What about moonraker?
Any mathematical estimates on the probability of launching 6 shuttles within an hour and all of them working as intended ?
Keep it simple – if only the villains of James Bond had learned that lesson in Evil Medical School. All too often, though, the Ernst Stavro Blofelds and Karl Strombergs of 007’s world succumb to their maniacal tendencies and plot ridiculously complicated plans to off Bond or take over the world, where a simple bullet or well- …
Any mathematical estimates on the probability of launching 6 shuttles within an hour and all of them working as intended ?
Maybe if it was done in the private sector they could achieve it!
The part that made me laugh was the gravity!
Wouldn't it be easier for the bad guy to just walk up to Bond and shoot him in the back?
Why faff and try to cut him in half with a laser? Amongst other things.
if only for the line "a master criminal trying to twock a submarine."
Should really be written as TWOC (Taken Without Owners Consent)
Obligatory XKCD cartoon
I'm gonna be anal and say - Zero-zero eject systems were introduced in helicopters - actually just one type; Russian Designed Kamov Ka-52 Blackshark.
It's notably the fastest attack helicopter in service thanks to it coaxial rotor design that allowes for higher Vne (co-axial design compensates for retreating blade stall effect and lift asymetry) and the only attack helicopter that is crewed just by one member (rather then the conventional designs = pilot + gunner)
And that's why the ruskies put the ejection system in - the way it works - a explosive charge blows and releases the main rotor blades and then the pilot is ejected preventing the unfortunete sould from being chopped to little pieces two sets of composite blades rotating at 200rpm!
I fear this is going to be a tad controversial with the rotor heads but it has to be said; The British Army don’t get all the best gear on the battlefield so I won’t let you take away their ‘Fastest helicopter in the world’ accolade despite the fact it is quite questionable.
Fully loaded with AT then yes, the KA-50 is faster. Yes, in a dive it is faster (I believe it has 15 – 16 mph higher do not exceed limit than the Lynx without BERP rotors) Yes, the KA-50 is a real attack helicopter as apposed to a sky truck with some TOW missiles bolted to the door.
But darn it! The Lynx is faster. I need to cling to these hopeless, irrelevant numbers to make me feel better.
"... a explosive charge blows and releases the main rotor blades and then the pilot is ejected..."
Important to get the timing right, then?
//leather flight jacket, thanks
What's the worst part about helicopter ejection seats?
Having to wear parachutes for both halves.
"....so I won’t let you take away their ‘Fastest helicopter in the world’ accolade despite the fact it is quite questionable....." OK, not EXACTLY a helicopter, but the Convair Pogo had rotors, could hit 610mph, it had an ejector seat, and all back in the Fifties! And it's one of my all-time-fave whacky aircraft designs.
Now, if Larry Ellison was a REAL man, he'd be saying "Sod the MiG, gimme one of them Convairs!"
I also remember being told that the French contested the Lynx record as Westland vectored the turbine exhaust to give an extra few pounds of thrust.
It's not what you might expect, but...
Worth it just for that. By the way, it's twoc - not twock.
Frankly, they could have gremlins stealing a B2 for all I care, just as long as they kept the gorgeous Famke Janssen in the movie. Much hotter than the movie's Bond girl, Izabella Scorupco. Unfortunately, whilst Lois Chiles was pretty hot, even she couldn't save Moonraker's "plot" from ridicule.
Isn't it the utterly outrageous nature of the evil schemes that makes the films so enjoyable. Everything about them is beyond belief, from the names of the love interests to Bond himself, that you have no choice but to suspend your disbelief by a large measure. And with that, you're willing to accept anything, and the film becomes a great thrill ride.
Afterall, the recent Daniel Craig films have been a bit more closer to reality than those films listed here, and arguably, weren't nearly so much fun.
If you're a fan of the Bond universe as portrayed by most of the films, then probably yes.
If, however, you prefer the more steeped in reality Bond universe as portrayed in the original Fleming novels, and would prefer to see the film adaptations reflect this at least to some degree, then no, not really. As much as I've enjoyed most of the films as entertainment in their own right, I wouldn't say I've necessarily enjoyed them all as Bond films - it's really only the Dalton and Craig ones which IMO capture the essense of the written-word Bond.
I think Dalton's portrayal of Bond has been unfairly criticised as a result, with people comparing his films against the Connery/Moore collection and finding them rather dull, yet for me he was the first on-screen Bond who came close to matching up with the description from the novels. Craig has then taken it into a whole new level. OK, so I still haven't been able to watch Quantum of Solace without needing a break halfway to clear my head, but that's just down to the way the storyline flows (or doesn't, as the case may be) - as far as his portrayal of Bond goes, it's a continuation of what he started in Casino Royale, and I'm genuinely excited about Skyfall.
Skyfall has no connection with the previous two films; it's as if they never happened. Still a good movie and better than QoS but there's no sense of momentum or continuity from the previous Craig films.
Begbie vs Bond
Preferably the Roger Moore version
Begin the unnecassarily slow dipping mechanism!
You're not even going to watch?
No I'm going to walk away and assume it all went fine.
Eight left, 'cksherly.
What about brosnon and the korean laser, golden eye was nothing to a solid single laser being constantly emitted from a space satellite and moving while he did it.
The "korean laser" was a orbital mirror reflecting and focussing sunlight, not a laser.
Of course that has it's own set of impracticalities, but you avoid the problems of sourcing a suitable power source, engineering for heat dissipation, etc that plagued Blofeld's diamond laser.
So that'll be Lewis Page then?
an equally big question is 'how could six space launches all go off within minutes of each other and no-one whatsoever on the ground notice?'
What have always baffled me is the distance.
If you put a big laser in space, which as pointed in the article, is a major engineering challenge, would it be useful?
Doesn't the inverse square law applies to the laser beam?
At a distance of, say, 2000 kilometers, for a low earth orbiting satellite, you need a lot of power to inflict damage.
And that is assuming the target is right below the satellite. Add to that the atmosphere.
And to that, add the precision of the mechanism to keep the beam on target... mmm.
Nope, laser beams orbiting the earth are, in my opinion, worthless as weapons.
>Doesn't the inverse square law applies to the laser beam?
Yes but it's not such a big effect.
If you had a little 6inch telescope with a diffraction limit of 1arc-sec then from LEO at 200km you would put a spot about 1m (in ideal case), launch a Hubble size mirror and you can focus it down to about 1/20 of that = 2inches.
Sunlight is about 1000w/m^2 so your 1MegaWatt Acme space laser would be about 200,000x brighter than daylight
The atmosphere doesn't have much effect looking down. The distortion puts an angle shift into the light, so if you are looking at a distant star a fraction of degree movement is big, but if you target is only a few km below the atmospheric turbulence layer it's not such a big deal.
Pointing accurately to 1arc-sec even blind is trivial, with star trackers we can point the Hubble to 1/100 of that.
But on the whole the best way of killing somebody with a laser still remains dropping it on their head.
A 550nm wavelength laser pointed at a target 2000km away and using a 10m reflector has a minimum possible focus spot size of ~10cm diameter. I reckon it'll lose a good 50% of its output energy firing though the atmosphere, and probably won't accomplish a whole lot though cloud or dust storms. Still, if you've got good enough optics to focus the beam down that far, you don't have to throw many tens megawatts out of the business end of your laser to chop holes in even quite tough targets (say, a tank) in a second or two.
It won't, however, be a city razing ravening beam o' death. You'll get results a little more like a precision drone strike... it'll take out a car, or a plane, or a person but it won't level a block of flats. Dropping rocks out of orbit is more appropriate for that.
The technology for this isn't that far off. I kinda hope we'll be using it for laser launch systems to get stuff in to orbit cheaply rather than frying each other, however.
Genuine laugh-out-loud moment there. Thanks for that! :)
"But on the whole the best way of killing somebody with a laser still remains dropping it on their head."
I thought it was to mount it on a shark.
Didn't they also have a spaceship which gobbled up other spaceships, like the boat idea?
Yes, they did: "You only live twice". Had the secret base in the volcano with the retractable lake. And the bit were the astronaut is spacewalking while his spaceship is being engobbled and his air-lines get cut by the closing doors of the engobbler.
No, that was the NASA/USA military collaboration.
"hydrogen peroxide powered model"--I find myself thinking of Paris Hilton.
You dropped your icon. I found it on the floor next to where you posted your comment.
Nuclear EMP requires detonation in the ionosphere, because it works by catching the ions in the shockwave to generate the pulse. EMP occurs in atmospheric blasts but it is much reduced. Hence when you nuke a city you don't need as much EMP protection. And frankly, the designers of early delivery aircraft may not have cared that much. The expected return rate from missions was pretty low, and there may not have been anything to return to.
Some things man is not meant to know... Its like finding out how they do those magic tricks on tv.
'Analysing' Bond plots is like explaining a joke.
If you have to do it you've missed the point.
Off the top of my head, Thunderball, Octopussy, Casino Royale seem to have relatively realistic plots. What else?
Would a gun made of gold work any good?
Is cocaine soluble in petrol / diesel?
And if it is, what are you going to do while your car is high?
Gun made of gold? Probably only for a few shots, if at all. Gold isn't very strong.
Gold-plated guns have certainly been made, though, and I assume this is what Bond uses. I think Gadaffi had gold plated vanity guns, and other Arab dictators probably do too (they'd never want to be left behind in an arms-decoration race, right?)
Cocaine base (ie, crack) is soluble in petrol (and just about any other non-polar solvent), powder cocaine is not. They use kerosene or gasoline (hopefully unleaded) in the production of cocaine from coca plants, for this purpose...
I love the idea of being concerned about unleaded petrol when it comes to stuffing large amounts of Bolivian marching powder up your nose.
Diamonds Are Forever... bears the least resemblance to the original novel
The Spy Who Loved Me, with Moonraker, owes the least to the novel from which it takes its name.
I recall being taught (at a very young age so I'm probably hopelessly wrong on the detail) that the Allies captured some Japanese aircraft during WW2 which had gone back to valve technology in order to avoid the EMP risk of a nuclear strike. Is this complete bollocks or was the story true?
Well, at the time there was not really any technology more advanced than valves, and pretty much no one had any idea about EMPs from nuclear bombs, what with there not being any nuclear bombs (until right at the very end of the war), so, yes, that's complete bollocks, sorry.
However, I have heard the same about soviet technology from the cold war (eg the Mig-25), but that might also be due to their lack of decent transistor based tech.
(ps, I found more information searching for 'vacuum tubes' rather than 'valves')
can't unsee a collapsable colander every time they see that satellite?
When I was a tyke my grandmother had one, and I used to play with it sometimes (as we were want to do, since this was before everyone had a supercomputer to play with). So it's been that to me since the first time I saw it.
No, you're not.
Though I always see one of these:
I had one as a teen...worked well
ohh.. that is a good one too!
"Do you expect me to talk?"
"No Mr Bond, I expect you to die."