Re: Space Cadets Launch


"Martin Underwood" <news@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:439e06a8$0$63089$ed2e19e4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Schrodinger wrote in
> X%mnf.47704$Lc2.43297@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>> "SteveW" <sj_walton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:op.s1ox5tswevjsnp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> Johnyy V just doesn't see the joke does he.
>>>
>>> This live programme for the launch was meant to be on Sunday (my
>>> first sight of tv listinsg anyway)
>>>
>>> Bits it this show were odd, JV said things as they happened after
>>> some odd bits, rather than improvising afterwards
>>>
>>> And at the end of the show - no mention of the 2 hour live show at
>>> midnight
>>>
>>> I really don't care who is being hoaxed, (it could all be for real
>>> for all I care), but it doesn't seem to be one thing or the other or
>>> the alternative
>>>
>>> Very odd indeed.
>>
>> Where do you start with tonight's programme?
>>
>> JV seemed unusually subdued. There were definite and constant smirks
>> from the girl aboard the shuttle.
>
> Yes, I can't decide whether ot not she's sussed the hoax or whether she's
> just grinning inanely because she's so "over the moon" to be going into
> space.
>
>> Why couldn't the control room hear the "pilots" when there was a
>> problem? They would have been able to hear from the outside the sound
>> wasn't on.
>
> Oh, is that what the problem was? I was trying to work out whether it was
> a deliberate last-minute "problem" with the "launch", to heighten the
> tension, or whether it was a ***-up with the simulator. Did I imagine it
> or did mission control give the impression that the rocket was taking off
> horizontally like an aircraft - didn't they talk about taxiing?

They were told in advance the take off would be more akin to a plane - I
think they were probably relying on half remembered shots of the shuttle
being piggy backed on a 747.

>> More holes than a teabag - but I'm still riveted.
>
> I thought the whole launch - all the scenes within the spacecraft - seemed
> a bit casual and amateurish. The fact that the pilots were having to shout
> back to the passengers rather than using intercoms; the lack of any really
> dramatic noise (after all the build-up by that American guy with the
> pony-tail); the fact that the passengers were only loosely belted in - I'd
> expected them to be fastened in much more firmly, anchored at both
> shoulders and both hips, and ordered to keep their hands to themselves
> rather than being allowed to keep holding hands.

I think the whole rig failed - why didn't they show the "acceleration"? Why
no external shot of the "shuttle" as it tilted up?

> How high do you have to go before you start to experience a noticeable
> reduction in your weight - as opposed to true weightlessness?

I answered this elsewhere, but if you were in the real shuttle, I should
think you would be under acceleration, then as the last engine turned off
"weightless" - as in freefall. Gravity reduces by around 1% for every 30
miles - even inverse squared reduction would mean little appreciable
reduction at 120 miles - which is a low Earth orbit.

> The press conference didn't ring true at all, but I'm not sure what didn't
> feel right about it. I presume the masks were so the contestants couldn't
> see that the "journalists" were killing themsleves with laughter.

Not enough journalists. Not enough TV cameras from other networks. All the
journalists looked the same and were polite. Not enough rowdiness. It was
nothing like any press conference I have seen.

> The scenes where the contestants were reporting back to their mates the
> sighting of the rocket nose and the mission control seemed a bit
> overplayed, almost as if they were speaking lines rather than talking
> naturally.

They know and don't want to say so in case there is a bigger prize at the
end.

> What was all that about "if this launch doesn't go ahead, there'll be
> another one tomorrow" or whatever JV said. What is it about JV? What can't
> he just behave naturally instead of all the OTT posturing and fake
> saluting. He needs to be a lot more conspiratorial and much less jolly and
> matey - IMHO.

As I mentioned, he looked a little desperate today. I think they know it
looks awful, amateurish and simply hasn't worked. Having said that, I'm
watching and I normally wouldn't watch anything like this - FWIW. I do,
however, slow down on a motorway if I see an overturned lorry...

>
> But I'm riveted. I want to see what happens next - when they get the moth
> out of the studio so it doesn;t cast a shadow over the Sahara. How have
> they managed to rig the TV screens so they look real? I think I could tell
> the difference between real life and a TV projection screen with its 50 Hz
> flicker pretty well immediately.

I think they've been caught up in their own hype and the hype of the
Hollywood special FX guy - who has an excellent track record - but not in
fooling people in real life. They would have been far better getting a
Universal Florida ride designer.

> I cannot believe that anyone could be fooled by what I saw in tonight's
> programme.

Ditto.


.

Loading