Mission: Space...was it hyped?

[EPCOT Explorer]

you mean your not inspired by the phrase "we choose to go"....that's not uplifting enough for you? :lookaroun

how about "if we can dream it, we can do it."

...yea i think that works a little bit better

:lol::lol:

Well, when you say it like that...

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I was the Imagineer that pitched the idea of what became Mission:Space. (ducks as tomatoes fly!) I quit WDI before it was completed so it evolved alot after I left. Horizons was probably the best of the "show" attractions in Future World. I liked it alot. It had the optimistic soul of EPCOT as it's message. It was the most forward looking thing out there.

Truth be told, it got old. GE wanted out in part because the ride was getting low guest ratings and had lost much of it's ridership popularity. I saw the comment and turnstile reports and walked on it several times in it's last year. So WDW was looking at a thrill attraction for that area as kids fought their parents going to EPCOT. That slot was to be that "thrill" attraction to add some variety to the mix. In the beginning, MS had the "capsules" indoors on a coaster train in the original Horizon's building. I later found out Universal was developing exactly the same thing as Apollo 13!

MS did not "replace" Horizons, as Horizons was already off the table in their minds. It was not in lieu of some big Space Pavilion with guests on their own flying MMU, etc. That was way over anyone's budget and was already dead on arrival. The die was cast. Everything failed because it did not meet the thrill criteria.

That laid the groundwork for new thinking. It was not to be a "pavilion", as no sponsor could step up with that much investment. It was hard enough to keep the sponsors they had. We pitched the idea of sustained G Forces in a real capsule where you press the buttons. Trying to make it a science fact thrill attraction where you feel as many of the real sensations of space travel as possible was the EPCOT of doing a thrill ride was what we pitched. Make it as real as you can. Many things could have been done better, bigger, longer and it could have been a pavilion. All true. It was a miracle that the team even got it funded by Compaq/HP. We worked very hard to stay true to the EPCOT mantra of futurism. No SciFi. We flew the real shuttle simulator at NASA. Interviewed astronauts as to what things felt like, even rode the centrifuge they ride to train,etc. MS simulates the dream that anyone may really go to space in their lifetime, and with Branson launching tourist rockets, it may come true. It was a conscious decision to say that it's not for everyone as most thrill rides aren't. It's tight inside and filled with controls and the forces are unique too. We rolled the dice and in some cases we broke new ground, but in any event you learn something. The content and message of Horizons belongs in EPCOT, so now maybe it's time to take things even further. Here's an article that has some ideas for how that optimism and future living could be accomplished. I think theres room for both!

http://imagineeringdisney.blogspot.com/2009/05/wwed-armchair-imagineering-with-eddie.html

So it's a love/hate kind of project. That's fine too. Just thought you'd like the inside story.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

I was the Imagineer that pitched the idea of what became Mission:Space. (ducks as tomatoes fly!) I quit WDI before it was completed so it evolved alot after I left. Horizons was probably the best of the "show" attractions in Future World. I liked it alot. It had the optimistic soul of EPCOT as it's message. It was the most forward looking thing out there.

Truth be told, it got old. GE wanted out in part because the ride was getting low guest ratings and had lost much of it's ridership popularity. I saw the comment and turnstile reports and walked on it several times in it's last year. So WDW was looking at a thrill attraction for that area as kids fought their parents going to EPCOT. That slot was to be that "thrill" attraction to add some variety to the mix. In the beginning, MS had the "capsules" indoors on a coaster train in the original Horizon's building. I later found out Universal was developing exactly the same thing as Apollo 13!

MS did not "replace" Horizons, as Horizons was already off the table in their minds. It was not in lieu of some big Space Pavilion with guests on their own flying MMU, etc. That was way over anyone's budget and was already dead on arrival. The die was cast. Everything failed because it did not meet the thrill criteria.

That laid the groundwork for new thinking. It was not to be a "pavilion", as no sponsor could step up with that much investment. It was hard enough to keep the sponsors they had. We pitched the idea of sustained G Forces in a real capsule where you press the buttons. Trying to make it a science fact thrill attraction where you feel as many of the real sensations of space travel as possible was the EPCOT of doing a thrill ride was what we pitched. Make it as real as you can. Many things could have been done better, bigger, longer and it could have been a pavilion. All true. It was a miracle that the team even got it funded by Compaq/HP. We worked very hard to stay true to the EPCOT mantra of futurism. No SciFi. We flew the real shuttle simulator at NASA. Interviewed astronauts as to what things felt like, even rode the centrifuge they ride to train,etc. MS simulates the dream that anyone may really go to space in their lifetime, and with Branson launching tourist rockets, it may come true. It was a conscious decision to say that it's not for everyone as most thrill rides aren't. It's tight inside and filled with controls and the forces are unique too. We rolled the dice and in some cases we broke new ground, but in any event you learn something. The content and message of Horizons belongs in EPCOT, so now maybe it's time to take things even further. Here's an article that has some ideas for how that optimism and future living could be accomplished. I think theres room for both!

http://imagineeringdisney.blogspot.com/2009/05/wwed-armchair-imagineering-with-eddie.html

So it's a love/hate kind of project. That's fine too. Just thought you'd like the inside story.

Fantastic stuff, Eddie. Never knew the Horizons Capsule idea was a real one, or just a myth. Cool.


thanks!:wave:

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Fantastic stuff, Eddie. Never knew the Horizons Capsule idea was a real one, or just a myth. Cool.


thanks!:wave:

We thought that you could make a coaster smooth enough that you would not know where you were going and by making a spiral out of it, you could simulate G Forces, then slow down and straighten out for show scenes and see out into a space setting. We wanted you to be able to be on your back for parts of it. pretty innovative, but there are issues with vibration and on-board power, weight, etc. Eventually reality caught up with us and we went with the centrifuge idea. Much later in the game. The fact that it was on a Coaster track got it sold.

 

[ChrisFL]

I was the Imagineer that pitched the idea of what became Mission:Space. (ducks as tomatoes fly!) I quit WDI before it was completed so it evolved alot after I left. Horizons was probably the best of the "show" attractions in Future World. I liked it alot. It had the optimistic soul of EPCOT as it's message. It was the most forward looking thing out there.

Truth be told, it got old. GE wanted out in part because the ride was getting low guest ratings and had lost much of it's ridership popularity. I saw the comment and turnstile reports and walked on it several times in it's last year. So WDW was looking at a thrill attraction for that area as kids fought their parents going to EPCOT. That slot was to be that "thrill" attraction to add some variety to the mix. In the beginning, MS had the "capsules" indoors on a coaster train in the original Horizon's building. I later found out Universal was developing exactly the same thing as Apollo 13!

MS did not "replace" Horizons, as Horizons was already off the table in their minds. It was not in lieu of some big Space Pavilion with guests on their own flying MMU, etc. That was way over anyone's budget and was already dead on arrival. The die was cast. Everything failed because it did not meet the thrill criteria.

That laid the groundwork for new thinking. It was not to be a "pavilion", as no sponsor could step up with that much investment. It was hard enough to keep the sponsors they had. We pitched the idea of sustained G Forces in a real capsule where you press the buttons. Trying to make it a science fact thrill attraction where you feel as many of the real sensations of space travel as possible was the EPCOT of doing a thrill ride was what we pitched. Make it as real as you can. Many things could have been done better, bigger, longer and it could have been a pavilion. All true. It was a miracle that the team even got it funded by Compaq/HP. We worked very hard to stay true to the EPCOT mantra of futurism. No SciFi. We flew the real shuttle simulator at NASA. Interviewed astronauts as to what things felt like, even rode the centrifuge they ride to train,etc. MS simulates the dream that anyone may really go to space in their lifetime, and with Branson launching tourist rockets, it may come true. It was a conscious decision to say that it's not for everyone as most thrill rides aren't. It's tight inside and filled with controls and the forces are unique too. We rolled the dice and in some cases we broke new ground, but in any event you learn something. The content and message of Horizons belongs in EPCOT, so now maybe it's time to take things even further. Here's an article that has some ideas for how that optimism and future living could be accomplished. I think theres room for both!

http://imagineeringdisney.blogspot.com/2009/05/wwed-armchair-imagineering-with-eddie.html

So it's a love/hate kind of project. That's fine too. Just thought you'd like the inside story.

Thanks for the insight....I'll tell you why I have a less than "loving" relationship with it...is the possibilities of sickness coming from looking at the screen with your brain telling you one thing is happening and your body telling you another. I've been curious about that, when WDI went to NASA to check out their g-force simulator, did they have screens on them also?

I've seen older films of centrifuge training and Obvoiusly they go through much higher sustained g-forces than we ever saw in Mission:Space, but I often wondered about the issues with sickness and the average guest, I've heard so many things about people just not feeling well after riding it.

I'm now permanently a green version rider, I tried the original (now "orange") version and decided never again would I ride it, and I've ridden some of the biggest coasters in the U.S.

 

[GenerationX]

Mission Space was wayyy overhyped on these boards!! You'd have thought it also found a cure for cancer.

All of a sudden, dozens of usernames either switched to or joined as an "ISTC-something or other." So many people, guys specifically, jumped on this band wagon. I remember reading reviews of this being the first "F-Ticket" ride--you'll never be on another ride/ attraction better than this ever.

I remember this, too. There were dozens and dozens of M:S threads, documenting every small construction step along the way.

For awhile early on, there were rumors that M:S would simulate weightlessness for some length of time. I think it does for about a quarter of a second, but as we all know, it is mostly an unbelievable amount of spinning and serious positive Gs. I don't like the spinning version, because it made me woozy for an hour after riding. Never again.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Thanks for the insight....I'll tell you why I have a less than "loving" relationship with it...is the possibilities of sickness coming from looking at the screen with your brain telling you one thing is happening and your body telling you another. I've been curious about that, when WDI went to NASA to check out their g-force simulator, did they have screens on them also?

I've seen older films of centrifuge training and Obvoiusly they go through much higher sustained g-forces than we ever saw in Mission:Space, but I often wondered about the issues with sickness and the average guest, I've heard so many things about people just not feeling well after riding it.

I'm now permanently a green version rider, I tried the original (now "orange") version and decided never again would I ride it, and I've ridden some of the biggest coasters in the U.S.

I'm very claustrophobic! So it wasn't easy for me. Usually when your brain says one thing and the screen says another, the programming is slightly off and that makes you sick. That should not be. I had hoped they would do a fake "heads up" display with the horizon line so you have something to focus on, this helps alot. The Centrifuge training we got was very intense at times and beyond what a guest would be able to handle. We attached our show video on a screen inside and mocked up the ride. I believe WDI consulted Air Force flight surgeons to tune the experience into something more mild and acceptable.

 

[ChrisFL]

I'm very claustrophobic! So it wasn't easy for me. Usually when your brain says one thing and the screen says another, the programming is slightly off and that makes you sick. That should not be. I had hoped they would do a fake "heads up" display with the horizon line so you have something to focus on, this helps alot. The Centrifuge training we got was very intense at times and beyond what a guest would be able to handle. We attached our show video on a screen inside and mocked up the ride. I believe WDI consulted Air Force flight surgeons to tune the experience into something more mild and acceptable.

Interesting. I was actually referring to the fact that you're spinning in a certain direction, which your body feels, but your eyes see you moving forward....so that is why they tell you not to look too far left or right, or you'd get sick.

In that way it's different than Star Tours, etc. which tries to simulate exactly what's on screen with the movements.

Still, thanks for the insight

 

[Figment632]

I was the Imagineer that pitched the idea of what became Mission:Space. (ducks as tomatoes fly!) I quit WDI before it was completed so it evolved alot after I left. Horizons was probably the best of the "show" attractions in Future World. I liked it alot. It had the optimistic soul of EPCOT as it's message. It was the most forward looking thing out there.

Truth be told, it got old. GE wanted out in part because the ride was getting low guest ratings and had lost much of it's ridership popularity. I saw the comment and turnstile reports and walked on it several times in it's last year. So WDW was looking at a thrill attraction for that area as kids fought their parents going to EPCOT. That slot was to be that "thrill" attraction to add some variety to the mix. In the beginning, MS had the "capsules" indoors on a coaster train in the original Horizon's building. I later found out Universal was developing exactly the same thing as Apollo 13!

MS did not "replace" Horizons, as Horizons was already off the table in their minds. It was not in lieu of some big Space Pavilion with guests on their own flying MMU, etc. That was way over anyone's budget and was already dead on arrival. The die was cast. Everything failed because it did not meet the thrill criteria.

That laid the groundwork for new thinking. It was not to be a "pavilion", as no sponsor could step up with that much investment. It was hard enough to keep the sponsors they had. We pitched the idea of sustained G Forces in a real capsule where you press the buttons. Trying to make it a science fact thrill attraction where you feel as many of the real sensations of space travel as possible was the EPCOT of doing a thrill ride was what we pitched. Make it as real as you can. Many things could have been done better, bigger, longer and it could have been a pavilion. All true. It was a miracle that the team even got it funded by Compaq/HP. We worked very hard to stay true to the EPCOT mantra of futurism. No SciFi. We flew the real shuttle simulator at NASA. Interviewed astronauts as to what things felt like, even rode the centrifuge they ride to train,etc. MS simulates the dream that anyone may really go to space in their lifetime, and with Branson launching tourist rockets, it may come true. It was a conscious decision to say that it's not for everyone as most thrill rides aren't. It's tight inside and filled with controls and the forces are unique too. We rolled the dice and in some cases we broke new ground, but in any event you learn something. The content and message of Horizons belongs in EPCOT, so now maybe it's time to take things even further. Here's an article that has some ideas for how that optimism and future living could be accomplished. I think theres room for both!

http://imagineeringdisney.blogspot.com/2009/05/wwed-armchair-imagineering-with-eddie.html

So it's a love/hate kind of project. That's fine too. Just thought you'd like the inside story.

Thanks for clearing this up Eddie, while I miss Horizons I don't hate MS like some people.

 

[Monty]

"Hype" is what any orgainization does when opening something new. :shrug:

Disney isn't about to build a new ride and put a sign out front that says "Try it, maybe it'll be kinda OK".

 

[DisneyMusician2]

Great insight Eddie. Appreciate your expertise! It is always interesting to get a real backstory on things.

 

[ChrisFL]

Disney isn't about to build a new ride and put a sign out front that says "Try it, maybe it'll be kinda OK".

No, they only do that for the refurbs (Space Mountain)

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

We thought that you could make a coaster smooth enough that you would not know where you were going and by making a spiral out of it, you could simulate G Forces, then slow down and straighten out for show scenes and see out into a space setting. We wanted you to be able to be on your back for parts of it. pretty innovative, but there are issues with vibration and on-board power, weight, etc. Eventually reality caught up with us and we went with the centrifuge idea. Much later in the game. The fact that it was on a Coaster track got it sold.

Wow. If realized, that would have been amazing. A worthy successor. (M:S, is, too, but this is better. :lol


Do you think with today's tech, or future tech, that's possible? Maybe for a new Space Mountain?

I'm very claustrophobic! So it wasn't easy for me. Usually when your brain says one thing and the screen says another, the programming is slightly off and that makes you sick. That should not be. I had hoped they would do a fake "heads up" display with the horizon line so you have something to focus on, this helps alot. The Centrifuge training we got was very intense at times and beyond what a guest would be able to handle. We attached our show video on a screen inside and mocked up the ride. I believe WDI consulted Air Force flight surgeons to tune the experience into something more mild and acceptable.

EXACTLY. Why I have not ridden it, yet. I love the queue, though....And I'll finally see the ride itself in a week.

 

[mastif]

I do not think it has really lost all that much popularity. The low waits are at least IMHO a product of a higher hourly capacity and a narrower rider base than TT or Soarin.

I don't have any numbers to back me up, but one thing's for sure, Mission Space always has short wait time.

 

[Master Yoda]

I don't have any numbers to back me up, but one thing's for sure, Mission Space always has short wait time.

True but shorter wait times do not equal a bad attraction or an under performing one for that matter. As long as there is a wait time and ride vehicles are going out fully loaded the ride is operating at capacity.

 

[ChrisFL]

True but shorter wait times do not equal a bad attraction or an under performing one for that matter. As long as there is a wait time and ride vehicles are going out fully loaded the ride is operating at capacity.

Well, the question is what capacity and also it speaks to the popularity of it...

For example, if Soarin' opened and it only had 10 minute waits all day, that would be not considered a success compared to what we see consistently now.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Well, the question is what capacity and also it speaks to the popularity of it...

For example, if Soarin' opened and it only had 10 minute waits all day, that would be not considered a success compared to what we see consistently now.

They (the Ops guys) call it "under utilization". Meaning you have excess capacity that is costing you to run but is being wasted. So if the show can take 2000 per hour and you are only getting 600 guests, you in effect are paying the price with labor, utilities and maintenance to run a 2000 guest experience at only 600. That makes the cost to carry each guest higher. Like the cost of running busses at half full. So they ask themselves, what would it take to fill the bus?

The other measure of success is incremental attendance. If people show up because of a particular ride, then it brought in that admission ticket.

 

[ChrisFL]

They (the Ops guys) call it "under utilization". Meaning you have excess capacity that is costing you to run but is being wasted. So if the show can take 2000 per hour and you are only getting 600 guests, you in effect are paying the price with labor, utilities and maintenance to run a 2000 guest experience at only 600. That makes the cost to carry each guest higher. Like the cost of running busses at half full. So they ask themselves, what would it take to fill the bus?

The other measure of success is incremental attendance. If people show up because of a particular ride, then it brought in that admission ticket.

Understood but what about, for example, sponsorships...does HP as a sponsor not have an issue if their attraction isn't getting the attendance they expect?

 

[DisneyMusician2]

Understood but what about, for example, sponsorships...does HP as a sponsor not have an issue if their attraction isn't getting the attendance they expect?

They might, but I don't know what their recourse would be unless their contact had some sort of out in it or refurb provision.

Without that, HP would probably just have to ride it out until their contract was up and choose not to renew.

 

[Glasgow]

I like MS, but not because I think it's the best ride in WDW. I like the fact that WDW gave something new a try and broke some new ground. Yeah, it's not the best attraction nor does it have the best story but it's something different and I appreciate that.
Sure it would've been nice to get a comprehensive, fully realized pavilion in the spirit of Horizons but at least now they can move ahead to the next big thing. I think innovation breeds innovation -- if you never try something you'll never move to the next level, regardless of success (preceived or otherwise).