wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (04/22/85)
I waded thru SPACE, which I found to be, shall we say, "not dense" -- it would have made a nice 4-hour two-night movie if they had left out the soap opera and kept in the space-related parts... Anyway, why I am copying net.aviation on this -- I seem to have seen some wildly anachronistic aircraft shots in this mini-series. I didn't take notes, so I can't be too specific, but I kept seeing aircraft in shots that were supposed to be in the 50's and 60's that appeared to be of much more recent vintage. The ironic thing is that there was a half-hour program about the making of "Space" in which the producer/director/whatever were discussing all the pains they took to make it authentic and accurate, emphasizing there the moon scenes. Yet I recall shots of what was supposed to be the mid 50's when John Polk was in Colorado, as a Navy pilot on educational leave studying for his doctorate, where they showed shots of an USAF plane over the Rockies that he was supposed to be flying. I can accept some sort of inter-service courtesy to allow pilots in the other services to use another service's aircraft for keeping flight pay and in monthly training/ familiarization flights, but the aircraft appeared to be some modern century-series craft, which, even if it was operational at the time, would not have been available for such galivanting around in; he should have been flying some sort of older craft, like something in the F-90's series. Also, the planes they were supposed to be TESTING, as brand new prototypes, at Pax River, seemed to be the same planes earlier shots used as their ordinary ferry-craft, used for getting from one station to another! Maybe I'm wrong here; I've lost a good deal of the instant-recognition knowledge I used to have for fighter craft, so I can't rattle off designations and specifics. But maybe somebody out there who knows this stuff better caught some of this show and can comment... Regards, Will Martin USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
karn@petrus.UUCP (04/24/85)
Glad to see my opinions of "Space" were not unique. I wrote them before the 5th episode, which was in many ways the most disappointing. I was appalled to find out how much this turkey cost; for $25M they should have been able to hire people who knew the difference between the ascent and descent stages of a lunar module. During the descent to the moon, the LM alternately shed and regained its descent stage. I'm surprised that they didn't portray the actual lunar landing by showing the liftoff in reverse. Earlier, in the Saturn V launch, they have the launcher moving before the engines even ignite. In the "astronaut over a cliff" scene (which was all too predictable) nobody seemed to care that even an astronaut in full gear could be easily lifted by another in 1/6 G. Gag. I have always felt that "truth is stranger than fiction" when it comes to space stories. A very few writers, such as Arthur C. Clarke, have the imagination (and technical understanding) to create believable fiction that is even half as riveting as the real thing. The rest should stay with documentaries. Apollo 13 was one of the best cliffhangers of all time, and it was for real. Phil
brad@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brad Parker) (04/24/85)
In article <332@petrus.UUCP> karn@petrus.UUCP writes: >Glad to see my opinions of "Space" were not unique. I wrote them before >the 5th episode, which was in many ways the most disappointing. I was appalled >to find out how much this turkey cost; for $25M they should Believe it or not, the book is fantastic. I did, however, fall into such a state of depression when the LEM borked in that I threw it away. New trust the tv to do any justice to a good book. ("Yew know, like, we can do such a TREATMENT of this PROPERTY....") -- J Bradford Parker uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!brad "I've seen this happen in other people's lives... and now it's happening in mine." -The Smiths
dsmith@hplabsc.UUCP (David Smith) (04/26/85)
I only kept going with the series because it was supposed to be about SPACE. My impression is that it had about as much to do about space as "Dallas" has to do with oil exploration. As for anachronistic planes, get the flying around in 727s in the late '50s and early '60s; or test flying an A-4M (late '70s). I suppose we might forgive them for the latter, since it doesn't look so much different from early A-4s. At least they used a T-33 (or T2V) for a chase plane. One shot of a "Saturn V" was actually of a Saturn IB. I'm annoyed that they didn't even mention Robert Goddard. A cute touch: when the German rocket scientists were being loaded into the back of a US Army truck, one (who had no lines but did look at the camera) looked like Werner von Braun. David Smith
tjj@ssc-vax.UUCP (T J Jardine) (05/01/85)
> ... > I'm annoyed that they didn't even mention Robert Goddard. > ... > David Smith While I was also mildly disappointed with the lack of attention to detail from an aviator's point of view, I do seem to remember that Goddard was mentioned very specifically at the very beginning of the series. TJ (with Amazing Grace) The Piper Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!ted -- TJ (with Amazing Grace) The Piper Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!ted