MovieChat Forums > Destination Moon Discussion > Climbing in and out of the ship (with a ...

Climbing in and out of the ship (with a possible spoiler)

posted 12 years ago by hobnob53
23 replies | jump to latest

Much as I like this movie, a few things about it never quite made sense. Case in point....

When the ship lands on the moon, Barnes and Cargraves open the hatch, take in the panorama, then flip the switch opening the built-in spikes that form a sort of ladder to enable them to get to the surface.

Okay, a bunch of things:

First, as we see in the long shots, they have to climb down the side of the ship in order to get to the surface -- and it's a hell of a long way down. (And even then one of them has to carry a small ladder over his shoulder that he can hook on to the last spikes to make it not only easier to get onto the surface, but -- more importantly -- make it possible to get back onto the spikes and climb up. Plus, Cargraves has to jump down from the last spikes, with the ladder, in order to be able to hook it on for the rest of the crew.)

Anyway, having to step out onto those narrow, square spikes, hanging a hundred or more feet in the sky, in order to climb up and down, the only means of egress from or access to the ship, is to say the least an extremely dangerous, cumbersome and inefficient system. To cite the obvious, what if one of them missed a step or slipped and fell? Even in one-sixth gravity, a slow fall of a hundred feet still isn't very survivable...and from any height, to come crashing down onto the lunar surface wearing a spacesuit would most likely shatter the visor, smash the oxygen tanks, rip the suit, any number of things. In any case, it's a good way to lose the crew pretty quickly.

Not to mention that repeatedly having to climb up and down just to go in and out is pretty time-consuming -- as well as consuming a lot of irreplaceable oxygen in the men's tanks. Inefficient is hardly an adequate word.

Second, how do they get those huge pieces of equipment in and out of the ship? We see the guys lugging around an enormous camera, a telescope, many other bulky apparatus over the surface, but we never see how they get the stuff down (or for that matter, where it's been stored). Again, even in 1/6 G, each piece still weighs a hundred pounds or more and is far too large and unwieldy for one man to haul out of the ship and carry down. Okay, maybe they lower the stuff by rope, though there's no sign of that. Hardly a smart system, and again, one with a lot of risk to the equipment and the men, especially if the rope breaks and one of them is standing below ready to catch the giant telescope his pals are lowering.

All right, here's the possible spoiler....

Third, in the last portion of the movie, when they have to throw stuff out of the ship to lighten it so they can take off, the crisis comes to a head when Sweeney, the last one with a spacesuit, climbs out of the ship to allow the others to live.

Now, it's easy to dump things out of the ship -- you just drop 'em, as they in fact do. No problem. But Sweeney? First, he gets down to the surface awfully quickly. Then, when Barnes radios him to pick up the used oxygen tank, rope and a file, so he can come back up and put Barnes's plan to save them all into operation, Sweeney once more exhibits superhuman agility and speed -- making it back up in about a minute, and lugging all the stuff to boot. (How he managed to find each item so fast from the mass of discarded junk lying around the base of the ship is another issue.) There's just no way he could have gotten down, collected the stuff, and gotten back up in the times shown...aside from how easily he could carry all that stuff back up with him, quickly or otherwise.

Okay, spoilers over....

Some kind of exterior elevator would seem to have been a far better set-up to transport the men and gear quickly, efficiently, safely and practically to and from the surface. This dopey ladder concept is the one aspect of the design of Spaceship Luna that really makes no sense, from any perspective. Not to mention that some of the feats the crew manages with that spike system simply bear no relation to logic or reality.

Just complaining, after all these years.

[–] excel99 12 years ago

To answer your second question first, they could have had a wench and pulley system for lowering the equipment. It may have even been 'hidden' like the ladder. Either way, not so hard to imagine or surmise that was what was intended.

Now, about the ladder. Whether or not it is the optimal system, I like the fact that the writers (Heinlein included) actually THOUGHT about this point. Most SF of that time would have designed the ship with an elevator, or made it land like an airplane and the occupants just step off. But there was at least a minimal attempt at realism for this film. Remember, this film was made LONG before Apollo, so they really had to use their imaginations to figure out how a rocket would get to the moon and back. Assuming a single stage reusable rocket which will carry a crew of 4 and heavy equipment, it must be of considerable size. Therefore it must have a lot of space for fuel. The fuel and rocket must be at the BASE of the ship, therefore, the crew compartment must be on top. If it's on top there must be a system for getting the crew to the surface. Now, they could have easily just used 'Hollywood magic' and given the ship an elevator (or a transporter, for that matter), but they decided to be a bit realistic and assume that weight was an important consideration in the design of the ship (indeed, the entire plot dilemma about stranding someone on the moon is built on this very premise!). Using a ladder system is, in fact, the most weight efficient way to deal with egress. It is the system actually used by Apollo (albeit at a lower height, but your criticisms were serious considerations in the design of the Apollo lunar lander). So, although not perfect, rather than fault the film for how 'unrealistic' it is, you should admire it for how much MORE REALISTIC it is compared to other space films of the 1950s.

About Sweeney getting on and off the ship with lightning speed, hey, it's 50s cheesy SF! What do you expect?

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Destination Moon is one of my favorite films -- probably in my top five -- in large part because of its dedication to realism and scientific accuracy, combined with its almost romantic vision of the glorious possibilities of space flight.

Your exposition on why the filmmakers chose the "ladder" system is sound and, as it relates to the location of fuel tanks and so on, very obvious. We know the lower portion of the rocket is not accessible to the crew, which we've learned in Cargraves's explanation of the rocket's design to the group of businessmen earlier in the movie. All this is true, and frankly, mostly beside the point.

The very fact that the movie is so devoted to being as realistic as possible for its time makes the ladder concept so egregiously poor. All the issues I raised -- about its hazards, waste of time and effort, loss of precious oxygen in the crew's exertions in climbing up and down -- were obvious problems, even in 1950, especially when one considers how much time and thought was given to the other aspects of spaceflight.

With respect, this is the flaw in your comments: you hail the film and its makers for their devotion to realism, then excuse the utter lack of realism in overlooking all the many problems inherent in the "ladder" system. Granted that a ladder was a realistic system in Apollo, but that was for a few short steps -- not from a height of over a hundred feet. Your comment that Apollo used a ladder "albeit at a lower height" is a masterpiece of understatement! There is a huge difference between Luna and the LEM.

Also, why is it "Hollywood magic" to envision an elevator of some sort? Why is that any more "magical" than any of the other wonders depicted in the film -- including a hidden ladder system? Elevators haven't been magical since they were invented in the 1850s. It was a perfectly reasonable and practical concept -- much more so than their ladder -- and not at all the hallmark of a lesser space film.

Have you seen Project Moon Base (1953)? Heinlein wrote the story for that film too, and while it's much cheaper than DM, it's remarkably prescient in its predictions for landing on the moon -- in many respects, more so than Destination Moon. Despite its flaws, PMB depicts a lunar landing vehicle remarkably similar to the real thing...and in that craft, smaller, lower and much closer to the surface, the astronauts use a seat system raised and lowered like an elevator to travel to and from the ship. So the concept certainly was not unrealistic or unimaginable for the time, or to the same writer.

As to getting the equipment in and out, a system of winches and pulleys might have been used...though there's no indication of that, or of any system. Since this would also be a cumbersome and hazardous system -- still basically lowering the stuff by rope -- the same problems exist. An elevator -- a practical system, hardly "magical" or impossible -- would have worked much, much better. The extra weight over the ladder system could have readily been dealt with.

Incidentally, I liked your typo in the first sentence -- a "wench and pulley system". (You obviously missed it.) That's what the crew really needed on the trip -- a few wenches to keep them amused during all those "dull" stretches!

Oh, and Destination Moon is not a "cheesey" 50s sci-fi flick. After talking about how serious and realistic it was, it's surprising to see you dismiss it that way...even if only in connection with Joe Sweeney's speed in climbing up and down!

[–] excel99 12 years ago

The ladder system is more realistic than an elevator. It's simple, there are few mechanical parts, there is less chance of system failure. If the elevator breaks down, you have no way of getting on or off the ship.

The drawback of the ladder is simply that people have to be careful.

And from a plot device standpoint, the elevator just opens the film up to more criticism. Weight is an obvious issue, seeing as how it's the central obstacle to the crew's survival. Yet they designed the ship with an enormously heavy and UNNECESSARY elevator? You criticize the ladder, but I guess just about every casual viewer would have criticized the elevator for the obvious reason that even a child knows a ladder weighs less than an elevator!

Oh, and the Sweeney comment was a joke...

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Well, first, I know the Sweeney comment was a joke. So was my reply about it.

Anyway, an elevator would not necessarily have to be cumbersome or appreciably heavier than the ladder. It wouldn't be a big, enclosed chamber or large, heavy platform. A small platform just wide enough to hold two men (something like a small version of window washers' platforms used in skyscrapers) would be easy to enclose in the ship -- as easy as a winch and pulley system for cargo -- and would be far safer and faster as transport up and down for the crew...not to mention it would conserve their limited oxygen (a concern you haven't spoken about). Such an elevator might also be used for lowering small objects. (Again, Heinlein conceived just such a device for Project Moon Base.) A winch-and-pulley system could also be included for larger equipment.

Alternatively, the elevator could be just a small, one-man platform, little wider than half a dozen of the "spikes", that would ride up and down a hidden slot that could be opened along the side of the ship, much as the ladder spikes are.

Weight is of course a critical factor (as we discover), but crew safety and expedition efficiency are also vital. The ship isn't built with weight the sole factor in basing all design decisions. So if a more reliable, safer means of getting the men to and from the surface were deemed at least as crucial, further adjustments for weight factors would be made to ensure the inclusion of a satisfactory transport system.

Mechanical failure is always a potential problem -- equally with the ladder as with any other system. Suppose the "spikes" failed to deploy at the start? The men wouldn't be left on the surface but wouldn't be able to get down. Suppose they didn't retract? Could the ship take off or land with them still extended? As for being stranded on the surface, an elevator system of some sort could be developed with its lowering lines designed as ladders, enabling the men to get up and down should the elevator fail.

The point of all this is that the system used has many drawbacks in safety, tearing and falling hazards, speed of descent and ascent, overtaxing the men's energy and depleting their oxygen in making long climbs up and down. It's the ladder more than an elevator of some sort that seems unnecessary, far more dangerous, and the less desirable option.

[–] Kimo46 12 years ago

The "spikes" were ladder rungs seen edge on; they step out of the hatch and then do a turn so they face the hull of the ship before climbing down.

I agree that the ladder is a cumbersome egress system. The problem with it is that each rung (from the hatch to the tail of the ship) has to have some kind of actuator to push it out from the hull so it can be used. If a single rung fails to deploy, they might skip it, but if a number of them fail there's no way to get down to the surface.

The "bosun's chair" hoist seen in Conquest of Space was a better solution, because it could carry both crew members and equipment.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Rungs is a much better word, of course. Thanks.

Anyway, we haven't spoken about how they climbed down the ladder -- turned toward the ship, as you say, or climbing down at a sideways angle, using just one row of rungs. Basically it doesn't make much difference. The potential problem you point out, of one or more of the rungs failing to deploy, concurs with previous statements on potential issues with this system, and that's just one potential hazard.

I'd thought about Conquest of Space, but as I recall they also used a straight "ladder" system, since when the General starts emptying the water out of the tanks his son has to climb a long series of rungs to get back in -- there's no bosun's chair that I recall in that film. I also think they had to climb back into the ship the same way at the climax. This aside, we never see them deploy their means of exit and egress, as we do in DM. Could you be confusing the bosun's chair method with another film? It actually sounds like the system I mentioned that was used in Project Moon Base.

[–] BrianRMorris 12 years ago

I've enjoyed the foregoing discussion but the rungs sound to me like a set of built-in problems - weight, safety, exertion - so I suggest that we forget them. Let's use a helicopter winch system -- On the wall of the air-lock put a steel beam that swings outboard on hinges; on the end of the beam put a pulley. Run a rope from an inboard electric winch through the pulley; lower and raise the people in safety harnesses and the cargo in nets.

That's a simple, well-tried loading system with a reasonable safety record that doesn't cost a lot in money or complexity or weight; I'd trust myself to such a system a lot more happily than I'd embark on experimental space-flight.

The winch, rope and pulley won't weigh much and can be left behind on the Moon; the winch is only an electric motor -- it might be used for one purpose in flight and this other purpose on the surface, so it needn't be extra load.

What if the winch fails? Well, we've still got the rope and pulley and legs and backs for manual hauling (in low gravity). What if the engine, computers, oxygen or pilot's health fail? This expedition is ALL risk; winch-failure is a trivial problem.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

You're exactly right, BrianR. A mechanized/motorized lift system is the most logical and effective means of traveling down to the surface and back -- for both men and equipment -- particularly if it can be jettisoned before take off, reducing the ship's payload. (Presumably, when they get back to Earth they'll get down by means of the elevator gantry they rode to get into the rocket in the first place.)

You're also right that any system can fail. You can build in redundancies but there are never any guarantees. The entire mission is fraught with risks.

[–] [email protected] 11 years ago

I've enjoyed the foregoing discussion but the rungs sound to me like a set of built-in problems - weight, safety, exertion - so I suggest that we forget them.

The thing you're forgetting is that Heinlein was a graduate of the United State Naval Academy. He didn't see ladders as any kind of issue. Climbing 100 feet to the crow's nest was an everyday activity aboard a '30s vintage warship.

I suspect that he did underestimate the difficulties of moving in an inflated space suit. Given when he was writing that is a forgivable oversight.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

There you go again, implying that because someone has a degree in engineering, they are so expert that they can never make mistakes, can engineer anything flawlessly, and may never have their work questioned, since by definition they've thought of everything.

Although even you allow that Heinlein may have "underestimate[d] the difficulties of moving in an inflated space suit". That oversight may or may not have been "forgivable" (if I was wearing the suit it wouldn't be), but if that was a flaw, why could there be no others -- as clearly there are? Destination Moon has a lot of design and several scientific flaws, but they're all forgivable because the film was made in 1950 when knowledge and experience in such fields was close to nil. The movie is good despite its flaws. Why is that so hard to acknowledge?

Rather than this reflexive, unthinking defense of Heinlein as an unflawed visionary and expert, why not admit flatly that he made many mistakes here but did the best he could given the knowledge available at the time? Much better (more accurate and far more interesting) to look at him as the real man he was than as some sort of plaster god who could never be wrong.

Considering that Heinlein was educated at Annapolis in the 1930s, where spacecraft and related impedimenta were not exactly topics of discussion or on the curriculum, he was not a trained expert in the design or engineering of spacecraft, spacesuits or other space-related equipment. Whatever he knew was acquired later, at a time when this science was in its infancy and subject to erroneous beliefs or calculations, and he himself never engaged in engineering actual space craft or equipment. Then, too, engineering rapidly advanced far beyond anything Heinlein learned in the 1930s and soon moved past most of the early, quaintly unworkable designs and assumptions Heinlein had first laid out in the 40s.

Climbing a 100' ladder to the crow's nest may have been an "everyday activity" on warships but I doubt even Heinlein would claim that there was no essential difference between climbing a ladder on a naval vessel on the seas vs. climbing a series of rungs along the side of a spaceship sitting in a vacuum, all while wearing a spacesuit and carrying bulky equipment.

Once again, your focus is so narrow and myopic that you miss the critical issues entirely. A neat-looking design that's inefficient or unworkable in actual use is of little value.

Even Heinlein quickly moved beyond his spaceship conception pictured in Destination Moon. As I believe I've mentioned, in 1953 he worked on a B-picture called Project Moonbase which, its cinematic shortcomings notwithstanding, depicted a spacecraft that bore a striking resemblance to the real LEM used 16 years later, as well as a motorized platform lowered to and from the surface to transport the crew and their equipment. That was remarkably visionary. (He even envisioned a kind of clunky cell phone used on Earth.)

[–] sonofagun 11 years ago

Perhaps the large equipment (telescope, etc.) were stored in the large cylindrical pods located on the bottom of the ship's fins.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

They'd be pretty flat, wouldn't they?

[–] sonofagun 11 years ago

Perhaps the answqer is - I kept noticing some kind of reddish orange ramp or fin attached to the base of the ship - very prominently seen at 22 seconds into this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBEfpVkwWS4

also is seen while the ship is on the moon (@ 1:28) - looks possibly like some kind of off/on loading ramp.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

No, that's just a stabilizer. It's too small, narrow and thin to be either storage or a ramp. How they get the equipment up and down, or where it's stored in the ship, is never shown, though we do see the astronauts carrying massive equipment out from underneath the ship. But where it came from and how it was lowered to the surface isn't seen or mentioned.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sonofagun 11 years ago

Well then logically, storage in the pods is the only answer - was probably stored broken down and then reassembled on the moon for use.

[–] sonofagun 11 years ago

Oh and somebody was worried about the ladder rungs possibly not deploying thus stranding the men on the ship.

Sweeney thought of this problem ahead of time so he greased all the rungs REAL good!

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

He probably crushed all the equipment to fit in the landing pods too. Good man in a pinch.

[–] sonofagun 10 years ago

Yup, the pods served three purposes - to cushion the shock of landing, to prevent the fins from sinking in, and as storage for the equipment.

Mystery solved!

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Yay! And to think how flat they got all that stuff (telescope, camera, etc.) stored in the pods.

Not to mention that if the crew slipped and fell off the rungs the pods would act as trampolines and they'd be saved...once they stopped bouncing in 1/6 G.

[–] sonofagun 10 years ago

Now you're being silly.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Not a moment too soon!