Apollo 13 movie

[CraigZ]

I was watching Apollo 13 on StarZ last night. The part where Haise and Swigert (Bill Paxton and Kevin Bacon) were looking out the window at the moon, and Haise said something along the line "there's Neil and Buzz's old stomping ground." But it looked a whole lot like Apollo 15's landing site. The shape of the rille especially but it went by pretty fast. This may be an old question, but was it Apollo 15's site they showed.

CraigZ

[ToSeek]

Apollo 13 documented bloopers

They don't list yours, but I don't believe there was a rille near Tranquillity Base.

[Peter B]

I just had a look at the website of "Apollo 13" bloopers (surprisingly many!) and one in particular caught my attention.

The first stage separation shunt is described on the website as being totally unexpected, and caused by the ullage engines firing a second too early.

Yet when this matter was discussed on the Self Service Science Forum, the shunt was described as being caused by the Saturn 5 stack stretching when the first stage engines shut down. This would suggest it was common to all Saturn 5 launches. According to this info, the stack compressed by something in the order of decimetres to a metre, presumably due to the stack's inertia. Now we were told this by an astronomer, so I have no reason to believe he was pulling our legs, but was maybe someone pulling his?

[ToSeek]

On 2002-02-11 23:38, Peter B wrote:
I just had a look at the website of "Apollo 13" bloopers (surprisingly many!) and one in particular caught my attention.

The first stage separation shunt is described on the website as being totally unexpected, and caused by the ullage engines firing a second too early.

The crew debriefings from other Apollo missions make it clear that the "jolt" at staging was normal. I've written IMDB pointing this out. The blooper page is the only place I've heard about the supposed early firing of the ullage engines.

[Mr. X]

Anachronisms: The Izod Lacoste polo shirt that Lovell is wearing when talking about Swigert replacing Mattingly did not exist in 1970.

Factual errors: Jim Lovell's license plate is wrong, and his car was blue, not red.

Oh come on! How can you even nitpick that much!

[SeanF]

On 2002-02-12 08:56, ToSeek wrote:

The crew debriefings from other Apollo missions make it clear that the "jolt" at staging was normal. I've written IMDB pointing this out. The blooper page is the only place I've heard about the supposed early firing of the ullage engines.

I've e-mailed IMDB on three different "bloopers" they have listed that aren't bloopers. They haven't changed any of them, and I never got any kind of response.

I wonder if anybody ever even reads the e-mails . . .

[GrapesOfWrath]

Welcome back, Mr. X!

SeanF

The IMDB wheels grind slowly. They still don't list any goofs for Harry Potter, (although we have discussed the astronomy goofs listed for Cast Away, and they seemed to appear shortly after the movie release).

Are two of your three non-goofs these:

Factual errors: The fully illuminated side of the moon always points toward the sun and hence at night it must be closer to the horizon than the other side.

That's pretty clearly not true at all.

Factual errors: It is impossible to see (or photograph) faint stars close to the moon because its light is bright enough to wash them out.

I wouldn't call it impossible. In fact, I've seen many such photos.

[SeanF]

Nope, GoW, those weren't mine. Actually, the one's I've sent them on weren't even astronomy-related; they were on the movies "Real Genius," "Star Trek: Generations," and "Hollow Man". It's been over a year since I sent a couple of them, and still nothing. I think maybe they don't believe me that they're not really goofs!

BTW, I did wonder about the lighted side of the moon always being closer to the horizon. It also seemed to me that it wasn't necessarily true, but I've been unable to formulate in my mind a specific circumstance where it would be otherwise. Can you?

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-02-14 09:36, SeanF wrote:
BTW, I did wonder about the lighted side of the moon always being closer to the horizon. It also seemed to me that it wasn't necessarily true, but I've been unable to formulate in my mind a specific circumstance where it would be otherwise. Can you?

Funny, the first time I read that one, I thought, yeah, that's right of course. Then, I reconsidered: why wouldn't they just shoot the real thing? Why go to all the trouble to fake it and then get it wrong.

Anyway, think about it this way. A gibbous moon (I know--one of the errors is that the moon wasn't gibbous July 20, 1969, but apparently that is what is depicted in the movie) is more than 90 degrees from the Sun. At its highest elevation in the sky (it would be dark), it appears to turn over! On one side of transit, the illuminated portion is highest; on the other side, it's lowest. Which side is which depends upon whether it's waxing or waning.

[SeanF]

Yeah, I'm thinking I might have read about something somewhere else. I think what I read was in reference to a crescent moon that did not point at the horizon, and that would be a mistake. A crescent moon is always within 90 degrees of the sun, so if the sun's below the horizon the moon's got to be "pointing" that way . . . but a gibbous moon could go either way.

[CraigZ]

On 2002-02-08 08:38, ToSeek wrote:
Apollo 13 documented bloopers

They don't list yours, but I don't believe there was a rille near Tranquillity Base.

Just watched it again (Apollo 13), taped it too. It was definitely Apollo 15 landing site shown.

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-02-17 00:49, CraigZ wrote:
Just watched it again (Apollo 13), taped it too. It was definitely Apollo 15 landing site shown.

Can you get a screen shot?

[AstroMike]

On 2002-02-17 07:20, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

On 2002-02-17 00:49, CraigZ wrote:
Just watched it again (Apollo 13), taped it too. It was definitely Apollo 15 landing site shown.

Can you get a screen shot?

Here's a photograph of the Apollo 15 landing region.

[AstroMike]

On 2002-02-14 08:59, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

Factual errors: It is impossible to see (or photograph) faint stars close to the moon because its light is bright enough to wash them out.

I wouldn't call it impossible. In fact, I've seen many such photos.

Hmm. Sorry Grapes, but I'm afraid it is impossible because the Moon's reflected light is still bright enough to obscure the stars. Would you mind showing me some of those photos you have seen?

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-02-17 14:45, AstroMike wrote:
Here's a photograph of the Apollo 15 landing region.

I meant, a screen shot of the movie.

On 2002-02-17 15:03, AstroMike wrote:
Hmm. Sorry Grapes, but I'm afraid it is impossible because the Moon's reflected light is still bright enough to obscure the stars. Would you mind showing me some of those photos you have seen?

I think we discussed this a while back, and someone posted some NASA photos showing stars in the background, and used that to discredit the explanation that there are no stars because the moon's light is too bright.

Let's see...here's an occultation of Regulus by the moon and here's some of Spica and Regulus. Is that what you mean?

[AstroMike]

On 2002-02-17 17:22, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
I meant, a screen shot of the movie.

Oh, okay. I thought this could helped.

I think we discussed this a while back, and someone posted some NASA photos showing stars in the background, and used that to discredit the explanation that there are no stars because the moon's light is too bright.

Let's see...here's an occultation of Regulus by the moon and here's some of Spica and Regulus. Is that what you mean?

Not exactly. I think Spica and Regulus are bright enough to be seen during an occultation of the Moon. The "factual errors" thing says faint stars. Spica and Regulus are not that faint. Can you show me where this discussion was?

_________________
"The contemplation of celestial things will make man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs." -Marcus Cicero

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-02-17 17:52 ]</font>

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-02-17 17:51, AstroMike wrote:
Not exactly. I think Spica and Regulus are bright enough to be seen during an occultation of the Moon. The "factual errors" thing says faint stars. Spica and Regulus are not that faint. Can you show me where this discussion was?

OK, what do you mean by "faint stars"? I hope it's not "too faint to be seen in photos."

In any photo, the developing process can bring up faint objects in areas where they would not normally be visible. So, I don't understand why it would be "impossible."

[AstroMike]

On 2002-02-17 20:09, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
OK, what do you mean by "faint stars"? I hope it's not "too faint to be seen in photos."

But unfortunately it is.

In any photo, the developing process can bring up faint objects in areas where they would not normally be visible. So, I don't understand why it would be "impossible."

When you develop a photo, yes objects become brighter and more exposed. But the stars simply do not enough time to become exposed on the film. In order for the stars to be seen, 10 min. - 1 hr. exposures are usually recommended. For the Moon, usual exposure times are around 1/120 sec. - 10 sec. Otherwise the Moon will become overwashed with no detail.

Here's an image of Neptune's rings.


The stars can be seen because the exposure time is long enough to show them. The reason for the long exposure time is because Neptune's rings are literally black as charcoal. But notice how overwashed with no detail Neptune is.

_________________
"The contemplation of celestial things will make man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs." -Marcus Cicero

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-02-18 16:21 ]</font>

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-02-17 20:39, AstroMike wrote:

On 2002-02-17 20:09, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
OK, what do you mean by "faint stars"? I hope it's not "too faint to be seen in photos."

But unfortunately it is.

Unfortunately, that definition would have no relevance to the discussion at hand. Any photo of the moon and a few stars would be dismissed because the stars would then be those that are not faint stars, by that definition. But such a photo would certainly be a counterexample, as far as the discussion of the lunar conspiracy is concerned. So, that definition doesn't work.

<a name="20020218.8:50"> page 20020218.8:50 aka NIT PIC
On 2002-02-13 14:29, Mr. X wrote: To: 10 IMIX 19 PAX
Yep, 1st day of NEW Mayan Calendar Round.. {corn}
http://www.ess.pdx.edu/coriba/
follow the T-Shirt & Cap stories there!
YES, Yes.. I did "DOnate" the Gravity Wave Detector ..
Oh come on! How can you even nitpick that much!
[/quote] TO the CoRiBa club at PSU.. Police State University
thats what I call it. Now remember both MIT & CAL.tech
get NSF funds {billions}[MAYBE] So sure [Big ConFIST.eat] http://www.pp.pdx.edu/AUX/CSO/calendars.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-02-18 10:31 ]</font>

[AstroMike]

On 2002-02-18 07:52, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Unfortunately, that definition would have no relevance to the discussion at hand. Any photo of the moon and a few stars would be dismissed because the stars would then be those that are not faint stars, by that definition. But such a photo would certainly be a counterexample, as far as the discussion of the lunar conspiracy is concerned. So, that definition doesn't work.

No, my definition does work. Don't you know anything about astrophotography? It doesn't matter if the stars are as bright as Sirius. What matters is how bright the Moon is. Have you ever tried using a camera to photograph the Moon? You need to adjust the exposure settings to a very short time, otherwise the Moon will be exposed as bright, white blob with no detail.

I didn't say that a photo of the Moon with very few stars would not be considered faint stars. You misinterpreted my statement too soon. The stars would be too faint because they do not have enough time to become developed on the film.

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-02-18 12:44, AstroMike wrote:
Don't you know anything about astrophotography?

Yes

[SeanF]

On 2002-02-18 12:44, AstroMike wrote:

You misinterpreted my statement too soon.

That's one of the biggest etiquette problems I have -- how long do you have to wait after somebody makes a statement before it's okay to misinterpret it?

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Seriously, I agree with GoW that the original statement is logically flawed. The flaw is in using the absolute "impossible" with the (highly) subjective "faint."

Under these circumstances, it would be "impossible" to "prove" the statement wrong. Any stars which show up in a photo of the moon are arbitrarily not "faint," therefore the veracity of the original statement is maintained.

You could correctly argue that it is impossible to photograph stars below a certain magnitude in the same photo as a correctly-exposed moon, but I think the general tone of the original statement renders it logically false.

[SpacedOut]

Back to the original subject - I just looked at the movie - the sceen is at 1hr 10min 35sec from the beginning of the movie. (no I can’t get a screen shot - sorry) There is a very distinctive rill in the shot - it could be the Apollo 15 site - tough to tell from the picture posted by AstroMike – but it sure could be the same place.

(Corrected spelling!!!)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-02-20 05:48 ]</font>