Google Maps now on Mars.
March 12, 2006 10:09 PM Subscribe
More about Valles Marineris. God that resolution is amazing.
posted by bigmusic at 10:19 PM on March 12, 2006
posted by bigmusic at 10:19 PM on March 12, 2006
I think the search is broken... I put in "hotels near elysium mons" and it says "no results found".
posted by zek at 10:25 PM on March 12, 2006
posted by zek at 10:25 PM on March 12, 2006
the "face" shows up in the search, but you can't zoom in far enough...
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 11:06 PM on March 12, 2006
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 11:06 PM on March 12, 2006
why do they always overdo the color? it looks so fake--do they have unphotoshopped pics?
posted by amberglow at 12:38 AM on March 13, 2006
posted by amberglow at 12:38 AM on March 13, 2006
The best Mars stuff still comes from Spirit and Opportunity which continue sending back some awesome pictures. The 3D images are well worth a look.
posted by piscatorius at 12:58 AM on March 13, 2006
posted by piscatorius at 12:58 AM on March 13, 2006
"2.5 times vertical exaggeration"
That's the one that gets my goat. Why do planetary scientists feel the need to exaggerate the heights of everything? If it's cool in reality, let it be cool. Don't exaggerate. Isn't planetary science about telling the truth?
I support pretty much everything else about planetary science. That particular thing just annoys me.
posted by jiawen at 12:59 AM on March 13, 2006
That's the one that gets my goat. Why do planetary scientists feel the need to exaggerate the heights of everything? If it's cool in reality, let it be cool. Don't exaggerate. Isn't planetary science about telling the truth?
I support pretty much everything else about planetary science. That particular thing just annoys me.
posted by jiawen at 12:59 AM on March 13, 2006
That's the one that gets my goat. Why do planetary scientists feel the need to exaggerate the heights of everything? If it's cool in reality, let it be cool. Don't exaggerate. Isn't planetary science about telling the truth?
If you had a scale model of the earth the size of a billiard ball, it would be just as smooth - you wouldn't be able to feel the Himalayas by running your thumb over it.
Planets are almost perfect spheres, and perfect spheres are dull. To make detail stand out at the kind of magnification you have to use to appreciate the scope of Valles Marineris, exaggerated vertical scale is necessary.
To answer your question; no - science is about scientific facts, not truth. Besides, this is popularized science. If you want a more real and immediate feel, I recommend reading some journal articles, published in scientific journals.
posted by spazzm at 2:08 AM on March 13, 2006
If you had a scale model of the earth the size of a billiard ball, it would be just as smooth - you wouldn't be able to feel the Himalayas by running your thumb over it.
Planets are almost perfect spheres, and perfect spheres are dull. To make detail stand out at the kind of magnification you have to use to appreciate the scope of Valles Marineris, exaggerated vertical scale is necessary.
To answer your question; no - science is about scientific facts, not truth. Besides, this is popularized science. If you want a more real and immediate feel, I recommend reading some journal articles, published in scientific journals.
posted by spazzm at 2:08 AM on March 13, 2006
spazzm beat me too it, but I was going to say the same thing, with a couple of figures:
If you scale the Earth down the the size of a soccer ball -- 22cm / 9in diameter, Mount everest would be 0.1mm / 5 thousands of an inch high...
If you have WorldWind, where you can configure the vertical exaggeration, go and look at a known landmark in a 3d perpective and you will find that a small exaggeration -- such as x2.5 -- makes landmarks look more 'real' than using the 'real' height. (Google Earth may be able to do the same).
posted by nielm at 2:17 AM on March 13, 2006
If you scale the Earth down the the size of a soccer ball -- 22cm / 9in diameter, Mount everest would be 0.1mm / 5 thousands of an inch high...
If you have WorldWind, where you can configure the vertical exaggeration, go and look at a known landmark in a 3d perpective and you will find that a small exaggeration -- such as x2.5 -- makes landmarks look more 'real' than using the 'real' height. (Google Earth may be able to do the same).
posted by nielm at 2:17 AM on March 13, 2006
Google doesn't have a good reputation in matters astronomical. Remember "Google Moon" and what happened when you zoomed all the way in? (It's cheese!) Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... uh... won't get fooled again.
posted by wendell at 2:32 AM on March 13, 2006
posted by wendell at 2:32 AM on March 13, 2006
Ever fucked a mutant?
posted by Effigy2000 at 3:16 AM on March 13, 2006
posted by Effigy2000 at 3:16 AM on March 13, 2006
A fly-through of the Valles Marineris is not a globe. They could very easily show the Valles at its true size, and it would be just as awesome, if not more awesome.
Height exaggeration != scientific facts. Scientific fact = truth, as far as I'm concerned. (I'm not talking about Truth in its moral/ethical/greater-than-experiential sense here; I'm talking about what is experientially, verifiably true.) I don't really see why height-exaggeration needs to be defended. It may seem more real to have things at greater heights than they actually are, but it isn't actually more real. It's actually false. The video was very up-front about it, which is good, but I've seen a lot of popular science where they don't even say that things are height-exaggerated. Why not let reality be just as awesome and cool as it actually is? Mars is a truly amazing place; there's no need to spice it up with special effects. I would be more in awe of videos of Mars if they'd show us what they actually looked like.
posted by jiawen at 3:21 AM on March 13, 2006
Height exaggeration != scientific facts. Scientific fact = truth, as far as I'm concerned. (I'm not talking about Truth in its moral/ethical/greater-than-experiential sense here; I'm talking about what is experientially, verifiably true.) I don't really see why height-exaggeration needs to be defended. It may seem more real to have things at greater heights than they actually are, but it isn't actually more real. It's actually false. The video was very up-front about it, which is good, but I've seen a lot of popular science where they don't even say that things are height-exaggerated. Why not let reality be just as awesome and cool as it actually is? Mars is a truly amazing place; there's no need to spice it up with special effects. I would be more in awe of videos of Mars if they'd show us what they actually looked like.
posted by jiawen at 3:21 AM on March 13, 2006
Remember "Google Moon" and what happened when you zoomed all the way in?
I was really hoping there'd be something similar when I zoomed in on Mars, like tiny little green men waving anal probes or something.
posted by Gator at 5:22 AM on March 13, 2006
I was really hoping there'd be something similar when I zoomed in on Mars, like tiny little green men waving anal probes or something.
posted by Gator at 5:22 AM on March 13, 2006
I'm pretty sure I went to a Dead show there.
posted by crunchland at 5:34 AM on March 13, 2006
posted by crunchland at 5:34 AM on March 13, 2006
I put in "hotels near elysium mons" and it says "no results found"
I tried "rovers near elysium mons" and it didn't find anything either. ("rovers", however...)
I was talking to Geoff Landis a couple of months ago, and found out he was the smart guy who came up with the idea of parking Sprit and Opportunity on north facing slopes during the winter, which angled the solar panels toward the sun.
MER-A and -B were built to run for 90 days. They've been operational for over two years. Who needs extended warranties?
posted by eriko at 5:45 AM on March 13, 2006
I tried "rovers near elysium mons" and it didn't find anything either. ("rovers", however...)
I was talking to Geoff Landis a couple of months ago, and found out he was the smart guy who came up with the idea of parking Sprit and Opportunity on north facing slopes during the winter, which angled the solar panels toward the sun.
MER-A and -B were built to run for 90 days. They've been operational for over two years. Who needs extended warranties?
posted by eriko at 5:45 AM on March 13, 2006
this was an awesome, nerdy way to start the day. thanks!
posted by Busithoth at 5:49 AM on March 13, 2006
posted by Busithoth at 5:49 AM on March 13, 2006
The video reminds me of the fun I used to have with Vistapro.
posted by iamck at 6:34 AM on March 13, 2006
posted by iamck at 6:34 AM on March 13, 2006
Mars? Can't they just start by mapping out Europe? OK, they mapped out the UK and Turin, but not much else.
posted by kika at 6:49 AM on March 13, 2006
posted by kika at 6:49 AM on March 13, 2006
They just have way too much time on their hands, those Google folks. . .
posted by Danf at 7:13 AM on March 13, 2006
posted by Danf at 7:13 AM on March 13, 2006
Height exaggeration != scientific facts. Scientific fact = truth,
I'm almost positive those aren't the real colors of Mars! Scientists are always changing the colors of things and it pisses me off.
</ sarcasm>
posted by goatfish at 7:41 AM on March 13, 2006
I'm almost positive those aren't the real colors of Mars! Scientists are always changing the colors of things and it pisses me off.
</ sarcasm>
posted by goatfish at 7:41 AM on March 13, 2006
Mars looks a lot like that time I dropped acid and ended up kneeling in front of a wet mailbox.
posted by CynicalKnight at 7:52 AM on March 13, 2006
posted by CynicalKnight at 7:52 AM on March 13, 2006
jlawen, it's really more about the limits of the software used. if it had not been exagerated, it simply would not have given a proper sense of scale in relation to the camera. they would have had to push the camera way down to the valley floor to even have the top of the canyon look like it was high up, and that's IF the camera didn't pass through the floor before they got low enough.
that probably doesn't make a lot of sense. the best I can say is that, if you try playing with some 3d software sometime, you'll find that cameras have sizes, and therefore make it difficult to make planet-scale objects at a proportion accurately relative to the size of your camera, without experiencing too much texture distortion and too many visibly apparent polygons. not to mention render time. they had to find a way to give a proper sense of scale while working on what is essentially a virtual table top model of the valley. so they encounter the same problems photographic the valley virtually that you would using a physical camera to photograph your own small scale version of your home town or something. there comes a point where the lens of the camera either hits the table (or in virtual space passes through it) and it's at a much higher point than you could go if you were working at scale. if the vertical sizes had not been exaggerated, the camera would have been stuck photographing something that, because of its inability to get as low as they'd like, would have looked like a crack in a chocolate bar rather than a canyon larger than any on earth.
of course, this is coming from an amateur 3d modeler who doesn't understand the math and nitty gritty of his applications so much as he understands the theory and how to work with them. if there's someone more knowledgable here who can either correct or amplify what I'm saying with more and better info, that would be awesome.
it's okay to be a purist about these things, of course, but it's important to remember that sometimes EXTERNAL SOURCES can pollute the visual representation of information. maybe without vertical exaggeration, it would have better fit your personal definition of truth, but it would have REPRESENTED truth at all. And that's not because of anything wrong with the data, but because of something outside the data that they had to work with. it's compensation to try to accomplish the middle ground between two options of false representation, not just 1 = true 2 = not true.
posted by shmegegge at 9:32 AM on March 13, 2006
that probably doesn't make a lot of sense. the best I can say is that, if you try playing with some 3d software sometime, you'll find that cameras have sizes, and therefore make it difficult to make planet-scale objects at a proportion accurately relative to the size of your camera, without experiencing too much texture distortion and too many visibly apparent polygons. not to mention render time. they had to find a way to give a proper sense of scale while working on what is essentially a virtual table top model of the valley. so they encounter the same problems photographic the valley virtually that you would using a physical camera to photograph your own small scale version of your home town or something. there comes a point where the lens of the camera either hits the table (or in virtual space passes through it) and it's at a much higher point than you could go if you were working at scale. if the vertical sizes had not been exaggerated, the camera would have been stuck photographing something that, because of its inability to get as low as they'd like, would have looked like a crack in a chocolate bar rather than a canyon larger than any on earth.
of course, this is coming from an amateur 3d modeler who doesn't understand the math and nitty gritty of his applications so much as he understands the theory and how to work with them. if there's someone more knowledgable here who can either correct or amplify what I'm saying with more and better info, that would be awesome.
it's okay to be a purist about these things, of course, but it's important to remember that sometimes EXTERNAL SOURCES can pollute the visual representation of information. maybe without vertical exaggeration, it would have better fit your personal definition of truth, but it would have REPRESENTED truth at all. And that's not because of anything wrong with the data, but because of something outside the data that they had to work with. it's compensation to try to accomplish the middle ground between two options of false representation, not just 1 = true 2 = not true.
posted by shmegegge at 9:32 AM on March 13, 2006
From the FAQs: "4. Can I see the Mars data using the Google Earth client?
Not yet, but we're working on it."
I just recently discovered the Mac Google Earth client and am still flush with excitement. You know where this is headed, don't you? Google Solar System! Google Galaxy!! Google Universe!!! Google Multiverse!!!!
posted by tritisan at 9:48 AM on March 13, 2006
Not yet, but we're working on it."
I just recently discovered the Mac Google Earth client and am still flush with excitement. You know where this is headed, don't you? Google Solar System! Google Galaxy!! Google Universe!!! Google Multiverse!!!!
posted by tritisan at 9:48 AM on March 13, 2006
This is very cool. I've wanted a Mars-globe for years; this is almost as good.
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:02 AM on March 13, 2006
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:02 AM on March 13, 2006
Google Multiverse!!!!
Google Infinite Earths! Now with crisis!
posted by shmegegge at 12:56 PM on March 13, 2006
Google Infinite Earths! Now with crisis!
posted by shmegegge at 12:56 PM on March 13, 2006
Something's whack with my views of mars: if you zoom all teh way out, the planet repeats itself...
posted by Ogre Lawless at 2:06 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by Ogre Lawless at 2:06 PM on March 13, 2006
« Older Has the New York Times Violated the Espionage Act? | See? It WAS doomed. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Seriously though, this is pretty cool. Thanks for the link.
posted by Effigy2000 at 10:17 PM on March 12, 2006