The Astronaut Farmer-- Billy Bob Thornton is my new hero

[spacefire]

"[2] I can see an astronaut giving up a career for family reasons, but to save a farm? Another impausibility. "<br /><br />That's my main issue with the movie lol.<br /><br />Also, I think it would have made more sense - but be less spectacular - for him to build a Redstone rocket for a suborbital jaunt. The Redstone was nothing but a V2 on steroids, much simpler technology than the Atlas.<br />But everyone freaked out about JGs first flightin orbit, so they have to put that one in the film.<br /><br /><br />That said, I'm going to watch the film in theaters and I have already warned my SO that I will be pointing out techncal inaccuracies and snickering and acting like an annoying know it all.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

it's a movie....I think as long as the character's motivation is there, we can overlook some technical inaccuracies and turn a blind eye to logic.<br />Problem is, the motivation isn't there. No astronaut would give up the chance to go in space to save a piece of land. If they cared so much about the farm, they would have stayed there working on it their whole freaking life instead of going through years of training.<br /><br />That part renders the movie most implausible IMO rather than the technical impossiblity of him building a rocket in his barn. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[5stone10]

I yawned when I heard about this movie initially.<br />And I practically laughed out loud yesterday in the movie theatre watching the full-length trailer. <br /><br />Now if they'd incorporated some of Billy Bob's <i>Slingblade</i> themes into this movie - you might have something.<br /><br />He could have brought that slingblade into that Senate subcommittee meeting and started hacking away at some senators. Then off on a quick getaway into space on his homemade rocket.<br /><br />That's a movie folks !!

 

[JonClarke]

"Recent fare from Hollywood to include this movie called Astronaut Farmer almost makes me wish that they never attempt to tell the story of Apollo. I fear it would wind up being cynical and superficial. Apollo 13, an excellent movie, might be as close as we ever get."<br /><br />There is always <i>From the Earth to the Moon</i>. But you are right. So many good stories to tell, so many good stories to be imagined, why give us this sappy stuff?<br /><br />There must be so many good stories to do with the space program just aching to be told. <i>October Sky</i>, <i>Apollo 13</i> are great examples of what can be done. <i>Space</i> wasn't half bad either. Then there are the untold stories (at least on film) of the Russian space program. <br /><br />But the endless remakes of movies or conversion to film of comic strip characters I think shows you are right that all too often the movie industry is creatively bankrupt.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

The Right Stuff is a great movie also!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[space_tycoon]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>All fiction requires a plausible suspension of disbelief. The level of suspension varies according to genre. A greater suspension of disblief is required for a fantasy novel than a historical novel, for example. Satire and comedy can stretch the limits too.<br />However, I would argue, unless intended as a piece of period fiction, a commedy of satire, then any film that depects past present or near future spaceflight should be judged by very high standards (space fantasy films like Star Wars or Star Trek can have more latitude). <br /><br />Thus the crass and blatant errors of Mission to Mars, Armageddon, etc., I find completely unacceptable. Filsm of this type should not ignore the physical and engineering realities of space travel, nor posit inrealistic social, political, or ecvonomic circumstances. <br />Since The Astronaut Farmer appears to be a straight (as opposed to satire or comedy) set in the now, then for me it needs to meet this standard. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I don't go to the movies to be educated. And nobody should. That is the wrong place to gain solid information about anything--unless we are talking about a straight-up documentary. Even then we must decipher the filmmakers' own inherent biases and prejudices. Film should be provocative, entertaining, challenging, no matter what genre we are talking about. <br /><br />I don't know about you, but when I go to see a movie, I ask myself, "what are the filmmakers trying to achieve here?" And do they in fact achieve it. As I said earlier, I am yet to see a science fiction film that didn't contain at least a few howlers. That includes the hard-sf films.<br /><br />And you see that in other genres. For example there have been many historical films that contained several glaring inaccuracies, and yet are very satisfying from a dramatic or emotional standpoint. I don't judge a movie like <i>The Untouchables</i> based on it's attention to historica <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[space_tycoon]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What pisses me off is that perhaps the greatest story in the history of mankind's industriousness, intrepitude, and spirit has been left untold by an industry that as the years go by appears to be less and less capable of telling it in an uplifting and spectacular fashion commensurate with its sublime triumph: The story of Apollo, or at least Apollo 11. Recent fare from Hollywood to include this movie called Astronaut Farmer almost makes me wish that they never attempt to tell the story of Apollo. I fear it would wind up being cynical and superficial. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Ah, but here we are not talking about science fiction, but rather, historical drama. And it seems to me this chapter in history has been dealt with quite well, in <i>From the Earth to the Moon</i>, produced by Tom Hanks, which was critically and commercially well-received.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Apollo 13, an excellent movie, might be as close as we ever get. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>And yet many people wrote it off as jingoistic and cliche-ridden. And they did take liberties with the characters and events somewhat. Lovell was apprently not happy with some of the added friction between the crewmembers, which was apparently contrived for dramatic effect.<br /><br />And I liked <i>Field of Dreams</i>, myself. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Hi Jon, and all the others who have commented recently.<br /><br />It's tough for those of us who understand the science to deal with the "alleged reality" type of SF.<br />Back in the day of "The Day the Earth Stood Still", "Forbidden Planet", "Them" or even Star Trek and Star Wars, the "fiction" part is so far out of the real world it's easier to suspend belief.<br /><br />Space Cowboys, Amegeddon; <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> pure "science be damned" entertainment. Think Indiana Jones. Of course, I LOVED Indiana Jones!!!!<br /><br />I got yelled at by my closest critic ( <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) for verbalizing the crap in Armegeddon, but as entertainment, it was OK. Not great <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />But as stated by space_tycoon, sometimes the movie is more about what you're trying to say. That's why I loved Mission to Mars, even though the science was lousy, AND I am a frequent Face on Mars basher (as any true scientist should be). Everything was wrong, but I liked it, because, well, it made me feel good. Sometimes that is the point of a film.<br /><br />Finally, you said :<br />"On the other hand maybe I am a curmudgeon. But when speaking to the public about space I have to constantly battle the misconceptions created by films like this. So I do see their influence as malign."<br /><br />Well, I am a registered curmudgeon, so I can speak to this, and maybe give a different perspective to you.<br /><br />I also do a lot speaking to the public. It's one of my favourite (sic <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> )parts of my amateur astronomer job.<br />I look at "the battle" with misconceptions as an opportunity to share what I have learned over my many decades. If a crap movie brought them to you for enlightenment, isn't that a good thing? Most people (and kids <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) are just searching for knowledge. You have the ability to provide it.<br /><br />Sure, you get the hard headed woo-woos, but if you refute their <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[space_tycoon]

MeteorWayne;<br /><br />That is pretty much exactly how I feel about it. I really wasn't anticipating the negative responses, but hey, I guess that makes life interesting.<br /><br />I'm not a scientist, but I maintain an interest in space exploration and science fiction. And I am looking forward to this film. If nothing else, it may draw attention to the DIY space launch movement which has been underway for some time now in the United States and other countries. <br /><br />If it is successful, it may give rise to other semi-fictional movies about people like Gary Hudson, Burt Rutan and so on, and that can't be all bad. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow">I don't go to the movies to be educated. And nobody should.</font><br /><br /><br />Of course, this is incorrect. The historic movie is an entire genre with a large body of quality film, and has been since D.W. Griffith produced <i>Birth of a Nation</i>. In almost all cases, the director only has time to present a single P.O.V. - given the length of most features. Plus given perspective, one is always going to find historic inaccuracies and biases. That doesn't mean that you cannot learn some history from watching a historical based feature. It also doesn't mean that in watching the historic genre, one need blindly believe every nuance in the film.<br /><br />This was quoted in another thread, but it is pertinent here as well. Sam Fuller after producing <i>The Big Red One</i> said that the only way to truly depict war on film would be to envelope the entire theatre and all the theatre goers in pitch darkness - and that when the lights went up, one of the theatre goers would be dead. Well that pertains to just about any film attempting to depict a period of time. One is limited in how they might depict history on film, and must use creative license.<br /><br />But there are plenty of examples of film where one can learn a great deal of history. I think <i>Apollo 13</i> is a good example in the sciences. Other historically based pieces I would recommend from which one could learn a great deal of history includes: <i>Citizen Kane</i>, <i>Glory</i>, <i>A Man For All Seasons</i>, <i>Deer Hunter</i>, <i>Barry Lyndon</i>, and <i>Schindler's List</i>. These historically based films are among the best ever made.

 

[space_tycoon]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Of course, this is incorrect. The historic movie is an entire genre with a large body of quality film, and has been since D.W. Griffith produced Birth of a Nation. In almost all cases, the director only has time to present a single P.O.V. - given the length of most features. Plus given perspective, one is always going to find historic inaccuracies and biases. That doesn't mean that you cannot learn some history from watching a historical based feature. It also doesn't mean that in watching the historic genre, one need blindly believe every nuance in the film. <br /><br />This was quoted in another thread, but it is pertinent here as well. Sam Fuller after producing The Big Red One said that the only way to truly depict war on film would be to envelope the entire theatre and all the theatre goers in pitch darkness - and that when the lights went up, one of the theatre goers would be dead. Well that pertains to just about any film attempting to depict a period of time. One is limited in how they might depict history on film, and must use creative license. <br /><br />But there are plenty of examples of film where one can learn a great deal of history. I think Apollo 13 is a good example in the sciences. Other historically based pieces I would recommend from which one could learn a great deal of history includes: Citizen Kane, Glory, A Man For All Seasons, Deer Hunter, Barry Lyndon, and Schindler's List. These historically based films are among the best ever made.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Ah, yes. The same <i>Birth of a Nation</i> that depicted the Ku Klux Klan as virtuous defenders of white womanhood from the ravages of the sex-crazed Negro. And yet, we may still admire the power of the filmmakers' work, even while we acknowledge that what we are watching is not necessarily a 100% faithful representation of history.<br /><br />You may indeed learn some history from an historical film, as indeed you may learn at least so <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"I don't go to the movies to be educated. And nobody should. That is the wrong place to gain solid information about anything--unless we are talking about a straight-up documentary. Even then we must decipher the filmmakers' own inherent biases and prejudices. Film should be provocative, entertaining, challenging, no matter what genre we are talking about."<br /><br />However, film is an immensely power medium to shaping people's opinions. Far more people will see <i>The astronaut farmer</i> than will ever read a book on astronautics. It will shape the opinions and prejudices of the average person.<br /><br />While I am not saying that a film such as this should have university level astronautics, none the less I don't see it as too much to ask to expect a mediocum of plausibility. Producers of a film like this will spendf 10's of millions of the special effects, 10's of millions more on the cast. A decent script that avoids the more blantant errors and stupidities is not too much to ask. <br /><br />"The same holds true for other historical dramas, such as Gladiator, Tucker, Saving Private Ryan, JFK, Platoon etc. If these films were judged strictly on their historical accuracy, they would receive a failing grade, from historians, veterans, political leaders etc. But as cinematic creations, they are near the top. Well filmed, well acted, well written, great cinematography etc. "<br /><br />That's a mixed bag you list there. <i>JFK</i> is a prime example of a film that pushes a very perverted viewpoint in the name of entertainment. <i>Ryan</i> was widely acclaimed as highly believable. <i>Gladiator</i> had many inaccuracies but was so far removed from common experience that is probably did not matter as much.<br /><br />"I would prefer a team of experts working with him, myself. But we are talking about a guy who has spent the better part of his professional career learning to fly a far more complex vehicle, the space shuttle. A one-man orbital rocket would be slumming <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"Ah, yes. The same Birth of a Nation that depicted the Ku Klux Klan as virtuous defenders of white womanhood from the ravages of the sex-crazed Negro. And yet, we may still admire the power of the filmmakers' work, even while we acknowledge that what we are watching is not necessarily a 100% faithful representation of history. "<br /><br />So you object to the pervsion of history and humanity that was <i>Birthof a nation</i> but think that the perversion of physics, chemistry, engineering, economics etc. that is <i>The astronaut famer</i> is OK?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"look at "the battle" with misconceptions as an opportunity to share what I have learned over my many decades. If a crap movie brought them to you for enlightenment, isn't that a good thing? Most people (and kids ) are just searching for knowledge. You have the ability to provide it. "<br /><br />Of course. But it would be even better if you did not have to clear away the misconceptions created by such films first.<br /><br />Take Mission to Mars. Huge budget, a real aerospace engineer with detailed knowledge of mars missions as technical consultant. And they ignored it. The science was rubbish, the technology was rubbish. How much would it have cost them to have got the science and technology right - and get a decent script writer?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[etavaunt]

You know a lot about how to make a good, correct science and all, SUCCESSFUL movie, JonClarke, you are always telling us where the worlds most successful movie directors are going wrong, have you ever thought that YOU should write one?.<br /><br />When you do, , as well as all the other faults you will miss, please remember to miss my "FAVOURITE" fault from an action movie, you know, when the protagonist knocks out one of the henchmen, henchman drops a perfectly useful gun, but THE HERO DOESN'T PICK IT UP.<br />[groan] I always hated that.<br /><br />ACTUALLY, we all ought to COLLABORATE on a movie script!.<br /><br />We all hate it when they don't make "good" space movies, we could surely together get every last aspect perfect?.

 

[space_tycoon]

<font color="yellow">That's a mixed bag you list there. JFK is a prime example of a film that pushes a very perverted viewpoint in the name of entertainment. Ryan was widely acclaimed as highly believable. Gladiator had many inaccuracies but was so far removed from common experience that is probably did not matter as much. <br /></font><br /><br />But see, this is entirely subjective-- your particular viewpoint and interpretation. As I said, many people who are as knowledgeable about history as you are about science have sounded off against all of these movies--often with very good reason. Didn't take away from our enjoyment of these films one iota.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">No one person could build a spaceship even with all the plant to hand. It takes too many diverse skills. It's like having a shipwrecked sailor build an ocean liner. It's stupid to even portray this. </font><br /><br />An ocean liner? Come on. No comparison. Apples and oranges. Bear in mind the character takes about ten years to complete this project, btw. A lot can happen in a decade.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Just about every film where someone does something out of the ordinary. It sterotypical, unoriginal and borning. In short a true cliche.</font><br /><br />So I guess my response should be, "No it's not!" Followed by, "Yes it is!" Fine, agree to disagree.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The reality is the goverment generally tries to help people to do new and innovative things if they go about it the right way. if they don't that's there lookout. Nasty government is a movie cliche that panders to the ignorance and prejudice of the public. An innovative and creative movie would approach it differently. </font><br /><br />Well I admire your great faith in government. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> The experience of most tax-paying citizens is rather different. Many of us have come to view the government as a many-headed hydra of bureau <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[space_tycoon]

<font color="yellow">So you object to the pervsion of history and humanity that was Birthof a nation but think that the perversion of physics, chemistry, engineering, economics etc. that is The astronaut famer is OK? </font><br /><br />Again, it all depends on what the filmmakers are trying to achieve. It's a team effort-- the writers, actors, cinematographers, composers etc are the ones who determine the final outcome. <br /><br />Roger Ebert wrote that in filmmaking, content is neutral. That is to say, two different filmmakers can be given the same screenplay and make two very different movies. <br /><br />Director A could be given the script for say, The Accused, and turn it into pure sleazy exploitation cinema. <br /><br />Director B, on the other hand, would take the same script and make a film that dealt with the topic in a sensitive, heartfelt way. <br /><br />Same content, different outcome. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[space_tycoon]

One final thought. I don't want you to think I am one who has no standards, or low standards when it comes to movies. I've sat through some real stinkers-- <i>Mission to Mars</i> is a prime example. Bad science, bad dialogue, bad story, bad music even...<br /><br />But I do look for the good in every movie I see. There usually is at least some. <i>M2M</i> had some great effects, for example.<br /><br />But to me, the first thing I look for in a good science fiction film is usually not strict fidelity to established science, technology, economics etc. I can't repeat it enough-- <b>is it a good movie or not?</b><br /><br />I'll let you know next week. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[etavaunt]

Bear in mind the character takes about ten years to complete this project, btw. A lot can happen in a decade. <br /><br />Nah. You don't knowjust HOW long projects take a man that also has a farm to run.<br /><br />Our family had a yacht, five canny handed males, and jobs to do for a living too. Yacht took 27 years to get afloat, mate. and when we DID put it into the water, it leaked a little . . well, alot, really.<br /><br />Man couldn't build himself a ship.<br /><br />Even Richard Seaton outsourced the hull of "The Skylark".<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[kermit911]

Looks GREAT. I didn't even know that this was coming out.

 

[space_tycoon]

<font color="yellow">The originator of this thread seemed to think that this movie is somehow good publicity for NASA. </font><br /><br />Uh yeah, that would be me. I said nothing about NASA. I think this movie is intended to be a dig at the near-monopoly that governments hold over manned space launches. Not to mention a dig at people who just assume that space exploration should be left to bureaucracies rather than people. <br /><br />Space is a place, not a program.<br /><br />As far as being able to handle both responsibilities at the same time, well, there are people who can handle it. We've all read about entrepreneurs who manage several businesses, often working 60 or 70 hour weeks. Or athletes who spend their off time training or studying. Or people with full time jobs building their own homes from the ground up. <br /><br />Obviously it would make more sense to have some help in such a project. But there are exceptional individuals among us who constantly redefine barriers and boundaries.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Oh yes... and good citizens of the world... if you happen to notice your neighbor building a missile in their barn, call the cops. It's apt to explode at launch, or shortly thereafter raining debris upon your head either accidentally of intentionally. You know the old maxim: What goes up must come down. And if you deduce that your neighbor actually intends to sit atop this barn-rated missile, he could certainly be charged with attempted suicide. Unfortunately, he might have to spend the rest of his life in a padded cell, but his wife could continue to persue "saving the farm" from the bankers. </font><br /><br />Bear in mind, sir, we are not talking about some hick with no education. The man is an astronaut-- we must assume he has an exhaustive education in aerospace engineering, physics, materials science, chemistry, aviation etc. We must also assume that he has logged time in fighter jets, possibly even as a military p <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"You know a lot about how to make a good, correct science and all, SUCCESSFUL movie, JonClarke, you are always telling us where the worlds most successful movie directors are going wrong, have you ever thought that YOU should write one?. "<br /><br />I can't make a movie but that does not mean I can't tell the difference between a good and a bad film, or have an opinion of what I like and dislike in one. Or anyone else for that matter.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Mr. Clarke asks: "How much would it have cost them to have got the science and technology right - and get a decent script writer?"<br /><br />My guess: any chance of reasonable market success. As much as Mr. Clarke may not want to admit it, the market obviously isn't buying what he's selling. To the extent that the market is buying space movies, it tends to focus on those that offer up dollops of human drama. The science and the rockets are props and nothing more, with no more need to actually be authentic than the bad faux Louis XV chair or table in the background. It's a prop and nothing more, to be used as the Director sees fit to use it to convey his vision of the drama.</i><br /><br />So you are saying that if a film does have a decent script writer it will <b>not</b> be a market success? That the market does not want factually believeable films?<br /><br />I doubt this very much. The success of films that have paid considerable attention to getting things right <i>Saving Private Ryan</i> indicates the opposite.<br /><br />You are right about the important part of the story being the human drama. There sacience and technology are part of that drama, as is supposed to be the case here, then they must be got right. It strengthens the human drama and makes the story more believable. Conversely, getting it wrong weakens the believability of the story for those who know better.<br /><br />And that is reason why movies with this sort of rubbish are made. The average movie goer doesn't know enough to care and the industry takes full advantage of this. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.<br /><br /><i>Nothing more, nothing less. If you read the review I linked to previously, you'll note that the movie isn't about the rocket. Plain and simple. It's a movie for your heart, not your brain. </i><br /><br />I don't buy the distinction between heart and brain, and never have. The two have to be in sync for a film to work for me. Otherwise you end up with a story that is e <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[etavaunt]

Why couldn't you. I would think ALL the directors start out with an appreciation of previous film, they don't all invent the wheel, after all.<br /><br />I was serious about us all collaborating too, surely we could write a script to please us, it could be a SDC project.

 

[JonClarke]

<i>But see, this is entirely subjective-- your particular viewpoint and interpretation. As I said, many people who are as knowledgeable about history as you are about science have sounded off against all of these movies--often with very good reason. Didn't take away from our enjoyment of these films one iota. </i><br /><br />When it comes to historical accuracy it is not subjective at all. <i>Apollo 13</i> and <i>Saving private Ryan</i> are much more historically accurate than [i[The right stuff or [U-571. This is reflected in the comments of those who know the relevant history.<br /><br />That is subjective is a person's response. It is not "we" whose enjoyment is not effected by historical inaccuracy, but "you". Others, myself included, think differently. For me, historical accuraccy (or perhaps better historical believability) is an absolutely essential ingredient.<br /><br /><i>An ocean liner? Come on. No comparison. Apples and oranges. Bear in mind the character takes about ten years to complete this project, btw. A lot can happen in a decade. </i><br /><br />It would be easier to build an ocean liner. <br /><br /><i>The experience of most tax-paying citizens is rather different. Many of us have come to view the government as a many-headed hydra of bureaucratic inefficiency and oppression, pandering to whatever special interests will keep the wheels greased.</i><br /><br />Now who is stereotyping? people will complain The reality is it is the government at its agencies who make everyday life possible. People would complain far more if there were no goverment.<br /><br />In the real world if someone started building a space launcher in their backyard the the government would have every right to be involved. Where will it be launched from? is there adequate protection of bystanders? Where will the spent stages land? How will the person be recovered from space? What propelllants are being used? Are they being transported and stored safely. When and <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>