Gravity - In three sentences (or so)

[DogOnPorch]

True to this concept of self promotion, it was Buzz Aldrin who hyped the "first footprints" on the Moon, not Armstrong:

Apollo 11 astronaut Edwin Aldrin photographed this iconic photo, a view of his footprint in the lunar soil, as part of an experiment

Neil kept out of the game for the most part...except for his stint over at Chrysler.

[bush_cheney2004]

Neil kept out of the game for the most part...except for his stint over at Chrysler.

Interesting, as 1979 was the year of Chrysler's first government bailout.

[Wilber]

Not necessarily, as NASA was largely funded as a Cold War cover story for many years. NASA is still funded at levels far exceeding a percentage of GDP than in other nations. Canada's CSA funding has not benefited much from such promotion by Hadfield and others.

How do you know? National prestige is a big driver of space programs. There is no prestige without publicity.

[bush_cheney2004]

How do you know? National prestige is a big driver of space programs. There is no prestige without publicity.

I know because of personal experience with military programs and defense contracts. For instance, NASA X-aircraft were projects directly related to the U.S. military and intelligence gathering objectives, as were many other NASA projects. Many military projects do not desire high profile "prestige" by design...example...NASA helped to hide Corona and Keyhole spy satellites. Before NASA, there was the NACA, which had projects like this:

So how much has Hadfield's guitar helped the CSA budget ?

Edited December 26, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

So how much has Hadfield's guitar helped the CSA budget ?

Hard to tell but I bet it will have an effect even if it just prevents or reduces a cut.

[August1991]

I know because of personal experience with military programs and defense contracts.

Personal experience? How many years have you lived, 70?

I take a longer view: at least a century or two.

[August1991]

Promotion is what makes the space program go.

I fundamentally disagree.

From JFK on up.

====

Gawd, sorry for the doublepost. Same point anyway.

Edited January 7, 2014 by August1991

[sharkman]

This thread is confusing and giving me a headache, though I skipped a couple of pages. Perhaps I missed the relief in one of the missed pages. Professional movie critics are too close to the machine and their egos to be trusted, Event Horizon was a sad watershed moment on a new low(high) in what the movie going public needs to get its kicks from(long since bested by Saw, etc) and Hatfield may have been an astronaut and pilot, but he's no Armstrong.

I liked Gravity a lot. Sandra/George were convincing, it was an interesting story and the views were jaw dropping. Looking good for 50.

[DogOnPorch]

I know because of personal experience with military programs and defense contracts. For instance, NASA X-aircraft were projects directly related to the U.S. military and intelligence gathering objectives, as were many other NASA projects. Many military projects do not desire high profile "prestige" by design...example...NASA helped to hide Corona and Keyhole spy satellites. Before NASA, there was the NACA, which had projects like this:

So how much has Hadfield's guitar helped the CSA budget ?

As well as future projects...the X series continues...Skunk Works and all.

Edited January 8, 2014 by DogOnPorch

[August1991]

This thread is confusing and giving me a headache, though I skipped a couple of pages.

,,,

I liked Gravity a lot. Sandra/George were convincing, it was an interesting story and the views were jaw dropping. Looking good for 50.

Sharkman, thank you for bringing this thread back to the main point, and my OP.

I hated Gravity. Why? The science is all wrong. It has no plot. Gravity is all CGI, and PR for NASA-types - more bureaucrats.

Let me go Steyn: The mere fact that Gravity has won a Best Picture nomination is evidence that Western civilisation is moribund. If Gravity wins Best Picture (God knows), it is confirmation.

===

People today mistakenly think that people before were stupid or ignorant. IMHO, humans have a finely tuned "bullshit detector" and it changes by millenia - not years or centuries.

Edited January 24, 2014 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Let me go Steyn: The mere fact that Gravity has won a Best Picture nomination is evidence that Western civilisation is moribund. If Gravity wins Best Picture (God knows), it is confirmation.

The Academy Awards shouldn't be taken as a signifier of anything significant. It's a popularity contest, is all.

[Argus]

Here is what Chris Hadfield ACTUALLY SAID about Gravity:

http://teamcoco.com/video/conan-highlight-chris-hadfield-gravity-diapers

In the context of the question he was asked and the response he gave, it's completely retarded to propose that Star Wars or Wall-E or fricken Event Horizon are reasonable comparisons.

I can't address the topic of "GAY NIGGERS FROM SPACE" however.

-k

You clearly missed the subtext in Wall-E...

[Argus]

One would certainly hope Armstrong's first footprints are never disturbed by humans, but you never know who will be there in future and what their motives might be.

An Indian or Chinese rover will probably just roll over them for spite...

[sharkman]

Sharkman, thank you for bringing this thread back to the main point, and my OP.

I hated Gravity. Why? The science is all wrong. It has no plot. Gravity is all CGI, and PR for NASA-types - more bureaucrats.

Let me go Steyn: The mere fact that Gravity has won a Best Picture nomination is evidence that Western civilisation is moribund. If Gravity wins Best Picture (God knows), it is confirmation.

===

People today mistakenly think that people before were stupid or ignorant. IMHO, humans have a finely tuned "bullshit detector" and it changes by millenia - not years or centuries.

The Academy Awards have been irrelevant for decades and nominating Gravity is just more proof. However, basing distaste for a movie on whether the science is correct is reaching for the low hanging fruit, isn't it? Many movies have problems with science or reality, I guess I'm quite good at checking my BS detector at the door. It's not a typical movie and that's part of what I appreciated about it. Different strokes for different folks maybe.

[overthere]

"I hated Gravity. Why? The science is all wrong. It has no plot. Gravity is all CGI, and PR for NASA-types - more bureaucrats.

"

It took me a while to realize why I didn't like this movie so much.

It wasn't plot or science or cinematography.

It was the role of Sandra Bullock. I have bnothing against her as an actress. She is the only winner of both the Best Actress (Oscar) and Golden Raspberry- both in the same week. She is self aware enough to laugh at herself, something few of the ego monsters in Hollywood can manage.

The problem with Gravity is how she presents as the lead role.

Maybe it is just me, but I reckon pretty much anybody in a command role in a spacecraft is going to manage themselves better than she did. She came apart in a crisis, and did not seem to have much awareness of crisis management, something every crew member would do in their sleep after long, hard training. I know the human element, the frailty in a harsh enironment, is part of the drama but for me it just was not credible.

[AngusThermopyle]

When it comes to great science fiction movies there aren't a huge amount to choose from. Some have already been mentioned but some appear to have been forgotten as well. Its hard to believe that stinkers like Event Horizon and Wall-E have been mentioned but great movies like Close Encounters and Blade Runner haven't. If you want to go back further then one that has to be included would be The Forbidden Planet. Yes its older but it was also a ground breaking movie not to mention the fact that it also introduced Robby the Robot to the world. Another one worthy of mention would be Logans Run. For the time it was considered a special effects tour de force. The story was alright as well being loosely based on Arthur C. Clarke's The City and The Stars, a really great book.

Perhaps an interesting topic for a thread would be peoples opinions on what science fiction books would make good movies. For myself, off the top of my head, I'd have to say just about anything by Larry Niven.

[eyeball]

Definitely Niven. Imagine the Integral Trees and The Smoke Ring made into movies.

[August1991]

Neil kept out of the game for the most part...except for his stint over at Chrysler.

DoP, good find.

I saw your post before and I must admit that it (sort of) disproves my point.

Edited January 27, 2014 by August1991