 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
>> But anyway, I get amused with comments about "bad acting". What exactly
>> is bad acting? Can't seem to come up with an objective criterion.
>
> Acting is bad when you notice that they are acting, ie. when it makes
I very frequently notice people acting. As I mentioned, almost all the
actors in action movies are noticeably acting. It rarely corresponds to
behavior in real life situations.
For me, it's highly subjective. If someone seems to be reciting lines,
(and it's not made clear that the character's personality should do it),
that's bad acting. Everything else is based on "fits well with the
scene", etc. I just can't be more objective.
I have no issues with people liking/disliking the acting in movies.
Arguing about it, however, seems futile. "Good" acting almost comes down
to a personal preference. Like one's taste in music.
--
DOS means never having to live hand-to-mouse
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> That was probably it (how am I supposed to remember a random number
> close to fifteen years later?)
It's been about that long for me...
--
DOS means never having to live hand-to-mouse
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Paul Fuller" <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote in message
news:47862260$1@news.povray.org...
> Perhaps you have not been subjected to LISP Gail. (Apologies in advance
> if you have).
Thankfully not.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Bad acting is where they act like actors instead of like the characters
>> they're supposed to be. It includes body language, for example. :-)
>
> And you know how the characters are *supposed* to behave?
Sure. You don't expect James Bond or Batman to flinch when someone pulls
a gun on him, do you?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I thought it was a very good movie as well; Gilliam's movies tend to
>> be quite good.
>
> Mirrormask had some amusing moments, but it was overall not as fun as
> his other movies. I have to admit the sphynxes cracked me up.
>
I didn't think that Gilliam directed Mirrormask? IMDB seems to confirm
that it was Dave McKean, but I can see how it was a similar style to
something Gilliam might do.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> I didn't think that Gilliam directed Mirrormask?
Hmmm. Now that you mention it, I think it was merely an ad where Gilliam
recommended it that made me want to see it. My bad.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:16:31 -0000, Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg>
did spake, saying:
> Warp wrote:
>> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>> But anyway, I get amused with comments about "bad acting".
>>> What exactly
>>> is bad acting? Can't seem to come up with an objective criterion.
>>
>> Acting is bad when you notice that they are acting, ie. when it makes
>
> I very frequently notice people acting. As I mentioned, almost all the
> actors in action movies are noticeably acting. It rarely corresponds to
> behavior in real life situations.
But we're not necessariy talking real-life we're talking self-contained
film universe.
> For me, it's highly subjective. If someone seems to be reciting lines,
> (and it's not made clear that the character's personality should do it),
> that's bad acting. Everything else is based on "fits well with the
> scene", etc. I just can't be more objective.
But the 'just reciting lines' is more then what is said it's all the
accompanying body language too; just watch some old (or not so old) silent
movies to see the difference. If you want some fun watch all the Star Wars
movies muted and try to work out who are the goodies who are the baddies
and what everyone's relationship is with each other.
> I have no issues with people liking/disliking the acting in movies.
> Arguing about it, however, seems futile. "Good" acting almost comes down
> to a personal preference. Like one's taste in music.
But what else have you got to measure it by? If 90% of the audience say
"Wow that acting was bad" how can you say "Well that's only your
subjective opinon"?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Perhaps you have not been subjected to LISP Gail. (Apologies in advance
> if you have).
>
> Two of the fundamental operations are taking the head item of a list
> using CAR and taking the remainder of the list using CDR.
In Haskell, we just call these "head" and "tail"... ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> Perhaps you have not been subjected to LISP Gail. (Apologies in
>> advance if you have).
>>
>> Two of the fundamental operations are taking the head item of a list
>> using CAR and taking the remainder of the list using CDR.
>
> In Haskell, we just call these "head" and "tail"... ;-)
>
Well that's just crazy :)
Actually some LISP implementations have 'first' and 'rest' for the same
reason - to make it easy for chardonnay quaffing pinko tree-hugging
clueless newbs who wouldn't recognise an assembly mnemonic without it
being colour syntax highlighted in 24-point consolas font and given
bubble help.
One nice thing in LISP is that there are forms like caadr as shorthand
for (car (car (cdr ...))).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Paul Fuller" <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote in message
news:478752be$1@news.povray.org...
> Invisible wrote:
> >> Perhaps you have not been subjected to LISP Gail. (Apologies in
> >> advance if you have).
> >>
> >> Two of the fundamental operations are taking the head item of a list
> >> using CAR and taking the remainder of the list using CDR.
> >
> > In Haskell, we just call these "head" and "tail"... ;-)
> >
> Well that's just crazy :)
>
> Actually some LISP implementations have 'first' and 'rest' for the same
> reason - to make it easy for chardonnay quaffing pinko tree-hugging
> clueless newbs who wouldn't recognise an assembly mnemonic without it
> being colour syntax highlighted in 24-point consolas font and given
> bubble help.
Hey. Don't be insulting...
*grin*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
I just rented it because it's more than 10 years since I last saw it.
It's surprisingly good, especially considering that it was made in 1968.
While not perfect, many space movies made decades later with better
movie-making technology look worse and have more physical inaccuracies.
Anyways, as for being incomprehensible... Only the last 15 minutes or
so were incomprehensibly abstract (and, according to the director,
completely on purpose), but everything before that was quite clear and
straightforward.
It would be cool to know that if Kubrick had decided to make a more
comprehensible ending (perhaps something dark), how it would have affected
the popularity of the movie.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:32:25 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I thought it was a very good movie as well; Gilliam's movies tend to be
>> quite good.
>
> Mirrormask had some amusing moments, but it was overall not as fun as
> his other movies. I have to admit the sphynxes cracked me up.
There's another one I need to see. OK, flixing all of his films just to
make sure I haven't missed any others. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:59:34 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> There is one scene in EpIII that I think transcends the normal StarWars
> feel with powerful, subtle meaning: the completely dialogue-free scene
> where Anakin and Padme are in separate locations across the Capital,
> each looking toward where they know the other must be and each thinking
> about the other. It's just before Anakin makes the decision that pushes
> him past the point of no return - to go to Palpatine's office when Windu
> tries to arrest him. It might just be me, but I really like that scene.
No, I think that scene worked - ironically, the scenes that worked the
best in 1-3 were the ones where nobody talked. There's some good
cinematography there, no doubt.
That wasn't the case in eps 4-6, though - the characters didn't feel so
wooden in 4-6.
>> I guess it's fair to say that going into ep1 I had no expectations, but
>> then I was confronted with Jar Jar, and I just wanted to hit something
>> Lucas-like.
>
> Jar Jar was annoying, but I didn't think EpI was as bad as everyone else
> thinks. I absolutely love the podrace, even if they did use F1 car sound
> effects when they should have been using turbine engines!
The podrace was probably my second favourite scene there. The fight with
Darth Maul was my first, but it wasn't long enough IMO. The fact that
Ray Park was actually doing the stunts himself and there was very little
(if any) wire work made it that much better.
>> I really liked the uncut version of Blade Runner better than the
>> theatrical release specifically for this matter; RS was told he needed
>> a "clean" ending with no uncertainty, but his original vision was far,
>> far better because you just didn't know how things ended up.
>
> Which theatrical release? There have been 3! ;-) I've not seen the
> recent iteration, only the second (the original 'director's cut')... the
> ending is nicely open in that version.
Well, the original theatrical release.
>> ESB was definitely the best of the bunch - I really liked that one.
>
> Best lightsaber fight of the series. Best effects shot (for me) - when
> the Falcon escapes Bespin at full pelt with the sun peeking from behind
> the planet in the background. Best acted scene of the series - "I love
> you" - "I know". And no ewoks! ;-)
I can't disagree with any of those - though I have to admit the
lightsaber fight between Luke and Vader in Jedi was beautiful to watch
with the contrast between the dark backgrounds and the bright sabers.
And the wide shots of that fight were very good. Too much today fight
scenes are a series of close-up cutaways, and while the "action" is
faster, it doesn't feel as authentic. I wish fight scenes were more
often shot from a distance sufficient to see the combatants and the
camera was more or less stationary. With good fighters, many fight
scenes would be absolutely beautiful if they just let us watch it in one
shot.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:40:42 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Agreed. We haven't seen the second one because the first was so
>> disappointing; I'll probably flix it just to see the Silver Surfer
>> effects.
>
> I don't rate the second one very high either.
So really, probably just worth it (barely) for the effects and
rendering? That's disappointing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:26:40 -0800, Chambers wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> 2053 was decent when I read it (I think I was 15 at the time). I
>>> couldn't stomach more than a chapter or two of 3001, however (17yo
>>> when I tried to read it?).
>>
>> I must have missed out on 2053. I read 2061...
>>
>>
> That was probably it (how am I supposed to remember a random number
> close to fifteen years later?)
2^2677009:1 against.
(Name that number!)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> But we're not necessariy talking real-life we're talking self-contained
> film universe.
Fair enough, but I've found people's expectations of how people should
behave in those universes differs widely.
> But the 'just reciting lines' is more then what is said it's all the
> accompanying body language too; just watch some old (or not so old)
> silent movies to see the difference. If you want some fun watch all the
I've watched a number of old movies, including silent ones.
I see patterns in acting behavior for different eras. Some quite
different from the modern era. Yes, they had a different acting style,
but what's your point? It just means that people expected something
differently back then.
I have a colleague who used to badmouth B&W movies because they're
acting was "horrible". So I finally got sick of it and asked, "And the
acting these days is better how?". He's a smart guy. Thought about it
for a few minutes, and then retracted his statement.
And then I've seen old B&W movies from a number of other non-English
cultures. Some really, really vary from the style you saw in Hollywood
at that era.
It really is all subjective.
>> I have no issues with people liking/disliking the acting in movies.
>> Arguing about it, however, seems futile. "Good" acting almost comes down
>> to a personal preference. Like one's taste in music.
>
> But what else have you got to measure it by? If 90% of the audience say
> "Wow that acting was bad" how can you say "Well that's only your
> subjective opinon"?
Yes.
Have you never liked music that 90% of the world dislikes? Would you
change your mind and say the music is bad because they do?
Or movies?
Or books?
It seems you're trying to _define_ the quality of acting to be more or
less: Whatever the audience at the time expects...
--
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I can't disagree with any of those - though I have to admit the
> lightsaber fight between Luke and Vader in Jedi was beautiful to watch
> with the contrast between the dark backgrounds and the bright sabers.
> And the wide shots of that fight were very good. Too much today fight
> scenes are a series of close-up cutaways, and while the "action" is
> faster, it doesn't feel as authentic. I wish fight scenes were more
> often shot from a distance sufficient to see the combatants and the
> camera was more or less stationary. With good fighters, many fight
> scenes would be absolutely beautiful if they just let us watch it in one
> shot.
You've got a problem there - most actors can't do an entire fight in one
shot.
That was one of the unmentioned strengths of the second Matrix movie,
that the shots for the fight scenes were much longer than in the original.
Also, the recent version of "Pride and Prejudice" (the one with Keira
Knightley) had some rather long shots in it, with the camera moving
through various rooms and people / events / conversations coming into
and out of focus in it. In one scene in particular, I was like "That's
cool, moving the camera that way... Huh, they haven't cut yet... Wow,
this is still the same take!" It's the kind of thing you can imagine
getting all the way to the end, and someone making a dumb mistake and
ruining the whole shot, but nobody did. I was very impressed by that :)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> While not perfect, many space movies made decades later with better
> movie-making technology look worse and have more physical inaccuracies.
My physics prof had us work out the numbers for things like rotational
speed, acceleration & deceleration, etc just to prove that the movie was
physically correct.
(This is the same guy that had us build a catapult and a fort as a final
exam).
> Anyways, as for being incomprehensible... Only the last 15 minutes or
> so were incomprehensibly abstract (and, according to the director,
> completely on purpose), but everything before that was quite clear and
> straightforward.
>
> It would be cool to know that if Kubrick had decided to make a more
> comprehensible ending (perhaps something dark), how it would have affected
> the popularity of the movie.
I'd bet on more popular at first, less popular over time.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Also, the recent version of "Pride and Prejudice" (the one with Keira
> Knightley) had some rather long shots in it, with the camera moving
> through various rooms and people / events / conversations coming into
> and out of focus in it. In one scene in particular, I was like "That's
> cool, moving the camera that way... Huh, they haven't cut yet... Wow,
> this is still the same take!" It's the kind of thing you can imagine
> getting all the way to the end, and someone making a dumb mistake and
> ruining the whole shot, but nobody did. I was very impressed by that :)
I've seen a couple of movies which take the long shot to its extreme and
film the entire movie in essentially one uninterrupted shot. There's
Rope by Hitchcock and a more recent film Russian Ark. The former is a
pretty good suspense film, and the latter, while a bit dull, has
absolutely stunning camera work. I'd take a look if you're interested
in that sort of thing. Apparently Russian Ark also took only two takes
to get right, which is very impressive for a movie which is over an hour
and a half long.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> lightsaber fight between Luke and Vader in Jedi was beautiful to watch
> with the contrast between the dark backgrounds and the bright sabers.
But watching the beginning of Episode I definitely shows the difference
between a couple of lame old men and an under-trained too-old-to-start
amateur and a couple of fully-trained young jedi knights, fighting-wise. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> (This is the same guy that had us build a catapult and a fort as a final
> exam).
We had to do the things like shave the edges off a hot-wheels track and
then calculate where to start the car from to have it go around the
curve without falling off.
Or figure the angle to shoot a dart gun to hit a target several feet away.
Or calculate the speed of light, given a different charge and mass for
an electron.
Neat class.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:24:14 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> lightsaber fight between Luke and Vader in Jedi was beautiful to watch
>> with the contrast between the dark backgrounds and the bright sabers.
>
> But watching the beginning of Episode I definitely shows the difference
> between a couple of lame old men and an under-trained too-old-to-start
> amateur and a couple of fully-trained young jedi knights, fighting-wise.
> :-)
True. Wasn't Bob Anderson the weapons guy in all 6 of them?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:09:42 -0800, Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I can't disagree with any of those - though I have to admit the
>> lightsaber fight between Luke and Vader in Jedi was beautiful to watch
>> with the contrast between the dark backgrounds and the bright sabers.
>> And the wide shots of that fight were very good. Too much today fight
>> scenes are a series of close-up cutaways, and while the "action" is
>> faster, it doesn't feel as authentic. I wish fight scenes were more
>> often shot from a distance sufficient to see the combatants and the
>> camera was more or less stationary. With good fighters, many fight
>> scenes would be absolutely beautiful if they just let us watch it in
>> one shot.
>
> You've got a problem there - most actors can't do an entire fight in one
> shot.
Well, true, but even with actors who are capable of it, there aren't a
lot of long shots. Honestly, I could sit and watch Jet Li do Wu Shu
nonstop for 90 minutes, and I think he could handle it (or at least in
his prime he could have, not sure now that he's older).
But even if it was just a couple of cutaways, that'd be OK; the thing
that bothers me is the constant switching of camera angle and the fact
that many of the shots are so close you can't really tell what's going
on. It looks sloppy.
> That was one of the unmentioned strengths of the second Matrix movie,
> that the shots for the fight scenes were much longer than in the
> original.
True. That was about the only thing Matrix 2 had going for it, though; I
was very disappointed in the sequels. Technically they were stunning
nonetheless, but I think they would've worked better if Neo's final line
from the first had actually been what 2 & 3 were all about, instead of
just another big techno-war. The thing that worked for me about the
first one is that the technology supported the story. In 2 & 3, the
technology *was* the story, and 2 & 3 to an extent suffered the loss of
humanity that was present in the first one.
> Also, the recent version of "Pride and Prejudice" (the one with Keira
> Knightley) had some rather long shots in it, with the camera moving
> through various rooms and people / events / conversations coming into
> and out of focus in it. In one scene in particular, I was like "That's
> cool, moving the camera that way... Huh, they haven't cut yet... Wow,
> this is still the same take!" It's the kind of thing you can imagine
> getting all the way to the end, and someone making a dumb mistake and
> ruining the whole shot, but nobody did. I was very impressed by that :)
It is impressive when they can do that - and I for one (and my wife for
another) appreciate the difficulty of shots like that and tend to be
impressed by good cinematography.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
>
> I've seen a couple of movies which take the long shot to its extreme and
> film the entire movie in essentially one uninterrupted shot. There's
> Rope by Hitchcock and a more recent film Russian Ark. The former is a
Rope is a good movie. 9 takes, I believe. Sort of scary given that it's
based on a true story.
> pretty good suspense film, and the latter, while a bit dull, has
> absolutely stunning camera work. I'd take a look if you're interested
> in that sort of thing. Apparently Russian Ark also took only two takes
> to get right, which is very impressive for a movie which is over an hour
> and a half long.
Two takes? I haven't seen it, but I saw a trailer for it years ago. It
claimed one take.
--
FREE! FREE! One shoe shined absolutely free.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Two takes? I haven't seen it, but I saw a trailer for it years ago. It
> claimed one take.
I might be remembering incorrectly, but I recalled that something went
wrong during the first take and they had to try it again. It is one
uninterrupted shot though, and weather it took one take or two I'm still
very impressed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> I might be remembering incorrectly, but I recalled that something went
> wrong during the first take and they had to try it again. It is one
> uninterrupted shot though, and weather it took one take or two I'm still
> very impressed.
I see - I was misinterpreting the word "take". So it took two takes to
make, but the movie is one long take.
--
To be frank, I'd have to change my name.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:09:06 -0000, Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg>
did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> But we're not necessariy talking real-life we're talking self-contained
>> film universe.
>
> Fair enough, but I've found people's expectations of how people should
> behave in those universes differs widely.
>
>> But the 'just reciting lines' is more then what is said it's all the
>> accompanying body language too; just watch some old (or not so old)
>> silent movies to see the difference. If you want some fun watch all the
>
> I've watched a number of old movies, including silent ones.
>
> I see patterns in acting behavior for different eras. Some quite
> different from the modern era. Yes, they had a different acting style,
> but what's your point? It just means that people expected something
> differently back then.
>
> I have a colleague who used to badmouth B&W movies because they're
> acting was "horrible". So I finally got sick of it and asked, "And the
> acting these days is better how?". He's a smart guy. Thought about it
> for a few minutes, and then retracted his statement.
I was responding to the reciting lines bit by pointing out it's possible
to have bad acting in silent movies that by definition don't have anyone
saying anything.
> It really is all subjective.
>
>>> I have no issues with people liking/disliking the acting in movies.
>>> Arguing about it, however, seems futile. "Good" acting almost comes
>>> down
>>> to a personal preference. Like one's taste in music.
>>
>> But what else have you got to measure it by? If 90% of the audience say
>> "Wow that acting was bad" how can you say "Well that's only your
>> subjective opinon"?
>
> Yes.
>
> Have you never liked music that 90% of the world dislikes? Would you
> change your mind and say the music is bad because they do?
>
> Or movies?
>
> Or books?
>
> It seems you're trying to _define_ the quality of acting to be more or
> less: Whatever the audience at the time expects...
Indeed, however I can normally see what they're complaining about I just
didn't notice or don't care.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:25:52 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>
> I just rented it because it's more than 10 years since I last saw it.
Heh and I just watched it over the weekend
> It's surprisingly good, especially considering that it was made in 1968.
> While not perfect, many space movies made decades later with better
> movie-making technology look worse and have more physical inaccuracies.
Oh I liked the physical stuff and the interspersion between the raspy
breathing and total silence of space is something every SF film director
should take a note of, but it was the design flaws that drove me nuts. Hmm
the most likely reason to perform EVA would be to get to the engines or
dish so we'll put the pods at the front of the ship so they have to rotate
180 degrees then move around the cockpit to get there. Hard points to
attach the EVA pod to the ship so I don't need to float so far? Nah. The
ability to dock the EVA pod to the emergency door? Nah. An easy to access
emergency computer override system? Nah the 9000 series is perfect which
is why they had a Computer Malfunction alert on the hibernation pods.
Ducking through doors - just make them taller. Ladders to climb up/down
things that only allow one person at a time. Door control panels on said
ladders that are at the top/bottom of the shaft rather then next to the
door. Put the engines well out of the way along this spindly connection so
they're difficult to get to and easily severed from the rest of the ship.
Etc., etc.
> Anyways, as for being incomprehensible... Only the last 15 minutes or
> so were incomprehensibly abstract (and, according to the director,
> completely on purpose), but everything before that was quite clear and
> straightforward.
Well you do also go to a jump from radio burst on the Moon to a 18 month
later ship heading to Jupiter, which may make you go 'huh, what happened
then?'
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:47:45 -0000, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:26:40 -0800, Chambers wrote:
>
>> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>> Chambers wrote:
>>>> 2053 was decent when I read it (I think I was 15 at the time). I
>>>> couldn't stomach more than a chapter or two of 3001, however (17yo
>>>> when I tried to read it?).
>>>
>>> I must have missed out on 2053. I read 2061...
>>>
>>>
>> That was probably it (how am I supposed to remember a random number
>> close to fifteen years later?)
>
> 2^2677009:1 against.
>
> (Name that number!)
Picking up Ford and Arthur in the ship (whose name I can't recall) in
Hitchhiker's.... ?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> but it was the design flaws that drove me nuts.
There were, of course, also physical incorrectness at places. For example,
the shadowed parts of the ship were lighted by an unknown (bluish) light
source, even in interplanetary space. Stars don't light that much, and
there's obviously nothing to reflect that much light to the shadowed parts.
> > Anyways, as for being incomprehensible... Only the last 15 minutes or
> > so were incomprehensibly abstract (and, according to the director,
> > completely on purpose), but everything before that was quite clear and
> > straightforward.
> Well you do also go to a jump from radio burst on the Moon to a 18 month
> later ship heading to Jupiter, which may make you go 'huh, what happened
> then?'
Such jumps are quite a common storytelling method. I didn't find it
confusing at all.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Ducking through doors - just make them taller. Ladders to climb up/down
> things that only allow one person at a time.
we're in 2007 -- 6 years after 2001! -- and astronauts are still crawling around
constrained, small spaces in ships and the International Station...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:00:40 -0000, nemesis
<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Ducking through doors - just make them taller. Ladders to climb up/down
>> things that only allow one person at a time.
>
> we're in 2007 -- 6 years after 2001! -- and astronauts are still
> crawling around constrained, small spaces in ships and the International
> Station...
So why is that?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> And lo on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:00:40 -0000, nemesis
> <nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
>
> > "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> >> Ducking through doors - just make them taller. Ladders to climb up/down
> >> things that only allow one person at a time.
> >
> > we're in 2007 -- 6 years after 2001! -- and astronauts are still
> > crawling around constrained, small spaces in ships and the International
> > Station...
>
> So why is that?
oh, I don't know. Perhaps it has something to do with it costing millions to
build spaceships with thick and heavy materials and putting them in orbit?
ever heard the old adage: "space is money"? at least from a relativist point
of view... ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:57:37 -0000, nemesis
<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> And lo on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:00:40 -0000, nemesis
>> <nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>> > "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> >> Ducking through doors - just make them taller. Ladders to climb
>> up/down
>> >> things that only allow one person at a time.
>> >
>> > we're in 2007 -- 6 years after 2001! -- and astronauts are still
>> > crawling around constrained, small spaces in ships and the
>> International
>> > Station...
>>
>> So why is that?
>
> oh, I don't know. Perhaps it has something to do with it costing
> millions to
> build spaceships with thick and heavy materials and putting them in
> orbit?
> ever heard the old adage: "space is money"? at least from a relativist
> point
> of view... ;)
So the fact that in 2001:ASO they had a moon base that might have its own
fabrication plant... :-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:54:36 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:47:45 -0000, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:26:40 -0800, Chambers wrote:
>>
>>> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>>> Chambers wrote:
>>>>> 2053 was decent when I read it (I think I was 15 at the time). I
>>>>> couldn't stomach more than a chapter or two of 3001, however (17yo
>>>>> when I tried to read it?).
>>>>
>>>> I must have missed out on 2053. I read 2061...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That was probably it (how am I supposed to remember a random number
>>> close to fifteen years later?)
>>
>> 2^2677009:1 against.
>>
>> (Name that number!)
>
> Picking up Ford and Arthur in the ship (whose name I can't recall) in
> Hitchhiker's.... ?
Close enough; it's the odds of being picked up by a passing spaceship in
deep space within the 30 seconds it takes to asphyxiate.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> Hmm the most likely reason to perform EVA would be to get to the engines
> or dish so we'll put the pods at the front of the ship so they have to
> rotate 180 degrees then move around the cockpit to get there.
> Hard points to attach the EVA pod to the ship so I don't need to float so
> far? Nah. The ability to dock the EVA pod to the emergency door? Nah.
Except that wasn't the most likely reason to perform EVA. The EVAs were
to be performed at the destination to examine the environment. The
AE-35 unit malfunctioning was something that had a low probability of
happening (so low, in fact, that it DIDN'T happen; HAL forced the issue).
> An easy to access emergency computer override system? Nah the 9000 series
> is perfect which is why they had a Computer Malfunction alert on the
> hibernation pods.
Overriding the computer was the absolute last thing anybody was
interested in doing; Dave lobotomized HAL and had an incredibly
difficult time keeping up with doing all the stuff that HAL handled
automatically by himself, in the book.
> Ducking through doors - just make them taller. Ladders
> to climb up/down things that only allow one person at a time.
Why don't they make submarines, F-15s, heck, even trains large enough
that you can just waltz around freely? Space is at a premium in just
about any vehicle. You use as little as possible.
> Put the engines well out of the way along
> this spindly connection so they're difficult to get to and easily
> severed from the rest of the ship. Etc., etc.
Actually that one is fairly common in SF; you're using nuclear-driven
engines that spit out a lot of radiation and are experimental so you
want it as far away from your crew as possible just in case it goes boom
in more directions than the one you want.
> Well you do also go to a jump from radio burst on the Moon to a 18 month
> later ship heading to Jupiter, which may make you go 'huh, what happened
> then?'
According to the book, the ship was already being built; the TMA-1
incident a) sped up the schedule and b) augmented the mission with
additional parameters.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> Phil Cook wrote:
hey, just out of curiosity: are you brothers? The Cook brothers? :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:01:29 -0000, Tim Cook
<z99### [at] bellsouthnet> did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> Hmm the most likely reason to perform EVA would be to get to the
>> engines or dish so we'll put the pods at the front of the ship so they
>> have to rotate 180 degrees then move around the cockpit to get there.
>> Hard points to attach the EVA pod to the ship so I don't need to float
>> so far? Nah. The ability to dock the EVA pod to the emergency door? Nah.
>
>
> Except that wasn't the most likely reason to perform EVA. The EVAs were
> to be performed at the destination to examine the environment. The
> AE-35 unit malfunctioning was something that had a low probability of
> happening (so low, in fact, that it DIDN'T happen; HAL forced the issue).
So you have one facing forward and one backwards, 'Hey the EVA pod room's
damaged and we can't get in, we need to use one of the EVA pods to fix the
damage... ah"
>> An easy to access emergency computer override system? Nah the 9000
>> series is perfect which is why they had a Computer Malfunction alert on
>> the hibernation pods.
>
> Overriding the computer was the absolute last thing anybody was
> interested in doing; Dave lobotomized HAL and had an incredibly
> difficult time keeping up with doing all the stuff that HAL handled
> automatically by himself, in the book.
In the film they ponder how to cut off HAL's higher functions while
leaving the automatic systems running, that's the type of cut-off I was
thinking of.
>> Ducking through doors - just make them taller. Ladders
>> to climb up/down things that only allow one person at a time.
>
> Why don't they make submarines, F-15s, heck, even trains large enough
> that you can just waltz around freely? Space is at a premium in just
> about any vehicle. You use as little as possible.
No, it's down to weight and manoeuvrability neither of which apply to a
spacecraft. In terms of fiction take a look at the Warhammer 40k ships
http://www.wargames.co.uk/Pending/Archive/May03/odds&sods/bfgcover.jpg
>> Put the engines well out of the way along this spindly connection so
>> they're difficult to get to and easily severed from the rest of the
>> ship. Etc., etc.
>
> Actually that one is fairly common in SF; you're using nuclear-driven
> engines that spit out a lot of radiation and are experimental so you
> want it as far away from your crew as possible just in case it goes boom
> in more directions than the one you want.
So instead of dying in a big explosion you're simply stranded instead -
neat.
>> Well you do also go to a jump from radio burst on the Moon to a 18
>> month later ship heading to Jupiter, which may make you go 'huh, what
>> happened then?'
>
> According to the book, the ship was already being built; the TMA-1
> incident a) sped up the schedule and b) augmented the mission with
> additional parameters.
"According to the book" and its sequels a lot more gets explained then in
the film.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:01:29 -0000, Tim Cook
>> Why don't they make submarines, F-15s, heck, even trains large enough
>> that you can just waltz around freely? Space is at a premium in just
>> about any vehicle. You use as little as possible.
>
> No, it's down to weight and manoeuvrability neither of which apply to a
> spacecraft. In terms of fiction take a look at the Warhammer 40k ships
> http://www.wargames.co.uk/Pending/Archive/May03/odds&sods/bfgcover.jpg
Air resistance might not apply, but manueverability does. Applying a
force to different parts of the ship will stress different sections in
different ways. That's a whole lot of differences there!
Besides which, weight is out, but mass is in. So smaller is still better.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:49:42 -0000, Chambers
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:01:29 -0000, Tim Cook
>>> Why don't they make submarines, F-15s, heck, even trains large enough
>>> that you can just waltz around freely? Space is at a premium in just
>>> about any vehicle. You use as little as possible.
>> No, it's down to weight and manoeuvrability neither of which apply to
>> a spacecraft. In terms of fiction take a look at the Warhammer 40k ships
>> http://www.wargames.co.uk/Pending/Archive/May03/odds&sods/bfgcover.jpg
>
> Air resistance might not apply, but manueverability does. Applying a
> force to different parts of the ship will stress different sections in
> different ways. That's a whole lot of differences there!
Yes except what might be deemed 'travel' ships shouldn't be engaged in
high stress producing maneuvers; those are reserved for the
fighters/escorts/shuttles, which I agree need to be smaller.
> Besides which, weight is out, but mass is in. So smaller is still
> better.
No because a) although you need more oomph to get the ship moving/stopping
that's a one-off cost and b) volume doesn't directly equal mass; if I
increase the height of a room the only mass increase is in the walls and
'air'.
Create a 7 unit cubic room with walls massing 1kg per square unit (all the
same thickness). You're pumping it full of a gas that masses 0.1kg per
cubic unit. So the mass of the initial room is 328.3kg. Now increase the
height of the room by 1 unit and you get 361.2kg a ~10% increase in mass
for a ~14% gain in volume. Make it all 8*8*8 and you get a ~49% volume
increase for a ~32% mass increase.
Not that I'm saying 'Hey why not make all the rooms 300ft square' at some
point you hit overkill, what I am saying is make the rooms the size they
need to be for everyone to use them comfortably. So no ducking through
doors or having a shared up/down ladder. It serves no purpose other then
being able to use those surplus navy submarine doors.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:49:42 -0000, Chambers
> <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:
>> Air resistance might not apply, but manueverability does. Applying a
>> force to different parts of the ship will stress different sections in
>> different ways. That's a whole lot of differences there!
>
> Yes except what might be deemed 'travel' ships shouldn't be engaged in
> high stress producing maneuvers; those are reserved for the
> fighters/escorts/shuttles, which I agree need to be smaller.
>
>> Besides which, weight is out, but mass is in. So smaller is still
>> better.
>
> No because a) although you need more oomph to get the ship
> moving/stopping that's a one-off cost
It's a four-off cost.
1) Cost of materials to build a larger room
2) More fuel needed to accelerate the additional mass
3) More fuel needed to decelerate (brake)
4) More fuel needed to carry the additional fuel for 2) and 3) above.
> and b) volume doesn't directly
> equal mass; if I increase the height of a room the only mass increase is
> in the walls and 'air'.
While volume != mass, as your rooms grow in volume, the mass needed to
enclose them also grows. It's not a linear relationship, but it is there.
> Create a 7 unit cubic room with walls massing 1kg per square unit (all
> the same thickness). You're pumping it full of a gas that masses 0.1kg
> per cubic unit. So the mass of the initial room is 328.3kg. Now increase
> the height of the room by 1 unit and you get 361.2kg a ~10% increase in
> mass for a ~14% gain in volume. Make it all 8*8*8 and you get a ~49%
> volume increase for a ~32% mass increase.
But what is that 32% mass increase is not feasible? What if an
additional 10% isn't feasible? This is a government funded project,
remember, and their budget is spread over many things - not just the rec
room for the astronauts.
> Not that I'm saying 'Hey why not make all the rooms 300ft square' at
> some point you hit overkill, what I am saying is make the rooms the size
> they need to be for everyone to use them comfortably. So no ducking
And the point was that it's not reasonable to just make it as big as you
want; due to the (assumed) constraints, this is the ship that was
created. A bit cramped, yes, but it gets the job done.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:35:39 -0000, Chambers
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:49:42 -0000, Chambers
>> <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:
>>> Air resistance might not apply, but manueverability does. Applying
a
>>> force to different parts of the ship will stress different sections
in
>>> different ways. That's a whole lot of differences there!
>> Yes except what might be deemed 'travel' ships shouldn't be engaged
in
>> high stress producing maneuvers; those are reserved for the
>> fighters/escorts/shuttles, which I agree need to be smaller.
>>
>>> Besides which, weight is out, but mass is in. So smaller is still
>>> better.
>> No because a) although you need more oomph to get the ship
>> moving/stopping that's a one-off cost
>
> It's a four-off cost.
> 1) Cost of materials to build a larger room
But like mass/volume the cost is not necessarily proportional to the vol
ume
> 2) More fuel needed to accelerate the additional mass
> 3) More fuel needed to decelerate (brake)
> 4) More fuel needed to carry the additional fuel for 2) and 3) above.
Except by default the mass of the fuel has to be less then the mass that
fuel can move and as I've already shown mass and volume are not
proportionate.
>> and b) volume doesn't directly equal mass; if I increase the height o
f
>> a room the only mass increase is in the walls and 'air'.
>
> While volume != mass, as your rooms grow in volume, the mass needed
to
> enclose them also grows.
No not really if you break it down to the simplest situation which is ju
st
the one room, simply expand the room and section it. Okay the external
walls may be thicker then the internal ones, but the principal stilll
holds.
> It's not a linear relationship, but it is there.
>
>> Create a 7 unit cubic room with walls massing 1kg per square unit (al
l
>> the same thickness). You're pumping it full of a gas that masses 0.1k
g
>> per cubic unit. So the mass of the initial room is 328.3kg. Now
>> increase the height of the room by 1 unit and you get 361.2kg a ~10%
>> increase in mass for a ~14% gain in volume. Make it all 8*8*8 and you
>> get a ~49% volume increase for a ~32% mass increase.
>
> But what is that 32% mass increase is not feasible? What if an
> additional 10% isn't feasible? This is a government funded project,
> remember, and their budget is spread over many things - not just the r
ec
> room for the astronauts.
No you're conflating feasible with cost, the budget that has been set is
simply someone's guess. If you look at almost any government project fin
al
cost is always greater then initial budget, yet amazingly they've manage
d
to locate the additional funds.
Now if you were saying "But we need to make these on Earth then transpor
t
them up into space" then I'd agree that volume and mass are important.
Before anyone mentions raw materials we're discussing 2001:ASO and if
they're sending a manned spacehip out to Jupiter I'm betting they're
mining asteroids.
>> Not that I'm saying 'Hey why not make all the rooms 300ft square' at
>> some point you hit overkill, what I am saying is make the rooms the
>> size they need to be for everyone to use them comfortably. So no duck
ing
>
> And the point was that it's not reasonable to just make it as big as y
ou
> want; due to the (assumed) constraints, this is the ship that was
> created. A bit cramped, yes, but it gets the job done.
Except what I'm saying is there was no need for it to be "a bit cramped"
at all. Having a 300ft square bedroom is overkill, having a 7.5 cube
instead of a 7 cube isn't.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/16 09:28:
> Not that I'm saying 'Hey why not make all the rooms 300ft square' at
> some point you hit overkill, what I am saying is make the rooms the size
> they need to be for everyone to use them comfortably. So no ducking
> through doors or having a shared up/down ladder. It serves no purpose
> other then being able to use those surplus navy submarine doors.
>
The small doors do have a purpose: They need to be airtight when closed.
In that case, the key factor is the length of the perimeter. You need it to be
as short as possible, while still be usable as a door. Surface is also a big
factor if you may, even remotely, need to close it toward the high presure area.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may lead you to think people are laughing
WITH you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> No you're conflating feasible with cost, the budget that has been set is
> simply someone's guess. If you look at almost any government project
> final cost is always greater then initial budget, yet amazingly they've
> managed to locate the additional funds.
Only when nobody stops you from using guns or fiat money to get
additional funds. Lots of state-level programs fail in the US for lack
of budgetted funds.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:35:39 -0000, Chambers
> <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:
>> While volume != mass, as your rooms grow in volume, the mass needed to
>> enclose them also grows.
>
> No not really if you break it down to the simplest situation which is
> just the one room, simply expand the room and section it. Okay the
> external walls may be thicker then the internal ones, but the principal
> stilll holds.
?
This is like saying, "You're right, but you're still wrong." :)
Tim said, "Space is at a premium in just about any vehicle. You use as
little as possible. "
My reasoning is that addition volume means additional materials to
enclose it, and additional fuel needed to propel it. I never stated
that the relationship between volume and mass was a linear one. In fact...
>> It's not a linear relationship, but it is there.
In other words, volume and mass are related (the relationship is there),
but not in a linear way (it's not a linear relationship).
>>> Create a 7 unit cubic room with walls massing 1kg per square unit
>>> (all the same thickness). You're pumping it full of a gas that masses
>>> 0.1kg per cubic unit. So the mass of the initial room is 328.3kg. Now
>>> increase the height of the room by 1 unit and you get 361.2kg a ~10%
>>> increase in mass for a ~14% gain in volume. Make it all 8*8*8 and you
>>> get a ~49% volume increase for a ~32% mass increase.
>>
>> But what is that 32% mass increase is not feasible? What if an
>> additional 10% isn't feasible? This is a government funded project,
>> remember, and their budget is spread over many things - not just the
>> rec room for the astronauts.
>
> No you're conflating feasible with cost, the budget that has been set is
No, I'm saying "What if". The point is, you blithely point out that
additional materials are needed, and then say that the additional cost
doesn't matter, while I say that the additional cost may make a difference.
> Except what I'm saying is there was no need for it to be "a bit cramped"
> at all. Having a 300ft square bedroom is overkill, having a 7.5 cube
> instead of a 7 cube isn't.
But this room isn't the only one in the spaceship; that extra .5 cube
(?) needs to come from somewhere.
Assuming that the outer hull of the ship is fixed, and cannot be
enlarged, then it means you have to take .5 cube from another room.
Assuming that the outer hull of the ship CAN be enlarged, then we don't
need to change the size of the rooms, but we do need additional materials.
Anyway, the point is that making things bigger has a cost. It's naive
to say simply, "They should have made that bigger," without at least
examining the costs.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 03:00:21 -0000, Chambers
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:35:39 -0000, Chambers
>> <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:
>>> While volume != mass, as your rooms grow in volume, the mass needed to
>>> enclose them also grows.
>> No not really if you break it down to the simplest situation which is
>> just the one room, simply expand the room and section it. Okay the
>> external walls may be thicker then the internal ones, but the principal
>> stilll holds.
>
> ?
>
> This is like saying, "You're right, but you're still wrong." :)
Yup :-)
> Tim said, "Space is at a premium in just about any vehicle. You use as
> little as possible. "
>
> My reasoning is that addition volume means additional materials to
> enclose it, and additional fuel needed to propel it. I never stated
> that the relationship between volume and mass was a linear one. In
> fact...
>
>>> It's not a linear relationship, but it is there.
>
> In other words, volume and mass are related (the relationship is there),
> but not in a linear way (it's not a linear relationship).
Which I first pointed out and subsequently kept agreeing with.
>>>> Create a 7 unit cubic room with walls massing 1kg per square unit
>>>> (all the same thickness). You're pumping it full of a gas that masses
>>>> 0.1kg per cubic unit. So the mass of the initial room is 328.3kg. Now
>>>> increase the height of the room by 1 unit and you get 361.2kg a ~10%
>>>> increase in mass for a ~14% gain in volume. Make it all 8*8*8 and you
>>>> get a ~49% volume increase for a ~32% mass increase.
>>>
>>> But what is that 32% mass increase is not feasible? What if an
>>> additional 10% isn't feasible? This is a government funded project,
>>> remember, and their budget is spread over many things - not just the
>>> rec room for the astronauts.
>> No you're conflating feasible with cost, the budget that has been set
>> is
>
> No, I'm saying "What if". The point is, you blithely point out that
> additional materials are needed, and then say that the additional cost
> doesn't matter, while I say that the additional cost may make a
> difference.
But the start of this conversation was about the Jupiter mission in
2001:ASO. A society with a space base and moon bases. So the money is
there I didn't see them ducking through doors on the moon base so Alain's
perimeter argument seems only to apply to ships and not stationery objects.
>> Except what I'm saying is there was no need for it to be "a bit
>> cramped" at all. Having a 300ft square bedroom is overkill, having a
>> 7.5 cube instead of a 7 cube isn't.
>
> But this room isn't the only one in the spaceship; that extra .5 cube
> (?) needs to come from somewhere.
>
> Assuming that the outer hull of the ship is fixed, and cannot be
> enlarged, then it means you have to take .5 cube from another room.
>
> Assuming that the outer hull of the ship CAN be enlarged, then we don't
> need to change the size of the rooms, but we do need additional
> materials.
>
> Anyway, the point is that making things bigger has a cost. It's naive
> to say simply, "They should have made that bigger," without at least
> examining the costs.
And again you're correct in the same way I say a 300 ft room is overkill.
If you've budgeted £100bn for this ship and the cost to enlarge it is an
extra £1bn that's peanuts compared to the original budget.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> 2^2677009:1 against.
>>>
>>> (Name that number!)
>> Picking up Ford and Arthur in the ship (whose name I can't recall) in
>> Hitchhiker's.... ?
>
> Close enough; it's the odds of being picked up by a passing spaceship in
> deep space within the 30 seconds it takes to asphyxiate.
Surely that's an Islington phone number ? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:19:42 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> 2^2677009:1 against.
>>>>
>>>> (Name that number!)
>>> Picking up Ford and Arthur in the ship (whose name I can't recall) in
>>> Hitchhiker's.... ?
>>
>> Close enough; it's the odds of being picked up by a passing spaceship
>> in deep space within the 30 seconds it takes to asphyxiate.
>
> Surely that's an Islington phone number ? ;-)
It is also that, except for in the film, where the odds were changed for
some bizzare reason.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:19:42 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> 2^2677009:1 against.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Name that number!)
>>>> Picking up Ford and Arthur in the ship (whose name I can't recall) in
>>>> Hitchhiker's.... ?
>>> Close enough; it's the odds of being picked up by a passing spaceship
>>> in deep space within the 30 seconds it takes to asphyxiate.
>> Surely that's an Islington phone number ? ;-)
>
> It is also that, except for in the film, where the odds were changed for
> some bizzare reason.
Not bizarre; the area codes in London have changed several times since
1979 and the numbers were altered to produce a plausible London phone
number.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:24:06 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:19:42 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>> 2^2677009:1 against.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Name that number!)
>>>>> Picking up Ford and Arthur in the ship (whose name I can't recall)
>>>>> in Hitchhiker's.... ?
>>>> Close enough; it's the odds of being picked up by a passing spaceship
>>>> in deep space within the 30 seconds it takes to asphyxiate.
>>> Surely that's an Islington phone number ? ;-)
>>
>> It is also that, except for in the film, where the odds were changed
>> for some bizzare reason.
>
> Not bizarre; the area codes in London have changed several times since
> 1979 and the numbers were altered to produce a plausible London phone
> number.
Sure, that would make sense, except that the odds as given are somewhat
iconic - there are certain details about H2G2 that shouldn't change IMHO;
that's one of them. Other things, like the addition of entire new
scenes, however, is part of the H2G2 "culture".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
