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]

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

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]

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

[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

[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

[Dan-DAFC]

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

Probably not.

Where is it?

[z3r0w8]

How come I keep looking for the MTV flag?

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

[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

[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.

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: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.

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!

Re:Finally

[beerman2k]

A chance to visit my moon base!!

Was that Moon Base Alpha? Or Moon Base Zappa?

No need for this...

[doxology]

Google's got us covered.

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: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.

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.

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

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: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 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.

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.

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: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.

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?

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.

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.