 |
ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people.”
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17637
Location: North Carolina
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 1:42 pm Post subject: Space Cowboys (2000) |
 |
|
_________________
The problem with this movie, pardners, is that it's a one trick pony.
Four old test pilots are brought out of retirement (way out) because they have the knowledge needed to deal with a Russian satellite that's falling out of orbit (way, way out) and only they can prevent the catastrophe that will be caused by blah blah blah blah . . .
With a cast like this, you'd think the movie would do more than just have the old timers prove to the young tin horns that they have one last cattle drive left in 'em.
The movie roped me in with nice trailers showing these four top cowhands ridin' the high range of outer space, but the movie turned out to be more like a dude ranch than a real rodeo.
Maybe I should take a few shots 'a rot-gut whiskey and saddle up this old nag one more time. Hell, couldn't hurt nuthin', could it? No, sir, I reckon not.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Last edited by Bud Brewster on Tue Dec 13, 2022 1:03 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17637
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
________________________________
Here's one of the trailers that had me 'a hopin' this here movie would be more fun than a Saturday night in the old saloon — instead of being more like riding drag on a cattle drive.
________________________________
___________________ Space Cowboys - Trailer
___________ 
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17637
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I said in the post above, when I first saw this movie back in 2000 at a theater, I was unimpressed. I can't explain why, except maybe to say that the pre-space-mission part of the story was less impressive than I'd hoped it would be.
I saw on HBO again today, and I was still not overly impressed with the Earthbound portions of the plot.
But when they got into space . . . Holy Hannah, this movie literally and physically blasted off! 
I was reminded in the closing credits that the move was directed and produced by Clint Eastwood. Cool . . .
The special effects are one jaw-dropping shot after another, and I so got tired of say "Wow!", I started saying it backwards, just for variety!
Try it sometime. It's remarkable easy. 
The entire portion of the movie which takes place in space is a masterpiece. I highly recommend that anyone watching this film for the first time should reserve judgement until the shuttle lifts off. After that, you'll be hootin' and hollerin' like I did. 
Sometimes it's wonderful to be wrong. 
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Last edited by Bud Brewster on Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert (Butch) Day
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1377
Location: Arlington, WA USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When Jay Leno hosted The Tonight Show he had those old guys on as guests and they did their interview as their characters in Space Cowboys! It was a hoot! It used to be on YouTube, but I can't find it. So here is a screen cap:
_________________
Common Sense ISN'T Common |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Krel
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I liked the movie, but I found one thing very funny. The scene where they check out the interior of the satellite and find...FULL SIZE ICBM's! Why? They're dropping from orbit, why full size boosters? Okay, I know why story-wise, but real, as opposed to reel world, no. Just how did the Russkies get such a behemoth into orbit anyway.
David. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pow
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3739
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I quite enjoyed this fun romp. Wonderful to see a movie about actors actually over 40 years old.
Let's face it,ultra-liberal Hollywood takes all kinds of stances about issues. However,they quietly are silent about rampant ageism by the studios or networks.
Getting older is a sin in Hollywood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17637
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Krel wrote: | | I liked the movie, but I found one thing very funny. The scene where they check out the interior of the satellite and find...FULL SIZE ICBM's! Why? They're dropping from orbit, why full size boosters? Okay, I know why story-wise, but real, as opposed to reel world, no. Just how did the Russkies get such a behemoth into orbit anyway? |
After watching the movie and writing the post, I found myself in the mood to watch the part about the about the space mission again the next day.
If I hadn't done that I might not have caught what the Russian general told the NASA people when he confessed what the satellite really was.
He said that each of the ICBMs were designed to strike various military targets in the U.S. So, the nukes weren't just "dropping from orbit", the were being launched to zero in on targets which were spread all over the continental United States.
By the way, the "Thunderer" in The Space Children (1958) was designed to do the same thing: launch a nuke at a target from orbit, with no chance for the enemy to see it coming or shot it down.
Wow, no wonder that movie remains one of my all-time favorites.
But you pointed out one very real flaw in the movie's premise, Pow. As you said, "Just how did the Russkies get such a behemoth into orbit anyway?"
The biggest rocket Russia had back when the missile platform was launched was the one they developed for their Moon missions, and it was about the same size as the Saturn 5. I doubt a rocket even that large could carry the missile platform into orbit.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Krel
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bud Brewster wrote: | | He said that each of the ICBMs were designed to strike various military targets in the U.S. So, the nukes weren't just "dropping from orbit", the were being launched to zero in on targets which were spread all over the continental United States. |
But that's just what they are doing. ICBM warheads separate on the downward curve to acquire different targets. You don't need a full-size Earth-to-orbit boosters to get the warheads from a station in orbit. It's wasteful, it increases the size of the satellite and greatly reduces the number of warheads the satellite can hold if you're sticking to the behemoth. The warheads would only need a small engine to deorbit, gravity going to do most of the work.
BUT! The movie needed full-size boosters so Tommy Lee Jones could fly to the Moon, I understand that. As William Goldman wrote: There is a difference between real, real and reel real.
David. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17637
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Krel wrote: | | ICBM warheads separate on the downward curve to acquire different targets. You don't need a full-size Earth-to-orbit boosters to get the warheads from a station in orbit. |
You're assuming they were designed to launch close enough to the United States for that last stage to reach the targets. But why limit your missiles that way? I think they were cable of launching from anywhere in their orbit.
The movie stated that the missiles would launch automatically if they detected a threat to the platform. Surely the designers wouldn't limit the platform to deal with that threat only if it occurred within a few hundred miles of America!
And since they would be launching from orbit and getting that gravity assist you mentioned, any anti-missiles we launched against them would be fighting an uphill battle to reach their targets, while the Russia missiles would be able to launch from further away because their flight paths would be downhill from the platform to their targets!
In other words, launching from orbit increases the range of the missiles, because they don't have to fight gravity.
With the full capability of ICBMs, they could even stay in orbit and travel halfway around the world until they were almost directly over the United States.
Come on, admit it, Krel. If you consider ALL the advantages of launching from high orbit, giving those missiles the full range of ICBMs means they could even launch over Russia and reach America much faster than launching from land-based sites in the USSR . . . and they wouldn't be detected by our radar until the last few minutes when they entered the atmosphere right above the U.S.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Krel
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bud Brewster wrote: |
Come on, admit it, Krel. If you consider ALL the advantages of launching from high orbit, giving those missiles the full range of ICBMs means they could even launch over Russia and reach America much faster than launching from land-based sites in the USSR . . . and they wouldn't be detected by our radar until the last few minutes when they entered the atmosphere right above the U.S. |
I have considered the advantages, and one of them is that you don't need big honkin' boosters, because your missiles are not climbing out of a gravity well. A much smaller booster would work just as well, get your payload just as far and you would be able to fit more MIRV warheads in your satellite. Full-size boosters are wasteful, and the only reason to have them, is so Tommy Lee Jones' character can die on the Moon.
Although, if you think about it, it is a miracle that the boosters worked after decades in orbit without maintenance.
David. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17637
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Krel wrote: | I have considered the advantages, and one of them is that you don't need big honkin' boosters, because your missiles are not climbing out of a gravity well.
Although, if you think about it, it is a miracle that the boosters worked after decades in orbit without maintenance. |
Wow, you’ll get no argument from me on that last point, no sir!
The movie did a fine job of showing how badly damaged the missile platform was from the decades of impacts by micro-meteoroids and orbiting space debris. It looked like one of those old VCRs listed on eBay as “for parts only” for $3.00.
But concerning the “big missiles vs small missiles” debate, we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether the full-sized boosters would be necessary to do what the Soviets designed the platform to do.
Your spirited challenge of my initial premise has compelled me to do my homework, David, so I could find out if I was right about all this or just having fun trying to look clever.
After researching the subject a bit, I learned that the maximum range of the most advanced ICBMs today is 15,000 km (9,320 miles). As you mentioned, ICBMs carry multiple warheads with separate rocket engines and guidance systems which allow them to hit multiple targets.
But that's now . . . not back in the 1960s. Back in the Good Old Days, the Atlas was the missile of choice, and it only carried one warhead!
So, unless you can share with me a website which states that nuclear weapons back in the early 1970s were small enough to fit more than one into the missiles we saw in Space Cowboys, I'm going remain doubtful that those large missiles were not actually necessary to carry big warheads any significant distance.
And remember, I suggested that the Russians designed the platform to launch their missiles from any point around the globe — not just from directly over Washington! Even though the missiles didn't have to climb up out of a gravity well, they did have to travel up to 12,000 miles (half the circumference of the Earth), and they had to travel really fast to reach their targets quickly.
A ground-based missile can only go about 9,000 miles . . . but a space-based missile could go that extra 3,000 miles. Can we really expect a significantly smaller missile to do that? 
But I want to be fair, David, so let's assume for a moment that you’re right when you said:
"A much smaller booster would work just as well, get your payload just as far, and you would be able to fit more MIRV warheads in your satellite. Full-size boosters are wasteful . . . "
The flaw I see in your thinking is the idea that (for example) eighteen smaller boosters, all traveling around the globe and heading for the Land of the Free and the Home of the Doomed, would be more efficient than six larger missiles which each carried three warheads with their own guidance and propulsion systems that would be used when they go into the "home stretch".
David, my fellow rocket-lovin' buddy . . . I’m sure we both agree that 60 years of rocket science has proven this simple fact: multiple stage rockets beat the pants off our beloved single-stage rockets, like the ones in movies like Destination Moon.
I hate to admit it, but it’s true. Rockets that shed their lower stages during the flight do in fact work better than rockets which come back all in one piece and look beautiful throughout the entire journey.
And also, David, we shouldn’t forget that Space Cowboys made a point of stating repeatedly that the missile platform was in a polar orbit, not a geosynchronous orbit!
If the Russians had wanted to arm their platform with dinky little missiles that could just shoot out of the satellite and drop straight down onto American targets without having to use big honkin' ICBMs, they would have positioned the platform right over our heads . . . permanently.
But they didn't to that. They made it orbit from pole-to-pole, and they armed it with full sized ICBMs so they could travel around the globe in minutes and then deploy their trio of warheads at the last moment. The warheads could then zero in on key targets.
Obviously these key targets would be the important places — like Washington and Area 51 and Hollywood — the targets that could really do the most damage to all us filthy capitalistic pigs.  (Just joshin' widge-ya, Yankee Dog.)
I’ll say again that those sneaky Russians did exactly the same thing America planned to do in The Space Children, when they were about to launch the Thundererer . . . before the wise and iridescent alien teamed up with seven brave kids to stop us from nuckin’ ourselves!
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Last edited by Bud Brewster on Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:49 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alltare
Quantum Engineer
Joined: 17 Jul 2015
Posts: 349
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bud Brewster wrote: | ... I’m sure we both agree that 60 years of rocket science has proven this simple fact: multiple stage rockets beat the pants off our beloved single-stage rockets, like the ones in movies like Destination Moon!
I hate to admit it, but it’s true. Rockets that shed their lower stages during the flight do in fact work better than rockets which come back all in one piece and look beautiful throughout the entire journey. |
It is interesting to note that the US has been working for at least the last ~30 years to develop SSTO (Single Stage To Orbit) technology. Here's what Wikipedia says about the Delta Clipper (DC-X) rocket, an early prototype:
"Built as a 1/3rd scale prototype, the DC-X was never designed to achieve orbital altitudes or velocity, but instead to demonstrate the concept of vertical take off and landing. The vertical take off and landing concept was popular in science fiction films from the 1950s (Rocketship X-M, Destination Moon, and others), but not seen in real world designs of Earth-bound vehicles. It would take off vertically like standard rockets, but also land vertically with the nose up. This design used attitude control thrusters and retro rockets to control the descent, allowing the craft to begin atmospheric entry nose-first, but then roll around and touch down on landing struts at its base. The craft could be refueled where it landed, and take off again from exactly the same position — a trait that allowed unprecedented turnaround times".
"In theory a base-first re-entry profile would be easier to arrange. The base of the craft would already need some level of heat protection to survive the engine exhaust, so adding more protection would be easy enough. More importantly, the base of the craft is much larger than the nose area, leading to lower peak temperatures as the heat load is spread out over a larger area. Finally, this profile would not require the spacecraft to "flip around" for landing".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
Here's a good video about DC-X:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVE_iTCUADY
Last edited by alltare on Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17637
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
________________________________
This occurred to me after I posted my message above.
It seems to me that launching long-range missiles from an orbiting platform achieves somewhat the same effect as Putin's "undetectable" missiles that arch up into space and come down without being detected.
The advantage would be in the fact that our satellites, which watch Russian launch sites closely, would not spot missiles being launched from an orbiting platform which was located (for example) over the North or South Pole.
_____ Vladimir Putin's new Sarmat ballistic rocket
__________ 
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Last edited by Bud Brewster on Tue Jan 09, 2024 4:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Krel.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A polar orbit is best for a weapons platform. I remember reading in that in the 50s SF novels, that is the best orbit because it covers all the Earth. So once again, you don't need full-scale boosters. Not when you will be passing over, or near your targets.
The whole point in the old SF novels for putting weapons in orbit, is so you wouldn't need big boosters to reach your target. Just an engine for a deorbit burn, and guidance. Gravity is going to do most of the work. And by launching in Zero-G, your missiles are going to be able to travel a greater distance. More bang for your buck. Besides if you want even more distance, you could always skip the warheads across the atmosphere like the Sanger Space Plane orbital bomber concept.
The first MIRV missile, was the Minuteman III, which was introduced in 1970. So the behemoth could have had them.
David. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17637
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Krel wrote: | | A polar orbit is best for a weapons platform. I remember reading in that in the 50s SF novels, that is the best orbit because it covers all the Earth. So once again, you don't need full-scale boosters. Not when you will be passing over, or near your targets. |
Everything you said above is sound thinking. Good job. And thanks for correcting my misconception about the MIRV missiles being available for the Russian plateform.
My only counter-suggestion would be to point out that if the platform was designed to launch its missiles immediately upon receiving the command or detecting a threat — without waiting several days for it to finally be right over its target because both the satellite's orbit and the Earth's rotation finally put it there — then it would need to be capable of launching at a moment's notice, even if the platform were on the far side of the globe!
The movie made a point of saying it could do that.
That means it would need long-range 1970s missiles which could arch up into space (against the force of gravity to some small degree), circumnavigate the Earth, and dive back down into the atmosphere over the United States. This maneuver would involve the most basic principals of rocket trajectory, requiring no complex designs for the deliver vehicles.
It would be a much simpler way to deliver the bombs than the Sanger Space Plane orbital bomber. Wikipedia has this to say about that elegant principal.
___________________________________
The design was a significant one, as it incorporated new rocket technology, and the principle of the lifting body, foreshadowing future development of winged spacecraft such as the X-20 Dyna-Soar of the 1960s and the Space Shuttle of the 1970s.
In the end, it was considered too complex and expensive to produce. The design never went beyond mock up test.
___________________________________
So, the full-sized ICBMs may have been over-qualified for the job, but the Russians were striving for guaranteed success . . . not cutting edge technology that might cause problems.
I submit that the brute-force approach we see being used in Space Cowboys is much more consistent with the basic character of the U.S.S.R. in the early 1970s, as opposed to the more intelligent and hi-tech approaches you've suggested.
I mean, naturally your way would be much better . . . if Russian scientists had been in charge of the project! Sadly, they weren't. It was Russian politicians calling the shots.
Therefore, what we see in the movie is clearly not what the Russians should have done. It's what the Russians would have done.
What do you think, David? Have we finally reached a consensus?
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Last edited by Bud Brewster on Tue Jan 09, 2024 4:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
