Walk on the Moon in IMAX 3D

HaveNoMouth writes "NASA, Lockheed Martin, and Tom Hanks are making an IMAX 3D movie about the Apollo moon landings to give viewers something like the actual experience of being on the moon. Complete with actors playing astronauts, mockups of the Lunar Excursion Module, and fake moon surface, this looks to be a real kick. The website for the movie itself is all shockwave, but it contains some nice behind-the-scenes photos of the production. Here's a QuickTime trailer. All you lunar hoax conspiracy theorists out there can just consider this the remake, with 2005-class special effects."

Comments

Boom boom

[Anonymous Coward]

Best bit is, they've already got the set from the faked moon landings in 1969!

Re:Boom boom

[trick-knee]

that website is clearly a hoax. I mean, it's only on the internet, right? and you can't believe anything that's on the internet without some form of corroboration.

Re:Boom boom

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

I love it. Debunking the Debunking of the Debunking. Not that we are caught in a recursion but since it is on the internet, and the internet sites are done with computers, and since if it comes from the computer it must be correct, then I have just debunked your debunking of the debunking of the debunking. So thererererere.

Re:Boom boom

[trick-knee]

I can tell you are lying by the spin of the electrons you are using.

Re:Boom boom

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

Now you must be from Australia. Stand on your head and it will appear correct.

Re:Boom boom

[Ticklemonster]

Just think... somewhere out there in the vastness of space there is some being posting in a forum that the ufo pictures taken on earth were mock ups done in some far away hollywood.

Spark that interest

[rob_squared]

I hope that this makes people feel awe about the moon again. Every now and again looking up and realizing there's footprints and hardware up there really gets to you.

Here's some info about those last lines regarding the "hoax."

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/
http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/index.html

Re:Spark that interest

[Seumas]

Yeah, I guess I'd be in awe of it if not for the fact that we went there (and haven't been there again) in THREE generations. Hell, my mom was less than half my age during the moon landing.

I'll be awe inspired when NASA and the government support something awe inspiring. The only exciting things NASA has done in my life time is blow up a shuttle on launch and another on re-entry. Oh - and waste a bunch of money because they mixed metric and imperial.

Re:Spark that interest

[mboverload]

You conveniently forget Pathfinder, possibly the most awe-inspiring NASA event in decades. The whole world was literally talking about it.

Re:Spark that interest

[Seumas]

The whole world talked about the Michael Jackson trial, too. And that dude that killed his pregnant wife. That's hardly an indicator of much.

And what's so awe-inspiring about it? We put men on the fricking moon almost 40 years ago. I'm supposed to be amazed that, in only FORTY years, we managed to stick a little machine on Mars?

Sure, it's cool. But hardly awe-inspiring.

Re:Spark that interest

[utnow]

You're a classic example of today's modern, plugged in, brilliant, and utterly uninspired people.

It's difficult to fathom the fact that a collection of atoms formed together to produce you in such a fashion that you can create such a statement. Life is utterly amazing in that regard. We're having an argument. THAT is awe-inspiring.

How can the idea of having overcome so many obstacles, arguably way before our time, traveled such a distance, and achieved such a feat. The idea that there's a massive rock orbiting our tiny little planet is crazy as it is but that we were able to get people there is insane.

Now I think that our progress in getting people more than 365 times as far (mars versus the moon) has been rather astounding. We managed, on only our second shot, to hit a target as small as mars (technically we 'hit' it twice) from literally ~50 million miles away. We have photographs taken from the surface of a completely different planet.

You're amazingly desensitized by tv, media, movies, music, videogames... i dunno what.

Re:Spark that interest

[Seumas]

When you compare the two events, the long stretch of time between them - and the amazing advancements in everything else outside of actual space travel - it's not awe-inspiring. It's a piddly achievement in the scheme of things.

The only way we got to the moon in the first place was because Kennedy had the gonads to set an impossible goal WITH A DEFINITE TIME FRAME of one decade and rally the entire country behind it.

Do you seriously think if he had remained alive, he'd have said "wow, great job guys! Now our next goal is to land a little box on wheels on mars... and we have FOUR decades to do it". Hell no.

See, that's the difference. Some people think small and are satisfied with small steps. Others see where we should be. Where we could have been. And where we could go - if only we'd stop being so shocked at minor achievements.

And hell, didn't Bush say something about committment us to putting a person on Mars by 2020? And then what have we heard of it? Nothing? The "goal" doesn't have the drive behind it that the moon mission did almost 40 years ago. When 2020 comes and goes, nobody will even remember that we had a goal of getting to mars. In fact, I bet 75% of people right now don't know that we have a goal to reach mars by 2020 (or whenever that was).

It may be an amazing thing from an individual's viewpoint. For a set of people to accomplish what they've accomplished in the last few years. But as a country and a scientific community, I can't believe this is all we've managed in a life time.

And by the way - I think traveling from town to town over several days by horse in 1910 to landing men on the moon in 1969 is a FAR greater distance than anything between the moon in 1969 and whatever we've accomplished today.

Re:Spark that interest

[Mechcozmo]

Wikipedia has a nice article on this, as almost always.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_h oax

Oh, and ignore the neutrality warning. It's a great and interesting read (at least it was 5 minutes ago :-)

Re:Spark that interest

[aichpvee]

Well isn't it obvious that space travel is just too complex to have come about without an Intelligent Designer?

Re:Spark that interest

[utnow]

Landing on the moon was a crazy achievement.. In fact it was so crazy that there are people who, to this day, think we never made it. Making that voyage was like squeezing a baby until it makes it's first sounds. You wouldn't claim that it could talk. No where near. So now the kid knows it can make noises (not the best way to teach it) and it can spend the time learning new ones and fine-tuning the ones that it knows.

Space travel is the same way. So we punched through the glass ceiling (so to speak) but we've been focusing our energy of late on sustaining life in a vastly different environment. The trip to the moon was roughly 3 days to, 3 days on, and 3 days to return home. The trip to mars is roughly a 6 year round trip? There are significant obstacles that have to be overcome before we can afford to send live humans out there. Not only that, but because of the length of each experimental trial, 40 years would only afford... 6? MAX (granted multiple trials can be undertaken simultaneously, shorter peices of the whole, etc, etc, but the point is made, and I can't picture anything less than full scale, full length simulations).

Food is an issue. Air is an issue. Water is an issue. Muscle atrophy is an issue. The list goes on. All of these things are being investigated at the ISS, and the MIR as well I presume.

In this day and age NASA can't afford to 'screw up' any more so I don't blame them for taking their good old time getting on track for mars. I say send lots of probes that can't die. If I were them I'd send a few monkeys with no families (you know, the hobo monkeys) up first as well. ;)

Re:Spark that interest

[cygnusx]

> modern, plugged in, brilliant, and utterly uninspired people

That is the best description of /.'s luddites I've read in a long time. Well put. It's really interesting (not!) to watch them crawl out of the woodwork every time there's a story on Space and do their sad little dance: "we ought to be spending money on AIDS research"; "we ought to be eliminating poverty"; "we've done it all before".

As for the GP -- Pathfinder is worth getting excited about because the Moon and Mars are problems on two wholly different *scales*. Saturn outwards is yet another scale (Sure, the physics involved in the same, but the level of engineering accomplishment necessary to pull it off successfully is dramatically different. Yeah, it's not necessarily as exciting to watch on your 60 inch plasma, but if you bother to dig in you'll be excited all right. And as for practical applications: remote-manipulation tech (which was key in Pathfinder) is making life more 'exciting' in lots of other Earth-bound areas, like deep-sea sub rescues and telesurgery.

One other point: another poster wrote In this day and age NASA can't afford to 'screw up' any more

I don't think that is true (think private enterprise), but if it ever became true it would one of the reasons behind the decline of (Western) civilization. No one ever won big without taking risks. Luckily for the human race, you'll see countries like China willing to take on BHAGs.

Re:Spark that interest

[BasilBrush]

Three generations? A generation in the generality is normally considered to be 25 years. In a specific family it might be less. But in your family it appears to be 12 years. Wow, you're fast breeders!

Re:Spark that interest

[BoomerSooner]

However is it really a new generation if it's a father daughter combo?

Re:Spark that interest

[pizen]

All of these things are being investigated at the ISS, and the MIR as well I presume.

I highly doubt anything is being investiaged on MIR anymore. But I'm sure they used to.

Re:Spark that interest

[Striikerr]

You forgot one huge issue with sending people to Mars. The radiation which they would be subject to during the prolonged space flight. Being near the Earth has the advantage of being shielded from the majority of radiation due to the magnetic "shield" from the Earth. Once you move beyond this shield, you will be exposed to some nasty radiation. Even being in orbit around the Earth, astronauts are exposed to some radiation. It was interesting to read about how they experience this exposure. When some atomic particle passes through their eye and strikes the back of the eyeball, they perceive a small flash of light. It's particularly noticable when they are trying to sleep.

Re:Spark that interest

[swb]

And hell, didn't Bush say something about committment us to putting a person on Mars by 2020? And then what have we heard of it? Nothing? The "goal" doesn't have the drive behind it that the moon mission did almost 40 years ago. When 2020 comes and goes, nobody will even remember that we had a goal of getting to mars. In fact, I bet 75% of people right now don't know that we have a goal to reach mars by 2020 (or whenever that was).

In the late 50s and 1960s our leadership was inspired by big ideas -- beating the Russians, exploring new frontiers, accomplishing a shared goal that was meaningful. A lot of this was a leadership mentality that was shaped by our leadership's more general education and exposure to the collective drive needed to be successful in WW II.

Unfortunately we now have a leadership that's inspired by lawyers, MBAs and other technocrats who only manipulate details, they aren't inspired by anything more than personal material gain and the maintenance of power. Asking them to support a goal with more philosophical inspiration and common cause than tax reform is unlikely.

And this is to say nothing for the budget constraints imposed by fighting a couple of wars and bunch of other sinkholes for cash.

Re:Spark that interest

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

You obvously have not considered the enormity of the landing on the moon for the time. You probably were not alive at the time so you have no life references to go by. It was only about 11 years earlier that we had the technology to launch into space (far behind the Russians because they captured more German rocket scientists after WWII). That was just 10 years after the invention of the transistor (1948). It was because we had small payloads and a space race for national pride that we developed Integrated Circuits to pack more into little satelites.

When you are doing something new. Something extreme and where human life is at stake you tend to do it in careful steps. We don't just throw people into space. The technology and the methodologies to do it carefully take a lot of time. And to do it in 11 years from the time we first put grapefruit sized objects into space is remarkable.

We did not have the computing power to model fluid flows past surfaces or through high velocity nozzles like we do today. It all had to be built and tested and tweeked and retested, but we got it done and got there. Not without some problems but we got there.

Now things are a little easier. We have more materials technologies, we have more sensor technologies, we have more computing power probably in our game boys than was available to be on the Moon vehicles. You have to understand what we had to work with at the time to understand that it was truly cutting edge and done a glorious acheivement of mankind.

But then reguarding Bush's Mar's thing. I think he just wanted to get a foot in the door of having something else to remember him besides the devastation of the Fedral Government and the Federal Budget and the Judical System and the Social Safety net and the Education system in this country. I think he created a war to replace that issue because he was not getting enough traction on that issue.

Re:Spark that interest

[utnow]

Someone else already said it but I'll be redudant if I must. I helped pay for it.

Assuming you're a tax-paying citizen of the US then you did too. Of course if you're not... then I did more than you did. swish! ;)

Re:Spark that interest

[Dan-DAFC]

All of these things are being investigated at the ISS, and the MIR as well I presume.

Probably not.

Lunar hoax

[lappy512]

Some of the examples of the lunar hoax theory include that some things appear too close, or appear too far, or appear flat. Viewing this in 3D would fix that, I'd think.

Just my 2 cents

Re:Lunar hoax

[iamlucky13]

Objects, particularly distant objects, appear different on the moon because there is essentially no atmosphere to diffuse or refract light. Painters talk about an effect called atmospheric perspective that is used in art to create a sense of depth. It's the way things become less sharp and lose contrast in the distance. This doesn't happen on the moon and probably causes some of the comments about things being the wrong distance or appearing flat. I wouldn't expect them to fully simulate this effect, but it definitely sounds like it might be worth seeing.

I can't wait for Mars!

[keilinw]

Wow, this seems quite interesting.

"All you lunar hoax conspiracy theorists out there can just consider this the remake, with 2005-class special effects."

I wonder exactly how much better the special effects will be! Are they using the old photographs? Or are they generating new ones? One question I have is just how "real" the experience really is!

With all of the data from Nasa's Rovers we should be able to get an IMAX 3D of the Martian Surface. Now that would be fun! Pretty soon we'll all be talkikng about the Mars Hoax ;)

Matt Wong

Re:I can't wait for Mars!

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

With all of the data from Nasa's Rovers we should be able to get an IMAX 3D of the Martian Surface

I believe that we landed on the moon. With that said, why didn't we sent a NASA Rover to the moon first to test it? We could have also proved that we left hardware behind. Live video of looking at the junk left behind then pan to the Earthrise.

Of course, I guess that event could easily be faked, too. But, if you look at the Earth really close in that video, you can see me flicking the porch light on/off real fast. See it must be real :)

Fake moon landing!

[deathwombat]

Now you too can fake your own moon landing from the comfort of your own home after seeing this movie!

Where is it?

[z3r0w8]

How come I keep looking for the MTV flag?

Re:Where is it?

[Errtu76]

it's right next to Rammstein

Re:Where is it?

[Taladar]

They had to remove it after they got sued by the MPAA (Moon Picture Association of America).

Plate Tectonics

[geomon]

"All you lunar hoax conspiracy theorists out there can just consider this the remake, with 2005-class special effects."

I love conspiracy knotheads. They always ignore evidence that is readily available to them that would disprove their theory immediately.

On several Apollo missions, astronauts planted mirrors facing Earth. The mirror were useful for measuring the distance of the moon from the Earth and the change in readings was used to confirm the theory of plate tectonics. We now use GPS surveys with permanently mounted stations.

Funny how facts available to everyone can be ignored by people with an axe to grind.

Re:Plate Tectonics

[sconeu]

I love conspiracy knotheads.

I love Buzz Aldrin's response to conspiracy knotheads.

Re:Plate Tectonics

[geomon]

That was GREAT!! A 72-year-old astronaut puts a guy on his ass with one punch!

Thanks for the link.

Re:Plate Tectonics

[Soong]

I love conspiracy knotheads. They always ignore evidence that is readily available to them that would disprove their theory immediately.

Huh, that sounds just like a lot of religious beliefs I can think of. Things like creationism ("Intelligent Design"), various points of human nature and the belief that George W Bush is a good president.

Re:Plate Tectonics

[geomon]

Huh, that sounds just like a lot of religious beliefs I can think of.

Well.... yeah. But there are other groups (eco-extremists) who also ignore stunningly simple facts to promote their view.

I tend to cut religous people more slack. Religious belief is one of the only truly human behaviors. As far as we can acertain, other animals do not possess religiosity.

Re:Plate Tectonics

[scdeimos]

Yeah, I read that article, too: The Most Important Thing Armstrong Left on the Moon

Those lasers must have some pretty impressive control systems to hit such a small target (2-feet across) from 385,000km away, especially when you consider that the earth's surface is (on average) rotating at 73.773m/s.

Now if only the US military's laser-guided weapons were half as good! :)

Re:Plate Tectonics

[jeffdsimpson]

Although the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment were placed there by Apollos 11, 14 and 15 astronauts, the Soviets did the same thing with their unmanned Lunokhod 2 rover. If you talk to your local hoax idiot, my guess is they will tell you the United States got their's onto the Moon using unmanned probes.

Of course the Soviets actually provide the most compelling evidence that we did go to the Moon - their utter and complete silence. It seems strange that at the height of the Cold War, the United States biggest enemy would be completely silent and not say a word. You would have thought that if it is so obvious from the photographic and video record that we didn't go to the Moon, that the evil commies would have been all over it. But there is nothing.

Re:Plate Tectonics

[geomon]

Now if only the US military's laser-guided weapons were half as good! :)

That is an interesting contrast, isn't it? NASA's current shift to manned missions will probably shake out any of the remote sensing folks. That would make them free agents available for the DOD to pick up for cheap.

Re:Plate Tectonics

[NeuroManson]

What part of "Bang, zoom, to the moon!" didn't the conspiracy nutjob not understand?

Re:Plate Tectonics

[Alien Being]

If you watch that clip in super slow-motion, you can see Aldrin take a sliderule from his pocket and compute the optimum punch vector.

Re:Plate Tectonics

[geomon]

Nicely done.

I almost did a spit-take. :)

Re:Plate Tectonics

[EvanED]

Of course the Soviets actually provide the most compelling evidence that we did go to the Moon - their utter and complete silence. It seems strange that at the height of the Cold War, the United States biggest enemy would be completely silent and not say a word. You would have thought that if it is so obvious from the photographic and video record that we didn't go to the Moon, that the evil commies would have been all over it. But there is nothing.

Agreed on the overall statement that the Soviet's silence provide the biggest evidence (though the videos come damn close), but for a different reason.

It seems to me that it would be possible to pretty accurately triangulate the position of the spacecraft using Earthbound radio stations. And if it was, I have no doubt the Soviets were doing it. Which means that we would have had to at least either:

* Carry out most of the mission with unmanned probes transmitting a recording while the astronauts remained in Earth orbit undetected, or

* Send the astronauts around the moon and just not land them on it.

It seems that probably both of these options would be nearly as complicated as doing the mission as stated.

Re:Plate Tectonics

[daeley]

As far as we can acertain, other animals do not possess religiosity.

Thank God! ;)

Re:Plate Tectonics

[R3d M3rcury]

First, I will point out that I believe we landed on the moon. But a guy I worked with is a definite tinfoil hat conspiracy nut and it was pretty fun to listen to the theories.

To understand them, you have to distrust everything the government says and look for ways that it could be faked.

So how would we do it?

First, the mission would have been entirely unmanned. Land a radio transmitter on the moon and that solves the problem. Communications from NASA are sent directly to the astronauts on earth in "real time." The astronauts send their replies to the moon which echoes them back, thus giving the appropriate time delays. Same thing with the Apollo spacecraft.

I'm not sure about the triangulation properties, but consider that the first missions didn't go very far from the LEM. I'm also not sure if the Lunar Rover actually broadcast back to Earth or whether it sent to the LEM and from there back to Earth. If it's the latter, sure--we landed a transmitter on the moon. But the broadcasts stayed in one place.

Again, NASA had landed on the moon before Apollo--the Surveyor missions. So NASA did show it could land stuff on the moon.

It would be significantly easier to land a transmitter on the moon than it would be to land people there.

Re:Plate Tectonics

[jellomizer]

I like it when the guy was suprised how well he got hit. I think he probably forgot that Aldrin was part of the military and had combat training. And for the moon landing they got the best of the best, the most fit mentally and physically, So even at 75 you would expect him to be fit.

Re:Plate Tectonics

[CoffeeJedi]

a comic:

Buzz Aldrin's Conspiracy Knockdown!

Re:Plate Tectonics

[corsican]

Land a radio transmitter on the moon and that solves the problem. Communications from NASA are sent directly to the astronauts on earth in "real time." The astronauts send their replies to the moon which echoes them back, thus giving the appropriate time delays.

Actually, it would give double the delay; the replies from the astronauts would have to go to the moon and back.

Re:Plate Tectonics

[Dr. Manhattan]

One former NASA guy told me that one of the best proofs they had was the film of the astronaut dropping a hammer and a feather; they fell at the same rate, with the feather not fluttering at all. According to him, at the time there was no way to generate that good a vacuum in a large enough space to fake that.

Re:Plate Tectonics

[Chosen Reject]

Nope. If the astronauts were on the moon, NASA's communications would go to the moon, then the astronauts would reply from the moon. If they did what the GP was saying, then NASA's communications would have gone to some room down the hall, and the astronauts replies would go to the moon and back. In both scenarios there is a time delay from Earth to the Moon and back. So no double time delay.

Re:Plate Tectonics

[geomon]

An astronaut that will rather resort to violence than being caught swearing that he really was on the moon.

Read the link again. Not only was he asked (demanded) to swear on the Bible that he landed on the moon, he was held against his will and shoved against the wall.

The asshole who pinned him is lucky that Aldrin didn't ask that kidnapping or false imprisionment charges be brought against him.

And as for the issue of his 'swearing on a Bible', Aldrin is a very religious man. He asked for permission to bring religious materials to the moon. Although some of the stuff he brought had questionable religious value (he brought a Masonic banner - cool, but not easily justified considering the weight considerations), his faith should not be the subject of some asswipe's manic obsession with debunking the moon landings.

Re:Plate Tectonics

[taradfong]

Bravo! Long live the cliche so long as someone crafts great ones like this!

Fake moon surface?

[Cerdic]

...mockups of the Lunar Excursion Module, and fake moon surface...

I wonder if this is the same fake moon surface they used for the Apollo 11 "mission." It can't be - it has to look better since it will be in color and... 3D!

Hi Def Trailers

[OverlordQ]

Find the Hi-Def trailers here

Doesn't look real...

[__aaclcg7560]

Seems like they're not using any wire work to simulate walking on the moon. Space Cowboys is more real than this. ;)

Re:Doesn't look real...

[jpellino]

Hanks already used helium baloons to unweight the actors in "From The Earth To The Moon" - seeing how much it costs to film IMAX, this would be a cheap (as in dollars) trick.

Re:Doesn't look real...

[flyskin]

looking at the high definition trailer, it actually looks like kinda cheesy CG animation....I don't know if it's worth a trip to the theater

Too Holywoody

[brohan]

This is not really as interesting as it may seem.

This really is a docu-drama surrounded in fluff. I see this as "Apollo 13" in 3D, but with them actually landing.

This may spark some interest in going to the moon. But this still cannot beat actually sending some camera's up there. Truthful information is the best information, at least to me.

I've seen and loved all the IMAX space movies, but this one is going too far. Special effects is too icky here. Being a space-head I've tried the methods of weightlessness/semi-weightlessness. From what I've seen from these movies they cannot really compare. The 1/6th gravity will be difficult to simulate without using special effects.

This movie would be much better if there were people talking about going to the moon again and studying the moon.

Re:oh great...

[KernelHappy]

Well the real question is, are they using the original set, or a new one. I heard that higher definition displays show lots of flaws in lower def sets.

Didn't they do this already in 1969?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Complete with actors playing astronauts, mockups of the Lunar Excursion Module, and fake moon surface, this looks to be a real kick."

Buzz punchout in 3-D

[convex_mirror]

And if you are a conspiracy theorist, you'll get a free pair of 3-D glasses and get punched out by Buzz Aldrin!

In addition

[HackingYodel]

This is cool.
The U.S Space and Rocket Center has the G-Force attraction http://www.spacecamp.com/museum/attractions/mu_sim s1text.php that would couple with this very well. When I saw G-Force (many years ago) a film of a rocket launch was shown, on the ceiling, as you picked up more Gs. Not quit a perfect take-off simulation, but close. Being able to watch the I-Max after that attraction should be realy eye onpening.

Re:Finally

[beerman2k]

A chance to visit my moon base!!

Was that Moon Base Alpha? Or Moon Base Zappa?

the original?

[qzulla]

In Apollo 13 they didn't make it to the moon. So where is the remake?

qz

No need for this...

[doxology]

Google's got us covered.

A cheesy version has already been done

[timlewis_atlanta]

This is similar... not _quite_ up to the same standard though.

http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen3/f29b.html

Big Screen Gaming

[kahanamoku]

Forget Tom Hanks!
All they needed was to port the old classig 'Moon Patrol' to IMAX! 15 foot Pixels Yay!

Only the coolest thing ever.

[Dr Tom Danger]

You don't even understand, the secret is in what the y DON'T tell you. After Tom Hanks (the mildly retarded yet persistant shrimping captain turned astronaut) gets stranded after the lunar lander, loses 70 pounds, and is rescued when he triumphantly sends an email to an unwitting cute small time bookstore owner, who he later marries - and manages as the head of a womans baseball team. If that isn't sheer gold, it's at least Oscar worthy. Count me in. T dub out.

Re:Only the coolest thing ever.

[Infinityis]

Who is this "Wilson" fella? Is he the man in the moon I've heard so much about?

Re:Only the coolest thing ever.

[Infinityis]

A few details were left out of the parent post...

He wasn't stranded in the lander--they just wouldn't let him back on Earth because his home country (Krakozia) broke into civil war. Also, his rescuer, Buzz Lightyear (not Buzz Aldrin, as NASA wants you to believe), flew him back down to earth safely--although Hanks claims it wasn't really flying but just "falling, with style".

Re:Does OJ star in it?

[Brett Buck]

Juice is still too busy trying to find the real killers. Apparently a lot of shady types hang around on golf courses. And steal satellite TV.

        Brett

Re:Finally

[EvanED]

Do you work here?

Re:Is this an ad?

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

I am the big bad troll for asking if this is an article or an ad? I thought /. posted news for nerds. This seems to be just an ad for an IMAX movie.

What's next an article extolling the refreshing thirst quenching properties of new Coca-Cola Free?

/Sting

[OneArmedMan]

Giant Steps

Are, what, you, take ..

walking on the moon...

I like Tom Hanks and all, but...

[fractalrock]

I'm not sure why this struck me as being so funny: "NASA, Lockheed Martin, and Tom Hanks are making an IMAX 3D movie..." My emphasis...

I can't help but think of similar matchups like "Today, the European Union, Venezuela, and Posh Spice all expressed their sympathy to the U.S...."

Stupid, I know. I'll shut up now.

Re:I like Tom Hanks and all, but...

[RedFive]

I'm not sure why this struck me as being so funny: "NASA, Lockheed Martin, and Tom Hanks are making an IMAX 3D movie..." My emphasis...

Given his past efforts in Apollo 13 and From Earth to the Moon - I can't think of anyone else I'd rather see involved in this.

Re:I like Tom Hanks and all, but...

[bhiestand]

I agree with you. Though I wouldn't mind seeing the Paris Hilton version, either.

This Movie Is A Hoax!

[Rob Carr]

They couldn't possibly have filmed this movie on a sound stage. They obviously sent real astronauts to the moon to film this, and they're only telling us it was filmed on Earth.

Re:This Movie Is A Hoax!

[the_weasel]

My god. That has exactly the format of an "in Soviet Russia" joke, in disguise.

Well done.

It's going to screw up the facts in people's minds

[tlambert]

It's going to screw up the facts in people's minds.

This is just like the experiments on observer accuracy, where you first demonstrate an incident on film, and then show still images not actually from the film, with some details changed, and then ask the observers questions about the original film version of events.

So far I am not at all impressed with their production values or fact checking anyway... if you go to the web site, click on "Education", click the button in the top right corner, and go to the first "factoid", you will find this beauty:

"The Astronaut's Spacesuits: The astronaut's spacesuits were designed to withstand the moon's average daylight temperature of 300 degrees Fahrenheit (100 degrees Centigrade)."

(direct link here: http://www.imax.com/magnificentdesolation/pops/ima ges/image_pop_r2c2-2.jpg )

If they can't even do a temperature conversion, they are unlikely to produce anything more than inaccurate eye candy for "the masses".

-- Terry

Re:Is this an ad?

[NanoGator]

"I am the big bad troll for asking if this is an article or an ad? I thought /. posted news for nerds. This seems to be just an ad for an IMAX movie."

So... you're interested in it if it's not an ad, but you aren't interested if it is an ad...?

Re:For a more authentic look...

[birge]

Well the joke's on you, because that would be the most flattering thing that has ever happened to me. Don't you know ANYTHING about stalking? You have to choose somebody COOL to stalk. You can't stalk a dork for the same reason a woman can't rape a man.

3D

[Shippy]

I've been wanting to check out some of this new 3D stuff IMAX is doing, but I'm wondering if I'll be able to get the full experience.

Whenever I tried to read 3D books as a kid, I could see either red or blue with those glasses, but it would never mix and create what was supposed to be there since my eyes don't focus on the same point. It's not crazy-like. I drive w/o glasses just fine. However, it affects my ability to do anything 3D, including those pictures you're supposed to "look through" to see the real image.

Anyway, does anybody knows how the audience will get the 3D experience? I'm sure you have to wear some sort of special pair of glasses, but if it depends on each lens requiring the other at the same point to do the special stuff, I'm not going to be able to see it.

Re:3D

[Roger W Moore]

I don't know about this film but I have seen a previous IMAX 3D film about cosmology and evolution (that other big scientific conspirancy :-)

Like you I was extremely sceptical about whether the it would work having not been impressed by 3D TV and the like. However, the huge screen of the IMAX does make the 3D really work! It was incredible you had to duck fusing nuclei in a supernova, watch evoling animals dancing over the heads of the people in front etc. The huge screen gives the picture an enormous depth so the 3D works very well. Of course this was with relatively basic computer graphics so I've no idea how more complex scenes would work but I'd be interested in seeing when it comes out.

Re:3D

[sinewalker]

I have a sister with the same problems, but she has no trouble with the 3D IMAX movies as screened here in Sydney, so maybe you'll be in luck.

The Sydney IMAX theater uses special glasses that are a combination of Polaroid filters and high-speed shutters. I'll try to explain my simplistic understanding of them in the next few paras to convince you why I think it'll work for you, but do have a go in your city anyway! If it works, it's way-out, and if it doesn't, I've got a trick that will let you enjoy it in 2D anyway.

In the Sydney theatre (which I assume is pretty much the same elsewhere), the glasses have polarised lenses, each off-set 90 degrees to the other. The theater's twin projectors send their images to the screen through polarised filters with the same offsets.

(My Optics theory is a bit rusty to figure out the relationship here, but basically, the left-eye projector's image is polarised so it can be seen clearly through the left-eye lense of the glasses, and not clearly through the right-eye. And vice-versa of course).

This means you get full-colour stereo 3D.

I wear specs and the glasses fit comfortably over these (the theater glasses are more like some high-tech VR headset really).

Polarised lenses aren't perfect of course, since some of the wrong image will get through. To minimise this cross-talk in your brain, the glasses are also covered with an LCD film that is switched to clear/opaque in sync with the projectors. A radio signal is sent from the top of the theater and picked up by the audince's glasses to maintain sync. Because cross-talk is eliminated in this way, I believe this should cancel out any processing difficulty your optic system seems have had with the old red/blue trick.

Anyway, it's worth a try, because here's my 2D trick: The theater technicians advise you to try closing one eye if you feel sick during the movie. But keeping one eye closed for a long time is difficult. So, take an eye-patch with you (or a handkerchief or something) to cover your eye underneath the glasses. This way, you'll still be able to enjoy the movie in 2D through your open eye. But don't take the glasses off. If you take the glasses off, everything looks blurred because your naked eyes will see both images.

Good luck!

Re:3D

[sinewalker]

Sorry, shouldn't reply to my own post I know, but I just re-read this and thought "Duh!"

Focal length

I think that because the images are on both on a big screen which is fairly far away, and you also have no trouble driving without the need for corrective lenses, then you will be fine, since it seems the difference in focus for your eyes is only going to be an issue for something close to them (as in, something you are holding like a 3D commic). In the IMAX theater, some things can appear close, but they are still focused at the screen by the projectors, so it should be fine.

Anyway, your eyes each get their own image, so it's not like you need to do anything unusual to see like a random-dot stereogramme.

Re:3D

[LoneGunner]

I went to see a movie about ocean life just last month. The IMAX theatre in dallas just uses polarized lenses. This technique works quite well, but you have to be sure you don't tilt your head or you lose the filtering in each lense. Some of the light though does get through the filter, and this can cause the image to look a little blurry on a brightly lit image.

I'm not sure if it was because of my eyes trying to focus on the blurry image, or the fact that the focal distance of the IMAX cameras doesn't match up to each person, but after an hour and a half i did get a bit of a headache and my eyes muscles felt tired.

Re:3D

[David Rolfe]

I also can attest to the quality of the 3D effect. I've watched the available 3D Imax movies they have at the Kennedy Space center. I've been startled by "debris" flying from the screen at my face.

I'm saying the sensation is real enough to make you flinch.

Re:It's going to screw up the facts in people's mi

[RabidMonkey]

haven't you ever noticed that the marketing/sales department never actually reflect what the technical people are doing and what they can deliver.

Don't judge a product by it's marketing hype - it's normally all horseshit anyways.

It's not Shockwave

[jerw134]

It's Flash. They're both made by the same company, but they're two completely different things.

Re:It's not Shockwave

[HaveNoMouth]

Thanks. I stand corrected. I guess I consider them both vastly overused technologies that make the web a more hostile place to be, and thus I tend to think of them both as the same thing.

Re:Is this an ad?

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

So... you're interested in it if it's not an ad, but you aren't interested if it is an ad...?

ummm...it's boring both ways.

We are already inundated with ads in our everyday lives, this site is well regarded for its high signal to noise ratio. If the basis of the story is just an ad for a movie, then the whole topic starts off as noise.

Re:It's going to screw up the facts in people's mi

[MrAndrews]

I can't speak to the accuracy of the website (except for obvious things like you pointed out), but I know that for at least elements of the movie relating to the LRV, they talked to a lot of the engineers that designed and developed it, to get it right. And it's not easy, either... much of the work that went into those missions is either lost in massive piles of documentation or just plain lost. So I'm willing to bet the movie does a great job conveying the reality of it.

Re:Is this an ad?

[UserGoogol]

When did Slashdot get a high signal to noise ratio?!

Anyway, nerds might like this movie, so it's information which nerds might like, so it's on point.

It's likely the same production team

[tlambert]

It's likely the same production team.

When movies are made these days, it's almost always the same production team for the movie, the web site, the video game (if the movie isn't being made from an existing game plot line), the action figures, the Happy Meal(tm) boxes, and so on.

Movie production in general is nothing more than one big marketing department. It doesn't give me hope that the content will match up to any standards of rigor when it comes to how accurate the movie ends up being. Particularly when they suggest that you are going to be able to feel what the astronauts who actually went there as part of your "IMax Experience(tm)".

Maybe I'm just being a downer, and if you asked a bunch of random 20-something year olds to "name someone from the Apollo 13 mission", they'd actually say "Lovell" or "Haise" or "Swigert", instead of the majority of them saying "Tom Hanks".

But I doubt it. 8-(.

-- Terry

Re:It's likely the same production team

[Viceice]

And what have YOU been smoking today? It's obviously NOT the same production team making the web site.

More than likely, the website is a 2 or 3 man show consisting of maybe an artist, a web designer and a web programmer. They likely just got the rough details of what the core production team wanted on the website in a meeting and proceeded to create the site all by themselves.

Smart-1 and the Conspiracy

[biraneto2]

Talking about the conspiracy... Smart-1 is suposed to be taking pictures of the moon sites http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050304_moon_s noop.html. I wonder why are they taking so long to reveal these pictures.

Let me get this straight...

[armondf]

They're using old photos, fake astronauts and a fake moon to give the viewers a real view of the moon?

Re:Is this an ad?

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

When did Slashdot get a high signal to noise ratio?!

When they added moderation and filtering based on mod points. What fully open, popular and free site has a better S/N ratio?

Anyway, nerds might like this movie, so it's information which nerds might like, so it's on point.

Nerds like pr0n. Where's the pr0n articles?

Re:It's going to screw up the facts in people's mi

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they got those figures directly from NASA. We all know how well they handle metric units.

Lunar hoax

[cz_eye]

Sadly this theory actually works for many ppl and is able to deceive many of them. They are if not convinced then they are at least suspicious about whole moon landing.

My mom for example will never ever be sure that the landing was genuine and was kinda confused when she first heard of the hoax and she didnt know what to think, her confidence in NASA, U.S. and mankind as a whole is very undermined since.

People spreading these lyes and getting rich doing this kind of stuff are rough traitors, they undermining our society, and they sold out America. Aldrin did have punched them in public, and he did the right thing, even if it looked like big "over-reaction" but it was the right answer.

interesting

[theheff]

Maybe they'll add the stars into the remake. It's also interesting how they'll make 1960s film into a 3D imax movie. Perhaps this more in-depth look at the moon landing will reveal what all conspirists already know to be true... the moon is undoubtedly made of cheese.

Re:Live people on A13, not robot placed mirrors..

[ZosX]

What about the nearly 900lbs or so of verifiable moon rocks they brought back? What of all the moon dust on the spacesuits? That stuff surely didn't come from earth.

Read the wikipedia article on the moon rocks. It is a pretty interesting read.

About the van allen belts. The astronauts did indeed pass through and their experiences were interesting. One astronaut talks about closing his eyes and seeing the particles flash across his vision. It was determined that for the short period of time they would pass through, they would get minimal radiation. I suggest you actually read some of the facts about the belts and the amount of time that the astronauts spent in them.

For what its worth, I did watch the "documentary" on the moon being a fraud. It was called "We never went to the moon." It was a really good way to short circuit my reality for a day. The moon rocks themselves are pretty damning evidence along with the laser mirrors.

What's next? Will you be telling us that a navy ship disappeared from one port to reappear in another in a bizarre teleportation experiment?

Send an IMAX camera to the moon

[ashitaka]

I'm an IMAX freak. Have been ever since I watched the very first IMAX film at Ontario Place in 1971

Sendng and returning an IMAX camera to the moon is an idea that has stuck in my mind for a long time although I know it's impossible. At least you would know what you are looking at is the Real Thing and not a soundstage reproduction. Just the behaviour of the dust in the air is going to scream "fake!" to me.

Re:It's going to screw up the facts in people's mi

[Dissectional]

lol.

Better link to photos for better viewing

[baadger]

http://www.imax.com/magnificentdesolation/site/dow nloads/desktops/imax_desktop_lg_1.jpg

Increment last digit

more remakes

[javiercr]

Yet another remake of a 60s TV classic, wasn't bewitched enough? can't we come up with new ideas anymore? :)

Random Futurama reference

[Calathea]

But will Leela be able to watch the 3D film?

When they zoom in...

[jbarr]

...do we see cheese?

Re:Live people on A13, not robot placed mirrors..

[Grab]

I still can't calculate any shielding plates which will be light enough for the rocket fuel mass of Apollo 13 (28,945 kg) and yet still protect 3 astronauts from the radiation belts around the earth

Yep - which is why they didn't. The various astronauts all reported seeing strange flashes of light, which were cosmic rays hitting their retinas. Radiation is not immediately fatal - 3 days of low-level exposure like this is tolerable. Exposure for years is not, which is why a trip to Mars is such a problem, not only during the trip but also if/when they stay there (without a molten core, Mars hasn't got the protection from cosmic rays and other assorted shit that Earth has).

The *only* purpose of the manned lunar missions was to get one up on the Russians, especially after the Russians got the first satellite and the first man in space. We had the technology then, and we can certainly put it back in place now. But it'll involve throwing vast amounts of money at the problem, like the original program did and like the ISS has done.

The question is what benefit you'll get from this. OK, space travel is great, but until Discovery everyone thought shuttle launches were "so-what" events, and Apollo 13 was a non-event until it blew up. One trip to Mars would be fantastic, but it won't get us anything other than a warm fuzzy feeling, which is all the manned Moon landings ever got us. So the only three reasons for sending people there are one-upmanship, personal aggrandisement, or the intention to create permanent settlements there. And of the two US presidents to set up moon missions, sadly neither has been doing it for the third reason...

That also explains why Europe is never likely to send up manned missions. If you need to convince over a dozen heads of state to support you, you need something more than "this'll make you look good". Only states with vast resources which are ruled by a single person can make that decision. Which leaves the US and China these days, since Russia ceased to be a superpower.

Grab.

Re:Live people on A13, not robot placed mirrors..

[RDW]

'I still can't calculate any shielding plates which will be light enough for the rocket fuel mass of Apollo 13 (28,945 kg) and yet still protect 3 astronauts from the radiation belts around the earth.'

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." - Dr. James Van Allen, discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts.

Perhaps you should check your maths.

Proof

[91degrees]

Fact - The moon does not exist.

The moon weighs 73 600 000 trillian tonnes and is made from cheese. To produce that much dairy produce, it would take the world 12 trillion years at the current annual rate of dairy production. Since the world has only been in existence for 4.6 billion years, there is no way that much cheese could have been produced even if current dairy production was at current rates.

Fact - If it did exist, there is no way of getting there.

The moon is roughly 250 000 miles away. There are no gas stations on the way. A typical car will only get about 600 miles on a full tank. Even an exceptionally fuel efficent car with a very large tank will not get anythign like 250 000 miles.

So, since the moon is cleary an illusion, and is too far away to visit, the "moon landings" must have been faked.

Re:Proof

[BarC0d3z]

Wish I had a mod +1 for ya. That was pretty insightful. *grin*

Oddly enough...

[Sirch]

Oddly enough, if you read the book by Winston Groom you'll find out that Forrest Gump was an astronaut as well, before crash landing in New Guinea...

Sick to death of simulations...

[dpbsmith]

I grew up on Chesley Bonestell, and movies like "Destination: Moon" and "The Conquest of Space" and "2001: A Space Odyssey."

All these special effects simulations, no matter how brilliantly done, are ultimately unsatisfying because they never have any surprises. They always represent _exactly_ what everyone _expects_ space to be like.

The first time the astronauts walked on the moon, and kicked up those little puffs of dust that fell _instantly_ down into place--I knew it was real. Because nobody had ever thought to mention that, or tried to simulate it in a sci-fi film.

I loved the IMAX film "Space Station 3D" because it was real, and you could tell it was real. Though I'm not sure whether I was more thrilled by "being there" on the space station, or "being there" at the Soviet Cosmodrome.

hi-resolution photos of moon landing?

[Danathar]

Not because I don't believe the moon landing happened...

But have there been any high enough photos taken of the lunar surface that show the landing sites? (ones that show the equipment left behind).

Is it even possible?

Re:hi-resolution photos of moon landing?

[maxwell demon]

According to this (German language) article, next year the VLT will get a resolution high enough to theoretically observe a man on the moon.

But that's correct!

[RoverDaddy]

If you're rounding to the nearest 100 deg.C

Re:Drive the R/C robot on the moon...

[CoffeeJedi]

bah, if i want latency that bad, i'll just play WoW on a PvP server for much cheaper!

Re:Live people on A13, not robot placed mirrors..

[CoffeeJedi]

Phil Plait, the 'Bad' Astronomer puts the smackdown on that whole radiation thing:

Debunking the Hoax Believers: Radiation

actually, start at the top and read the whole thing, he goes through every single argument of the HB's and explains why they're wrong.

Phil Plait is one of the best science bloggers out there (if not THE best).

Re:Live people on A13, not robot placed mirrors..

[Waffle Iron]

I still can't calculate any shielding plates which will be light enough for the rocket fuel mass of Apollo 13 (28,945 kg) and yet still protect 3 astronauts from the radiation belts around the earth.

I can't calculate shielding plates light enough for people to carry that would protect them from the spewed contents of an exploded nuclear reactor. And yet, there are quite a few people still alive who were on site when the Chernobyl plant allegedly blew up.

My inevitable conclusion: the Chernobyl disaster never occurred. They probably had technical difficulties bringing the plant online, so they faked the disaster to create an excuse for the lack of electricity.

IMAX "Documentaries"

[G1aucon]

To be fair, IMAX definitely can get a lot of things right - but I hate its films cavalier approach to "documentary" filmmaking. I just watched the fighter jet movie at the new Air and Space Museum in VA - there were insulting amounts of CGI that the film tries to pass off as authentic dogfight footage. All the films try to have some kind of narrative as well, which inevitably comes off as contrived.

I never understood why the IMAX people weren't one of the first ones on the ground after 9/11. That's a chance to do serious, historical documentary film work. I remember thinking that only IMAX could capture the kind of widespread devastation found in the rubble of the Trade Center.

And now, I think they should be sending people to New Orleans and Biloxy - it's a critical moment in American history that they should not overlook.

Shockwave

[pete-classic]

I think it's Flash, not Shockwave. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

-Peter

Re:Live people on A13, not robot placed mirrors..

[Chosen Reject]

After all Star Wars came out a few years later and proves all the faking techniques were in good form.

Wow. I love Star Wars. It came out 8 years later. ILM had to invent a lot of stuff to pull off the special effects in Star Wars. They did amazing things. But if you watch Star Wars and are fooled into thinking they really filmed it in space then you truly are a peculiar person. Nothing in Star Wars would make me believe anything about space. Just wow.

Silence from our enemies

[skintigh2]

I wonder if conspiracy theorists really believe that our enemies let us get away with the "hoax" or if they just never think it through that far?

For a hoax to work, either every country on Earth that had RADAR had to
1) Coincidentally turn it off for the 9-day length of every mission, or at least not aim it toward the sky.
or
2) Be in on the conspiracy.

So, Russia and China never bothered to verify that our crafts were flying to the moon, landing there, and then leaving? Odd behavious from the inventors of the phrase "trust, but verify." I guess nobody used a high-power telescope to watch, either.

RADAR was used to measure the distance to Venus. Amateurs and kids used radio signals to track Sputnik and come up with it's launch site. But the Commies just sat on their hands during the end of the greatest race in all the history of all of mankind?

Re:Silence from our enemies

[cathouse]

Damn right! I was one of them, KN6YQF, just started High School

On the second orbit. But only using the 20 Megacycle transmissions--none of my group was equiped to monitor 40 Megacycles.

Re:Live people on A13, not robot placed mirrors..

[jzarling]

To paraphrase the best bit of evidence proving the moon landing happend:
It was the hieght of the Cold War, if we didnt go to the moon the Russians would have reported the hoax as propaganda...

I wonder...

[DigitalReverend]

If they will use the same movie set they used for the original moon "landing".