On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 19:32:59 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/19/2020 1:12 PM, Jack Bohn wrote:
Wolffan wrote:I don't think that scene was there to show the rich as "evil" per se,
On 18 Sep 2020, Jack Bohn wrote
(in article<859729c5-c099-445a...@googlegroups.com>):
TCM is showing two James Caan sf movies, "Rollerball" and "Countdown". (I >>>>> suppose "Alien Nation" is too new to be a Classic Movie, or, more likely, >>>>> they didn't buy the rights from Fox.)Alien Nation has some pretty bad biology, even for Holyweird.
I tend to think of them as comedy elements. Particularly the
dissolving in salt water -- is it possible for a planet to have a
water cycle without large bodies eventually becoming salt? The old
joke line about if we get in a fight I will bleed all over you
could be seen as a threat by Newcomers.
Might as well slag "Rollerball," whille I'm off the subject.
Criticizing violence in entertainment, or exploiting it? I could go
either way, but there is also this scene where the jaded rich
destroy trees to show how evil they are. Many shots of this,
which... don't look like special effects. I'm guessing the
director sees these as cases where it's alright for HIM to do it,
but not others.
just jaded and bored. Getting drunk/stoned and blowing stuff up is >>exciting for them.
I had never heard of "Countdown" before. I'm definitely going to give
it a try. I understand it shows a lunar landing with a modified
Gemini. That was a real plan at one time--Gemini-Agena flew, but NASA
killed Gemini-Centaur--they saw it as a threat to Apollo.
NASA had a real problem with Centaur for some reason. The Shuttle was designed to carry it in the payload bay, but never did, instead they
used the vastly less capable "Interim upper stage" that later became
the "Inertial Upper Stage" and further crippled an already crippled
system.
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 19:32:59 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/19/2020 1:12 PM, Jack Bohn wrote:
Wolffan wrote:I don't think that scene was there to show the rich as "evil" per se, >>>just jaded and bored. Getting drunk/stoned and blowing stuff up is >>>exciting for them.
On 18 Sep 2020, Jack Bohn wrote
(in article<859729c5-c099-445a...@googlegroups.com>):
TCM is showing two James Caan sf movies, "Rollerball" and "Countdown". (IAlien Nation has some pretty bad biology, even for Holyweird.
suppose "Alien Nation" is too new to be a Classic Movie, or, more likely,
they didn't buy the rights from Fox.)
I tend to think of them as comedy elements. Particularly the
dissolving in salt water -- is it possible for a planet to have a
water cycle without large bodies eventually becoming salt? The old
joke line about if we get in a fight I will bleed all over you
could be seen as a threat by Newcomers.
Might as well slag "Rollerball," whille I'm off the subject.
Criticizing violence in entertainment, or exploiting it? I could go
either way, but there is also this scene where the jaded rich
destroy trees to show how evil they are. Many shots of this,
which... don't look like special effects. I'm guessing the
director sees these as cases where it's alright for HIM to do it,
but not others.
I had never heard of "Countdown" before. I'm definitely going to give
it a try. I understand it shows a lunar landing with a modified
Gemini. That was a real plan at one time--Gemini-Agena flew, but NASA
killed Gemini-Centaur--they saw it as a threat to Apollo.
There were a lot of proposals along the way that were floated more so
they could say they'd considered everything than because there was any
chance of it actually happening. "Gemini to the moon" was one of them --
the only goals for the Gemni program were to investigate spacewalks and >docking at less cost than using Apollo capsules for the purpose. It
wasn't killed off because it was a threat, it was killed off because
(like Mercury before it) it had accomplished its goals.
NASA had a real problem with Centaur for some reason. The Shuttle was
designed to carry it in the payload bay, but never did, instead they
used the vastly less capable "Interim upper stage" that later became
the "Inertial Upper Stage" and further crippled an already crippled
system.
You do know it's used as the upper stage in Atlas V some versions of the >Titan, right? If I can believe Wikipedia, Shuttle-Centaur was cancelled >right after Challenger due to the risk of carrying it. I suspect the big >difference that led them to thinking the IUS wasn't as risky is that it
was solid fueled.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 11:42:15 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
<pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
There were a lot of proposals along the way that were floated more so
they could say they'd considered everything than because there was any >>chance of it actually happening. "Gemini to the moon" was one of them -- >>the only goals for the Gemni program were to investigate spacewalks and >>docking at less cost than using Apollo capsules for the purpose. It
wasn't killed off because it was a threat, it was killed off because
(like Mercury before it) it had accomplished its goals.
So why didn't they fly the Gemini-Centaur missions? The Gemini-around-the-Moon mission would have been easy to accomplish.
NASA had a real problem with Centaur for some reason. The Shuttle was
designed to carry it in the payload bay, but never did, instead they
used the vastly less capable "Interim upper stage" that later became
the "Inertial Upper Stage" and further crippled an already crippled
system.
You do know it's used as the upper stage in Atlas V some versions of the >>Titan, right? If I can believe Wikipedia, Shuttle-Centaur was cancelled >>right after Challenger due to the risk of carrying it. I suspect the big >>difference that led them to thinking the IUS wasn't as risky is that it
was solid fueled.
Yes, I'm well aware of the history of Centaur. NASA wouldn't fly it
on Gemini missions or on the Shuttle.
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 11:42:15 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
<pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
There were a lot of proposals along the way that were floated more so >>>they could say they'd considered everything than because there was any >>>chance of it actually happening. "Gemini to the moon" was one of them -- >>>the only goals for the Gemni program were to investigate spacewalks and >>>docking at less cost than using Apollo capsules for the purpose. It >>>wasn't killed off because it was a threat, it was killed off because >>>(like Mercury before it) it had accomplished its goals.
So why didn't they fly the Gemini-Centaur missions? The
Gemini-around-the-Moon mission would have been easy to accomplish.
Why *should* they have flown Gemini-Centaur missions?
They weren't going to send Apollo to the moon without sending it around >first. Sending Gemini around the moon first would have been an extra
mission with no real benefit.
NASA had a real problem with Centaur for some reason. The Shuttle was >>>> designed to carry it in the payload bay, but never did, instead they
used the vastly less capable "Interim upper stage" that later became
the "Inertial Upper Stage" and further crippled an already crippled
system.
You do know it's used as the upper stage in Atlas V some versions of the >>>Titan, right? If I can believe Wikipedia, Shuttle-Centaur was cancelled >>>right after Challenger due to the risk of carrying it. I suspect the big >>>difference that led them to thinking the IUS wasn't as risky is that it >>>was solid fueled.
Yes, I'm well aware of the history of Centaur. NASA wouldn't fly it
on Gemini missions or on the Shuttle.
For good reasons other than "had a real problem with Centaur".
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 51:16:50 |
| Calls: | 6,649 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,330,303 |