Mission Space Interior Photo

[morphi]

If this really is the main ride vehilce, I think it is quite disappointing. While it is true that the real space shuttle's windows are fairly small, they are not simply a perfect rectangle separated from the other windows by more than a foot of metal, guages, and knobs. They are contoured, wrap-around, and close together. By simply changing the shape, position, and closeness of the windows on this ride, the visual impact would be greatly improved, even if the windows were still small.

Even so, I like the point made earlier that even if the windows on modern spacecraft looked axactly like this, reality should not get in the way of the show. Especially since this supposedly happens in the future and we are not bound by today's limits in spacecraft window technology.

I don't understand why all motion simulator video screens are all so flat and rectangular. Changing the shape and contour of the screen would make these rides much more realistic and compelling.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Ask them, the thrill of lift-off and the amusements of micro-gravity are nothing compared to simply seeing the Earth glide underneath.

This may be very true. However, we don't simply send astronauts into space just so they can take in the view.

Remember what we are talking about here. A ride in Epcot - the park that is supposed to educate us on a broad array of topics. While a ride that would give us an almost lifelike, panoramic view of what you'd see if you were floating around in outer space would be cool, such a ride could be put in any park and really wouldn't educate us about much of anything. Face it, most of the astronauts who are lucky enough to have access to a view of Earth from so far away only get to see it thru a small window anyway. I guess the attraction many of you want is really Mission:Spacewalk.

I don't know what to make of M:S, and I'll havce to wait to experience what it offers before I pass judgement. One picture of one aspect of the overall attraction should not be enough to scare anyone off, IMHO. What you see in this picture of the "pod" is not a window, it is a control panel similar to what astronauts might actually use. Going into space is not like driving a car, steering the wheel and taking in the scenery as the stars wiz by. Most spaceships (the shuttle aside) don't have a windshield and a drivers seat. Astronats sit behind a control panel within a very technical, enclosed environment. I actually look forward to experiencing some of what the astronauts REALLY experience (not only an intense launch with G forces and zero gravity, but dealing with those factors while trying to accomplish a mission task using the same controls they do) and not just some space floating flight of fancy.

I don't buy that realism should take a huge leap into the back seat in order to enhance the "show" on this one, as has been suggested. Body Wars comes to mind - and I think most would consider Body Wars as somewhat of a failure. Put me where the astronauts are and have me do something that is indicative of what they are really doing up there, don't just give me a "show" that consist of something our brave heroes only get fleeting glimpses of.

 

[Cricket2]

I'd like to remain cautiously optimistic about this.

The picture shows some obvious unfinished areas still (loose cabling, speaker grilles missing etc.). While this does not mean much in and of itself, to me it does say we are not looking at a finished product that is "on".

Atmosphere and explanation are still very absent from the picture.

If I wanted to "see" a realistic picture of space, I'd go to the planetarium or an IMAX movie or even just look up.

If I want to "feel" space, which I have to assume is what this is all about, I'd go to this attraction. Why do you need a 50' screen to have what you may or may not "think" the attraction should/could be like.

AV said:

The thrill of space is not being squished by simulated g-forces: it’s looking back at the pale blue dot…and seeing what lies beyond it.

That's only a small part of the "Space" experience though (I'm speculating here since I'm not an astronaut, nor do I play one on TV).

Why would I need this attraction to show me enhanced pictures at best (but probably CGI) of something we can see already on the Internet or in a movie. It's the experience that's the attractive element here. If that experience requires you to look out/at a 2'x2' screen/port hole, so be it.

I will not only keep an open mind about it, but judge the attraction against itself and not against my (or any of your) pre-conceived notions of what it "should/could have been".

Being "real" does not necessarily have fit everyone's notion of being entertaining.

Test Track is a good example.

They made it both real and entertaining. Could it be more exciting? Sure.

Could it be more real? Sure.

Did it need to be? That's up to you.

I'm happy with it the way it is. I'm sure I'll be happy with "Mission Space" the way it is as well.

 

[morphi]

I think it's a false choice to say the ride could have been a "feel" ride (e.g., feel the g-forces of lift-off) or a "see" ride (e.g., see the earth floating in solitude through a large vista), but not both at the same time.

I was expecting BOTH. These may be high expectations, but Disney has always set high standards for itself.

This ride can have both thrills and an emotional impact. Imagine the great physical thrill of experiencing the g-forces of lift-off and a brief time of weightlessness as one enters space. A great physical thrill can also be had while the ship is still in space as it swerves to avoid asteroids or what not, Finally, there could be thrills associated with re-entry and landing. BUT, smack in the middle of all of this action, the ride would slow down and present a serene view of the Earth as it is alone in space againsta field of stars. The lingering image could be bright and clear with a serene piece of music playing in the background (or silence). In contract to the busy-ness of the rest of the ride experience, this portion would cause guests to reflect on humanity, our shared planet, and the far reaches of space. Then... back to the action. This contrast of action/thrills vs. serenity/contemplation could make this ride great.

It may still be that, but those small video screens do not lead me to believe that the visual aspects of the experience are an important part of this ride.

 

[raidermatt]

Why would I need this attraction to show me enhanced pictures at best (but probably CGI) of something we can see already on the Internet or in a movie. It's the experience that's the attractive element here.

Why not have both? Why not combine the stunning visuals with the experience you mention? The visuals would not change the g's, or change the weightlessness.

Being "real" does not necessarily have fit everyone's notion of being entertaining.

WDW is an entertainment venue, not a museum. Entertainment must ALWAYS come first. Yes, we expect an educational element as well, but having a bigger viewing area does not mean the attraction could not be educational.

Test Track is a good example.

Yes, it is a good example. I think the debate comes when we discuss exactly what it is a good example of...

I'm sure I'll be happy with "Mission Space" the way it is as well.

Certainly its your right to feel this way, but this is exactly what many people have trouble understanding. Its one thing to keep an open mind and reserve final judgement until experiencing the attraction for yourself, but quite another to be "sure" you will be happy.

 

[Cricket2]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Why not have both? Why not combine the stunning visuals with the experience you mention? The visuals would not change the g's, or change the weightlessness.

Who says they are not combining them? I'm saying they may not be needed to make it entertaining enough for me. Visuals may in fact detract in some ways from the "experience". When one sense is dulled, the others are enhanced some. If you have a drive-in-theatre in front of your seat, the other special effects may in fact become "dulled".

Originally posted by raidermatt
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being "real" does not necessarily have fit everyone's notion of being entertaining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WDW is an entertainment venue, not a museum. Entertainment must ALWAYS come first. Yes, we expect an educational element as well, but having a bigger viewing area does not mean the attraction could not be educational.

My jab here was the "everyone" part not the "entertaining" part.

I agree with what you are saying here.

Originally posted by raidermatt
Certainly its your right to feel this way, but this is exactly what many people have trouble understanding. Its one thing to keep an open mind and reserve final judgment until experiencing the attraction for yourself, but quite another to be "sure" you will be happy.

Short of the motion sickness part, it would take quite a bit to make me un-happy with pretty much anything they give me. To be disappointed with an attraction simply because of an unofficial photograph seems a bit short sighted to me.

JC

 

[Another Voice]

Before I go any further – the windows on the shuttle orbiter are as large (if not larger) than the windows on a commercial airliner’s cockpit. Look at a picture of the thing. They’re hardly tiny at all. And they don’t use “panels”, they actually look out the windows. Anyway – are we supposed to feel that a HP-brand PC Monitor is better??

“what the astronauts REALLY experience (not only an intense launch with G forces and zero gravity, but dealing with those factors while trying to accomplish a mission task using the same controls they do)”

If all space means to you then you will enjoy this attraction. If that’s all you want – tumbling about in the spin cycle playing a rigged video game, please knock yourself out.

Frankly, if I want to see what the astronauts REALLY do – I drive out to the Kennedy Space Center and see the REAL things. I see the REAL shuttle, the REAL space station components, the REAL rockets, touch the REAL piece of the moon.

Fiddling with a plastic joy stick for three minutes doesn’t come close to the REAL experience. What you get on ‘Mission: Space’ isn’t any more real than ‘Body Wars’. Spin, twirl, puke, on to the shop, what time’s the next FastPass. Just like ‘Test Track’, it’s cheap thrills dressed up in a fancy wrapper*. There’s no point to it. There’s no magic.

What Disney had a chance to do – and what Disney had intended to do – was to step beyond, to touch people’s imagination, their wonderment and their joy. There’s no better place to do that than space. You want to flip switches; I want to walk on the sands of Mars. You want to hang upside down in “zero-G”, I want to see the rings of Saturn up close. You want to be entertained, I want to explore.

Yea, yea – coulda, shoulda, woulda. I’m complaining about I want, not what Disney’s going to offer us. I’m prejudging, I should shut-up until I ride the thing. People want thrills, not pictures. I’m just being negative, superior people think only happy thoughts.

But Disney used to be so good at stuff like that, to take dreams and make them physical reality. They used to be able to put in the middle of pirate battle or let you roam the halls of haunted house.

Now they don’t even try.


P.S. – You want to know what an astronaut really feels? Go rent ‘From the Earth the Moon’ and plop in the Apollo 12 episode.

* - like anyone goes on ‘Test Track’ to learn about Belgian Blocks.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Why not have both?

That is a fair enough question. However, why do you assume it is wrong that they don't have both?

 

[crusader]

Expectations regarding this attraction seem to be outweighing reason.

Give the engineering some credit please!!!!

I am not remotely concerned about the "appearance" of the ride to even allow it to slightly deter my optimism as to the "experience" of it!

 

[DisneyKidds]

Before I go any further – the windows on the shuttle orbiter are as large (if not larger) than the windows on a commercial airliner’s cockpit. Look at a picture of the thing.

Before I go any further let me point out that the shuttle orbiter is probably not the only vehicle used to launch man into space. Secondly, of a seven man shuttle crew how many do you think actually sit behind the windshield in the cockpit? And in case you missed it, I did say "shuttle aside" .

And they don’t use “panels”, they actually look out the windows.

Well, since I am not an astronaut (unlike yourself?) I will make a few outlandish assumptions. The first would be that when they are actually operating the spacecraft, most astrunauts are looking at a panel, as opposed to looking out a window. Of cousre when they look outside they must use a window . I'm curios, of all the time an astrunaut spends in space, how much time you you think they spend gazing out the window?

are we supposed to feel that a HP-brand PC Monitor is better??

What, does the shuttle use Dell? Compaq? You've apprently touched the real thing, are you telling me there are no monitors on a spacecraft? Maybe they are all now windows with heads-up displays?

Fiddling with a plastic joy stick for three minutes doesn’t come close to the REAL experience.

Hmmm..........the ride is called Mission:Space. Funny thing, seems to me astronauts go into space to accomplish missions. Rarely is the main objective to see the Earth fall away to a blue dot. If I had to guess, I'd say that astronauts spend more time fiddling with joysticks and pressing buttons than they do staring out the window. Maybe I am wrong.

 

[DC7800]

Originally posted by curtisl
Well, I didn't want to be the first to say it, but, ouch, looks like an expensive video game to me. After experiencing the other space related attractions Mission to Mars/Moon, Space Mountain, and Star Tours, and seeing pictures of Horizons I'm quite disappointed. I was expecting something a bit more grand looking. Unfortunately, my excitement about this attraction is sinking the more we see of it.

Originally posted by raidermatt
But I was hoping/expecting for more in the way of a 'view'. Maybe a window the size of that screen really is all that the real astronauts get to see, but if that's the case, realism should have taken a hit in exchange for more 'show'. At the very least I was hoping to be able to look around more once the ship got into space and the g's subsided, but it appears that just ain't going to happen.

My first thought upon seeing that picture was that I was looking at an overgrown videogame simulator; sort of a cross between the Star Tours simulator and something found in any WDW resort arcade. That's a bit harsh, I know, but that is indeed what it looks like. It's what we are not seeing that makes me wonder a bit. Wasn't there an image (pulled off the web) at one point supposedly showing the outside of these pods? That could help explain a few things, such as the presence and size of any windows (or if those really are just monitors). What's the point of going into space if you can't see anything once you get there!

Originally posted by pheneix No matter how close you are to the monitor, it doesn't really the fact that you might as well be playing Jedi Starfighter, because the visual part of the experience would remain the same.

I really don't care how much G-force induced nausia I am forced to go through on this ride*, but if all the immersion I get from the ride is from motion sickness, a joystick, and a 19-inch monitor display that shows me computer readouts and maybe a few "simulated" images of what I am "supposed" to see outside if it were not a "training" mission, then Space Mountain would have done a better job of re-creating a truly immersive outer space experience than Mission Space

Originally posted by raidermatt Honestly, it really does look like an expensive video game.

Even worse, if this experience does eventually suggest nothing more than a sophisticated videogame simulator (with "g" forces) then Disney has wasted something on the order of $120 million. A simulator ride could have been had for a fraction of M:S's cost (something like Star Tours); if all Mission Space adds to this simulator experience are greater physical sensations of space travel (weightlessness) then it clearly wasn't worth all that extra expense. All this is, of course, conjecture at this point, and for the sake of Future World I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

The attraction obviously cannot compare to the grandeur that was Horizons. Ironically, Horizons (with its two decade-old technology) did give us a breathtaking, awe-inspiring view of space - not a peep through a porthole. In fact, it was by far the best such experience WDW had given us up to that time - a tremendous leap forward over Mission to Mars (in the MK). Sadly, it doesn't look like M:S will make a similar advance. In 2003 Disney should be able to do better.

Originally posted by Bob O
And the reality is even a "spinner"would have been a improvement over Horizons which outlived its usefulness!!!(only a slight exaggeration in regards to a spinner).

By the same token, it's only a slight exaggeration to say that Michael Eisner is only slightly less creative and innovative than Walt Disney was. There is no comparison!!! As noted previously, it now looks like Horizons may have had a more breathtaking view of "space" than Mission Space will, and that is a sad situation. I've said time and time again, it's unfair to compare a new attraction with one twenty years old. So, isn't it really ironic that the twenty year old still beats the newcomer in some small way? I know you're exaggerating Bob, but why pick on Horizons all the time? You didn't care for it - I get that, but a lot of people did. Here we are several years after the attractions untimely demise, and Horizons still comes up periodically as a discussion topic. As has been discussed before, never mistake a wait-free attraction for an unpopular (or unpopulated) one.

Ok, off the soapbox. Back to the topic at hand...

Originally posted by Bob O
While people can "claim"the imagineers are creating attractions to "blow" Spiderman away, its just cheap talk until its put into practice. The sad reality is that disney has nothing currently in construction that can match the overall quality of Spiderman which is the ride that disney used to build but havent done so since TOT.

I agree. I haven't seen Spidey, but from what I hear it's most impressive, and I haven't seen much in the past few years from Disney I can say that about. Also, it's not only that Disney has nothing under construction to trump SpiderMan, after M:S there is nothing (confirmed or reliably rumored, at least) under construction period. M:S had better exceed it's lofty expectations, because its apparently going to have to carry Epcot (and WDW) for a while.

What exactly will WDW have for 2004 (those new "shows" not withstanding)? Even if construction starts tommorrow (and I doubt much could happen without hearing about it on this board first - thanks!) what can be built for next year other than off-the-shelf or shopping-mall rides? Maybe a Bugs land or Dinorama, perhaps a movie or B-C ticket attraction, but certianly not another true (immersive, tells a story, etc) E-ticket. Of course, should all the "technical delay" rumors on M:S pan out, there just might be something new for next year after all...

Originally posted by pheneix
There's really nothing wrong with the pod itself, it is very accurate and ornately detailed. I'm dissapointed because that it is the final confirmation that Disney set the bar so low for this attraction compared with what was initially set forth for this project.

Which flies in the face of all the hype surrounding Mission Space. Specifically, that is was to be an experience like nothing seen before. Now we know much more was envisioned for the pavilion at one time (archived articles over at http://www.jimhillmedia.com), but for $150 million I would have expected the "hype" to be justified. If the bar is set so low - and expectations so high - it shouldn't be such a suprise so many people here have expressed disappointment over what we've seen so far. Really, it doesn't matter how impressive an attraction is, if it fails to meet our lofty expectations for something Disney, we come away disappointed. Again, the expectations here are so high that many people, when they finally get to ride, may not be quite so impressed with the finished product (to an extent, Test Track had a similar problem).

Originally posted by Another Voice
Fiddling with a plastic joy stick for three minutes doesn’t come close to the REAL experience. What you get on ‘Mission: Space’ isn’t any more real than ‘Body Wars’. Spin, twirl, puke, on to the shop, what time’s the next FastPass. Just like ‘Test Track’, it’s cheap thrills dressed up in a fancy wrapper*. There’s no point to it. There’s no magic.

What Disney had a chance to do – and what Disney had intended to do – was to step beyond, to touch people’s imagination, their wonderment and their joy. There’s no better place to do that than space. You want to flip switches; I want to walk on the sands of Mars. You want to hang upside down in “zero-G”, I want to see the rings of Saturn up close. You want to be entertained, I want to explore

Thank You! This effectively sums up what is so disappointing about M:S. "Cheap thrills dressed up in a fancy wrapper" isn't what Disney is supposed to be about. Epcot just isn't the same with the magic removed, either.

 

[DisneyKidds]

What's the point of going into space if you can't see anything once you get there!

Sorry, ignore all my previous posts on this one (if you haven't already) - I apparently missed that this was the whole point of space travel.

AV - you've "touched the real thing". Does the "pod" look anything like the actual inside of the space vehicles you have touched?

A general question - do you think that when the astronauts are up in space the actions they are performing are more akin to playing a video game (looking at a monitor and pressing buttons and such) and/or conducting an experiment in science lab, or watching and IMAX movie?

 

[morphi]

Funny thing, seems to me astronauts go into space to accomplish missions. Rarely is the main objective to see the Earth fall away to a blue dot. If I had to guess, I'd say that astronauts spend more time fiddling with joysticks and pressing buttons than they do staring out the woindow. Maybe I am wrong.

The first would be that when they are actually operating the spacecraft, most astrunauts are looking at a panel, as opposed to looking out a window.

There are various components of a trip in outter space. Without being exhaustive, here's a short list:

- Lift-off and its physical sensations
- Weightlessness and its physical sensations
- Performing scientific experiments using switches, gauges, panels, etc.
- Maintaining the craft and its orbit using switches, gauges, panels, etc.
- Viewing the Earth (or other heavenly bodies) as only a handful of people EVER have, along with the spiritual/emotional impact of such sights
- Re-entry/landing and its physical sensations

Now, when a child or your average Joe dreams about space travel, what components do you think they dream about? Performing experiments in the cargo bay?, flipping switches to correct the pitch of the craft?

I would say that the dream is of 1. the physical sensations (of take-off, landing, etc.) and 2. the views (including the spiritual/emotional impact of those views.) (The order of importance varies for different people.)

So if Disney is in the business of dreams and magic and entertainment, why did they not try to fulfill the two biggest dreams of space flight? (If indeed, as it appears, Mission:Space does not do this based on the pictures of the monitors.)

 

[mitros]

Gee, I sure do miss horizons!

 

[DisneyKidds]

I'm with you morphi - and thanks for the list. Now, attach a percentage of time to each of those components. Where does "Viewing the Earth (or other heavenly bodies) as only a handful of people EVER have" settle in. Probably low on the list. While it may be a biggie as far as impact is concerned, one can hardly say that all the other items don't represent more of what the astronauts are "actually doing" up there. That is my point.

Disney has chosen to tell a certain story with this attraction. Maybe it isn't the story that many people seem to want. I hope they don't let that ruin the attraction for them and keep them from truely experiencing the story the attraction does offer.

 

[raidermatt]

That is a fair enough question. However, why do you assume it is wrong that they don't have both?

I'm not assuming its wrong. I'm giving my opinion that the "show" is by far the more important element than the physical experience, no matter what that physical experience is. Really, is there a SINGLE ride at any Disney park that would qualify as a "DISNEY" attraction based solely on the physical experience? Strip away the show elements, and is there any attraction that accomplishes this? Further, is there any attraction at any other park that would qualify sans its show elements?

Conversely, there are many attractions that qualify as "DISNEY" attractions bases solely on their show elements.

So, no matter how close this attraction comes to making us "feel" like we are astronauts, that's simply not going to be enough to make it a Disney attraction. There's going to have to be more, the only question seems to be what that more should be.

Some are saying that the monitor, joystick, and realistic looking controls are going to be enough to provide the best Disney experience possible.

I'm saying that more is MOST LIKELY going to be required, and the picture we see gives NO indication that there is all that much more to it.

Now, I'm not writing it off, or pre-judging what the entire experience is going to be like. I'm merely forming an opinion of what direction this appears to be heading based on incomplete but tangible information. There is still the pre and post shows, and maybe they will fulfill some of these show requirements many of us were hoping for.

Its like an early primary result in an election campaign. A loss doesn't mean the whole thing is sunk, but it is still a loss.

I know, if you see this picture and immediately think "WOW! This the type of thing I was hoping for!", then I know you disagree with my conclusions so far. I just believe that the attraction will be MORE successful for a longer period of time if it focuses more on providing wonderous show elements than on what its like to fly the Space Shuttle.

 

[Cricket2]

Everyone except Disney:

"You never get a second chance to make a first impression"

Disney:

"You never get a chance to make a first impression"

It's truly sad, and exactly what's happening here

JC

 

[raidermatt]

While it may be a biggie as far as impact is concerned, one can harly say that all the other items don't represent more of what the astronauts are "actually doing" up there. That is my point.

Maybe what you are describing is a more realistic depiction of what its like to be an astronaut. But that doesn't make those mundane (relatively speaking) tasks a legitimate basis for a Disney attraction. Most of the time spent being a fireman involves hanging out in the station, drilling and exercising. But what aspects of firefighting do folks want to see in their entertainment? Most of the time spent being a pirate involved doing next to nothing on a ship, but what do we want depicted in our movies and attractions?

Maybe it isn't the story that many people seem to want. I hope they don't let that ruin the attraction for them and keep them from truely experiencing the story the attraction does offer.

A critical piece of entertainment is providing people with what they want to see/experience. Truly great entertainment can provide us with what we want before we even realize we want it. Maybe M:S will do that. But one thing no entertainer can expect is to be able to dictate to the audience what they will want.

I don't think we have to worry about people deciding not to go on the ride because of the picture they have seen. If this attraction truly does provide a great story/show, it will speak for itself once open.

 

[raidermatt]

Everyone except Disney:

"You never get a second chance to make a first impression"

Disney:

"You never get a chance to make a first impression"

It's truly sad, and exactly what's happening here

There's nothing sad about it at all. With the tons of money Disney has made comes a higher level of expectation and interest. They can't have it both ways. If you want the loyalty of millions of fans like no other business on Earth, then you have to deal with the interest generated by those fans.

Regardless of what you think of Disney's recent creations, its undeniable that they use the loyalty of its fans to its advantage in many ways. That's fine, but you can't then say they are to be pitied for being put in such an unfair situation.

 

[Cricket2]

Originally posted by raidermatt
There's nothing sad about it at all. With the tons of money Disney has made comes a higher level of expectation and interest. They can't have it both ways. If you want the loyalty of millions of fans like no other business on Earth, then you have to deal with the interest generated by those fans.

To me, it sounds like you are saying Disney owes us some sort of explination as to why they are doing what they are doing, even before they do it. They don't have to deal with "those fans" before the curtain drops at all. In fact, as far as I can see, they are not.

Originally posted by raidermatt
Regardless of what you think of Disney's recent creations, its undeniable that they use the loyalty of its fans to its advantage in many ways. That's fine, but you can't then say they are to be pitied for being put in such an unfair situation.

At least you agree it is an unfair situation.

JC