Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] lets talk about solar flares.

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Spurling, Shannon wrote:
> Well, if it hits the space shuttle/station while they are up there,
> aren't they going to develop strange super human abilities? :-)

More seriously, I remember reading somewhere that NASA are careful with 
their deep manned space shots (e.g. sending men to the moon) to avoid 
solar flares, because they produce harmful amounts of radiation.

I am guessing that the space shuttle is safe, because it is in a low 
orbit, and hence protected by the van Allen belt.

(This is all from vague memories, so if any of this is completely 
incorrect, please, someone, correct me.)

Incidently, I did see "Fantastic Four".  I also saw "War of the Worlds." 
 I looked at rottentomatoes.com, and the reviewers really liked "War of 
the Worlds" and really disliked "Fantastic Four."  It seems to me that 
the reviewers are completely out of touch with reality.  While "War of 
the Worlds" might have some parts that (superficially) appeal to the 
intellect, and while "Fantastic Four" might be essentially very shallow, 
there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that "Fantastic Four" was very 
much better entertainment.

I think that a big problem with "War of the Worlds" is that it tried to 
be too true to the spirit of the original work.  The original work by HG 
Wells had its values firmly planted in the intellectualism of the early 
twentieth century.  It just doesn't work very well with an early 21st 
century audience.  (The original work also had a great deal of 
gratuitous violence - I think in the context of the book it worked well, 
but on the big screen it is just overdone.)  I thought that the 1950's 
version was much better, in part because it appealed to 1950's values 
(hence, for example, the religious stuff), and also because it doesn't 
rely on the modern special effects from computer graphics, which is way 
overused these days.

Incidently I am thinking that the Orson Welles 1938 radio broadcast 
featured a general called General Montgomery Smith.  I found this out by 
accident by doing a google search - have any of you done google searches 
on your own names?  I guess it shows a certain narcism on my part. 
Maybe General Montgomery Smith also appears in the original work, but it 
is so long ago that I read it that I don't remember.

Stephen

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion