Deep Rescue: Will a shuttle float?
Joseph Nebus
so awful I may have to watch it. The plot: a space shuttle ditches in
the ocean, and promptly sinks; the crew has to get out alive from the
ocean floor.
Now. Ignoring the ``ball of crumpled aluminium shavings'' that
you'd get from a shuttle ditching in the ocean, if it were set down --
propellant tanks as empty as they get, cargo bay with just whatever the
palette being returned is, structure intact -- would it float? I don't
see offhand any references for what the displacement of an orbiter is.
It's not going to stop me pointing and laughing at the movie,
but I would like to be accurate about it.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale
>
>> I watched an advertisement for a movie, Deep Rescue, which looks
>>so awful I may have to watch it. The plot: a space shuttle ditches in
>>the ocean, and promptly sinks; the crew has to get out alive from the
>>ocean floor.
>>
>> Now. Ignoring the ``ball of crumpled aluminium shavings'' that
>>you'd get from a shuttle ditching in the ocean, if it were set down --
>>propellant tanks as empty as they get, cargo bay with just whatever the
>>palette being returned is, structure intact -- would it float? I don't
>>see offhand any references for what the displacement of an orbiter is.
I can't provide any numbers, but considering how far back the wings are,
I think the tail end is pretty heavy. And the propellent tanks aren't big enough
to float the thing, even "as empty as they can get".
Even if the cargo bay contains a large habitable spacelab-like payload,
I don't think that would be enough to make it buoyant. But you should be able
to find enough amusement with the premise just because they got past the
"ball of crumpled aluminum shavings" part :)
The title suggests there may be scantily clad women- check it out :)
Dale
Scott Lowther
> I watched an advertisement for a movie, Deep Rescue, which looks
>so awful I may have to watch it. The plot: a space shuttle ditches in
>the ocean, and promptly sinks; the crew has to get out alive from the
>ocean floor.
>
>
A quick Google search brings up the following terribly upsetting page
about the "star" of the movie:
http://www.hidef.com/alejonet/
Shudder.
--
Collectivism killed 100 million people, and all I got was this lousy sig.
Dave Michelson
> Joseph Nebus wrote:
>
>> I watched an advertisement for a movie, Deep Rescue, which looks so
>> awful I may have to watch it. The plot: a space shuttle ditches
>> in the ocean, and promptly sinks; the crew has to get out alive
>> from the ocean floor.
>>
>
> A quick Google search brings up the following terribly upsetting page
> about the "star" of the movie: http://www.hidef.com/alejonet/
The Million Dollar Sets of "Deep Rescue"
http://www.hidef.com/alejonet/wonderworks.html
".... We spotted Palmer pouring over the shuttle's operation manual with
one of the actors. After which, Palmer commented that it was a pleasure
to work with actors who had immersed themselves in the world of the
astronauts and understood the functionality of the shuttle in the manner
that they do. "I'm proud to be a part of this production and I've never
met actors who knew so much about the shuttle."
(The multi-million-dollar sets span the entire length of the "Deep
Rescue" sound stage. They include a space lab, the shuttle's mid deck,
the lower deck, the flight deck, an air lock, and the KRS-2 satellite.)
I have to admit that given Hollywood's track record with the space genre
over the past thirty years, the chances of it being a good film are
very, very small. However, at least they tried hard.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <nebusj.1...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>):
> I watched an advertisement for a movie, Deep Rescue, which looks
> so awful I may have to watch it. The plot: a space shuttle ditches in
> the ocean, and promptly sinks; the crew has to get out alive from the
> ocean floor.
>
> Now. Ignoring the ``ball of crumpled aluminium shavings'' that
> you'd get from a shuttle ditching in the ocean, if it were set down --
> propellant tanks as empty as they get, cargo bay with just whatever the
> palette being returned is, structure intact -- would it float? I don't
> see offhand any references for what the displacement of an orbiter is.
>
> It's not going to stop me pointing and laughing at the movie,
> but I would like to be accurate about it.
>
>
It sounds like "Gray Lady Down," substituting "orbiter" for
"submarine."
--
Herb
"Everything is controlled by a small evil group to which,
unfortunately, no one we know belongs."
~Anonymous
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <0001HW.C067AD97...@enews.newsguy.com>):
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 01:18:48 -0500, Joseph Nebus wrote
> (in article <nebusj.1...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>):
>
>> I watched an advertisement for a movie, Deep Rescue, which looks
>> so awful I may have to watch it. The plot: a space shuttle ditches in
>> the ocean, and promptly sinks; the crew has to get out alive from the
>> ocean floor.
>>
>> Now. Ignoring the ``ball of crumpled aluminium shavings'' that
>> you'd get from a shuttle ditching in the ocean, if it were set down --
>> propellant tanks as empty as they get, cargo bay with just whatever the
>> palette being returned is, structure intact -- would it float? I don't
>> see offhand any references for what the displacement of an orbiter is.
>>
>> It's not going to stop me pointing and laughing at the movie,
>> but I would like to be accurate about it.
>>
>>
>
> It sounds like "Gray Lady Down," substituting "orbiter" for
> "submarine."
Or even worse, "Airport '77".
Gah, I've seen too many bad 70's movies.
Jorge R. Frank
86.server.rpi.edu:
> I watched an advertisement for a movie, Deep Rescue, which looks
> so awful I may have to watch it. The plot: a space shuttle ditches in
> the ocean, and promptly sinks; the crew has to get out alive from the
> ocean floor.
>
> Now. Ignoring the ``ball of crumpled aluminium shavings'' that
> you'd get from a shuttle ditching in the ocean, if it were set down --
> propellant tanks as empty as they get, cargo bay with just whatever the
> palette being returned is, structure intact -- would it float? I don't
> see offhand any references for what the displacement of an orbiter is.
>
> It's not going to stop me pointing and laughing at the movie,
> but I would like to be accurate about it.
I have no idea if an intact orbiter would float. OTOH, the "ball of
crumpled aluminium shavings" is probably an extreme outcome as well.
Based on the previous two accidents, I suspect the orbiter would break up
cleanly along structural lines, with the crew cabin/forward fuselage
intact. Freed from the weight of the rest of the orbiter, the crew cabin
would float for quite a while. You'd get a lot of water in the space in
between the cabin and forward fuselage, and probably a slow flow of water
into the cabin itself along all the severed umbilicals between the cabin
and the payload bay. That may eventually weigh down the cabin and cause it
to sink, but assuming the crew survives the initial impact they'd have
plenty of time to get out.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
David M. Palmer
<neb...@rpi.edu> wrote:
> I watched an advertisement for a movie, Deep Rescue, which looks
> so awful I may have to watch it. The plot: a space shuttle ditches in
> the ocean, and promptly sinks; the crew has to get out alive from the
> ocean floor.
It's been done. This season on Stargate: Atlantis, and also a few
years ago.
LEELA: How many atmospheres of pressure can the ship withstand?
PROFESSOR: Well it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and
one.
--
David M. Palmer dmpa...@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
James Nicoll
David M. Palmer <dmpa...@email.com> wrote:
>In article <nebusj.1...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>, Joseph Nebus
><neb...@rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>> I watched an advertisement for a movie, Deep Rescue, which looks
>> so awful I may have to watch it. The plot: a space shuttle ditches in
>> the ocean, and promptly sinks; the crew has to get out alive from the
>> ocean floor.
>
>It's been done. This season on Stargate: Atlantis, and also a few
>years ago.
>
>LEELA: How many atmospheres of pressure can the ship withstand?
>PROFESSOR: Well it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and
>one.
Which is a little odd, because it implies that the Earth has
the highest air pressure of any inhabited world. I suppose some world
has to be the one with the highest pressure but Earth?
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
Dale
>In article <160420061001171896%dmpa...@email.com>,
>David M. Palmer <dmpa...@email.com> wrote:
>>It's been done. This season on Stargate: Atlantis, and also a few
>>years ago.
>>
>>LEELA: How many atmospheres of pressure can the ship withstand?
>>PROFESSOR: Well it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and
>>one.
>
> Which is a little odd, because it implies that the Earth has
>the highest air pressure of any inhabited world. I suppose some world
>has to be the one with the highest pressure but Earth?
It doesn't imply that at all- the "atmosphere" unit is "Earth's atmosphere",
so it is 1. That doesn't mean an inhabited world couldn't have twice the
pressure- we'd just say it has 2 (Earth) atmospheres of pressure.
Dale
Henry Spencer
>you'd get from a shuttle ditching in the ocean, if it were set down --
>propellant tanks as empty as they get, cargo bay with just whatever the
>palette being returned is, structure intact -- would it float?
Nope. Very little of the orbiter's interior is airtight; in particular,
the cargo bay is not. Even with something like a Spacelab module in the
bay, I don't think there'd be enough buoyancy to keep it afloat.
If you had a lightweight airtight module filling the *whole* cargo bay, or
very nearly, that might actually be enough to make the whole assembly
float, although I think it would float very nose-high because of the mass
of the engines. I don't *think* there's ever been a shuttle payload
fitting that description, though.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he...@spsystems.net
Matthew Ota
storyline. I will not contribute any money to such garbage. Who wrote
this trash anyways?
Matthew Ota
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Herb Schaltegger" <herb.sch...@NOSPAMgmail.com.INVALID> wrote in
message news:0001HW.C067B007...@enews.newsguy.com...
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 08:15:19 -0500, Herb Schaltegger wrote
> (in article <0001HW.C067AD97...@enews.newsguy.com>):
>
>
>
Was that the Concorde one?
I remember the tagline, "Can the Concorde survive attack?" My first thought
was, "nope" and I moved on. Never bothered to waste 2 hours of my life on
it. :-)
David Higgins
> Who wrote this trash anyways?
Chris Bremble. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0107061/
Supposedly this turkey was released in December.
mma...@my-deja.com
> Was that the Concorde one?
That was Airport 80, I believe.
> I remember the tagline, "Can the Concorde survive attack?" My first thought
> was, "nope" and I moved on. Never bothered to waste 2 hours of my life on
> it. :-)
I saw it as a kid: from what I remember it was OK, if stupid.
Mark
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <8dA0g.5015$Es3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>):
>
> "Herb Schaltegger" <herb.sch...@NOSPAMgmail.com.INVALID> wrote in
> message news:0001HW.C067B007...@enews.newsguy.com...
>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 08:15:19 -0500, Herb Schaltegger wrote
>> (in article <0001HW.C067AD97...@enews.newsguy.com>):
>>
>>
>> Or even worse, "Airport '77".
>>
>
> Was that the Concorde one?
Nope, Boeing 747 ditches and sinks, yet remains more or less airtight,
at least enough to keep everyone alive until the hulk is raised by
inflatable bags and canvas straps.
David M. Palmer
Strider\ <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
> "Herb Schaltegger" <herb.sch...@NOSPAMgmail.com.INVALID> wrote in
> message news:0001HW.C067B007...@enews.newsguy.com...
> > On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 08:15:19 -0500, Herb Schaltegger wrote
> > (in article <0001HW.C067AD97...@enews.newsguy.com>):
> >
> >
> > Or even worse, "Airport '77".
> >
>
> Was that the Concorde one?
>
> I remember the tagline, "Can the Concorde survive attack?" My first thought
> was, "nope" and I moved on. Never bothered to waste 2 hours of my life on
> it. :-)
I've heard that in that one, while supersonic, the pilot rolled down
the side window, stuck his arm out, and fired a flare pistol to
distract a heat-seeking missile.
Was the reviewer exagerating?
Ten Cuidado
"David Higgins" <no...@nohow.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:3rA0g.13815$az4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Never heard of this one. It must have gone straight to video hell.
OM
<dmpa...@email.com> wrote:
>I've heard that in that one, while supersonic, the pilot rolled down
>the side window, stuck his arm out, and fired a flare pistol to
>distract a heat-seeking missile.
...And then there was the Mach 2+ Immelman.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
James Nicoll
I hit S then said "maybe the Professor increases the air pressure
in the ship when they go to high pressure worlds." There are
gas mixes for up to 30 atmospheres, right?
OM
...Considering that none of us heard about it until just this past
week, I suspect it was released direct-to-betamax.
OM
<mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>> Or even worse, "Airport '77".
>
>Was that the Concorde one?
...There were four "Airport" movies:
"Airport", dealing with a suicide bomb attempt for an insurance scam.
The best of the four, and set a trend for disaster flicks in that they
now contain multiple subplots that tended to intertwine in ways that
stretched morals a bit more than previous films were allowed to delve
into.
"Airport 75", dealing with a Cessna that hits a 747's cockpit,
blinding the pilot and killing the rest of the crew, and rendering the
plane damn near unflyable save for using autopilot to keep it level.
Comes in a very, very, VERY close second to the first film thanks to a
good performance by Chuck Heston.
"Airport 77", dealing with attempts to shoot down the first US-owned
Concorde. It's enjoyable *if* you've got lots of buttered popcorn
-and- you didn't have to pay to see it.
"Airport 79", the last of the series. Deals with a 747 that ditches in
the ocean and sinks intact, and the Navy has to figure out how to get
the passengers out safely. Was *not* worth the price of admission,
much less the time to watch it, even if the popcorn was free *and*
all-you-can-eat.
...There apparently was an "Airport 82" proposed that dealt with a
hypersonic transport on its maiden voyage that has an engine
malfunction and gets shot into orbit. The studios nixed the project as
disaster flicks had become passe, especially following the box office
debacle of "The Swarm" and "End of the World". The script was bounced
around Hollyweird for a few years before it was tweaked and squeeked
and turned into "Starflght One: The Plane that Couldn't Land", which
according to some sources had also started out as a proposal for a
"Six Million Dollar Man" revival movie, but wound up being a Lee
Majors film anyway.
Go figure.
Rand Simberg
<om@all_spammers_WILL_burn_in_hell.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 23:14:12 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
><mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
>>> Or even worse, "Airport '77".
>>
>>Was that the Concorde one?
>
>...There were four "Airport" movies:
>
>"Airport", dealing with a suicide bomb attempt for an insurance scam.
>The best of the four, and set a trend for disaster flicks in that they
>now contain multiple subplots that tended to intertwine in ways that
>stretched morals a bit more than previous films were allowed to delve
>into.
It was also based on a book by a popular page-turning author of the
time, and relatively (for movies) closely based.
<most sequels snipped>
>...There apparently was an "Airport 82" proposed that dealt with a
>hypersonic transport on its maiden voyage that has an engine
>malfunction and gets shot into orbit. The studios nixed the project as
>disaster flicks had become passe, especially following the box office
>debacle of "The Swarm" and "End of the World". The script was bounced
>around Hollyweird for a few years before it was tweaked and squeeked
>and turned into "Starflght One: The Plane that Couldn't Land", which
>according to some sources had also started out as a proposal for a
>"Six Million Dollar Man" revival movie, but wound up being a Lee
>Majors film anyway.
Hey, they were sequels. What do you want from Hollywood, originality?
James Nicoll
OM <om@all_spammers_WILL_burn_in_hell.com> wrote:
>
>"Airport 79", the last of the series. Deals with a 747 that ditches in
>the ocean and sinks intact, and the Navy has to figure out how to get
>the passengers out safely. Was *not* worth the price of admission,
>much less the time to watch it, even if the popcorn was free *and*
>all-you-can-eat.
Replace the plane with the Squalus and you've got a decent
story to work with.
Jorge R. Frank
news:usv542lel5mi8p5om...@4ax.com:
> "Airport 77", dealing with attempts to shoot down the first US-owned
> Concorde. It's enjoyable *if* you've got lots of buttered popcorn
> -and- you didn't have to pay to see it.
>
> "Airport 79", the last of the series. Deals with a 747 that ditches in
> the ocean and sinks intact, and the Navy has to figure out how to get
> the passengers out safely. Was *not* worth the price of admission,
> much less the time to watch it, even if the popcorn was free *and*
> all-you-can-eat.
I think you reversed these two, though I'm ashamed to admit that I remember
enough of either film to know that...
Jim Davis
> ...There apparently was an "Airport 82" proposed that dealt with
> a hypersonic transport on its maiden voyage that has an engine
> malfunction and gets shot into orbit. The studios nixed the
> project as disaster flicks had become passe, especially
> following the box office debacle of "The Swarm" and "End of the
> World". The script was bounced around Hollyweird for a few years
> before it was tweaked and squeeked and turned into "Starflght
> One: The Plane that Couldn't Land", which according to some
> sources had also started out as a proposal for a "Six Million
> Dollar Man" revival movie, but wound up being a Lee Majors film
> anyway.
This was (very) loosely based on a Thomas Block novel entitled
"Orbit" although I don't think Block had any involvement or was given
any credit. His publishers did try to cash in by reissuing the book
in paperback and their was also a book club edition.
Jim Davis
Dale
>Dale wrote:
>>James Nicoll wrote:
>>> Which is a little odd, because it implies that the Earth has
>>>the highest air pressure of any inhabited world. I suppose some world
>>>has to be the one with the highest pressure but Earth?
>>
>>It doesn't imply that at all- the "atmosphere" unit is "Earth's atmosphere",
>>so it is 1. That doesn't mean an inhabited world couldn't have twice the
>>pressure- we'd just say it has 2 (Earth) atmospheres of pressure.
>>
> Having posted it, the part of my brain that waits until
>I hit S then said "maybe the Professor increases the air pressure
>in the ship when they go to high pressure worlds." There are
>gas mixes for up to 30 atmospheres, right?
Well, I'm afraid I misunderstood your post. You weren't objecting to
the notion that 1 atmosphere equals 1 Earth atmosphere, just that
a "spaceship" might be designed to return to another planet, so the
assumption that it would encounter between 1 and 0 atmospheres
would require Earth to have the highest pressure. Geez, that was
a run-on sentence of Guthian proportions :)
I was just thinking of the shuttle, which only deals with the range
between 0 (nearly) and 1. Sorry!! :)
Dale
Dale
>OM <om@all_spammers_WILL_burn_in_hell.com> wrote in
>news:usv542lel5mi8p5om...@4ax.com:
>
>> "Airport 77", dealing with attempts to shoot down the first US-owned
>> Concorde. It's enjoyable *if* you've got lots of buttered popcorn
>> -and- you didn't have to pay to see it.
>>
>> "Airport 79", the last of the series. Deals with a 747 that ditches in
>> the ocean and sinks intact, and the Navy has to figure out how to get
>> the passengers out safely. Was *not* worth the price of admission,
>> much less the time to watch it, even if the popcorn was free *and*
>> all-you-can-eat.
>
>I think you reversed these two, though I'm ashamed to admit that I remember
>enough of either film to know that...
Don't be ashamed- it just shows the broad range of knowledge which you bring
to this group. Although I have to disagree with that rave review of "Waterworld"
you posted on imdb.com... :)
Dale
OM
Simberg) wrote:
>It was also based on a book by a popular page-turning author of the
>time, and relatively (for movies) closely based.
...Historians take note: Rand and I agree on something. Unless he
thought the book stank, which is opposite of how I viewed the book. It
was actually a rather interesting read, considering I'd read the damn
thing in 1971, much to the chagrin/surprise of my 3rd grade teacher.
She felt kids my age shouldn't be reading adult novels. I honestly
didn't have the heart to tell her I'd read _War and Peace_ in the 1st
grade :-P
>Hey, they were sequels. What do you want from Hollywood, originality?
...Every now and then, actually.
OM
<jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>I think you reversed these two, though I'm ashamed to admit that I remember
>enough of either film to know that...
...Frap. Yeah, I did get the last two reversed. Mea culprit.
mma...@my-deja.com
> I've heard that in that one, while supersonic, the pilot rolled down
> the side window, stuck his arm out, and fired a flare pistol to
> distract a heat-seeking missile.
I don't think it was supersonic at the time: it's twenty-five years
since I saw the movie, but I think even as a kid I'd have noticed the
stupidity of sticking your arm out the window at Mach 2.
Of course if it wasn't supersonic that does beg the question of why
they wouldn't just try to outrun the missile until it ran out of fuel.
Mark
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
<mma...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1145274041....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> David M. Palmer wrote:
> > I've heard that in that one, while supersonic, the pilot rolled down
> > the side window, stuck his arm out, and fired a flare pistol to
> > distract a heat-seeking missile.
>
> I don't think it was supersonic at the time: it's twenty-five years
> since I saw the movie, but I think even as a kid I'd have noticed the
> stupidity of sticking your arm out the window at Mach 2.
Actually, I wonder what the airflow around the window would be like
considering the shock cone would be outside that area.
>
> Of course if it wasn't supersonic that does beg the question of why
> they wouldn't just try to outrun the missile until it ran out of fuel.
Other than most missiles operate faster than Mach 2 I believe.
>
> Mark
>
mma...@my-deja.com
Sure, but I don't think many go much faster than Mach 3: so you'd
effectively be cutting their speed by 2/3. That doesn't give it much
chance to intercept before the fuel runs out.
Certainly the SR-71 reportedly used to routinely outrun missiles at
Mach 3, even the ones designed specifically to kill it.
Mark
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <cgc642hf7mun7jg30...@4ax.com>):
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:31:39 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
> <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>
>> I think you reversed these two, though I'm ashamed to admit that I remember
>> enough of either film to know that...
>
> ...Frap. Yeah, I did get the last two reversed. Mea culprit.
>
> OM
>
If you'd read MY posts before YOU posted you'd have noticed that. :-p
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
<mma...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1145278820.2...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Most of those were ground launched or launched from interceptors at much
lower altitudes (really on the MiG-25 could get high enough). So it wasn't
just pure speed, it was that combined with the distance to intercept.
>
> Mark
>
Rand Simberg
<om@all_spammers_WILL_burn_in_hell.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 02:59:19 GMT, simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>It was also based on a book by a popular page-turning author of the
>>time, and relatively (for movies) closely based.
>
>...Historians take note: Rand and I agree on something. Unless he
>thought the book stank, which is opposite of how I viewed the book.
No, I enjoyed it. I also liked Hotel. Just enough sex to stir
adolescent fantasies.
Scott Hedrick
"OM" <om@all_spammers_WILL_burn_in_hell.com> wrote in message
news:usv542lel5mi8p5om...@4ax.com...
> "Airport", dealing with a suicide bomb attempt for an insurance scam.
ISTR that was Sonny Bono.
> Comes in a very, very, VERY close second to the first film thanks to a
> good performance by Chuck Heston.
Watched "The Buccanneers" recently. Wasn't that General Moses making a deal
with Yul Brenner?
mike flugennock
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 18:14:12 -0500, Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote
> (in article <8dA0g.5015$Es3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>):
>
>
>>"Herb Schaltegger" <herb.sch...@NOSPAMgmail.com.INVALID> wrote in
>>message news:0001HW.C067B007...@enews.newsguy.com...
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 08:15:19 -0500, Herb Schaltegger wrote
>>>(in article <0001HW.C067AD97...@enews.newsguy.com>):
>>>
>>>
>>>Or even worse, "Airport '77".
>>>
>>
>>Was that the Concorde one?
>
>
> Nope, Boeing 747 ditches and sinks, yet remains more or less airtight,
> at least enough to keep everyone alive until the hulk is raised by
> inflatable bags and canvas straps.
>
What I thought interesting about that particular "Airport" movie was
that all the important stuff doesn't actually take place _in_ an
airport. That sounds more ludicrous than an "Airplane!" plot.
--
.
"Though I could not caution all, I yet may warn a few:
Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools!"
--grateful dead.
_______________________________________________________________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
"Mikey'zine": dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org
mike flugennock
> neb...@rpi.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote in news:nebusj.1145168015@vcmr-
> 86.server.rpi.edu:
>
>
>> I watched an advertisement for a movie, Deep Rescue, which looks
>>so awful I may have to watch it. The plot: a space shuttle ditches in
>>the ocean, and promptly sinks; the crew has to get out alive from the
>>ocean floor.
>>
>> Now. Ignoring the ``ball of crumpled aluminium shavings'' that
>>you'd get from a shuttle ditching in the ocean, if it were set down --
>>propellant tanks as empty as they get, cargo bay with just whatever the
>>palette being returned is, structure intact -- would it float? I don't
>>see offhand any references for what the displacement of an orbiter is.
>>
>> It's not going to stop me pointing and laughing at the movie,
>>but I would like to be accurate about it.
>
>
> I have no idea if an intact orbiter would float. OTOH, the "ball of
> crumpled aluminium shavings" is probably an extreme outcome as well.
>
> Based on the previous two accidents, I suspect the orbiter would break up
> cleanly along structural lines, with the crew cabin/forward fuselage
> intact. Freed from the weight of the rest of the orbiter, the crew cabin
> would float for quite a while. You'd get a lot of water in the space in
> between the cabin and forward fuselage, and probably a slow flow of water
> into the cabin itself along all the severed umbilicals between the cabin
> and the payload bay. That may eventually weigh down the cabin and cause it
> to sink, but assuming the crew survives the initial impact they'd have
> plenty of time to get out.
Well, shit, man; where's the plot tension in _that_?
There's _another_ premise shot to hell.
OM
>Sure, but I don't think many go much faster than Mach 3: so you'd
>effectively be cutting their speed by 2/3. That doesn't give it much
>chance to intercept before the fuel runs out.
...Which is why part of the trick is to put the slower intercept
*before* the faster target, and let the target pick up the slack.
OM
<herb.sch...@NOSPAMgmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>If you'd read MY posts before YOU posted you'd have noticed that. :-p
...I'm sorry, I had you fillkiled :-P
OM
<mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>> I don't think it was supersonic at the time: it's twenty-five years
>> since I saw the movie, but I think even as a kid I'd have noticed the
>> stupidity of sticking your arm out the window at Mach 2.
>
>Actually, I wonder what the airflow around the window would be like
>considering the shock cone would be outside that area.
...The question here that begs is which would occur first? 3rd-degree
windburn, or the arm smashed against the window frame and broken at
the fulcrum point and/or severed at same?
Larrison
Actually, the orbiter will float. Some years ago there was a
detailed study looking at what would happen in a hypothetical water
ditching for the shuttle orbiter. There's quite a bit of airtight
volumes -- including all the PSRD tanks, the fuel tanks in the OMS and
RCS modules, and the crew compartment (which is pretty sizable). The
calculation showed that the vehicle would float, tail down, with the
front windows out of the water. With a SpaceLab in the payload bay
(the largest pressurized payload at the time), it would float several
feet higher, enough to clear the main hatch.
Derek Lyons
>Gah, I've seen too many bad 70's movies.
There were good 70's movies?
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Derek Lyons
>"Airport", dealing with a suicide bomb attempt for an insurance scam.
>The best of the four, and set a trend for disaster flicks in that they
>now contain multiple subplots that tended to intertwine in ways that
>stretched morals a bit more than previous films were allowed to delve
>into.
Which is especially interesting as the novel wasn't really about the
disaster - it was really only a background event that drove a plotline
mostly taking place at and surrounding.... (wait for it).... the
airport.
Hailey's novels were all about subplots anyhow - the notional
[event|location|industry] never was more than background.
Derek Lyons
One of my guilty pleasures is my collection of Hailey novels. I must
admit however that I can't choose between 'The Moneychangers' and
'Overload' as my favorites. (Hotel is decidely in second place at
best - mostly because he flubbed the ending IMO.)
James Nicoll
Derek Lyons <fair...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Herb Schaltegger <herb.sch...@NOSPAMgmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>Gah, I've seen too many bad 70's movies.
>
>There were good 70's movies?
Lots. In fact, I've seen it argued that it was easier to get
the money to make a movies aimed at adults Pre-Blockbuster than it is
now [1].
If you have a taste of pained mewling, I recommend William
Goldman's ADVENTURES IN THE SCREEN TRADE, WHICH LIE DID I TELL and
THE BIG PICTURE: WHO KILLED HOLLYWOOD (but I'd like a review on
the last because I have not seen it). If your taste for bile has
not been filled by this point, try his THE SEASON: A CANDID LOOK
AT BROADWAY, which is about the time he decided to see every
Broadway of the 1968 (?) season.
1: Compare and contrast TORA, TORA, TORA with PEARL HARBOR (and please
ignore that the 1970s product known as MIDWAY had many of the flaws
of PH).
Andrew Bunting
> > Other than most missiles operate faster than Mach 2
> > I believe.
> Sure, but I don't think many go much faster than Mach
> 3: so you'd effectively be cutting their speed by 2/3.
> That doesn't give it much chance to intercept before
> the fuel runs out.
Oh, lots did and do but many rely on boost-coast so the
speed drops off towards maximum range.
In terms of peak velocity for AAMs, IR-guided AIM-4D could
hit M4 back in 1958, AIM-47 pushed that out to M6 ( no
active service ), AIM-7E and Skyflash burn-out around
M3.7 and Aspide is around M4.
R-40 ( AA-6 ) would have been the primary means of taking
a shot at an SR-71 if the balloon ascended, and I think
it burns-out at M4.5. ( Any confirmations? ) Also, the T
and TD variants come with an IR head suitable for decoying
with a Very pistol :)
Contemporary thinking is either boost-sustain ( ramjets )
or boost-coast-boost, to give good terminal manoeuvrability.
Not that I'm trivialising making an interception on
a M2 target -- that's what the MiG-25 was for.
--
Andrew B
mma...@my-deja.com
> Most of those were ground launched or launched from interceptors at much
> lower altitudes (really on the MiG-25 could get high enough). So it wasn't
> just pure speed, it was that combined with the distance to intercept.
My 25-year-ago memory of the Concorde movie is that the missile was
being launched from the ground?
However, I just found this review:
http://www.agonybooth.com/airport_79/default.asp?Page=4
And it looks like the missile I was thinking of was the big black one
whereas the flare gun sequence apparently involved air-launched
missiles from a fighter.
Either way, I'm really not tempted to watch it again on DVD :). My
biggest memory of the movie was that they were too cheap to blow up a
real Concorde (or anything approximating to one) so they buried it in a
snow-drift with just the tail sticking out before they set off the
explosives...
Mark
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <4446e43b....@news.supernews.com>):
>
> Herb Schaltegger <herb.sch...@NOSPAMgmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> Gah, I've seen too many bad 70's movies.
>
> There were good 70's movies?
Star Wars was good. Jaws was good.
Those are my favorites off the top of my head.
Jorge R. Frank
news:r18642lf53ctgfmfb...@4ax.com:
What can I say? I laughed, I cried... it was much better than Cats...
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Jorge R. Frank
news:afeeb$4443a65a$4366619c$19...@msgid.meganewsservers.com:
Did I forget to mention the snakes?
OM
wrote:
>Herb Schaltegger <herb.sch...@NOSPAMgmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>Gah, I've seen too many bad 70's movies.
>
>There were good 70's movies?
...Lessee, good 70's movies that come to mind are:
Shaft
Omega Man
Soylent Green
Airport
Airport '75
Star Wars (A New Hope)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Jaws I
Sleeper
Westworld
Which Way Is Up?
Up In Smoke
Saturday Night Fever
Enter the Dragon
Patton
The Omen
Network
Blazing Saddles
Young Frankenstein
Animal House
Alien I
American Graffiti
Buddy Holly Story
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Catch-22
Chinatown
Clockwork Orange
Cooley High
Death Race 2000
Dirty Harry
Deerhunter
Dog Day Afternoon
Eagle Has Landed
Escape from Alcatraz
Exorcist
Fiddler on the Roof
French Connection
Godfather I & II
Grease
Kramer vs Kramer
Klute
La Cage Au Rands
Last Picture Show
Little Big Man
Logan's Run
Man Who Would Be King
Muppet Movie
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
M*A*S*H
North Dallas Forty
Oh God!
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
Onion Field
Outlaw Josey Wales
Paper Moon
Papillion
Planet of the Apes
Quadrophenia
Poseidon Adventure
Rocky I (And *maybe* II)
Rocky Horror Picture Show
Smokey & The Bandit (I *ONLY*)
The Sting
Summer of '42
Superman I
10
Taxi Driver
Tommy
Towering Inferno
Turning Point
Vanishing Point
Warriors
Wanderers
Willy Wonka
The WIz
Woodstock
Zardoz
All The President's Men
Colussus: The Forbin Project
Midnight Express
Phantasm
Superfly
High Plains Drifter
The Enforcer
Deliverance
Executive Action
Willard
Billy Jack I
Groove Tube
Kentucky Fried Movie
Longest Yard
Lords of Flatbush
Phantom of the Paradise
Bad News Bears
Choirboys
Slap Shot
Great Santini
...Did I leave any out, kids?
Dale
wrote:
>>Herb Schaltegger <herb.sch...@NOSPAMgmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>There were good 70's movies?
>
>...Lessee, good 70's movies that come to mind are:
>La Cage Au Rands
You just couldn't resist... :)
>Groove Tube
I loved that commercial for The Columbia School of Proctology- "Does this look good
too you?" :)
Nice list- thanks.
>...Did I leave any out, kids?
That depends- maybe you didn't like Star Trek: TMP...
Dale
Dale
>On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 00:51:13 -0500, OM wrote:
>>...Lessee, good 70's movies that come to mind are:
<snip>
>>...Did I leave any out, kids?
Since it seems to be quiet here, and I'm still awake...
I think a lot of people here might include The Andromeda Strain.
I liked it mainly for the brief nudity (hey, I was 13! :)
I'd probably include some of the later John Wayne movies,
like Brannigan, Rooster Cogburn and The Shootist.
And while you included Sleepers, I'd add most of the Woody
Allen movies of the decade- especially Manhattan, Annie Hall
and Play It Again, Sam. I'd pay to go to a bad Woody Allen
movie (of which there are plenty :) before lots of other stuff.
And of course, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes was thought-
provoking, as was Deep Throat (which probably made
more money than anything else on the list :)
Dale
Hopefully this one is typo-free.
Dale
>I wrote:
>> Don't be ashamed- it just shows the broad range of knowledge which you
>> bring to this group. Although I have to disagree with that rave review
>> of "Waterworld" you posted on imdb.com... :)
>
>What can I say? I laughed, I cried... it was much better than Cats...
Hmmm. "Ebert and Frank". I like it... :)
Dale
David Higgins
> ...Considering that none of us heard about it until just this past
> week, I suspect it was released direct-to-betamax.
or RCA Selectavision CED format -- the "laserdisk" without a laser; it
used a stylus tracking a disk spinning at 450 RPM or so. Jeeze....
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:Xns97A8E9E4...@216.196.97.131...
>
> Did I forget to mention the snakes?
>
What, there are SNAKES ON THE PLANE?
mike flugennock
> Herb Schaltegger <herb.sch...@NOSPAMgmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>>Gah, I've seen too many bad 70's movies.
>
>
> There were good 70's movies?
A few, and I do mean _a_few_:
"Young Frankenstein"
"Blazing Saddles"
"Sleeper"
"Annie Hall"
...and, uhh...there's a couple more, give me a few minutes...
But, anyway, I personally tend to mark the release of "Jaws" as the
beginning of the end of American film which -- imperceptibly at first
but accelerating through the '80s -- began an inexorable slide downwards
into total crappiness.
I can still remember a fair bit of controversy in '00 as the people
doing the judging/voting on Academy Award nominees publicly lamented the
quality of the movies being offered up for Oscars that year.
mike flugennock
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:53:59 -0500, Derek Lyons wrote
> (in article <4446e43b....@news.supernews.com>):
>
>
>>Herb Schaltegger <herb.sch...@NOSPAMgmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gah, I've seen too many bad 70's movies.
>>
>>There were good 70's movies?
>
>
Damn, you're right. I can't believe I left that off my
off-the-top-of-the-head list a couple of posts back.
Still, compared to the others -- "Young Frankenstein", "Blazing
Saddles", "Sleeper", "Annie Hall" -- "Star Wars" still comes in at the
bottom of the list.
The _first_ "Star Wars" picture was truly excellent. The rest were all
just two-hour Happy Meal Toy promotions.
mike flugennock
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:53:59 GMT, fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons)
> wrote:
>
> ...Lessee, good 70's movies that come to mind are:
>
Holy shit, thanks, Om; I totally forgot these:
> Network
> Animal House
> Clockwork Orange
> Monty Python and the Holy Grail
> M*A*S*H
> One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
> Quadrophenia
> Rocky Horror Picture Show
...and weren't "Butch Cassidy" and "Planet of the Apes" released in 1969?
Wow, more decent movies from the '70s than I thought, now that I think
of it, though I still think American movies started gradually stinking
more and more after "Jaws" birthed the Summer Blockbuster genre.
James Nicoll
mike flugennock <flvg3...@stinkers.org> wrote:
>
>A few, and I do mean _a_few_:
>"Young Frankenstein"
>"Blazing Saddles"
What the hell happened to Mel Brooks, anyway? How does someone
go from THE PRODUCERS to HISTORY OF THE WORLD, PART ONE?
Jorge R. Frank
news:Gj41g.6377$sq5....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> "Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
> news:Xns97A8E9E4...@216.196.97.131...
>>
>> Did I forget to mention the snakes?
>
> What, there are SNAKES ON THE PLANE?
Even better, on the Shuttle. ON THE SHUTTLE!
Jorge R. Frank
@reader1.panix.com:
> In article <657b4$4444d8f0$4366619c$23...@msgid.meganewsservers.com>,
> mike flugennock <flvg3...@stinkers.org> wrote:
>>
>>A few, and I do mean _a_few_:
>>"Young Frankenstein"
>>"Blazing Saddles"
>
> What the hell happened to Mel Brooks, anyway? How does someone
> go from THE PRODUCERS to HISTORY OF THE WORLD, PART ONE?
Never mind that - History of the World Part One was practically a work of
art compared to Life Stinks or Dracula: Dead and Loving It.
OM
<jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>What can I say? I laughed, I cried... it was much better than Cats...
"Heaven's Gate" was better than "Cats".
OM
<jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>> What the hell happened to Mel Brooks, anyway? How does someone
>> go from THE PRODUCERS to HISTORY OF THE WORLD, PART ONE?
>
>Never mind that - History of the World Part One was practically a work of
>art compared to Life Stinks or Dracula: Dead and Loving It.
...The problem with HOTWP1 was that Part 2 never arrived, which pissed
a *lot* of people off. Especially my Jewish friends who really wanted
to see "Jews In Space"! Instead, the closest we got was "Spaceballs",
which hit the nails on their heads so hard that George Mucus decided
for the lawyers that they had to sue. Unsurprisingly, the judge threw
out the case with prejudice because Brooks was 110% protected by the
FA as the film was a parody; ergo, if Lucas can't take a joke, that's
his tough luck.
OM
<flvg3...@stinkers.org> wrote:
>The _first_ "Star Wars" picture was truly excellent. The rest were all
>just two-hour Happy Meal Toy promotions.
...Wrong. "Empire Strikes Back", save for the asteroid worm sequence,
was closer to what a star *war* should have been all about. This was
due to the fact that Lawrence Kasdan had more of a controlling vision
than George Lucas did, and why to quite a number of fans it's the best
of the six insofar as a complete film goes.
Now, if you want to talk about marketing ploys, let's talk "Return of
the Tedi"...
OM
<flvg3...@stinkers.org> wrote:
>...and weren't "Butch Cassidy" and "Planet of the Apes" released in 1969?
...In the case of the former, IIRC it was very late '69. POTA was
actually '68, and was added by mistake.
OM
<no...@nohow.net.invalid> wrote:
>or RCA Selectavision CED format -- the "laserdisk" without a laser; it
>used a stylus tracking a disk spinning at 450 RPM or so. Jeeze....
...Yeah, but for damn near 20 years, it had the distinction of being
the one format that a "Star Trek" episode was recorded on that you
could see detail levels that Beta and VHS could never hope to show
you. Several cottage-industry prop kits were spawned from the still
frames from that disk because you could see clearly the detailing on,
say, the communicator to the point where you saw the casing wasn't
smooth, but almost "naugahide".
OM
>That depends- maybe you didn't like Star Trek: TMP...
...TMP hit the screens on 12/7/79, which was so close to the 80's that
I left it off when I compiled that list. One I left off was "The
Neptune Factor", which was Irwin Allen meets Ivan Tors - very, VERY
realistic props and sets meet enlarged footage of real sea creatures
attacking people.
OM
>I think a lot of people here might include The Andromeda Strain.
>I liked it mainly for the brief nudity (hey, I was 13! :)
...Dammit! Did I leave that out? I could have sworn I put that in the
list!
>I'd probably include some of the later John Wayne movies,
>like Brannigan, Rooster Cogburn and The Shootist.
...No, no, but yes, in that order. "The Shootist" was the perfect Coda
for the Duke, and is one of my favorite films for that era.
>And while you included Sleepers, I'd add most of the Woody
>Allen movies of the decade- especially Manhattan, Annie Hall
>and Play It Again, Sam. I'd pay to go to a bad Woody Allen
>movie (of which there are plenty :) before lots of other stuff.
...Personally, save for "Zelig" and -maybe- "Bananas", "Sleeper" is
the only Allen film that I think is worth the price of admission. The
rest - especially "Annie Hall" - are self-indulgent wastes of film
stock, and is proof positive that Mia Farrow should have simply shot
Allen when she found out he was pedophiling around with their adoptive
daughter, rather than divorcing him and dragging him through the
tabloids to try and ruin his career. The needs of the many outweigh
the needs of one actress bimbo, and we'd have been better served if
Allen were incapable of foisting more travesties upon the theater
screens.
Personally, I think his final scene in "Casino Royale" will wind up
being more prophetic than any of us realized at the time...
Pat Flannery
Scott Lowther wrote:
>
>
>> I watched an advertisement for a movie, Deep Rescue, which looks
>> so awful I may have to watch it. The plot: a space shuttle ditches
>> in the ocean, and promptly sinks; the crew has to get out alive from
>> the ocean floor.
>>
>
> A quick Google search brings up the following terribly upsetting page
> about the "star" of the movie:
> http://www.hidef.com/alejonet/
I always pictured that gizmo ditching and leaving all those tiles
floating in the water behind it still in the perfect shape of its belly.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Matthew Ota wrote:
>I am going to refuse to pay to see a movie with such a ridiculous
>storyline. I will not contribute any money to such garbage. Who wrote
>this trash anyways?
>
>Matthew Ota
>
>
I asked the same things about "Revenge Of The Sith".
Pat
OM
wrote:
>I asked the same things about "Revenge Of The Sith".
...ROTS had its good points, and its bad points. Most of the bad
points can be linked to the fact that Lucas failed to take the "easy
way out" regarding how Anakin went over to the Dark Seid...er, Side.
Had I written the "finale", here's how I would have "turned" Anakin:
Anakin has just cut off Mace Windu's hands to prevent him from killing
Palpatine/Sideous. The reason is really, legally logical - you don't
assasinate a leader who's abused his powers in a democratic society,
you arrest him and put him on trial. However, when Palpatine uses his
Dark Side powers to kill Mace, Anakin realizes that Mace might have
been right. Anakin, instead of going to the Dark Side, starts to
attack Palpatine, but the Emperor has a trick up his sleeve. He zaps
Anakin unconscious, then pulls out some crystal doo-dad that contains
the soul/essence/katra of none other than Count Dooku. He force
implants Dooku's soul over Anakin's, and it's really Dooku who's in
charge of Anakin's body when he goes and destroys the Jedi and their
temple. Yes, it turns out that Dooku's decapitation by Anakin was
planned all along by both Sideous and Dooku - Dooku was dying of an
incurable disease, and Sideous had come up with a way to cheat death
*and* make sure that someone with the potential of Anakin in mastering
the Force would be under his control.
Cut to the final battle between Obi-Wan and "Anakin". This is where
Natalie Portman could have been able to act as Padme and not a Lucas
version of Adrian in the later "Rocky" films - read: dumb, vunerable,
and not much more than pregnant eye candy. Being Anakin's wife, she'd
suspect something is wrong right off the bat, and then when Anakin
says something that only Dooku would have said, she'd realize what's
going on. She blurts out the truth about the switch, and AnaDooku
force chokes her to shut her up. That's when the fight breaks out, and
goes pretty much as it did in the film *except* for none of the "you
were my brother, why must I kill you" pap. This lets the fight be far
more brutal, and justifies Obi-Wan letting AnaDooku burn the way he
did; Anakin's soul is gone, and when the body burns Dooku will finally
be dead.
However, as we see, the Emperor arrives in time to save AnaDooku. The
whole conversion to Darth Vader the Cyborg takes place, and when he
wakes up the first thing he asks about is Padme. It's then that the
Emperor realizes what's happend. The trauma of the burning and the
fusion to the cyborg parts has caused Dooku's mind to snap, and the
two minds of Anakin and Dooku have fused. Anakin's memories are
dominant, but Dooku's lust for power and glory and guts and raping and
maiming and pillaging and burning and eating Wookie babies are now
controlling his actions from this moment forward. Thus, the Emperor
gets the best of both apprentices; one who was his most loyal and
successful, and one who has the potential to turn the entire Force
towards the Dark Side. Both of whom are in one body, and under his
compete thrall.
This would have solved one of the major problems with "The Phantom
Dennis the Menace", in that audiences simply could not identify with
the boy as being a hero, knowing full well who he was going to grow up
to be. It was akin to watching a film about young Adolf Hitler as a
boy in Austria, being kind to animals, helping old ladies across the
street, and finally helping a local Jewish congregation rebuild their
synagogue after the old one burns down. My version would have shown
Anakin as more of the victim than the villain, and made his redemption
at the end of "ROTJ" all the more a victory, as he defeated not
himself, but the Sith Lord who'd taken over his body, prior to taking
out the Emperor. Of course, I'd have had *that* battle have quite a
bit more oomph to it that just throwing the old coot over a railing,
but that's another reimaging...
Mary Pegg
> I am going to refuse to pay to see a movie with such a ridiculous
> storyline. I will not contribute any money to such garbage.
Thank $Deity somebody's prepared to take a stand.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"OM" <om@all_spammers_WILL_burn_in_hell.com> wrote in message
news:bu0a42dalq6rvqnst...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:12:24 -0500, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I asked the same things about "Revenge Of The Sith".
>
Now that's an ending I could have bought. The one Lucas wrote, I simply
could not enjoy.
I mean we end up having Obi-Wan being a sadistic bastard letting Anakin just
suffer there by the lava. That was unbelievable to me.
This one, I like much better.
Mary Pegg
> ...There apparently was an "Airport 82" proposed that dealt with a
> hypersonic transport on its maiden voyage that has an engine
> malfunction and gets shot into orbit. The studios nixed the project as
> disaster flicks had become passe, especially following the box office
> debacle of "The Swarm" and "End of the World". The script was bounced
> around Hollyweird for a few years before it was tweaked and squeeked
> and turned into "Starflght One: The Plane that Couldn't Land", which
> according to some sources had also started out as a proposal for a
> "Six Million Dollar Man" revival movie, but wound up being a Lee
> Majors film anyway.
That'll be "Flight One" by Charles Carpentier. Published 1973.
Utter utter rubbish.
Mary Pegg
> OM wrote:
>
>> ...There apparently was an "Airport 82" proposed that dealt with
>> a hypersonic transport on its maiden voyage that has an engine
>> malfunction and gets shot into orbit. The studios nixed the
>> <snip>
>
> This was (very) loosely based on a Thomas Block novel entitled
> "Orbit" although I don't think Block had any involvement or was given
> any credit. His publishers did try to cash in by reissuing the book
> in paperback and their was also a book club edition.
OM's precis is an exact description of the plot of "Flight One".
Having Googled a bit it seems it also fits "Orbit"!
Mary Pegg
> "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in
> news:Gj41g.6377$sq5....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
>> "Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
>> news:Xns97A8E9E4...@216.196.97.131...
>>>
>>> Did I forget to mention the snakes?
>>
>> What, there are SNAKES ON THE PLANE?
>
> Even better, on the Shuttle. ON THE SHUTTLE!
That's okay, the stowaway eleven year old girl brought her
pet mongoose with her.
Brian Thorn
Nicoll) wrote:
> What the hell happened to Mel Brooks, anyway? How does someone
>go from THE PRODUCERS to HISTORY OF THE WORLD, PART ONE?
Well, the "Moses and the 15 Commandments" scene in HOTWP1 is almost
worth watching the whole movie for. Almost.
Brian
mike flugennock
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:17:38 -0400, mike flugennock
> <flvg3...@stinkers.org> wrote:
>
>
>>The _first_ "Star Wars" picture was truly excellent. The rest were all
>>just two-hour Happy Meal Toy promotions.
>
>
> ...Wrong. "Empire Strikes Back", save for the asteroid worm sequence,
> was closer to what a star *war* should have been all about. This was
> due to the fact that Lawrence Kasdan had more of a controlling vision
> than George Lucas did, and why to quite a number of fans it's the best
> of the six insofar as a complete film goes.
I remember the original "Star Wars" as being the kind of classic space
opera with a beginning, a middle, a conflict, a resolution, done, no
weird open-ended stuff, like "2001". It just seemed like a story that
didn't need anymore added to it.
And while we're on the subject of '70s movies and Lucas, let's not
forget my own all-time favorite of his, "THX 1138" (1971). Robert Duvall
went on to play tons of great roles after that, but for years I could
only see him as the artificially-grown, hairless, white-suited,
drugged-up, repressed, harried nuclear materials handler in that hellish
underground hive. Wotta great flick.
mike flugennock
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:23:20 -0400, mike flugennock
> <flvg3...@stinkers.org> wrote:
>
>
>>...and weren't "Butch Cassidy" and "Planet of the Apes" released in 1969?
>
>
> ...In the case of the former, IIRC it was very late '69. POTA was
> actually '68, and was added by mistake.
OK, so I _was_ right; I remember seeing POTA at the base theater when
our family was stationed in Germany in the summer of '69, so it had to
have been out in the States before that.
One of Heston's best pictures. I'm _serious_. Who else could've properly
delivered the line "Get your hands off me, you damned dirty ape!"?
Jeffery Hunter, as Captain Pike? Not a chance.
mike flugennock
>
> ...Personally, save for "Zelig" and -maybe- "Bananas", "Sleeper" is
> the only Allen film that I think is worth the price of admission. The
> rest - especially "Annie Hall" - are self-indulgent wastes of film
> stock, and is proof positive that Mia Farrow should have simply shot
> Allen when she found out he was pedophiling around with their adoptive
> daughter, rather than divorcing him and dragging him through the
> tabloids to try and ruin his career. The needs of the many outweigh
> the needs of one actress bimbo, and we'd have been better served if
> Allen were incapable of foisting more travesties upon the theater
> screens.
>
> Personally, I think his final scene in "Casino Royale" will wind up
> being more prophetic than any of us realized at the time...
What, you mean hiccuping until the world explodes?
(Damn, I need to see that picture again, if only for the kitschy Herb
Alpert tunes in the soundtrack)
snidely
mike flugennock wrote:
[...]
> I remember the original "Star Wars" as being the kind of classic space
> opera with a beginning, a middle, a conflict, a resolution, done, no
> weird open-ended stuff, like "2001". It just seemed like a story that
> didn't need anymore added to it.
Some people place the blame for the End of Civlization In Hollywood
right square on the shoulders of Star Wars, and that Darth Vader is a
self-portrait of GL.
> And while we're on the subject of '70s movies and Lucas, let's not
> forget my own all-time favorite of his, "THX 1138" (1971).
Those that do say EoCiH=SW report the story that someone, probably a
student, gushed about THX 1138 to Lucas, and the reply was, "Why? It
didn't make any money."
/dps
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <hopa425qo5donrl5g...@4ax.com>):
Don't forget the world's first artist and the worlds' first critic
scene.
> Brian
>
--
Herb
"Everything is controlled by a small evil group to which,
unfortunately, no one we know belongs."
~Anonymous
OM
<herb.sch...@NOSPAMgmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:25:32 -0500, Brian Thorn wrote
>(in article <hopa425qo5donrl5g...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:07:10 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>> Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>>> What the hell happened to Mel Brooks, anyway? How does someone
>>> go from THE PRODUCERS to HISTORY OF THE WORLD, PART ONE?
>>
>> Well, the "Moses and the 15 Commandments" scene in HOTWP1 is almost
>> worth watching the whole movie for. Almost.
...The thing that makes the scene all more memorable is that it's
probably historically accurate.
>Don't forget the world's first artist and the worlds' first critic
>scene.
...The scene that has me laughing the most is when, in the middle of
hundreds of white toga'd Romans, there's one brother standing about a
foot taller than everyone else, strutting through the crowd with a
ghetto blaster pumping "Funkytown".
OM
<flvg3...@stinkers.org> wrote:
>> Personally, I think his final scene in "Casino Royale" will wind up
>> being more prophetic than any of us realized at the time...
>
>What, you mean hiccuping until the world explodes?
...No, the final scene shows everyone in the Casino up in Heaven,
playing harps. Except for Woody, who goes someplace where it's very
hot.
OM
<flvg3...@stinkers.org> wrote:
>One of Heston's best pictures. I'm _serious_. Who else could've properly
>delivered the line "Get your hands off me, you damned dirty ape!"?
...Heston's rarely turned out a bad picture, which says something for
his acting ability. He can even take a flop and give it some semblance
of a salvation. "Black Sunday" and "Number One" come to mind,
especially since the latter will go down in history as the only time
the Saints were ever a halfway decent ball club.
Dale
wrote:
>...Personally, save for "Zelig" and -maybe- "Bananas", "Sleeper" is
>the only Allen film that I think is worth the price of admission. The
>rest - especially "Annie Hall" - are self-indulgent wastes of film
>stock, and is proof positive that Mia Farrow should have simply shot
>Allen when she found out he was pedophiling around with their adoptive
>daughter, rather than divorcing him and dragging him through the
>tabloids to try and ruin his career. The needs of the many outweigh
>the needs of one actress bimbo, and we'd have been better served if
>Allen were incapable of foisting more travesties upon the theater
>screens.
Just a wild guess, but I suspect you don't like the guy :) Of course his
movies are self-indulgent wastes of film. That's the whole point. And
sometimes they are nicely shot and have beautiful soundtracks, like
Manhattan. BTW, Ying Yang was Mia's adoptive daughter, not his.
Plus, he plays jazz on an Albert system clarinet. That, and his current
marital status, suggest the guy has talented fingers.
You're just jealous because Mia has never divorced you because
you were fooling around with a much-too-younger woman :)
Dale
Scott Hedrick
"mike flugennock" <flvg3...@stinkers.org> wrote in message
news:c5e24$4445676a$4366619c$71...@msgid.meganewsservers.com...
> And while we're on the subject of '70s movies and Lucas, let's not forget
> my own all-time favorite of his, "THX 1138" (1971).
Currently available at Wal-Mart paired with The Matrix for $7.50.
cfl...@hotmail.com
mike flugennock wrote:
>
> And while we're on the subject of '70s movies and Lucas, let's not
> forget my own all-time favorite of his, "THX 1138" (1971). Robert Duvall
> went on to play tons of great roles after that, but for years I could
> only see him as the artificially-grown, hairless, white-suited,
> drugged-up, repressed, harried nuclear materials handler in that hellish
> underground hive. Wotta great flick.
>
>
>
You saw Robert Duvall as Homer Simpson? There's an idea for the casting
for the live-action Simpsons movie....
Brian Thorn
<om@all_spammers_WILL_burn_in_hell.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:53:59 GMT, fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons)
>wrote:
>
>>Herb Schaltegger <herb.sch...@NOSPAMgmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>>Gah, I've seen too many bad 70's movies.
>>
>>There were good 70's movies?
>
>...Lessee, good 70's movies that come to mind are:
Long list deleted...
>...Did I leave any out, kids?
Time After Time
Silver Streak
Brian
OM
wrote:
>>...Did I leave any out, kids?
>
>Time After Time
>Silver Streak
...The former, yes. The latter for some reason I never did like, and
I've never been able to explain it. Mea culprit.
Kevin Willoughby
says...
> assuming the crew survives the initial impact they'd have
> plenty of time to get out.
How do they get out? Aren't the hatches below the waterline?
--
Kevin Willoughby kevinwi...@acm.org.invalid
In this country, we produce more students with university degrees
in sports management than we do in engineering. - Dean Kamen
Jorge R. Frank
news:MPG.1ebb4490...@news.rcn.com:
> In article <Xns97A76E9B...@216.196.97.131>, jrf...@ibm-pc.borg
> says...
>> assuming the crew survives the initial impact they'd have
>> plenty of time to get out.
>
> How do they get out? Aren't the hatches below the waterline?
They can blow the pyros on one of the overhead windows and egress that way.
Besides, with the cabin no longer attached to the rest of the hull, there's
no reason to assume it would float right-side up.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
OM
<jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>Besides, with the cabin no longer attached to the rest of the hull, there's
>no reason to assume it would float right-side up.
"Coming up next on 'Irwin Allen Theater': A Space Shuttle aborts a
launch, and has to land in the Atlantic Ocean, where it's capsized by
a tidal wave. Now, in order to survive, the crew must make their way
from the middeck to the..."
No, wait. That won't work plot-wise. Even if Irwin was responsible for
it...
Jonathan Silverlight
<jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> writes
>Kevin Willoughby <KevinWi...@acm.org.invalid> wrote in
>news:MPG.1ebb4490...@news.rcn.com:
>
>> In article <Xns97A76E9B...@216.196.97.131>, jrf...@ibm-pc.borg
>> says...
>>> assuming the crew survives the initial impact they'd have
>>> plenty of time to get out.
>>
>> How do they get out? Aren't the hatches below the waterline?
>
>They can blow the pyros on one of the overhead windows and egress that way.
>
>Besides, with the cabin no longer attached to the rest of the hull, there's
>no reason to assume it would float right-side up.
>
in half when she (is that right ?) ditches, and "the crew cabin... sank
like a stone". The crew bails out and all but one survives.
Jorge R. Frank
wrote in news:8F6b+qLi...@ntlworld.com:
> In message <Xns97B2DA5A...@216.196.97.131>, Jorge R. Frank
> <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> writes
>>
>>Besides, with the cabin no longer attached to the rest of the hull,
>>there's no reason to assume it would float right-side up.
>>
> Would it float at all?
Yes. See the earlier posts in this thread by Wales Larrison and myself.
> FWIW, in "Encounter with Tiber" Endeavour
> breaks in half when she (is that right ?) ditches, and "the crew
> cabin... sank like a stone". The crew bails out and all but one
> survives.
FWIW, "Encounter with Tiber" is a work of fiction.
Jonathan Silverlight
>Jonathan Silverlight <jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid>
>wrote in news:8F6b+qLi...@ntlworld.com:
>
>> In message <Xns97B2DA5A...@216.196.97.131>, Jorge R. Frank
>> <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> writes
>>>
>>>Besides, with the cabin no longer attached to the rest of the hull,
>>>there's no reason to assume it would float right-side up.
>>>
>> Would it float at all?
>
>Yes. See the earlier posts in this thread by Wales Larrison and myself.
>
>> FWIW, in "Encounter with Tiber" Endeavour
>> breaks in half when she (is that right ?) ditches, and "the crew
>> cabin... sank like a stone". The crew bails out and all but one
>> survives.
>
>FWIW, "Encounter with Tiber" is a work of fiction.
>
I do know that :-) Couldn't find the posts about it floating before I
did mine, and they obviously got this wrong.
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)
> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
> > Other than most missiles operate faster than Mach 2 I believe.
>
> Sure, but I don't think many go much faster than Mach 3: so you'd
> effectively be cutting their speed by 2/3. That doesn't give it much
> chance to intercept before the fuel runs out.
> Certainly the SR-71 reportedly used to routinely outrun missiles at
> Mach 3, even the ones designed specifically to kill it.
It didn't so much outrun them as be too high for them to catch. The
missiles had to climb, not just cruise, but the SR-71 just cruises.
That means it's going Mach 3.2 with the velocity vector right down the
course, while the missile has its velocity vector going up and down
course, meaning that less velocity is going down course.
A total velocity of Mach 3.2 in a 30-deg climb means a forward
velocity of only Mach 2.8, for example. The missile has to go a lot
faster, not just a little. Even if the missile went Mach 3.5, it
would still only have a little over Mach 3.0 in forward velocity. The
missile would have to go Mach 3.7 just to be going the same speed at
the SR-71.
ObSubject: You really, really don't want to ditch a delta-wing
vehicle. Particularly one with a really aft CR.
Mary "Trust me on this"
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
reunite....@gmail.com or mil...@qnet.com