(Sorry ABBA, Eurovision got cancelled for the first time in 64 years and this is how we repay you…)
6 Likes
Of course, If you’re willing to mix Roman and Arabic numerals, then this works:
8 Likes
New Yorker, 1986-ish(?)
16 Likes
If Donald J Trump is saying it’s wonderful it’s most likely junk.
1 Like
In the words of the great Bugs Bunny, “What a maroon!”
3 Likes
I’ll make it up by re-watching Muriel’s Wedding and Mamma Mia…
3 Likes
There’s no need to watch Mamma Mia…
Muriel’s Wedding is great 
5 Likes
Steve: “Okay, Venus?”
Venus: “Okay, indeed. Weird looking puppet-walk problem… solved!”
3 Likes
He remains the consummate real-estate agent.
My understanding is that the “rod-from-god” concept was (and remains) shelved due to launch costs, “life-expectancy”, and total program costs given the need for a >>1 rod orbiting arsenal at any given time: Using lowest $/lb estimate (to get something into the required low earth orbit) a launch cost for just one rod would be $20,000,000. Low-earth orbit means early orbit decay (“life expectancy”), so at some point rods with dangerously decaying orbits would have to be safely commanded down; don’t want them unintentionally smashing into populated areas. Then there’s in-orbit maintenance costs for the rods’ systems; we lost that with the Shuttles. For effective use as deterrence, you want a bunch of these up there at any given time… or a way of getting just what you need up there very quickly. We really don’t have the latter capability (in spite of anything Musk says).
8 Likes
My kid likes it.
3 Likes
Fair enough, then! Kids can watch whatever they want.
It’s musicals I can’t get my head round. I quite like ABBA 
4 Likes
Well yeah just launch your rod on an ICBM when you need it, or use a nuke.
20 million a rod is chump change. Like a tomahawk is already a million or two. We’re talking about the USA’s “defense” budget here. They’ll spend a hundred billion dollars developing a jet we don’t have a use-case for, while retiring the most cost effective CAS plane ever built.
12 Likes
Your point is well taken. One of the ‘features’ noted in the program (and advantaged by having hunks of metal in space) was the ability to have something already in orbit with very little time-to-target capability. As in, can’t be stopped using an anti-missile system. Any ICBM launch would be detected (as would now) and could be knocked out before it has a chance to deploy a “dumb” rod.
3 Likes
You’ve hit the nail on the head there. One of the main reasons why Gerry Anderson went with sci-fi shows with huge numbers of gadgets and vehicles is that it did minimise difficult walking shots that showed up the limitations of the medium. The experience of his first TV show, which was a Western, showed him what did and didn’t work, and all the subsequent programmes were built around those limitations.
6 Likes
12 Likes
Maybe this explains those “UFO”s? (New propulsion tech?)
1 Like
For me, it depends on the musical. As a kid, I loved Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang, and as an adult, I love Dancer in the Dark. I think my issues are with hardcore “show tunes” and Andrew Lloyd Weber.
8 Likes
