#1
|
|||
|
|||
Worthy of survival
Here is an interesting article by our old friend Dwayne A. Day, about
Link between Science Fiction and the Space Program and his interpretation of SF impact on Space exploration, particularly Star Trek's and whether or not if the new crop of SF shows will be able to have a similar effect in the future http://www.thespacereview.com/article/716/1 Just my $0.02 Space Cadet Moon Society - St. Louis Chapter http://www.moonsociety.org/chapters/stlouis/ There is only one (maybe 2) basic core reasons for humans to go beyond LEO, That is for the establishment of space settlements or a space based civilization. Everything else are details. Gary Gray 11/9/2005 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Worthy of survival
"Space Cadet" wrote in message
ups.com... Here is an interesting article by our old friend Dwayne A. Day, about Link between Science Fiction and the Space Program and his interpretation of SF impact on Space exploration, particularly Star Trek's and whether or not if the new crop of SF shows will be able to have a similar effect in the future http://www.thespacereview.com/article/716/1 Thanks for the link...I've also wondered the same... -- Qapla' Kweeg Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal "Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun) 1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law. "So say we all!" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Worthy of survival
Kweeg wrote:
"Space Cadet" wrote in message ups.com... Here is an interesting article by our old friend Dwayne A. Day, about Link between Science Fiction and the Space Program and his interpretation of SF impact on Space exploration, particularly Star Trek's and whether or not if the new crop of SF shows will be able to have a similar effect in the future http://www.thespacereview.com/article/716/1 Thanks for the link...I've also wondered the same... The big difference between the Star Trek universe and our real universe is that the Star Trek universe assumes there is life everywhe Life forms ranging from far more primitive than our own, to far more advanced. But so far, in the real world, we haven't detected any life beyond the earth. Not even a bacterium. Without alien life forms, Star Trek would be boring as hell. There haven't been many science-fiction stories written about a lifeless universe, because it's devoid of romance and adventure. And that's why real space travel just doesn't excite people anymore. We haven't found anything out there except lifeless worlds. When Star Trek was first conceived by Roddenberry in 1964, some scientists still hoped that Mars might harbor some forms of life. Even as late as the 1980's, it was hoped that Saturn's moon Titan might harbor life also. But now we know they don't. And nobody gives a flying crap about shuttling to Low Earth Orbit to man an International Space Station. It's deep space missions to "seek out new life and new civilizations" that turn people on. If you want people to be as excited about space travel in the real world as they are about Star Trek, then we need to start planning to take a real "star trek" to actually "seek out new life, and new civilizations": Either a deep space mission, or vastly improved telescopic sensors, or vastly improved Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, or something else that will give us hope of finding life beyond the Earth. If Mars also turns out to be lifeless, it will be hard to get Americans excited even about sending humans there. Ironically, science fiction has raised the bar for the average American: Alien life is now almost taken for granted, and that's what I think that most folks to hear about: Where are the alien life forms? -- Steven D. Litvintchouk Email: Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Worthy of survival
On 2006-10-02 21:35:54 -0700, "Steven L." said:
But now we know they don't. Well, we do not *know* they don't, and there's still other candidates out there, including Europe ("Attempt no landing there..."), and the old standby being Mars - which harbors some serious hopes for there being life there, as it has seasons, it has sub-surface water, etc.. One thing I do like about the BSG universe, is that the only life within it, is our protagonists' - no funky aliens, no odd lifeforms (albeit we're about to find a sick basestar, which may be an interesting arc) Agreed on what 'turns on' people to spacetravel, and that if we find no life, there won't be much glory and glamor in going out into space. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Worthy of survival
"Steven L." wrote in message
ink.net... snip scientists still hoped that Mars might harbor some forms of life. Even as late as the 1980's, it was hoped that Saturn's moon Titan might harbor life also. But now we know they don't. snip If Mars also turns out to be lifeless, snip So which is it? -- Qapla' Kweeg Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal "Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun) 1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law. "So say we all!" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Worthy of survival
"Steven L." wrote in message ink.net... Kweeg wrote: "Space Cadet" wrote in message ups.com... Here is an interesting article by our old friend Dwayne A. Day, about Link between Science Fiction and the Space Program and his interpretation of SF impact on Space exploration, particularly Star Trek's and whether or not if the new crop of SF shows will be able to have a similar effect in the future http://www.thespacereview.com/article/716/1 Thanks for the link...I've also wondered the same... The big difference between the Star Trek universe and our real universe is that the Star Trek universe assumes there is life everywhe Life forms ranging from far more primitive than our own, to far more advanced. But so far, in the real world, we haven't detected any life beyond the earth. Not even a bacterium. Without alien life forms, Star Trek would be boring as hell. There haven't been many science-fiction stories written about a lifeless universe, because it's devoid of romance and adventure. And that's why real space travel just doesn't excite people anymore. We haven't found anything out there except lifeless worlds. When Star Trek was first conceived by Roddenberry in 1964, some scientists still hoped that Mars might harbor some forms of life. Even as late as the 1980's, it was hoped that Saturn's moon Titan might harbor life also. But now we know they don't. And nobody gives a flying crap about shuttling to Low Earth Orbit to man an International Space Station. It's deep space missions to "seek out new life and new civilizations" that turn people on. If you want people to be as excited about space travel in the real world as they are about Star Trek, then we need to start planning to take a real "star trek" to actually "seek out new life, and new civilizations": Either a deep space mission, or vastly improved telescopic sensors, or vastly improved Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, or something else that will give us hope of finding life beyond the Earth. If Mars also turns out to be lifeless, it will be hard to get Americans excited even about sending humans there. Ironically, science fiction has raised the bar for the average American: Alien life is now almost taken for granted, and that's what I think that most folks to hear about: Where are the alien life forms? -- Steven D. Litvintchouk Email: Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me. FIREFLY, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: TNS and much of Asimovian fiction would dispute the inherent boredom of a human-only universe. -- Ken from Chicago |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Worthy of survival
DaffyDuck wrote:
On 2006-10-02 21:35:54 -0700, "Steven L." said: But now we know they don't. Well, we do not *know* they don't, and there's still other candidates out there, including Europe ("Attempt no landing there..."), and the old standby being Mars - which harbors some serious hopes for there being life there, as it has seasons, it has sub-surface water, etc.. One thing I do like about the BSG universe, is that the only life within it, is our protagonists' - no funky aliens, no odd lifeforms (albeit we're about to find a sick basestar, which may be an interesting arc) Agreed on what 'turns on' people to spacetravel, and that if we find no life, there won't be much glory and glamor in going out into space. Do you really think that people watching the daily life of any colony in history was particularly interesting? Most people just went about their lives in the same daily fashion they did back wherever they came from. From a 400 year separation from Jamestown, we read about all the historical events that occurred there. Grand events of seemingly major implications, but look closer.. Landing in May. They build a fort halfheartedly to start with. Sail around a bit. Plant some crops. People start dying a couple months later. There is an attack. For every historical event, there are months of drudgery and daily chores to wade through. The *idea* of colonization was the glory and glamor. The actual work was the same boring blue collar stuff that is most people's lives. 99.9% of the people of England did not immigrate to the colonies and a largish fraction of those whose did were not exactly going for the glory and glamor. Maybe it is time to quit thinking of space colonization as some mainstream thing and start considering it is the same sort of niche market as pretty much every single activity out there. People talk about the popularity of certain activities (say NASCAR, for instance) and yet when you look at the numbers of people interested in it, you find that 9 out of 10 people in America have zero interest in NASCAR. People will go into space because of their own reasons. I think the newer crop (Firefly and BSG) are very good in that they are reflective of the times as was TOS. But, in this one important way, I think Dwayne errs. People who want to go into space want to go into space. That is irrespective of whatever entertainment there is. TOS occurred at a time when space travel was mainstream news. It tapped into that wave. It was part of the fabric. B5 and BSG are operating in a time when space is *not* really mainstream news any longer. There is no great sense of wonder at seeing people go into space. It only makes sense that the current art would reflect a workmanship relationship with space. It is moving to the point where it is shifting from dreaming about a far out future to where it is becoming with people's reach to *do* the things they are seeing. I don't think it is an accident that the major sci-fi shows currently on air now featuring space travel and the most recent shows that developed a cult following have a technological base that is barely beyond the current technical base of our society. There is a convergence here. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Worthy of survival
Bob Kolker wrote:
Steven L. wrote: If Mars also turns out to be lifeless, it will be hard to get Americans excited even about sending humans there. Ironically, science fiction has raised the bar for the average American: Alien life is now almost taken for granted, and that's what I think that most folks to hear about: Where are the alien life forms? Nowhere nearby. Almost certainly not in our solar system. But that is not sufficient reason not to go exploring. They may be other more relevent issues such as costs and payback. The Spaniards (for example) did not go a-sailing over the main just to see what was on the Other Side. They had gold and converts to Catholicism in mind. Those were the coins of their realm. The itch to travel and explore may be motivated the captains and crews, but it was potential profit and plunder that motivated the monarchs to fund them. If the tax payers are going to be mugged to fund space explorations they have every right to asked about the rewards and payback. Apart from mining the asteroid belt I can't see much plunder out there. -- Stephen Fairchild |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Worthy of survival
"Bob Kolker" wrote in message ... Ken from Chicago wrote: FIREFLY, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: TNS and much of Asimovian fiction would dispute the inherent boredom of a human-only universe. These universes are Business As Usual on a grander scale. But human struggle and failure has always been interesting. Why do newspapers sell? Because they contain bad news. Bob Kolker Newspapers sell because of classifieds--and they are dying. Movies sell because they sell entertainment, conflict, and often, happy endings. -- Ken from Chicago |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Worthy of survival
Steven L. wrote:
If Mars also turns out to be lifeless, it will be hard to get Americans excited even about sending humans there. Ironically, science fiction has raised the bar for the average American: Alien life is now almost taken for granted, and that's what I think that most folks to hear about: Where are the alien life forms? Nowhere nearby. Almost certainly not in our solar system. But that is not sufficient reason not to go exploring. They may be other more relevent issues such as costs and payback. The Spaniards (for example) did not go a-sailing over the main just to see what was on the Other Side. They had gold and converts to Catholicism in mind. Those were the coins of their realm. The itch to travel and explore may be motivated the captains and crews, but it was potential profit and plunder that motivated the monarchs to fund them. If the tax payers are going to be mugged to fund space explorations they have every right to asked about the rewards and payback. Bob Kolker |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
God's Science At Last! - Day of Wrath Survival Manual Available Now! | Fusioneer | Amateur Astronomy | 50 | March 9th 05 06:16 PM |
God's Science At Last! - Day of Wrath Survival Manual Available Now! | Fusioneer | SETI | 6 | March 7th 05 02:33 AM |
God's Science At Last! - Day of Wrath Survival Manual Available Now! | Fusioneer | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 6th 05 12:48 AM |
André Kuipers' diary - Part 12: Winter survival training and measuring blood pressure | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | March 12th 04 09:38 AM |
Alien Review - Survival | Darla | Misc | 136 | January 14th 04 08:33 PM |