"When We Left Earth" on the Discovery Channel

On Jun 9, 5:12 pm, "Ralph" wrote:
Maybe I have to rewatch this first episode, but didn't they state that the
original mission plan for Gemini 6 and 7 was the first rendezvous in space
between two manned spacecraft?
Best of my memory as a kid, Gemini 6 was originally to be the first docking
in space, but the Agena target vehicle failed to achieve orbit and the whole
mission was rewritten to include Gemini 7. I remember the delay and the
announcement that plans were changed to include the first rendezvous, and
the mission renamed Gemini 6-A. They launched Borman and Lovell first in
GT-7, then GT-6, which had the shutdown on launch.
Am I wrong with this?

You are correct. GT6 was the first scheduled res/docking and was
scrubbed when the Atlas/Agena splashed on the way to orbit. And the
Titan II smoke was orange. Red fuming nitric acid and hydrazine
igniting in a hypergolic manner produced that color smoke. Another
thing that drove me batty about the show last night was showing Titan
I launches and explosions when speaking of the Titan II. I'm not
picking nits - they were two totally different missiles.

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:24:47 -0700 (PDT), Lhead
wrote:

On Jun 9, 5:12 pm, "Ralph" wrote:
Maybe I have to rewatch this first episode, but didn't they state that the
original mission plan for Gemini 6 and 7 was the first rendezvous in space
between two manned spacecraft?
Best of my memory as a kid, Gemini 6 was originally to be the first docking
in space, but the Agena target vehicle failed to achieve orbit and the whole
mission was rewritten to include Gemini 7. I remember the delay and the
announcement that plans were changed to include the first rendezvous, and
the mission renamed Gemini 6-A. They launched Borman and Lovell first in
GT-7, then GT-6, which had the shutdown on launch.
Am I wrong with this?

You are correct. GT6 was the first scheduled res/docking and was
scrubbed when the Atlas/Agena splashed on the way to orbit. And the
Titan II smoke was orange. Red fuming nitric acid and hydrazine
igniting in a hypergolic manner produced that color smoke. Another
thing that drove me batty about the show last night was showing Titan
I launches and explosions when speaking of the Titan II. I'm not
picking nits - they were two totally different missiles.

....Kids, having worked in TV, and having dealt with this sort of
frackup, I can shed a little light on this...not that it'll help
un-****off us by one iota:

....The problem lies in the fact that documentaries, like any TV
programs, are run on budgets. A program is given a set time and a set
amount of money to be filmed and/or compiled from existing or "stock"
footage, and then delivered to whatever network is going to broadcast
it. At the same time, about 95% of the TV directors and producers of
anything space-related have almost no clue as to whether or not a
specific piece of footage actually represents whatever is being
discussed at the portion of the program in which it airs. Unlike, say,
NFL Films and a documentary on Joe Willie Namath, only about 5% of the
TV producers are well-versed in the history of the space program
enough to tell, say, a Saturn IB from a Titan II, much less the
arguably subtle-to-anyone-but-us differences between a Titan II and a
Titan I. So they usually just use whatever footage looks cool and/or
happens to *appear* to relate to what's being discussed by whoever's
narrarating and/or is being interviewed; i.e., our pal Sy Liebergott
talks about a rather messy abort sim dumped on them by the SIMSUP for
Apollo 11, and they show footage of the old Mercury Mission Control
followed by an Atlas exploding at Max-Q.

....Now, one can argue that this could easily be solved by hiring a
technical advisor - yeah, one of us - but again, we're dealing with
budgets. Even if we'd work for minwage, screen credit, and ten copies
of the DVD to share with our family and friends at Chrisnukkah, some
beancounter *and* the scum that call themselves the "unions" would nix
the idea over costs. Especially when we'd insist on accuracy, which
would require tracking down the correct footage, which may or may
*not* be usable due to film and/or tape deterioration unless it's
restored, and -that- costs $$$ as well as time. And to make matters
worse, the beancounters will always argue "Who the **** cares? Joe
Punchclock just wants to see Buck Rogers zoom around in space, he
doesn't give a rat's ass whether we're showing Space Conquerer III in
one scene, and then his Cosmos Chariot IV in the next!"

....If there's one saving grace about this series, it's that Discovery
Channel has done the digital remastering of somewhere between 75 to
100 hours of old NASA footage - there's been differing counts on this
- on their own nickel, and then turned around and donated it all back
to NASA gratis. They're going to recoup their losses only through the
DVD sales and *maybe* a deal to upscale it all to IMAX, depending on
the public response to the DVD. The reason it's supposedly a "maybe"
is that, according to one of my OMBloggers who knows someone in
marketing at Discovery Channel, the suits there were reportedly
impressed by last year's IMAX moonwalker film, but were - retardedly,
I gladly add - *not* impressed by what they did with the Apollo 17 LM
ascent footage. Personally, I thought it was the best part of the
whole event, although I still kick myself in the balls for not
thinking about it first after all the panorama work I've done in the
past few years! But then again, if TV execs always did the right
thing, "Star Trek", "WKRP" and dozens of other shows would have never
been cancelled, and Jerry Seinfeld would have never had a TV career.

....So essentially, the reason the footage doesn't match the VO can be
explained by simple economics combined with a "who gives a ****?"
attitude by those holding the purse strings. Which is why when the
revolution comes, all the beancounters will be lined up against the
wall so their blood can mingle with that of all the lawyers who
preceeded them :-P

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:33:58 -0400, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

"Dave Michelson" wrote in message
newsda3k.16051$js6.6973@pd7urf1no...
wrote:
Ditto here. Narrator ID'd Young as Lovell and

When in fact it was actually Max Peck.

Can't be. I'm Max Peck.

....Did you say "Peck" or "Pecker"?

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

OM wrote:

[snip fascist drivel]

Which is why when the
revolution comes, all the beancounters will be lined up against the
wall so their blood can mingle with that of all the lawyers who
preceeded them

Your beloved NAZI Fifth Reich no doubt.

On Jun 9, 12:15 pm, Rick Jones wrote:
I think it was footage of Titan launches - at the beginning the
cloud/plume/whatever generated appeared to be rather orange. Is that
a real effect of combustion or was it an artifact of the photography?
(Or an issue with my ca 1987 television?-)

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

The exploding Titan was a Titan I, not a Titan II. The Titan 1 used
Kerosene fuel and LOX (Liquid Oxygen) oxidizer, while the Titan II
uses UDMH/Hydrazine fuel and Nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer.
So the dramatic explosion footage showed a kerosene fireball, not the
almost invisible pink flame of the more exotic Titan II.

Just another error in the documentary that only a space history buff
could point out...

It was nice to see the old astronauts interviewed, especially
Armstrong and Young. I had not seen McDivitt talk in years, either.

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:57:12 -0700, "T B" partyslammer@socalrrcom
wrote:

Was there any truly "rare" footage on the first two episodes?

....According to those who've seen advance preview copies - this time,
alas, I've not had access to such - there's AbZero new footage. It's
all stuff we've seen before, albeit very well done in the digital
remastering department. There is, however, a rumor going around now
that some of the footage may have been lifted from Spacecraft Films'
work. Nothing confirmed, tho.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:57:12 -0700, "T B" partyslammer@socalrrcom
wrote:

I wonder if they'll give the Skylab program anything more than a token
mention in one of the next episodes?

....Hell, if they give ASTP anything more than the usual 10-15 seconds
beyond the "A good meal" speech, I'll be gabberflasted!

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Jun 9, 10:57*pm, "T B" partyslammer@socalrrcom wrote: "Pat
Flannery" wrote: The film footage is excellent... *but whoever
edited that footage should be hung by the neck until dead, as it's
a cocked-up disaster area as far as being correct in either
chronology or use of appropriate footage for the appropriate
spaceflight. Old stock rocket footage is mixed in with the new
footage in a horrible manner, so that Glenn's Atlas launch suddenly
transmutes into a ascent film of a Aerobee launch showing the view
downwards, and there are other screw-ups too numerous to mention
(bet you didn't know that a Saturn 1 took off before Shepard's
flight). Sooner or later would the producers of one of these things
actually hire someone who knows about the time-frame that these
rockets and missions flew in, and give them a whip to keep the film
editors in line with? And Shepard did indeed have a window on his
Mercury; it was a porthole that didn't let him look forward, but
there was indeed a window in it, unlike what John Glenn says about
him basically flying blind. Very disappointing indeed. This
could have been something really great, and instead it's the same-
ol' - same ol' half-baked space documentary. NASA was very badly
served by this first installment in the Discovery Channel's series
on its 50th anniversary. Well, at least there are the Apogee Films
DVDs to fall back on. Yeah, I honestly wasn't surprised at how
mixed up some of the footage was although the shot from the Aerobee
rocket as if it was from an Atlas Mercury launch was really bad from
either someone not doing their research or (more likely) simply using
massive artistic license. *You can bet once again that iconic footage
of the SIVB staging from the 1st stage of a Saturn IB will be
(mis)used as part of a Saturn V launch into orbit. Was there any
truly "rare" footage on the first two episodes? *The only footage I
noticed that I can't recall seeing before was the brief shot of the
second stage of the Titan II tumbling in space (what Gemini mission
was that from?) and some additional footage of the Gemini 6 and 7
rendevous. *I did think much of the mission footage, especially from
the Gemini program looked great in HD. I wonder if they'll give
the Skylab program anything more than a token mention in one of the
next episodes? T.B.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -cThe
tumbling Titan second stage is from 7,* It was part of the mission
plan to station keep for a bit.* The stage is venting some gas of some
sort down near the engine bell which really added some velocity to the
tumbling.* In a short while Borman and Lovell moved on.* In the
Spacecraft Film version the red engine bell was quite apparent as well
as sun glinting off the the skin, pretty cool............Doc

Doesn't the ad promoting the DVD box set state that there is up to four
hours additional footage available on the DVD? I'm curious if this is new
footage or the same old thing. But, as you guys have already said, this
show's digital remastering is excellent. So is the audio. Great background
music also.



"OM" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:57:12 -0700, "T B" partyslammer@socalrrcom
wrote:

Was there any truly "rare" footage on the first two episodes?

...According to those who've seen advance preview copies - this time,
alas, I've not had access to such - there's AbZero new footage. It's
all stuff we've seen before, albeit very well done in the digital
remastering department. There is, however, a rumor going around now
that some of the footage may have been lifted from Spacecraft Films'
work. Nothing confirmed, tho.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

I find amusing the recommendations by IMDB:

Cosmos
From the Earth to the Moon
The Truman Show
Asteroids: Deadly Impact
Star Trek VI


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **