The Astronaut Farmer

[Matthew Buick]

It's a shame they don't bother to bring out the DVD in PAL. :(

Edited September 6, 2007 by Matthew Buick

[William A Chapman Jr]

It's a shame they don't bother to bring out the DVD in PAL. :(

 

I must say it is a very good movie, I've seen it 3 or 4 times already and I enjoy it more each time.

 

David, whats your next movie? Are you working on anything now or are you taken a well deserved break?

[John Holland]

Think you ought to check In Production thread on here you might learn something .

[Peter Moretti]

I just finished watching this film and loved the cinematography. What a knack for capturing "wholesome America." I loved how the light sources beautiful but also logical, e.g. the first kitchen scene with sunlight streaming through the windows and splashing onto the mother and her two adorable children.

 

The few night scenes had more of a regular feel, IMHO. But night shots must be extremely hard due to the inherant compromise between the need for light (for the audience to see what's going on) and the circumstances of the scene which call for darkness.

 

The skys were BREATHTAKING. Can I ask if some of them were composite shots &or heavily corrected. Did the sky really look close to that while filming?

 

Thank you so much David for sharing your work with the world... and your insights with US :D .

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, night lighting can be a conundrum, especially on a farm without a lot of streetlamps or other sources. You often end up using artificial moonlight to sketch the location out so it isn't pitch black, and where you can park the condor out of the shot depends on the topography. The movie has a slightly retro feeling, so I felt justified in using what could be called "movie night lighting".

 

We didn't add any clouds to skies in post. I used Polas and Grads sometimes, or darkened the sky using a window in post. But those sunsets pretty much were just like that in New Mexico; I just timed them on the warmer side. The last one was so spectacular I figured that half the people watching would assume we created it in post!

[Peter Moretti]

Well I belonged in that half, LOL!

[Thomas James]

When I watched the Astonaut Farmer I had a lot of problems with the suspension of my disbelief because I really think that it is impossible for a person to build a spaceship out of his garage and achieve orbital flight. And even if it were possible nothing would be accomplished that had not already been done. However when I saw some model rocketry movie footage from the 1958 Orion project I finally realized that the Astronaut Farmer could have been theoretically based on a true story. Indeed a backyard inventor could have a dream of a nuclear powered space program and believe that NASA is so wrong for not using this technology because it is a million times more powerful than any chemical rocket and would be a mandatory requirement for the colonization of space. However to demonstrate this technology does not require the exploding of atomic bombs in order to propel the spacecraft nor does require orbital flight. All that is required to demonstrate this technology is the exploding of a series of conventional C-4 explosives in order to simulate the nuclear impulse of an atomic bomb explosion. And indeed this has already been done with an unmanned model rocket. So the next logical step would be a manned flight but orbital flight is not required. All that is required is to get the astronaut a few thousand feet up in the air so he can safely parachute down. The concept is like lighting a firecracker underneath a tin can.

[Stuart Brereton]

When I watched the Astonaut Farmer I had a lot of problems with the suspension of my disbelief because I really think that it is impossible for a person to build a spaceship out of his garage and achieve orbital flight. And even if it were possible nothing would be accomplished that had not already been done. However when I saw some model rocketry movie footage from the 1958 Orion project I finally realized that the Astronaut Farmer could have been theoretically based on a true story. Indeed a backyard inventor could have a dream of a nuclear powered space program and believe that NASA is so wrong for not using this technology because it is a million times more powerful than any chemical rocket and would be a mandatory requirement for the colonization of space. However to demonstrate this technology does not require the exploding of atomic bombs in order to propel the spacecraft nor does require orbital flight. All that is required to demonstrate this technology is the exploding of a series of conventional C-4 explosives in order to simulate the nuclear impulse of an atomic bomb explosion. And indeed this has already been done with an unmanned model rocket. So the next logical step would be a manned flight but orbital flight is not required. All that is required is to get the astronaut a few thousand feet up in the air so he can safely parachute down. The concept is like lighting a firecracker underneath a tin can.

 

Please, please, please tell me you are joking....

[John Holland]

I fear he is very serious !! scary !

[K Borowski]

I think Thomas is particularly scary when he talks about using nuclear rockets on the ground.

 

That is like someone building a hobbyist nuclear reactor in their back yard without a containment building!

[Thomas James]

What I am talking about is simulatating an atomic bomb explosion using conventional explosives. Every little kid does this when he lights a firecracker underneath a tin can to send it flying up in the air because this is exactly how nuclear pulse propolusion works just on a greater scale using the equivalent of a million tons of TNT for each round with a total of 1000 rounds of ammunition in order to make an atomic bomb machine gun which is used for nuclear flight. An atomic bomb is is actually a disposable nuclear reactor without any containment vessel. Nuclear fallout is reduced because the launch pad will be graphite coated steel to eliminate kicking up radioactive dirt into the air. Of course airborne dust will become radioactive but this is minimized if we use fusion bombs rather than fission bombs.

 

The environmental impact of this project is reduced if we design green missions. Remember a conventional rocket that weighs 3000 tons yet it can only send 50 tons of payload into orbit. A nuclear rocket can weigh 3000 tons but it can send 1500 tons of payload into orbit. Now if this is a green payload such as 1500 tons of solar panels that can be placed in close proximity to the sun the enviromental benefits will far exceed the environmental risks. Remember if we burn coal this coal is contaminated with radiation and conventional solar panels are too far away from the sun to do much good.

[Thomas James]

htp://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/technology/watch/v62882804ngZTsZ3#

 

 

For some footage of a working model of an atomic bomb rocket that uses conventional explosives

Edited October 18, 2009 by Thomas James

[Chris Millar]

I fear he is very serious !! scary !

 

Its the second thread I've come across he's gone off topic about the same stuff...

 

A 2001 thread maybe (?)

[Thomas James]

As long as we are talking about home made rockets we are very much on topic. Of course no one can make a home made rocket in his backyard and propel it real atomic bombs because this is impossible. Likewise I doubt that anyone can make a home made rocket such as that featured in the Astronaut Farmer and have it capable of manned orbital flight because this would also be impossible. Nevertheless for a home made rocket conventional explosives can be substituted for atomic bombs and one can build a real working model of an atomic bomb rocket even if only fire crackers and tin cans are used.

[Chris Millar]

For bomb related discussion please go to the appropriate thread located here:

 

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?sh...40717&st=20

 

:rolleyes:

[Thomas James]

Again the thread you mention has nothing directly to do with a nuclear propulsion system for a starship but rather it deals with the topic of a Director who loses control over his movie. The discussion about a starship powered by atomic bombs only came up as an example of a power struggle between the Director of the movie 2001 who was Stanley Kubrick who was against the use of atomic bombs as a means of propulsion and his collaborator Arthur C. Clarke who favored the use of atomic bombs to propel the starship Discovery. In the end Stanley Kubrick prevailed and did not lose control of his movie and no simulations of atomic explosions were ever used for special effects.

 

However one must remember that the starships of today are not powered by large atomic bombs like they were in the 1960's when 2001 was made but the ones I have personally worked on use nuclear fusion drives that use super lasers to heat up small pellets of dueterium the size of a BB gun pellet and produce micro atomic explosions at a rate of 250 explosions a second.

 

Getting back to the subject of model rocketry which is the subject of the movie the Astronaut Farmer, the micro explosions of a starship drive can be crudely simulated merely lighting of a brick of firecrackers

[K Borowski]

Nuclear fallout is reduced because the launch pad will be graphite coated steel to eliminate kicking up radioactive dirt into the air. Of course airborne dust will become radioactive but this is minimized if we use fusion bombs rather than fission bombs.

 

The environmental impact of this project is reduced if we design green missions. Remember a conventional rocket that weighs 3000 tons yet it can only send 50 tons of payload into orbit. A nuclear rocket can weigh 3000 tons but it can send 1500 tons of payload into orbit. Now if this is a green payload such as 1500 tons of solar panels that can be placed in close proximity to the sun the enviromental benefits will far exceed the environmental risks. Remember if we burn coal this coal is contaminated with radiation and conventional solar panels are too far away from the sun to do much good.

 

This is completely off-topic, but you are totally, totally wrong and incorrect on so many levels here.

 

TNT and nuclear explosions release energy, but TNT is not radioactive after it is detonated, nor is coal.

 

Nuclear propulsion is not designed around using pellets. It either uses a nuclear reactor, of a very small, very safe size, to produce electricity for propulsion, or to superheat hydrogen for propulsion. Any other type of propulsion that you are talking about is about as real as anti-matter propulsion on STAR TREK.

 

If you launch solar cells into orbit, but contaminate the launch pad and irradiate the surrounding area, huh? You really shouldn't get high before you post here :blink:

 

:blink: :blink:

 

 

But, back to reality, this is a thread about a fictional movie. The movie, incidentally, didn't use a nuclear rocket, because even in the fantasy-land of Hollywood, no one would be dumb enough to imply that someone would irradiate their farm to launch into orbit, nor did 2001: A Space Odyssey mention what form of propulsion was used on Discovery.

 

If you want to talk about above-ground nuclear testing,, which, incidentally has been banned by all sensible nations (even underground nuclear testing in the U.S. hasn't been conducted since the early 1990s), you really ought to do it elsewhere.

 

Taking a thread so completely off-topic is very poor taste.

[Thomas James]

First of all no one who was a member of the Orion Atomic Rocket Project insisted on atmospheric explosions. Later on when the scientists who were working on the project became disillusioned with the idea of an Earth based launch it was then proposed that a conventional chemical rocket be used for the Earth launching and that atomic flight would only be allowed in outer space. Carl Sagan who by the way was an anti-nuclear activist who got himself arrested for protesting underground atomic bomb testing supported the idea of the Orion Project on the condition that any Earth launching be forbidden and that existing inventories of atomic weapons be used in order to reduce the number of dangerous atomic weapons that are stockpiled. This concept is like beating swords into plowshares. Now you may not agree with Carl Sagan but nevertheless he was a well respected member of the scientific community and his ideas deserve consideration. Unfortunately no consideration was ever given and the result was a major supression of technology.

 

Now the relevancy of all this is of course a matter of opinion however many people after seeing the Astonaut Farmer wondered if this movie was based on a real story. Perhaps you would consider a more relevant example and this would be the story of Goddard who invented the first liquid fueled rocket in the year 1919. Goddard indeed conducted a lot of his rocket experiments on a real farm until the neighbors complained and he had to move to Roswell New Mexico. Although Goddard never achieved any manned flight he was severely ridiculed when he proposed the possibility of an eventual flight to the moon which the scientists of the day declared as impossible because the vacuum of space would not allow for any substance for the propellent to be pushed against.