|
Author
|
Topic: Apollo 13 flyover of Fra Mauro?
|
stsmithva
Member Posts: 1940
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 03-26-2015 09:19 PM
   
I believe the movie "Apollo 13" shows the astronauts looking down on their intended landing site of Fra Mauro during their one pass around the moon. Did that in fact occur, or was their planned trajectory altered enough by the explosion and thruster activity so that they went over a different track? |
schnappsicle
Member Posts: 396
From: Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted 03-27-2015 07:15 AM
I don't know for certain, but to me there's no way that particular movie scene could have happened during the actual flight. Yes, they could have, and probably did see their landing site. But if they did, it was probably from a few hundred miles above the surface.I wasn't a huge fan of the movie when it came out. Basically because I felt like people would believe that everything in it was real. Kind of like the scene that led to this question. I still think a lot of the movie is pure Hollywood, but I have to give Ron Howard credit. It is a very well done movie. It's the first space movie that actually looks like it was filmed in space. My favorite part is in the end of the movie when the real Jim Lovell congratulates himself (Tom Hanks) on his safe return back to earth. |
randy
Member Posts: 2231
From: West Jordan, Utah USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-27-2015 07:42 AM
One of my favorite parts is Marilyn Lovell's cameo. |
Headshot
Member Posts: 891
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 03-27-2015 07:58 AM
I am not certain if they passed directly over the Fra Mauro site either. Another issue to consider is what the solar illumination of the site was when 13 flew over/near it.Apollo 13 was supposed to land about 26 hours after LOI and when Aquarius would have landed, the sun should have been 9.8 degrees above the horizon. Since Apollo 13's orbital operations never occurred, and it flew by the moon much earlier, the sun would have been much, much lower. Rudimentary calculations indicate the sun might have been 2 degrees below the horizon at Fra Mauro when 13 might have flown "over." In other words, Fra Mauro might have been in darkness. Of course I may have missed something, but the issue of solar lighting needs to be taken into account when discussing this scene from the movie. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-27-2015 08:01 AM
In Lovell's book, "Lost Moon" (later released as "Apollo 13"), he quotes Haise's call down to Mission Control: "I'm looking back at the left-hand corner of the moon," Haise said, "and I can just barely make out the foothills of the Fra Mauro formation. We never did get to see it when we were in there close.""O.K.," Lousma said. "It looks like you're not in so close anymore. I'm reading my monitor here, Fred, that you're 16,214 miles away from the moon and moving 4,500 feet per second." |
the clocks running
Member Posts: 382
From: Rochester, NY
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted 03-27-2015 08:22 AM
Honestly, Hollywood ruins many non-fiction subjects.Ron Howard is a very good director and Apollo 13 and Rush (Formula 1 1976 season) movies are two of his best. However, Apollo 13 had many inaccuracies. One of the biggest was the wrong paint scheme of the Saturn V rocket. If you are going to spend a ton of money on CGI why not take the time to research the correct color configuration of the Saturn V? Thank God that this issue was resolved by From The Earth To The Moon. With all this said, I am thrilled that Ron Howard put Jim Lovell's space flight drama on the big screen. We need more big budget motion pictures about our space program. |
datkatz
Member Posts: 176
From: New York, NY
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 03-27-2015 07:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by schnappsicle:
It's the first space movie that actually looks like it was filmed in space.
That's because you're seeing true zero-g. Sets were constructed, and scenes were filmed, in an aircraft flying zero-g parabolas. (Wonder how many times the actors barfed.) |
stsmithva
Member Posts: 1940
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 03-27-2015 08:50 PM
I think my mention of the movie was distracting. The reason I asked about Apollo 13 actually going over Fra Mauro is because I have a Lunar Orbital Science Flight Chart for Apollo 13, showing Revolutions 1 through 18. The planned course showed it going right over the landing site. I'd like to know if that in fact happened during their one pass over the moon. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-27-2015 08:59 PM
Steve, see my post above. According to Haise (via Lovell) they did not see Fra Mauro. (I guess they could have still flown over it and missed seeing it due to other pressing matters.) |
calcheyup
Member Posts: 125
From:
Registered: May 2014
|
posted 03-28-2015 08:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by datkatz:
That's because you're seeing true zero-g.
Not every scene. An interview with Hanks actually states that some of the scenes that did not involve full body shots were filmed with the actors basically just moving in slow motion and mimicking it. Sounds ridiculous, even Hanks sort of admitted that, but it worked. |
astroborg
Member Posts: 203
From: Woodbridge, VA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 03-29-2015 02:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by stsmithva:
I'd like to know if that in fact happened during their one pass over the moon.
The Fred Haise quote above sums it up. They looped around what we would call the far side of the moon, and never were in orbit, so they could not get as close to a middle of the moon (from Earth's perspective) location like Fra Mauro, or Copernicus as they would have, had they been in orbit.Some crater or object on the eastern or western limb, like Langrenus or Grimaldi - maybe. But not something "in the middle" from our earthly perspective. |
Peter downunder
Member Posts: 57
From: Lancefield, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 03-31-2015 05:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by the clocks running:
Ron Howard is a very good director and Apollo 13 and Rush (Formula 1 1976 season) movies are two of his best. However, Apollo 13 had many inaccuracies.
All movies do... Hunt and Lauda did not have that angst that was portrayed in the movie, either. But to film some (yes, we know not all) scenes during a zero-g flight? WOW! |
Space Cadet Carl
Member Posts: 225
From: Lake Orion, Michigan
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-31-2015 05:13 PM
I remember Ron Howard saying in an interview that modern audiences would never go see "Apollo 13" unless it had some degree of exaggerated drama to it. The biggest example of that had to be during the big "decent engine course correction" scene, when the combined spacecraft were bucking and swaying back and forth like a crazy amusement park ride. I also had an issue with the Saturn V launch sequence where they showed every umbilical on the LUT taking turns swinging back one at a time. Outside of things like that, I think we're all extremely grateful for Howard making the film. |
Headshot
Member Posts: 891
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 03-31-2015 06:24 PM
While we were watching the Apollo 13 movie, my wife could tell that I was ready to explode. She leaned over and quietly said, "It's entertainment, not a documentary" ... and so it was. |
model maker
Member Posts: 130
From: NEVADA , USA
Registered: May 2012
|
posted 04-02-2015 07:31 PM
I also noticed that during the pass over of the Apolo 15 landing site, Fred Haise (Bill Paxton) said "There's Mare Tranqitallus" or something like that, "Neil and Buzz's old neighborhood." I never saw that get corrected anywhere in the movie or special features section. Has anyone else noticed this? |
Skylon
Member Posts: 277
From:
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 04-03-2015 07:40 AM
It's been awhile — but as I remember the film, first Haise spots Fra Mauro, Swigert notes the Tsiolkovsky crater, and then Haise spots the Sea of Tranquility and Mount Marilyn (at which point Tom Hanks' Lovell brings the mood down with a depressed "I've seen it").All, in all its some pretty bad lunar geography since this is all happening while the film has 13 in radio-blackout from being on the far-side — and only Tsiolkovsky is a far-side feature. Even as a kid I remember being a little confused by the exchange since the scene implied 13 would have landed on the far-side, which didn't make a whole lot of sense. But, drama comes first, and seeing Fra Mauro allows for the nifty transition to Lovell dreaming of walking on the Moon, and Lovell's reaction to Mt. Marlyn juxtaposes nicely against his pointing it out proudly, earlier in the film. As a friend of mine said after seeing "National Treasure" - "This must be what an Egyptologist feels like after seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark." |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-03-2015 10:17 AM
The scene, like others in the movie, is a compression of real events coupled with some fictional elements. According to Lovell (writing in his book), he really did find Haise and Swigert at the windows with cameras observing the moon. And he really did raise his voice and deliver the line, "Gentlemen, what are your intentions?" The PC+2 burn was approaching and he wanted his crewmates to focus on setting up for it. "If we don't get home, you'll never get [the photos] developed." As Lovell was working through the procedures for the burn, Mission Control informed that Apollo 12's seismometer had picked up their S-IVB impacting the moon. He looked out the window to try to spot the new crater and instead saw Mount Marilyn. My guess is that the film chose locations on the moon that more of the public might recognize and inserted the daydream for dramatic effect. But the framing for that scene was based on real events. |
Tom
Member Posts: 1610
From: New York
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 04-03-2015 10:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by randy:
One of my favorite parts is Marilyn Lovell's cameo.
Randy what part is Marilyn Lovell in? Thanks. |
bunnkwio
Member Posts: 113
From: Naperville, IL USA
Registered: Jul 2008
|
posted 04-06-2015 12:50 PM
According to stsmithva's second post in the thread, the flyover of the landing site was to happen in one of the 18 revolutions.That being said, in any of the other Apollo missions, was the CSM noticeable from the lunar surface much like we can see the ISS fly overhead? |
p51
Member Posts: 1658
From: Olympia, WA
Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted 04-06-2015 03:07 PM
I never picked the movie apart for two reasons: - I didn't know nearly as much about the space program history at the time I saw the movie in theaters as I do now.
- I know that as a former US Army officer, most military-themed movies are grossly inaccurate. But you simply couldn't make a 100% accurate war movie because you'd be looking at a treeline, seeing a bush move every now and then and maybe a solider hauling past, then a lot of yelling and gunfire off in the distance. Nobody would pay money to sit through 2 hours of that!
So, all that said on each point, I know that "Apollo 13" plays fast and loose with reality. But I'm fine with it because even the flawed history in the movie brought a lot of people to the theaters who would likely never go to a museum or see Kennedy of Johnson space centers in person...I enjoyed the movie just fine as it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Tom:
Randy what part is Marilyn Lovell in? Thanks.
I'd like to know that as well, I'd never heard that before. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-06-2015 03:19 PM
The real Marilyn Lovell is seated in the grandstands for the Saturn V launch. |
BA002
Member Posts: 177
From: Utrecht,NL
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 04-07-2015 01:53 PM
One of the events during the 2012 Astronaut Scholarship Foundation show at the Kennedy Space Center was a screening of the movie "Apollo 13" with commentary provided by Fred Haise and Glynn Lunney. Obviously they pointed out some of the mistakes and exaggerations for dramatic purposes but all in all they were quite supportive of the movie. A memorable experience! |
Philip
Member Posts: 6002
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 04-17-2015 03:39 AM
And of course the Admiral welcoming the crew in the end is James Arthur Lovell himself! |
onesmallstep
Member Posts: 1313
From: Staten Island, New York USA
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 04-17-2015 08:19 AM
No, the ship's captain is Lovell himself. He politely turned down the Admiral's role by saying he retired a US Navy Captain, and a captain he'll be. |
advertisement