FLM films - My Webpage

1999-11-22 00:00:00 - Timelines & Nits & Stuff ("One Small Step" spoilers) - (Bozo the Proctologist <cuerwer@juno.com>)


Robert Hutchinson doth write thus: S P O I L E R S P A C E T H E F I N A L F R O N T- Oh, wait, that's that other show....... Vader47000 wrote: > >> Is this another example of Voyager Retconning? I think so. It's another >> problem I have with the show. The writers, led by Braga, have no problem taking >> Trek history and ignoring it, when they're not screwing up what has already >> been said (the Bokai reference). At least DS9 mentioned the Eugenics wars. >> Voyager was at the time they were supposed to take place (1996) and couldn't >> even muster a throwaway line! > >And I'm glad. A throwaway line says "We know this happened, but we're kinda >sorta ignoring it," which I think is worse than just leaving the entire >thing unmentioned and going on with the story, leaving the fans to make >up theories about what *really* happened. :) As if we wouldn't make stuff up anyway. <G> >> As to the timing of the Mars mission at 2032. Well, that seems logical in >> 1999. Unfortunately, Trek has already established a timeline of space travel. >> TOS established a mission to Titan, a moon of Saturn, at the turn of the >> century, around 2006. A mission to Mars under this timeline would presumably be >> in the 1990s. >> At least they didn't say Kelly wasn't part of the FIRST mission. > >Your last sentence tends to eliminate the concerns of the two paragraphs >before it. We saw what was probably, at least, the fourth manned Mars mission. The Trek timeline already includes events (Orbiting nuclear weapons platforms, the Eugenics Wars, etc.) that were supposed to have happened already; Trek history is ALREADY diverging from ours, and will only continue to do so. At least tricorder scans show no sign of the Anti-Monitor. >> But as to how the mission played out, the logic just isn't there. This is >> typical of Voyager. >> This is the second time I've seen a Mars mission with only 3 people (also seen >> in Species 2). The logic here is that Mars mission will follow the Moon mission >> format (1 orbiter with 2 person landing crew, for a total crew of 3). >> Unfortunately, this isn't practical. >> For one, a mission to Mars would take MONTHS. Months there, months on the >> surface, months back. I don't know why NASA or anyone would just send 3 people >> for one mission. > >Wait a second ... earlier, you were talking about how Star Trek has already >established "contemporary" advancements in space exploration. But now, you're >criticizing this part of the story because of limitations we have in the >real world? *confused* Didn't someone say that a rescue ship for the astronauts stranded on Mars got there in weeks? It's not impossible that a heavy-duty research push might produce propulsion tech that could do that in the next thirty years, but there's no sign of anything remotely that ambitious right now. Damn it. >> It seems to me to make more sense to send a multipurpose ship, with a large >> crew contingent, capable of multiple landings in a single mission. > >I may be misunderstanding history, but I've always thought that it would've >made more sense to hold back on making moon shots until we were able to >be better equipped for such missions. But we didn't ... > >(Let me re-emphasize that I don't know *that* much about the moon >missions, so have mercy in your replies.) There were political/military considerations that pushed us into the Apollo program with relatively primitive technology. It was white-washed by an elaborate "plan" which made Apollo the first stage of developing space stations and a moonbase, but once the real objectives were met, not only were the later stages cancelled, but the last four flights of the Apollo program were, too. If we had kept pushing at the rate we did for Project Apollo for the last thirty years...... Oh well. <sigh> >> As for the crew being stranded on the surface for weeks until a rescue ship >> arrives? Interesting statement that makes me curious as to Earth's space >> technology at the time. > >I missed it if it was there, but I believe another review I read last night >said that the Ar(i)es 4 was mentioned to have some type of ion drive. This >bit of dialogue also opposes your earlier assertion that it should take them >months to travel to Mars. Actually no, it doesn't. The appeal of ion drives (in the real world) is that while the thrust is relatively weak, they can keep it up for very long periods of time. IIRC, Deep Space One's engine produces a fraction of an ounce of thrust- but it can keep firing it for months on end, which over time gives it the edge over conventional chemical rockets, which can deliver tons of thrust- but only for a few minutes. Even if Aries 4 had an ion engine, that alone wouldn't say anything about its thrust/acceleration. >> But all this talk about history really set me off. It is obvious Voyager's >> writers like to write about their characters understanding history when the >> writers themselves do not. >> "Armstrong and Glenn were the real pioneers?" Please. If Chakotay and Paris >> were the history buffs they claim to be, they would single out Jack Schmitt, >> the first scientist astronaut, as a pioneer. He is more the embodiment of >> Starfleet than Glenn or Armstrong, who were just pilots doing a job their >> supervisors told them to do (I know that is overly simplifying things but I >> don't have time for a disertation). > >Sheesh, it was a single line. If Chakotay had said "Schmitt was the real >pioneer," millions of viewers would be going "Huh?" Does the name Yuri Gagarin ring any bells? >> I liked the ending a lot. It almost covered up for the rest of this mess. > >I also liked the ending very much. My main problem with the episode was the >rather thin and sometimes annoying way they went about getting Seven onto >the ship. Once they got there, the quality notched up several levels. True, the end could have been the capstone to a great ep, if the parts that led up to the end didn't SUCK like the cold hard vacuum of space itself. The trouble with having all the good parts at the end is that I remember how they GOT there. No matter how much I drink. He-Who-Wishes-The-Reset-Button-Let-Seven-Keep-Some-Of-Her-Occasional-Huma n-Insights Michael Jackson's bumper sticker: "HAVE I HUGGED YOUR KID TODAY?" ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

1999-11-22 00:00:00 - Re: Timelines & Nits & Stuff ("One Small Step" spoilers) - (Robert Hutchinson <servoid@hotmail.com>)


Bozo the Proctologist wrote: > > Robert Hutchinson doth write thus: > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > S > > P > > A > > C > > E > > T > > H > > E > > F > > I > > N > > A > > L > > F > > R > > O > > N > > T- > > Oh, wait, that's that other show....... > > Vader47000 wrote: <big big snip> > >> As for the crew being stranded on the surface for weeks until > >> a rescue ship arrives? Interesting statement that makes me curious > >> as to Earth's space technology at the time. > > > >I missed it if it was there, but I believe another review I read last > >night said that the Ar(i)es 4 was mentioned to have some type of ion drive. > >This bit of dialogue also opposes your earlier assertion that it should take > >them months to travel to Mars. > > Actually no, it doesn't. <snip> I was afraid I was too muddled with this ... the "bit of dialogue" I meant was how it took weeks for rescue to come, not how they used an ion drive. He was saying that sending 3 people was silly because missions would take months; I was pointing out that, nit or not, it was established that missions probably didn't take months, but rather weeks. > >Sheesh, it was a single line. If Chakotay had said "Schmitt was the real > >pioneer," millions of viewers would be going "Huh?" > > Does the name Yuri Gagarin ring any bells? Yes. Gagarin isn't Schmitt, though. :) Robert Hutchinson

1999-11-22 00:00:00 - Re: Timelines & Nits & Stuff ("One Small Step" spoilers) - (Granular <mcgasper@NOSPAMexecpc.com>)


Bozo the Proctologist wrote: > > Robert Hutchinson doth write thus: > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > S > > P > > A > > C > > E > > T > > H > > E > > F > > I > > N > > A > > L > > F > > R > > O > > N > > T- > > Oh, wait, that's that other show....... > > The Trek timeline already includes events (Orbiting nuclear weapons > platforms, the Eugenics Wars, etc.) that were supposed to have happened > already; Trek history is ALREADY diverging from ours, and will only > continue to do so. Unfortunately, TPTB feel that their audience couldn't grasp the notion that their universes diverged from each other after 1970. > There were political/military considerations that pushed us into the > Apollo program with relatively primitive technology. It was white-washed > by an elaborate "plan" which made Apollo the first stage of developing > space stations and a moonbase, but once the real objectives were met, not > only were the later stages cancelled, but the last four flights of the > Apollo program were, too. > > If we had kept pushing at the rate we did for Project Apollo for the last > thirty years...... ...We'd be just about to discover our first monolith... -- Granular ------------------------------ "Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball."

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Timelines & Nits & Stuff ("One Small Step" spoilers) - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man----->If I had been Neil Armstrong, the first words spoken on the moon would have been: "It's cheese. It's really cheese!" On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 03:38:38 GMT, Brian Barjenbruch <brianb1@home.com> wrote: |Apparently, the crew of Apollo 8 were going to say something like that |("Houston, we have picked up what looks like a large black monolith on |the Moon...") but gave up on that. Pity...if I had been Frank Borman I |would have said that. :)