I enjoyed this movie more than the trip to the Moon. There were fewer characters jumping around at any given time (I guess people were excited by the novelty of "moving pictures"), and the fact that it was all a dream made the special effects more surreal. I wonder if the astronomer had used a proper neutral density filter to observe the full Moon, would all those awful things have happened?
Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 12:42 am
by Nitpicker
neufer wrote:
Nitpicker wrote:I wonder, in a hundred years from now, will early 21st century technology seem as dated and quaint as early 20th century technology seems to us now? I like to hope so, but I have my doubts.
Are you talking about early 20th century movie making technology or the quaint antiquated astronomical technology depicted in _A Trip to the Moon_?
Sure, mechanical technology had a good head start over electrical and electronic technology, but just think of the improvement in the reliability of mechanical technology over the last century, just in terms of modes of transport and household appliances, and the way it has transformed the way we work, rest and play (arguably, not always for the best).
Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:34 am
by Cousin Ricky
Wish I could watch it, but my Internet service (which my ISP laughingly calls "high speed" and "state of the art") is having a bad day.
Actually, it's having a bad month. I haven't been able to get through a YouTube video without it choking since about a week before Christmas. (And I dread when I'm presented with an HD video. I don't have 3 hours to devote to a 15 minute clip.)
And this is our "new and improved" service. They're trying to tell us how good we have it. Won't work for me; I've seen what the Internet is like elsewhere.
Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)
Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:57 am
by NateWhilk
(never mind)
Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)
Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 4:05 am
by NateWhilk
I'm a baby boomer, and my first memory of this image is from Disney's "Man in Space".
wanderer in the skies,
dazzle of silver in our leaves and on our
waters silver,
O silver evasion in our farthest thought–
“the visiting moon” . . . “the glimpses of the moon” . . .
and we have touched you!
From the first of time,
before the first of time, before the
first men tasted time, we thought of you.
You were a wonder to us, unattainable,
a longing past the reach of longing,
a light beyond our light, our lives–perhaps
a meaning to us.
Now our hands have touched you in your depth of night.
Three days and three nights we journeyed,
steered by farthest stars, climbed outward,
crossed the invisible tide-rip where the floating dust
falls one way or the other in the void between,
followed that other dawn, encountered
cold, faced death–unfathomable emptiness . . .
Then, the fourth day evening, we descended,
made fast, set foot at dawn upon your beaches,
sifted between our fingers your cold sand,
We stand here in the dusk, the cold, the silence . . .
and here, as at the first of time, we lift our heads.
Over us, more beautiful than the moon, a
moon, a wonder to us, unattainable,
a longing past the reach of longing,
a light beyond our light, our lives–perhaps
a meaning to us . . .
O, a meaning!
Over us on these silent beaches the bright earth,
presence among us.
owlice wrote:The poem on that NY Times front page:
VOYAGE TO THE MOON
Archibald MacLeish
(1892-1982)
Presence among us,
wanderer in the skies,
dazzle of silver in our leaves and on our
waters silver,
O silver evasion in our farthest thought–
“the visiting moon” . . . “the glimpses of the moon” . . .
and we have touched you!
...
Thanks, Owlice, that is a beautiful poem. MacLeish evokes the wonder of human spaceflight. We can argue about the relative merits of human vs. robotic space missions, but there will always be something magical about the images of human astronauts on the Moon. I followed the space program avidly as a child. Some of my vividest memories are of the astronauts getting excited, playing, and being goofy. Even if we built a robot that could play golf on the Moon, it wouldn't be quite the same.
Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)
Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:03 pm
by Chris Peterson
owlice wrote:The poem on that NY Times front page:
VOYAGE TO THE MOON
Archibald MacLeish...
Much more interesting, to me, is what they published four days earlier (while the Apollo 11 capsule was en route):
Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)
Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:26 pm
by owlice
Anthony Barreiro wrote:
Thanks, Owlice, that is a beautiful poem. MacLeish evokes the wonder of human spaceflight. We can argue about the relative merits of human vs. robotic space missions, but there will always be something magical about the images of human astronauts on the Moon. I followed the space program avidly as a child. Some of my vividest memories are of the astronauts getting excited, playing, and being goofy. Even if we built a robot that could play golf on the Moon, it wouldn't be quite the same.
Anthony, you're welcome. I find the info at the link I posted also very beautiful ("We loved those three men because we knew their adventure was born of the elegance of the human mind and desire."), and that a newspaper felt it couldn't adequately convey the experience through journalism so wanted a poem on the front page... well, there is a lot of heart in that that I find very touching.
I'm so glad BMAONE23 posted that NYTimes front page! Thanks so much, BMAONE23!
Chris, good of the NY Times to issue the correction!
Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)
Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:16 pm
by geckzilla
That correction makes my head hurt.
Will we see corrections such as that in 2060 regarding CO2 emissions and greenhouse gases indeed being capable of changing our climate?
Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)
Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:45 pm
by Chris Peterson
geckzilla wrote:That correction makes my head hurt. :bang:
Will we see corrections such as that in 2060 regarding CO2 emissions and greenhouse gases indeed being capable of changing our climate? :o_O:
I predict not. The NYT in 1920 was demonstrating a failure to understand mainstream science. Scientists at that time were not debating whether rockets would work in space. What we saw was the result of a newspaper failing to follow scientific consensus. That's exactly what a few newspapers and other publications are guilty of today, and they're going to look similarly silly in the future (to the extent they don't already).
Edit: well, my answer is one interpretation of your comment... not the one you probably meant. Curiously, this NYT correction is found on a lot of global warming denial sites, now that more and more newspapers are not challenging global warming on their editorial pages. A few deniers have already issued their own retractions as the evidence as overwhelmed their earlier denial.
The sort of outlets that today preach against climate science are much more likely to simply fade away than to be around in 2060 to issue retractions.
Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)
Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:24 pm
by neufer
geckzilla wrote:
That correction makes my head hurt.
Of course you have the distinct advantage of hindsight.
It's not that I couldn't see myself being perplexed by the idea of a rocket propelling itself through vacuum, it's the derisive way Goddard is referred to and that it was published by a major newspaper. The global warming thing comes immediately to my mind because I have felt similarly duped into thinking anyone who could believe we are affecting Earth's climate must be a moron only to do a lot of subsequent investigation and discover I was the one being fooled. Some things never will change.
Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)
Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:08 pm
by owlice
Please note that it was an editorial-page item, not a news item, that was corrected. And surely the NY Times did this for the amusement/signs of the times benefit, as it is quite unlikely that their reading audience would have read/remembered the slight item being corrected.
Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)
Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:12 pm
by geckzilla
Was the original editorial item a satire?
Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)
Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:57 pm
by owlice
With opinion pieces on editorial pages, it's sometimes a little hard to tell whether they are intended as satire or not.
It's not that I couldn't see myself being perplexed by the idea of a rocket propelling itself through vacuum, it's the derisive way Goddard is referred to and that it was published by a major newspaper. The global warming thing comes immediately to my mind because I have felt similarly duped into thinking anyone who could believe we are affecting Earth's climate must be a moron only to do a lot of subsequent investigation and discover I was the one being fooled.
I began to realize that there might be something after all to Newton's Laws. The Third Law was accordingly tested, both with devices suspended by rubber bands and by devices on floats, in the little brook back of the barn, and the said law was verified conclusively. It made me realize that if a way to navigate space were to be discovered, or invented, it would be the result of a knowledge of physics and mathematics.>>
Common sense and/or reliance upon scientific consensus don't always work.
(E.g., in 1920, the best climate scientists were probably more concerned about an ice age return.)
Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)
Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:08 pm
by geckzilla
owlice wrote:With opinion pieces on editorial pages, it's sometimes a little hard to tell whether they are intended as satire or not.
Well, that's kind of an important thing to know if I am to continue disparaging the news media and for my continued thinking that I am more clever than the typical column writer.
Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)
Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:19 pm
by Chris Peterson
geckzilla wrote:Was the original editorial item a satire?
There's nothing to remotely suggest that. Any publication that prides itself on accuracy will not allow factual errors, even in editorial pages. The original piece was quite cruel towards Goddard. The wording of the retraction makes it pretty clear that this was not satire, and constituted an embarrassment to the NYT.
They screwed up.
Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)
Posted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:05 am
by Nitpicker
With a correction published almost 50 years after the original mistake -- and well after the first rockets in space -- I'd say it is the correction that is satire, self-directed. The best satire is subtle and understated.
Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)
Posted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:38 am
by Chris Peterson
Nitpicker wrote:With a correction published almost 50 years after the original mistake -- and well after the first rockets in space -- I'd say it is the correction that is satire, self-directed. The best satire is subtle and understated.
So what do you say about the Roman Catholic Church correcting their little boo boo regarding Galileo, some 400 years late, and well into the Space Age? Self-satire?
Re: APOD: A Trip to the Moon (2014 Jan 13)
Posted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:20 am
by geckzilla
From reading Goddard's Wikipedia article, this NYT article would seem to have been serious at a time when he was already experiencing a lack of support from academia. There is no indication that the correction and apology, however late it was issued, wasn't sincere.