In the meantime, Russia works for few decades on a sustainable (vs. crash projects in the style of Apollo) means of deep space travel. BTW, ISS is a part of that work...
Heck, they have few decades of experience operating a manned spacecraft essentially capable of beyond-LEO operation (have $100 million? Get yourself a ride around the Moon - those are people behind almost all "orbital tourists"), a spacecraft which was the first to carry a macroscopic life beyond LEO (...around the Moon) and back, as Zond.
The technology which allowed them early lead in space was probably also largely a consequence of geopolitical reality and established US lead, in other field - huge bomber force. With "bomber gap" being just a myth, jumping on the next step was only reasonable for something perceived very much as a defense - so they had the first operational ICBM, R-7 Semyorka (not like "missile gap" wasn't a myth too - with just few rockets ready for launch a day later, and only if the policy of storing rockets and warheads separately was breached...). Not very good as an ICBM, not very practical. But - partly by chance, partly probably by the genius of Korolev & others involved - it turned out to be a fabulous launcher family; the most reliable... most frequently used launch vehicle in the world (and one of least expensive ones).
It launched Sputnik ; gave us the first photograph of far side of the Moon, first lunar flyby, first spacecraft reaching the escape velocity of the Earth & on circumsolar orbit; first lunar impact, soft landing + photos from the surface some time later; first flyby of another planet and atmospheric probes (well, and reaching the surface... crushed)
Also Gagarin. In fact, after Yuri, it launched every manned Soviet and Russian spacecraft (plus all "orbital tourists"). A century of service seems within its grasp (with new - yet unused - launchpad in Kourou...)
(BTW, will we ever drop the politically-motivated & quite absurd astronaut?)
And those dreams about expected modes of Mars (space, generally) travel, extrapolating (not understanding, generally) rates of early progress, turned out to be wrong. Kinda similar to dreams about flying horses, chairs, carpets, or those airplanes from "our" times (imagined during rapid advances of marine tech; and we can even build them - take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy... still a horrible idea vs. "boring" reality). It's a sign of limited imagination when people want to hear about the grandiose, fabulous, "awesome" style of exploration typical of scifi (works of fiction); when they expect something palatable, nothing too uncomfortable and alien from Earthly experiences. Bonus: it's much easier to write...
Or consider how the "spaceplanes" came to dominate scifi... around the 40s, during rapid advances of airplane tech (I can see a pattern...); how the designers and decision-makers of the Shuttle were undoubtedly raised on those works of fiction. And how they gave us an analogue of Catalina, at best (Spruce Goose, at worst); something which, again, looked very soothing to public already quite accustomed to airliners / Concorde. And which probably robbed as at least of a decade of progress; was obsolete (with automatic rendezvous & docking done in the 60s) before it seriously got onto drawing boards.
Ultimately, people will continue being upset how the space travel will most likely remain fundamentally different from earthly experiences. Afraid to face the absolutely wild realities of existing universe. In the meantime, how many even realize that we can already send people when they are miniaturized and in deep hibernation and that dozens of thousands people on Earth are past the procedure? Heck, give me one medium launcher + few dozen million bucks, and I can transport at least a thousand viable humans practically to anywhere in our system.
Furthermore, crash projects in the style of Apollo turned out to be unsustainable even for the Moon. But do you realize how much work went and still goes into eventual human deep space missions?
(and fuel efficiency determines cruise speeds, not top speed achievable during design stage / the difference in meaningless with other time sinks and considering how much more people modern airliners are able to transport; airlines often adjust the cruising speeds up or down few km/h for fuel efficiency anyway; also, were you ever close to a landing 707? That was the only aircraft I experienced that managed to be really irritatingly loud... in a center of 700k+ city (one approach to the airport at its periphery takes the planes over center, still few hundred m up))
Almost nobody can write programs. Not really more people than the number building flying models in their heyday (come on, "a jet engine in his/her basement"? How much software on the scale of, say, Excel do you know that was written by some bloke in "his/her basement"? I think you largely fall into forgetting what the past really was; which is easy and very human, considering we have greatest contact with the present and how many myths about our memory - and minds in general - we believe)
That's also likely more of an autonomous weapons carrier of the future, not really a manned vessel.
(just how airplanes sucked the brain power out of, say, trains or shipbuilding? That pesky Archimedes' law, if we only dedicated more resources, it would maybe go away by now...)
Moreover, virtually whole history of technology tells us that the real world (tm) has definite plateaus; phantasies from works of fiction rarely coming true. Short spurs of progress in a given field, interleaved with long periods of relative stability - that is almost a rule for our species.
What does happen between those spurs is how the advancements filter down to ever greater number of people. I suspect that's almost a prerequisite before the next "great steps" can happen (and still not really how people imagine them & what they wish for)
Military is also "stuck" (which is even more telling); the max speeds were set half a century ago, the average speed of human pilots maybe went somehow up - say, due to jets capable of supercruise... but that' the key thing here, "of human pilots" - because speed doesn't seem that important for the present wave of unmanned ones. And when the faster drones will show up...
Ultimately, that's just the nature of human progress in the real world (vs. wishful fantasies) - extrapolating its rate into the future never really works, virtually every technology in the history of human civilization reaches a plateau after few generations.
Considering the stopovers / relatively limited range of Concorde, the advantage of speed in really multi-hour flight is even less vs. comfy airliner. If you count also the travel time to/from the airport, checkout, etc. - even less again.
Official PR has nothing to do with it (old official myths - even less). Look at what is actually in folk beliefs, what takes the central place in people's imagination, in the public mind; "they are in a better world now" and so on (strangely nobody assumes "they" went to hell;p ). It's really easy to witness, living in one of relatively few left strongly Christian (officially at least...) EU places, where the Church still exerts absurd levels of influence.
Or just look at the best available reflection of collective perceptions, of what people expect and are comfortable with - works of culture: literature, music, theater, cinema... dominated with souls (etc.) which largely just "carry on" (at least in context - because outside of it there are also zombies;> ). Precious little (virtually... nothing, in comparison) about actual physical resurrection of the body.
Which was absolutely central for early Christianity (and presently popular perception of "souls" - heretical, mostly since it was basically typical for paganisms), at least if... official line is to be believed, the one which typically disregards folks beliefs (but then we again get into syncretism)
And yet, places which lead in overall positive societal factors have, quite universally, a rather extensive social safety nets. OTOH you wouldn't really like being a part of an average society which doesn't have them.
Prepaid is not only the rule throughout the world... for a lot of those people, the mobile is the only (& first) way to access the internet. With "smartphone" being a fluid and ultimately quite meaningless description.
And "Christian" myths were not immune to such changes during their 2 millennia. From, basically, "miraculous rebirth at some future time" early on, to the popular "little angel flying pretty much instantly to the heaven" of today. The idea of any rigor and strict continuity in approaching the afterlife (and more...) being a myth in itself.
What? Lamborghini would completely obliterate the F150 offroad:p (that, and the small subset of "road Lamborghini" shines when there's some turning involved)
That would be much worse than "native" 24p... look, it has its justification for "optimal". While generally good enough to represent motion, it also left quite a bit of time for proper exposure of frames - and you still better have one heck of a lighting. Appropriate cinematic motion blur assured it looked rather nice in the end.
Cutting out half of frames would kinda destroy the last part; and cut down the light. Which, at the state of production, would require even better equipment (digital sensors being less forgiving)... for not necessarily that much better results. Heck, one of the factors might be a wish to "cut out" the upcoming wave of indie productions from "serious" cinema; to bring the starting costs back up.
Of course, not a problem for Cameron or Jackson, seeing their budgets and how most of what they'll pump out will be CGI.
Ah yes. The mythical times when rulers were noble, costs of life reasonable and children respected their elders. Always in the youth of the storyteller, since the dawn of recorded history.
What else could I mean by "48 will play at 50"? ("...quite nicely") Living in a PAL place - I assure you, the slight speedup doesn't bother anybody (plus pitch can be shifted; and you can still do more complex pulldown if the audio is that important); it actually probably worked out quite a bit better than your 3:2 pulldown.
Well, yeah - and "2D" films are already displayed, on any decent projector, in a sort of 2x (or even 3x) fps... which also doesn't really change much & works out to basically the same fps as traditional film / do we really need to bring such details which confuse people even more?;p
The sort of blurry reality described by above wiki art and its refs, listing more than one &most simplistic cause for the effect... (which you even misunderstood if you took it as "...after it's supposed to")
That "worse" part is probably just "cultural conditioning" of sorts - while movies are practically always at 24p (and are furthermore basically the only 24p video source; typically with good cameraman & lighting), there's a lot high fps sources which aren't anywhere that good... most usual TV transmissions or horrible, horrible torture of home videos. Essentially, high framerate is typically associated with "cheap video" look.
Slashdot Mirror
In the meantime, Russia works for few decades on a sustainable (vs. crash projects in the style of Apollo) means of deep space travel. BTW, ISS is a part of that work...
... most frequently used launch vehicle in the world (and one of least expensive ones).
Heck, they have few decades of experience operating a manned spacecraft essentially capable of beyond-LEO operation (have $100 million? Get yourself a ride around the Moon - those are people behind almost all "orbital tourists"), a spacecraft which was the first to carry a macroscopic life beyond LEO (...around the Moon) and back, as Zond.
The technology which allowed them early lead in space was probably also largely a consequence of geopolitical reality and established US lead, in other field - huge bomber force. With "bomber gap" being just a myth, jumping on the next step was only reasonable for something perceived very much as a defense - so they had the first operational ICBM, R-7 Semyorka (not like "missile gap" wasn't a myth too - with just few rockets ready for launch a day later, and only if the policy of storing rockets and warheads separately was breached...). Not very good as an ICBM, not very practical. But - partly by chance, partly probably by the genius of Korolev & others involved - it turned out to be a fabulous launcher family; the most reliable
It launched Sputnik ; gave us the first photograph of far side of the Moon, first lunar flyby, first spacecraft reaching the escape velocity of the Earth & on circumsolar orbit; first lunar impact, soft landing + photos from the surface some time later; first flyby of another planet and atmospheric probes (well, and reaching the surface... crushed)
Also Gagarin. In fact, after Yuri, it launched every manned Soviet and Russian spacecraft (plus all "orbital tourists"). A century of service seems within its grasp (with new - yet unused - launchpad in Kourou...)
(BTW, will we ever drop the politically-motivated & quite absurd astronaut?)
And those dreams about expected modes of Mars (space, generally) travel, extrapolating (not understanding, generally) rates of early progress, turned out to be wrong. Kinda similar to dreams about flying horses, chairs, carpets, or those airplanes from "our" times (imagined during rapid advances of marine tech; and we can even build them - take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy... still a horrible idea vs. "boring" reality). It's a sign of limited imagination when people want to hear about the grandiose, fabulous, "awesome" style of exploration typical of scifi (works of fiction); when they expect something palatable, nothing too uncomfortable and alien from Earthly experiences. Bonus: it's much easier to write...
Or consider how the "spaceplanes" came to dominate scifi... around the 40s, during rapid advances of airplane tech (I can see a pattern...); how the designers and decision-makers of the Shuttle were undoubtedly raised on those works of fiction. And how they gave us an analogue of Catalina, at best (Spruce Goose, at worst); something which, again, looked very soothing to public already quite accustomed to airliners / Concorde. And which probably robbed as at least of a decade of progress; was obsolete (with automatic rendezvous & docking done in the 60s) before it seriously got onto drawing boards.
Ultimately, people will continue being upset how the space travel will most likely remain fundamentally different from earthly experiences. Afraid to face the absolutely wild realities of existing universe. In the meantime, how many even realize that we can already send people when they are miniaturized and in deep hibernation and that dozens of thousands people on Earth are past the procedure? Heck, give me one medium launcher + few dozen million bucks, and I can transport at least a thousand viable humans practically to anywhere in our system.
Furthermore, crash projects in the style of Apollo turned out to be unsustainable even for the Moon. But do you realize how much work went and still goes into eventual human deep space missions?
(and fuel efficiency determines cruise speeds, not top speed achievable during design stage / the difference in meaningless with other time sinks and considering how much more people modern airliners are able to transport; airlines often adjust the cruising speeds up or down few km/h for fuel efficiency anyway; also, were you ever close to a landing 707? That was the only aircraft I experienced that managed to be really irritatingly loud... in a center of 700k+ city (one approach to the airport at its periphery takes the planes over center, still few hundred m up))
Almost nobody can write programs. Not really more people than the number building flying models in their heyday (come on, "a jet engine in his/her basement"? How much software on the scale of, say, Excel do you know that was written by some bloke in "his/her basement"? I think you largely fall into forgetting what the past really was; which is easy and very human, considering we have greatest contact with the present and how many myths about our memory - and minds in general - we believe)
That's also likely more of an autonomous weapons carrier of the future, not really a manned vessel.
(just how airplanes sucked the brain power out of, say, trains or shipbuilding? That pesky Archimedes' law, if we only dedicated more resources, it would maybe go away by now...)
Moreover, virtually whole history of technology tells us that the real world (tm) has definite plateaus; phantasies from works of fiction rarely coming true. Short spurs of progress in a given field, interleaved with long periods of relative stability - that is almost a rule for our species.
What does happen between those spurs is how the advancements filter down to ever greater number of people. I suspect that's almost a prerequisite before the next "great steps" can happen (and still not really how people imagine them & what they wish for)
Military is also "stuck" (which is even more telling); the max speeds were set half a century ago, the average speed of human pilots maybe went somehow up - say, due to jets capable of supercruise... but that' the key thing here, "of human pilots" - because speed doesn't seem that important for the present wave of unmanned ones. And when the faster drones will show up...
Ultimately, that's just the nature of human progress in the real world (vs. wishful fantasies) - extrapolating its rate into the future never really works, virtually every technology in the history of human civilization reaches a plateau after few generations.
Considering the stopovers / relatively limited range of Concorde, the advantage of speed in really multi-hour flight is even less vs. comfy airliner. If you count also the travel time to/from the airport, checkout, etc. - even less again.
Official PR has nothing to do with it (old official myths - even less). Look at what is actually in folk beliefs, what takes the central place in people's imagination, in the public mind; "they are in a better world now" and so on (strangely nobody assumes "they" went to hell ;p ). It's really easy to witness, living in one of relatively few left strongly Christian (officially at least...) EU places, where the Church still exerts absurd levels of influence.
;> ). Precious little (virtually... nothing, in comparison) about actual physical resurrection of the body.
Or just look at the best available reflection of collective perceptions, of what people expect and are comfortable with - works of culture: literature, music, theater, cinema... dominated with souls (etc.) which largely just "carry on" (at least in context - because outside of it there are also zombies
Which was absolutely central for early Christianity (and presently popular perception of "souls" - heretical, mostly since it was basically typical for paganisms), at least if... official line is to be believed, the one which typically disregards folks beliefs (but then we again get into syncretism)
You sort of forgot btw2: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10461048
;) )
(unless it was just the usual Finnish-Swedish funny relations
And yet, places which lead in overall positive societal factors have, quite universally, a rather extensive social safety nets. OTOH you wouldn't really like being a part of an average society which doesn't have them.
How can you have a 'right' to live without enslaving others to provide this thing for you? (say, one provider of womb, caretakers, etc.)
Well yes, the separate frames are the point of stereoscopy...
Prepaid is not only the rule throughout the world... for a lot of those people, the mobile is the only (& first) way to access the internet. With "smartphone" being a fluid and ultimately quite meaningless description.
And "Christian" myths were not immune to such changes during their 2 millennia. From, basically, "miraculous rebirth at some future time" early on, to the popular "little angel flying pretty much instantly to the heaven" of today. The idea of any rigor and strict continuity in approaching the afterlife (and more...) being a myth in itself.
Considering how cheesy and schematic the entirety of SG1 was...
What? Lamborghini would completely obliterate the F150 offroad :p (that, and the small subset of "road Lamborghini" shines when there's some turning involved)
Depends what you mean by "album purists"?
That would be much worse than "native" 24p... look, it has its justification for "optimal". While generally good enough to represent motion, it also left quite a bit of time for proper exposure of frames - and you still better have one heck of a lighting. Appropriate cinematic motion blur assured it looked rather nice in the end.
Cutting out half of frames would kinda destroy the last part; and cut down the light. Which, at the state of production, would require even better equipment (digital sensors being less forgiving)... for not necessarily that much better results. Heck, one of the factors might be a wish to "cut out" the upcoming wave of indie productions from "serious" cinema; to bring the starting costs back up.
Of course, not a problem for Cameron or Jackson, seeing their budgets and how most of what they'll pump out will be CGI.
Ah yes. The mythical times when rulers were noble, costs of life reasonable and children respected their elders. Always in the youth of the storyteller, since the dawn of recorded history.
Read about the (solution to apparent, at first sight) twins paradox.
What else could I mean by "48 will play at 50"? ("...quite nicely") Living in a PAL place - I assure you, the slight speedup doesn't bother anybody (plus pitch can be shifted; and you can still do more complex pulldown if the audio is that important); it actually probably worked out quite a bit better than your 3:2 pulldown.
Well, yeah - and "2D" films are already displayed, on any decent projector, in a sort of 2x (or even 3x) fps... which also doesn't really change much & works out to basically the same fps as traditional film / do we really need to bring such details which confuse people even more? ;p
The sort of blurry reality described by above wiki art and its refs, listing more than one &most simplistic cause for the effect... (which you even misunderstood if you took it as "...after it's supposed to")
How, exactly, do you delineate what is an artifact of what in the case of devices used only with our visual system?
That "worse" part is probably just "cultural conditioning" of sorts - while movies are practically always at 24p (and are furthermore basically the only 24p video source; typically with good cameraman & lighting), there's a lot high fps sources which aren't anywhere that good... most usual TV transmissions or horrible, horrible torture of home videos. Essentially, high framerate is typically associated with "cheap video" look.