New IMAX Film about Apollo

[jrkeller]

Check out this news release from IMAX

http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir...item_id=361947

[kucharek]

Hey, looks as if we are going to get a ALSJ: The IMAX Experience!

[SpacedOut]

Magnificent Desolation will break new ground for a "traditional" documentary. Filmmakers Mark Herzog and Mark Cowen (recently nominated for an Emmy Award for We Stand Alone Together: The Men Of Easy Company), will use never before seen photographs by Michael Light (Full Moon, Knopf 1999) as well as transcripts and commentary, played-out in voice-over by actors, recounting the activities on the lunar surface as documented by noted space scholar Eric Jones. The film will also utilize innovative re-creations and/or CGI renditions of the lunar landscape and previously unreleased NASA footage.

[Emphasis mine]

I imagine the HP's will jump all over the statements about "never before seen" and "previously unreleased" information. In fact I'd like to know what they are talking about - truly "new" stuff or images and film that has not been widely published. On second thought, could be just PR hyperbole.

[sp... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img] ]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-12-06 10:25 ]</font>

[kucharek]

You emphasized exactly the phrases where my reading slowed down and I had a deja-vu... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Harald

[SpacedOut]

My guess its info thats always been available but not published - like b. sibrel's "new" footage of the Apollo 11 crew "faking it".

I only hope this film is shown at the IMAX theatre near me. Apollo 13 won't be. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]

[kucharek]

Or course. In any average movie about Apollo you always only see snippets from these 30min NASA PR movies and stills of those shots NASA must have given to the press soon after the crew came back. No one ever went back to ask NASA for the rest of the material. And there was never need for NASA to widely puplish e.g. all photos taken. Now, with the electronic media, its comparable a piece of cake and so people like Kipp Teague go to NASA, look for pictures and publish the on the web.

[traztx]

CGI renditions based on the footage... on IMAX... gotta see it!

[nebularain]

CNN did a report on this, too:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movi...eut/index.html

[JayUtah]

The issue has always been how much effort the viewer has been willing to undertake.

"Available" can mean many things. Conspiracists define "available" as easily obtainable through free online, or at worst commercial retail, sources. So when they say that certain photographs or video clips "aren't available" they mean you can't order them instantly from Amazon or point and click your way into them.

"Available" can also mean simply the opposite of "withheld". Anyone who goes to the appropriate NASA authority, or any of its "mirror" document repositories, can have access to a wide variety of original Apollo materials.

This just shows more conspiracist naivete. Many of them have probably never done any serious historical research and don't know what that typically requires. It is quite common for an historian to have to travel to places where various information sources are kept. Many of these materials are one-of-a-kind, or at least not in demand enough to warrant mass duplication and dissemination.

If you want to research the ancient history of the Catholic church, a trip to the Vatican to consult its library would be essential. If you wanted to know about the details of the production of the Boeing 747, why wouldn't you expect that a trip to Everett, Washington would be part of that?

Information is not "withheld" or "suppressed" simply because it's kept safely in a library where prospective scholars must go to find it.

We see a lot of the same Apollo footage over and over again because that has always been the most exciting footage. I've seen the Apollo 17 lunar liftoff a million times. It's good footage. It's inspiring and exciting. And film producers know this.

This is one of the reasons I like Michael Light's Full Moon so much. He reproduces many of the uncommon Apollo photographs. They were always there, but they never made the public relations cut until now.

Of course now that information technology is orders of magnitude more capable than it was in 1970, we can get easier and easier access to a wide variety of historical materials. This is natural and expected. It's not, as the conspiracists claim, an effort to refute their arguments by stepping up a propaganda effort.

[Irishman]

The very same technology that allows the HB crowd to reach more people with their beliefs is the technology that is allowing wider dissemination of pictures and information from the missions. Yet they can't seem to understand that.

<a name="2-12-08.3D"> page= 2-12-08.3D

1 Ah hA the return of 3D glasses
and a new stock symbole for me to put
3 on my list as a short
like End.Ron.i & World.con
<a name="2-12-08.link2.er"> line= 2-12-08.link2.er

7well maybe i'll put a link here
& maybe i wont

[JayUtah]

The very same technology that allows the HB crowd to reach more people with their beliefs is the technology that is allowing wider dissemination of pictures and information from the missions.

Ironically the web makes it easy to do selective research too. "I did a web search and didn't find anything," is often said in support for arguing that NASA is suppressing something, or has heretofore suppressed it. Nobody goes to the library anymore.

The C-rock wouldn't have been an issue if people had worked with actual transparencies instead of JPEGs they downloaded. Neither would the fiducials bleeding away. And it's hard to talk about the hours of seamless video when the online archives give you the standard 30-second video bites.

[Rodina]

Of course, some folks are similarly convinced that if something doesn't exist on the internet, it doesn't exist.

I was having an argument on a political board about the politics surrounding the decision to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (a lucky day for Kokura) - and I mentioned some very obvious text in this area of history and the fellow shot back "send me a link - I can't believe it if I don't read it". I guess a trip to the library is too much to ask.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rodina on 2002-12-09 14:47 ]</font>

[cable]

On 2002-12-06 11:05, kucharek wrote:
Or course. In any average movie about Apollo you always only see snippets from these 30min NASA PR movies and stills of those shots NASA must have given to the press soon after the crew came back. No one ever went back to ask NASA for the rest of the material. And there was never need for NASA to widely puplish e.g. all photos taken. Now, with the electronic media, its comparable a piece of cake and so people like Kipp Teague go to NASA, look for pictures and publish the on the web.

Exactly.
and let NASA publish the software source used at that time. for, 30 years later,
this software must be stone-age history, and no need to hide it anymore. ( I've seen only 1 page of unreadable listing, writen in assembly ). meanwhile, how many lines of code was it ?

[SpacedOut]

cable-

We've discussed the AGC on several occasions and Jay discusses it on his site.

The BABB thread.

Another source of information is at the MIT web site here.

Doing a Google search on the "Apollo Guidance Computer" will turn up several hundred hits.

[edit to add BABB thread link]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-12-15 09:59 ]</font>

[ToSeek]

Universe Today coverage

[kucharek]

Website is now online, Flash-heavy:

http://www.imax.com/magnificentdesolation/

[Gillianren]

Ironically the web makes it easy to do selective research too. "I did a web search and didn't find anything," is often said in support for arguing that NASA is suppressing something, or has heretofore suppressed it. Nobody goes to the library anymore.

Jay, I have a confession. I--I love you. I've been saying this over and over for the last year or so--the library thing, not the loving you thing--and it's like people've never even heard of a library. and after all that work Andrew Carnegie put into 'em, too!

I mean, you keep posting things that make me happy, and I thought you should know. no, you don't "convince" me of much, on account of, when I do have a pre-existing belief on these subjects, I already agreed with you. but you're so right, and so eloquent, and you manage to post politely when I'd be losing it and calling people crack monkeys, and getting myself banned for it. my friends all know how I feel about you, and file it under "Gillian's weird fixations," like my worship of Alton Brown. but you should know that you're in very esteemed company.

[jt-3d]

I love Jay too!! Oh wait, you're a girl, that's right. ops:

Actually he posted that back in Dec2002, now have you loved him since then and didn't know it or only love him now that you've read what he wrote two years ago?

I only type this to amuse myself. Just ignore me, I'll get better one day.

[Astronot]

Website is now online, Flash-heavy:

http://www.imax.com/magnificentdesolation/

Thanks for the link. I am looking forward to taking my kids to this.


This flick will add some fuel to the conspiracy fire. The behind the scene photos show them faking the moon walks in a studio.

[HB]If it can be done now in public don’t you think the gubmint could have done it in the sixties with all the resources it had available.[/HB]

The captions for one of the photos that pictures Dave Scott showing the actors how to operate the LM refers to the craft as the Lunar Excursion Module or LEM. One small point of poor research.

[Swift]

Ironically the web makes it easy to do selective research too. "I did a web search and didn't find anything," is often said in support for arguing that NASA is suppressing something, or has heretofore suppressed it. Nobody goes to the library anymore.

Jay, I have a confession. I--I love you. I've been saying this over and over for the last year or so--the library thing, not the loving you thing--and it's like people've never even heard of a library. and after all that work Andrew Carnegie put into 'em, too!

I mean, you keep posting things that make me happy, and I thought you should know. no, you don't "convince" me of much, on account of, when I do have a pre-existing belief on these subjects, I already agreed with you. but you're so right, and so eloquent, and you manage to post politely when I'd be losing it and calling people crack monkeys, and getting myself banned for it. my friends all know how I feel about you, and file it under "Gillian's weird fixations," like my worship of Alton Brown. but you should know that you're in very esteemed company.

You can be president of the Jay fan club, but there are a lot of members here. I've thought for a long time that Jay should coach the debate team or should have an endowed chair in logic.
And you worship Alton Brown, you have good taste (only a slight pun is intended).

[Captain Kidd]

Oh for the love of! Why does Chattanooga even have an IMAX? Nothing is shown here.

[Gillianren]

I love Jay too!! Oh wait, you're a girl, that's right. ops:

Actually he posted that back in Dec2002, now have you loved him since then and didn't know it or only love him now that you've read what he wrote two years ago?

I only type this to amuse myself. Just ignore me, I'll get better one day.

I have faith. no, the more I learn about Jay, the more I love him, and I've reached the point where I felt he had to know.

[Samara]

How much do you want to bet that there will be HB's piketing outside the local IMAX?

Looking back, it's too back they didn't have IMAX during the time of 2001. It was mind blowing on my titchy tv, imagine it on IMAX...

[Donnie B.]

How much do you want to bet that there will be HB's piketing outside the local IMAX?

Looking back, it's too back thy didn't have IMAX during the time of 2001. It was mind blowing on my titchy tv, imagine it on IMAX...

Well, it was shot in Cinerama, which was as close to IMAX as was available at the time. Too bad there aren't many Cinerama-capable theaters these days.

[EvilBob]

Very cool! 8)
The IMAX in Melbourne has it listed as coming in October. I'll definitely have to get down there to see it. Anyone know where I can download that trailer so I can bore my wife with it?

[kucharek]

Trailer in highres: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/hdgal...esolation.html

[kucharek]

From the Educator's Guide you can download from the movie's website:

Page 25 -

• The average temperature on the side of the Moon exposed to Sun can
reach as high as 2600°F.
• The coldest nighttime temperature on the side not exposed to the
Sun can reach as low as -2800°F.

Thanks to Colin Mackellar from http://www.honeysucklecreek.net to pointing this out to me.

Mail to someone who can inform the producers is already under way. Maybe everyone should have a close look at that guide. If you find any other quirks, tell me.

Guide at http://www.imax.com/magnificentdesol...atorsguide.pdf 5.5MB

Harald

[EvilBob]

Trailer in highres: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/hdgal...esolation.html

Thanks!

[Astronot]

From the Educator's Guide you can download from the movie's website:

Page 25 -

• The average temperature on the side of the Moon exposed to Sun can
reach as high as 2600°F.
• The coldest nighttime temperature on the side not exposed to the
Sun can reach as low as -2800°F.

Thanks to Colin Mackellar from http://www.honeysucklecreek.net to pointing this out to me.

Mail to someone who can inform the producers is already under way. Maybe everyone should have a close look at that guide. If you find any other quirks, tell me.

Guide at http://www.imax.com/magnificentdesol...atorsguide.pdf 5.5MB

Harald

It seems the authors are a little confused about temperature extremes. From page 5

The entire Moon has very cold temperatures. (Myth) Brr! On the
“dark side” of the Moon, the average temperature is a chilly -279°F
(-173°C). But it isn’t cold everywhere on the Moon. On the sunlit
side, the average temperature is around 212°F (100° C). (The average
temperature on Earth is 60°F, or 15.5°C.)

Perhaps this is a committee work.

From page 22

The footprints left on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts should last close to 10 million years, since there is no wind or water to
erode the topsoil.

I have read elsewhere that the prints may last only about 100 years due to a churning of the regolith from heating and cooling. Of course in reality no one knows for sure. No matter long they last, it won’t be because they are in topsoil. If they used soil it wouldn’t be so bad but topsoil is a desirable form of soil rich in organic material. This term is used in connection with gardening and farming not broken up rock.