this was the movie that set the Flying Saucer as the premier interstellar spaceship design. There were some good special effects, however, I think those effects pretty much blew the budget. They then had to rely on good plot, story, engaging character, script, acting skills, dialog to make this an epic film.
Where spacecraft traveling interstellar distances at superluminal speeds. Engage the enemy like WWII fighters (well Steven modeled manuveurs from that war's combat footage), larger ships engaged each other like 18th century navies. And it had flaming fireballs and thunderous explosions in the vacuum of space, yeah!
oh yes that movie when powerful computers were big and caused people to question what if computers can think for themselves. Zardoz, I never understood that movie.
I posted 2001 as that was epic film, however TQOOS would be my favorite because if I see it shown on TV I will stop and watch it, I love watching Zsa Zsa Gabor in her beautiful dresses, hair, makeup, and her figure (also love her accent). I probably would not stop and watch 2001 if on a TV channel but then difficult to see on a TV set as need the big full screen. This campy space flick is a terrible plot but lots been written about the movie from using a Von Braun space station design to re-using sets from previous movies, and all the girls wearing sexy outfits of short skirts like those of Star Trek TOS.
Because Kubrick did meticulous research from flat screen displays and glass cockpits. Also had all actors be boring just like the characters they portrayed, i.e. people that do space are not expressive like most actors (compare 2001 to 2010). Of course Kubrick missed a few things, like Pan Am no longer exist, we ignored the Moon after 1972. But then I'm old enough to remember seeing this movie in 1968 shown at Century theatres on Winchester Blvd, a time when it seemed only obvious because soon we will have men walked the surface of the Moon. And many people were around to remember reading the news of first flight of Wright Bros and Lindbergh's transatlantic flight. By the time they were retirement age, they can ride an airplane that comfortably flies across continents or oceans. Hey when I'll be their age, I can do the same with space travel. But no, still waiting to see who will walk the surface of the Moon again, still waiting for my flying car (oh wait there's roadable airplanes I cannot afford). However, we got computers to enable me to rant on the forums (can't do that with a HAL9000).
I'm also thinking what is remarkable is how someone like Korolev managed to get a good education, learn management skills, live through Stalin abuses, able to get Politburo to provide him resources... What if he died in the gulags? Did USSR have others with the engineer/manager talent but perished in purges, what if they lived?
US managed to get talent that excelled like Goddard, Ames, Glenn, Dryden (these four guys with others laid the groundwork for the space age), Von Braun, Kraft, Low, Gilruth, etc. also lots of engineers from Germany (Operation Paperclip) and Canada (cancellation of Avro Arrow and Avrocar) though lately it seems talent has become bogged down unless they have a few billion of their own to kick around (Musk, Bezos). However, as you mentioned astronauts/cosmonauts are talented, however, first need someone to build the rocket (hard as they have to battle bureaucracies, egos, do engineering tradeoffs, etc.) then find someone to ride it (easy as seen when lots of highly qualified people apply for astronaut positions).
Someone from Ukraine pointed out this guy, Mikhail Yangel, which he said was more brilliant and instrumental in Soviet rocket development programs. On subject of avoiding death before his time, a rocket prototype blew up on the pad in 1960 killing Nedelin, the Chief of the rocket forces, and nearly 100 others. Yangel was only saved because he had gone into a bunker for a smoke just before the explosion. Also from the link, "Korolev works for Tass, Chelomei works on crap, Yangel works for us." http://www.astronautix.com/y/y...
This is an interesting outline, I will print and show this to some dance instructors that know how music is assembled and get their opinion. I think another aspect is 95% of broadcast stations are owned by ClearChannel, there is no DJ as the day's program is already formatted with pre-selected songs and commercials. There was a time when FCC specified AM and FM broadcast bands had to be mix of rock, news, jazz, classical, country, etc. so entire band is not just one genre. And then there was a time of many independent stations. Old timers remember KFAT in Gilroy, CA that played all kinds of obscure country songs including records from 1930s people would find at garage sales. Station was not exactly polished operations, there were times when staff forget about the record, listeners would have to call in to tell them the record ended (and turntable kept going around and around). They also had a KFAT bumper sticker, "I Found It! and it's hard to find too." (not exactly high power transmitter).
It seems current of most TV shows are reality, infomercials, three themes of fiction (lawyers, cops, medical), and news-opinion (this being a news story breaks out and they get a few pretty talking heads to discuss implications but there really is no additional info on that breaking news story). There are cable channels for sports (don't really need writers for those) and movies (which they repeat the same movie few times a month). There is reruns of classic TV shows (no writers needed). Then there is PBS which Trump wants to defund.
I have a Mac G3 with OS9, and Mosiac! Few years ago I ran that browser and was surprised how fast some websites load up even with this G3 using dialup. I assume Mosiac has no means to interpret scripting so it does the html blinding fast. However, few weeks ago tried to run it and most websites would not come up (it seems many are heavy scripting or something besides html).
Back in the days I see some BASIC program in Byte magazine so immediately type it in and run it. I then go back and read the article of what this program is supposed to do which typically does something I don't care/know or there is something missing like Mat(A) command or some weird thing I have no idea. But now this is the 21st century where we diligently plan and do proper project management to avoid costly overruns and schedule delays (oh wait, we still to that now).
with yesterday being 100th anniversary of Woodrow Wilson declaring war on Germany, I recall an article some years ago good propaganda is formed in a way that it does not look like propaganda. On outbreak of WWI, Britain cut off communications lines from Germany so US does not get "news wires" from Germany, only from Britain. With just one side reporting, US gets news media from just one side (which Britain became good at writing articles with some facts not mentioned, others embellished) that sways US opinion. Of course sinking the Lusitania and Zimmermen letter didn't help Germany's standing with US. There's lots of other dirty laundry... ethnic cleansing was a huge driver.
Speaking of 100th anniversary of the Great War, back then the world was changing with new energy sources, technology, growing nationalism (much of world was empires but some localized areas wanted their own identity). CSPAN had an interview with president of the WWI museum, he said with social media and rise of nationalism in many countries [I'm thinking passion driven by Trump, Putin, Brexit.] is much like what happened 100 years ago. What was not expected was number of deaths in the millions which was new, even those that count casualties did not know how to tally such large numbers.
One of our guys who is ***really good*** at computer systems (networks, linux, unix, python, databases, scripting...) has a degree in biochemistry. After 4-year degree he had to get a job, any job. He had some assembly language experience so that's what got him started.
It seems to me Comcast goes out of their way to find ways to screw the customer, or do they try to be good company but profit margins take higher priority? I can understand they have to make positive revenue like all private companies but geez is there a company that I can feel good about?
If you try to make computers interesting by first burying them in complex and or difficult to understand math, I am almost certain you'll have the opposite effect.
Though very effective for training those that what to be a Navy SEAL... I think most of us started on computers by first banging out code then later learning the knowledge to make the code more effective. All young people want to first jump in on whatever subject of interest where there is action and adventure. It's those boring old guys that insist on planning and studying (and these guys did wild crazy stuff, later learned from their mistakes). I think have children do hands-on science stuff then later show understanding the math behind it. Another analogy story I heard is this guy who does lounge music with a piano, his day job is teaching piano and tuning them. I asked how did he start in music, in 1960s he wanted to be a hard rocker with an electric guitar so he got one and started jamming, and gotta have the volume up at max. He then wondered what are all those funny looking symbols, why are they arranged like that on the sheets? Eventually got to where he is now.
That period of time of Soviet space firsts defined our space program for decades, and in many ways it still does. NASA was created as a direct result of Sputnik. Apollo Program was created as a direct result of Gagarin. ISS became as a direct result of bringing Russia in as partners (US was working on space station but to make it a reality, all them post Soviet guys had to be brought onboard). etc. etc. Well it's been a half century and those achievements still influence us! i.e. SLS and Orion are Apollo 2.0. Soyuz, the only craft that can put people into space these days (please don't give me news others can do it until they actually do it) was created to beat the Americans to the Moon.
Regarding commercial space companies, they may be cheaper (a little) but pretty slow on delivery (though fast when compared to SLS, or Orion). In 2004 with SpaceShip One everyone thought suborbital flights, Virgin Galactic, will be commonplace quite soon (but still years away). Then we have SpaceX that has made some impressive capabilities but launching humans always seems to be 2 or 3 years away. Hard to know when BO will deliver, I see lots of impressive schedules but always some delay. SN Dreamchaser? Maybe putting people into space is hard, really hard, and takes armies of people to put just a few into orbit. That army costs big bucks and profit margins are very small if positive.
Would it be economically feasible? Yes they can make ISS contractor owned and operated but what would the customer base be? I'm guessing the government, or companies reimbursed by the government. There is a website "Rocketpunk" like "Steampunk" where it implies we have dreamed of space stations since the 1950s Collier Magazine series about hundreds of people in space doing various things. However, NASA ruined all that by developments where a few kg of electronics replace people to perform duties of communications, weather, and recon satellites. Von Braun plan is to build a reusable shuttle, then a space station, and with that infrastructure in place we continue outwards. But the Shuttle was cancelled and nobody cannot come up with a compelling reason to have a space station. There are reasons... which is what everyone is arguing about. Shame though after all these years and ISS will probably go the way of Mir.
kudos to the Concorde designers who still have to be topped almost 50 years after its first flight
Someone needs to make a movie about those guys. Politicians, engineers, businessmen, assemblers, aircrews etc. etc. etc. from two countries of different cultures, different languages, drive on opposite side of the road and were at war with each other for centuries until 20th century.
I was talking to an aero guy the other day, he said "remember all news about various startups wanting to build the next small business jet?" (actually don't remember) "all these companies went bankrupt." He then explained, like Boom, presents nice aerodynamic shapes and interior designs but what all these companies lack are experience in pressurized cabins. This involves structures which are not attractive like beautiful aero shapes. The pressurized cabin will underdo several cyclic loads as aircraft ascends and descends. He then went on to explain the B29 gave Boeing a good start in pressurized cabin enabling them to dominate the transport market since. He also mentioned existing biz jet companies have not done supersonic because they don't have experience with that [going more than Mach 1 involves a lot of other stuff) and not sure if investing development money will pay off.
My first question can supersonic passenger transport scale up? Obviously it never did with Concorde or Tu144. And there is still issues of fuel consumption, much higher temperatures, smaller cabin, huge development issue. And just how much time overall will it really save?
Slashdot Mirror
this was the movie that set the Flying Saucer as the premier interstellar spaceship design. There were some good special effects, however, I think those effects pretty much blew the budget. They then had to rely on good plot, story, engaging character, script, acting skills, dialog to make this an epic film.
Where spacecraft traveling interstellar distances at superluminal speeds. Engage the enemy like WWII fighters (well Steven modeled manuveurs from that war's combat footage), larger ships engaged each other like 18th century navies. And it had flaming fireballs and thunderous explosions in the vacuum of space, yeah!
oh yes that movie when powerful computers were big and caused people to question what if computers can think for themselves. Zardoz, I never understood that movie.
I posted 2001 as that was epic film, however TQOOS would be my favorite because if I see it shown on TV I will stop and watch it, I love watching Zsa Zsa Gabor in her beautiful dresses, hair, makeup, and her figure (also love her accent). I probably would not stop and watch 2001 if on a TV channel but then difficult to see on a TV set as need the big full screen. This campy space flick is a terrible plot but lots been written about the movie from using a Von Braun space station design to re-using sets from previous movies, and all the girls wearing sexy outfits of short skirts like those of Star Trek TOS.
Because Kubrick did meticulous research from flat screen displays and glass cockpits. Also had all actors be boring just like the characters they portrayed, i.e. people that do space are not expressive like most actors (compare 2001 to 2010). Of course Kubrick missed a few things, like Pan Am no longer exist, we ignored the Moon after 1972. But then I'm old enough to remember seeing this movie in 1968 shown at Century theatres on Winchester Blvd, a time when it seemed only obvious because soon we will have men walked the surface of the Moon. And many people were around to remember reading the news of first flight of Wright Bros and Lindbergh's transatlantic flight. By the time they were retirement age, they can ride an airplane that comfortably flies across continents or oceans. Hey when I'll be their age, I can do the same with space travel. But no, still waiting to see who will walk the surface of the Moon again, still waiting for my flying car (oh wait there's roadable airplanes I cannot afford). However, we got computers to enable me to rant on the forums (can't do that with a HAL9000).
I'm also thinking what is remarkable is how someone like Korolev managed to get a good education, learn management skills, live through Stalin abuses, able to get Politburo to provide him resources... What if he died in the gulags? Did USSR have others with the engineer/manager talent but perished in purges, what if they lived?
US managed to get talent that excelled like Goddard, Ames, Glenn, Dryden (these four guys with others laid the groundwork for the space age), Von Braun, Kraft, Low, Gilruth, etc. also lots of engineers from Germany (Operation Paperclip) and Canada (cancellation of Avro Arrow and Avrocar) though lately it seems talent has become bogged down unless they have a few billion of their own to kick around (Musk, Bezos). However, as you mentioned astronauts/cosmonauts are talented, however, first need someone to build the rocket (hard as they have to battle bureaucracies, egos, do engineering tradeoffs, etc.) then find someone to ride it (easy as seen when lots of highly qualified people apply for astronaut positions).
Someone from Ukraine pointed out this guy, Mikhail Yangel, which he said was more brilliant and instrumental in Soviet rocket development programs. On subject of avoiding death before his time, a rocket prototype blew up on the pad in 1960 killing Nedelin, the Chief of the rocket forces, and nearly 100 others. Yangel was only saved because he had gone into a bunker for a smoke just before the explosion. Also from the link, "Korolev works for Tass, Chelomei works on crap, Yangel works for us." http://www.astronautix.com/y/y...
you got me there. I guess I missed (and forgot) when sci-fi channel showed science fiction.
This is an interesting outline, I will print and show this to some dance instructors that know how music is assembled and get their opinion. I think another aspect is 95% of broadcast stations are owned by ClearChannel, there is no DJ as the day's program is already formatted with pre-selected songs and commercials. There was a time when FCC specified AM and FM broadcast bands had to be mix of rock, news, jazz, classical, country, etc. so entire band is not just one genre. And then there was a time of many independent stations. Old timers remember KFAT in Gilroy, CA that played all kinds of obscure country songs including records from 1930s people would find at garage sales. Station was not exactly polished operations, there were times when staff forget about the record, listeners would have to call in to tell them the record ended (and turntable kept going around and around). They also had a KFAT bumper sticker, "I Found It! and it's hard to find too." (not exactly high power transmitter).
It seems current of most TV shows are reality, infomercials, three themes of fiction (lawyers, cops, medical), and news-opinion (this being a news story breaks out and they get a few pretty talking heads to discuss implications but there really is no additional info on that breaking news story). There are cable channels for sports (don't really need writers for those) and movies (which they repeat the same movie few times a month). There is reruns of classic TV shows (no writers needed). Then there is PBS which Trump wants to defund.
I have a Mac G3 with OS9, and Mosiac! Few years ago I ran that browser and was surprised how fast some websites load up even with this G3 using dialup. I assume Mosiac has no means to interpret scripting so it does the html blinding fast. However, few weeks ago tried to run it and most websites would not come up (it seems many are heavy scripting or something besides html).
Back in the days I see some BASIC program in Byte magazine so immediately type it in and run it. I then go back and read the article of what this program is supposed to do which typically does something I don't care/know or there is something missing like Mat(A) command or some weird thing I have no idea. But now this is the 21st century where we diligently plan and do proper project management to avoid costly overruns and schedule delays (oh wait, we still to that now).
Can't we just call it what it is: propaganda?
with yesterday being 100th anniversary of Woodrow Wilson declaring war on Germany, I recall an article some years ago good propaganda is formed in a way that it does not look like propaganda. On outbreak of WWI, Britain cut off communications lines from Germany so US does not get "news wires" from Germany, only from Britain. With just one side reporting, US gets news media from just one side (which Britain became good at writing articles with some facts not mentioned, others embellished) that sways US opinion. Of course sinking the Lusitania and Zimmermen letter didn't help Germany's standing with US. There's lots of other dirty laundry... ethnic cleansing was a huge driver.
Speaking of 100th anniversary of the Great War, back then the world was changing with new energy sources, technology, growing nationalism (much of world was empires but some localized areas wanted their own identity). CSPAN had an interview with president of the WWI museum, he said with social media and rise of nationalism in many countries [I'm thinking passion driven by Trump, Putin, Brexit.] is much like what happened 100 years ago. What was not expected was number of deaths in the millions which was new, even those that count casualties did not know how to tally such large numbers.
One of our guys who is ***really good*** at computer systems (networks, linux, unix, python, databases, scripting...) has a degree in biochemistry. After 4-year degree he had to get a job, any job. He had some assembly language experience so that's what got him started.
It seems to me Comcast goes out of their way to find ways to screw the customer, or do they try to be good company but profit margins take higher priority? I can understand they have to make positive revenue like all private companies but geez is there a company that I can feel good about?
if you think that the US is a terrible country and that 50 years ago when we were putting people on the moon
Bad analogy. US was a different country back then, and had a Republican president signing document that created the EPA.
because article of “Student Loan Debt Has Nearly Tripled” was posted after this?
I seem to recall this was a Twight Zone episode.
If you try to make computers interesting by first burying them in complex and or difficult to understand math, I am almost certain you'll have the opposite effect.
Though very effective for training those that what to be a Navy SEAL... I think most of us started on computers by first banging out code then later learning the knowledge to make the code more effective. All young people want to first jump in on whatever subject of interest where there is action and adventure. It's those boring old guys that insist on planning and studying (and these guys did wild crazy stuff, later learned from their mistakes). I think have children do hands-on science stuff then later show understanding the math behind it. Another analogy story I heard is this guy who does lounge music with a piano, his day job is teaching piano and tuning them. I asked how did he start in music, in 1960s he wanted to be a hard rocker with an electric guitar so he got one and started jamming, and gotta have the volume up at max. He then wondered what are all those funny looking symbols, why are they arranged like that on the sheets? Eventually got to where he is now.
That period of time of Soviet space firsts defined our space program for decades, and in many ways it still does. NASA was created as a direct result of Sputnik. Apollo Program was created as a direct result of Gagarin. ISS became as a direct result of bringing Russia in as partners (US was working on space station but to make it a reality, all them post Soviet guys had to be brought onboard). etc. etc. Well it's been a half century and those achievements still influence us! i.e. SLS and Orion are Apollo 2.0. Soyuz, the only craft that can put people into space these days (please don't give me news others can do it until they actually do it) was created to beat the Americans to the Moon.
yeah, going OT with a silly comment but this reminded me of "The Thing with Two Heads" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
or routinely check http://nasawatch.com/ for the latest gossip.
Regarding commercial space companies, they may be cheaper (a little) but pretty slow on delivery (though fast when compared to SLS, or Orion). In 2004 with SpaceShip One everyone thought suborbital flights, Virgin Galactic, will be commonplace quite soon (but still years away). Then we have SpaceX that has made some impressive capabilities but launching humans always seems to be 2 or 3 years away. Hard to know when BO will deliver, I see lots of impressive schedules but always some delay. SN Dreamchaser? Maybe putting people into space is hard, really hard, and takes armies of people to put just a few into orbit. That army costs big bucks and profit margins are very small if positive.
Would it be economically feasible? Yes they can make ISS contractor owned and operated but what would the customer base be? I'm guessing the government, or companies reimbursed by the government. There is a website "Rocketpunk" like "Steampunk" where it implies we have dreamed of space stations since the 1950s Collier Magazine series about hundreds of people in space doing various things. However, NASA ruined all that by developments where a few kg of electronics replace people to perform duties of communications, weather, and recon satellites. Von Braun plan is to build a reusable shuttle, then a space station, and with that infrastructure in place we continue outwards. But the Shuttle was cancelled and nobody cannot come up with a compelling reason to have a space station. There are reasons... which is what everyone is arguing about. Shame though after all these years and ISS will probably go the way of Mir.
kudos to the Concorde designers who still have to be topped almost 50 years after its first flight
Someone needs to make a movie about those guys. Politicians, engineers, businessmen, assemblers, aircrews etc. etc. etc. from two countries of different cultures, different languages, drive on opposite side of the road and were at war with each other for centuries until 20th century.
I was talking to an aero guy the other day, he said "remember all news about various startups wanting to build the next small business jet?" (actually don't remember) "all these companies went bankrupt." He then explained, like Boom, presents nice aerodynamic shapes and interior designs but what all these companies lack are experience in pressurized cabins. This involves structures which are not attractive like beautiful aero shapes. The pressurized cabin will underdo several cyclic loads as aircraft ascends and descends. He then went on to explain the B29 gave Boeing a good start in pressurized cabin enabling them to dominate the transport market since. He also mentioned existing biz jet companies have not done supersonic because they don't have experience with that [going more than Mach 1 involves a lot of other stuff) and not sure if investing development money will pay off.
My first question can supersonic passenger transport scale up? Obviously it never did with Concorde or Tu144. And there is still issues of fuel consumption, much higher temperatures, smaller cabin, huge development issue. And just how much time overall will it really save?