? It's an imperfect world. ...And its defeatest attitudes like this which allow things like Hubble and Skylab to fall from the sky when they're still salvageable. Just because it's an imperfect world doesn't mean we should accept it and allow it to **** things up. We should fight to *improve* those perfections, especially if it flies in the face of those who prefer to allow those imperfections to limit their lives. In the short term, fixing up Hubble via a Shuttle mission would keep the images coming, but it might compete with funding for a replacement, hopefully significantly improved. I'd like to have both, of course. What's on the table for future missions, BTW? We're not the only ones having this debate. --Damon |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Damon Hill wrote: Those ground based telescopes are producing similarly dramatic shots (some 'enhanced' for dramatic effect, I'm sure); they're doing much better than I thought could be possible and they're the competition. An improved Hubble's got to compete for funding with that in mind; how much better could it be made without going to a much larger mirror and much greater cost? And the ground based ones are far easier to service and modify than a space-based alternative; one of the most advanced recent telescope arrays is the Keck twin telescope array in Hawaii. The Keck telescope cost around one hundred and forty million dollars to build, which is about the price of two to two and one-half Shuttle flights. Hubble on the other hand cost around one and one half billion dollars, plus the cost of the Shuttle servicing missions to it. Even the proposed OWL (OverWhelmingly Large) telescope plan to build a scope with a _one hundred meter_ wide mirror is expected to cost less than one billion dollars. You could lay a couple entire Shuttle launch stacks on that mirror with room to spare. Pat |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Pat Flannery
writes OM wrote: ...The problem there is that the design of JWST is flawed in the fact that it's not intended to work in the visible spectrum, which is where the "holy ****!!!" pictures are truly born than catch the attention of Joe Punchclock, Ethyl Soapsjunkie and Hipster Treehugger and make them go "holy ****!!!' and for a brief time get addicted enough to know full well you don't **** with your pusher and they should quit bitching about their tax dollars going to NASA. Of course the "holy ****" pictures really come out of the NASA photo labs after the exaggerated and false colors are added to the really pretty bland Hubble pictures to make them look cool- a process that hit some sort of apex with this shot, which made it look like the HST was peering deep into Mordor: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...rglass_big.gif The public is under the impression that if Hubble had an eyepiece on it that they could look into like a backyard telescope, they would see things that looked like this, but although the detail would be there, the color wouldn't be. But if you look at _any_ photograph of a deep sky object you see it much brighter than it really is. We don't have colour vision at that light level, but the colours are there and usually very pure - they are from a line spectrum. The colours in pictures are either an approximation to the actual colours as seen through Hubble's filters, or, more frequently, selected for aesthetic and technical reasons and "false" in that sense. In particular, they often use green for the red hydrogen-alpha light. -- Support the DEC Tsunami Appeal http://www.dec.org.uk/. Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Silverlight wrote: But if you look at _any_ photograph of a deep sky object you see it much brighter than it really is. We don't have colour vision at that light level, but the colours are there and usually very pure - they are from a line spectrum. The colours in pictures are either an approximation to the actual colours as seen through Hubble's filters, or, more frequently, selected for aesthetic and technical reasons and "false" in that sense. In particular, they often use green for the red hydrogen-alpha light. Which is odd, as you'd think they'd use red for the red hydrogen-alpha light. But this is science, and is therefore not limited to making sense. Call it what you like, the photos get retouched to improve their "gee-whizz" quality for public consumption. Pat |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Rusty wrote: On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:45:25 -0500, "a" wrote: Goodbye Hubble. you served us well. The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) is doomed to reenter the earth's atmosphere on a Kamikaze mission a few years hence. Its fate was sealed in the FY06 budget just sent to Congress. I can yada yada over its history and potential and historic findings, but the point of this blog is a question: "Do we actually know what we're doing here?" The answer is strikingly simple but all too familiar - probably not. We are taking an instrument of historic value - a national treasure - and throwing it away like so much rubbish that has the potential to serve for many years or even decades in the future. The HST discovered so incredibly much in its relatively short life (compare its life to the great telescope at Palomar where its namesake did so much of his pioneering work.) The corporate whine is that it is just too expensive to keep it in service. Okay - it is expensive - but I would strongly argue with "too expensive". The fact is, everything is expensive. We are almost certainly making a mistake. The very day HST is gone we will go back to astronomical myopia. The decision to scrap the HST is like saying that we as a human species no longer need our glasses and we are quite content to be nearsighted. That, of course is patent foolishness and is, in fact, idiotic. And yet, alas, we have decided: we don't need no stinking glasses. The last moron that said that was hit by a bus. =========== From Dennis Chamberland's Blog Quantum Limit http://QuantumLimit.com The Ultimate Mars Colony http://MarsWars.com There once was a 'scope called the Hubble, When launched t'was already in trouble. The end of the Shuttle, Has led to its scuttle. It soon will be nothing but rubble. Rusty Hi... In the being of the American space program, failure happen alot. What was the driving force?...the cold war era. I think that the space program is could up with a marketing program or something. The shuttle is a bus no more no less. It is a tool to reach for bigger and better things. Scuttle the Hubble would be due to **** poor home budget planning. Use you imagination. We have not advance in the flight department in 30 years. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Damon Hill wrote: We don't _really_ need Hubble. We can do better, and are. Both in orbit, and on the ground. Astronomy will not be seriously impared by Hubble's demise. But an updated Hubble using that leftover mirror and updated instruments/systems could probably be kept rather busy. Launch it on whatever unmanned rocket and keep options open for future servicing. Hubble is dying after having served us so well; time to put our efforts into a replacement. --Damon Damon Please send my some links of equipment that could replace Hubble. Thanks, |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Daydreamer99" wrote in
oups.com: Damon Hill wrote: Hubble is dying after having served us so well; time to put our efforts into a replacement. Please send my some links of equipment that could replace Hubble. I'm not Damon, but here's a link anyway: http://www.pha.jhu.edu/hop/ HOP would definitely be both cheaper and more likely to succeed than HST robotic servicing. An HST shuttle servicing mission would be more likely to succeed than HOP, and the costs look to be pretty much a wash. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
John Hopkins-Led Team Present 3rd Hubble Option | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 3rd 05 12:13 AM |
NASA Is Not Giving Up On Hubble! (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 2 | May 2nd 04 01:46 PM |
Congressional Resolutions on Hubble Space Telescope | EFLASPO | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | April 1st 04 03:26 PM |
Don't Desert Hubble | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 54 | March 5th 04 04:38 PM |
Hubble images being colorized to enhance their appeal for public - LA Times | Rusty B | Policy | 4 | September 15th 03 10:38 AM |