Full Moon 104
jblackman wrote to us with a review of Full Moon. Rather than a more normal book review here, Full Moon is actually a collection of some of the best photographs taken of the Moon over the several decades. It also includes an original essay from Andrew Chaikin, as well. Click below to learn more.
One of the many great successes of the Apollo Program is the photographic record it left to posterity. Over the course of 11 missions and six moon landings, astronauts took over 32,000 still photographs. Out of those 32,000 pictures, a few of them have become iconic, trancending their documentarian roots and embedding themselves in the collective conscious. Many of the rest have languished in NASA vaults, unknown for the most part.| Full Moon | |
| author | Michael Light |
| pages | 244 |
| publisher | Knopf Publishing |
| rating | 8/10 |
| reviewer | jblackman |
| ISBN | 0375406344 |
| summary | A pictorial story of the Moon. |
In Full Moon, Michael Light weaves 129 of these forgotten treasures into a composite moon shot that captures the magnitude -- and the majesty -- of what might be humanity's grandest achievement.
Light follows the course of a hypothetical mission, from the flames and fury of lift-off to the triumphant return to earth. In between are images of a shrinking homeworld, a moon growing ever-larger in size, magnificent lunar vistas, and a vertiginous series of spacewalk photographs.
Full Moon is a triumph, and its status as a space photography tour de force is due to two major factors. Obviously, Light was solely responsible for the selection and arrangement of the photos, and his artistic judgment is what gives this book much of its impact. For example, one of the shots is of perhaps a square foot of nondescript lunar soil. Immediately after it is a picture of the exact same terrain, but this time marked by a human footprint. Even more evocative is the image of a family snapshot, wrapped in plastic, lying on the surface of the moon: a momento left by one of the men who walked there. The picture of a mighty Saturn booster, hurtling toward the heavens, framed by a dark navy sky is (currently) not one of the photographic icons of the Apollo Program, but after seeing it, you'll certainly think that it should be. The sheer breadth of the human exploratory effort is made apparent in gatefold panorama shots of the moon's surface -- and that's even before that little metallic glint catches your eye, and you realize that speck in the dust is the LEM, and this particular picture was taken untold miles away from it.
Light has done a marvelous job of choosing photographs to put on display. Of course, his feat was entirely dependent on the men who were actually there. The astronauts sent to the moon were chosen based on wide variety of criteria, but photographic prowess might as well have been one of them judging by the quality of the pictures they brought back. More than once, a moonscape might seem to possess an almost unreal clarity, as though it were a render. To be sure, an airless environment will do wonders for visibility, but the astronauts and their cameras were also just that good. In addition, the clarity of the prints benefit from an entirely new transfer from the NASA master negatives; most of the pictures seen so far have been third- or fourth-generation copies.
Any issues I had with Full Moon are merely matters of personal preference. I would have liked to see a few pictures from the development and assembly of the spacecraft, or maybe a couple pictures that emphasized the massive human effort that made this program a success. However, their absence does not detract at all from the book as a whole, and a case can easily be made, in fact, as to why they should not have been included. Some might find fault with the spacewalk pictures, as they were culled from the Gemini archives, rather than being true shots from Apollo. To me, though, their origin made not a bit of difference. They were wonderfully composed shots that only enhanced Light's mission to the moon.
Full Moon is capped off with an original essay from Andrew Chaikin (author of A Man On The Moon), notes and comments from Michael Light, and a thumbnailed index to the photographs in the book.
Full Moon is definitely skewed more toward artistic perspectives than scientific. However, I have absolutely no qualms in recommending it to anyone with the slightest interest in either the space program or photography. The purchase of this book is not an insignificant investment, but it is just that: an investment. You'll keep coming back to it, to get one more glimpse of our civilization at its very best.
Purchase this book at fatbrain.
full moon (Score:1)
Re:Do not read this book (Score:1)
Saw this book the other day (Score:1)
Hooptie
Reminds me of a very bright moon and a pompous ass (Score:1)
About Restoration (Score:4)
Sounds intriguing! (Score:1)
More info ... (Score:3)
Re:full moon (Score:1)
Is this a Rorschach test?
Beautiful (Score:1)
The astronauts used specially modified Hasselblad large format cameras and the quality given by the large negative shows up in these photos.
I can't believe the copy negatives were being allowed to rot away (the real negatives are very carefully stored in controlled conditions) as this is world history.
Sorry, I'm in a bad mood this morning... (Score:3)
I would have liked to have seen a few pictures from the development and assembly of the spacecraft, or maybe a couple of pictures that emphasized the massive human effort that made the program a success.
Charles Murray and Catherine Bly Cox wrote a (very well written) account that was all about the massive human effort that made the Apollo program a success (Apollo: Race to the Moon). The only thing they left out was the story of the astronauts, and because of that their book did not sell well and is now out of print.
I have read that surveys show that the American public's support of the space program is "broad but shallow". People want to read the astounding tales of real-life Buck Rogers, but they don't want hear anything about the science and technology that made the whole thing possible. Most people go into computer science and enginering for the money instead of a passion for science and technology. I somehow think there must be a connection between this attitude and the current state of the space program (0 for 2 for the latest Mars probes...)
Why didn't the author try soft morphology? (Score:2)
One can imagine the simplest form of this by using a fine brush that redraws the image. The brush is just a bit too coarse to draw the dust specks as well, so these disappear. Care has to be taken not to destroy fine details, too; therefore this operation has to be refined a bit. (Genetic algorithms "train" the brush so it will improve the operation.)
Very interesting research is going on in this area - and these pictures would have been a perfect chance to translate this into action.
Moon Pictures (Score:1)
Great tht they remembered to take the lens cap off (Score:2)
Imaging and the camera (Score:3)
A little immature however slightly funny nontheless.
What really I thought was interesting was this little quote from the adobe link further down:
Light says he uses Photoshop "as if it were a darkroom, not a fantasy lab."
He did not "put material in or take material out, or move things around, or change a
red to a blue." Even so, he notes, "photographs have never been reality anyway. Their
veracity and objectivity have been a culturally shared fantasy from the start."
Well stemming from the obvious plug for adobe products I would have to disagree with his last statement. In all but the most technologically primitive cultures we have pretty much integrated that concept of the camera into almost everyone's mind. Look at national geographic. One of the most interesting magazines that is read in almost every country with people who can read or at least look at pictures. I see no compelling reason that pictures would be fantasy. When I see a picture I generally see reality. In fact there are mathmetical means of telling if said image is in fact real or not.
The trend to the obscure is not one that I am particularly fond of. Reality is ever present regardless of how we try to dilute it.
I hate it when this happens... (Score:3)
*reads Full Moon*
*turns into werewolf*
Arrgh. This makes typing difficult.
Re:Moon Pictures (Score:1)
One of the interesting things about these photographs is that they exhibit an almost uncanny level of clarity and detail.
Another fascinating line of thought is that if photographs represent an almost symbolic (or "iconic," if you prefer) historical text, we can view the entire situation as analogous to a corporation leaking controlled bits of information to the public.
In other words, if there are thousands of these photos that have been sitting untouched in the NASA vaults, what about them made them unpalatable for public consumption? Conversely, what about the publicizied ones made them appropos? While one my correctly postulate that a Freedom of Information Act (or a relative thereof) might provide a means to leverage various declassified government-held photographs (anyone for Cuban Missle Crisis Satellite Photos?), the question has to become one of interpretation, rather than access.
Ultimately then, what we face in the software community resonates strongly with this text. Should we view Sun's hesitancy to release JAVAC source code as being analogous to governmental hesitancy to release these photographs?
Re:Imaging and the camera (Score:2)
These aren't trivial issues, they're central to art and photography, and other fields like medicine. Ask any med student how long it takes them to learn to read X-rays, path specimens etc--we have to adapt to the picture as much as getting the picture to adapt to us.
Re:Boring (Score:3)
change that often, you know.
Not all images of the moon are created equal and not all ideas are either. Future generations may wish to see the past and actually find out more about it. People in the past may have been more forgiving of what the see but take modern video games or images as an example. We supposedly had "good" imaging technology in the 1970's and 1980's with video games and instant cameras and the ever popular Poleroid camera. We increasingly want more out of our images and that's where things like this come in.
Huge masses of photograps and data is literally rotting away in old and hard to retrieve data formats that have betrayed us. I for one would welcome the possibility that perhaps this data will be left intact for over 100+ years without possible degradation.
However, the recent shots of the near earth asteroid were pretty interesting... At least there is a rock that I haven't seen before... Even had a white-spot to spruce things up and get
you thinking!
Explain exactly how a spot of white will allow for creativity? Is that similar top the ink blot tests that psychs preform? I really don't get it. In the long term all that you see are images because we never hardly go anywhere any more. Our missions have all concentrated on Earth orbital/minor reconissance and construction attempts.
If you are refering to the possibility of earth impact with an asteriod I think that highly improbably however it's not totally unlikely. I can think of better things to spend world wide money on than acting like Fox Mulder.
Re:Moon Pictures (Score:1)
Well you know how it is, you get your photos back from developing, and there are always the shots with a bit of camera shake, or where you accidentally chopped off Auntie Mabel's head, or something...
I would imagine that there are loads of near duplicates. You don't just take one photo - you take lots - then pick out the best. You only need one picture of an astronaut standing by the LEM, you don't need to see the other dozen(s) from the same shoot.
Re:Imaging and the camera (Score:2)
to represent 3 dimensions in 2 dimensions--from Egyptian art through to Picasso--how they have chosen to do so makes clear the issues involved (and the issue remains live with
photography as well); the same example shows that people in different cultures still read images in very different ways (I wonder what proportion of the world has ever taken a
photograph?); and finally, as someone famous said (anyone know who?), pictures never show you what's outside the frame, a key source of their artificiality--and you can extend the
idea to the fact that they offer you only a moment in time, as well.
Well then by that reasoning your eyes and brain are in fact not representative of reality.
Photos are in fact slices of said reality. If I am driving down the street and get pulled over for speeding at the particular moment in time that the policeman was clocking my speed I was going over the speed limit and therefore I get a ticked. Is that fantasy?
Images that a camera can take are just about on par with what our eyes see. If you actually look at all the people who have glasses/contacts/blind in the world you start to understand that even the camera's limited ability to represent information is not that bad.
You can't see everything and are therefore not omniscient that makes you view of reality not possible in your eyes. I would possibly contend that what you see if of paramount importance to reality. All we have to do is increase our technology to sample more data faster then we have a better picture of reality.
Think of this as a limit on the function of reality as x->infinity.
These aren't trivial issues, they're central to art and photography, and other fields like medicine. Ask any med student how long it takes them to learn to read X-rays, path
specimens etc--we have to adapt to the picture as much as getting the picture to adapt to us.
This is a symptom of data representation and of trying to get something to actually be understood. This is not saying that the x-rays are of little gremlins but of data that isn't 100% perfect.
Can't open source without source (Score:1)
This book _ROCKS_ (Score:3)
Re:Moon Pictures (Score:2)
Mabel's head, or something...
I would imagine that there are loads of near duplicates. You don't just take one photo - you take lots - then pick out the best. You only need one picture of an astronaut standing by
the LEM, you don't need to see the other dozen(s) from the same shoot.
I for one wouldn't really care about that. Think about the collectibility of such things. A while back when slashdot had that link to the satellite imaging company I was intrigued and looked at the thing. For purely "scientific" purposes I thought that would be really cool. Problem is I can't justify a price tag of $1,000 (minimum) to get even a small ammount of data.
They could always use some of the benifits of linux and large disk drives (this could all be done for less than $30,000 total) and run servers with all their old data (flight reccords, images, telemetry) which is obviously releasable by now. I would love to look at the flight data of the first mission to the moon or perhaps the stuff from Apollo 13.
Re:Can't open source without source (Score:2)
Now I may be taking bait but please tell me how a large organization that can at least take photographs of plans or duplicate them could loose something that important? Or more likely is the data classified.
Re:This book _ROCKS_ (Score:1)
you catch a glimpse of a copper deposit in the dirt, or some red patch on a space suit. Its almost a color-less world on the moon.
Color photographs have been around for quite a while. Want something really impressive. There are photographs of the invasion of Iwo Jima that are all in color. Quite fascinating for the time.
Re:??????? (Score:1)
I think that the real problem is that you can't see what this represents. The Apollo program was in fact a mission that involved a great deal of technical know how and was not really that easy to accomplish. I think that qualifies as something that nerds would like.
What does this have to do with ANY topic that is routinely covered by slashdot?
Perhaps the second part of the title of the site.
..Stuff that Matters
Re:Reminds me of a very bright moon and a pompous (Score:1)
Are you saying we wasted our money on the Apollo program? I think that getting important data about one of our celesital bodies in the solar system would be good enough.
The exhibition is amazing (Score:3)
I saw it at the Hayward Gallery in London last autumn. Even though I'd 'read' the book previously (okay, there isn't that much text aside from the captions at the back), and there was no new material in the exhibition, seeing one of the lunar panoramics taking up most of a wall was awesome.
Try to see the exhibition (Score:1)
Blown up big I got the impression of a vast, trackless desert. You tend to look at video footage of the moon and think of it as a little ball in the depths of space. When you look at the photos, you realise that we have explored but a few tiny patches of an immense and ancient world.
Re:Imaging and the camera (Score:2)
Photographers spend time in the dark room or on Photoshop making corrections, trying to get their photograph to represent what it did look like, the lights, lighting, contrast, etc. So if its there intent to capture "reality" it takes an awful lot of work and effort. Its not just something thats instantly caputured on film perfectly.
Also the very talented photographers have alot of imput as to the final feeling the photograph will protray as to the "reality" its trying to capture. A small example being portrait photos for business execs. If the exec pissed off our photographer he purposely get the shot so that the colors, contrast, etc were perfect, but made the exec look short, old, etc, just by using camera angles. The exec looked fine in real life at those angles, but not so hot on silver-hylide. The photograph itself looked beautiful, but the exec looked like an ass.
Can we have some new pictures please? (Score:1)
Re:Imaging and the camera (Score:2)
That's one of the central disputes of philosophy generally, and the philosophy of science in particular: what can we know?
"Photos are in fact slices of said reality. If I am driving down the street and get pulled over for speeding at the particular moment in time that the policeman was clocking my speed I was going over the speed limit and therefore I get a ticked. Is that fantasy?"
Nope. But you may not have been speeding. There are many layers of abstraction before you get your ticket.
"Images that a camera can take are just about on par with what our eyes see. If you actually look at all the people who have glasses/contacts/blind in the world you start to understand that even the camera's limited ability to represent information is not that bad."
Of course, a camera has a limited ability to represent reality--but that's a much weaker claim than what you originally posted. And my points about what's left out of shot, and 2d vs 3d, still stand.
"You can't see everything and are therefore not omniscient that makes you view of reality not possible in your eyes."
Couldn't have put it better myself. We cannot be sure that what we're seeing is 'reality'. All we can do is trust. Ever seen a magician? Or a movie?
"I would possibly contend that what you see if of paramount importance to reality. All we have to do is increase our technology to sample more data faster then we have a better picture of reality.
Think of this as a limit on the function of reality as x->infinity."
This sounds close to one of Kuhn's theories of how science works (can't remember its name, can anyone help?) He said that theories are replaced by other theories that predict the data better each time, but that you never got to perfect descriptions. (I paraphrase badly)
"This is a symptom of data representation and of trying to get something to actually be understood. This is not saying that the x-rays are of little gremlins but of data that isn't 100% perfect."
Nope, it's not just that. It's to say that the *representation* of the data is an abstraction that requires conventions and rules to interpret. These rules need not be explict, but they are there--whether we're looking at photos or anything else.
Insightful? (Score:1)
- Y
Re:Not one star in sky in ANY picture (Score:1)
myself.
Well I think you will be waiting for quite a long time to get anything close to your idea. They have been saying this stuff for 30 years and they are not really that much closer.
Re:Can't open source without source (Score:3)
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SATURN V PLANS
"Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, the Saturn V blueprints have not been lost. They are kept at Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm.
The problem in re-creating the Saturn V is not finding the drawings, it is finding vendors who can supply mid-1960's vintage hardware (like guidance system components), and the fact that the launch pads and VAB have been converted to Space Shuttle use, so you have no place to launch from.
By the time you redesign to accommodate available hardware and re-modify the launch pads, you may as well have started from scratch with a clean sheet design."
Kean
Re:Can't open source without source (Score:1)
Re:Can we have some new pictures please? (Score:2)
Well with things like the Hubble space telescope now repaired we can look at the moon in minute detail and gather photos enough to determine how many pebbles the moon has on it's surface.
Re:Loved It (Score:1)
Michael Light, the author/artist (?), explains that he was able to obtain access to the original negatives and digitize them, while most sources use third-or-fourth generation copies. I hope NASA makes more of its original data open for digital conversion and preservation, before it becomes damaged. (Although, to be fair, most of its current data is already digital--- all the more reason to make it publicly available.)
Re:Or even better - get the IMAX camera up there (Score:2)
VHS vs. DVD
We already have technologies that do very high quality imaging of space. Usually however you need a IMAX screen to display standard or true output from an IMAX camera. Plus what do you really think will happen to said footage? Well a bunch of corporate big wigs will just create something like "Spaceflight 2: Man Returns!!!" (only playing a IMAX(tm) theaters) and charge people $20 a person to watch it. That I personally do not care for.
Re:Great tht they remembered to take the lens cap (Score:1)
materialism isn't everything
WTF do you mean by that?
A: Hasselblads were the best quality camera money could buy back then. For a mission like that you needed the best equipment to bring back the best photographs. Hasselblads were standard issue.
B: They had to be specially modified to stand up to conditions in space and on the moon. Shielded against radiation, kitted out with modified shutter buttons that could be operated wearing spacesuit gloves etc.
You sir, are obviously a twat who should be moderated way, way down...
Hmmm not quite what I thought. (Score:1)
heh
Tenement
--
Re:??????? (Score:1)
Re:Great tht they remembered to take the lens cap (Score:1)
You, sir, are a moron for not reading the subject and getting the slightly stupid joke.
Re:Not one star in sky in ANY picture (Score:1)
If you openned up the camera enough to register the stars, the lunar surface would be horrendously overexposed. By stepping down enough that the surface is not overexposed, the stars end up not registering.
Same thing with eyes, BTW: to see the stars, your eyes have to be significantly dark-adapted, and the bright lunar surface spoils that. During a lunar night, you should be find, however.
BTW, this also has to do with that other conspiracy favourite, the fact that shadows on the Moon aren't 100% black. They are slightly lit up by light reflected off the bright lunar surface.
Re:Moon Pictures (Score:1)
Re:Sorry, I'm in a bad mood this morning... (Score:2)
My favorite episode of Tom Hank's HBO series "From the Earth to the Moon" is the one about the building of the LEM. In fact the series makes a point to give at least some time to EVERYONE involved, including the astronaut's wives.
This book, however, is not the proper forum for these subjects. It is a book of images, not words. No matter how interesting the accounts of building the spacecraft may be, a photograph of man walking on the moon is vastly more awe inspiring than a photo of a clean room or an assembly line.
Doug
Ckaiken's amazing other stuff (Score:2)
The book A MAN ON THE MOON was recently published in a 3 Volume, Illustrated commemorative set, also with many amazing photographs.
For all you space geeks I highly recommend it.
And if any of you were watching the Mars Polar Lander news conferences (I know I was) Andy Chaiken was there reporting for space.com . I don't know if space.com is any good since it's a subscripion space newspaper (at least it used to be) and it seems a little pricey to me, but it looks like it's of quality. Especially if they have guys like Chaiken on the staff.
Thanks (Score:1)
I was repeating what, in retrospect, must have been an urban myth. You are certainly right that recreating the Saturn V exactly would be an enormous effort.
But we wouldn't necessarily have to start completely from scratch. The Shuttle system is modular, and could be adapted to a heavy lift configuration by replacing the orbiter with a cargo "pod"
If you don't have to worry about bringing the orbiter back, most of the weight (wings, landing gear, heat tiles, etc.) is waste. You could get as much as a hundred tons to low orbit that way. The orbiter weighs 175,000 lbs., and its largest payload was 48,000 lbs. You'd still need structure and the the three Shuttle main engines, but that still leaves a lot of payload capacity.
Re:Can't open source without source (Score:1)
ps. JSC = Johnson Space Center
Re:Do not read this book (Score:1)
CmdrTaco, Hemos? Can you implement an auto-reply? (Score:1)
For example:
Jon Katz: "This is my opinion and some readers may find it interesting. BTW, I'm not the devil."
Troll#1: "only linux matters, screw this guy"
Troll#2: "dude, he is wrong and i am right"
Troll#3: "first post!"
Troll#4: "Dude, slashdot has gotten SO boring since I started reading it"
Troll#5: "I never submit any news, THATS why it sucks so bad. But now that it sucks so bad I won't ever submit any news cause that would just make it good... oh... I see... No, no, I don't understand. For a minute I though that Jon Katz wasn't the devil. He's trying to trick us!"
Troll#6: "first post!"
Andrew Chaiken the vocal percussionist? (Score:2)
Chaiken, who sings/spits with an a'cappella
band named the House Jacks. He is able to
produce some of the most phenomenal percussion
sounds/licks with his vocal tract -- well beyond
the average "beat box". Is this the same guy?
I call Javascript shenannagins on them (Score:1)
Could we please shoot the designer of this site? (Whadda mean, Javascript abuse isn't a capital crime yet?)
The site's front page consists of a moon photo with a couple of blinking stars - no links, instructions, icons, or text other than "Full Moon". Neither the "Full Moon" text nor the large moon image are clickable. If you happen to guess that the stars aren't just GIF animations and move your mouse over one, link labels pop up. I hope no-one paid money for this, that it was done by someone's 14-year-old nephew who just read a book or two on HTML and Javascript; but I fear that a "professional" web designer charged lots of money for this travesty.
Arrgghh! It's worse than that! According to a comment in the source, it took two "professional" designers to create this mess.
Please, someone, tell me that this is somehow only because the site is slashdotted, that it's somehow better when not under load.
(Thus ends today's rant. Sorry.)
Re:This book _ROCKS_ (Score:1)
All the photos are in color (or most of them atleast), and its just interesting seeing a color photo with only one spot of red or blue anywhere in the picture. If the spot were not there, then you would have no way of knowing it was actually in color at all. That was my point
But why bother? (Score:2)
Going to the Moon is something the shuttle (and its existing launch systems) is unable to do.
In the context of this discussion, rebuilding the Saturn V would only really be worth the effort if we wanted to go to the moon again in a historic sense... something akin to the 'build a boat out of reeds and sail it across the Atlantic' experiment a few years ago, which I've forgotten the name of.
Anyway, since most modern launch platforms for deep space are designed to be as efficient as possible, and I remember reading somewhere (don't have the link handy, sorry, somewhere on NASA's site) that the majority of the deep-space, outer-earth orbit stuff that NASA does is only possible due to the use of the Earth to 'slingshot' cargo out
So, maybe we could use the shuttle system to get up into Earth orbit, and use the Earth itself to slingshot off to the moon again - thus not requiring the heavy industry for the Saturn V program.
Remember, our computers are much better now than they were in the 60's, and calculating space trajectories using the slingshot method may just be better than rebuilding heavy hardware to get us out to Lagrange...
As long as NASA remembers what measurement system to use, of course.
Re:official web site (Has pictures from the book!) (Score:1)
Keep in mind that the Moon is lit by the Sun, so, except in shade, the sunny 16 rule applies: the correct exposure is about f/16 with a shutter speed approximately the reciprocal of the film speed. E.g., with ISO 100 film, f/16 at 1/125 second. You definitely aren't going to get stars to show up with an exposure like that.
Re:Yay ! (Score:1)
I'm sorry to inform you there aren't any pictures of the inside of the moon. I assume this is what you wanted, since everyone over the age of six knows there certainly isn't any "dark side" on the OUTSIDE of the moon. Or did you mean pictures of the night side? Those are easy - turn off your monitor and you'll see the one I attached to this message.
Ah no. (Score:2)
Re:Can we have some new pictures please? (Score:2)
I bought it! (Score:1)
Spookily enough, according to my calendar, today there *is* a full moon...
Coincidence?