Apollo 11

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by englishbob, Jan 31, 2019.

  1. SandAndGlass

    SandAndGlass Twilight Forum Resident

    Yes that will present date a the movie, to be sure.

    There is a good scene in Tomorrowland, where the Eiffel Tower is splitting in two and about to launch a rocket out of it and the crowd's in the streets all have their smartphones out taking pictures.

    Technology will date a movie, faster than anything. Look at all of the science fiction movies that have "modern" PC's in the shots. The ones with the CRT display's really date the movie. CRT TV display's do the same thing.
     
  2. SandAndGlass

    SandAndGlass Twilight Forum Resident

    OK, I get it. It was tested on earth but not on the surface of the moon.
     
    longdist01 likes this.
  3. Chris DeVoe

    Chris DeVoe Forum Resident

    They tested it 14 miles above the surface of the Moon on Apollo 10, but they had no idea how it would work on the dusty surface.
     
  4. Phillip Walch

    Phillip Walch Forum Resident

    Just an FYI for anybody who fancies reading more about the Apollo program, there is a book called Apollo by Charles Murray and Catherine Bly Cox. A great read and has a fairly detailed overview of how the program came together. Well worth a read.

    And NASA have the 4 volume Apollo Chronology in their online archive too which details a blow by blow account of it all.

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690022643_1969022643.pdf
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740004394_1974004394.pdf
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760014180_1976014180.pdf
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19800011953_1980011953.pdf
     
  5. Sterling Cooper

    Sterling Cooper Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Fort Myers, FL
    The LEM ascent engine was first tested in space on the unmanned Apollo 5 mission, and also on the manned Apollo 9 flight.
     
  6. longdist01

    longdist01 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicago, IL USA
  7. jjh1959

    jjh1959 Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Charles, MO
    No, the ascent engine was a non-throttled engine that used hypergolic fuels that ignited on contact. It was designed to be as simple as possible, with it's only function to fire once to lift off from the moon. The fuels were so destructive to the engine materials that they required a rebuild anytime the engine was used. That means that the engine on the LMs that flew could never be tested before flight. Being on the moon had nothing to do with it, except that there was no repair shop.
     
  8. jtiner

    jtiner Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maine
    I think it only relied on the single electric fuel mixing valve (and power, of course) and the fuel tanks being pressurized (helium?), right? I can't recall if there was any redundancy to the fuel/pressurization system.
     
  9. jjh1959

    jjh1959 Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Charles, MO
    I believe that's correct. One of the few systems that didn't have a back-up. There's also the story of Buzz having to use part of a pen to ignite the engine due to accidentally breaking off a priming switch or something.
     
    jtiner, budwhite and longdist01 like this.
  10. SandAndGlass

    SandAndGlass Twilight Forum Resident

    Weight would be very critical with regard to the LEM. Which would explain why a basic no-fail engine was used, so it did not have to have the extra weight for redundant systems.
     
  11. Splungeworthy

    Splungeworthy Forum Rezidentura

    For those interested a YouTube channel called zellco321 has extensive mission footage. Here's a taste:
     
  12. longdist01

    longdist01 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicago, IL USA
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2019
    englishbob and Jvalvano like this.
  13. budwhite

    budwhite Climb the mountains and get their good tidings.

    Location:
    Götaland, Sverige
    Looks like the soundmix is lossy. What the hell!?
     
  14. Phillip Walch

    Phillip Walch Forum Resident

    Seems a bizarre decision. Plus no 4K when it was scanned in 8K. Some lazy decisions going on here.
     
    longdist01 and Spitfire like this.
  15. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Forum Resident

    Location:
    US
    Yeah, who would want a photo of that, NASA?
     
    longdist01 and Chris DeVoe like this.
  16. carrick doone

    carrick doone Whhhuuuutttt????

    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    JFK told them to get to the Moon by the end of the decade, not record it :)

    From what I've read, there seem to have been a number of decisions that were only focused on getting to the Moon and therefore overlooked details that would be valuable to the audience. That extended to how they stored film, how they captured the first steps and other things. Have you heard some of the launches from the 60s? Even the news treated them like they were oranges falling off a truck they were so deadpan. If it wasn't for Walter Cronkite bringing his emotion to the coverage, those launches would not be remembered so fondly by baby boomers.

    The engineers and executive of NASA didn't get that the value in travel is the experience of what you bring back and the story of the journey. The first sea travellers understood this. After finding new lands they brought back the goods that the wealthy could admire and use along with the botanical studies they did. Thus they continued to get funding. And so Capitalism was born :)
     
    budwhite and longdist01 like this.
  17. SandAndGlass

    SandAndGlass Twilight Forum Resident

    Having started with launching a man into space, when I first started elementary school, I watched every launch I could, growing up.

    All three major networks covered every launch.

    Then I remember that one day I tuned in to catch the lift off on TV and the regular daytime programming was there. I changed the channel, twice, and the same thing.

    The "network's" had collectively decided that it was not worth televising any more.

    "Yet that audience dwindled quickly after the first flight in 1981 as the missions turned routine, or at least seemed that way to the television executives who decided to stop showing live liftoffs. “It got blasé,” said Jay Barbree of NBC, who covered every manned space mission. “And then Challenger happened.”

    CNN, then five years old, was the only television outlet to show the explosion that destroyed the Challenger as it happened in 1986. The image of the explosion remains dominant in the minds of Americans, asserted Mr. O’Brien, a former CNN correspondent. “In some respects, television brought to America the limits of technology in space, in the form of the shuttle,” he said.

    That tragedy, and the break-up of the shuttle Columbia in 2003, led to brief spikes in television coverage of the NASA program and its subsequent flights into space, but the program faded from the imaginations of ordinary people — in part because there was little interest in it inside television news offices."

    Apparently the public did not want to part with their regular "precious" daytime programming.
     
    Mr. H, brownie61 and longdist01 like this.
  18. Chris DeVoe

    Chris DeVoe Forum Resident

    The Challenger explosion meant that schools didn't want to show live launches for fear that kids would be traumatized. One tragic side effect of that schools got out of the habit even when there was no risk to human life, which meant school kids didn't see the utterly awesome launch the SpaceX Falcon Heavy. if you're serious about wanting to get kids into STEM subjects, you have to convince them that this is cool, and there's nothing cooler than sending a freaking red hot rod into space!
     
    woody, brownie61 and longdist01 like this.
  19. SandAndGlass

    SandAndGlass Twilight Forum Resident

    I find that both TV and schools are not really behind science.
     
    carrick doone likes this.
  20. carrick doone

    carrick doone Whhhuuuutttt????

    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    I think the one moment recently when everyone I knew was excited about space launches was Space X double landing the booster rockets and jettisoning a car into space. One was a gimmick and one was a legitimate scientific breakthrough in the potential future of space. Now this can't sustain an audience. You can't keep coming up with special events but how do you create each event as part of something special? I think it's done through crafting a story to unite all the events.

    JFK's team understood the power of a single vision and his writers articulated a story that had heroes and struggle ("we don't do this because it is easy but because it is hard"). The press went along because it made good story and it pulled in a generation of children and adults. It is well known that the space program was struggling before JFK's speech. Afterward, we couldn't get enough of it.

    I understand schools not wanting to show explosions on tv. They would change their mind if there was a compelling enough reason to turn it back on. It is through powerful story that you inspire children into the STEM program and the other programs so they contribute to the story no matter how long it takes.

    Sorry, I will get off my soapbox now. You get my point.
     
    longdist01 likes this.
  21. englishbob

    englishbob Its a s*** business Thread Starter

    Location:
    Kent, England
  22. longdist01

    longdist01 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicago, IL USA
  23. englishbob

    englishbob Its a s*** business Thread Starter

    Location:
    Kent, England
    Yup. Usual par for the course nonsense we have to put with here
     
    longdist01 likes this.
  24. budwhite

    budwhite Climb the mountains and get their good tidings.

    Location:
    Götaland, Sverige
    longdist01 likes this.
  25. budwhite

    budwhite Climb the mountains and get their good tidings.

    Location:
    Götaland, Sverige
    longdist01 and BeatleJWOL like this.

Share This Page