PCEngineFans.com - The PC Engine and TurboGrafx-16 Community Forum
Non-NEC Console Related Discussion => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: guyjin on February 20, 2008, 06:30:51 PM
-
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html
interesting website, but it will show you that every sci-fi you've ever loved is impossible.
-
That site looks boring.
Summary, please?
-
This is by that awesome Asian physicist dude, right? He could talk for hours, he's FASCINATING!
-
If you mean Michio Kaku, no, I don't think it is.
Anyway, what about Brazil/1984, Max Headroom, and Blade Runner? I don't see anything ruining those movies on here, and those are my favorites. Also it says, "...space pirates are highly unlikely". Not only do I disagree, but I consider that a nihilistic statement. If there are no pirates in space there might as well not even be a future.
-
If you mean Michio Kaku, no, I don't think it is.
Anyway, what about Brazil/1984, Max Headroom, and Blade Runner? I don't see anything ruining those movies on here, and those are my favorites. Also it says, "...space pirates are highly unlikely". Not only do I disagree, but I consider that a nihilistic statement. If there are no pirates in space there might as well not even be a future.
This was probably the same kind of thinking that says that there aren't any sea fairing pirates around today, which is completely untrue. Pirates are like hookers.
-
Talk about lame. Really?!? Science Fiction isn't necessarily 100% truth, whod've thunk it.
-
I do like how he uses the pic from STII TWOK to show that space is three dimensional. :mrgreen: As for space fighters not being able to turn on a dime - see the new BSG.
In the end it's just science FICTION. Hey sometimes science fiction actually influences real science.
-
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html
interesting website, but it will show you that every sci-fi you've ever loved is impossible.
I just tried to find something to that effect on that link, but there are about 67,000 pages linked from there.
In the few I visited I didn't find any kind of information that disproves anything.
-
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3at.html
common misconceptions.
-
Aha, OK.
Although most of that stuff is common sense (space is three dimensional, no sound in space, no friction in space, etc), a good portion of it is just someone's opinion on what is practical (the orientation a spaceship will fly, the size of a spaceship ("Space ships are not boats"), space ships don't have windows, etc). These things aren't impossible by any stretch of the imagination and are only "wrong" in as much as it was the author's opinion that it just wouldn't happen that way. He even proves that with some of his own comments. I can build a space ship any size and shape that I want, and fly it any direction I want. I can make the deck layout like a skyscraper (as he put it), or like the Enterprise. It doesn't matter.
At the end of the day, that article doesn't disprove anything, and doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
-
My sentiments exactly, nat. No windows, eh? Our technology must be extremely advanced, considering that the space shuttle, the ISS, Soyuz spacecraft, the Buran shuttle, and the upcoming Orion craft all have windows. He prefaces a few of his points by saying 'based on the limits of current technology', so he apparently doesn't understand that Sci-Fi is usually based in the future and shouldn't be limited by what we now know.
-
What? Space is three dimensional?????? OH Shit! EVERY SCIENCE FICTION I KNOW IS WRONG!!!!!
-
What? Space is three dimensional?????? OH Shit! EVERY SCIENCE FICTION I KNOW IS WRONG!!!!!
I do somewhat agree that sci fi doesn't illustrate the three dimensional aspect of space - that there is no upside down or right side up. It would be kinda cool to see space ships meeting in space but not on exactly the same plane or both positioned exactly so that it does actually seem like they are on the ocean. I think the Star Trek Animated Series (TAS) actually did that once.
-
If you mean Michio Kaku, no, I don't think it is.
Damn, that's who I was hoping for. :(
-
I think his point is that war ships won't have windows, which they wouldn't. Great site.
-
I think his point is that war ships won't have windows, which they wouldn't. Great site.
Space isn't an ocean, so they're not 'ships' anyway. :roll:
Pointless naming conventions aside, the reasoning behind not having windows is faulty. I'll completely ignore the radiation hurdle, as leaded glass has been available for years; and if today's spacecraft have windows, then it's nutty to think that future generations would be unable to engineer solutions to the structural challenges that windows impose.
-
I'm not really a
big Star Trek fan, but didn't the Enterprise not have any windows, just that holographic screen thing? :-k
-
There were a couple portholes here and there, but yeah, mainly the 3D holographic image screen.
-
True, though that was likely a choice made due to modeling limitations for exterior shots and the cost of additional backdrops for interior shots. By the time the Next Generation rolled around, the Enterprise was riddled with windows.
-
The article is plain wrong on many accounts, such as the following:
Far too many SF shows make the scientifically inaccurate assumption that space travel will be just like ocean travel. This is very wrong.
Wrong, Sci-fi shows do not make this assumption, it more so has to do with the constraints of early model capture processes. It is not something sci-fi shows wished to have, nor said science supports.
There is no limit on their orientation either. If you saw the Starship Enterprise approaching the Starship Intrepid and one was "upside down" with respect to another, you might think this was wrong but in reality there is nothing preventing this.
Wrong buddy, there is a system in place which prevents this, it's a computer with a background process which "syncs" the alignment of Federation vessels. This is addressed in ST:tNG or DS9, I forget which atm.
You also cannot turn on a dime. The faster the ship is moving, the wider your turns will be. Your spacecraft will NOT move like an airplane, it will act more like a heavily loaded 18-wheeler truck moving at high speed on a huge sheet of black ice.
Ever play Wing Commander? Ever see the current Battlestar? How about Macross? Babylon 5? Yes you can turn on a dime in space, as nearly any sci-fi with jet fighter like craft has opted to put manuvering thrusters all over the ship. Even Star Trek craft are covered in impulse and more conventional fusion thrusters. Any craft can be disigned to flip on itself, you just then need to thrust in the new direction.
In the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey, you may have noticed that the spacecraft Discovery was traveling to Jupiter with nary a puff coming out of the rocket motors.
This is why it makes no sense to talk about the "range" of a rocket. Any rocket not in orbit around a planet or in the Sun's gravity well has a range of infinity. In theory it can do a burn and travel to, say, the Andromeda Galaxy, it is only that it will take millions of year to get there. Instead of a rocket's range, one should talk about a rocket's delta V capacity.
Wrong again, objects in space are not in fixed locations! Objects in space are in constant motion, you are not trying to go from point A to B on a fixed line like this guy seems to think, a ship has to thrust in order to end up in the same place in space that an object will be! With the years we put between each "deep" solarsystem mission it gives us time to only launch things during optimal windows, where they can use as little thrust as possible, in a 2001 future with constant commercial space flights, each flight will use different amounts of thrust to get from object A to B (not points in space). Also, a rockets "range" is usually a description of either the atomic fuel core's life or the amount of provisions on board, not how many space miles or whatever it can clear before it runs out of fuel.
And many, many other problems exist on this page. It seems like he is trying to make himself easy arguments in many areas by using extreemly defunct atomic rockets as the subject of many arguments. Surely he doesn't actually think we would make a stealth device that using the power of atomic reactions, pretty directly, to fly through space...
-
Arwing > EVERYTHING.
-
Sorry, every sci fi you've ever known is WRONG and therefore should not be allowed to be enjoyable! The guy who wrote the web page is right! He is the go-to guy for everything about space. He may not be a rocket scientist, but he has read a few books! Therefore how could he be wrong? He has something to prove and we all need to listen!
-
Why don't you guys try arguing with HIM instead of posting here if you think he's such a f*cking moron?
-
Maybe because the thread is here and it'd be less fun to argue with him via e-mail. Should we only say positive things in a thread? Why does it bother you so much that opinions are expressed here?
-
Science-Fiction, not Science-Fact. If I wanted to bore myself with Science-Fact, I would watch the NASA channel. Oh boy ships with no lasers, HOW INTERESTING!
-
Science-Fiction, not Science-Fact. If I wanted to bore myself with Science-Fact, I would watch the NASA channel. Oh boy ships with no lasers, HOW INTERESTING!
PWNED!! :lol: ](*,) :dance:
-
It bothers me because GUYJIN was the one who said "every sci-fi you've ever loved is wrong", not the f*cking author of the article.
-
Yes I know, and I like to poke fun at that subtly as well. But the other guy's site clearly infers that. In fact the guy on the site seems to be pissed that science fiction even exists. I bet he has no personality.
-
Well GUTS, if you get mad because someone said your fictional TV show universe was wrong, what if said universe RAPED BABIES? Would you STILL justify them? PEDO!
-
Kitsunexus voted PC ENGINE FX'S NUMBER ONE MOST ANNOYING FORUM MEMBER! Congrats !! :dance:
-
It bothers me because GUYJIN was the one who said "every sci-fi you've ever loved is wrong", not the f*cking author of the article.
I was summarizing.
-
Kitsunexus voted PC ENGINE FX'S NUMBER ONE MOST ANNOYING FORUM MEMBER! Congrats !! :dance:
You're still a n00b, so shut the f*ck up.
-
dude "n00b" is the most annoying way to make your point
-
Try to keep it civil home slices, or guyjin's thread will be locked and we won't get to infuriate GUTS anymore.
-
Try to keep it civil home slices, or guyjin's thread will be locked and we won't get to infuriate GUTS anymore.
Hahaha :mrgreen: .
-
dude "n00b" is the most annoying way to make your point
I thought only n00bs used the term "n00b"? :wink:
-
I apologize, I forgot all you guys had PHDs in physics and astronomy, my bad. I always forget that people posting on message boards know everything about everything.
-
I do have a PHD. O:) Now where's yours?
-
PHD's are required to join this forum... or at least they were beginning after you signed up! **zing!!** :dance:
-
PHD's are possible where the Internet is concerned... :wink:
-
yeh i hurd u can liek buy phds off websites n shit
-
Just check your e-mail trash folder! :D :wink:
-
Just check your e-mail trash folder! Very Happy Wink
Ya!!!! I have a PhD now!! Thank you University of Southern Bolivia!! Now all of you have to call me Dr. Alpha. :mrgreen:
Sersiously though, learnin' is for nOObs.
A couple of friends of mine (who happen to be husband and wife) bought online degrees and moved to Taiwan to teach English, as we had some friends up there at the time doing that anyway. So they get to Taiwan, and decide to apply to some of the best schools in Taiwan. What happens? These schools check their credentials (because no one has tried to pull off the fake degree before :roll: ugh) and find out they're in Taiwan teaching English without the proper education. Of course the Taiwanese gov't/police are pissed and throw them out of the country. They're now in Vietnam I believe. :-k
-
Yeah, life sucks, doesn't it? :(