Jump to content

Would this be a good idea for a space movie?


fredinno
 Share

Would the Columbia Rescue Mission be a good idea to base a movie off of?  

31 members have voted

  1. 1. Would the Columbia Rescue Mission be a good idea to base a movie off of?



Recommended Posts

No. Sure, it was way back when NASA was just starting to have space shuttles and everyone knew mistakes could happen, but in this ignorant society people will point fingers at NASA because the craft blew up. Think about it, the USA dropped those 2 atom bombs on Japan for good reason, but people still curse and shame the US. It will be the same for this. No one will want to pay taxes for such a "murderous" space program, and instead of getting to Mars in 2035, we might get there in 2100 just because of an arrogant American public.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kaboom!']No. Sure, it was way back when NASA was just starting to have space shuttles and everyone knew mistakes could happen, but in this ignorant society people will point fingers at NASA because the craft blew up. Think about it, the USA dropped those 2 atom bombs on Japan for good reason, but people still curse and shame the US. It will be the same for this. No one will want to pay taxes for such a "murderous" space program, and instead of getting to Mars in 2035, we might get there in 2100 just because of an arrogant American public.[/QUOTE]

Well, not sure if this is wholly relevant, but the shuttles were around halfway through their life by then....

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

You may be thinking of Challenger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='hugix']It would be a cool movie if STS 107 didn't happen. Now it's just in poor taste.[/QUOTE]

Ehh.. "Gravity" might as well be based on real events that occurred on Mir.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='boxley']

like imagine if they made a movie about the titanic where a the last moment a seamonster came up and saved everyone, that would just be a weird revised twist to a existing historical event,[/QUOTE]

I assume you're referring here to "The Legend of the Titanic: An Animated Classic," where a giant octopus holds the sinking ship up long enough for dolphins and whales to rescue everyone aboard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='maltesh']I assume you're referring here to "The Legend of the Titanic: An Animated Classic," where a giant octopus holds the sinking ship up long enough for dolphins and whales to rescue everyone aboard.[/QUOTE]

This is now on my watch list. I LOVE AWFUL MOVIES. "Birdemic" was great, as was "Rubber".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='pTrevTrevs']It would be a good idea so long as the story was fictitious. I think if they named the shuttle [I]Columbuia[/I] and gave the crew members in the movie the same names as those on STS 107, it would be a little in bad taste, but if they made ileverything fictional it would be ok.

In Gravity, the shuttle was given a fake name, and all the characters were fictional, and it was ok.

Don't get the wrong idea though, I'm not saying Gravity is a good movie...[/QUOTE]


The movie itself was pretty crappy, but when you love space like we all do here, you gotta admit, the images were breath taking! I watched it twice and loved it just for the visuals!

When Georges Clooney opens the hatch while Sandra Bullock is in the lander without her helmet on, the first time I saw the movie, I went berserk lol. I was like thats it! They blew it! No way she could survive that... She'd freaking freeze instantly and probably explode because of the vacuum.. But then when you realise she dreamt that, I was like ok... pheew! Saved it! lol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='maltesh']I assume you're referring here to "The Legend of the Titanic: An Animated Classic," where a giant octopus holds the sinking ship up long enough for dolphins and whales to rescue everyone aboard.[/QUOTE]

hehe well... I heard rumors that the ending was like that... but it still works in case I was wrong, guess I wasn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='r4pt0r']This is now on my watch list. I LOVE AWFUL MOVIES. "Birdemic" was great, as was "Rubber".[/QUOTE]
Do you go on IMDB and sort by best rated, only in the wrong order?

[quote name='Thunder_86']She'd freaking freeze instantly and probably explode because of the vacuum[/QUOTE]
Neither happens when a human is exposed to vacuum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bill Phil']They knew nothing could really be done. It was at the incorrect inclination for Kazakhstan. No rocket that could rescue was available, no spacecraft to lengthen their time on orbit... It was impossible. Suggesting to the general public that it could have been done might paint, might, paint IRL NASA in a bad light.[/QUOTE]

No, Nothing could have been done to save the STS 107 crew. But Had NASA implemented more safety features, such as having a shuttle on standby to rescue any crew in the event of an emergency (they did this once, but after [I]Columbia[/I]) the crew would have been saved. So yes, it was NASA's poor judgement, both in the design of the shuttle and the lack of safety features, which led to the crew's demise. And educating people about that isn't a bad thing IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having another shuttle sitting on a launchpad, ready to launch at the same time as Challenger would expose it to the same cold temperature that Challenger was exposed to and brought down by.

Having another shuttle ready to launch to save Columbia crew... same thing. What if foam insulation again did some damage? Now you have two shuttles stranded. Is the solution to have a third one in standby?

Where do you draw the line? How many safety feature would you say are enough? Every system has multiple layers of safety mechanisms, in this case there was a chain of failure.

No. The problem was not the lack of safety features. The problem is the too proud management and lack of proper interorganisational communication. Columbia crew could have been saved if NASA management accepted the help from DoD.

Then there was the attitude that, if there was significant damage, the crew was doomed anyway, since they could not be saved in time anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shpaget']
Where do you draw the line? How many safety feature would you say are enough? Every system has multiple layers of safety mechanisms, in this case there was a chain of failure. [/QUOTE]

Enough safety features to pull the crew away safely in the event of an explosion (read: every spacecraft except the shuttle)

[quote name='Shpaget']
No. The problem was not the lack of safety features. [/QUOTE]

That was exactly the problem. Challenger = lack of an abort system. Columbia = poor design considerations.

[quote name='MegaUZI']I vote against because it would further undermine NASA's reputation, something which we really not need to do right now.[/QUOTE]

Let's face it. SLS will get replaced with the next president, Orion is a joke, and there is so much political infighting going on that NASA won't make it to Mrs without the motivation of Soviet nukes. I don't see their bad reputation improving anytime soon.

[SIZE=1]#SpaceXtoMars[/SIZE]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NASA is a joke now. They literally have to choose between the Mars rovers and continuing New Horizons, that's how poor they are. Time for a [s]short[/s] NASA rant.

NASA has made a lot of poor decisions over the course of its lifetime. The Space Shuttle was the worst one, hands down. It was a waste of money, didn't accomplish much of anything, and was more expensive per launch than the standard expendable launchers. NASA could've done 2 moon launches a year instead of flying the space shuttles for a year. But no, NASA said 'Let's boldly go where we've gone before!' and pretty much killed the Apollo program just to go to LEO. People are overcritical of the CCCP, when in fact 4 times more Americans have died in space shuttles than Russians. Enough space shuttle rant, time for something even more meaningless. Why the heck does NASA always choose to go to Poopiter? I know it's very good for gravity assists because of its relatively circular orbit and low inclination, but I'm sick and tires of all the Poopiter probes. IMHO, we don't need to know about Poopiter's magnetic field or whether it has a rocky core or not. We've sent 2 dedicated missions (Galileo and Juno, but Juno's not there yet), keep in mind these missions are VERY expensive to develop. I don't even know where I'm going anymore, just that NASA isn't very smart anymore. No offense.

End Rant.

Really, I don't want this to be a movie. Honestly, I don't think NASA deserves to be painted as daring heroes when they were really just morons in this situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sanic']Poopiter[/QUOTE]

Alright you can either aplogize to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, king of the gods, or you can have have your homeland trampled under the feet of Rome's mighty legions. Your call, bud.


realtalk though, you didnt suggest where you would rather them go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='FishInferno']Enough safety features to pull the crew away safely in the event of an explosion (read: every spacecraft except the shuttle)[/QUOTE]

Let me repeat myself. There is no such thing as "enough safety features to prevent an accident".
There is only "enough safety features to reduce the risk of an accident to an acceptable level". Which is exactly what has been done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best thing i could imagine would be a documentary-style movie from the POV of an engineer(-team?) who tries to get to best out of the STS, but can't because management decisions make the shuttle FUBAR, which ultimately leads to the accident. Begins with Moon landing/end of apollo program, main part would be the STS-Program itself with the launch of the columbia at the very end.

The movie could deal with NASAs struggle with budget vs. safety vs. requirements for the shuttle...

Of course, this could only work out if the shuttle would have turned out much better if NASA would've had more money or could have changed the design goals (iirc the air force had a huge say on the requirements)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shpaget']Columbia crew could have been saved if NASA management accepted the help from DoD.[/QUOTE]
What sort of DoD assistance do you see as changing anything?

Even if NASA had known of the damage and its extent, a rescue would not have been feasible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bill Phil']It's too soon. Wait ~30 years. Like Apollo 13. [/QUOTE]

Wait, you can't compare Apollo 13 to Columbia, no one died in Apollo 13

EDIT : voted no, not because it's too soon but because i dont think that it would be a good movie. The plot seems too small/closed to me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='r4pt0r']Alright you can either aplogize to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, king of the gods, or you can have have your homeland trampled under the feet of Rome's mighty legions. Your call, bud.


realtalk though, you didnt suggest where you would rather them go.[/QUOTE]

Uranus, or they should just save the money and not spend hundreds of millions learning whether Poopiter has a rocky core.

I will never apologize for my glorious Futurama reference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Thunder_86']The movie itself was pretty crappy, but when you love space like we all do here, you gotta admit, the images were breath taking! I watched it twice and loved it just for the visuals!

When Georges Clooney opens the hatch while Sandra Bullock is in the lander without her helmet on, the first time I saw the movie, I went berserk lol. I was like thats it! They blew it! No way she could survive that... She'd freaking freeze instantly and probably explode because of the vacuum.. But then when you realise she dreamt that, I was like ok... pheew! Saved it! lol.[/QUOTE]
well actually no, people dont freeze in space, thermodynamically youd have to radiate away the heat or equalize it with a medium (which there is no cold atmosphere in space).

and people dont explode in a vaccum, they would definately pass out and need some medical attention afterward but it wont outright kill them, as its a difference of about .3 atm, it wouldnprobably cause all kinds of nasty bruising if it is sudden and jolting but not explosions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...