So, the shuttle is back in space.

[PlutonianEmpire]

Good for me, because, since my parents have satellite TV and get the NASA channel, I can now try to spend as much time as possible looking at the video shots from space of Earth, so i can focus on my "Homeworld Improvement" Celestia project, to make the planet appear more realistic in Celestia.

Now, if i could just get that laptop reformated...

Oh, and while looking at some of the space videos of Earth, the specular color of the sunlight reflecting off the oceans appear to have a yellowish appearance, instead of white like in celestia... Hmm...

[Don. Edwards]

The issue of specular color has been brought up before. If the Earth is viewed from a distance it tends to be white. If viewed from low Earth orbit it has a slightly yellow tint. But since Celestia at this time can't adjust for the difference most are either stuck with the specular color set white or pale yellow. It is all a matter of opinion as to what is truly better or factual. The Suns light is very white. I think it has to with the refraction in the atmosphere and the photographic medium used. But that is my opinion anyway. BTW the program Orbiter has a more yellow specular color than Celestia's default. But Orbiter also has native cloud shadows and cloud bumpmaping as well. At least I think it has cloud bumpmaping. But Orbiter is based on Microsoft's Direct X and not on OpenGL.

As for making Earth more realistic that has been done. Just look at my textures and the textures of a few other texture artists. For the most part I adjust the color as close as possible as to what it would look like from orbit. My last textures of Earth had a little more saturation than the norm because of the cloud textures I made to go with them. My clouds have a built in haze layer that adjusts the texture color some. When all are used together the result is fairly good and it might be said accurate by some. But if you feel you are on to something than by all means go forward and than show us what you can come up with. Who knows, maybe you can do a better job than me and many of the others that have tried in the past.
But at this point the textures are all pretty much the same as they are derived from NASA's BlueMarble texture data. When they finally get the new BlueMarble 2 textures up and posted than we can finally move Earth forward again. Until then, keep at it. This is the best way to learn.

Don.

[PlutonianEmpire]

Cool.

Hmm, i also noticed that in some places, the deserts sometimes had bluish or greenish (or both) tints/hues to them, so i'm thinking that in celestia, i could go for having a sky-blue haze color, and a slightly greenish planet color.

Of course, this is all based on camera pics of the planet. I have no idea what Earth would look like to the naked eye, so until one of us Celestians actually gets to go into space, we're probably left with guesses and/or estimates as to how Earth could look like in Celestia.

And when i'm done with Earth, I'm gonna go ahead and take a look at the other planets in the Sol system, starting with a simple contrast/brightness adjustment of the mars texture, because it looks a little... flat.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I was fortunate enough to see the live pictures on TV from the camera attached to the external fuel tank yesterday. It was excellent to see this sort of thing. I wish it had been done before.

I noticed the Earth was a generally flat but very pale blue with a couple of wisps of white. I expect the blue was the Atlantic ocean, and the white the brightest clouds, but I especially think this was due to overexposure of the Earth because the camera was looking at the underside of the orbiter, which was in shadow.

I wouldn't expect the camera to be properly colour balanced, so I think reading in blue, yellow, green to this or that isn't accurate.

There are hundreds of good quality photos of the Earth from LEO - usually ones taken by astronauts with their own basic still cameras. They seem pretty accurate for colour to me...

Right, now let's see if they get a piccy of a missing bit of tile or not...

Spiff.

[ajtribick]

Right, now let's see if they get a piccy of a missing bit of tile or not...

Spiff.

Well apparently something fell off the shuttle during launch... news article: notice "Video footage of Tuesday's spectacular launch from Kennedy Space Center revealed debris objects falling around the orbiter during its ascent."

There's also a video on that site so you can watch the bits of whatever they were falling off.

[buggs_moran]

I was fortunate enough to see the live pictures on TV from the camera attached to the external fuel tank yesterday. It was excellent to see this sort of thing. I wish it had been done before.

It has, but it didn't come out as beautifully after SRB sep.

Atlantis 2002
http://www.eclipticenterprises.com/vide ... peg-hi.mpg

My absolute favorite is MER A though, and you will see why...
http://www.eclipticenterprises.com/vide ... peg-hi.mpg

all are cool.

Main site: http://www.eclipticenterprises.com/

[Don. Edwards]

I find it so daunting that in the 20 plus years that the shuttles have flown, and the ice, foam, and other things have hit them, that it had the fatal problem it did 2 years ago. One must keep in mind that Columbia was the oldest member of the shuttle fleet. The darn thing was 25+ years old when the accident happened. They ground many airplanes just after 15 to 20 years. I feel that the Columbia should have been retired years ago and it probably would have been if it were not for the Challenger accident. The stresses these shuttles go through are much worse than what an airplane goes through. Talk about metal fatigue. I feel the age of Columbia had a great deal to do with its demise. The Discovery is one of the youngest shuttles and there were advancements made as each one came off the line. Allot of these changes could not be implemented in the older ones. I remember reading this somewhere years ago. The Columbia was only the second after the prototype, Enterprise was finished and it took ten years or more to finish them. And we ended up short a few. If I am not mistaken there were originally to be ten shuttles in all. Then it went to seven and then five.

All I know is that if the shuttle fleet or should we say trio, as three is hardly a fleet, is grounded yet again for any length of time, I think you are going to see a major shift in the US space program and political system around them. If NASA can't get its butt in gear and get a replacement in order in the next few years we might as well close up shop. There are other countries that are far more willing to take chances the way we used to, to get into space and get a foothold there. If the shuttles get grounded I also see this as a way for thoughs that would love for us to quit spending money on space getting there way. There is a large group that wants us to give all the money for space exploration to social services here in this country. I hope this doesn?€™t happen but who knows what the future may bring. I do not care what the President or anyone else has said. Space is a very low priority when it comes to funding. It has been this way since the early 70?€™s. I just hope none of this happens until after I am dead and gone.

[danielj]

I disagree with you in your final assertion.Space is a priority,otherwise in a few hunderd years,mankind will be extinct.Not exploring spce mean that the technology to deflect rocks in space wouldn??t be improved and if we have an impending catastrophe in the far future(for example,a supernova explosion nearby),manking won??t be nothing because they will be GROUNDED.Remember Carl Sagan??s phrases:Only civilizations that explore the space can survive;and the space shuttles grounded could mean the beggining of the process of mankind??s extinction.It??s imperative to explore space and for this,we have to risk men??s life.It??s better to lost people in space than losing people in useless wars.Russia is still sending your men to space,and China will follow it.NASA is being coward,and its managers are not adequate to run this program.Space imply risks and it is a true,no matter what we want.
As for helping poor people,we have to be careful not to kill the planet in the progress.It??s impossible to give to anyone in the planet the same comfort and money that a european or even a asian have(americans is another case,they are so arrogant because they have tons of money and even so,they think they don??t have enough).We can??t stop scientific development to help the poor people,and space exploring is part of this.And space program is a joy for millions of children and for people like me,that want to go to space when I am still alive.Robots are limited,and men went to moon too long ago.
If you want to help the poor,give your million dollar of gagdets to them or sell them to make money.
It??s the US that is going to lose.And very soon,continuing this,the scientific progress of this country(who ellected a monster) will be irrelevant...
Not to mention that men space flights are a way to continue to support robotic missions.People get emotioned with people??s drama and not with that cold robots.If NASA don??t reconsider your decisition,the entire US space programm is doomed.And maybe,in this case,the private enterpride could do better that this incompetent people...

I find it so daunting that in the 20 plus years that the shuttles have flown, and the ice, foam, and other things have hit them, that it had the fatal problem it did 2 years ago. One must keep in mind that Columbia was the oldest member of the shuttle fleet. The darn thing was 25+ years old when the accident happened. They ground many airplanes just after 15 to 20 years. I feel that the Columbia should have been retired years ago and it probably would have been if it were not for the Challenger accident. The stresses these shuttles go through are much worse than what an airplane goes through. Talk about metal fatigue. I feel the age of Columbia had a great deal to do with its demise. The Discovery is one of the youngest shuttles and there were advancements made as each one came off the line. Allot of these changes could not be implemented in the older ones. I remember reading this somewhere years ago. The Columbia was only the second after the prototype, Enterprise was finished and it took ten years or more to finish them. And we ended up short a few. If I am not mistaken there were originally to be ten shuttles in all. Then it went to seven and then five.

All I know is that if the shuttle fleet or should we say trio, as three is hardly a fleet, is grounded yet again for any length of time, I think you are going to see a major shift in the US space program and political system around them. If NASA can't get its butt in gear and get a replacement in order in the next few years we might as well close up shop. There are other countries that are far more willing to take chances the way we used to, to get into space and get a foothold there. If the shuttles get grounded I also see this as a way for thoughs that would love for us to quit spending money on space getting there way. There is a large group that wants us to give all the money for space exploration to social services here in this country. I hope this doesn?€™t happen but who knows what the future may bring. I do not care what the President or anyone else has said. Space is a very low priority when it comes to funding. It has been this way since the early 70?€™s. I just hope none of this happens until after I am dead and gone.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I disagree with you in your final assertion.

I think you didn't read Don's post properly, he's actually agreeing with you:

If NASA can't get its butt in gear and get a replacement in order in the next few years we might as well close up shop. There are other countries that are far more willing to take chances the way we used to, to get into space and get a foothold there. If the shuttles get grounded I also see this as a way for [those] that would love for us to quit spending money on space getting there way. ... I hope this doesn?€™t happen but who knows what the future may bring. I do not care what the President or anyone else has said. Space is a very low priority when it comes to funding.

That's the same as what you wrote. That last sentence shows Don is observing that US space policy unfortunately is given a low priority by the US government, he is not saying that it deserves a low priority.

Sometimes, you seem to write things that appear harsh.

(americans is another case,they are so arrogant because they have tons of money and even so,they think they don??t have enough)

Following our debate (The Great Geographic Names Debate.) about how to interpret geographical names, do you mean all peoples from the continents of America (including Brazil ), or the USA... . There are actually a lot of very poor people in the US. Of course, I always like to draw a distinction between the people of a country and the government of a country. I find most problems are usually the fault of the second bunch, and that's pretty universal.

If you want to talk about arrogance, no one beats the French, but they can get away with it because their standards* are so high.

Anyway, surely letting - how many was it? 13? - of your finest rocket engineers get blown up on the launch pad is perhaps too high a risk to take for the Brazilian space programme?

Perhaps you'd like to edit your last post before Don reads it? Make it clearer and more diplomatic? Hint hint?

... and the space shuttles grounded could mean the beggining of the process of mankind??s extinction.

I'd strongly disagree that the shuttle is vital to the US space programme and mankind's future in general. Your references to Carl Sagan are correct, but the shuttle has been an impediment to the US space programme for some time now. Don't get me wrong: the orbiter is a beautiful craft, but the boosters and external tank are ugly, and they both kill. This set up doesn't even meet the original idea of inexpensive and reusable. It's bandied about how great the space shuttle is because its reusable, yet each one has to be 90% replaced or refitted before the next launch. "Space Camp" was so wrong! NASA is making the right decision this time, and remember that in the US, Joe Sixpack can easily criticise any NASA official without comeback. You can't do that in Russia** or China.

Spiff.

* Except Alcatel.
* Unless you're an astrologer.

[selden]

Guys,

Unfortunately, political commentary is not appropriate for the Celestia Web forum.

Please cease and desist.

[ElChristou]

...If you want to talk about arrogance, no one beats the French, but they can get away with it because their standards* are so high...

* Except Alcatel. And Chirac.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Unfortunately, political commentary is not appropriate for the Celestia Web forum.

Not even space policy?

Spiff.

[selden]

Saying what the policy is is OK.

Opinions about its quality is NOT: this leads to unpleasantness because people disagree strongly about the importance of its various components. Discussing those disagreements is not useful, since neither side will change the other's opinions. In particular, comparing its relevance to that of social programs probably would lead to the commentators being banned.

If you want to discuss space policy, do it on one of the space advocacy forums.

[PlutonianEmpire]

There are hundreds of good quality photos of the Earth from LEO - usually ones taken by astronauts with their own basic still cameras. They seem pretty accurate for colour to me...

That sounds cool

[Fafers]

Anyway, surely letting - how many was it? 13? - of your finest rocket engineers get blown up on the launch pad(...)

Sadly, they were 21 engineers in fact.

[Spaceman Spiff]

There are hundreds of good quality photos of the Earth from LEO - usually ones taken by astronauts with their own basic still cameras. They seem pretty accurate for colour to me...

That sounds cool

For example, this Beeb story (Spacewalk to test shuttle repair) has a couple of insets showing very well the colour and brightness of Earth's clouds and oceans in context against familar man-made materials of the shuttle, etc... I think these photos are very good examples of what colour blue the sea is. One should look for things like that to calibrate colours and brightnesses.

Spiff.

P.s., I see your empire is growing again (2003 EL61, 2003 UB313). I think Hades said in mythology, his kingdom can only grow.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Hi PlutonianEmpire,

further to my above comment, if you look at NASA's 'Return To Flight' webpages (Multimedia) you can find several large photos of stunning light and colour quality within a few clicks here. The Earth in the background seems to me to be portrayed as closely as it would look to our eyes, and you can generally tell the trustworthyness of an image by whether the Shuttle and ISS also looks natural, which they do here.

NASA - Return to Flight ( http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/mult ... index.html ).

Everyone else can note that these images form targets for what Earth (and other Earth-like Planets) should look like in a 'perfected' Celestia.

Spiff.