worst space movie?

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 02:14:18 GMT, "uray" wrote:

"Starflight: The Plane That Couldn't Land", maybe.

Was that the one where a plane ended up in orbit and followed a shuttle down
in order to use it as a "heat shield"? I actually gagged on my drink when I
heard that while watching the movie. I guess they writers didn't understand
what a heat shield actually does.....

That's the one.

Some say Armageddon was bad but I actually kinda liked it. It was so silly
and funny, right from the start, that I never took it seriously as a Sci-Fi
story. Just a comedy - drama.

"Armageddon" gets by largely on the strength of Bruce Willis, Liv
Tyler, and Billy Bob Thornton (who are at least fun to watch) and its
cornball ending which, in spite of everything, manages to tug the
heartstrings. (The same rise-above-the-material performance is also
evident in this year's "The Core".)

But the story was several orders of magnitude beyond preposterous, and
their technical advisors evidently never progressed beyond 4th Grade.
"Deep Impact", its rival in 1998, is hardly scientifically flawless,
but compared to "Armageddon", it's brilliant.

Brian

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 02:14:18 GMT, "uray" wrote:

"Starflight: The Plane That Couldn't Land", maybe.

Was that the one where a plane ended up in orbit and followed a shuttle down
in order to use it as a "heat shield"? I actually gagged on my drink when I
heard that while watching the movie. I guess they writers didn't understand
what a heat shield actually does.....

That's the one.

Some say Armageddon was bad but I actually kinda liked it. It was so silly
and funny, right from the start, that I never took it seriously as a Sci-Fi
story. Just a comedy - drama.

"Armageddon" gets by largely on the strength of Bruce Willis, Liv
Tyler, and Billy Bob Thornton (who are at least fun to watch) and its
cornball ending which, in spite of everything, manages to tug the
heartstrings. (The same rise-above-the-material performance is also
evident in this year's "The Core".)

Yeah, but the sequence on the "Russian Space Station" was hysterical.

"THIS..." bangs hard on a pipe with a spanner "IS HOW YOU MAKE THINGS
WORK..." bangs harder "ON RUSSIAN SPACE STATION!!!" bangs hard enough to
split the pipe...

--

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for | Doug Van Dorn
thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup |

Doug... wrote:

Yeah, but the sequence on the "Russian Space Station" was hysterical.

"THIS..." bangs hard on a pipe with a spanner "IS HOW YOU MAKE THINGS
WORK..." bangs harder "ON RUSSIAN SPACE STATION!!!" bangs hard enough to
split the pipe...



And probably fairly close to reality if Mir was any indication. Remember
how they bent the exterior airlock hatch, and held it in place with
C-clamps from then on?

Pat

In article , says...


Doug... wrote:

Yeah, but the sequence on the "Russian Space Station" was hysterical.

"THIS..." bangs hard on a pipe with a spanner "IS HOW YOU MAKE THINGS
WORK..." bangs harder "ON RUSSIAN SPACE STATION!!!" bangs hard enough to
split the pipe...



And probably fairly close to reality if Mir was any indication. Remember
how they bent the exterior airlock hatch, and held it in place with
C-clamps from then on?

Yep -- scares me to think about it, even now. That just seems like
carelessness to a thoughtless degree, in that environment.

--

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for | Doug Van Dorn
thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup |

Brian Thorn wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 02:14:18 GMT, "uray" wrote:

"Starflight: The Plane That Couldn't Land", maybe.

Was that the one where a plane ended up in orbit and followed a shuttle down
in order to use it as a "heat shield"? I actually gagged on my drink when I
heard that while watching the movie. I guess they writers didn't understand
what a heat shield actually does.....

That's the one.

Some say Armageddon was bad but I actually kinda liked it. It was so silly
and funny, right from the start, that I never took it seriously as a Sci-Fi
story. Just a comedy - drama.

"Armageddon" gets by largely on the strength of Bruce Willis, Liv
Tyler, and Billy Bob Thornton (who are at least fun to watch) and its
cornball ending which, in spite of everything, manages to tug the
heartstrings. (The same rise-above-the-material performance is also
evident in this year's "The Core".)

But the story was several orders of magnitude beyond preposterous, and
their technical advisors evidently never progressed beyond 4th Grade.
"Deep Impact", its rival in 1998, is hardly scientifically flawless,
but compared to "Armageddon", it's brilliant....

I sort of half-watched, with the sound off while reading a book, a
screening of "Space Cowboys" on an Airbus to Paris. Eastwood's Shuttle
landing trajectory was totally bogus, and this crap about Tommy Lee
Jones wanting to go to Luna to die by lashing himself to the old
Russian missile platform, pointing the nose at Luna and lighting the
engine almost made me spit my drink..._before_ he turns out to not
only land on it, but manages to do it without crushing the probe to
pulp on the surface, and leaving himself a sizzling oily smear on the
rocks.

You'd think movie sci-fi would be much _more_ accurate after thirty
years of going to Luna, and the Shuttle program, but it seems like
we've been going _backwards_ since "2001".

--
"All over, people changing their roles,
along with their overcoats;
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway!" --the clash.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Mike Flugennock, the Sinkers, flugennock at sinkers dot org
Mike Flugennock's Mikey'zine, http://www.sinkers.org

Mike Flugennock ) writes:
Brian Thorn wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 02:14:18 GMT, "uray" wrote:

"Starflight: The Plane That Couldn't Land", maybe.

Was that the one where a plane ended up in orbit and followed a shuttle
down in order to use it as a "heat shield"? I actually gagged on my
drink when I heard that while watching the movie. I guess they
writers didn't understand what a heat shield actually does.....

Indeed, and they didn't grasp much of anyhting else: Highlights
included a transfer of an unsuited passenger from the Starflight
ship, to Columbia, in a *casket*.

Or, turning around Columbia, for a second flight up, in 24 *hours*...

That's the one.

Some say Armageddon was bad but I actually kinda liked it. It was so
silly and funny, right from the start, that I never took it
seriously as a Sci-Fi story. Just a comedy - drama.

"Armageddon" gets by largely on the strength of Bruce Willis, Liv
Tyler, and Billy Bob Thornton (who are at least fun to watch) and its
cornball ending which, in spite of everything, manages to tug the
heartstrings. (The same rise-above-the-material performance is also
evident in this year's "The Core".)

But the story was several orders of magnitude beyond preposterous, and
their technical advisors evidently never progressed beyond 4th Grade.

Indeed. It sucked large goats.

"Deep Impact", its rival in 1998, is hardly scientifically flawless,
but compared to "Armageddon", it's brilliant....

Agreed.

I sort of half-watched, with the sound off while reading a book, a
screening of "Space Cowboys" on an Airbus to Paris. Eastwood's Shuttle
landing trajectory was totally bogus, and this crap about Tommy Lee
Jones wanting to go to Luna to die by lashing himself to the old
Russian missile platform, pointing the nose at Luna and lighting the
engine almost made me spit my drink..._before_ he turns out to not
only land on it, but manages to do it without crushing the probe to
pulp on the surface, and leaving himself a sizzling oily smear on the
rocks.

Yeah, pretty good life support from a standard NASA EVA suit, given
that the flight time to the Moon would be three days, not to mention
the closure speed near to the Moon's surface of around 5,000 MPH...

You'd think movie sci-fi would be much _more_ accurate after thirty
years of going to Luna, and the Shuttle program, but it seems like
we've been going _backwards_ since "2001".

:-(

We, at least there " From The Earth To The Moon " and " Apollo 13 "...

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
Mike Flugennock ) writes:
Brian Thorn wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 02:14:18 GMT, "uray" wrote:

"Starflight: The Plane That Couldn't Land", maybe.

Was that the one where a plane ended up in orbit and followed a
shuttle
down in order to use it as a "heat shield"? I actually gagged on my
drink when I heard that while watching the movie. I guess they
writers didn't understand what a heat shield actually does.....

Indeed, and they didn't grasp much of anyhting else: Highlights
included a transfer of an unsuited passenger from the Starflight
ship, to Columbia, in a *casket*.

Or, turning around Columbia, for a second flight up, in 24 *hours*...

That's the one.

Some say Armageddon was bad but I actually kinda liked it. It was so
silly and funny, right from the start, that I never took it
seriously as a Sci-Fi story. Just a comedy - drama.

"Armageddon" gets by largely on the strength of Bruce Willis, Liv
Tyler, and Billy Bob Thornton (who are at least fun to watch) and its
cornball ending which, in spite of everything, manages to tug the
heartstrings. (The same rise-above-the-material performance is also
evident in this year's "The Core".)

But the story was several orders of magnitude beyond preposterous, and
their technical advisors evidently never progressed beyond 4th Grade.

Indeed. It sucked large goats.

"Deep Impact", its rival in 1998, is hardly scientifically flawless,
but compared to "Armageddon", it's brilliant....

Agreed.

I sort of half-watched, with the sound off while reading a book, a
screening of "Space Cowboys" on an Airbus to Paris. Eastwood's Shuttle
landing trajectory was totally bogus, and this crap about Tommy Lee
Jones wanting to go to Luna to die by lashing himself to the old
Russian missile platform, pointing the nose at Luna and lighting the
engine almost made me spit my drink..._before_ he turns out to not
only land on it, but manages to do it without crushing the probe to
pulp on the surface, and leaving himself a sizzling oily smear on the
rocks.

Yeah, pretty good life support from a standard NASA EVA suit, given
that the flight time to the Moon would be three days, not to mention
the closure speed near to the Moon's surface of around 5,000 MPH...

There's no reason to think that he was supposed to be around for the whole
time- all he needed to do was stick around until the rockets died.

As to impact speed- that's a whole different matter. The lunar atmosphere
should have a short-term increase in carbonized organic vapors.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/03