|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Pete Lawrence wrote:
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:28:33 +0000, Jonathan Silverlight wrote: In message , Darren writes It DID seem ok. I had to laugh about Aurora Pegasi though! Now were they venting an atmosphere or just carrying a spare external one around with them? grin The fact that they mentioned it makes me wonder if you _would_ see something with that strong a magnetic field. The natural aurora is produced at a height where the atmosphere is a good vacuum, and a quick Google search told me something about SEPAC and artificial auroras. I was very impressed with Space Odyssey, and the idea of astronauts as ordinary guys who get eczema from stress. Been there :-( I only saw the last half but it looked very watchable. I have a gripe though - why, oh why, do they put the first half decent space program on at 9pm in the evening when a lot of kids, to whom it would appeal greatly, would be tucked up in bed. Guess who forgot about it? Tell me it's repeated. It's repeated, right? Please? Jim -- Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk "Brace yourself, this might make your eyes water." |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Waaaaaay too cheesy!!!!
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I was amused by the way the 'transmission' blanked out just at the
'One small step' part of the Venus landing, and I missed the Mars landing. I wonder what he actually said On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 23:39:59 GMT, "Fleetie" wrote: I liked their vision of what it'd look through Venus' soupy (~95 atm) and HOT atmosphere, and really liked their rendering of it! Wonder how much like that it'd be. Martin -- Michael 55:08:25N 6:41:48W |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Guess who forgot about it? Tell me it's repeated. It's repeated, right? Please? I'm pretty certain it's repeated on Sunday 14 Nov, 3.15pm BBC 2. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I liked their vision of what it'd look through Venus' soupy (~95 atm)
and HOT atmosphere, and really liked their rendering of it! Wonder how much like that it'd be. I found the whole "humans landing on Venus" thing preposterous - nobody would fund a mission to risk landing humans on another planet for 1 hour, then take off again after only having laid down a seismometer and check a probe from planet Earth. I suppose I need to learn how to hold my disbelief a little! Graphics were pretty good, though. Paul. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Ed @ writes:
Only thing that made me cringe was the mission control room. It had a dark, avant-garde feel to it, kind of like they had re-used sets from Cold Lazarus and other future-based drama series. Real mission control rooms have chipboard partitions, polystyrene ceiling tiles and Coke cans littering the desks, not to mention little plastic toy aliens sitting atop the monitors. :-) Erm, I think it was a real control room... http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/SEMRO81A90E_UnitedKingdom_0.html |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Jacob Nevins" wrote: Erm, I think it was a real control room... http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/SEMRO81A90E_UnitedKingdom_0.html LOL! Very European. Guess I'm just used to seeing shots of NASA control rooms... ;-) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve" wrote in message ... Waaaaaay too cheesy!!!! Nice idea to try to wrap all the technology bits into a single story, but of course no one would ever send 5 astronauts away for 6 years or whatever. It would make more sense to build smaller ships that big one seems to be dragging a lot of useless bulk around with them. Just how many landers are they carrying with them? As for the Venus lander there didn't seem to be much room for fuel? That baby would have really needed some go to punch though all that thick atmosphere. And where's Bruce Willis? Martin |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
- And on Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:59:36 +0000, it was spake thus in said in message Jim :
Guess who forgot about it? Tell me it's repeated. It's repeated, right? Please? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog...ey/index.shtml -- Nick in Northallerton www.whelan.me.uk Also nickw7coc on Yahoo Messenger & on MSN Messenger & www.skype.com ! |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Martin
wrote I think as an attempt at "Serious Science" its one of the worst things I've seen, even by the pathetic standards of the BBC. The final part sees on astronaut die from radiation sickness (in reality they'd all have died poncing around the solar system like that) oh and there's a fire to deal with as well. Oh and the crew debate as to continue or turn round and go home (presumably they just decide to engage the "warp drive" to do that then? Why do you assume it is any more of an attempt at serious science than sending someone through time to shoot "wildlife encounter" documentaries? Or any other drama programme for that matter that takes science as part of its background? Listening to the BBC science editor on News 24 last week say that he has a real hard time working with an office full of arts graduates who think science is a waste of time is it any wonder the BBC turn out such garbage? No that can be taken as an explanation as to why the BBC's science programming is declining but should not be used as an excuse to bash their extremely limited science fiction output. -- Roger 52:54:41N 01:30:05W Orion 127mm Maksutov. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lunar base and space manufacturing books for sale | Martin Bayer | Space Shuttle | 0 | May 1st 04 04:57 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |
Space Access Update #101 12/13/03 | Henry Vanderbilt | Policy | 0 | December 14th 03 05:46 AM |