PDA

View Full Version : Bond, Boring Bond...



g99
2002-Dec-06, 05:35 AM
Oh my where to start...? Well i guess i should start with this: Spoilers Don't read unless you want to read about the worst blue screeen work and graphics in the modern times.
Now on with the rant...



1.The opening sequence with the surfing on the huge wave was very unnecessary. There are much safer and better ways to get special ops people into territory than surfing on a huge wave. The blue screen work there was absolutely horrible. I guess the techs forgot to change the lighting from the previous days shooting because he was lit up like it was daylight outside while it was night in the movie. A HALO drop would of been much better than that.

2. Why do the evil people have to hire such terrible henchmen? Do they get them from the same temp agency that COBRA on G.I. Joe gets theirs from? They fire something like one hundred bullets and the most they can hit is the stones next to Bond.

3. One good thing was that the car chase sequences were amazing. Some of the best in bond since the original ones. (and bringing back to old gadjets was a good touch).

4. The next utterly stupid and "any joe schmoe can see it will not happen that way" scene was when Bond cut a hole in the ice with his watch and jumped in with no protection.

First of all the water must incredably cold. And immersing yourself with no more cold protection than a sweater or light jacket (which he was wearing) and no protective head thermal gear or dry suit, you will get cold shock. All of the air in your lungs will involuntarily be forced from you and you will panic unconrollably. Then hypothermia will come about in a matter of minutes. After this he leaves the pool with his soaked clothes still on. This really would of given him hypothermia or frozen him.

But no, He is Bond, James Bond and he just shrugs off the water and keeps his perfectly groomed hair dry with his invisible watch hair dryer.

What number is it? oh yah..

5. "The super weapon". Now i have been thinking about this since the movie came out. and all i can still say is, "What the heck?"
How does this work? I really doubt that the sun will produce enougth power to make a descent weapon out of the thing. (anyone? Yah you can fry an ant or light a leaf on fire with a magniying glass, but create a giant superlaser?) What happens when it passes into earths shadow or at night? How does it work then? Also how do they have enougth fuel to constantly adjust its position and angle? He was consantly panning and tilting the satelite and was able to menuver it from the artic circle to near the equator with realtive ease. All the while he can pinpoint a single person with it and chase the person with the satelite? Where the heck do they get all the fuel? Do they have a siphon hooked up to the fuel tank on ISS?

Also it seelms to change power frequently. It can cut throught a glacial ice sheet hundreds of feet think with no problem in a couple of seconds, but it takes several minutes to melt a flimsy ice palace. Huh?


And fianlly:
6. (or something in the 20's if you really want to be accurate) The graphics sucked. The second surfing scene (with the ice sheet) looked like it was created by a high school graphics class. The graphics of the deleted scene from the Abyss was better and more realistic looking than this one. It looks like they added it last second (literally) before they put it into the theater.

The image of Bond in this scene looks like a sprite from the Goldeneye game on N64.

It seems like they released the Beta version of the movie before it was intended for audiences.

I will step down from my shoebox now and let others lambast this...this....well you know.

[spelling]
_________________
"I am not conceited, i'm perfect"
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-12-06 00:42 ]</font>

g99
2002-Dec-06, 06:01 AM
You know what? I never explained why it was boring. The plot was rediculous and even tought it was better moviewise than the last one, the plot jumped around to much and did not have the same charm as the others. Even moonraker was better to me (yes i have sunk that low to compare something with moonraker /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif)
They tried to fit in every cliche person and sequence imagineable. The take no holds girl who can hold her own, The womanizing male lead, the eccentric gagetter who somehow has enought persoanlity to have a sense of humour, the evil kill all the people in the world to take over the world bad guy, the stupid henchmen, and the talking sidkick animal (wait wrong movie, dang.../phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif).

_________________
"I am not conceited, i'm perfect"
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-12-06 01:02 ]</font>

Colt
2002-Dec-06, 07:55 AM
I haven't seen the movie yet, or really any of the modern ones.. Or any of the olders ones. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif I just like the gadgets and vehicles in the films. I will watch it and report back though. -Colt

honestmonkey
2002-Dec-06, 07:14 PM
Well, I have to disagree with you, g99. I thought the movie was entertaining. I did catch some of the errors you pointed out, but then again, this was a Bond movie, so I pretty much suspended my disbelief there. It is supposed to be over the top. This was in a big way. I thought it much more entertaining than the last one (even though the song by Garbage was better than the Madonna song in this one).

So yeah, it was a little hokey in places, but it was fun, too.

Glom
2002-Dec-06, 07:55 PM
The scene when he justs escapes from the path of the weapon o' mass destruction and surfs on big arctic wave was so incredibly obviously CGI. In a review on Ceefax, they said it looked like a Graham Norton sketch.



Also how do they have enougth fuel to constantly adjust its position and angle?


HST and Cassini and all other types of spacecraft use reaction wheel assemblies. These are heavy wheels that a rotated at many thousands of revolutions per second so that conservation of angular momentum causes the spacecraft to rotate in the opposite direction. All these require is energy from solar power.

g99
2002-Dec-06, 08:44 PM
Thanks Glom. I did not know that. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

honestmonkey:
You are more than welcome to disagree with me, i welcome it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
It was more entertaining than the last one action wise, but plotwise it did not. I should of turned off my mind fgoing into the movie, but like the guy's cell phone two rows up i forgot to.

The sword fight scene was one of the best i have ever seen in movies for a duel, but the graphics seemed unfinished. That is what ruined it for me. It seemed like they rushed it to finish and get it out on the promised date.

It would of gotten a better review from me if they kept it back a few weeks and made it more realistic looking.

With the latest series it is more asbout money coming in and exploding things than any resemblance to plot or character development.

The only shining hope is the development of Jynx and if she will get a spinoff series.


About the satellite movement: can you adjust a satelite from its orbit over the artic to one mich farther south?
_________________
"I am not conceited, i'm perfect"
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-12-06 15:45 ]</font>

daver
2002-Dec-06, 10:13 PM
On 2002-12-06 15:44, g99 wrote:
About the satellite movement: can you adjust a satelite from its orbit over the artic to one mich farther south?
_________________
"I am not conceited, i'm perfect"
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-12-06 15:45 ]</font>


I haven't seen the movie; i don't know the implied orbit of the satellite. But, any satellite that goes over the arctic will also go over the antarctic a bit later. It might be at a different altitude when over the antarctic.

There is no satellite orbit that is always above the arctic. If a satellite appears directly overhead to someone at 50 degrees North, it will (later in that orbit) appear directly overhead to someone at 50 degrees South.

g99
2002-Dec-06, 10:55 PM
On 2002-12-06 17:13, daver wrote:


On 2002-12-06 15:44, g99 wrote:
About the satellite movement: can you adjust a satelite from its orbit over the artic to one mich farther south?
_________________
"I am not conceited, i'm perfect"
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-12-06 15:45 ]</font>


I haven't seen the movie; i don't know the implied orbit of the satellite. But, any satellite that goes over the arctic will also go over the antarctic a bit later. It might be at a different altitude when over the antarctic.

There is no satellite orbit that is always above the arctic. If a satellite appears directly overhead to someone at 50 degrees North, it will (later in that orbit) appear directly overhead to someone at 50 degrees South.


oh, so something like a polar orbit? The movie implied that they actually moved it from the artic. But you never know. They went from (i think switzerland) and then used the satelite on North and South Korea.

The satelite also tracked a moving car going very fast. Can a satelite do this? can spy satelites, can the track a moviing car?

[sorry about all of the satelite questions, but i don't know that much about them and i always like to learn new things. "if you don't ask, who will?"]



_________________
"I am not conceited, i'm perfect"
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-12-06 17:56 ]</font>

VanBurenVandal
2002-Dec-06, 10:55 PM
I'll agree with both g99 and honestmonkey. First, the sword-fight was brilliant. Being a fencer, it was all the better. Also, Bond has a License to be Ridiculous. However, once scene really set me off *spoiler*

When 007 and Jinx are falling to Earth in the helicopter, Bond fires up the rotor and flies to safety. When a helicopter is falling, the air rushing by forces the rotor to turn backwards. I’ve seen helicopters starting up, and them rotors move SLOW at the beginning. So, I’m almost positive starting up the rotor in free fall would be impossible. That, however, isn’t what upsets me. Bond could have autorotor-ed (Here (http://www.aerofiles.com/glossary.html), under auto rotation) the helicopter to safety. It would have been equally as suspenseful, if not more so, if Bond had calmly sat in the cockpit, and pulled up at the last second. Especially with Jinx flipping out the whole way down, assuming she didn’t know about autorotoring. Just a little research… oh, well…

Ilya
2002-Dec-07, 12:19 AM
and the talking sidkick animal


As far as I recall, Jaws and Oddjob did not talk.

daver
2002-Dec-07, 01:20 AM
On 2002-12-06 17:55, g99 wrote:

oh, so something like a polar orbit? The movie implied that they actually moved it from the artic. But you never know. They went from (i think switzerland) and then used the satelite on North and South Korea.


I'm trimming the quotes a bit--apologies if i've mangled things too badly.

A lot depends on the altitude of the satellite. If you assume the satellite is in geosynchronous orbit, it can see essentially half the planet at a time. In this case they wouldn't have to move the satellite at all--it could cover the entire eastern hemisphere (well, it'd be a bit fuzzy around the edges). But--geosynchronous orbit is 22,300 miles high (i haven't checked that figure for a while--i might be misremembering). That has some implications. I don't know what the beam diameter is--10 meters? Geosynchronous orbit is about 40 million meters. Someone with some optics can figure out how big of a mirror you need for that. Probably not too gross. It's also about .1 light seconds out, which means that it would have a lag (assuming sophisticated on-board electronics) of about .2 light seconds in tracking objects. This might be significant.

On the other hand, if it were in low earth orbit, say 200 miles up, you get a different set of problems. The horizon is about 1000 miles away, which means that you are in view of any particular target for only about six minutes (some of that would be at extreme range, through a bunch of atmosphere. Maybe you'd only have effectively four minutes on target). You're now a lot closer to the target, so round trip time delays and beam collimation become somewhat easier. But, you're only over a particular target during certain times of the day (depending on your orbit parameters).

All in all, it sounds like having the bird at geostationary orbit would be preferred.



The satelite also tracked a moving car going very fast. Can a satelite do this? can spy satelites, can the track a moviing car?


No reason why not. Presumably it was built to do things like that. If it were geostationary, it would need a remarkable set of optics and some really sophisticated pattern matching software, but this is a Bond film, and the baddies aren't bound by fiscal realities.

Umm, as long as we're talking Bond canon, Diamonds are Forever already demonstrated a laser of at least this magnitude.

Again, i haven't seen the movie, but the satellite should be able to slew the beam much faster than the car could move. Maybe they explain that in the movie. Or maybe the beam was being controlled by a guy with a joystick who didn't understand the light-speed lag. Or maybe the slew rate really isn't that great (the weapon could have been designed with only stationary targets in mind).



[sorry about all of the satelite questions, but i don't know that much about them and i always like to learn new things. "if you don't ask, who will?"]



_________________
"I am not conceited, i'm perfect"
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-12-06 17:56 ]</font>

I don't know much about the capabilities of satellites, but i played around with orbital mechanics for a while. There are certainly people on this board who could give you a better answer on diffraction-limited resolution of telescopes (and presumably superweapons) than i could.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: daver on 2002-12-06 20:21 ]</font>

Colt
2002-Dec-07, 03:17 AM
^Another thing, since the satellite would be so far out you would need to rotate it a very small amount for its beam to move a great distance on the Earth's surface. -Colt

Hale_Bopp
2002-Dec-07, 05:05 AM
True, Colt. Maybe a better question would be could they manage such precise small movements with a satellite. After all, if it were just a fraction of a degree off, it would miss the target.

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't comment too much on it at this point.

Rob

VanBurenVandal
2002-Dec-07, 12:14 PM
If you assume the satellite is in geosynchronous orbit, it can see essentially half the planet at a time. In this case they wouldn't have to move the satellite at all--it could cover the entire eastern hemisphere (well, it'd be a bit fuzzy around the edges).


The solar weapon was used in Iceland and North Korea. Iceland’s longitude is around 20 degrees West and North Korea’s is around 130 degrees East. So, assuming the satellite of death is in geosynchronous orbit, it must have an accurate range of at least 150 degrees to work, assuming the bad guy put it right where he needed to. Not sure if 150 degrees if too fuzzy to work…

Timm
2002-Dec-07, 12:31 PM
On 2002-12-06 00:35, g99 wrote:
4. The (...) scene was when Bond cut a hole in the ice with his watch and jumped in with no protection.


I think he had some kind of a "cool-looking-agents-diver-suit" under his jacket, and that kept his clothing dry.

But... nobody mentioned his invisible car??
That was the moment I realized somebody was really high on drugs when he wrote the screenplay... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

g99
2002-Dec-07, 03:32 PM
but the car was the only thing based on some real tech. It could be done. Well not to the perfection they showeds, but in a few years it could be done. The tech is not that hard, just cameras and tiny lcd's.

It would be hideously expensive and it would not of stood up to the punishment bond gave the car. At the end of the ice palace sequence when he was driving throught the corridors and smashing up columns, the car would look like it went throught a destruction derby.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Dec-07, 04:06 PM
On 2002-12-07 07:14, VanBurenVandal wrote:
The solar weapon was used in Iceland and North Korea. Iceland’s longitude is around 20 degrees West and North Korea’s is around 130 degrees East. So, assuming the satellite of death is in geosynchronous orbit, it must have an accurate range of at least 150 degrees to work, assuming the bad guy put it right where he needed to. Not sure if 150 degrees if too fuzzy to work…
I just checked my globe, and it looks like North Korea and Iceland are about 60-70 degrees apart.

VanBurenVandal
2002-Dec-07, 07:07 PM
On 2002-12-07 11:06, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
I just checked my globe, and it looks like North Korea and Iceland are about 60-70 degrees apart.


Oh, yeah... I forgot that whole "Earth is round" thing... Thanks, Grapes. *Hangs head in shame*

Smaug
2002-Dec-07, 08:18 PM
Ok first of all, both times when Icarus (the correct name of the satellite) was firing it's beam, in Korea and Iceland, it was daytime out! Now I know it's possible to do it during daytime, but the angle of the beam relative to the Earth's surface would be very shallow. Also, during these times when they were beaming down sunlight, in the space shots they showed that the beam that started at Icarus came from a single point. Now, I'm pretty sure this couldn't happen, unless you had some very shallow mirrors that were on that antenna thing, so the beam should be of a cone shape. Besides, when the beam reached the ground it was pretty huge, so it was obviously spreading out, instead of coming to a point on it's way to the ground. Ok, one more thing, I promise. The car, I agree is plausable, but would need lots of work. This isn't my arguement though. My arguement is that they said the tiny camera's filmed what they saw around the car and projected it onto the other side. Again I agree this could be done... somehow, but when Bond is hiding on the other side of the car in that one scene, his image should have been projected onto the other side of the car! Which would have been easily seen. It would work as an invisible kind of shield though I guess...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Smaug on 2002-12-07 15:19 ]</font>

g99
2002-Dec-07, 08:53 PM
bonds suit must of been made of a anti-cold amterial, a wet suit, and it even counteracts invisible cars. I think he need to talk to Jackie Chan and compare suits (Ref: The Tuxedo). /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Comixx
2002-Dec-07, 09:17 PM
I havent seen it...but I'm picturing from your description (re: the laser) that you can actually see the beam? I wonder how that super-laser manages to do that with coherent light...or is it just a reflection, magnified, of the sun's light? In which case, with the satelite's "back" to the sun (shooting towards Earth during daytime) how does it gather that sunlight? If it's simply reflecting, mirror-like, and angling the sunlight towards it's targets, how does it maintain power output at the high-degree reflection angles?

The car would have to have several cameras imbedded and sophisticated compilation software to overlap each camera's field and then re-project that reversed and seam-free from every view-angle. I dont know about you...but seeing a 2d projection on a surface cruising around the 3d world would GET my attention rather than divert it, anyways...unless it was far enough away that the 2d/3d difference was minimized.

Guess I better go see this movie just so I can poke holes in it too /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif Although...do you really think some guy dresses in a bat-suit and drives around fighting crime? For reality, I watch the news /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

Smaug
2002-Dec-08, 02:05 AM
Yes, you can see the beam. It's a big, I'd say 50 meters wide, yellow beam. It doesn't act like a lens, which would make it so the sun is at its back, its a mirror, that reflects the sunlight. It isn't like a conventional mirror, which would be glass-like. When they first showed it, it was in the process of "unfurling" it's mirror. It looked to me like, translucent... tin foil. Ironically, when the bad guy first introduces it, he specifically says it would be used in third world countries to increase crop production, or something, not destroy ice-palaces, or clear out minefields. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

VanBurenVandal
2002-Dec-08, 02:32 AM
I knew that whole mirror in space idea seemed familiar (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DyeHard/dye80.html). I remember reading how the project failed because during the unfurling of the mirror the satellite failed and tore the shiny plastic. I guess they never tried it again…


(Edited due to a 2:30 a.m. fire alarm)
_________________
Once bread has become toast, it can never become bread again...


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: VanBurenVandal on 2002-12-07 21:55 ]</font>

Colt
2002-Dec-08, 06:00 AM
The idea of useing fiberoptic camouflage is in the works right now for the military. It would have to be mounted on a vehicle though because of the powersource needed. In the game Metal Gear Solid, they use a type of cloaking that works on this same principle I think. You basically wear a full body suit covered in this. -Colt

VanBurenVandal
2002-Dec-09, 12:29 AM
I have a question for the rocketry experts out there… Towards the end of the movie, the US launches a missile at the Icarus satellite. They launched it from a naval vessel out on the ocean. Now, this was a small missile, looked about the same size as a Tomahawk. Is there any way they could have gotten such a missile into orbit, even LEO?

Also, in Tom Clancy’s Red Storm Rising, the Air Force blew up some Russian satellites with missiles. However, these were attached to an F-15 and taken up as high as the plane could fly, then fired. Would this work any better, if at all? Thanks in advance!

g99
2002-Dec-09, 12:39 AM
I am no rocket expert, but i do know that Clancy does do alot of reaserch for his books. He ususaally uses real tech. Sometimes he exagerates, but not always.

Krel
2002-Dec-09, 01:19 AM
Back in the late 70's I read about an anti-missle plan for an F-15 to launch missles with neutron bomb warheads, so they must have had plans for one that could reach low orbit.

David.

Kaptain K
2002-Dec-09, 02:50 AM
On 2002-12-08 19:29, VanBurenVandal wrote:
I have a question for the rocketry experts out there… Towards the end of the movie, the US launches a missile at the Icarus satellite. They launched it from a naval vessel out on the ocean. Now, this was a small missile, looked about the same size as a Tomahawk. Is there any way they could have gotten such a missile into orbit, even LEO?
Probably not.

Also, in Tom Clancy’s Red Storm Rising, the Air Force blew up some Russian satellites with missiles. However, these were attached to an F-15 and taken up as high as the plane could fly, then fired. Would this work any better, if at all? Thanks in advance!
Yes, this is real technology. Both the altitude and speed help.

VanBurenVandal
2002-Dec-09, 04:19 AM
Thanks guys. I figured I could trust good ‘ol Tom, after all, last I heard he was giving lectures at some government functions. However, I thought Bond was a little more…dubious.

And, slightly off-topic, did anyone else notice the book Bond had with him while in Cuba? The name “James Bond” was taken from an author of a book on Caribbean bird watching (Flemming wanted something bland). I’d bet money that’s the book 007 was taking around. Anyway, thanks again for the info…

Smaug
2002-Dec-09, 05:44 AM
Well, he did say he was using his binoculars for "bird watching." Jinx is one nice bird to look at, eh?

SpacedOut
2002-Dec-09, 11:51 AM
On 2002-12-08 21:50, Kaptain K wrote:


On 2002-12-08 19:29, VanBurenVandal wrote:
I have a question for the rocketry experts out there… Towards the end of the movie, the US launches a missile at the Icarus satellite. They launched it from a naval vessel out on the ocean. Now, this was a small missile, looked about the same size as a Tomahawk. Is there any way they could have gotten such a missile into orbit, even LEO?
Probably not.

Also, in Tom Clancy’s Red Storm Rising, the Air Force blew up some Russian satellites with missiles. However, these were attached to an F-15 and taken up as high as the plane could fly, then fired. Would this work any better, if at all? Thanks in advance!
Yes, this is real technology. Both the altitude and speed help.

I've forgotten the name of this program but I believe it was the precursor to the Pegasus. OTOH, did the the Pegasus morf from something smaller into what it is today?

SeanF
2002-Dec-09, 03:28 PM
My 2 cents:

The car wouldn't work as described. You could conceivable do it with some kind of holographic projection, but not a simple mirrors-and-LCDs setup. Any given LCD would need to project a different image in different directions to accomadate the possible viewing angles. Somebody pointed out that Bond himself would have been visible on the other side of the car - so would the car's shadow.

The technology they described could effectively be used to camouflage an airplane against the sky, but I don't think it's feasible to camouflage a car against a landscape.

Having said that, though, I did like the bit where the motorcyle rider slammed into the back of the invisible car. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

As for the satellite beam, wasn't the mirror parabolic? That would focus the sun's light on the, well, focal point of the parabola (as long as the mirror was pointed at the sun). I got the impression there was some kind of receiver at the focal point that was actually producing the coherent beam.

daver
2002-Dec-09, 10:16 PM
On 2002-12-09 10:28, SeanF wrote:
My 2 cents:

The car wouldn't work as described.


From what i've heard, yes, i agree.



The technology they described could effectively be used to camouflage an airplane against the sky, but I don't think it's feasible to camouflage a car against a landscape.

There were some studies done trying to camouflage ships and planes where they determined that matching the brightness of the background made the object harder to pick up than matching the color of the background (to pull in a thread from another forum, this matches my experiences of trying to spot Venus in the daytime. Even when i knew roughly where it was i had a hard time picking it up; once i had it it was pretty obvious (until i looked away and had to acquire it again)). But spotting a car isn't going to be like spotting a plane or a ship.



As for the satellite beam, wasn't the mirror parabolic? That would focus the sun's light on the, well, focal point of the parabola (as long as the mirror was pointed at the sun). I got the impression there was some kind of receiver at the focal point that was actually producing the coherent beam.



Well, we could probably come up with an intensity value for the beam (50 m wide is about 2000 sq meters. Someone mentioned carving an iceberg (but not an ice palace. Maybe someone had thoughtfully painted the ice palace with SPF 1,000,000 sunscreen). So maybe the beam could vaporize a 50 m wide plug 50 m deep in a second. So about 100,000 tons of ice in a second. Maybe someone could plug in some more accurate numbers here. Anyway, if i haven't slipped up in my conversion factors or multiplications, that's about 4e13 watts. At 1e6 watts/sq meter, that's 4e7 square meters. Add in an extra power of 10 for conversion losses and you get a 4e8 sq meter collector. So around a 10 km radius mirror. Fun.

daver
2002-Dec-09, 10:38 PM
On 2002-12-08 19:29, VanBurenVandal wrote:
I have a question for the rocketry experts out there? Towards the end of the movie, the US launches a missile at the Icarus satellite. They launched it from a naval vessel out on the ocean. Now, this was a small missile, looked about the same size as a Tomahawk. Is there any way they could have gotten such a missile into orbit, even LEO?

Also, in Tom Clancy?s Red Storm Rising, the Air Force blew up some Russian satellites with missiles. However, these were attached to an F-15 and taken up as high as the plane could fly, then fired. Would this work any better, if at all? Thanks in advance!




US anti-satellite missiles didn't actually attain orbit--they got up to orbital altitude, but not orbital velocity. This makes the rocket quite a bit simpler, but the targetting much more difficult (you're now approaching at orbital velocities--km/sec).

The US anti-satellite weapon (i'm not really up on this; so far as i know there was only one developed and it has been retired) was designed to be air launched. I don't know of any reason why you couldn't start with a bigger booster and make a sub launched version. I don't think it had anything to do with Pegasus.

I don't know the altitude limits on the antisatellite weapon; my guess is that it would be pretty much limited to LEO. Something in geosynchronous orbit would take a much bigger rocket to loft. So, maybe the fact that they considered shooting it down with a missile tells us something about Icarus' orbit.

You asked a question about launching from altitude. The extra height isn't all that much help; what helps is the fact that you're launching from thinner air. Rocket nozzles can be optimized for operation at various altitudes--a sea-level nozzle isn't as efficient at high altitude or vacuum. So your rocket is more efficient (you don't need as big a rocket, or you can carry a heavier warhead) if you launch from a higher altitude. Also, you cut down the losses from air resistance.

g99
2002-Dec-09, 11:05 PM
On 2002-12-09 17:16, daver wrote:
Well, we could probably come up with an intensity value for the beam (50 m wide is about 2000 sq meters. Someone mentioned carving an iceberg (but not an ice palace. Maybe someone had thoughtfully painted the ice palace with SPF 1,000,000 sunscreen). So maybe the beam could vaporize a 50 m wide plug 50 m deep in a second. So about 100,000 tons of ice in a second. Maybe someone could plug in some more accurate numbers here. Anyway, if i haven't slipped up in my conversion factors or multiplications, that's about 4e13 watts. At 1e6 watts/sq meter, that's 4e7 square meters. Add in an extra power of 10 for conversion losses and you get a 4e8 sq meter collector. So around a 10 km radius mirror. Fun.


Yah for some reason it took several min. to cut throught a ice palace, but only a couple of seconds to slice off a good chiunk of a glacier. Hmmm...Maybe he can change the intensity of the beam. The mirror was less than 10 km in radius. The mirror, if memory serves me correct was about as wide as the body of the satelite was long. (My memory is faulty sometimes, so corrct me if i am wrong)

For movie clips of the satelite beam go here:
http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1807812168&cf=trailer
Click on the link saying: "See Spy Run" For the satelite.

daver
2002-Dec-10, 01:05 AM
On 2002-12-09 18:05, g99 wrote:

Yah for some reason it took several min. to cut throught a ice palace, but only a couple of seconds to slice off a good chiunk of a glacier. Hmmm...Maybe he can change the intensity of the beam. The mirror was less than 10 km in radius. The mirror, if memory serves me correct was about as wide as the body of the satelite was long. (My memory is faulty sometimes, so corrct me if i am wrong)

For movie clips of the satelite beam go here:
http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1807812168&cf=trailer
Click on the link saying: "See Spy Run" For the satelite.


I couldn't access the link--maybe it was too busy.

Being able to change the intensity of the beam might make sense--even 99% efficient conversion is going to dump a whale of a lot of heat into the satellite. Possibly glacier calving involves firing a burst and letting the satellite cool down, while Bond hunting or ice palace melting requires operating at a much lower power continuous mode.

Maybe the active part of the beam was narrow--a square meter, perhaps. The rest was bloom, or diffraction or something. So you could reduce the power requirements by maybe a factor of 10,000. Gets you from a 10 km radius mirror to a 100 m radius. Still big, but not ridiculous.

Smaug
2002-Dec-10, 02:36 AM
On 2002-12-09 10:28, SeanF wrote:
My 2 cents:

The car wouldn't work as described. You could conceivable do it with some kind of holographic projection, but not a simple mirrors-and-LCDs setup. Any given LCD would need to project a different image in different directions to accomadate the possible viewing angles. Somebody pointed out that Bond himself would have been visible on the other side of the car - so would the car's shadow.

The technology they described could effectively be used to camouflage an airplane against the sky, but I don't think it's feasible to camouflage a car against a landscape.

Having said that, though, I did like the bit where the motorcyle rider slammed into the back of the invisible car. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

As for the satellite beam, wasn't the mirror parabolic? That would focus the sun's light on the, well, focal point of the parabola (as long as the mirror was pointed at the sun). I got the impression there was some kind of receiver at the focal point that was actually producing the coherent beam.




That was me, me oh me, yeah me, oooo I feel special.

Anyways, I got the impression that the focal length of the mirror was just very long, in this case I came up with the idea that it should be a very long cone shape, the satellite being the base, and getting the beam getting smaller as it got nearer the ground. Wow what a run-on. If I remember correctly though, the beam in the pictures of the satellite, originated from the antenna-like object in the middle of the mirror.

g99
2002-Dec-10, 03:59 AM
Smaug, if you chek out the link and the straming movie it shows that it does eminate from the center. I think that the weapon is more like a giant solar battery which then uses the stored up energy to make the beam. Or at least that is how i think it works since it comed from the thing in the center.

_________________
"I am not conceited, i'm perfect"
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-12-09 23:00 ]</font>

Smaug
2002-Dec-10, 04:02 AM
Sounds like some bad guys are over-achievers. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Darasen
2002-Dec-10, 07:45 AM
I thought the movie was WAY over the top for one.
I do feel Bronsan did his best performance as Bond though. He gets better and more nuanced with every movie.
Did any one else feel like they changed writers in the middle of the movie? It started out rather serious for a Bond movie then once he got to Iceland it got silly ?

Ok Science question. I have not done the math but shouldn;t there have been at least a slight delay in the time it took to send orders to the death ray and the time it responded ?

Darasen

Rodina
2002-Dec-10, 08:03 AM
On 2002-12-09 17:38, daver wrote:
[quote]US anti-satellite missiles didn't actually attain orbit--they got up to orbital altitude, but not orbital velocity. This makes the rocket quite a bit simpler, but the targetting much more difficult (you're now approaching at orbital velocities--km/sec).

The US anti-satellite weapon (i'm not really up on this; so far as i know there was only one developed and it has been retired) was designed to be air launched. I don't know of any reason why you couldn't start with a bigger booster and make a sub launched version.


The ASAT was in pretty robust development throughout the mid-1980s, but I think it was cancelled in about 1985, largely at the direction of Congressman George Brown (D-CA) who had a strong philosophical opposition to ASATs (and all military applications of space).

It is certainly the case that the ASAT only reached orbital heights - not velocities - and you can recall that we were launching V-2s, Redstones, Jupiters and such successively to altitudes as high as a couple of thousand miles even before we put something in orbit - so the delta-V is, I believe, considerably less.

Likewise, while a satellite moves at a pretty good clip - it moves quite predictably - so targeting wasn't all that hard for the ASATs

VanBurenVandal
2002-Dec-10, 09:31 AM
Okay boys and girls, two other issues with the movie. In the opening sequence, the bad guy brings in a whole boatload of weapons on hovercrafts, because the hovercrafts float over the land-mines. Last I checked, for the hovercraft to stay aloft, it had to push against the ground with a force equal to its own weight. Now, maybe the weight was spread out enough to not trip the heavy-duty mines (though I doubt it), but at the very least anti-personnel mines would have blown up…underneath hovercraft laden with ammunition. However, I’m willing to forgive Bond this. The part I find ludicrous is at the end of the scene, when the rest of the North Koreans show up. How do they get there? They drive big trucks right through the “mine field” the hovercraft just came through. Sheesh…

And thanks again for the info on shooting down satellites. I knew you guys would know.

Stuart
2002-Dec-10, 05:39 PM
Please don't believe anything Tom Clancy says; the man is a legend only in his own mind. In the defense industry he's a joke. Nobody inside The Business takes him seriously. In one of his books, Rainbow Six, a major plot driver is the DKL lifeguard, a well-known hoax.

On ASAT, the first operational ASATs were the Zeus missiles based at Kwajalein. These were primarily an anti-ballistic missile test installation but had an operational ASAT capability for a couple of years. By the way, when the nuclear warheads for the Zeus were shipped to Kwaj, they were under the control of the US Postal Service. In parallel with the Kwajalein Zeus installation was another system that used Thor missiles based on Johnston Atoll. That was operational for about eight years until a typhoon destroyed the facilities. It remained on limited operational status until about 1976. Although Thor was officially an IRBM, in reality it was mostly tasked with ASAT.

The F-15 system mentioned here was the replacement for the two above ground-based systems. It used a stripped-down F-15 carrying an interceptor missile that employed the first stage of a SRAM missile with a Thiokol Altair III second stage and a Miniature Homing Vehicle as the business end. I can't remember its designation now and none of the reference books in my office go that far back. However, it did work well but was scrapped due to political reasons. Pity, we need that system badly.

The Russians had a similar system that used a MiG-31 fighter and a very smilar interceptor missile to the US device.

Currently, the US is developing a version of its Standard anti-aircraft missile that has anti-missile capability. This is designated Standard SM-3 and is looking really good. Its small enough to fit in a standard Mark 41 vertical launch tube so it should be submarine-firable (the same tubes house Tomahawk missiles and the anti-aircraft Standard SM-2. US SSNs have such tubes in their bows).

The US weapons work (these days) by kinetic energy kills. However, ASAT is very easy to do another way. Any IRBM can get up into LEO with a warhead. That includes Nodong and Al-Hussein. Initiate a 5 megaton device wrapped with gold foil up there and the resulting sleet of radiation will destroy every satellite within a thousand kilometers. Thats why we don't use nukes any more; however a nation that isn't space communications dependent may not be so cautious.

Kaptain K
2002-Dec-10, 06:21 PM
. . . Initiate a 5 megaton device wrapped with gold foil up there and the resulting sleet of radiation will destroy every satellite within a thousand kilometers.
Not to mention every electronic device on the ground within the same radius, from the EMP.

_________________
Be alert! The world needs more lerts.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-12-10 13:24 ]</font>

VanBurenVandal
2002-Dec-10, 07:11 PM
On 2002-12-10 12:39, Stuart wrote:
Please don't believe anything Tom Clancy says...


Thanks for the warning. I take all authors with a large grain of salt. Considering there is an occasional smattering of truth in his novels (the really basic stuff), Clancy doesn’t get the whole salt lick, like some other authors. Just most of it.

On the other hand, the Postal Service warhead really worries me. Together with this article (http://www.usps.com/history/his2_75.htm), I smell trouble…

Stuart
2002-Dec-10, 07:23 PM
Together with this article (http://www.usps.com/history/his2_75.htm), I smell trouble…

Good Lord thats a Regulus I. I haven't seen one of those for years. They were phased out around 1965 IIRC; mostly they were deployed on cruisers in the Pacific although there was one nuclear submarine (Halibut) and four diesel-electrics that carried it.

Put an entirely new meaning on the phrase "sending a diplomatic note of protest - airmail"

Stuart
2002-Dec-10, 07:30 PM
Not to mention every electronic device on the ground within the same radius, from the EMP.

EMP is weird; its nowhere near as all-enveloping or devastating as some suggestions imply. Its possible to protect equipment, often quite simply. We've got a whole load of specs to stipulate protection levels against EMP and they work pretty well. On the other hand, unprotected stuff will get messed up pretty badly. You'd be surprised how much critical stuff is protected though.

The Zeus device relied on hard radiation to kill its targets; the developmental work on it lead to things like the so-called "neutron bomb". Something else it would be nice to have right now.

daver
2002-Dec-10, 09:46 PM
The Zeus device relied on hard radiation to kill its targets; the developmental work on it lead to things like the so-called "neutron bomb". Something else it would be nice to have right now.



Any particular reason? I thought it was best suited for swarms of tanks.

The Rat
2002-Dec-11, 03:28 AM
On 2002-12-08 23:19, VanBurenVandal wrote:And, slightly off-topic, did anyone else notice the book Bond had with him while in Cuba? The name “James Bond” was taken from an author of a book on Caribbean bird watching (Flemming wanted something bland). I’d bet money that’s the book 007 was taking around.

The was the exact one; Birds of the West Indies, by James Bond. There is a dogeared copy on my bookshelf. Anybody birding in Florida needs one, as Caribbean birds often show up there.

Stuart
2002-Dec-11, 02:27 PM
The Zeus device relied on hard radiation to kill its targets; the developmental work on it lead to things like the so-called "neutron bomb". Something else it would be nice to have right now.

Any particular reason? I thought it was best suited for swarms of tanks.


At the moment we can take out point targets relatively easily using precision-guided weapons. If we know something discrete is there, we can drop something very big and very nasty on it (like a 2,000 pound bomb). However, not all targets are discrete. Some are diffuse, that is they are spread over a wide area. At the moment the only tools we have for removing that sort of target are massed B-52 or B-1 strikes. They effectively remove an entire grid square and everything inside it. Afghanistan was effectively won by the B-52s; strikes at what passed for a Taliban air defense system and a smattering of other infrastructure targets convinced the Taliban that the US wasn't serious and wasn't going to get involved in the ground war; they massed their troops to take out the Northern Alliance and the B-52s took out the grid squares they massed in.

The only step up from that is a conventional nuke and thats an area nobody wants to get into. An enhanced radiation device would give us the capability to take out troops ina given area without doing so much damage to the things in that area. I don't think its a capability we should or would use but it would be nice to have the option available.

Smaug
2002-Dec-13, 04:06 AM
On 2002-12-10 04:31, VanBurenVandal wrote:
Okay boys and girls, two other issues with the movie. In the opening sequence, the bad guy brings in a whole boatload of weapons on hovercrafts, because the hovercrafts float over the land-mines. Last I checked, for the hovercraft to stay aloft, it had to push against the ground with a force equal to its own weight. Now, maybe the weight was spread out enough to not trip the heavy-duty mines (though I doubt it), but at the very least anti-personnel mines would have blown up…underneath hovercraft laden with ammunition. However, I’m willing to forgive Bond this. The part I find ludicrous is at the end of the scene, when the rest of the North Koreans show up. How do they get there? They drive big trucks right through the “mine field” the hovercraft just came through. Sheesh…

And thanks again for the info on shooting down satellites. I knew you guys would know.




I'm not sure about landmines, but hovercraft work well with seamines. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Stuart
2002-Dec-13, 03:39 PM
On land, its all a question of the weight being carried and the area its being distributed over. The weight of a car is carried by the area of the tires in contact with the road. Thats small so the ground pressure is very high. Tanks spread their weight over the area their treads contact; thats higher than a car but still pretty small. Hovercraft spread theirs over a comparatively huge area so their ground pressure is quite low.

Landmines come in two groups; antitank mines require a high ground pressure to set them off (so they won't be wasted blowing up some poor grunt). Anti-personnel mines are set off by a very low ground pressure (so they will blow up some poor grunt). Therefore, a hovercraft will not detonate an anti-tank mine but may set off an anti-personnel mine.

Seamines are different. Contact seamines (the traditional horned ball on a cable)explode if they are hit by something. Since hovercraft don't extend below the surface, they are pretty much immune to contact mines. Influence mines are set off by magnetic, acoustic or pressure signatures. The ground pressure thing makes air cushion craft pretty well immune to pressure mines but magnetic and acoustic are a bear. Hovercraft are extremely noisy so are very likely to initiate an acoustic mine and they are metal making them vulnerable to magnetic mines.

Sum0
2002-Dec-14, 01:11 PM
One glaring error I spotted was when Bond parachutes down to the ice (I can't remember exactly when). Theres a shot of Bond slowly drifting down, and it is so obvious that it's a stuntman because he's so close to the camera. They could at least given him some sunglasses to cover up the fact he looks nothing like him...

As for the missile aimed at the satellite, I think it was a Harpoon, a missile designed for quite short range attacks against ships. It's very unlikely it could get anywhere near an orbit. Also, why didn't they shoot several missiles from different directions, all timed to hit at the same time? It'd be harder for the satellite to destroy them all.

Smaug
2002-Dec-16, 03:02 PM
Yes, I agree, it was a Harpoon. I wonder how Icarus manuevered so fast to shoot the missile?

Stuart
2002-Dec-16, 06:22 PM
On 2002-12-16 10:02, Smaug wrote:
Yes, I agree, it was a Harpoon. I wonder how Icarus manuevered so fast to shoot the missile?


More important, how did it get up there? Harpoon has a very strict altitude limit (way less than 14,000 feet)

g99
2002-Dec-16, 06:34 PM
Just remember this is a world where a watch has enougth power and battery life to emit a sustained and powerful laser, a car can turn nearly invisible, and every high end car comes equiped with machine guns and rocket launchers strait from the dealership. Q-branch just tinkered with the missle and gave it more power./phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif And yes i agree that they should of shot more. At least that would of distracted it for a while, thus saving more lives.

Conrad
2002-Dec-16, 11:33 PM
Well g99 - am I correct in assuming that your native language is not English? - what you need to remember is that any James Bond movie is financed by *** INFORMATION DELETED*** because then it looks as if ***INFORMATION DELETED*** knows what they are doing, whereas in real life M***INFORMATION DELETED*** barely know which hand to apply the A***INFORMATION DELETED***x with. Plus, nobody is allowed to mention Doctor E***INFORMATION DELETED***l, just in case.

g99
2002-Dec-16, 11:40 PM
On 2002-12-16 18:33, Conrad wrote:
Well g99 - am I correct in assuming that your native language is not English? - what you need to remember is that any James Bond movie is financed by *** INFORMATION DELETED*** because then it looks as if ***INFORMATION DELETED*** knows what they are doing, whereas in real life M***INFORMATION DELETED*** barely know which hand to apply the A***INFORMATION DELETED***x with. Plus, nobody is allowed to mention Doctor E***INFORMATION DELETED***l, just in case.





ummm...O.K.

Yah i was born in Canada. So yes my native tounge is english. I just suck at spelling and grammar.

Just remmener that the real james bond is a master of disguise. He can look, talk, and act like anyone. He could be me, your best friend, or your mother. Be careful what you say around them. They will........... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif



_________________
"Hi!!" - Some person, somewere, at some time.
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-12-16 18:41 ]</font>

Smaug
2002-Dec-16, 11:45 PM
On 2002-12-16 13:22, Stuart wrote:


On 2002-12-16 10:02, Smaug wrote:
Yes, I agree, it was a Harpoon. I wonder how Icarus manuevered so fast to shoot the missile?


More important, how did it get up there? Harpoon has a very strict altitude limit (way less than 14,000 feet)


We just had like 5 or more posts discussing the altitude limits. I know that this limit terminates further useful missile discussion on this, but I would also like to know if Icarus could manuever so fast. I am not particularly interested in missiles. Please don't assume what I want to know.

Stuart
2002-Dec-17, 02:05 PM
We just had like 5 or more posts discussing the altitude limits. I know that this limit terminates further useful missile discussion on this, but I would also like to know if Icarus could manuever so fast. I am not particularly interested in missiles. Please don't assume what I want to know.


Previously we'd been looking at designed anti-aircraft or ASAT systems which are designed to take on targets flying at altitude. Harpoon is a dedicated anti-ship missile. It's designed to give its best performance within a few feet of the sea surface.

Bee that as it may, Icarus wouldn't have to manoeuver fast to dodge a Harpoon. Warships are very large, ponderous and virtually static targets compared with aircraft; ships rely on terminal defenses such as cannon and missiles plus electronic countermeasures to defeat inbound missiles. If Icarus could use thrusters to make a sudden sideways motion at the correct moment, that would do the job. Harpoon doesn't have a proximity fuze so it actually has to hit the target to initiate. A miss of six inches is as good as one of several miles.

g99
2002-Dec-18, 12:35 AM
Nooooooooo....The horror!! The Horror!!

From: http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2002-12/17/10.30.film
"James Bond producer Barbara Broccoli told the Associated Press that Pierce Brosnan will reprise his role as Agent 007 in the 21st Bond film. "It's like asking a bride as she's going up the aisle who her next husband is going to be," Broccoli told the wire service. "I mean, he is James Bond. He's our guy. And until he's no longer James Bond, we ain't looking anywhere."

The as-yet-untitled film will represent Brosnan's fifth outing as the iconic British spy. The most recent Bond feature, Die Another Day, has earned more than $100 million since its release four weeks ago."