MovieChat Forums > Space Cowboys (2000) Discussion > Anyone Else See the Implied Criticism?

Anyone Else See the Implied Criticism?


When Frank and Hawk land the simulator in rain, high winds, and sans computer, and again at the end when Frank lands "for real" sans computer, did anyone else pick up on the implied criticism of how we've become dependent on technology to do our jobs for us? All the younger astronauts said a landing couldn't be done without the computer (autopilot) and that a catatrophic computer failure could not happen.

Yet the original Mercury Seven, all test pilots, rejected the "spam in the can" idea by the design engineers - that the astronauts be mere passengers along for the ride, the computerization of the spacecraft would handle everything. Humans couldn't do the job.

The Apollo 13 mission proved the validity of the human side of the argument.

BTW, some Project Mercury trivia...at least John Glenn (if not all the Mercury astronauts) wore a Breitling Cosmonaut chronograph for a wristwatch. The Cosmonaut is the same as a Navitimer chronograph (for those who know what I'm talking about), but with a 24-hour dial. The Mercury capsule instrumentation either didn't have a clock or the clock used had a 12-hour dial or a 12/24 hour dial. The 24-hour face of the watch was the only way the astronaut could tell the difference between Noon and Midnight, since they were circling the earth once every 92 minutes or so.

And this little design detail oversight was made by the same people arguing for "spam in the can".

reply

I don't think of it as a criticism, per se...more of a way to define the differences between generations. Frank and Hawk were from an older generation that did things manually and relied almost entirely on human skill. The younger guys grew up with computers controlling most everything. The point was to show that the old guys were capable in their own way.

reply

"Humans couldn't do the job."

But the point is, they did do them because the computers of the
Mercury flights, even into the Apollo flights, were so very weak
and virtually helpless. There were no critical burns in the Mercury missions. He basically shot the guys off, let them go into space, and re-enter. Seems to me the deployment of parachutes had more to do with pressure sensitive switches than the computers. My late brother-in-law, an engineer, once
told me that cell phone computers are stronger than the computers of
early space flight.

reply

If I remember correctly, the computer in the Apollo CM had 64K of RAM. Total.

When you consider the PCs of today, that's almost inconceivable.

reply

heh, the old hand held calculators, or even the tiny ones you get as junk giveaways today, had more computer muscle than any of the Mercury or Apollo systems did! i never look at one of these lil toys, without remembering this.

but yes, i think the whole point of this movie was to show that just because you are old, does not mean antiquated and useless.

~*~~*~

"Ooh!Pass the popcorn! This is gonna be good!"

reply

I think it proved that human support from the ground was still necessary - witness the kluging together of the CO2 scrubber filter from the LEM to the system in the CM. (And yet, the fact the the two systems used cartridges of different shapes -- causing the incompatibility -- can be attributed to human error in the orginal design process for the LEM and the CM. Nobody thought about this detail.)

A "garden club" (for lack of a better term) that my mother was a member of had one meeting where they were visited by a NASA rep. This was after the publication of LOST MOON, the book APOLLO 13 was based on. After the man's talk, Mother asked him how close did NASA come to losing the Apollo 13 astronauts. His answer was basically so close that NASA doesn't want it generally known, not even being revealed in the book. He also said that the people still at NASA from the Apollo days (this was in the early '80s) shuddered when they thought about how lucky they were.

reply

[deleted]