Oh, Hollywood, so close. So close. "Space Cowboys" could have been that one sci-fi film which had it all: fine characters, an intriguing premise, adventure, snappy dialogue, comic relief ... but, as with many science fiction movies, the writers bungled the technical details. Goes to show--if you want to write, learn all you can about everything! Anyway, I'll just list the errors I found:
Corvin talks about the IKON probe "coming home in a hurry," but he uses Imperial units while the NASA employees use Metric; did he convert the figures in his head?
The Shuttle mission is gets a nice, neat, "STS-200" designation ... why not 189 or 214 or 223?
The Shuttle is also named "Daedalus," the name of the original pilot team from the late 50s; c'mon, would NASA rename a Shuttle for a mission?
IKON is a HUGE weapons array; seems about as big as the current Space Station Alpha, which from the ground appears as a bright star crossing the sky; *nobody* noticed that huge Russian satellite for all those years?
Command pilots appear to be in the wrong seat (commander sits on left, pilot right, just like an airliner).
Those pretty, starry backgrounds we ALWAYS see in space movies, but never see in actual photos/films from space (well, Kubrick was close); stars are just too dim given sunlight and the bright Earth below.
Donald Sutherland's character ejects injured astronauts as he casually rides out a careening Shuttle re-entry; nope, he's not even thrown around! (Why would he toss them out, anyway?)
NASA's "top astronauts" (Courtney B. Vance, et. al.) seem at least ten years too young to be the seasoned test pilots NASA requires to fly the Shuttle.
An astronaut sneaking out on an EVA to finish Corvin's job? Surely the MOST insulting error!
Flight directors like William Devane's character don't speak directly with flight crews.
There are other flaws--I just listed the most annoying and misleading. It was a good attempt, but Hollywood suffers from a lack of technical understanding about space flight. Most of the mass media does. Too bad, 'cause it just makes for silly entertainment.
Corvin talks about the IKON probe "coming home in a hurry," but he uses Imperial units while the NASA employees use Metric; did he convert the figures in his head?
The Shuttle mission is gets a nice, neat, "STS-200" designation ... why not 189 or 214 or 223?
The Shuttle is also named "Daedalus," the name of the original pilot team from the late 50s; c'mon, would NASA rename a Shuttle for a mission?
IKON is a HUGE weapons array; seems about as big as the current Space Station Alpha, which from the ground appears as a bright star crossing the sky; *nobody* noticed that huge Russian satellite for all those years?
Command pilots appear to be in the wrong seat (commander sits on left, pilot right, just like an airliner).
Those pretty, starry backgrounds we ALWAYS see in space movies, but never see in actual photos/films from space (well, Kubrick was close); stars are just too dim given sunlight and the bright Earth below.
Donald Sutherland's character ejects injured astronauts as he casually rides out a careening Shuttle re-entry; nope, he's not even thrown around! (Why would he toss them out, anyway?)
NASA's "top astronauts" (Courtney B. Vance, et. al.) seem at least ten years too young to be the seasoned test pilots NASA requires to fly the Shuttle.
An astronaut sneaking out on an EVA to finish Corvin's job? Surely the MOST insulting error!
Flight directors like William Devane's character don't speak directly with flight crews.
There are other flaws--I just listed the most annoying and misleading. It was a good attempt, but Hollywood suffers from a lack of technical understanding about space flight. Most of the mass media does. Too bad, 'cause it just makes for silly entertainment.