So the way it happened isn't accurate, but with a different spacecraft design one spacecraft could have swallowed another. Story-wise, the concept isn't impossible. It was just executed inaccurately.
Oh, it could absolutely be done---it's outlandish, to be sure, and the expense of designing, testing, launching and recovering such a craft would be mind-bending.
Elon Musk's Space X is only now getting close to vertically landing a rocket on earth, however, but hasn't managed it yet, and it's an unmanned operation as they daren't risk a human being. And, of course, if SPECTRE could vertically land a manned spacecraft ('powered descent') that had swallowed another, AND do it inside a hollowed-out volcano, there would be considerably more flame/thrust exhaust than the cute little trickle of fire in YOLT's miniature
I love James Bond! :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
No, it's physically impossible to "catch up" with an object in the same orbit. It is possible to intercept an object from below, the same as a missile intercepting a plane overhead (although it's way more complicated than that). Basically, the Soyuz gets into an orbit slightly below the space station then as the space station is it about to pass it slows slightly with an application of retro-rockets and moves higher and intercepts the space station. It never orbits at the same altitude as shown in YOLT.
Yes and bonds decision to take m to the remote, desolate skyfall as the best place to protect her, as opposed to Chelsea barracks or Hereford! Even Churchills old wartime bunker would have been a better bet.
They went to a deserted part of Scotland 1. in order to stop Silva from continuing to wreak havoc in London and continuing to kill civilians; and 2. get Silva to a place where his advanced technical skills would be useless.
I think this was pretty obvious to anybody who actually saw the movie
There was no intimation that Silva was going to wreak any more havoc in London. His plan was foiled and he'd fled the scene after his botched assassination attempt, I've watched Sf maybe 10-15 times and really enjoyed it, I'm huge DC fan but I can still discuss glaring flaws and taking m to Scotland is one. Let's also not forget how long ago yolt was made, it's easy to pick faults with films of such vintage. They didn't have the benefit of the knowledge and technology we do today! Of course we had to see the spacecraft bring swallowed up as it's a film and artistic licence runs supreme.
Really, you think Silva was going to just give up? It's explicitly discussed in the movie that he was going to continue to try to kill M and continue to put civilian lives at risk.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
You can do it from a higher orbit as well; it's all about creating an elliptical orbit that intercepts the target object at the correct time, burning to match velocity, and then maneuvering to dock (or swallow, LOL).
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
You can do it from a higher orbit as well; it's all about creating an elliptical orbit that intercepts the target object at the correct time, burning to match velocity, and then maneuvering to dock (or swallow, LOL).
Yes. They could have shown it properly in YOLT and it would've been just as dramatic, like a shark rising from the depths. I think when it came to YOLT Cubby didn't care about reality.
You can do it from a higher orbit as well; it's all about creating an elliptical orbit that intercepts the target object at the correct time, burning to match velocity, and then maneuvering to dock (or swallow, LOL).
Yes. They could have shown it properly in YOLT and it would've been just as dramatic, like a shark rising from the depths. I think when it came to YOLT Cubby didn't care about reality.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
No, it's physically impossible to "catch up" with an object in the same orbit. It is possible to intercept an object from below, the same as a missile intercepting a plane overhead (although it's way more complicated than that). Basically, the Soyuz gets into an orbit slightly below the space station then as the space station is it about to pass it slows slightly with an application of retro-rockets and moves higher and intercepts the space station. It never orbits at the same altitude as shown in YOLT.
As I said, it was just executed inaccurately. So you agree that it's not impossible for one spacecraft to intercept another, right? That's what matters, because without thinking of exactly how it is done, it could be possible.
I'd guess the average movie fan ( like myself). Wouldn't know all the details and facts
about "orbits", weightlessness due to "free falling " as opposed to no gravity, so if we
see it on screen then it's possible. Movie science is the best science.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
I'd guess the average movie fan ( like myself). Wouldn't know all the details and facts
about "orbits", weightlessness due to "free falling " as opposed to no gravity, so if we
see it on screen then it's possible. Movie science is the best science.
True - YOLT's charm resides more in its audacity than in its verisimilitude ) It's just fun to bust out some orbital mechanics on a James Bond fan site
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Recently watched Revenge of the Sith, ( getting ready for the new Star Wars), great film,
and the opening space fight sequence ( which I thought was amazing). A friend who is in to
science, pointed out all the mistakes
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
They went to a deserted part of Scotland 1. in order to stop Silva from continuing to wreak havoc in London and continuing to kill civilians; and 2. get Silva to a place where his advanced technical skills would be useless.
I think this was pretty obvious to anybody who actually saw the movie
There was no intimation that Silva was going to wreak any more havoc in London. His plan was foiled and he'd fled the scene after his botched assassination attempt, I've watched Sf maybe 10-15 times and really enjoyed it, I'm huge DC fan but I can still discuss glaring flaws and taking m to Scotland is one. Let's also not forget how long ago yolt was made, it's easy to pick faults with films of such vintage. They didn't have the benefit of the knowledge and technology we do today! Of course we had to see the spacecraft bring swallowed up as it's a film and artistic licence runs supreme.
Really, you think Silva was going to just give up? It's explicitly discussed in the movie that he was going to continue to try to kill M and continue to put civilian lives at risk.
I didn't say he was going to give up! I'm simply saying that even thinking m could be defended by one man in a house in the middle of no where is a leap. And as unrealistic as your space ship swallowing in yolt....thats all. But I find it a hugely enjoyable film and to be honest tend to forgive bond his foibles despite how unrealistic/scientifically improbable, I can't believe we've entered an astrodynamics conversation on a bond forum?? There must be a new star films out or something.
It was either that.....or the priesthood
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
I can't believe we've entered an astrodynamics conversation on a bond forum?? There must be a new star films out or something.
) My point that the space capsule swallowing is exponentially more probable than the dainty powered descent back into the volcano...but either works better for me than Bond's assault on the villain's lair in a hot air balloon in OP ) It just all boils down to taste in OTT escapism.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I agree wholeheartedly, there are varying degrees of realism and implausibility across the bond films, I enjoy them all but dobprefer the more realistic tone of Craig and Daltons films but still enjoy them all as a movie experience in the spirit they've been made (plotholes and laws of orbit included)
I have an easier time accepting implausibilities in Connery's and Moore's Bond films because the films have a campy tone. Craig's films, on the other hand, have a realistic tone, and to me that makes implausibilities more of a problem. The tone of Craig's first three films is telling me to take the films seriously. Starting with GF, Connery's films aren't telling me I should take them seriously.
I have an easier time accepting implausibilities in Connery's and Moore's Bond films because the films have a campy tone. Craig's films, on the other hand, have a realistic tone, and to me that makes implausibilities more of a problem. The tone of Craig's first three films is telling me to take the films seriously. Starting with GF, Connery's films aren't telling me I should take them seriously.
I can understand that POV...but I tend to go picture by picture. Connery's Bonds shifted tone with GF, and it was apparent with the fake duck on Bond's head in the PTS. Similarly, Craig's Bond shifted tone with SP, and it was apparent with the sofa bit in the PTS. It's the shift in tone in the 3rd act of SP back to more serious, whilst retaining the implausibilities, that causes some to not like it as much, which is totally fair.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It's the shift in tone in the 3rd act of SP back to more serious, whilst retaining the implausibilities, that causes some to not like it as much, which is totally fair.
This I cannot argue against, even if it doesn't bother me at all.
If we can have such shifts between movies, even with the same actor, then I do not see why not allow them within a single movie too. The less serious elements are there for a reason - they break up the serious tone from time to time, and viewers love them. They're also what typically distinguished 007 from other action films.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
There is generally a nicely delicate balance in the best and most successful Bonds, of course. No Bond film is 100% grim and gritty, or 100% dinner theatre farce. I do prefer a thematic/tonal cohesion within a film, but concede that others do not. OP, for example, leaps from deadly serious to absurd comedy from scene to scene, and that's fine for many, but not my taste. SP's writing does not manage this especially well, which I think hurt it overall.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
You can't do everything well all the time. It's a credit to SP that it finally attempted humour, which has been almost absent for over a decade. After such a long time it will take the producers some time (and a few movies) to re-learn the skill. Either that, or they will have to employ comedy script writers and directors, but I'm not sure we'd like to see that... Where SP lets me down is not that it tries to be funny, but that it clashes with previous movies with the same Bond actor, which established him as serious and non-funny - while at the same time trying to link all those movies together.
Wich makes Craig's tenure consistent with other tenures in its inconsistency. -{
True. It goes along with Dalton and Brosnan. At least with Moore and Connery you could group their films by director, and I feel like the directors were more consistent with their output. Though I'd put GF and YOLT together and then group DAF with Moore's first two.
Comments
Oh, it could absolutely be done---it's outlandish, to be sure, and the expense of designing, testing, launching and recovering such a craft would be mind-bending.
Elon Musk's Space X is only now getting close to vertically landing a rocket on earth, however, but hasn't managed it yet, and it's an unmanned operation as they daren't risk a human being. And, of course, if SPECTRE could vertically land a manned spacecraft ('powered descent') that had swallowed another, AND do it inside a hollowed-out volcano, there would be considerably more flame/thrust exhaust than the cute little trickle of fire in YOLT's miniature
I love James Bond! :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Really, you think Silva was going to just give up? It's explicitly discussed in the movie that he was going to continue to try to kill M and continue to put civilian lives at risk.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Yes. They could have shown it properly in YOLT and it would've been just as dramatic, like a shark rising from the depths. I think when it came to YOLT Cubby didn't care about reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit
Haha, righto! {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
As I said, it was just executed inaccurately. So you agree that it's not impossible for one spacecraft to intercept another, right? That's what matters, because without thinking of exactly how it is done, it could be possible.
Then let's just disagree to agree on this.
about "orbits", weightlessness due to "free falling " as opposed to no gravity, so if we
see it on screen then it's possible.
True - YOLT's charm resides more in its audacity than in its verisimilitude
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
and the opening space fight sequence ( which I thought was amazing). A friend who is in to
science, pointed out all the mistakes
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I can understand that POV...but I tend to go picture by picture. Connery's Bonds shifted tone with GF, and it was apparent with the fake duck on Bond's head in the PTS. Similarly, Craig's Bond shifted tone with SP, and it was apparent with the sofa bit in the PTS. It's the shift in tone in the 3rd act of SP back to more serious, whilst retaining the implausibilities, that causes some to not like it as much, which is totally fair.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
True. It goes along with Dalton and Brosnan. At least with Moore and Connery you could group their films by director, and I feel like the directors were more consistent with their output. Though I'd put GF and YOLT together and then group DAF with Moore's first two.