Review: ‘Moon’ Rocks!
by Jason Killian MeathDuncan Jones’ debut indie feature Moon is being hailed by critics as a modern tribute to great sci-fi films of the past, but I couldn’t help but think about the future — namely, what’s become of the U.S. space program? 40 years ago, America launched the Apollo 11 mission that triumphantly landed men on the moon; yet, where have we gone since?
Moon rocks the imagination as it presents a totally plausible, realistic way of utilizing space for practical purposes — in this case, mining for eco-desirable Helium 3 energy from the lunar surface. Jones strove for science-fact over fiction in researching many minute details of the script. He even screened the film before a panel of NASA scientists — many of whom are working on making fantasy into fact.
Before reading any further — be advised: don’t see Moon to learn about science, but DO see it! It’s a fascinating film featuring an Academy Award-worthy performance by Sam Rockwell.
Now, back to reality… In 2004, President George W. Bush called for a return to the Moon to build a base — it would be a prelude to something even greater: a mission to Mars. He noted words from astronaut Eugene Cernan, who traveled with the last Apollo mission: “We leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind.” With that, scores of engineers, scientists and experts made headway designing, building and planning America’s next endeavour to explore space, they were ready to accomplish the mission.
Should President Obama decide to continue with the 2004 Bush plan, enterprising Americans would need to invent many of the things featured in Jones’ film. And for Obama, who is presiding over one of the worst economic crisis in history, an invigorating Kennedy-esque call to space would present a granddaddy of a stimulus package — jobs created, factories built, innovation; to say nothing of stimulating the truly priceless things like learning, inspiring a generation and advancing the species.
But don’t pack your moon boots quite yet – Obama has organized a committee to review the entire space program and make recommendations sometime in August. He has left many to guess his agenda for America’s space program. What would have happened if Columbus or Magellan stood around waiting for a group of consultants to return findings? Thank goodness President Kennedy didn’t wait to hear committee recommendations of his idea — we would have never made it to the Moon. So, we’re left to wait — along with the rest of NASA — while this committee discusses, studies and contemplates. Call it the community organizer’s guide to the galaxy … it just might get us going nowhere fast.
Moon writer-director Jones is a self-described sci-fi nut having been inspired as a child by great films such as Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 and Ridley Scott’s Alien. Those films, like many other 60’s, 70’s and 80’s sci-fi fare, helped feed the world’s growing appetite for all things space — I know, because my younger brother and I grew up in the Lucas/Spielberg-golden age of sci-fi. With the 1969 Moon landing, and the Apollo missions thereafter, a huge milestone was met, and imaginations exploded — people wanted to learn what else could be ‘out there?’ How could we travel into space in the future? What would life in space be like?
Moon portrays the same questions NASA faces building a moon base, or traveling to Mars — loneliness, mental stamina, human endurance. To say nothing of imagining real-life possibilities such as fusion power, mining for clean energy and living in artificial environments (as well as some truly mind-blowing plot twists).
It should come as little surprise that Jones thought up this film. After all, he is the son of David Bowie — the man who gave us “Space Oddity” and Ziggy Stardust. Bowie was fascinated by humans landing on the Moon and translated that into brilliant art and music. Come to think of it, without the Moonshot, we never would have Elton John’s “Rocket Man,” cell phones, microwave ovens — or juice bags for the kids! The demonstration of American grit and ingenuity instilled the nation with pride, confidence and solidified American technology and willpower as the envy of the world. We could use a little bit of all that right about now…
So, what will it be President Obama: One giant leap… forward or backward?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
90 Comments
Thanks for the review. This does sound extremely promising. Jones, with the creative genes he inherited, should be capable of exceptional work, and I agree with Scott, Rockwell is a very interesting actor. This sounds like the kind of film where his talents can really be showcased.
In a town hall speech in which no questions are asked,, Obama will criticize the U.S. for its lunar imperialism and for trashing the moon's environment and then give praise to every country but the U.S. for making the moon landings possible. He will appoint a moon czar, cut the NASA budget and blame George Bush for the lack of needed technology to return to the moon.
I'm looking forward to Moon. It looks very original and Sam Rockwell should knock it out of the park.
Ever since I first saw Star Wars, I always wondered what was "out there". The possibilities are limitless and I think Hollywood has provided plenty of food for thought. Who's to say that there isn't a species of extremely hostile aliens waiting to burst through our chests? Or another race of aliens that only want to explore and make contact and have a thing for Recees Pieces?
Who knows? Maybe we stumble on a clean, efficient and abundant energy source that answers our needs for the next 1000 years. The only way to find out is to try.
I have been waiting eagerly to hear from the writers on this site about Moon. I saw it last week with my wife and we were utterly blown away; this is a fascinating piece of work, a worthy debut by Duncan Jones, and I've been eager to evangelize about it. So much so that I'm willing to repost the review from my own blog…
Part 1:
We just got back from Duncan Jones' debut film Moon, starring Sam Rockwell and the voice of Kevin Spacey. Jones is better known in his native Britain for 1. being a successful commercial director (in the footsteps of Ridley and Tony Scott), and 2. being David Bowie's son. After this I'd say he has a long career in film ahead of him, as long as the whole industry doesn't collapse.
The setting is the near future. The human race has successfully developed fusion power, which has solved overnight about three quarters of the world's energy shortages. It has an abundant fuel source — helium-3, which can be found in large quantities in the lunar substrate. Lunar Industries has a plant on the Moon which uses large mobile harvesters to collect helium-3 and prepare it for shipment home to Earth; the system is so streamlined that it's been reduced to a one-man operation.
Sam Bell (Rockwell) is nearing the end of a three-year contract, manning the Sarang Mining Base completely solo; it's a lucrative position, but very taxing on the nerves. He spends his off time talking to his wife and daughter via video e-mails (because of a malfunctioning communications satellite, he's incapable of getting a live feed), exercising, carving intricate scale models of his hometown, and having boring conversations with the base computer Gerty (voiced by Spacey, doing his best Douglas-Rain-as-HAL impersonation — fortunately, Gerty's more than a mere carbon copy of his predecessor).
Two weeks before his departure, he begins hallucinating while driving a lunar rover out to check on a malfunctioning harvester, and suffers a severe accident. We see him wake up back at Sarang, with no memories of how he got there and Gerty solicitously asking how he feels; Gerty's worried that Sam may have suffered brain damage in the crash. Eventually, he recovers enough to drive another rover out to the scene of the previous accident… and finds someone still in the crashed vehicle.
Then it gets weird.
We need to reverse a great deal of the emasculation that has overrun our culture, before this can happen. The direction we are traveling is toward professional victimhood and the celebration of mediocrity in the name of self esteem. Until we begin to cultivate great minds again, by rewarding merit and achievement, it will be tough to recapture this spirit of adventure, on a national scale. Maybe this film is a start.
Part 2:
Actors who can carry a movie all by themselves are rare, but Sam Rockwell manages it — he spends almost the entire movie talking either to himself or to Kevin Spacey, and he's never less than believable. The story moves along at a slow pace without ever quite becoming outright boring (I know I wasn't bored); the film could be edited a bit more tightly, but I don't think there's a whole lot of wasted screen time here. The production design is an homage to the great "hard" SF of years past — there's a definite Kubrick/2001 meets Scott/Alien vibe here, and it works in the film's favor; the Sarang base looks like it could actually be a real, functioning place.
Bottom line — if this film comes anywhere near you, go take a look. Cordially recommended.
(P.S.: Sony Pictures has more faith in this film than I'd hoped for. It played in limited release for two weeks, and has since opened in several dozen additional theaters across the country. Check the official website to see if it's anywhere near you.)
As a current NASA contractor employee, maybe I can add another perspective to the space debate. This year, the Shuttle program has been undergoing a lot of turmoil, with the shuttle retirement coming next year, and contracts ending. In that environment some of us are a little dismayed at how long it took the President to appoint a NASA administrator, and that he has yet to be confirmed almost 6 months after Mr. Obama took office. That said, I do have to give him some credit for who he chose to put on the Augustine Committee:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/members/index.htm...
In the meantime, we are not on hold. We are pressing forward with the Constellation program and the return to the moon. That path can change in the next couple of months, but we are still working under President Bush's directive.
If anyone needs ammo for proving why NASA is worthwhile, check out the NASA spinoff homepage to learn about how NASA funded research improves peoples' lives here on earth:
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/
Sounds really good…. glad to see that they are making the old style sci-fi flicks…..
I need to see this. I keep hoping that it will come out near me, but with cynical junk like Transformers 2 raking it up at the box-office, it seems unlikely. Some of us like real art.
Oh yeah, and Duncan Jones is David Bowie's son. That's just…awesome.
[...] Visit Review: ‘Moon’ Rocks! [...]
SPOILER ALERT — Read no further if you fetishise walking into a movie knowing absolutely nothing about it.
What a bizarre review. This movie last little or nothing to do with space exploration, Helium 3, or using space for practical purposes. The movie entirely about cloning. That's it. The fact that it takes place on the moon is entirely incidental to that fact.
SPOILER ALERT — Read no further if you fetishize walking into a movie knowing absolutely nothing about it.
What a bizarre review. This movie last little or nothing to do with space exploration, Helium 3, or using space for practical purposes. The movie entirely about cloning. That's it. The fact that it takes place on the moon is entirely incidental to that fact.
One of my first memories of television was the moon landing. I must have been four or five. It would surely be something to see that again.
There is no review in this "review". At least not a review of the movie. Obama was certainly reviewed, but after reading this I still have absolutely no idea what this movie is about apart from going to the moon (which isn't terribly exciting, sorry).
Also, you should of tried sticking in another "to saying nothing of…"
>>>"Before reading any further — be advised: don’t see Moon to learn about science, but DO see it! It’s a fascinating film featuring an Academy Award-worthy performance by Sam Rockwell."
Before reading any further — be advised: don't review this review to learn anything about Moon, but DO read it for a shot at Obama about something or other.
>>>"Before reading any further — be advised: don’t see Moon to learn about science, but DO see it! It’s a fascinating film featuring an Academy Award-worthy performance by Sam Rockwell."
Before reading any further — be advised: don't read this review to learn anything about Moon, but DO read it for a shot at Obama about something or other.
—–"Before reading any further — be advised: don’t see Moon to learn about science, but DO see it! It’s a fascinating film featuring an Academy Award-worthy performance by Sam Rockwell."
Before reading any further — be advised: don't read this review to learn anything about Moon, but DO read it for a shot at Obama about something or other.
I'm really worried about the future's space technology being so streamlined that it would take only few humans to venture into space and work on the Moon/Mars, leaving the rest of us puttering around on Earth, wondering when we would ever get into space. Is the outer space environment beyond Earth so much more harsh on us normal humans who aren't trained like NASA astronauts?
I'm really worried about the future's space technology being so streamlined that it would take only fewer humans to venture into space and work on the Moon/Mars, leaving the rest of us puttering around on Earth, wondering when we would ever get into space. Is the outer space environment beyond Earth so much more harsh on us normal humans who aren't trained like NASA astronauts?
Well this is all well and fine. I very much do want to see it – but it was released in only *two* cities in the entire United States yes? So where the heck can I see it?!? Guess I must wait for DVD?
Every single review of this film I've seen, including my own, has had to have the words "David Bowie" in it…
Incidentally, his full name is Duncan Zowie Heywood Jones — despite rumors, "Zowie Bowie" does not appear on his birth certificate.
Personally, I was just glad that they actually went with computer-enhanced model shots instead of doing the whole thing in CGI… I would have called CGI lazy, except that it wouldn't be fair in this case — most of the miniature effects were shot over less than a week of work, a remarkable feat.
I personally am now selling lunar cap-and-trade credits…cheap! Although I'm a bit puzzled…what kind of chemical footprint would I leave on the moon?
One of the consequences of thinking hard, as you put it, is the willingness to take impromptu risk. You need to tear yourself out of a comfortable existence and be willing to dive into a pool, full of the obsidian waters, based on preconceived, yet unconfirmed calculation, trusting that calculation and your ability to compensate, when it fails. Space is the ultimate test of that unique human character. It is a complete venture into the part of the universe, completely hostile to life itself.
Brian, I don't think there's any argument about the NASA funded research… I think the argument I've heard most lately, is "why not allow private involvement, instead of a govt. monopoly on it" .. not to mention some of the higher-ups at NASA have been Global Warming fanatics and helped push that on the US public, with the help of the greenies and Congress.
Yes but it bares repeating.
[...] Moon rocks the imagination as it presents a totally plausible, realistic way of utilizing space for practical purposeRead more at http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jmeath/2009/07/14/moon-rocks/ [...]
That is the beauty of it, you don't even have to go. Just set up the corporation, trick a celebutard into promoting your cause and presto, your compassion for the moon's environment will be suitably rewarded.
Hmmm…interesting plan. I wonder if that would work here on Earth?
*snicker* Good one!
Of course, it's also possible that the Supreme Leader might have a brainstorm and decide to turn the Moon into the new GITMO, in which case we will all have to go back and re-read Robert Heinlein's utterly brilliant "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" while awaiting future developments.
Sometimes science fiction can be VERY instructive.
NASA = Socialized medicine.
How long would it have taken to build the country if every time a train left on the trans continental railroad you had to have a a 6 month run up, cost 100 million dollars to launch and only a 98 percent chance of not blowing up before it got there? Yet that's the space infrastructure that's in place now.
Once upon a time, NASA was tasked with doing the research and development that private companies couldn't afford to do, with the aim of creating the technology necessary for advanced aerospace products. NASA had a hand in creating the present cheap air transportation system which is a backbone to the economy. A small percentage of NASA money still does this job.
Unfortunately, when NASA decides to build stuff, it's "Houston we have a problem". Like all big bureaucracies, they need to keep their marching army's ricebowls filled. So you get space stations that take 10 years to build at 10 times the proposed cost and the wacky "Apollo on steroids" which is now on exactly the same high cost low return path.
Yesterday, SpaceX, a private company, Launched a satellite for money on a launcher they developed themselves for a fraction of what it would have cost NASA or the military. That's the direction to the future.
I was two and a half years old when Neil Armstrong took a small step.
But unlike some kids, I didn’t get bedtime stories. I got NASA stories. My father worked for NASA from its early stages….doing PR work, and conducting science experiments, but also touring the schools and doing the whole “Show and Tell” to children who dreamed of flying. My dad passed on his love of space to me, by telling me stories about how astronauts would try and pull stunts while training, how some would not make the cut, and even the tragedies they suffered. He never spared me, thinking I would be better off knowing the truth about the brutal quest to the stars. And he was right….
Can't wait to see "Moon"!!!!
Granted, the article ranged beyond the bounds of a typical "review". The review part was short, which makes it sweet…long, drawn-out reviews are usually designed to inflate the ego of the reviewer. All in all, I'd have to say that it was a rather accurate swipe at the skillset and mindset of the COIC (Community Organizer in Chief).
I don't know about you, but I don't think there are others "out there"….I KNOW THERE ARE!
Granted, the article ranged beyond the bounds of a typical "review". The review part was short, which makes it sweet…long, drawn-out reviews are usually written to inflate the ego of the reviewer. All in all, I'd have to say that it was a rather accurate swipe at the skillset and mindset of the COIC (Community Organizer in Chief).
Good luck in your endeavors, Scott. I just hope your stay in Clear Lake is not hampered by the soul-crushing humidity and heat. Even if you don't make it, take the time to see the sights….Houston has a lot to offer.
Especially on Montrose, so try to avoid that area
Thanks! Unfortunately I won't have much time for sightseeing. I'm flying to Houston on a Tuesday evening, testing all day Wednesday and early Thursday, then flying back to Florida late Thursday afternoon.
I actually spent the 4th of July weekend in Dallas so I'll know what to expect re: the heat.
Thanks for the review! I have been a fan of Rockwell's since "Galaxy Quest", back in 1995. He can adapt to any role, like a chameleon. Can't wait to see this film.
I recently heard it put very well: "NASA needs to be in the R&D business."
We have a contract with SpaceX to work on resupplying the International Space Station, and they are also working on a manned capsule. Granted, some politicians are trying to kill commercial ties in order to protect civil servant jobs in their constituency; but the general feeling I get around here is that we welcome private involvement. The more people in space – the more competition we have – the more we will be pushed to take things further. NASA needs to be in the job of pushing the reaches where the private sector can't afford to go (which presently means the moon and beyond).
As for global warming, NASA stands for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration – meaning we also do aeronautical research. And some of those researchers have been using their job as a title when not officially representing the agency. But I am not quite qualified to discuss that topic in as much depth.
Sure, ask AlGore. He made tens of millions off promoting sham, I mean compassionate environmentalism.
That is why NASA has hired them to resupply the station once they are capable.
Because we've never seen liberal reviewers take shots at President Bush or his policies in reviews of stuff do we?
One of the best movies of the year.
Although I really don't get the Obama comparisons. The movie only briefly touched on the mining of Helium 3.
1) The Space Shuttle is one of the most reliable space transportation systems ever built (97.6% probability of success):
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Bayesi...
The SpaceX Falcon 1 that you are touting is currently at the bottom of the list (33%).
2) In expectation of their success rate improving, NASA has a contract with them to resupply the International Space Station once they get their Falcon 9 rocket and corresponding cargo (and eventually manned) capsule ready.
3) How do you accurately judge the cost of something that has never been done? How do you build something quickly and safely when you are not even given enough money to cover the admittedly too low original cost estimate?
Bottom line – Space exploration is still extremely difficult and dangerous. We are inviting others to do better. Some are trying. If you want NASA to do bigger and better, then tell your congresspeople to fund the projects adequately.
And then they could get KBR to install the electrical systems for the space station. Sure, the profit motive might lead them to cut a few corners, but Republicans have proved they don't mind if a few American soldiers die as long as an American private company which donates money to their candidates is getting paid. Besides, the private system is always better — as long as you don't have to use any of the facilities built by those private companies.
I really want to see this, but I'm put off by Sam Rockwell. I just dislike him intensely, and I don't know why. He and Jeremy Davies make my skin crawl. Maybe it's the fact that neither has a chin?
Seriously? A return to space exploration is the prescription for our current economic woes? The author seems downright thrilled at the prospect of another stimulous package – and no wonder, since the first one did so well. I'm surprised that the editor let this one slip through to the web site. This article offered nothing about the actual plot of the movie, and held little political relevancy. Oh, and what's the deal with the Kennedy comment about committees? Does he not believe that committees were in fact formed to look into lunar exploration? Does he think we made it to the moon two weeks after Kennedy's speech? Try two presidential administrations later.
Bad article on an otherwise great website.
Moon's been running for 5 weeks, it's made under 2 million, so if any of y'all were curious, you should probably go sooner than later before that stupid wizard kid starts squeezing everything out of the multiplexes. I thought the film was less about space travel than the effects of isolation and loneliness (I knew about the clone stuff). Not my sort of thing. I guess I prefer science _fiction_.
I think Obama was mentioned because we just don't know WHAT he's going to do with the space program in general and NASA in particular. There are also concerns about the (fairly) recent dependence on committees and studies, which in and of themselves aren't BAD things.
I like the idea of private companies taking over what NASA can't, but I do think that a quest for a moon base would do wonders for the economy and innovation.
THAT'S a stimulus I can get behind.
They both have played characters that were unlikable. Davies was Upham, the tool that let his friends die in Saving Private Ryan.
Rockwell was the psycho in The Green Mile that urinated on the guard.
Maybe that's why?
Great review, thanks, Jake. Just went and watched the trailer and got goosebumps. *shiver*
Unfortunately, the film isn't showing anywhere in MS. *sigh* I have a feeling this is one that should be seen on a big screen in a darkened theatre, so will just cross my fingers and hope it comes here.
No 'stumbling' is needed. Helium-3 is just lying on the surface up there, fixed in the lunar soil (regolith), perfectly clean fusion energy -enough for the next 2k years.
I had no idea!
I did a little reading on it just now and it's still at least 50 years away from being implemented, but wow, it sounds perfect.
http://www.sonyclassics.com/moon/dates.html
Check here. It may be playing very close to you.
obama has plans for shutting down America's space program. He and other socialists do not want America to be great
There is no Great Britain since the socialists took over and obama has the same plan for America
Give Galaxy Quest a chance. He steals that movie.
Great Review! Am looking forward to this! Sam Rockwell can hit a ball out of the park!
[...] presents a totally plausible, realistic way of utilizing space for practical purposeRead more at http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jmeath/2009/07/14/moon-rocks/ Tags: Apollo, Kids, News, Science, Technology « Blockbuster, Samsung…. [...]
Oh thanks, here I was trying to maintain my love for the book while forgetting the "progressive social structures." 12 year old hookers and whatever "domestic partner arrangements" you can dream up. Yes I know it was strongly libertarian, but now it seems too much like a box of prime liberal intellectualism done up in fascinating wrapping paper and a pretty pink bow, with a spritz of perfume to complete the camouflage.
Or to follow some of the fiction out there, a race of aliens that wants to "explore" and "make contact." No idea what they would want to eat afterwards, for all we know they might prefer a smoke.
*SPOILER…* …maybe, as I haven't seen it either.
I saw the clone angle mentioned in other reviews and sort of assumed this was going to be one of those "the-evil-corporation-created-us-to-be-slaves-on-the-moon" things and passed it over. Rockwell may be a great actor but I'll be skipping this one.
Heh. Have you ever walked around during the day and taken stock of the various inventions and facilities were built by private industry? If you really believe what you say, spend a whole day using nothing invented, built or otherwise created by private industry.
looks like a good movie.
so now Obama has to get flack because he's not re-sending us to the moon? big deal.
I didn't vote for Obama based on campain promises about another moon mission. I voted for health care overhall. I voted for getting us out of Iraq. I voted for carrot/stick diplomacy.
Combine that with the issues that Obama has no choice but to deal with… such as the banks and auto companies… I think the man has his hands full.
The moon can wait. It'll still be there later.
I've been having a case of moon fever myself lately. I literally just finished watching From the Earth to the Moon for the first time last week! I enjoyed it – lots of familiar faces and a great sense of wonder. Criterion just released a Blu-Ray version of For All Mankind and I'm hoping Netflix sends it to me before there's a wait.
I’m actually flying out to Houston next month. I’ve applied to participate in the NASA "bed rest study" and I get to go to Johnson Space Center for what will surely be a thorough physical. There’s no guarantee I’ll make it into the study but I have to try, right?
As for this film, I've heard nothing but good things. And Sam Rockwell is always entertaining. The latest issue of Cinefex covers the film's visual effects. I glanced at the article – it was nice to see technicians using miniatures since every other film seems to use only CGI.
Actually I find the alternatives to be rather appealing. I am glad to note your reply below where you are supporting the commercial endeavors.
You are aware of how heavily NASA uses contractors who are heavily motivated by profits, just as KBR is? I thought not.
*chuckle* Well, I know that the Master had his faults, but I still prefer "Mistress" to "Stranger" and some of his later (and more wackadoo) novels.
And Manuel's friend Mike still beats 'em all when it comes to cool! Remember his delight in throwing rocks at Earth? Said it finally gave him a referent for the word "orgasm"? Woot! (For the Heinlein-deprived, Mike is a VERY sentient computer.)
The best results of committees are the presentation materials that say how great the committees have performed.
I will say this is one area where my tax dollars have been spent well. I'd rather NASA blow up my money trying something new than for one cent to be given to a bloated union, ACORN, Cap and tax, obamacare, or other such nonsense. NASA has always involved the private sector and provoked the private sector to achieve more.
The Number of the Beast? Truly beastly.
Does every review on this site require to mention politics? Maybe this site should be called Big Agenda.
BTW, I saw 'Moon', loved it, but am confused why the reviewer brought up NASA.
We need to reverse a great deal of the emasculation that has overrun our culture, before this can happen. The direction we are traveling is toward professional victimhood and the celebration of mediocrity in the name of self esteem. Until we begin to cultivate great minds again, by rewarding merit and achievement, it will be tough to recapture this spirit of adventure, on a national scale. Maybe this film is a start.
Yeah, but this isn't a review, it's a "review."
where did the science go? it never happened so the science has not advanced.
BELIEVE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT TELLS YOU not on your…. well you fill in the blank_________.
It was a ploy by JFK to get the russians to spend itself into history, and worked quite well
a couple million on sets in the desert vs: billions trying to duplicate what never happened.
the one thing JFK did right.
In case the admins don't approve that post, here's Part 2 again:
Actors who can carry a movie all by themselves are rare, but Sam Rockwell manages it — he spends almost the entire movie talking either to himself or to Kevin Spacey, and he's never less than believable; I'm not surprised there's already major-award buzz about his performance here. The story moves along at a slow pace without ever quite becoming outright boring (I know I wasn't bored); the film could be edited a bit more tightly, but I don't think there's a whole lot of wasted screen time here. The production design is an homage to the great "hard" SF of years past — there's a definite Kubrick/2001 meets Scott/Alien vibe here, and it works in the film's favor; the Sarang base looks like it could actually be a real, functioning place.
Bottom line — if this film comes anywhere near you, go take a look. Cordially recommended.
Except that it happened during the Nixon administration.
The film really addresses questions that should make people think harder, regardless of their political stripe. It doesn't take a stand on one side or another.
Without spoiling anything, I think I can say that if the film has any political statement to make, it is this: Simply because corporations, scientists or individuals can do something doesn't mean that they ought to; to always "consider the consequences" is an ethical imperative. Personally, I don't have any problem with that…
And before anyone queries me sarcastically about "considering the consequences" of going into space and further advancing our knowledge of the universe, let me say that going into space is inevitably going to have an effect on the people who actually go there. Space is big — and lonely. The nature and consequences of that loneliness are, to a great degree, what this movie is about.
(Also — would you argue if I said it was necessary to 'consider the consequences' of, say, embryonic stem-cell research? I ask because a VERY similar issue is part of the film's central conflict.)
This review has got to be the Shortest one I've ever read before…
"…don’t see Moon to learn about science, but DO see it!"
SPOILER ALERT — Read no further if you fetishize walking into a movie knowing absolutely nothing about it.
What a bizarre review. Did you even see the movie? It has little or nothing to do with space exploration, Helium 3, or using space for practical purposes. The movie is entirely about cloning. That's it. The fact that it takes place on the moon is entirely incidental to that fact. It could have taken place on Mars or the planet Klaatu. I'm sure if you just wanted to work Obama into your "review" cloning would have offered plenty of opportunities as well. But yes, great little movie.
[...] Moon rocks the imagination as it presents a totally plausible, realistic way of utilizing space for practical purposeRead more at http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jmeath/2009/07/14/moon-rocks/ [...]
The thing is, I know it's irrational prejudice – it's just hard to fight.
Rockwell wasn't _bad_ in Heist, for example, and I was about to the point where I could tolerate him (although it was a weaselly character) … but then he had to help stink up Hitchhiker's Guide …
In any case, I'll probably go see this.
From what I know, the worse effects come from our survival-oriented bodies following a strict "Use it or lose it" rule for anything past what should be expected with minimal exercise. For example, patients in a coma will start losing muscle mass after a few days, inactivity and a lack of weight-bearing exercise leads to loss of bone mass. Without normal gravity, our bodies weaken considerably. Those who have been on space stations for very long periods are often seen being carried on a stretcher when they return for very good reasons. Even with the regular exercise they must get, their skeletons shed so much calcium they essentially have advanced osteoporosis, with weakened hearts. Also, there is a side-effect reported. We do not appreciate the effort of our hearts to pump blood against gravity to our heads, and that required to keep it moving up and out of our legs. When you hit "zero gravity" space you get pounding headaches from your heart slamming blood into your brain, and not enough blood in your legs as it gets sucked out. This fades after awhile as the body adjusts, but after returning your brain is short on blood and it pools in your legs until you re-adjust. Likely those returning after long trips cannot stand up without passing out.
While some of this may be offset by simulated gravity, such as centrifugal forces in very large rotating space stations, as well as vigorous extended exercise, such is no substitute for 24/7 normal gravity. Part of why candidates for long-term missions must be in such great shape is so they have more of a "reserve" to lose before returning. Babylon 5 aside, there are no realistic plans for a station large enough spinning fast enough to get a full gravity even at the inside of the outermost wall, which would still leave lots of space being used at less apparent gravity. Likely the grandest plans would be far less, and on the Moon there would be the expected one-sixth gravity. While I doubt there would be "irreversible biological changes" as posited in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, it would still be a very long recovery for anyone returning to normal gravity. I also doubt there will ever be drugs that can properly compensate. For example, while there are now drugs that can increase bone mass, increasing the body's uptake of calcium, without proper gravity to "direct" the calcium to the bones there can be calcium deposits built up where they are not wanted, such as within blood vessels.
Otherwise, the major reason astronauts have to be so fit is to merely get into space, the very high gee-forces experienced getting thrust into space on rockets is very stressful. In time with the development of "space planes" that will more slowly ascend into space, or the hoped-for "space elevator," many of the less-fit will be able to go into outer space and even stay there for extended periods like a month or so.
One thing to note, as part of "colonizing" space there will be children born and raised in low-gravity environments. Here on Earth we grow thick skeletons to deal with the gravity. When rebuilding bone mass after a long stay in space, we are merely "filling in the holes" of the existing structure. Without a need for such a massive structure, it seems unlikely those who grow up in a low-gravity environment will ever develop one and have thin yet solid bones. Even if the skeleton could somehow "bulk up" enough, those coming from the Moon to Earth would still have problems with joints sized for handling one-sixth the load. Also the cardiovascular system may also have problems from not being grown to the relatively high pressures needed to combat gravity. The children born and raised in space will stay in space. Since that puts the kibosh on "evacuating to Earth," if we ever go out there with a permanent presence we will have to do it right because we will have to be there to stay, there will be no coming back.
And maybe the Chinese and/or the Indians will let us stay for awhile, provided we pay rent.
I wish I could agree, but the "bias free" Wikipedia article does not seem near so hopeful.
Actually we already have all the energy we could ever need for many tens of thousands of years, under our feet. We live on the solidified scum on top of a ball of molten rock and metal, the energy we could draw out of that is immense. Now tapping it, that is the issue.
I find geothermal heat pumps to look most promising. Check out the "Open Loop" systems, "Standing column well." If you will be drilling a well for water anyway, it could save money to get a second one drilled at the same time, there are costs involved getting the drilling rigs on site and set up, you could get a break for getting another on the other end of the property at the same time. It could also serve as a temporary drinking water source if the other gives out, if installed that way. The payback time is short, the technology proven, the lifetime savings are a great incentive.
The only drawback affects practically all heating, you need electricity to run it. Perhaps in time with advances in thermo-electric materials, this "free energy" can generate enough current to run a geothermal system without needing any connection to the grid, only a start-up battery to get the system running. With additional wells or similar, perhaps then you could run your entire house as well.
This is far closer to providing our energy needs now then fusion from a trace gas mined from tons of moon rock. And no need for government intervention with punitive taxation to force its adoption, capitalism alone dictates this is a great thing to get into, right now, period.
Amen!
"Should President Obama decide to continue with the 2004 Bush plan, enterprising Americans would need to invent many of the things featured in Jones’ film. And for Obama, who is presiding over one of the worst economic crisis in history, an invigorating Kennedy-esque call to space would present a granddaddy of a stimulus package — jobs created, factories built, innovation; to say nothing of stimulating the truly priceless things like learning, inspiring a generation and advancing the species"
This paragraph is economic nonsense. If the money stays in private hands it will do something to create additional wealth. Gov., by definition can't create wealth. I like NASA(especially Hubble Telescope), but creating wealth is not something it does. Trying to call this return to the moon a possible stimulus package is hogwash.
If the Chinese and/or Indians are in a better economic position to get themselves to the moon, well then that's that.
now, maybe there is a case to be made that establishing a permanent presense on the moon has economic benefits. I'd like to hear such arguments.
I can also see how such a mission could be an unequaled folly and, well, I do not see either the Chinese or Indians doing that. Its more within their character to politely say: "US, please, after you…"
If the Chinese and/or Indians are in a better economic position to get themselves to the moon, well then that's that.
now, maybe there is a case to be made that establishing a permanent presence on the moon has economic benefits. I'd like to hear such arguments.
I can also see how such a mission could be an unequaled folly and, well, I do not see either the Chinese or Indians doing that. Its more within their character to politely say: "US, please, after you…"
Thanks for that interesting insight, kadaka. I just wonder if we would ever develop highly capable technology and safer means for us non-NASA-trained humans to get into space and travel between worlds with the lowest minimum of side effects. We have done the impossibilities on Earth, you know? Think about people over 200 years ago saying that it was impossible for men to get to the stars. We can still dream and hope for the best?
Space planes look to be the easiest way to get off this rock without a lot of stress. Simple principle, speed determines how far you can be off the surface. If you want to be in a higher orbit you simply go faster, apply the thrust at a tangent to your current orbit. First you get the craft to where the air is thin for low friction, they could ride piggyback on something else as the Shuttles sometimes do, you could even float one up on balloons. Then you turn on the rocket engines, apply a gentle acceleration of one or perhaps two gees, eventually you will clear the atmosphere. At "escape velocity" you are traveling so fast the centrifugal force generated is equal to the force of gravity, a nudge more and you "fly" off into space.
The drawbacks are that is still a lot of travel in atmosphere, the friction losses consume fuel, and it may take a while to get up to speed. On the surface of the Earth escape velocity is about 7 miles a second, 11.2 kilometers a second, "at least" ten times the speed of a rifle bullet and 34 times the speed of sound. That is a lot of stress on the craft, so it would be best to get very high up to start. A "gee" is 32 ft a second squared [ft / (sec)^2], it would take about 19 and 1/4 hours to reach escape velocity. Rockets as currently used are hard on people but clear atmosphere quickly, getting to where the lower friction is. It would take a good bit of number crunching running many different scenarios to figure out whether space planes or rockets would end up using less fuel.
Now getting between stars or even to our outermost planets, that will be a challenge. There will be years of travel. To avoid the problems mentioned above, a common proposal is continuous acceleration of a craft, as that will act like gravity for the passengers. At the halfway point you turn off the engine, flip the craft around, and fire off the engine (now pointing the other way) to slow down. Very Major Drawback is speed kills, a tiny rifle bullet does equivalent damage to a handheld much heavier pike. With enough speed even microscopic particles are deadly, stray gas molecules can be dangerous, and space is far from being completely empty, even between stars.
So, we go relatively slow, no continuous acceleration. Option one, sleeper ships, if we ever get the technology right. If we can ever completely trust automated systems for that long a time, under what could be emergency conditions. Option two, people are awake. For short trips like in our solar system, there will be the expected problems. For much longer like between stars, generational ships, make your own crew replacements. Currently, no one even knows what a human will end up looking like if raised without gravity, whether they will end up eleven feet tall with limbs no thicker than an egg roll, or if with exercise involving pushing massive things they will be somewhat stronger and closer to "normal." If the effect of gravity is generated with revolving ship sections to about a gee, it might not be so bad. Otherwise, when we get to whatever final destination there is, whether a new planet to colonize or heading back to Earth after an exploratory mission, the current space-born will stay there while they will first have to raise those who can survive the gravity. That could be simulating gravity with centrifugal force, or on the "dark end" dropping "seeder craft" loaded with embryos for artificial wombs, with children given birth by and raised by machines of some sort for the first generation.
In many ways we have the technology right now for space exploration, even between stars, just not much of a safety margin. Safer ways for ordinary people to get to and work in space, not that far off, if you do not mind the complications. The ease of Star Trek, never, not without discovering a brand new kind of physics and loads of other monumental discoveries into super-strong materials and more. But, we can get there, and that is the important part.
And if we want the human species to continue regardless, and seriously considered how a solar hiccup without warning could completely trash our technology and civilization and even all life on Earth, including us and possibly even the bacteria in the deepest depths of the ground and seas, let alone the Hollywood favorite of planet-killing stray asteroids and meteors, we must get off this rock and disperse, as soon as we can do so with the assurance of future generations to come.
You must be logged in to post a comment.