Failure to Launch

[Small Town Guy]

How did the movie treat Buzz Aldrin?
I've been somewhat disappointed in the condescending attitudes shown toward Buzz in several astronaut biographies. Gene Cernan was probably the worst. They considered him an egghead (MIT) and rolled their eyes at the "Dr. Rendezvous" moniker he was given. They just didn't consider him one of "them" because he wasn't a rowdy flyboy.

I wouldn't say this portrayal is condescending, but they definitely make him look like a borderline-insensitive loudmouth. I liked the character in the movie because Armstrong was so understated as played by Gosling so scenes with Buzz brought some juice.

 

[Pilot]

How did the movie treat Buzz Aldrin?
I've been somewhat disappointed in the condescending attitudes shown toward Buzz in several astronaut biographies. Gene Cernan was probably the worst. They considered him an egghead (MIT) and rolled their eyes at the "Dr. Rendezvous" moniker he was given. They just didn't consider him one of "them" because he wasn't a rowdy flyboy.

He definitely doesn't come off as an egghead, so that's a plus, I guess? He comes off as crass, confident and, in the landing, competent. There weren't many details beyond that.

I can't emphasize enough how it's not a movie about NASA, or the U.S. in the 1960s, or even Apollo 11. It's not called Apollo 11. It's very narrowly cut to depict Neil Armstrong. Collins is barely even in the movie and he was on the mission! The most prominent other astronauts are Elliott See and Ed White (though that may have been a choice about the theme and tone rather than Armstrong's actual relationships. I don't know who he was close to.)

I really liked it. It's an entirely different kind of movie than Apollo 13, which really has a much wider focus and all the emphasis on NASA and problem solving and the nation getting interested and "we all did it together!" This is like two hours in Armstrong's mind.

FWIW, the flag thing is beyond stupid and wouldn't have fit at all with the finished product.

 

[BTExpress]

The most prominent other astronauts are Elliott See and Ed White (though that may have been a choice about the theme and tone rather than Armstrong's actual relationships.

Two astronauts who died on the job.

 

[Pilot]

Two astronauts who died on the job.

Yeah, their prominence helps define a theme of "loss" in the movie. I don't know if that theme was really as prominent in Armstrong's life and psyche, or if the screenwriters just IDed those two building blocks, realized they'd fit in with a few other building blocks in his story and decided to connect those dots.

 

[UPChip]

How did the movie treat Buzz Aldrin?
I've been somewhat disappointed in the condescending attitudes shown toward Buzz in several astronaut biographies. Gene Cernan was probably the worst. They considered him an egghead (MIT) and rolled their eyes at the "Dr. Rendezvous" moniker he was given. They just didn't consider him one of "them" because he wasn't a rowdy flyboy.

Aldrin doesn't get a lot of screen time, though he's not exactly portrayed positively. After Elliot See's death, Aldrin's character makes an offhand remark during the wake about it being pilot error, and he makes another careless comment about the fire in a scene around the time of Apollo 8. He's not a villain, by any means, but he's definitely portrayed as someone who doesn't always engage his brain before opening his mouth, which appears to be consistent with account of him.

 

[UPChip]

Yeah, their prominence helps define a theme of "loss" in the movie. I don't know if that theme was really as prominent in Armstrong's life and psyche, or if the screenwriters just IDed those two building blocks, realized they'd fit in with a few other building blocks in his story and decided to connect those dots.

One thing that I didn't realize before I saw the movie is that it's not really the story of Apollo 11. It's a film adaptation (of a portion) of Armstrong's authorized biography (same title), which is why Dave Scott (Gemini 8) probably gets as much screen time as Aldrin and definitely more than Collins.

 

[Starman]

Soyuz back in orbit:

Two months after mishap, Russian Soyuz rockets back into space with crew

 

[BTExpress]

Gee, they've gotten a lot of mileage out of that Soyuz family of rockets (1,700+ launches since 1966).

 

[maumann]

Gee, they've gotten a lot of mileage out of that Soyuz family of rockets (1,700+ launches since 1966).

Amazing. If you combine all Delta/Thor, Atlas and Titan rocket launches since 1957, you're looking at somewhere just under 1,000 launches (if the Wikipedia figures are correct).

 

[Starman]

Gee, they've gotten a lot of mileage out of that Soyuz family of rockets (1,700+ launches since 1966).

Actually, it's way more than that since the Soyuz is actually just an uprated version of the R-7 ICBM which was the booster for Sputnik in 1957 and Gagarin in Vostok in 1961.

 

[typefitter]

Gee, they've gotten a lot of mileage out of that Soyuz family of rockets (1,700+ launches since 1966).

The Soyuz has been an amazing rocket. I don't think anyone who knows anything disputes that. I even like how the Russians have so much faith in it, they get an Orthodox priest to throw holy water on it, because a little holy water can't hurt.

 

[typefitter]

One of the crazy little turns in space exploration history is the Russian knockoff of the space shuttle: Buran. Flew once. That Soyuz existed before and exists long after is kind of fascinating.

Did the Soviets Actually Build a Better Space Shuttle?

When I was at Baikonur, a huge building was pointed out to me in the distance. Apparently there are two Buran in there, rusting away. I wanted so badly to go, to make a break for it in the night to see it. I was told by our minders that my idea was very bad.

 

[Starman]

One of the crazy little turns in space exploration history is the Russian knockoff of the space shuttle: Buran. Flew once. That Soyuz existed before and exists long after is kind of fascinating.

Did the Soviets Actually Build a Better Space Shuttle?

When I was at Baikonur, a huge building was pointed out to me in the distance. Apparently there are two Buran in there, rusting away. I wanted so badly to go, to make a break for it in the night to see it. I was told by our minders that my idea was very bad.

As last I knew (it's certainly not like I'm some authority), one Buran had been destroyed in a hangar collapse and two more were still around in various bits and pieces.

The Buran was probably a better design than the Shuttle -- not too surprising since it was basically the exact same design brought along 7-8 years later -- but had it gone into regular flight service, due to the fact it shared the same lateral-stack design as the Shuttle, at some point they would almost certainly have had a Columbia-type disaster with ice chunks falling off the external tanks and hitting the thermal tiles.

 

[typefitter]

As last I knew (it's certainly not like I'm some authority), one Buran had been destroyed in a hangar collapse and two more were still around in various bits and pieces.

The Buran was probably a better design than the Shuttle -- not too surprising since it was basically the exact same design brought along 7-8 years later -- but had it gone into regular flight service, due to the fact it shared the same lateral-stack design as the Shuttle, at some point they would almost certainly have had a Columbia-type disaster with ice chunks falling off the external tanks and hitting the thermal tiles.

I'm not certain, but I think the hangar that collapsed is the same giant building that I saw from a distance. There is a Buran model in Gorky Park in Moscow.