Talk:From the Earth to the Moon

Untitled

In the Disneyland Paris, it is stated "The attraction's exterior was designed using a Verne era retro-futuristic influence".

Is this not Steampunk? Athomsfere (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The article says "Verne gives the exact position as 27°7' northern latitude and 5°7' western longitude" and then gives some vague explanation that places this in Florida. The specified location defined by these coordinates is near the western edge of a vast desert in Algeria. 121.88.225.74 (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)fredricwilliams@netscape.net

There's far too much information about Space Mountain. This is the wrong article for it. Also, "fabulous" has no place in an encyclopedia article. --Drogo Knotwise 20:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Picture

What is the picture supposed to be of? Even looking at the larger size, I can't see anything resembling the columbiad (or much of anything at all, for that matter). I think we should find a better pic, but short of that I have to say I think having no picture at all would still be better than this. Kafziel 18:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced it with two pics from the same edition, one of the projectile and one of the columbiad going off. Kafziel 21:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

yay!! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.27.49 (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A fallacy in From E to M?

If I remember from the footnotes a long time ago, E to M contains a fallacy about the Earth rising over the 'horizon' of the moon. To whit: from the surface of the moon the earth doesn't rise, it stays where it is and changes phase. If you are on the back of the moon , you never see Earth. If you're in the middle of the 'front', Earth sits overhead.--Eddie | Talk 09:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move this page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 12:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

---

There are at least three works with the title "From the Earth to the Moon", and the HBO miniseries is likely better known than Verne's work (make of that what you will). Therefore, I suggest this page be moved to From the Earth to the Moon (novel) and From the Earth to the Moon (disambiguation) be changed to From the Earth to the Moon.--Father Goose 00:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Mild oppose. I don't know if I'd even buy better known in the USA, let alone worldwide. See no compelling reason for a change. Gene Nygaard 18:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Strike my opposition, neural for not, not completely sold but maybe leaning toward it. Gene Nygaard 12:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The first few pages of a Google search shows the miniseries and the novel to have an approximately equal number of listings. That's not a scientific sample, but again, I do think the disambiguation page should be the default.--Father Goose 21:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Since they do both have a lot of links, maybe that would help make sure that someone creating links gets them to the right place. Do you know if that has been a problem as it stands now? There are some articles that can get out of hand that way, if someone doesn't monitor the "What links here" once in a while. With it going to the disambiguation page, that would help by immediately identifying the ones needing attention, so maybe that would be a good idea. Gene Nygaard 01:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I did a limited survey of Whatlinkshere; it looks like there are a lot more links meant to point to the novel than to the miniseries, but there were still several dozen pointing here that were clearly meant for the miniseries instead. Many of the links pointing to the novel come in via Template:Verne, so those would be easy to fix. You're right, though, that a fair number of links will need to be disambiguated if this move takes place. A fair number need to be done at this time anyway. Perhaps we can foist the job on Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation.--Father Goose 04:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I remember the title of the novel far better than I remember the name of the TV series. I suspect a lot of people have filed away the HBO miniseries under "that show about the Apollo missions that I watched a little of while channel-surfing". Also, if one takes the whole world, the book probably is better known than the HBO series. Speciate 07:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Linking

Should this article really link to the american civil war? The book, as humor is used, describes the war simply as a way to test their cannons. I don't think a link here is appropriate.

Also, the name of the cannon as The Columbiad refers to this Columbiad.

The cannon was never referred by a name, to tell the truth. It was called a Columbiad as a way of labeling the genre it came from of cannons.

THis article states that the gun club was interested in weapons of all sorts, especially cannons. I would suggest that weapons be changed to firearms. Thanks, Independent147 (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Chapter VI

The original title of Chapter VI is "Ce qu'il n'est pas possible d'ignorer et ce qu'il n'est plus permis de croire dans les États-Unis". Most copies of the book I have found use the proper translation - something along the lines of "What is Impossible Not to Know and What It Is No Longer Permissible to Believe in the United States". However, I have found one version, a translation by Edward Roth, who translates the title to "Which Lady Readers Are Requested To Skip." Does anyone know why? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kodachrome22 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall

What about The Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall by Edgar Allan Poe? Why isn´t it mentioned? --85.220.108.196 (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Verne doesn't understand Newtonian physics

Article mentions the impossibility of humans being fired from a cannon to the Moon, which would of course turn them into a red sludge at the base of the rocket. Talk page also mentions Verne's silly mistake of having an Earthrise from the Moon, when the Moon of course always has the same face to the Earth. But I also remember scenes in which furniture moves to the back of the rocket as it leaves Earth, and then moves to the front when the Moon's gravity becomes stronger than the Earth's. This shows that Verne did not understand Newton. Was this because the French were upset that Newton was British, and so persevered with other models? In other works, Verne shows himself as being exceedingly ignorant of science, even as it was known in his day. He is possibly one of the most inept scientists of to adopt the science-fiction genre. Should there be some elaboration of this in this article? Myles325a (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• In "All Around the Moon", he assumes that weightlessness is experienced only at L1. Considering the amount of time dedicated to science and math, it is amazing that he misses so badly on fundamental concepts. Maybe I'm being harsh since he didn't grow up watching astronauts float around in space. I think a subsection listing these errors would be a good addition to the articles on these books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.140.43 (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I've read somewhere that it was widely thought among scientists at the time that "weightlessness" only occurred at L1. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, Verne is surely forgiven. Concerning Earthrises, they occur near the edge of the Moon (as seen from the Earth), due to the libration, as well as of course for an astronaut travelling around the Moon. I don't know, though, in which context Verne mentions Earthrise... Fomalhaut76 (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I have another comment about the scientific accuracy of the story. See the section “Technological aspects of the novel”. Wouldn't it be impossible to get a projectile to escape velocity using regular gunpowder, or chemical explosivs in general; these aren't energy-dense enuf? Presumably, the maximum kinetic-energy density of the projectile would be about that of the explosiv; limited by the energy-density of chemical reactions. You would need a nuclear explosiv to propel the projectile; “nuclear gunpowder”, i call it.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, i wanted to write more, but the computer logged out. To get an idea of the energy-density of chemical reactions, they’ve never built a single-stage-to-orbit rocket; the highest exhaust velocity of any common chemical-rocket type is about 4,500 m/s, using H2 + O2 (the most energy-dense common chemical reaction), and a satellite in low Earth orbit moves at about 8,000 m/s. And Earth’s escape velocity is higher by about 40%.

Nuclear gunpowder (i.e. exploding a small nuke to propel the projectile) would be necessary.

Isn’t the statement, that the maximum possible kinetic-energy density (specific kinetic energy) of the projectile would be equal to the specific energy of the explosion (that is, explosiv yield per mass of explosiv), times a multiplier on the order of 1, correct?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

English Translations

Per the main [[Jules Verne] Wiki, most of the early English translations of Verne's works were poorly translated and turned into childrens books. Is that the case with "From the Earth to the Moon"? If so, which are the faithful translations? Luckyshot (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

What’s wrong with this…?

The External Links section contains a comment about one of the translations: “The translation is more complete than the Mercier version, but still has flaws, referring to the space capsule as a "bullet".” Is that a flaw? Wikipedia itself describes a bullet as “a kinetic projectile, a component of firearm ammunition that is shot from a gun barrel”, which seems to be if not exactly the same, close enough by analogy to be acceptable as a decription of Verne’s spaceship. Jock123 (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)