Movies Always Get This Simple Thing Wrong About Space Shuttles...
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 เม.ย. 2022
- Just a silly little thing.
Background music from Joel Cummins - Looped Ascent
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W2D1 | Summer | ถ้าไม่พร้อมลุย ได้ไปคุยกับรากมะม่วง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XlkKtVvBxac/mqdefault.jpg)
It probably went something like this:
STUDIO EXEC.: "Why is the plane flying upside down?"
FX GUY: "That's how the shuttle actually launches..."
STUDIO EXEC.: "People are going to think we're idiots. Flip it right-side up."
FX GUY: "But... Yes sir."
It's a bit like Admiral General Aladeen, who wanted his nuclear weapons pointy!
We already think they're idiots, who don't understand science advice.
"Dear Studio Exec, everybody thinks you're an idiot anyway."
@@fig7047 "Supreme leader let me explain"
That's the way the conversation always goes. Well, except on the expanse.
STUDIO EXEC: "Why is the ship pointing away from its destination?"
NAREN SHANKAR (showrunner of the expanse): "That's actually how you slow a ship down"
STUDIO EXEC: "People are going to think we're idiots. Flip it right-side up."
NAREN SHANKAR: "No".
let me get this right: the only movie that did their space shuttle flight right was the one made before the actual flight of the first space shuttle? wtf hollywood?
Moonraker was co produced by United Artists UK and France and filmed in the UK and France. So technically Hollywood wasn't involved 🤣
@@VolkerHett That doesn't make it better 🤣
@@manug2508 that makes it worse for Hollywood
@@hoover1150 Well, those eggheads at NASA use some weird units like kilograms and Newton-meters, no way Hollywood would listen to such un-American institution! /s
If I'm not mistaken, that would have been Pinewood Studio in the UK, so the Brits got it right before we flew it
Don't forget movies like Armageddon and Life force portray the shuttle as capable of travel well beyond earth's orbit.
Xd
Well to be fair to Armageddon, it was a prototype military variant
@@richyrich7260 and also heavily modified
Hot rodded.
@johnnyfavorite1194 well yeah... It's called a shuttle. My airport shuttle goes well beyond the airport, so logically the space shuttle would go well beyond space. Now forward this to Ryan George to use in an upcoming video 🤣 😂
‘Sequel to Maximum Overdrive’
That puts the whole Cars franchise into perspective.
I never thought I’d hear that Moonraker was accurately depicting anything about space travel, but here we are.
Especially the way Bond was "attempting reentry."
@@johnbeckman492 Oh beHAVE!
@@johnbeckman492 I am sure more than 2 attempts were needed to shave off the energy :)
@@johnbeckman492 "Oh James, take me around the world one more time" - Holly Goodhead 🤣🤣
Moonraker is also the only movie where a shuttle launches from the planned pad in Vandenberg AFB.
Hollywood always does the thunder and the lightning at the same time also.
That's at least something that actually happens [if you're very close to it]
@@limiv5272 its also something that happens when you are very far, its just that the thunder your hearing has no direct correlation to the lightning your seeing, lol.
They miked the lighting directly
ain’t nobody got time for that
Star Wars broke the record by having planets not only blow up so close to other planets that the explosions were easily visible from the surface, but you also heard the explosions at the same time you saw them.
I like the fact that the shuttle launch you used for this short is one where you see a bird getting killed by the top of the external tank.
Where?
@@sonianevermind1232 AT the very begining as the shuttle is lifting off, you can see a bird getting hit at the very top of the external tank.
LOL I DIDN'T NOTICE THAT
Poor bird didn't get the memo about not flying in front of rockets
The Shuttle's main engines were started a few seconds before the clamps released. The bird should've flown away as fast as it could the moment the RS 25 engines roared to life.
@@saadisave don’t think it knows what an r25 engine is
When I watched Moonraker when I was young I was like "Yeah, cool, Spaceshuttles, nice..."
When I realized that movie came out before the first Shuttle flight: *Mind blown!*
I just realized this as well
I watch the one of the old Batman movie that used military satellites to get a global positioning system was supposed to be syfy at the time lol guess Hollywood just has inside information. Some times
I used to think that was the craziest thing ever til I learned how long the shuttle was in development.
Kinda like Stanley Kubricks 2001 came out BEFORE the moon landings!
@@shannonjaensch3705 Yes, who could have possibly predicted the idea of a space shuttle during its well-publicized development and after Enterprise had already flown on Approach and Landing Tests? I'm sad. That's something to be sad about.
As someone who lives in the Southern Hemisphere, I can half understand why Hollywood can't grasp flying upside down to get into space...
Yeah, when we look at the stars we are actually looking *down* at them. 🤦♂
how do you keep the blood from rushing to your head?
Please. You Southies have it so easy. All you have to do to go into space is let go of the ground!
@Van Problem solved.
I hear hair gel is big over there, to keep the hair from standing up all the time
I can almost imagine a conversation during "Moonraker" production.
Consultant: "The space shuttle should be upside down as it enters orbit."
Director: "No, I want the shuttle to appear right-side up, or the average viewer will think we got it wrong!"
Consultant: "Well if you want the space shuttle to be right side up then Earth has to be upside down!"
Director: "What does that even mean?"
DoP: "Uh, guys? I think I can make that work."
Director and Consultant: "Upside-down Earth?"
DoP: "Upside-down Earth."
I mean, it totally works, right? The shuttle has it's belly pointed to the bottom of the frame (right-side up for the viewer), but it has its back to Earth (scientifically accurate). They framed Earth above the shuttle instead of below it. Beautiful
It looks like very conscientious composition. And of course, you can't spell "conscientious" without "scien-" ... without "scientio". Dammit.
Barely ynderstood whats written here but that last bit deserves a like
All hail Upside-down Earth
Very simple, but also ridiculously clever solution
@@filmgunproductions4448 I finally watched the whole movie for the first time and really enjoyed it. It was like a really good space action movie that happened to be part of the Bond franchise.
Well you got it wrong in Moonraker when they stole the shuttle off the top of the 747 that was transporting it the three main engines fired excuse me but the three main engines campfire because they weren’t hooked up to a fuel tank the ohms pods could fire but not the three main engines because there’s no fuel for them those engines even have to be purged before they can be lit
I was in ....I guess kindergarten in 81 when Columbia went up for the first time. It was an absolute EVENT, you know what time it is when they wheel a TV into every classroom lol.
I was blessed with an awesome and passionate teacher who taught us about nature, dinosaurs, gerbils, and ...the Space Shuttle and this is one of the gems she taught us that I remember and I had a toy shuttle at home that I played with upside down after that. Lonnnng ago!!
gerbils!
i always wished i had teachers like this
@@stevenswapp4768 o yeah her gerbils didn't have an aquarium they had a compound with all tunnels, wheels, and toys you could think of and she got us to help her maintain it
What was your reaction when Columbia desintegrated in 2003 @marcusclarkson2657
@@alt3603 o man it was sad. I was going thru some tough times and was living at home w Mom. She came and woke me up ( understand Mom was a science teacher and watching the SS go up was an event we watched from the first one ) and as soon as I saw the images on TV I knew it was way past over and I hoped they didn't feel a thing or have horror onboard, but knowing how reentry works I had no doubt they weren't with us anymore by the time we saw it. It was crazy and surreal, I remember Challenger '86 too, I was in like the 4th grade and all the school kids followed Christa McAuliffe in my school district....we didn't see the launch in my classroom ( not enough TVs lol ) so when we got on the bus and my buddy in 3rd grade told me the SS blew up and I got mad with him for playing like that but he wasn't playing.
That was all that was on the news for days. Columbia and Challenger reminds us that the danger is real and the cost is so high for mistakes so I have ALWAYS respected the explorers and I'm so thankful for what they brought us.
Charlie Bolden is actually a family friend ( haven't seen in in years) , his mother went to our church, and my Dad played HS footballs under His Dad as coach. He was amazing he would fly to SC from Texas in his own plane, we once took him to the airport to go home it was like bringing him to his car. His kids are about my age. We went twice to see him go up but BOTH times the SS farted on the pad.
I like how you used the one liftoff where they actually hit a bird for the opening clip.
Moonraker had Derek Meddings as visual effects supervisor. Considering how many miniature rocket launches he's done it's no wonder he knew how the Shuttle would work before it flew
Actually NASA engineers watched Moonraker before Columbia's first flight and just thought "thats how its suppose to go..."
Derek was an absolute genius!
@@kenwittlief255 yeah they let Derek do all the work for them
Some of Meddings' best work was on Gerry Anderson's first live-action tv series, UFO.
@@dalethelander3781 And Space 1999! The Eagle Transporter is a CLASSIC!
Fun Fact: The special effects designer for Moonraker was Derek Meddings, who previously worked on Gerry Anderson's Supermarionation shows! He was also nominated for the Academy Award for Best Special Effects.
And he carried on for ages. Even Goldeneye has a distinctly Meddings look to the effects.
Neat. Never knew Gerry Anderson had an indirect connection with the 007 films; but then again staff who'd worked for him also went on to do the Thomas the Tank Engine tv series.
@@jimtaylor294 Those FX guys at AP Films/Century 21/Group Three/Gerry Anderson Productions were all geniuses at their various crafts. With a little help from Wag Evans' Space Models.
I really feel bad that Space Camp came at the very worst possible time.
I just discovered that forgotten gem and watched it last Thursday night this week.
It’s a great film, and unfortunately, things get worse for the film and everyone involved in it because the plot, like the cause of the Challenger disaster, focuses on a malfunction with the solid rocket boosters.
When themost accurate thing is a 70s bond movie you know you‘re in trouble xD
This format is a double-edge sword. On the one hand, it's quick and to the point. On the other hand, I now have the urge to fly unsafely.
Darn kids are lifting off rightside-up! Why, back in my day...
Is nobody gonna talk about how the shuttle at the beginning murdered a bird haha
Shuttle had the right of way
RIP the last spotted owl
it was probably cooked before it hit the ground
I remember the Moonraker special effects actually looking good. That was a _long_ time ago.
The space special effects were made by filming the first element, re-rolling the film back in the camera, re-filming the second element, etc, etc.
They did this for a whole lot - dozens? - of layers in for some scenes.
One tiny little mistake made in filming in a latter layer in a scene? Re-film EVERYTHING FROM SCRATCH!
Also - they were quite practical regarding space objects blowing up: they just blasted models with shotguns, shooting the film at high-speed!
@@tomamberg5361 That was the _easy_ way! You should how long it took to manually matte together all the elements from the Death Star battle in _Return of the Jedi_ (the original, not the CGI disaster).
Probably because Moonraker wasn't Hollywood it was a British film. Made at Pinewood studios.
@@tomamberg5361
I guess they didn't have the equipment that Lucas' team put together. However Moonraker didn't require a lot of elements. Rolling back has been going on for a long time. There is a Buster Keaton film with 9 Buster's, they rolled it back for each shot of Buster. I don't know if they just used a black background or if they masked the lens as well.
That is about the time that Industrial Light and Magic started using an optical printer that could handle 4 elements at once.
@@dogwalker666 yes. The space station was an amazing set built at that studio that is responsible for many famous movies including Aliens.
Plot twist. Shuttle launch engineers saw moonraker and then decided James Bond can’t have continuity errors and have since launched every space shuttle upside down to keep it cannon.
Shows how iconic the shuttle actually was.
Also with Don't Look Up, the shuttle detaches the boosters way to early, they are still really low in the sky.
OK Scott, you can't do a 60 seconds video. it's like giving a drop of water to somebody dying of thirst in the desert.
"A small price to pay for a pilot's license"
Yeah, I don't think this format works at all with educational material of this magnitude; I've seen longer ads.
@@twisted_nether373 Yep, shorts as TH-cam as implemented them are actively destructive to the process of actually learning anything. Scott is unintentionally hurting the educational TH-cam community by supporting them.
Chill. It's a movie trailer. Rated G for all audiences.
I have no idea what the video was even about.
and here I thought it woudl be about how they always send the space shuttle way past low orbit for any mission when the Space Shuttle barely had enough propellent to get into a low orbit then deorbit itself
they sewre ALWAYS customized ... last second thrashes to build "super shuttles"
In Armageddon they had a bunch of extra booster motors and engines to push them out of LEO.
Another thing Moonraker did right then.
The one with the engines burning after tank separation obviously has some extra fuel magically stashed away somewhere to extend its range.
@@gcewing Tanks in the payload bay?
This was not the case in the James Bond film “Moonraker” where they got it right. Unfortunately they got a lot of other things wrong but still
If you remember old science fiction films, they used to show the rocket launching, and it's a V-2. Then it's climbing, but now it's a Redstone or an Atlas. Then in orbit, or on its way to Planet X or wherever, it looks like an early Von Braun design, with the engines going full blast, of course. Hollywood sci-fi directors used to just not care about little details like those. To them, a rocket's a rocket's a rocket.
"Sequel to maximum overdrive"
You've made some Pixar fans very angry
"They drew first blood, not me." - Scott Manley, probably
Lol
Is he wrong though?
Good.
Stephen King would be proud.
When Moonraker is the reasonable one, you're in an interesting situation lol
Interstellar: hold my corn
It’s funny, hollywood is exactly the same with military stuff. With car stuff. With gun stuff. Hell, with anything you actually could have a special skillset or career in, they never seem to bother to consult humans that actually have knowledge on it- even if the entire movie is based on it
You should open a production studio and do it 100% right there seems to be a gap in the market
I was totally surprised when I was watching the early 2000's version of Battlestar Galactica and they were communicating with sound powered phones, using inertia without engines, thrusters to reposition, pretty crazy.
Still sci-fi and missed stuff. But they got a lot of small things right that you would only know if you have spent time on a military ship.
Mostly correct. Early flight timeline had the vehicle "heads down" to maintain radio contact with ground stations. Once out of range of ground sites the vehicle was rolled to heads up to make contact with the TDRS sattelites.
It was also to reduce stress on the wings as it ascended
The poor bird on second 2
How did no one else see this
When I was a kid in the 80's, we didn't have enough TV's for every classroom, so about 4 classes would all gather in one classroom around the TV to watch every time a shuttle launched. The shuttle was to the 80's what the Apollo missions were to the 60's and 70's. Anything space related included the shuttle. One of the few things I remember from elementary school was when I was in 3rd grade and the challenger exploded. I remember it like yesterday. Never having seen a launch before that, at first I didn't know what was going on, but you could hear a pin drop in a room full of 50 3rd graders. I remember asking my dad to pick up newspapers (we didn't get a daily paper) and bring them home to me so I could scour them for any info about the shuttle.
Watching the space shuttle lift off. It was always awesome to hear them call the roll program.
“This is Jaws, he hurts people”. /quotes
I knew there had to be someone else cool about Moonraker!
Moonrake also has probably my favourite line in the whole series. "Mr Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season."
And the wondrous 'journey into space' soundtrack. Shuttle models by Airfix IIRC.
@@aedwards123 Drax has all the best lines in that film. "Look after Mr. Bond. See that some harm comes to him."
@@akizeta Drax: "Mr. Bond, you defy all my attempts to plan an amusing death for you." He knows he is a 'Bond Villain'
Probably the very worst Bond movie ever.
Another reason to love Moonraker is always a bonus!
And then there's Nolan who watched videos of astronauts aboard the space station to make sure the shadows from the windows would be cast properly.
Yet, the countdown is fudged up.
They also often get the Re-Entry wrong too. Space shuttles move very "Flat" on reentry but shows/movies always show them doing a nose dive.
I can never not see the bird getting smacked on the first launch again 😂
"the sequel to maximum overdrive"
Scott, when you slammed Armageddon, you forgot the biggest mistake of all. Both crews went up the same launch tower, then one crew went off on one gantry arm and the other crew went off on an opposite gantry arm. That meant both of the shuttles would have launched from either 39-A OR 39-B less than 100 feet from each other. This is something that would be physically impossible!!!!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yeah.... THAT was the biggest flaw in an otherwise perfect movie.
You know what they say:
Never let facts get in the way of a good sto…wait. Scratch the „good story“ bit. Didn’t think that one through. I will amend my statement and say „Never let facts get in the way of a story“. I mean…if both of the shuttles had lit their engines while only a few hundred feet apart, the story might have benefitted greatly from the resulting fire and explosions as well as everyone’s death. On the other hand: So much fun was had ragging on this cheesetastic dumpster fire of a movie…
@@DeputatKaktus It had Arwven in a flower dress, so.....
That's because Moonraker was not science fiction it was science fact!
Science Non-Fiction
Let’s start a new genre!
My favorite “Butcher-ing” of the shuttle’s flight characteristics is in the move “The Core” when Hillary swank keeps raising and lowering the landing gear like it’s an airliner!!! I LMAO when I saw that!
It's not presented like that because it breaks the visual flow and audience connotations. When I started editing I asked my mentor why we put certain sounds over and over, even if they make no sense, and he said it's because that's what the audience expects. Removing those visual/audio elements feels weird and breaks the immersion. Often times it's about what's best for the product over laze.
really insightful comment thanks
Your prof sounds like they have zero imagination.
@@cyxceven Sounds like you don't understand media literacy 😉
Ah, but it seriously breaks the visual flow for anyone who's seen an actual Shuttle launch. You expect to see it upside down, like it looked when you were watching it in real life or on the tracking footage, and it throws you out of the movie when the Orbiter is on top as it enters orbit.
@@vicroc4 I completely disagree with that assessment. Grew up on the Space Coast, friend, saw launches for decades, and never once felt that was an issue in film. And I can't say the other 99% of the population has even seen live launches, thus negating that whole point.
Moonraker is a criminally underrated Bond film. Most people dismiss it as a ludicrous departure from the Bond films prior. But if you really think about it most Bond films have a ludicrous plot.
Agree, my first Bond film at the cinema it was awesome.
Definitely one of my favorite Bond films
rip bird flow so high you got ko by the orange tank
Dude I'm glad I'm not the only one that saw that that's the first thing I noticed 😭🤣
BRUH I THOUGHT I WAS GOING CRAZY. No one was saying anything
@@Tylerdakoh many videos of birds getting toasted you should watch the bat that went to space
i was happy when i noticed the engines shutting off when they dropped the tank in moonfall. Although they didn't use the OMS to rendezvous with the refuelling station and still fired up the main engines after refuel...
Although … the opening sequence of Moonraker shows the shuttle lifting off from a 747😂
Shouldve been an antonov AN 225
The problem with how the Moonraker shuttle launched from the carrier aircraft was that its engines ignited, destroying the carrier aircraft. The orbiter wouldn’t have had access to fuel to burn the engines.
It was possible for a shuttle to detach from a Shuttle Carrier Aircraft while airborne. This was done with the prototype Space Shuttle Enterprise during the Approach and Landing Tests in 1977.
@@ajk496 Though there is also the catch that IIRC it used different configuration for transport and for Enterprise gliding tests (for detaching it got the nose higher - it needed the extra AoA to not crash back into 747).
@@ajk496 You could put a fuel tank into the Shuttle payload bay. You would need to do a lot of plumbing and it would not last very long.
That would be funny. And it would make the Shuttle absolutely useless.
Fantastic content and infuriating format!
If you are on PC it isn't that bad, but I agree the mobile experience (even with tweaks made by unofficial apps) is terrible. No scrubbing is an extremely stupid move, as was having shorts reset feed position and playback. Not being able to choose what videos you watch in the feed makes it even worse too. I hope more channels just stick to short videos and stop using the dedicated shorts system.
As someone who spent an entire 40 year career in Information Technology from punch cards to geo fencing,
Don't even get me started about computer depictions in movies.
However,
Halt and Catch Fire was a quality outlier
Loved that show.
@@mgscheue Those were great times
movies love the tape drives spinning fast, Though my dad who has ages in IT told me the drives can do that and in fact the IT people were told to make them do that when big high up suits came to tour the bowels of the IT department. The fast seeking didnt do shit computering wise but it would look impressive to the suits.
War Games might be one of the more accurate hacking films, At least to me it is because rather than having flashy hacking tools like say the wonderfully corny "Hackers". Instead a bunch of the time getting access to the WOPR was researching what they could find of the developer of the system which is what got them in the back door. Now of course one might ask how such a glaring door was left, but given modern times and how many data breaches have been because of glaring security oversights I guess a lingering backdoor isnt too fictional.
@@petera6984 Same for me. Punch cards is where I began...
@@rickkwitkoski1976 Before "Halt and Catch Fire"
There was BALR 14,0
😉
I loved Space Camp so much I read the novelization for a school book report.
The big red tank is actually a balloon. It’s full of helium. It stays up in the sky, and gets recovered by a special vehicle that’s being cloaked.
😂😂😂👎
the bird that everyone in the comments are talking about reveals that its a miniature.
Kind of fun that the movie that really got it right did it before the first launch.
The space shuttle accident in '86 was a very unfortunate event.
Fake!
@@Red_Pill_Matrix Yes, Moonraker was all fake!
@@ehsnils No! Not the Bond Girls! (Actually, I kinda thought that Jaws' girlfriend was the cutest)
Could you do a video on moonfall!? I would love for you to tear it apart on everything they got wrong on the shuttle! Hold Hollywood accountable for science accuracy!
TBH the Shuttle part was the probably the least offensive item on the list of things that Moonfall got wrong about science...
You watched the whole movie and this is your concern? 🤣
@@totalermist I'm curious, can you list some obivous ones??
@@HeidenLam Sure. By far my favourite is when one of the characters explains what a megastructure is and how it works. He claims that the Moon is hollow and actually a Dyson Sphere powered by a white dwarf star inside of it.
Problem is that a white dwarf is the corpse of a star and the smallest ones we know of are still about half the mass of our sun and about the size of Earth. There's no way to fit one into an object the size and mass of our moon. Even if you replace the white dwarf with a much denser neutron star, which would only be the size of Manhattan in diameter (some 8 to 12 km), such object would still be more massive than the sun.
At some point the movie even claims that the mass of the moon changes as it closes in on Earth...
The film also makes quite a mess of actual scientific concepts like the Roche Limit. This term denotes the distance between a planet and a moon at which the gravitational forces become so strong that the moon gets destroyed. This limit is about 9,000 km or 18,000 km (depending on the model) for Earth and Moon, yet the movie talks about potentially nuking the Moon (another hilarious concept given the Moon's size and mass) should it enter the stratosphere. Now the stratosphere is the part of the atmosphere that extents from about 15 km to 50 km or thereabouts. That's not even close.
Then there's the idea that the moon is so close, it not only covers most of the sky but *literally* makes things fly towards it, having the protagonists holding on to a fence, feet in the air. Air, which incidentally also gets sucked into the sky as the moon passes over, causing the atmosphere to get so thin you'd suffocate. None of that makes any sense.
There's just too many hilariously bonkers ideas and mistakes to list in a single YT comment, like prepping an SLS launch using never before flown hardware in a matter of days or grabbing a retired Space Shuttle from a museum in LA and making it take off from Vandenberg.
(Vandenberg never saw a Shuttle launch and the Shuttle launch facilities at SLC-6 were closed in 1990 and later modified for launching Delta IV vehicles - there's just no way to just launch a Shuttle from Vandenberg today. It'd take years to restore the required facilities.)
@@totalermist Thank you! We all learn something new everyday.
One more extra reason to have Moonraker as my favorite 007 movie.
Mine too and they filmed the Amazon River part not far from my childhood home. St. Lucie river in south Florida. They even named a housing development moonraker bay after the filming.
I suffered so much watching moonwalk when they turned the right engine off, knowing they would slowly flip and fall then die.
perhaps on future movies they wil fly and land starship sideways or reenter it tail first.
More likely to be nose first, "cuz the pointy end is more aerodynamic wright?"
My profile pic
If Starship ever makes it out of blowing up all the time, that is.
Nice ksp pfp
they will do sls first beacause its gonna carry crew first and its shuttle derived
In Armageddon, the shuttles sound like they run on jet engines
Moonraker was excellent with its effects. My Uncle did some of the sound editing for foley at Pinewood. Very interesting tools for the space sounds.
The astronaut in Don’t Look Up really pulled off a RTLS manouver, that madman.
Ah, Moonfall, where one of the solid rocket boosters stops firing midway through its burn.
Still one of the most correct things in the movie.
@@sam21462 like... They didn't even follow their own logic when the moon gravity sucked the oxygen with it the second time the moon passes by afterwards
Hollywood thought process: *I don’t give a shit about realism, I want this to look as cool as possible*
That’s the whole point, everyone’s needs to keep in mind it’s MOVIES made in HOLLYWOOD. Plus I don’t think anyone actually cares about the facts, they just want the movie to be entertaining to watch.
@@MissJade805 That's why our country is failing. Because people watch HollyWood garbage and think it's reality. This is why our country is on a fast track to failure.
@@desertlightning7335 Out country is obviously on a good path right now but Hollywood movies aren’t the main reason to blame.
@@LycanKai14 Realism and fiction aren't mutually exclusive. It's a spectrum. The fact that realistic fiction is a real genre furthers my point. Realistic elements in an otherwise fictional movie can make a story more believable and immersive while simultaneously teaching people something that they otherwise didn't know.
Realism is also very satisfying to those more knowledgeable about a particular subject watching the film and serves as a kind of reward/entertainment in its own right.
And in the case of the Shuttle launch, depicting the Shuttle launch accurately is a lot easier to do compared to making the rest of the film, which is why it's frustrating to those who value realism in their stories.
Upside down things are cooler though
Most films also forget that things don't slow down in space since there's no air to make resistance. Realistically the spaceships would have to flip halfway to slow down for decent. The only film (tv series) i know of that actually does this is "The Expanse".
Something else thst Hollywood gets wrong is that going into space doesn't mean you are in orbit (learned this from playing KSP lol). It's all about horizontal speed
Cars 4 future
I hate vertical format its tragic
Indeed, it's a bad omen about the future state of the internet. So so sad.
Maybe whining about it will solve the problem
@@tetsujin_144 Actually, complaining is very productive since most things in life won't get fixed unless someone whines.
@@tetsujin_144
Whining has solved many problems.
All that means is that someone at NASA watched Moonraker and thought "We need to launch it like that, or we will be the ones that look silly!"
;)
Edit: As others have pointed out, in Moonraker the Shuttle is also shown firing the engines and flying away off the top of the 747. NO, JUST NO.
From dim memory of watching it in the cinema... It wasn't a NASA shuttle, though, it was the BBGs shuttles. (Can't remember if James got up there in a NASA or stole one of BBGs, though.)
@@NemoConsequentae I recall that first shuttle was one of NASA's, but the bad guy stole it back (in the aforementioned silly manner) because one of his had a technical problem.
Bond went to space on one of the bad guy's shuttles. To further complicate matters, a US military shuttle full of Marines joined the party, because why not?
@@JustSomeCanuck Sounds about right! 😆
@@JustSomeCanuck And to then have an all out space laser battle.
Moonraker was the best.
Well to be fair that's how it would have been done on thunderbirds.
My favorite scene is in 'Interstellar' where the Saturn V (silo launched, of course) executes stage sep at LESS than Mach 1.
Did it bother you when they called "booster ignition", as if it had SRBs?
You could see the birb get hit in the first shot lol
Is using these new shorts easier than using the old basically video format? Or does it reach more people?
Asking because it is so bad as a user... missing volume slider, missing timeline, etc pp... :(
Are you using the youtube app? Watching in my browser has everything you're missing...
Well it's great for short videos, and a lot of people are more interested if they vaguely want to know what's up and it's less than 60 seconds, and really it's made for phones. But the ui on desktop depends on where you found the video, I believe.
If you ignore them long enough youtube apparently gives up. This showed up in my regular feed, no indication it was a short without a mouse over, and it played in the regular yt player. Not the shorts player abomination you speak of, that'll add also purposefully makes it difficult to get out of.
@@iamskeptical9108 no I am using my browser on PC. And are you sure you have a volume slider and not just a volume button?
@@shigekax Please read again, I never advocated for a longer video...
As for your second statement... where can I find the video with the old UI? I just see the new short format (with that red S icon) on PC :(
So glad you said Moonraker was the most accurate. I keep telling people about this haha
This is so much better with the sound turned off
Wonder if Starship will ever be the default Hollywood rocket
starship already looks like a retro rocket from the 50s
But in Moonraker they also fired SSME without external tank in the scene where the Shuttle is being stolen ;)
Drax must have configured the cargo bay half for passengers and half for fuel....
There's probably a Russian James Bond whose mission was to stop Drax getting the Buran plans.
A Moonraker shuttle seems to be very similar to the Space Shuttle, but it might not be identical. Maybe it contains additional tanks.
Was it the SSMEs? Or the OMS engines?
I suppose it would only need a small amount of fuel to fly away from the 747 then glide to Drax's lair..
Remember the science fiction film Super 8 (2011)?
The film was set in 1979, yet in the background in one scene, there is a model of the space shuttle with an orange external fuel tank, which didn't appear on the scene until the early 1980s.
I was more annoyed by the train derailment scene, with its unending stream of freight cars that were being flung everywhere at near escape velocity.
I learned from The Space Above Us (podcast) lately that a heads-up ascent profile was used starting in the late 90's.
And then there are movies that make it look like you can take a space shuttle out of a museum and prepare it for flight within 24 hours. And make the space shuttle fly far further into space than it is actually capable of doing.
Moonraker got it right only by accident, as they were picturing the earth “above” the craft.
I am so glad Space Camp is on your radar. Such a strangely important part of my childhood.
"pUt mAx iN sPaCe!" has not left my brain for 35 years.
Ok good! I’m not the only one.. “Thermal curtain failure” always pops up when a see a shuttle. I don’t think the Challenger loss ever stopped me wanting to go to space camp after seeing that movie
When they “initiated roll program” in Armageddon I could not stop laughing
Even in Moonraker there was a glaring error during the launch sequence. Besides Bond and Dr. Goodhead surviving being only a few feet away from the shuttle's main engines when it lifted off, later their own shuttle launched. When it came time to jettison the external tank, the shuttle is still shown to be inverted (earth above the shuttle) but the tank drops directly away from the planet.
I don't like this short video format
I agree is an irredeemable format and Scott is harming the education TH-cam community by using it.
Space Camp was a favorite VHS at our house for my kids. They were really sad to learn that Tish had cancer and died.
Actually, Moonraker has one big Hollywood moment/flaw in the beginning, when the Shuttle is 'stolen' by firing its main engines and launching itself from the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft.
Casual video of a bird getting absolutely domed by the external fuel tank at the begining of the short.
Yay Moonraker!!! Loved the astronaut space battle!!!
We all did.
What bugged me with moonfall, was the fact that the firing and not-firing booster drop at the same speed. Brrrrr
That little bit would actually be slightly accurate, since the boosters continue burning for a bit after being jettisoned. What's happening is the last bits of fuel burning off, but there isn't enough to actually provide useful thrust. The last guttering flame before the candle goes out, as it were.
Unless the whole scene was some ridiculous "Oh no! Only one booster lit! Quick! Eject it before we explode!!" Hollywoodism. I haven't actually seen the movie, but I wouldn't put anything past Hollywood...
@@Keldor314 I meant that one kept on firing and one was burnt out (which is OK), but both fell exactly the same way. That´s not right, is it?
@@Str4vv *goes and looks at the scene*
Hmm. Yeah, there are all sorts of problems there. First off, if a booster somehow went out like that, it's likely the shuttle would have immediately lost control and broken up in the air. And then, it wasn't actually possible to decouple the boosters while they were still producing significant thrust - the mechanics just didn't work that way. And why are they only running two out of three main engines?
Well, maaybe by some miracle, the second booster went out just a little bit early, and so the second booster was already rapidly loosing thrust during burnout?? This would mean it would be possible to release it, the mismatched thrust wouldn't instantly doom the vehicle, AND they'd fall away on roughly the same trajectory?? We're getting pretty far fetched here, admittedly.
Other problems include considering how it's even possible to end up with a booster burning out early, given that they use solid fuel and don't have a controllable throttle, as well as generally absurd gravitational mechanics, regardless of the movie's plot.
The comma is incorrect. Just an FYI.
Yo, that poor bird
His friend: 🖕🤣
Aw man.. Space Camp! I never even made the connection with the timing of that movie!
Yeah. If Challenger didn't happen, it would've made a nice B-movie for rainy evenings.
Moonraker haha launching dozens of shuttles at once... Oh the expense lol
How about a private corporation secretly building a space station that put the ISS to shame? James Bond villains at the time had unlimited resources.
Also that they were all ready to go at short notice, but that's plot time.
The Shuttle had pretty decent cost-efficiency, if you just wanted to get stuff to LEO and back.
Armageddon did it, just seconds from each other.
There were only 6 Moonraker shuttles, all built by Drax Industries with NASA leasing them.
🙏 Thank You So Much for the illumination that , in Real Life , certain things work in reverse or inverted! 🕯🌎
Space Camp got 2 things very right though... Lea Thompson & Kelly Preston. 😎
Jesus, fance running into you again Scott. I remember the Eve Online videos.
please release your shorts as videos as well, they're really awkward to watch on desktop!
Shorts are awful and ruining good channels on TH-cam.
Bird: what a enjoying day just chilling with the Space shuttle oh it
Launch oof
Edit:omg i got 2 likes im famous
Also space shuttle fly inverted because its protecting the orbiter
"From the sequel to Maximum Overdrive" 😂 good one
down with "shorts"
Yes! They are ruining good channels all over TH-cam but especially for educational channels.
You'll have to buy me dinner first
Wow, I guessed that but I didn't think that it would actually be the case. That's pretty pathetic hollywood!
On tonight's episode of "Fiction is not a Documentary"...
I was surprised to learn the truth about how quickly the shuttle, or any rocket, clears the launch tower, because of how long it takes in the movies.
also shuttles in movies can basically go anywhere. the moon, some asteroid, comets. very cringy
If it can be refuelled in orbit why not? Same thing as Starship, needs to be refuelled before it can leave LEO.
And they don't disintegrate. Unrealistic.
@@JohnBlackburn1975 it doesn't have a fuel tank to refuel with