mears@hpindda.HP.COM (David Mears) (11/08/89)
I realize that this will probably come too late for many, but hopefully it will be sufficient notice for some. For those of you who would be intrested and who may not otherwise watch `Mission: Impossible' on Thursday nights, this coming Thursday's show (9 Nov 1989) will have the MI team doing something related to the space shuttle. They apparently even go up in it. It should be interesting. David B. Mears Hewlett-Packard Cupertino CA hplabs!hpda!mears mears@hpda.HP.COM
thomas@mvac23.UUCP (Thomas Lapp) (11/09/89)
> For those of you who would be intrested and who may not otherwise watch > `Mission: Impossible' on Thursday nights, this coming Thursday's show > (9 Nov 1989) will have the MI team doing something related to the space > shuttle. They apparently even go up in it. It should be interesting. I saw a posting in one of the newsgroups I read that mentioned how realistic that the Mission: IMPOSSIBLE team was when referring to what a computer could and could not do. If I recall the topic correctly, it had something to do with the fact that when trying to crack a particular computer system, they didn't use "magic" but did it in a way that would make sense. However, as soon as I saw the previews for this week's show, I realized that reality was going to go out the window. I don't recall exactly what it was that was so "dumb" and outlandish, but anyone who reads sci.space.shuttle would probably be disappointed in watching the program. I think this is because it deals with a subject that we all know a good bit about, and know when things are done realistically or not. Of course, by the time you read this, it will probably be over with, so I hope you enjoyed the program... - tom -- internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1 Location: Newark, DE, USA Quote : Virtual Address eXtension. Is that like a 9-digit zip code? -- The UUCP Mailer
phil@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) (11/11/89)
In article <101.UUL1.3#5131@mvac23.UUCP> thomas@mvac23.UUCP (Thomas Lapp) writes: [[Original attribution lost....sorry]] >> For those of you who would be intrested and who may not otherwise watch >> `Mission: Impossible' on Thursday nights, this coming Thursday's show >> (9 Nov 1989) will have the MI team doing something related to the space >> shuttle.... > >Of course, by the time you read this, it will probably be over with, so >I hope you enjoyed the program... I didn't. Neither did my wife (former JSC shuttle flight controller). It was horrible. It was awful. It was unrealistic. It was totally contrary to fact or any reasonable extension of fact. It was hokey. It was clear that the producers did almost no research on the subject. Our "hoke-o-meter" broke. We turned it off after about 40 minutes and decided that our time could be better spent thinking about what to make for dinner. I almost turned "Different World" on instead. It was THAT bad! William LeFebvre Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Northwestern University <phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
mears@hpindda.HP.COM (David Mears) (11/11/89)
Well, it wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either. I noticed a few inconsistancies; people who follow things much closer than I probably noticed a few more. There were some external shots with a white external tank and some with the more recent orange. There were also shots that implied that there was a metal surface around the cabin windows rather than tiles. However, there was also a lot of good NASA footage and the special effects for weightlessness were fairly decent. At least they didn't just ignore gravity altogether. Considering that they didn't have a major motion picture budget, I think they did quite well. Anybody else see it? Like it? Hate it? Other comments? David B. Mears Hewlett-Packard Cupertino CA hplabs!hpda!mears mears@hpda.HP.COM
mahaun@sactoh0.UUCP (Mark A. Haun) (11/13/89)
In article <3330024@hpindda.HP.COM>, mears@hpindda.HP.COM (David Mears) writes: > Anybody else see it? Like it? Hate it? Other comments? There was just one other minor problem in the plot; they had the laser destroying communications satellites which would obviously be in geostationary orbit! I liked that one shot of the shuttle approaching what looked to me like an Intelsat-series sat.... Other than that, and about 100 other gross inconsistencies, it wasn't all that bad :-) ... -- ( Mark A. Haun KJ6PC )( UUCP: ...ames!pacbell!sactoh0!mahaun ) ( Sac-Unix, Sacramento CA )( AMPRNET: kj6pc@kj6pc.ampr.org ) ( IP: [44.2.0.56] 144.93 Mhz )( PACKET: kj6pc@wa6nwe.#nocal.ca.usa.na ) ( INTERNET: mmsac!sactoh0!mahaun@sacto.West.Sun.COM )
mike@trsvax.UUCP (11/14/89)
The satellite was a Hughes 380, the most commonly deployed communications satellite. Okay, so it wasn't in geostationary orbit. I can remember at least two of those babies (Palapa and Westar) that ended up like that thanks to Morton Thiokol. Mike Hardeman (mike@trsvax.UUCP) Tandy Research and Development (817) 390-2112 The opinions expressed here are not those of Tandy Corporation (I don't think they even know I work here)