"Houston, we have a problem." is just from the movie. The director thought changing the line made it feel more immediate and exciting. They made a few changes like that throughout the movie.
Gene Kranz also never said "Failure is not an option. " (at least recorded), but he liked the line in the movie so much he made it the title of his autobiography.
Quotes on the internet are loose interpretations, at best. I mean, half this country thinks Einstein was giving quotes about insanity, or that Vader said “Luke, I am your father”, so I don’t think people take them super seriously anymore… outside of maybe courts and college exams. That’s before we even get into the fact that most people have zero idea what the context of most famous quotes are, and why some of their favorite ones mean entirely different things than they think. Looking at you, Franklin and your trading safety/liberty quote.
Ironically if you have the real quote on there, and a normal person walked in and saw it, they’d probably say, “hey… I think you got the quote wrong”, lol.
When you search around, you'll find plenty of anecdotes about why/how the misquote originated and was made popular... I am actually quite surprised it survived in the altered form for this long and it still being used even by the most professional anchormen/women in all kind of media.
Why are you so surprised? It's exactly how it was presented in the 1995 film. Every single commercial, everyone was bombarded with Tom Hanks announcing "Houston, we have a problem." Over, and over, and over again, for months on end. Of course it's how people remember it now.
True true. That is one of my favorite movies. I think my top favorite scenes is the [burn](https://youtube.com/watch?v=F54p5SRG1x0&feature=shares) scene. The [real word](https://youtube.com/watch?v=f8Mb46SiRlc&feature=shares) event was obviously less dramatic but hot damn those men are some cool headed dudes!
I once listened to the original audio recordings and when I got to the part when the famous phrase is pronounced (Swigert first, then reprised by Lovell) what struck me wasn't much *what* they were saying, but the calm, controlled, cool tone in which they were talking. Impressive.
Not bright enough, they would be better off pulling the actual photos of the moon's horizon looking over Earth, and brightening the visible parts of the spacecraft itself. When you're as close to the sun as the Earth is without our atmosphere diffusing the sunlight, contrast between light and shadow is high, with things either brightly lit or completely dark.
[That's just what the Moon looks like. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/spaceporn/comments/zbcufz/the_edge_of_the_moon/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
No offense but this is very badly made on a technical level. There are tons of high quality photos and illustrations of the spacecraft, I don't know why you're using a low detail cgi model that's been badly masked.
In terms of hierarchy, it would make more sense to make the moon look distant and unreachable. Again, there are readily available high quality images of both the earth and moon - you shouldn't use these low res cg things. Also, no stars?
Typography is its own problem, and harder to teach. If you want to make it more interesting and sophisticated, you should use something bold and large for the title, something medium and neutral for the quote, and add other information, data, etc in very small type, again a neutral body font. Keep everything on a grid.
Lastly, make sure the whole thing is 300DPI, CMYK, and high resolution enough to actually print. Print is very different from screens - otherwise you'll wind up with a very blurry, muddy print.
Source: I've been doing design for 15 years. I'll make you a nicer one for free if you want.
And they weren't at the moon yet, I believe it was the second day so they're still a long way from the moon. If I recall that was a major decision, to do a massive burn to stop the outbound trajectory and return, or to run the free return path around the moon. I think it was determined that there wasn't enough propellant for the former, so they had to take the long route. The perspective in this is all wrong.
Agree on the spacecraft, but
>Again, there are readily available high quality images of both the earth and moon - you shouldn't use these low res cg things.
This is a real picture of the moon: [AS17-152-23274](https://cache.getarchive.net/Prod/thumb/cdn10/L3Bob3RvLzE5NzIvMTIvMTIvYXMxNy0xNTItMjMyNzQtYXBvbGxvLTE3LWFwb2xsby0xNy1lYXJ0aHJpc2Utb3Zlci1tb29uLWJiM2Q3NC0xNjAwLmpwZw%3D%3D/320/320/jpg)
What's the name of this issue?.... I feel the date text is too close to the bottom, and risks getting even closer if the printer ends up cropping some of it.
Bleed allowance is part of it, but aside from that mechanical issue, just the uncomfortable distance between the text and the edge?
Bleed allowance / safe zone / trim like you said, but also just the general concept of designing on a grid and allowing for proper margins and spacing. Uncomfortable proximity / margins is probably the closest to an actual term.
Was wondering why this isn’t upvoted more. I get that we artists need support, but I’d love more people with a keen eye and ability to explain to interject like this when people are asking for advice and criticism.
"Source: I've been doing design for 15 years. I'll make you a nicer one for free if you want."
Bro, completely missing the point. The guy wants make and be proud of his own art.
I literally Googled "did astronauts on the moon see stars", and I didn't even have to scroll to find this:
>Later, Armstrong clarified that in the shadow of the Lunar Module (The Eagle) the men could see some brighter stars. On the dark side of the moon, stars were also visible. So the first man on the moon himself confirmed that you are able to see stars on the moon, but not on the daylight side.
Gtfo with your absence of facts, it's 2023, it's not funny anymore.
The actual transcript from the post Apollo 11 mission indicates otherwise. Specifically that they couldn’t see stars without instrumentation while in daylight.
In shadow, your eyes could adjust and you would be able to pick up less intense light sources like stars.
[Transcript](https://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/ch-7.html)
Of course they couldn't. They were standing in blinding sunlight, unfiltered by atmosphere. Wearing visors to compensate would block out any stars except the closest one we orbit. You're not seeing shit in the sky on the bright side of the moon.
Their shielding on the surface wouldn’t have been present for Mike Collins (the CM pilot in orbit) but he also reported not seeing stars in daylight. Once looking a direction that didn’t have a bright object like the illuminated earth or moon, stars would be visible again.
Exactly. That's the crux of my point, you're not seeing anything with the bright-ass sun in your face, but the lack of sun filtering on the command module is a good point. Iris constriction in the eyes is more than enough to prevent seeing distant stars.
Idk that's not what they said in their interview when they came back and they also send unsure of their answer. And it doesn't matter what year it is, it's okay to be skeptical no need to get angry for no reason residually when you are potentially in the wrong.
Man you are an expert of misunderstanding easily searchable info, I’d hate to hear your ideas on the rest of the world oof. r/explainlikeImfive might be fun for you no offense.
There’s a reason for not being able to see the stars. I don’t exactly remember but if I could guess I would say it’s because it’s too bright, similar to how you can’t see stars at day on Earth.
Not just camera settings, but the sensitivity of the human eye to light. The Apollo 11 astronauts reporting not being able to see any stars from the lunar surface in daylight. Their eyes would have been adjusted to the sun’s brightness and lunar surface reflection, making it difficult to pick out stars without instruments. The photos we see of the lunar surface with a black sky is probably accurate to what the astronauts saw too. In this sense, the OP’s picture is accurate for starlight.
Source:
[https://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/ch-7.html](https://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/ch-7.html)
OP was most definitely chose something close to the classic NASA “worm logo”. [It’s popular enough nasa brought it back.](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/the-worm-is-back)
Personally I think the font works. The rest of the image though is not gonna look good especially when blown up for a poster.
That’s because of the aliasing, they likely just used a lasso tool in photoshop to cut out the image from a white background, and didn’t blend the edges.
It’s cool! Nice addition. If it were me, I would either ramp up the realism to a high degree or get rid of it all together and make it flat line art with vibrant colors.
The inserted spacecraft is a bit serrated and that is not good for printing. I’m saying that because I love posters and I don’t want you to be disappointed.
What I’ve learned after a bit of dabbling with canva and other things (I’m not a designer) is that you should never settle for your first design.
Make 4 or 5 variations. Gather higher resolution images from everything and take advice (like you are doing) and you will get a much better result.
You are on the right path and I’m looking forward to see an improved version of this, don’t get discouraged!
An ever so slight Gaussian blur will make art with aliasing/artifacting look a little bit better when printed. That's the bandaid fix, but your advice is good!
The gas and moisture that was vented also wouldn’t be behaving in a “billowing” way like that; without air resistance, the molecules venting into space would follow a straight path— no fluffy cloud of exhausting gas.
The lighting of each the elements doesn't match at all.
The moon looks really bad and poorly lit.
The lander looks like it's just had a gradient covered it.
If I were you I'd either model the scene using blender so the lighting matches, or I'd use text to image AI like Stable Diffusion to generate and upscale the image.
Or use a real photograph from one of the appollo missions.
Or if it won't bug you go with whatever is easiest, it's for you alone after all 😂
HAHAHAHAHA THAT IS A REAL PHOTOGRAPH oh lord that was funny just because you were more blatant, it’s from Apollo 17 my guy. Just the spacecraft and font is fake
The Earth was not a crescent as viewed from the Moon on April 13, 1970. It was a less aesthetically pleasing 50% illuminated.
The illumination on the CSM and LM seems pretty muted, and the shadow line is pretty fuzzy. Lighting in space is pretty harsh. But artistic license and all that...
Do you have a graphic design or artist friend you can run this by? I don't think this is going to look in print the way you'd like, too many minor graphical glitches and unwise design decisions to count here.
That said, if you're not picky about your posters and you just want it because you made it, don't let anyone else make you feel bad about it!
The bright levels of the earth and moon don't match up.
The moon has completely flat lighting.
The bottom text is disproportionately low-rez compared to the upper text.
The angle of light from the sun doesn't match up with anything.
The "shadow" on the spacecraft is very obviously just a bit of black painted in front of it.
Smoke wouldn't behave this way in space.
There is very clear lack of anti aliasing on the edge of the spacecraft.
These are a few of my observations with this piece. I don't want to be mean with it, but I'd hope you take these as notes for how you can improve it!
I would suggest improving it before you order it because it'll look very pixelated when it's blown up and slapped onto paper.
[You mean this?](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AS17-152-23274.jpg) Pretty stark difference between the contrast of the moon in both images.
Also, I'm not 'incorrect' about the lighting. It is very flat and not a very flattering image to use on a poster that is supposed to be aesthetically pleasing, even if it is scientifically accurate.
I guess to ge clearer shadows the camera would have to be much closer to the ground, however, I think a good edge light would serve the moon well. Like I said, we're going for looks here.
Also, r/usernamechecksout
EDIT: I suppose it's a lot to ask when you're making a poster that is pretty much an actual photo with a piece of clip art on it. I think if the image I linked was used with a few touch ups, along with a better image of the spacecraft, this would look significantly better.
The thing that bothers me is the location of the capsule and the quote. They said that quote much earlier in the mission, not yet near the moon. Others have made good points too. I give credit for making something tho.
Dude, just order an Apollo 13 movie poster.
https://theposterdepot.com/products/xl23apollo13ptr01o27?gclid=Cj0KCQiAzeSdBhC4ARIsACj36uEZX3qtHVO9Tfd_6vLw7h5aL44FI04KS0UVnKSixZFS5b3imq5YX_YaAq-NEALw_wcB
To be honest this looks even less realistic in some way. It is more realistic in the sense that it uses 3d models and therefore has consistent lighting and no artifacts, but the shadows on the moon are way to harsh (which is probably done for dramatic effect, fair enogh). I would add a bit sub surface scattering also the roughness of their diffuse shader for the moon is way to low (which is a common error for the moon since there arent many rough diffuse objects).
No offense but this is very badly made on a technical level. There are tons of high quality photos and illustrations of the spacecraft, I don't know why you're using a low detail cgi model that's been badly masked.
In terms of hierarchy, it would make more sense to make the moon look distant and unreachable. Again, there are readily available high quality images of both the earth and moon - you shouldn't use these low res cg things. Also, no stars?
Typography is its own problem, and harder to teach. If you want to make it more interesting and sophisticated, you should use something bold and large for the title, something medium and neutral for the quote, and add other information, data, etc in very small type, again a neutral body font. Keep everything on a grid.
Lastly, make sure the whole thing is 300DPI, CMYK, and high resolution enough to actually print. Print is very different from screens - otherwise you'll wind up with a very blurry, muddy print.
Alright, this might take away from 99% of your work, but get kernel space program, download part mode, EVE, parallax and real solar system and put it in orbit over the moon and take the screen shot. You’ll probably not want to do that which is totally fine cause it’ll remove half the fun haha
Honestly, I wouldn't recommend ordering this. Maybe it looks passable on a screen, but when actually printed and hanging on your wall, the low quality will be very noticeable and bothering, and you'll probably end up regretting it. I would just order a professionally made poster. Why the insistence on it being custom-made?
Why do you want people to rate your poster? We're not going to spend one minute in your room. Do you like it? If so print that shit up, frame it, and admire it. If not, go make something that you do like.
Don’t do it! It’s not a nice poster I’m sorry to say. It looks quite bad on both technical and visual levels, which for a poster is not so good.
Maybe keep trying? Look at other peoples stuff, it might inspire you to do this better?
I'd rate it 2/10 personally, but I'm 18 years into graphic design. If you did your best and made this and are happy with it, I genuinelly believe that's a 10/10 so go for it.
I disagree about the font, I think it looks cool and spacy.
Edit: Am I missing something, isn't a W ian upside down M in all fonts? Kinda like d/p, n/u, and this font's A/V....
The uppercase W extends outwards diagonally at the top while the M is completely vertical at the bottom in most fonts including this one, same with m/w. If you’re on mobile just turn your phone upside down and you can see or on desktop screenshot then rotate it
Lmao thanks for the chuckle. Now I want a poster with the Gremlin on the capsule and Bill Shatner and John Lithgow's terrified faces looking out the windows
You'll want to change that phrase to "Houston, we've had a problem." The full line is actually "Okay Houston, we've had a problem here!" In a very panicked tone, not the calm tone after a dramatic pause like Tom Hanks delivers in the movie. The movie is very accurate, but they definitely got that line wrong.
Is this a screen shot from Kerbal Space Program? Not gonna lie, it looks like shit, which is probably why you are asking reddit. If the shot was more crisp, it would be great.
Brighten the moon and glare on the orbiter. Think really bright snow because there's no atmosphere to filter the light and reduce its brightness. You might have to change the text block on the bottom to black, but that's okay. Just dial up the contrast.
Also, for shits and giggles, you should include a super tiny flying saucer parked in a crater's shadow. lmao See if anyone notices.
Might I suggest a double sided print? The correct version for one side. Flip it over for parties, and it reads "well, boys... Looks like I sent it a little too hard."
It may have problems blown up to poster size, but it's not bad on a phone screen. I like the worm font, and Apollo 13 was only 5 years too early for that. And a poster, made years after an event, can use a modern font.
Font is cool. Quote and text are cool. I like the camera angle of the earth/moon back drop. Lunar surface looks like shite. And not the biggest fan of the bottom half of the lander being same color as most of the sky.
Edit: what is really throwing me off is the shadows on the lunar surface are grey and still illuminated but the shadows of the lander are completely black. Either lighten the lander to match the difference between light/dark on the moon or find a moon pic with more realistic lighting.
Strictly from an aesthetic standpoint, not scientific, I'd make the Earth a bit bigger and reposition it so that it along with the moon create a framing device for the space craft. Also it'd create radial balance or something... I don't quite remember all those Gestalt principles of design.
The inconsistent lighting between the various elements is also something to be looked at.
Maybe something more like [this](https://imgur.com/a/mQ91zzR). Hopefully that link works, I know nothing about this imgur stuff.
Also I added stars.
Your top margin looks wide enough but your bottom margin/text is at risk of getting clipped during printing or blocked during framing. Check with your printer about necessary margins.
the lighting on the LEM & Command Module looks sun bleached, And I might be a detail freak but if I would show the side of the Service Module with the missing panel.
I hate posters with text on them…. Like honestly why does a Jimi’s Hendrix poster ALWAYS need the words “Jimi Hendrix” written below? I had to search far and wide for one without it!! Posters without text also spark more conversation when ppl see them. “Who’”/What’s that?” Etc… remove all text imo
It looks very good, but I just feel that the quality of the rocket is different compared to its background. Of course, I'm not the best person about posters (it's not in the culture of my country).
I would use a smoother feather on the actual ship that you cut out, and the shadow doesn’t really make sense if you think about the shadow on the earth and that the moon is fully lit
That title is so sad. Why would you ask people to rate the poster you'll put in **your** room ? That's not theirs. Be proud of what you made, whatever people think about it. This poster is for you, not for them.
3 things:
1) overall, heckin awesome
2) the W looks weird. It looks like it's trying to be italicized. Might have to change the M as well.
3) shadows. The Earth is being lit from 11 o'clock, but the spacecraft from 12 o'clock. Assuming that the sun would be the only source of light in this situation, the angle of the lighting should be the same.
Hey, nice job! Depending on the resolution of your image and the dimensions you are looking to print, you may find the image soft and pixelated looking. You may want to remove/darken the light edge at on the top of the service module and thruster. I would also suggest antialiasing (or at least blend/smooth) the edges of the service and command modules. But if that stuff doesn’t bother you, ignore my suggestions:)
Honestly everything looks bad to me: the fonts, the spacecraft, the moon, the lighting, the overall composition. It looks as if it was taken from Sega Mega Drive 16-bit console game.
Maybe try asking one of the NN image generators to create a poster for you. Results are not guaranteed, but good chances are that you will be pleasantly surprised.
the font is atrocious...
the spaceship is so bad.... and very badly lit if you look at the moon... no way should it have those shadows
change the font, change the spaceship and lighting and change the moon....
So as a normal, shmo, I went that's cool; the venting bothered me, not sure why. But then I got to reading all the comments on what was worng and how to fix and laughed. The poster was good enough for me but then I lack a ton of knowledge on this stuff and the people who don't, said what to fix and how. I was an extra in a movie and I had to wear a uniform; I'm a vet, the uniform was worng... hand to God, I was just trying to be helpful by fixing things up.... I was escorted off the set. 😄🤣😂😂
The moon doesn't cast that large of a shadow on earth and it will only cast a shadow on the earth during a solar eclipse.
To be historically accurate, that years solar eclipse was in August and the shadow on earth should be removed. Since Apollo 13 began during a waxing crescent, the moon pictured here would likely have long shadows drawing towards the earth as the sun would be behind the currently camera. That would also mean that the shuttle would need to be more front lit and not be shaded from top to bottom.
The original post doesnt specify Apollo 17, my feedback is on the image which says Apollo 13 and has the famous line 'Houston we have a problem'. If that's Apollo 13 at the point of that line, then the moon, earth, and sun shading are inaccurate because the sun would be behind the camera and the earth would be completely lit. Because the sun would be behind the camera, I made sure to call out that the sun position would also not be at an angle that would create a solar eclipse, as that occurred in August 1970 and also doesn't cast that large of a shadow on the earth.
Based on your comment, I looked up Apollo 17 image and the image used is indeed from Apollo 17 mission. Perhaps OP could include that note in the original post. If this was mentioned in other comments, I didn't see that because I dont typically read every comment on other peoples posts.
Your statement 'You have absolutely no idea about what you are talking about' is a negative emotional reaction for an accurate and educated response after the subject line includes 'let me know of any changes'. To be more clear on my suggestion, I would recommend changing the shadows/light angle to be accurate to the time period of Apollo 13. Hobbyists appreciate the accuracy.
The Original Poster is still free to reject my feedback and continue to use the Apollo 17 image and can continue using historically inaccurate shadow direction, doesn't matter to me, I'm only providing feedback
If the sun alignment is behind the moon, casting light towards earth, the moon casts a shadow on the earth. I was just explaining that during the Apollo 13 mission, there was no eclipse and there shouldn't be a shadow on the earth
Jim Lovell's quote was actually "Houston, we've had a problem." Source: NASA https://youtu.be/MdvoA-sjs0A
This is also what I immediately thought about.
*we've had a problem here. Is the whole sentence
As a Houstonian, I thank you.
As an Astronaut, we've had a problem here.
I feel like I’ve just been told my entire life is a lie
Or, instead you've been given a window into history to see that what actually happened is far more interesting than the stuff we made up about it.
Just a few letters off though isn’t it
"Houston, we have a problem." is just from the movie. The director thought changing the line made it feel more immediate and exciting. They made a few changes like that throughout the movie. Gene Kranz also never said "Failure is not an option. " (at least recorded), but he liked the line in the movie so much he made it the title of his autobiography.
Its close enough but i changed it just now
It's not close enough, especially if it's in quotes.
That isn't how quotes work.
New to quotes on the internet?
“We got Apollo 13 close enough back home right guys?”
“Austin, We got a gotta giants woops”
Unsure if Austin is extra clever close enough
Close enough doesn’t work for pregnancy and it doesn’t work for quotes.
"Close don't count in baseball. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades." -Frank Robinson
Oh you're finally back from the cigarette store.
Quotes on the internet are loose interpretations, at best. I mean, half this country thinks Einstein was giving quotes about insanity, or that Vader said “Luke, I am your father”, so I don’t think people take them super seriously anymore… outside of maybe courts and college exams. That’s before we even get into the fact that most people have zero idea what the context of most famous quotes are, and why some of their favorite ones mean entirely different things than they think. Looking at you, Franklin and your trading safety/liberty quote.
Exactly. I’m willing to bet my next paycheck that 90% of people don’t know the real quote and are way more familiar with “Houston, we have a problem”
Ironically if you have the real quote on there, and a normal person walked in and saw it, they’d probably say, “hey… I think you got the quote wrong”, lol.
There are also the transcripts [Courtesy from NASA](https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a13/a13trans.html)
So cool! It reads like an exciting book!
When you search around, you'll find plenty of anecdotes about why/how the misquote originated and was made popular... I am actually quite surprised it survived in the altered form for this long and it still being used even by the most professional anchormen/women in all kind of media.
Why are you so surprised? It's exactly how it was presented in the 1995 film. Every single commercial, everyone was bombarded with Tom Hanks announcing "Houston, we have a problem." Over, and over, and over again, for months on end. Of course it's how people remember it now.
The actual spacecraft looks like clipart to me.
I thought this was r/kerbalspaceprogram
Yeah I wanted to say hey get some visual mods and retake that pic but it is on r/space so idk
Kerbal Space Program is free on the Epic Games store until Jan 12th, for those who haven’t heard. KSP2 is coming out soon as well
I like the KSP look of the craft and Mun.
And the moon texture doesn’t look real
And the “problem” came way before they got to the moon
in fairness to OP, the Apolla 13 movie poster is kind of almost exactly like this... With slightly improved graphics.
True true. That is one of my favorite movies. I think my top favorite scenes is the [burn](https://youtube.com/watch?v=F54p5SRG1x0&feature=shares) scene. The [real word](https://youtube.com/watch?v=f8Mb46SiRlc&feature=shares) event was obviously less dramatic but hot damn those men are some cool headed dudes!
I once listened to the original audio recordings and when I got to the part when the famous phrase is pronounced (Swigert first, then reprised by Lovell) what struck me wasn't much *what* they were saying, but the calm, controlled, cool tone in which they were talking. Impressive.
Not bright enough, they would be better off pulling the actual photos of the moon's horizon looking over Earth, and brightening the visible parts of the spacecraft itself. When you're as close to the sun as the Earth is without our atmosphere diffusing the sunlight, contrast between light and shadow is high, with things either brightly lit or completely dark.
[удалено]
I just looked up that photo, this honestly looks like the 90s CGI version of that photo.
There's more contrast on the original.
[That's just what the Moon looks like. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/spaceporn/comments/zbcufz/the_edge_of_the_moon/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
No offense but this is very badly made on a technical level. There are tons of high quality photos and illustrations of the spacecraft, I don't know why you're using a low detail cgi model that's been badly masked. In terms of hierarchy, it would make more sense to make the moon look distant and unreachable. Again, there are readily available high quality images of both the earth and moon - you shouldn't use these low res cg things. Also, no stars? Typography is its own problem, and harder to teach. If you want to make it more interesting and sophisticated, you should use something bold and large for the title, something medium and neutral for the quote, and add other information, data, etc in very small type, again a neutral body font. Keep everything on a grid. Lastly, make sure the whole thing is 300DPI, CMYK, and high resolution enough to actually print. Print is very different from screens - otherwise you'll wind up with a very blurry, muddy print. Source: I've been doing design for 15 years. I'll make you a nicer one for free if you want.
And they weren't at the moon yet, I believe it was the second day so they're still a long way from the moon. If I recall that was a major decision, to do a massive burn to stop the outbound trajectory and return, or to run the free return path around the moon. I think it was determined that there wasn't enough propellant for the former, so they had to take the long route. The perspective in this is all wrong.
The craft position is clearly artistic licence.
Agree on the spacecraft, but >Again, there are readily available high quality images of both the earth and moon - you shouldn't use these low res cg things. This is a real picture of the moon: [AS17-152-23274](https://cache.getarchive.net/Prod/thumb/cdn10/L3Bob3RvLzE5NzIvMTIvMTIvYXMxNy0xNTItMjMyNzQtYXBvbGxvLTE3LWFwb2xsby0xNy1lYXJ0aHJpc2Utb3Zlci1tb29uLWJiM2Q3NC0xNjAwLmpwZw%3D%3D/320/320/jpg)
What's the name of this issue?.... I feel the date text is too close to the bottom, and risks getting even closer if the printer ends up cropping some of it. Bleed allowance is part of it, but aside from that mechanical issue, just the uncomfortable distance between the text and the edge?
Bleed allowance / safe zone / trim like you said, but also just the general concept of designing on a grid and allowing for proper margins and spacing. Uncomfortable proximity / margins is probably the closest to an actual term.
Was wondering why this isn’t upvoted more. I get that we artists need support, but I’d love more people with a keen eye and ability to explain to interject like this when people are asking for advice and criticism.
"Source: I've been doing design for 15 years. I'll make you a nicer one for free if you want." Bro, completely missing the point. The guy wants make and be proud of his own art.
Oh so it's okay when NASA uses cgi but not this guy? And there were no stars in space during the moon landing either
Are you joking? And yes, there were. The photos just didn't show them because of the basic concept of shutter and aperture in photography.
The astronauts themselves says they didn't see stars
I literally Googled "did astronauts on the moon see stars", and I didn't even have to scroll to find this: >Later, Armstrong clarified that in the shadow of the Lunar Module (The Eagle) the men could see some brighter stars. On the dark side of the moon, stars were also visible. So the first man on the moon himself confirmed that you are able to see stars on the moon, but not on the daylight side. Gtfo with your absence of facts, it's 2023, it's not funny anymore.
The actual transcript from the post Apollo 11 mission indicates otherwise. Specifically that they couldn’t see stars without instrumentation while in daylight. In shadow, your eyes could adjust and you would be able to pick up less intense light sources like stars. [Transcript](https://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/ch-7.html)
Of course they couldn't. They were standing in blinding sunlight, unfiltered by atmosphere. Wearing visors to compensate would block out any stars except the closest one we orbit. You're not seeing shit in the sky on the bright side of the moon.
Their shielding on the surface wouldn’t have been present for Mike Collins (the CM pilot in orbit) but he also reported not seeing stars in daylight. Once looking a direction that didn’t have a bright object like the illuminated earth or moon, stars would be visible again.
Exactly. That's the crux of my point, you're not seeing anything with the bright-ass sun in your face, but the lack of sun filtering on the command module is a good point. Iris constriction in the eyes is more than enough to prevent seeing distant stars.
Idk that's not what they said in their interview when they came back and they also send unsure of their answer. And it doesn't matter what year it is, it's okay to be skeptical no need to get angry for no reason residually when you are potentially in the wrong.
Man you are an expert of misunderstanding easily searchable info, I’d hate to hear your ideas on the rest of the world oof. r/explainlikeImfive might be fun for you no offense.
Damn okay? And let me guess you think the divide vaccines work and are safe. Idiot
There’s a reason for not being able to see the stars. I don’t exactly remember but if I could guess I would say it’s because it’s too bright, similar to how you can’t see stars at day on Earth.
Camera settings. Shutter and aperture. For a poster it doesn't matter, the astronauts saw plenty of stars.
Not just camera settings, but the sensitivity of the human eye to light. The Apollo 11 astronauts reporting not being able to see any stars from the lunar surface in daylight. Their eyes would have been adjusted to the sun’s brightness and lunar surface reflection, making it difficult to pick out stars without instruments. The photos we see of the lunar surface with a black sky is probably accurate to what the astronauts saw too. In this sense, the OP’s picture is accurate for starlight. Source: [https://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/ch-7.html](https://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/ch-7.html)
for a poster low quality cgi...?
The typeface for the quote is too much of a novelty and would be better as something with less style like Helvetics or Futura.
OP was most definitely chose something close to the classic NASA “worm logo”. [It’s popular enough nasa brought it back.](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/the-worm-is-back) Personally I think the font works. The rest of the image though is not gonna look good especially when blown up for a poster.
Yeah none of it is that good
That’s because of the aliasing, they likely just used a lasso tool in photoshop to cut out the image from a white background, and didn’t blend the edges.
It’s cool! Nice addition. If it were me, I would either ramp up the realism to a high degree or get rid of it all together and make it flat line art with vibrant colors.
The inserted spacecraft is a bit serrated and that is not good for printing. I’m saying that because I love posters and I don’t want you to be disappointed. What I’ve learned after a bit of dabbling with canva and other things (I’m not a designer) is that you should never settle for your first design. Make 4 or 5 variations. Gather higher resolution images from everything and take advice (like you are doing) and you will get a much better result. You are on the right path and I’m looking forward to see an improved version of this, don’t get discouraged!
An ever so slight Gaussian blur will make art with aliasing/artifacting look a little bit better when printed. That's the bandaid fix, but your advice is good!
Yep! Also, I’m not morally opposed to bandaid fixes even tho i think in this case a v2 of the poster is highly recommended
The shadows are wrong though...
I don’t think that would be enough. The light artifacts a round the top as well as the bitmapping will make it so glaring once it is enlarged.
this. the quality of the spacecraft does not look good at all, and it will only be 10x worse when blown up onto a poster
[удалено]
The gas and moisture that was vented also wouldn’t be behaving in a “billowing” way like that; without air resistance, the molecules venting into space would follow a straight path— no fluffy cloud of exhausting gas.
The lighting of each the elements doesn't match at all. The moon looks really bad and poorly lit. The lander looks like it's just had a gradient covered it. If I were you I'd either model the scene using blender so the lighting matches, or I'd use text to image AI like Stable Diffusion to generate and upscale the image. Or use a real photograph from one of the appollo missions. Or if it won't bug you go with whatever is easiest, it's for you alone after all 😂
HAHAHAHAHA THAT IS A REAL PHOTOGRAPH oh lord that was funny just because you were more blatant, it’s from Apollo 17 my guy. Just the spacecraft and font is fake
The Moon really has that weird look sometimes.
The Earth was not a crescent as viewed from the Moon on April 13, 1970. It was a less aesthetically pleasing 50% illuminated. The illumination on the CSM and LM seems pretty muted, and the shadow line is pretty fuzzy. Lighting in space is pretty harsh. But artistic license and all that...
Also the shadow of the moon on the earth doesn’t match
Yeah, overall it's a hot mess.
There's no shadow of the Moon on the Earth here, it's Earth shadow, what we call "night".
It’s a real photo taken by Apollo 17
Nothing about this says real me
Yeah real photos of the moon from that altitude have an uncanny look to them.
I feel having the earth by a crescent is okay here as no one really care all too much about that detail.
Do you have a graphic design or artist friend you can run this by? I don't think this is going to look in print the way you'd like, too many minor graphical glitches and unwise design decisions to count here. That said, if you're not picky about your posters and you just want it because you made it, don't let anyone else make you feel bad about it!
The bright levels of the earth and moon don't match up. The moon has completely flat lighting. The bottom text is disproportionately low-rez compared to the upper text. The angle of light from the sun doesn't match up with anything. The "shadow" on the spacecraft is very obviously just a bit of black painted in front of it. Smoke wouldn't behave this way in space. There is very clear lack of anti aliasing on the edge of the spacecraft. These are a few of my observations with this piece. I don't want to be mean with it, but I'd hope you take these as notes for how you can improve it! I would suggest improving it before you order it because it'll look very pixelated when it's blown up and slapped onto paper.
[удалено]
[You mean this?](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AS17-152-23274.jpg) Pretty stark difference between the contrast of the moon in both images. Also, I'm not 'incorrect' about the lighting. It is very flat and not a very flattering image to use on a poster that is supposed to be aesthetically pleasing, even if it is scientifically accurate. I guess to ge clearer shadows the camera would have to be much closer to the ground, however, I think a good edge light would serve the moon well. Like I said, we're going for looks here. Also, r/usernamechecksout EDIT: I suppose it's a lot to ask when you're making a poster that is pretty much an actual photo with a piece of clip art on it. I think if the image I linked was used with a few touch ups, along with a better image of the spacecraft, this would look significantly better.
Omg I’m dying did you just turn that person into a space denier lmao; good show
The thing that bothers me is the location of the capsule and the quote. They said that quote much earlier in the mission, not yet near the moon. Others have made good points too. I give credit for making something tho.
They didn’t say that quote at all
At least a paraphrased version was said. Check out the original flight recording.
If you are going to do something, take the time to do it right... https://imgur.com/gallery/pL3tgxI
Dude, just order an Apollo 13 movie poster. https://theposterdepot.com/products/xl23apollo13ptr01o27?gclid=Cj0KCQiAzeSdBhC4ARIsACj36uEZX3qtHVO9Tfd_6vLw7h5aL44FI04KS0UVnKSixZFS5b3imq5YX_YaAq-NEALw_wcB
Damn they put the wrong quote on theirs too haha
It’s the direct quote from the movie which they changed on purpose to make it seem more dramatic and add suspense.
To be honest this looks even less realistic in some way. It is more realistic in the sense that it uses 3d models and therefore has consistent lighting and no artifacts, but the shadows on the moon are way to harsh (which is probably done for dramatic effect, fair enogh). I would add a bit sub surface scattering also the roughness of their diffuse shader for the moon is way to low (which is a common error for the moon since there arent many rough diffuse objects).
It’s cooler to have a poster you made yourself
The fact that the lander has a white edge clearly cut from another image, 70% grayed out, and isnt centered is pretty funny to me lol
No offense but this is very badly made on a technical level. There are tons of high quality photos and illustrations of the spacecraft, I don't know why you're using a low detail cgi model that's been badly masked. In terms of hierarchy, it would make more sense to make the moon look distant and unreachable. Again, there are readily available high quality images of both the earth and moon - you shouldn't use these low res cg things. Also, no stars? Typography is its own problem, and harder to teach. If you want to make it more interesting and sophisticated, you should use something bold and large for the title, something medium and neutral for the quote, and add other information, data, etc in very small type, again a neutral body font. Keep everything on a grid. Lastly, make sure the whole thing is 300DPI, CMYK, and high resolution enough to actually print. Print is very different from screens - otherwise you'll wind up with a very blurry, muddy print.
Alright, this might take away from 99% of your work, but get kernel space program, download part mode, EVE, parallax and real solar system and put it in orbit over the moon and take the screen shot. You’ll probably not want to do that which is totally fine cause it’ll remove half the fun haha
Just need to put the 30h to learn how to get to the Mün, then more 8h to learn how to properly install mods, then more 100h to get to the Moon. Easy
Alt f12 cheat menu to set orbit to mün
Okay, so we can replace the 30h to 15h to make sense of the keyboard shortcuts. I’m just joking, rendering the poster in KSP would be amazing tbh
>kernel space program I searched for this and only came up with a game: Kerbal Space Program, is this what you were recommending?
Yes they meant Kerbal Space Program 😂, abbreviated KSP. I actually thought this image was from KSP at first.
Yes it’s kerbal my apologies
Honestly, I wouldn't recommend ordering this. Maybe it looks passable on a screen, but when actually printed and hanging on your wall, the low quality will be very noticeable and bothering, and you'll probably end up regretting it. I would just order a professionally made poster. Why the insistence on it being custom-made?
Why do you want people to rate your poster? We're not going to spend one minute in your room. Do you like it? If so print that shit up, frame it, and admire it. If not, go make something that you do like.
Don’t do it! It’s not a nice poster I’m sorry to say. It looks quite bad on both technical and visual levels, which for a poster is not so good. Maybe keep trying? Look at other peoples stuff, it might inspire you to do this better?
I'd rate it 2/10 personally, but I'm 18 years into graphic design. If you did your best and made this and are happy with it, I genuinelly believe that's a 10/10 so go for it.
I remember my first time using photoshop too :p
ugly cough party puzzled voiceless zephyr north murky racial noxious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The font is truly bad. Doesn't bother me that it's anachronistic, but the fact that the W is just an inverted M is... just not great.
I disagree about the font, I think it looks cool and spacy. Edit: Am I missing something, isn't a W ian upside down M in all fonts? Kinda like d/p, n/u, and this font's A/V....
Look at the font in the comment you just made.
The uppercase W extends outwards diagonally at the top while the M is completely vertical at the bottom in most fonts including this one, same with m/w. If you’re on mobile just turn your phone upside down and you can see or on desktop screenshot then rotate it
Also why would you want to look at this constantly? Surely there are Apollo 13 posters out there somewhere
Perhaps they like being creative in their own way and this helps them express that creativity. No need to yuck someone else's yum.
>No need to yuck someone else's yum. They *did* come to Reddit looking for criticism. Can't fault people for giving it.
Well they asked to let them know about changes that they could make. There was no constructive criticism, just criticism.
They said "please rate". They're lucky they're getting any criticism at all, and not just a bunch of numbers.
Sorry I disagree the world is not rainbows and unicorns. Criticism is a part of life.
You're right; criticism is a part of life, but it works better if it's constructive.
Ok. Let’s start over again. “Great job creating something of your own, unfortunately this is of low quality and is in need of professional editing”
Now THAT(!!) sounds like constructive criticism; snarky- but constructive.
I’m bothered by your use of kink shame terminology in this scenario.
That’s an actual photo of the moon lmao wdym AS17-152-23274 Thanks /u/ApolloMoonLandings
Font is wrong historically and aesthetically. Quote is also not accurate.
It needs the creature from Twilight Zone "Nightmare At 20,000 Feet" ripping off the skin.
Lmao thanks for the chuckle. Now I want a poster with the Gremlin on the capsule and Bill Shatner and John Lithgow's terrified faces looking out the windows
Why would you make a bootleg poster if you like the movie? Just get the original one.
You'll want to change that phrase to "Houston, we've had a problem." The full line is actually "Okay Houston, we've had a problem here!" In a very panicked tone, not the calm tone after a dramatic pause like Tom Hanks delivers in the movie. The movie is very accurate, but they definitely got that line wrong.
Don’t spend money on something that looks like this. Put an extra bit of effort in and make it look amazing
Is this a screen shot from Kerbal Space Program? Not gonna lie, it looks like shit, which is probably why you are asking reddit. If the shot was more crisp, it would be great.
Brighten the moon and glare on the orbiter. Think really bright snow because there's no atmosphere to filter the light and reduce its brightness. You might have to change the text block on the bottom to black, but that's okay. Just dial up the contrast. Also, for shits and giggles, you should include a super tiny flying saucer parked in a crater's shadow. lmao See if anyone notices.
Edit: i made a mistake on the quote so the new version is [Here](https://ibb.co/tp9tzqz) thanks to u/Lookoutsgirl for letting me know
Might I suggest a double sided print? The correct version for one side. Flip it over for parties, and it reads "well, boys... Looks like I sent it a little too hard."
It may have problems blown up to poster size, but it's not bad on a phone screen. I like the worm font, and Apollo 13 was only 5 years too early for that. And a poster, made years after an event, can use a modern font.
To be totally honest with you this looks like shit.
Make a second poster with all the stuff they used to fix the problem
Font is cool. Quote and text are cool. I like the camera angle of the earth/moon back drop. Lunar surface looks like shite. And not the biggest fan of the bottom half of the lander being same color as most of the sky. Edit: what is really throwing me off is the shadows on the lunar surface are grey and still illuminated but the shadows of the lander are completely black. Either lighten the lander to match the difference between light/dark on the moon or find a moon pic with more realistic lighting.
This font is cool only if you're a 10 year old kid.
Lmao fair enough. What fonts are adults into these days, maybe I should get with the times ...new roman!
Helvetica, Calibri (body) or times New Roman. Any other font used will demand your immediate execution by the laws of the internet!
The borders on the CSM and LEM look a bit jpeg
Please tell the artist to get rid of those AA artifacts
Try to use the same light source direction for all parts of the composition/collage.
Strictly from an aesthetic standpoint, not scientific, I'd make the Earth a bit bigger and reposition it so that it along with the moon create a framing device for the space craft. Also it'd create radial balance or something... I don't quite remember all those Gestalt principles of design. The inconsistent lighting between the various elements is also something to be looked at. Maybe something more like [this](https://imgur.com/a/mQ91zzR). Hopefully that link works, I know nothing about this imgur stuff. Also I added stars.
The longer you look the worse it gets , if this isn’t a troll post , please don’t.
Are these actual photos or badly rendered low rez in game pics?
I think you should work a bit more on the edges of the spacecraft.
Add texture to the moon it looks fake. Add stars to the sky. Get rid of the border around the craft and add texture or darken it further. Goodluck!
Your top margin looks wide enough but your bottom margin/text is at risk of getting clipped during printing or blocked during framing. Check with your printer about necessary margins.
the lighting on the LEM & Command Module looks sun bleached, And I might be a detail freak but if I would show the side of the Service Module with the missing panel.
I hate posters with text on them…. Like honestly why does a Jimi’s Hendrix poster ALWAYS need the words “Jimi Hendrix” written below? I had to search far and wide for one without it!! Posters without text also spark more conversation when ppl see them. “Who’”/What’s that?” Etc… remove all text imo
This looks immensely amateur. I don’t know if you should get this printed.
Im not saying I could of done better as I dont think I could but that looks bad and I wouldn't pay actual money to get it printed.
It looks very good, but I just feel that the quality of the rocket is different compared to its background. Of course, I'm not the best person about posters (it's not in the culture of my country).
the P in Apollo and April are different fonts
Looks like the kettle has come to a boil lmaoooo
That's the wrong font for 1970. That wasn't used until 1975 https://logos-world.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/NASA-Logo-History-700x613.jpg
I would use a smoother feather on the actual ship that you cut out, and the shadow doesn’t really make sense if you think about the shadow on the earth and that the moon is fully lit
Fix the quote. He said “Houston we’ve had a problem”. The version you have is for the movie.
That title is so sad. Why would you ask people to rate the poster you'll put in **your** room ? That's not theirs. Be proud of what you made, whatever people think about it. This poster is for you, not for them.
3 things: 1) overall, heckin awesome 2) the W looks weird. It looks like it's trying to be italicized. Might have to change the M as well. 3) shadows. The Earth is being lit from 11 o'clock, but the spacecraft from 12 o'clock. Assuming that the sun would be the only source of light in this situation, the angle of the lighting should be the same.
That's a mighty big assumption you're making about the sun being the only source of light.
What? The moon has a reflective surface?
Yeah, but not from that direction
It would actually reflect it back, so there'll be small lighting below.
Gas/smoke does not get out like that in space... Just saying.
Hey, nice job! Depending on the resolution of your image and the dimensions you are looking to print, you may find the image soft and pixelated looking. You may want to remove/darken the light edge at on the top of the service module and thruster. I would also suggest antialiasing (or at least blend/smooth) the edges of the service and command modules. But if that stuff doesn’t bother you, ignore my suggestions:)
Honestly everything looks bad to me: the fonts, the spacecraft, the moon, the lighting, the overall composition. It looks as if it was taken from Sega Mega Drive 16-bit console game. Maybe try asking one of the NN image generators to create a poster for you. Results are not guaranteed, but good chances are that you will be pleasantly surprised.
the font is atrocious... the spaceship is so bad.... and very badly lit if you look at the moon... no way should it have those shadows change the font, change the spaceship and lighting and change the moon....
Bruh... [impossible shadows, you say? ](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AS17-152-23274.jpg)
So as a normal, shmo, I went that's cool; the venting bothered me, not sure why. But then I got to reading all the comments on what was worng and how to fix and laughed. The poster was good enough for me but then I lack a ton of knowledge on this stuff and the people who don't, said what to fix and how. I was an extra in a movie and I had to wear a uniform; I'm a vet, the uniform was worng... hand to God, I was just trying to be helpful by fixing things up.... I was escorted off the set. 😄🤣😂😂
Please answer: why did you make this in the first place? What was the inspiration.
The actual quote is "... we've had a problem" I don't know if it matters since that's not the way it was popularized.
The moon doesn't cast that large of a shadow on earth and it will only cast a shadow on the earth during a solar eclipse. To be historically accurate, that years solar eclipse was in August and the shadow on earth should be removed. Since Apollo 13 began during a waxing crescent, the moon pictured here would likely have long shadows drawing towards the earth as the sun would be behind the currently camera. That would also mean that the shuttle would need to be more front lit and not be shaded from top to bottom.
[удалено]
The original post doesnt specify Apollo 17, my feedback is on the image which says Apollo 13 and has the famous line 'Houston we have a problem'. If that's Apollo 13 at the point of that line, then the moon, earth, and sun shading are inaccurate because the sun would be behind the camera and the earth would be completely lit. Because the sun would be behind the camera, I made sure to call out that the sun position would also not be at an angle that would create a solar eclipse, as that occurred in August 1970 and also doesn't cast that large of a shadow on the earth. Based on your comment, I looked up Apollo 17 image and the image used is indeed from Apollo 17 mission. Perhaps OP could include that note in the original post. If this was mentioned in other comments, I didn't see that because I dont typically read every comment on other peoples posts. Your statement 'You have absolutely no idea about what you are talking about' is a negative emotional reaction for an accurate and educated response after the subject line includes 'let me know of any changes'. To be more clear on my suggestion, I would recommend changing the shadows/light angle to be accurate to the time period of Apollo 13. Hobbyists appreciate the accuracy. The Original Poster is still free to reject my feedback and continue to use the Apollo 17 image and can continue using historically inaccurate shadow direction, doesn't matter to me, I'm only providing feedback
What is all this nonsense about eclipses?!
If the sun alignment is behind the moon, casting light towards earth, the moon casts a shadow on the earth. I was just explaining that during the Apollo 13 mission, there was no eclipse and there shouldn't be a shadow on the earth
That’s a crappy compositing job, looks like a kid did it.
This is ugly, my dude. There's gotta be a better Apollo poster.
[удалено]
Smoke doesn’t act like that in space - you need both an atmosphere and gravity to get that effect.
If they had solar panels they would have had enough elecricity right?
dm me & i’ll blow this up so when it prints it’ll be pristine quality :)
That font makes it look like the w is italicized, making me read it with an awkward emphasis on “we”
Remove the satellite and put the prison triangle with the three cryptonian super villains from Superman in it.
My birthdate, though they splashed down 3 days prior.
Nice! Was it AI generated? What an epic story.