"Realistic" X-71 Shuttle? (ARMAGEDDON movie analysis)
mlin...@my-dejanews.com
admit that it keeps growing on me although I wasn't very impressed
at first. Sure, some plot elements are ridiculuous but much of
the hardware _looks_ fairly realistic. My favorite is the "top secret"
X-71 that should be of interest to fans of reusable launch vehicles.
Let's discuss the the X-71 and try to figure out how it _might_
work based on its visual appearance...
---
The X-71 was developed as a "black project", presumably by the
USAF since it is difficult to see how NASA could obtain funding
for developing a reusable launcher. We also know that it can be
used as a replacement for the existing Shuttle Orbiter, i.e.
it can reach higher orbits if equipped with a pair of Solid
Rocket Boosters (SRBs) and an External Tank (ET). A still from the movie:
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/armagddn/ashuttlh.jpg
Compatibility with the existing Shuttle infrastructure implies
a few things:
-Liquid oxygen/hydrogen main propulsion system (since an ET is used)
-Obviously capable of extended space missions, to higher orbits,
if refueled in low Earth orbit (->roughly same launch mass, size
as existing Shuttle Orbiter).
-Unlike the existing Shuttle, the X-71 has internal propellant
tanks as well.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now, what missions would the US military develop an X-71 for? It's
fairly improbable that the vehicle would be intended *only* as a
replacement for the existing Shuttle Orbiter. We might assume that
the X-71 could be used in conjunction with the ET/SRBs as shown in
the movie, for military missions to high orbits (e.g. geostationary
orbit). But the primary mission surely ought to be rapid-strike
"space fighter" suborbital or low orbital missions, using no external
boosters or tanks... I.e., an "almost" single-stage-to-orbit
spaceplane.
---
For further clues, let's examine a drawing of the X-71:
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/armagddn/shuttle.jpg
Some observations:
-If the X-71 is capable of "standalone" missions, it is probably launched
horizontally rather than vertically... The wings appear unnecessarily
large for an SSTO/near-SSTO vertically launched system, and the number
of main engines (3) a bit low.
-The vehicle probably isn't launched piggyback from a large aircraft
(e.g. Jumbo Jet), since it appears to carry unnecessarily many rocket
motors for that. A launch trolley+high speed horizontal launch appears
more likely.
-The red boosters (=RBs) on the upper fuselage produce an addional "kick" for
high-energy missions. Dense liquid propellants would seem more likely
than solid fuel here (safety reasons, lower mass, higher exhaust velocity,
shape of the engine nozzles). Kerosene+LOX would yield a fueled gross
mass of about 100 metric tons for both boosters.
-A plausible "minimum" mission would be horizontal takeoff from a USAF air
base without any RBs, perform a suborbital mission (satellite deployment,
drop bombs or missiles at hypersonic velocity) and land on the other side
of the globe. With RBs (these would contribute an additional velocity of
1km/s before being jettisoned), the vehicle can reach orbit with a small
payload. This implies a fairly high (dry/wet) mass fraction of 0.12-0.15 if
the main propulsion system uses hydrogen fuel.
FRONT VIEW:
----------
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/armagddn/armashut.gif
-Althought the X-71 is slightly larger than a Shuttle Orbiter and has
a more bulbous fuselage (=more room for propellant), achieving the
required mass fraction would seem to be a real challenge. The vehicle
has lots of heavy engine, canards _and_ a huge 7-man crew cabin plus
cargo bay too -- yet it's fairly small for a single-stage spaceplane.
So where do we find enough room for the required propellant? (<150t
available, for a LOX/LH2 vehicle) Most likely, the wings contain
tanks for an additional high density fuel such as kerosene...
-Note the twin orbital maneuvering
system (OMS) pods mounted below the rocket boosters. They are much longer
than the existing Shuttle OMS, and probably run on kerosene/LOX too.
The X-71 thus runs on three different propellants -- oxygen,
hydrogen, kerosene.
-The small canards and "tail fin" winglets mounted on the side of the
fuselage would seem to be useless from an aerodynamic perspective.
The canards would be difficult to cool during atmospheric reentry
too.
PROPULSION SYSTEM:
------------------
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/armagddn/shuttle1.jpg
-The huge size of the nozzles suggests a Shuttle Orbiter-class
propulsion system (2000kN per engine or higher). The four RBs and
OMS engines mounted above the main propulsion system would each
be in the ~100-1000kN thrust range. Seems about right for a slightly
heavier replacement for the Shuttle Orbiter, but slightly
excessive for a small horizontally-launched reusable spaceplane...
-The main engines are certainly capable of burning hydrogen fuel,
but kerosene might be added during liftoff since it is more dense
and produces a higher thrust.
SUMMARY / CONCLUSIONS
---------------------
A possible X-71 might have a fueled mass of 120-160t without rocket
boosters, including 135-140t of propellant. If launched piggy-back
on a Shuttle ET+SRBs like it in the movie, it could fly to geostationary
orbit, or lunar orbit and back! Horizontal launch could deliver a payload
of several dozen tons on a transatlantic trajectory, while addition of
two 50t rocket boosters would allow the vehicle to reach orbit with a
small payload. Cool spaceplane, indeed.
MARCU$
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ian
>I went to see the ARMAGEDDON movie a few weeks ago, and have to
>admit that it keeps growing on me although I wasn't very impressed
>at first. Sure, some plot elements are ridiculuous but much of
>the hardware _looks_ fairly realistic.
Most of the hardware is a load of crap. One of the most utterly ridiculous
aspects were the gatling guns on the mining vehicles - which would have
_no_possible_purpose_ other than being there so that one of the crew could
go psycho and blast them off at stuff.
Nyrath the nearly wise
> Most of the hardware is a load of crap. One of the most utterly ridiculous
> aspects were the gatling guns on the mining vehicles - which would have
> _no_possible_purpose_ other than being there so that one of the crew could
> go psycho and blast them off at stuff.
Not to mention having two space shuttles lifting
off from adjacent launch pads simultaneously.
Yeah, right.
Brett Evill
iadm...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Ian) wrote:
>mlin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>>I went to see the ARMAGEDDON movie a few weeks ago, and have to
>>admit that it keeps growing on me although I wasn't very impressed
>>at first. Sure, some plot elements are ridiculuous but much of
>>the hardware _looks_ fairly realistic.
>
>Most of the hardware is a load of crap. One of the most utterly ridiculous
>aspects were the gatling guns on the mining vehicles - which would have
>_no_possible_purpose_ other than being there so that one of the crew could
>go psycho and blast them off at stuff.
And though the mining engineers were stripping out useless crap, they left
these heavy and useless hunks of junk aboard.
--
Brett Evill
To reply by e-mail, remove 'spamblocker.' from <b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au>
Plain and Simple Cronan
>>I went to see the ARMAGEDDON movie a few weeks ago, and have to
>>admit that it keeps growing on me although I wasn't very impressed
>>at first. Sure, some plot elements are ridiculuous but much of
>>the hardware _looks_ fairly realistic.
>
According to Dejanews you're the 9,012th person to make this exact
observation.
Matthias Warkus
>
> I went to see the ARMAGEDDON movie a few weeks ago, and have to
> admit that it keeps growing on me although I wasn't very impressed
> at first. Sure, some plot elements are ridiculuous but much of
> the hardware _looks_ fairly realistic. My favorite is the "top secret"
> X-71 that should be of interest to fans of reusable launch vehicles.
> Let's discuss the the X-71 and try to figure out how it _might_
> work based on its visual appearance...
> ---
>
> The X-71 was developed as a "black project", presumably by the
> USAF since it is difficult to see how NASA could obtain funding
> for developing a reusable launcher.
Huh? I think they do obtain some?
Buy yourself a clue.
[Shuttle schnibble]
> -Unlike the existing Shuttle, the X-71 has internal propellant
> tanks as well.
The shuttle's got some, too. Again, get a clue.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Now, what missions would the US military develop an X-71 for? It's
> fairly improbable that the vehicle would be intended *only* as a
> replacement for the existing Shuttle Orbiter. We might assume that
> the X-71 could be used in conjunction with the ET/SRBs as shown in
> the movie, for military missions to high orbits (e.g. geostationary
> orbit).
Boy, geostationary is high up. I hope you know that?
[schnibble]
> Cool spaceplane, indeed.
Cool posting, indeed. Yawn.
mawa
--
Matthias Warkus | ma...@iname.com | Dyson Spheres for sale!
My site's been cracked but it'll go up on another server soon. My Geek
Code is no longer in my .signature. It's available on e-mail request.
/\/\/\\/\//\ (mawa) <-- this is why ASCII art in signatures is no good
Stefan E. Jones
>I went to see the ARMAGEDDON movie a few weeks ago, and have to
>admit that it keeps growing on me although I wasn't very impressed
>at first. Sure, some plot elements are ridiculuous but much of
>the hardware _looks_ fairly realistic. My favorite is the "top secret"
>X-71 that should be of interest to fans of reusable launch vehicles.
>Let's discuss the the X-71 and try to figure out how it _might_
>work based on its visual appearance...
Congratulations, Markus, you just spent about twenty times as much thought
on this than the movie makers themselves! :-)
My friends and I counted the length of the burn and tried to figure out
the average G pulled in that sling-around. This can be worked into the
rocket equation to figure out the approximate specific impulse of the
fuel in the boosters.
But it wouldn't be worth it. They don't care. Neither should you.
Stefan
--
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
SeJ@ay-oh-el-dot-com ~ stefanj@eye-oh-dot-com
http://www.io.com/~stefanj/
CHARGES APPLIED FOR UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL EMAIL!
Ian
>Ian wrote
>>>I went to see the ARMAGEDDON movie a few weeks ago, and have to
>>>admit that it keeps growing on me although I wasn't very impressed
>>>at first. Sure, some plot elements are ridiculuous but much of
>>>the hardware _looks_ fairly realistic.
>>
>>Most of the hardware is a load of crap.
>
>According to Dejanews you're the 9,012th person to make this exact
>observation.
Your HTML editor doesn't have a spellchecker, does it?
Oh yeah, and learn how to use Dejanews right. I'm the first person to ever
say "is a load of crap" and "armageddon" in the same Usenet post, in the
entire Complete archive.
Makes me feel so special.
Plain and Simple Cronan
>>According to Dejanews you're the 9,012th person to make this exact
>>observation.
>
>Your HTML editor doesn't have a spellchecker, does it?
Yes. But I don't believe in spellchecking. It is the work of Stan. Doesn't
matter through because it was funny.
>Oh yeah, and learn how to use Dejanews right. I'm the first person to ever
>say "is a load of crap" and "armageddon" in the same Usenet post, in the
>entire Complete archive.
>
>Makes me feel so special.
Well that's good to know. Next time I make something up I'll be sure to
check with reality first.
P&SC
...we have a tendency to disagree, reality and I
Christopher Michael Jones
> Most of the hardware is a load of crap. One of the most utterly ridiculous
> aspects were the gatling guns on the mining vehicles - which would have
> _no_possible_purpose_ other than being there so that one of the crew could
> go psycho and blast them off at stuff.
Oh man! I just saw Armageddon on video and it is now at the
top of my list of the worst movies ever made. Most of the
movie has no story or plot (until about the last 40 minutes)
and practically every single aspect of the movie is unrealistic.
In the very first scene of the movie, there are a whole bunch
of really awful technical mistakes (like the Shuttle flying
with _both_ the cargo bay doors closed, and an astronaut
far away from the Shuttle in an MMU (which they don't even
use anymore), and the meteors magically hitting only the
important stuff (like the Shuttle, major population centers,
etc.)). In short, anyone with a brain needs to check it
by the door (the whole brain too, not just the space technology
part, since there is no plot whatsoever in the movie) if
they want to watch this movie. Basically, the only
attraction of the movie is a lot of big flashy explosions.
The only possible good thing about this movie, is that
it gives one a greater appreciation for the existence
of truly good science fiction (like Apollo 13, 2001,
Bladerunner, etc.).
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Jones
My Web Page - "http://www.cs.uoregon.edu/~cjones/web/"
Erik Max Francis
> The only possible good thing about this movie, is that
> it gives one a greater appreciation for the existence
> of truly good science fiction (like Apollo 13, 2001,
> Bladerunner, etc.).
Not that _Apollo 13_ was science fiction . . . :-)
--
Erik Max Francis / email m...@alcyone.com / whois mf303 / icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems / irc maxxon (efnet) / finger m...@sade.alcyone.com
San Jose, CA / languages En, Eo / web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
USA / icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W / &tSftDotIotE
\
/ Women are equal because they are not different any more.
/ Erich Fromm
Earl Pottinger
: Ian (iadm...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: > Most of the hardware is a load of crap. One of the most utterly ridiculous
: > aspects were the gatling guns on the mining vehicles - which would have
: > _no_possible_purpose_ other than being there so that one of the crew could
: > go psycho and blast them off at stuff.
: Oh man! I just saw Armageddon on video and it is now at the
: top of my list of the worst movies ever made. Most of the
: movie has no story or plot (until about the last 40 minutes)
: and practically every single aspect of the movie is unrealistic.
: In the very first scene of the movie, there are a whole bunch
: of really awful technical mistakes (like the Shuttle flying
: with _both_ the cargo bay doors closed, and an astronaut
: far away from the Shuttle in an MMU (which they don't even
: use anymore), and the meteors magically hitting only the
: important stuff (like the Shuttle, major population centers,
: etc.)). In short, anyone with a brain needs to check it
: by the door (the whole brain too, not just the space technology
: part, since there is no plot whatsoever in the movie) if
: they want to watch this movie. Basically, the only
: attraction of the movie is a lot of big flashy explosions.
: The only possible good thing about this movie, is that
: it gives one a greater appreciation for the existence
: of truly good science fiction (like Apollo 13, 2001,
: Bladerunner, etc.).
: --
: ------------------------------------------------------------
: Chris Jones
: My Web Page - "http://www.cs.uoregon.edu/~cjones/web/"
Two points. First, Apollo 13 is not SF, it may not be 100%, but it
is a true story. Second, Armageddom starts it's *second* ten minutes
on an oil rig in the middle of the ocean where there is no real escape,
with the lead character shooting off a shotgun on a *working* oil rig.
And no-one tries to stop him! And this is suppose to be the leading
man in the world of oil. If I was trapped on the same rig as him, I
would have hit him on the head with something very heavy. I rather lose
my job than my life.
Earl Colby Pottinger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
: Internet Direct (416)233-2999 1000 lines SLIP, 9600 - 33,600 bps :
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Rush
> aspects were the gatling guns on the mining vehicles - which would have
> _no_possible_purpose_ other than being there so that one of the crew could
> go psycho and blast them off at stuff.
Actually, a heavy machinegun makes a good quick-and-dirty tool for getting
through obstacles. I've heard of .50-caliber Brownings being used to fell
trees, and there was a move once that had a pair of burglars using a 20mm
cannon to bore into a vault.
**********************************************************************
If it's spam, it's a scam. Don't do business with Net abusers.
Chris Torres-Vella
it with warp engines in a subspace field just like in tng, ds9, and voy,
what kinda thing could you have in a part of space to make a the engines
not work...... this is how it will be used
"And the area has a great deal of INSERT TECHNO BABLE. ANy warp field
beyond fifteen milicochranes is dispelled."
"Yes i can see why that would be. (Beat) Bring up spatial grid six five
two mark one. (Beat) Yes, I believ it could be due to the increased
number of INSERT TECHNO BABLE."
......Just one more thing, there are these aliens that use this sonic
type weapon to render people unconsious/incapacitated. There are some
people on the crew who are not affected by this however......
"The rest of the crew are mainly human, and have different TECHNO BABLE
then we do"
"So we weren't affected by the hyper-sonic pulse because we couldn't
hear it or our TECHNO BABLE"
....and a little later they capture the aliens and confine them. The
captain of the ship, who is like half human goes up to the alien in the
cell and the alien makes the hyper-sonic pulse sound.....
"Ah, i'm afraid that won't work in here. There is a TECHNO BABLE around
your cell."
.....but it can't be a sound proofing thing cos the captain still has to
hear the alien speak.
I realize none of these things are very scientifically sound but i
couldn't think of any ways which were good enough to explain them, any
ideas people.
PS If you think that this is just utter rubbish and i am "killing
science's rules and regulations" please do not respond
Ian
>> Most of the hardware is a load of crap. One of the most utterly ridiculous
>> aspects were the gatling guns on the mining vehicles - which would have
>> _no_possible_purpose_ other than being there so that one of the crew could
>> go psycho and blast them off at stuff.
>
>Actually, a heavy machinegun makes a good quick-and-dirty tool for getting
>through obstacles. I've heard of .50-caliber Brownings being used to fell
>trees, and there was a move once that had a pair of burglars using a 20mm
>cannon to bore into a vault.
Um... WHAT obstacles? They're designed for use on a barren body in space,
and chock full of specialized mining equipment. No trees, no vaults.
Gerry Quinn
>Okay assuming that there is such a thing as ftl travel and that you do
>it with warp engines in a subspace field just like in tng, ds9, and voy,
>what kinda thing could you have in a part of space to make a the engines
>not work...... this is how it will be used
>
>
>beyond fifteen milicochranes is dispelled."
>
>"Yes i can see why that would be. (Beat) Bring up spatial grid six five
>two mark one. (Beat) Yes, I believ it could be due to the increased
>number of INSERT TECHNO BABLE."
Firing the gamma laser has created a temporary alignment of the
strings in this direction, cancelling their effect on the spacewarp!
>
>
>.......Just one more thing, there are these aliens that use this sonic
>type weapon to render people unconsious/incapacitated. There are some
>people on the crew who are not affected by this however......
>
>"The rest of the crew are mainly human, and have different TECHNO BABLE
>then we do"
>
>"So we weren't affected by the hyper-sonic pulse because we couldn't
>hear it or our TECHNO BABLE"
>
>
>.....and a little later they capture the aliens and confine them. The
>captain of the ship, who is like half human goes up to the alien in the
>cell and the alien makes the hyper-sonic pulse sound.....
>
>
>"Ah, i'm afraid that won't work in here. There is a 10000Hz lowpass sonic
> neutralizer around your cell."
>
>
>......but it can't be a sound proofing thing cos the captain still has to
>hear the alien speak.
>
>
>
>I realize none of these things are very scientifically sound but i
>couldn't think of any ways which were good enough to explain them, any
>ideas people.
>
>PS If you think that this is just utter rubbish and i am "killing
>science's rules and regulations" please do not respond
Too late ;)
- Gerry
----------------------------------------------------------
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
----------------------------------------------------------
Plain and Simple Cronan
>The only possible good thing about this movie, is that
>it gives one a greater appreciation for the existence
>of truly good science fiction (like Apollo 13, 2001,
>Bladerunner, etc.).
A rather convincing argument can be made that the movie is a parody. Take,
for example, the scene where Bruce Willis' character is called upon by NASA
to inspect his drill design (the curious bit is that no one at NASA seems
capable of reading a simple set of blueprints). They want him to train a
group of astronauts, who are conveniently posed for a press release
photograph, to use this poorly built drill... It's weird to the point where
you have trouble accepting the movie as anything other than a sublime parody.
P&SC
...of course I could be in deeeeep denial after such horrible trauma
RDW...@my-dejanews.com
stev...@aol.com (Steve Rush) wrote:
>... I've heard of .50-caliber Brownings being used to fell
> trees, and there was a move once that had a pair of burglars using a 20mm
> cannon to bore into a vault.
You are thinking of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (Clint Eastwood and Jeff
Bridges).
The Movie King
sdti...@appomattox.k12.va.us
q...@usa.net wrote:
> Okay assuming that there is such a thing as ftl travel and that you do
> it with warp engines in a subspace field just like in tng, ds9, and voy,
> what kinda thing could you have in a part of space to make a the engines
> not work...... this is how it will be used
>
> beyond fifteen milicochranes is dispelled."
Are you writing a Trek story? Because if you're not, "millicochranes" is
not a unit of measurement you'll want to use.
"Warp field" is another phrase you'll want to avoid.
Heck, why not just avoid Star Trek altogether?
> "Yes i can see why that would be. (Beat) Bring up spatial grid six five
> two mark one.
Isn't that enough techno-babble right there?
>(Beat) Yes, I believ it could be due to the increased
> number of INSERT TECHNO BABLE."
>
How about just "Due to the increased amount of techno-babble"? :-)
> ......Just one more thing, there are these aliens that use this sonic
> type weapon to render people unconsious/incapacitated. There are some
> people on the crew who are not affected by this however......
>
> "The rest of the crew are mainly human, and have different TECHNO BABLE
> then we do"
"Ears" ;-)
Real-life examples of how sound affects different species differently are
as close as the dogs in your neighborhood.
>
> "So we weren't affected by the hyper-sonic pulse because we couldn't
> hear it or our TECHNO BABLE"
This makes sense. Can't hear the hypersonic pulse; can't hear the
techno-babble. =B-)
>
> ....and a little later they capture the aliens and confine them. The
> captain of the ship, who is like half human goes up to the alien in the
> cell and the alien makes the hyper-sonic pulse sound.....
>
> "Ah, i'm afraid that won't work in here. There is a TECHNO BABLE around
> your cell."
Captain: "Ha! I use a hearing aid."
Alternatively, they may have tuned the cell's force-field door to filter
out hypersonic freqs, but not those associated with normal speech and
hearing.
Question: Why didn't they take the aliens' hypersonic-thingies away when
they incarcerated them? Are they part of the alien physiognomy, or are
they just well-concealed?
>
> .....but it can't be a sound proofing thing cos the captain still has to
> hear the alien speak.
>
> I realize none of these things are very scientifically sound but i
> couldn't think of any ways which were good enough to explain them, any
> ideas people.
>
> PS If you think that this is just utter rubbish and i am "killing
> science's rules and regulations" please do not respond
>
Posting this shows you're at least *trying* to get it right. Or make it
sound good, which is almost as good.
I was serious, though, when I said you should avoid Trek. If nothing
else, at least make up your own backgrounds, characters, etc. You can,
with a little effort, come up with a governing body like the UFP; kewl
spaceships to carry people around; nasty aliens; etc. ad infinitum.
It's hard work, but *very* rewarding (even if you never get paid a nickel).
If this is what you're doing anyway, I apologize preemptively for the
lecture. But your opening's got me worried that you're going to waste
precious, irreplaceable moments of your life (not to mention your
creative impulses) on a franchise that's overbloated as it is. If that's
not the case, I'm glad.
Steve
Christopher Michael Jones
> Christopher Michael Jones wrote:
> > The only possible good thing about this movie, is that
> > it gives one a greater appreciation for the existence
> > of truly good science fiction (like Apollo 13, 2001,
> > Bladerunner, etc.).
> Not that _Apollo 13_ was science fiction . . . :-)
I would have mentioned that, but in the interests of
brevity, I left it out. Although, Apollo-13 isn't
entirely 100% fact, though it's about as close as
any movie could come, especially these days.
João Luis
>"And the area has a great deal of INSERT TECHNO BABLE.
photon-corruption modulated particles
>
>Yes, I believ it could be due to the increased
>number of INSERT TECHNO BABLE."
anti-photon bands around the area
>
>
>
>"The rest of the crew are mainly human, and have different TECHNO BABLE
>then we do"
sensory systems
>
>"So we weren't affected by the hyper-sonic pulse because we couldn't
>hear it or our TECHNO BABLE"
sensory systems couldn't interpret it
>
>
>"Ah, i'm afraid that won't work in here. There is a TECHNO BABLE around
>your cell."
sonic baffle
>
>
>.....but it can't be a sound proofing thing cos the captain still has to
>hear the alien speak.
no, the captain is using and old invention, called a sound-to-screen
converter
>
>
>PS If you think that this is just utter rubbish and i am "killing
>science's rules and regulations" please do not respond
Puny earthling, bow to our superior knowledge.
--//--
I'm here to chew bubblegum and kick ass... and I'm fresh out of bubblegum
-- // --
For contacts, remove NOSPAM from e-mail
ICQ 11883337
-- // --
Check out http://www.geocities.com/area51/cavern/5250
Erik Max Francis
> I would have mentioned that, but in the interests of
> brevity, I left it out. Although, Apollo-13 isn't
> entirely 100% fact, though it's about as close as
> any movie could come, especially these days.
Indeed. At the very least, it's intended as a documentary, rather than
a fictionalization of a real event (i.e., "based on . . .").
--
Erik Max Francis / email m...@alcyone.com / whois mf303 / icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems / irc maxxon (efnet) / finger m...@sade.alcyone.com
San Jose, CA / languages En, Eo / web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
USA / icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W / &tSftDotIotE
\
/ We'll have to make our own luck from now on.
/ Louis Wu
Steve Rush
>>trees, and there was a move once that had a pair of burglars using a 20mm
>>cannon to bore into a vault.
>
>and chock full of specialized mining equipment. No trees, no vaults.
I was thinking of a formation of sharp rocks that would function like a tank
trap, or a pass that was *almost* wide enough. The specialized mining
equipment they had was just too specialized for such work.
mcc goodguy-1
I thought earlier, that the X-71 shuttle (in the movie) was some means
of covert testing and deployment of the strategic defense initiative.
It might have been just slightly more believable if the super secret
spacecraft were some kind of scramjet national areospace plane type, or
a VTVL delta clipper type ship. Anything that could take off from a
secret base, deploy some politicaly incorrect stuff and come back.
DaveKDwyer
> ... and there was a move once that had a pair of burglars using a 20mm
>cannon to bore into a vault.
>
"Thunderbolt and Lightfoot" with Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges -- not a bad
film at all.
David Dwyer
stormy0...@my-dejanews.com
is the only worth to watch in the movie. It is sad that a good director like
Micheal Bay is associated with this movie. As for the X-71, it looks good in
the movie but many things they did defy belief. Deep Impact is _slightly_
more believable with the Messiah.
"Reality is based on prejudice"
" Get ahead or get out"
Ian
>Erm, The only thing I noticed in Armageddon is Aerosmith girl, Liv Tylor. She
>is the only worth to watch in the movie. It is sad that a good director like
>Micheal Bay is associated with this movie. As for the X-71, it looks good in
>the movie but many things they did defy belief. Deep Impact is _slightly_
>more believable with the Messiah.
Considerably more believable, actually. They had a lot of time to prepare,
and built a ship with a propulsion system that actually would allow it to
reach an asteroid. While the Orion system has its share of problems, in a
real emergency you could build one about that size. Granted it'd probably
take more time than they had.
Philip Plait
> Erm, The only thing I noticed in Armageddon is Aerosmith girl, Liv Tylor. She
> is the only worth to watch in the movie. It is sad that a good director like
> Micheal Bay is associated with this movie. As for the X-71, it looks good in
> the movie but many things they did defy belief. Deep Impact is _slightly_
> more believable with the Messiah.
... and in one shot of the liftoff in Armageddon, we can clearly see that
they used real Shuttle footage, because they didn't bother to edit out the
real mundane Shuttle and edit in one of their X71s.
As someone said to me, Armageddon had sub-comic book level science.
I have a scientific (astronomy really) based review on my
website: http://www.badastronomy.com
* * * * * The Bad Astronomer * * * *
Phil Plait bada...@badastronomy.com
The Bad Astronomy Web Page: http://www.badastronomy.com
Plain and Simple Cronan
stormy0...@my-dejanews.com wrote
> It is sad that a good director like Micheal Bay is associated with this
>movie.
Michael Bay? Michael "EDIT IT TO FUCKING DEATH AND THEN BURN THE NEGATIVES"
Bay?
P&SC
...yeah
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Ian <iadm...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>stormy0...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>Considerably more believable, actually. They had a lot of time to prepare,
>and built a ship with a propulsion system that actually would allow it to
>reach an asteroid. While the Orion system has its share of problems, in a
>real emergency you could build one about that size. Granted it'd probably
>take more time than they had.
Except that what they showed didn't look or act much like an Orion drive
would; it was on the small side and the visual effects did not much
resemble a string of nuke detonations (even small ones); rather, they
suggested a continuous but powerful thrust (there was a bit of a jolt
when it was activated, but the ride seemed pretty smooth afterwards).
I'd have been a *lot* happier if they'd called it a "NERVA drive" (or
something else) and stated or implied that it was a nuclear-thermal rocket;
I imagine that one of those firing in space would look pretty similar to
what they showed (with the operating temperature/mass flow rate properly
adjusted, you'd get a brightly flaring exhaust, a reasonable acceleration,
and a good amount of delta-V without needing vastly enormous fuel tanks).
Overall, I found "Deep Impact" to be an average-quality movie with an
average (or slightly smaller-than-average) dose of hollywoodish science
blunders (most notably, the movie vastly overestimated the ability of
a few megatons of nuke to blow apart a large comet) and of course the
inevitable US-centric-ness (not that I really blame an American movie
for mostly concerning itself with America, but in movieland the tendency
of big things from outer space to home in on the North American continent
is apparently second only to the tendency of big angry atomic monsters
to home in on Tokyo).
I had advance warning (in Norway we usually get US movies a few months after
their "native" release, while we get the Usenet buzz about them immediately)
about the relative qualities of this year's two Big Thing From Space
movies, so I didn't see "Armageddon" at all. Judging by my reaction to
"Deep Impact" this was probably a wise choice.
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | Skyclad: "Life's just a process of delamination,
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| stripping your hopes, dissecting them gently.
Math geek and gamer| I've opened my heart and to my consternation
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | when I peered inside it was small, dark and empty."
Ian
>In article <36574090....@news.on.rogers.wave.ca>,
>Ian <iadm...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>stormy0...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>>Considerably more believable, actually. They had a lot of time to prepare,
>>and built a ship with a propulsion system that actually would allow it to
>>reach an asteroid. While the Orion system has its share of problems, in a
>>real emergency you could build one about that size. Granted it'd probably
>>take more time than they had.
>
>Except that what they showed didn't look or act much like an Orion drive
>would; it was on the small side
One of the Orion designers actual "we should build this, seriously" plans
was an Orion craft small enough that it could be split into 2 or 3 pieces
and launched on Saturn V rockets. IOW, likely _smaller_ than the Messiah,
although the pusher plate was significantly larger than the one portrayed
on screen.
>and the visual effects did not much
>resemble a string of nuke detonations (even small ones); rather, they
>suggested a continuous but powerful thrust (there was a bit of a jolt
>when it was activated, but the ride seemed pretty smooth afterwards).
>I'd have been a *lot* happier if they'd called it a "NERVA drive" (or
>something else) and stated or implied that it was a nuclear-thermal rocket;
>I imagine that one of those firing in space would look pretty similar to
>what they showed
IIRC, the only Messiah drive pulses they ever showed was clearly a pulse
explosion. Sure they didn't depict the crew getting constantly shaken up,
but let's allow a _bit_ of artistic license.
Deep Impact was, overall, _way_ above average (for Hollywood SF) in terms
of scientific plausibility.
Doug Tricarico
Judging by the trailers for ENEMY OF THE STATE, it looks like Tony
Scott gifted Michael Bay with his colored filters.
A whole new era of cheesy filmmaking ensues...
Doug
Carl Warren
Bernhard Zunk <bernh...@bigpond.com> wrote in article
<365C23F6...@bigpond.com>...
> It was a dumb and kitsch movie. Apart from the plot I thought the 'X71'
had
> an excessively pointy nose. You need blunt noses to minimise re-entry
> heating.
>
A blunt nose on a re-entry vehicle is necessary to reduce the surface
heating effects. However, with more advanced materials it is possible to
use much more aerodynamic shapes. Check out the Hyper-X programme etc. One
assumes that the movie assumed that the USAF has such advanced materials
and can use them on an advanced space vehicle.
Still, like you said it was only a movie. Did anybody ever figure out why
they needed a gattling gun?
Carl Warren
Denis Patrick Drew
forced to come to a halt 100 yards short of stranded crew members to
"conserve fuel". Wonder how much extra fuel it takes to coast
ballistically for 100 yards in a friction free, gravity free
environment? :-)
Denis Drew
ddr...@ix.netcom.com
Macgyver
language) there ain't no way that space station can have gravity. Sure, by
spinning it they could get gravity at the far ends, but I believe the movie
shows them as having gravity through out. DOH!! And I thought sound in space
was stupid. How much worse can it get???
Mac
Maury Markowitz
wrote:
> use much more aerodynamic shapes. Check out the Hyper-X programme etc.
Or the later X-24's.
> Still, like you said it was only a movie. Did anybody ever figure out
> why they needed a gattling gun?
To shoot at the aliens, of course!
Maury
stormy0...@my-dejanews.com
> To shoot at the aliens, of course!
>
> Maury
>
>
--
Reality is based on prejudice.
Get ahead or get out.