Author Topic: Random Speculation  (Read 2741 times)

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,733
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: Random Speculation
« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2014, 06:53:49 PM »
I also can't believe that Pat Boone got top billing over James 'God' Mason.

:harumph:

But James Mason -- there's a guy who had himself a career.  He acted opposite Margaret Lockwood a bunch of times, plus he played romantic foils for Jessica Tandy, Jennifer Jones, Judy Garland, the Nautilus, Dorothy Dandridge, Vera Miles, Ursula Andress, Lynn Redgrave, an extremely nude Helen Mirren, Gina Lollobrigida, Jane Seymour, Raquel Welch, who knows who else,
not to mention both Susan Hayward and Julie Newmar in the same film and Ava Gardner & Barbara Stanwyck & Cyd Charisse in another one.

Plus, of course, Lolita, and . . . he apparently starred in the most Freudian of the Gainsborough dramas:trance:

mo

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,757
  • Karma: +136/-55
    • x
Re: Random Speculation
« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2014, 05:02:39 PM »
Also while googling for that picture I learned Arlene Dahl went to the same high school as my mom. (about ten years earlier)

Today is Arlene Dahl movie day on TCM.

Quote
I also can't believe that Pat Boone got top billing over James 'God' Mason.

Hollywood. Pat Boone was a pushed commodity at one point. The top billing was probably paid for, or some producer was blackmailed into it, something like that.

Quote
But James Mason -- there's a guy who had himself a career.  He acted opposite Margaret Lockwood a bunch of times, plus he played romantic foils for Jessica Tandy, Jennifer Jones, Judy Garland, the Nautilus, Dorothy Dandridge, Vera Miles, Ursula Andress, Lynn Redgrave, an extremely nude Helen Mirren, Gina Lollobrigida, Jane Seymour, Raquel Welch, who knows who else,
not to mention both Susan Hayward and Julie Newmar in the same film and Ava Gardner & Barbara Stanwyck & Cyd Charisse in another one.

Plus, of course, Lolita, and . . . he apparently starred in the most Freudian of the Gainsborough dramas.  :trance:

That's a pretty impressive list. Loved his voice.
It's symbolic of our struggle against reality.

mo

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,757
  • Karma: +136/-55
    • x
Re: Random Speculation
« Reply #17 on: August 28, 2014, 05:11:57 PM »
Oh, and I don't think any of the transporters were accessible for the disabled.
It's symbolic of our struggle against reality.

pdrake

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,390
  • Karma: +22/-48
Re: Random Speculation
« Reply #18 on: August 28, 2014, 06:22:25 PM »
doot doot

you'd be surprised how much a nutsack can stretch. you have to stretch it yourself, not a woman. they don't do it quite right.

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,733
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: Random Speculation
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2014, 10:58:36 AM »
Quote
I don't think any of the transporters were accessible for the disabled.

In theory, especially by the later shows, there wasn't any need to be able to get onto the transporter pad by yourself, because transporters.  It's just that Commander O'Brien's life was pretty bad to begin with, so they had to show people using the transporter room occasionally.  (Especially once they'd spent the money building that set.)

Roddenberry didn't want for there to be disabled people in the Trek future, as he wanted future medicine to have fixed virtually everything that we typically have to deal with now.  Of course, they constantly met people who weren't part of the lovely Federation, etc, etc.

Maybe they just had a piece of plywood off to the side that they could put over the transporter stairs like a ramp, and it never came up.

mo

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,757
  • Karma: +136/-55
    • x
Re: Random Speculation
« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2014, 03:29:31 PM »
 :lol:
It's symbolic of our struggle against reality.

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,733
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: Random Speculation
« Reply #21 on: October 08, 2014, 10:38:45 AM »
How hard would it be to build a base on the surface of Venus?  Or slightly below the surface of Venus.

Would it be best to build on Maxwell Montes so you're at a high altitude?  That would still be 700 F and 44 atmospheres outside.  You could certainly build a concrete structure to withstand that part of the local climate, but of course the local rock consists of materials that withstand the local climate, so I'd be tempted to build with that. 

You might still need something to deal with the acidity, maybe a thick coating of glass.  Apparently some stainless steels are very good with sulphuric acid.

You'd need a very good heat pump.  I'm not sure if you could easily pump heat into the ground or not -- life would be much easier if you could.  You'd have all the CO2 you might need, but you'd have to bring and recycle your water.  Getting stuff down to the surface might be a pain.

Gravity remains the big deal.  You can shield against radiation; you can concentrate and disperse heat; you can recycle air and water and food.  As yet, we can't insulate against or properly make gravity.  So if you don't want to live at low-g or in something spinning, odds are you need a planet, and Venus is a good size and density.

phyre

  • Trusted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 639
  • Karma: +29/-2
  • Brought to you by: Non Impediti Ratione Cogitation
Re: Random Speculation
« Reply #22 on: October 08, 2014, 10:42:52 AM »
This is something that Randall Monroe should answer in his What If? blog.
So . . . you're saying I should be looking for a soft old plastic bucket. Man, dating sucks. Raxe
You should have told her about the incontinent stair ghost. Hedaira
If you jerk off into the abyss, it jerks off on you, too. - Raxe
Cats and fish could have kittens if they adopted. - mybabysmomma
However, I do not recommend getting cancer as a strategy in curbing the bitching. - the other andrea
Space is totally weird, man.  If it's not blowing your mind, it's because you stopped thinking about it. - Raxe

pdrake

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,390
  • Karma: +22/-48
Re: Random Speculation
« Reply #23 on: October 08, 2014, 12:15:56 PM »
the hardest part of any large scale, other worldly building operation is the logistics of getting materials there.
you'd be surprised how much a nutsack can stretch. you have to stretch it yourself, not a woman. they don't do it quite right.

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,733
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: Random Speculation
« Reply #24 on: October 08, 2014, 02:16:16 PM »
Yeah, that's why I think using local rock and building a (mostly) submerged station is the best plan.  You're kind of necessarily presuming a very good power supply to make this work, so reshaping rock shouldn't be too hard.  Lots of basalt, which is great for melting and fusing with electric arcs.  That's how I'd build a moonbase, too.  You can have robots sinter gravel and powdered rock into any shape you like, like a 3D printer.

Wikipedia says the sulphuric acid rain evaporates when it's about 25 km above the ground.  Huh.  So not much of a threat at the surface.  Good, good.

OK, so you need a fusion reactor or something.  And rugged landing craft.  I think this is doable.

Dr. Leonard HmofCoy

  • I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,673
  • Karma: +205/-69
  • His BRAIN is gone
Re: Random Speculation
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2014, 12:12:40 AM »
I think it might be simpler to terraform the fuck out of the place first. THEN build a station.
"Parasitic wasps laying eggs in other insects is a better love story than Twilight." - :bitzero:
"Anyhow, it was the best sentient food movie since Killer Tomatoes Eat France." - :flipper:
"lee marvin in drag is no way to spread the gospel, son." - TFJ
"It failed. My enemies have been purged." - Sidious
"It's not like there was ever a time I didn't think Rudy Giuliani was a smug gibbering imbecile." - random axe
"*drags taint* Oh cool, I didn't know you could do that." - mo.d

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,733
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: Random Speculation
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2014, 09:18:25 AM »
You think it would be simpler to modify the entire planet just to build a house? 

You probably reprogrammed the Kobayashi Maru simulation, didn't you.

Sidious

  • Trusted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,876
  • Karma: +63/-23
  • Good, I can feel your anger.
Re: Random Speculation
« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2014, 08:16:44 PM »
I thought we were only good at greenhousing planets, not un-greenhousing them.
Rich people won't kill the rest of us off until there are really good robots.

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,733
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: Random Speculation
« Reply #28 on: October 14, 2014, 09:30:50 AM »
If you're making a big effort, it's easier to add energy to a system than to take it away.  If you're doing nothing, it's easier to take it away.

When I was a kid, honestly, I thought domed cities were a stupid idea.  But mostly I was actually objecting to the way they were designed in stories -- huge monolithic domes that were fragile but absolutely vital.  And the way they were proportioned was often a terrible waste of space.  If you have a terrarium for, say, a bearded lizard, imagine it was a dome instead, and consider what proportions would be good for the lizard but still fit in your den.

After awhile, though, I realized that those were mostly just bad designs.  For one thing, if you're putting a dome on, say, the moon, why put the dome on a flat surface?  Build it over a circular crater the same size, and expand your construction downward.  Half the work is already done for you.  Put the gardens / parks on top and have people work and live underground.  We're used to mostly living and working in boxes with artificial lighting, and by that time we'll have better boxes and better lighting, anyway.

You're not going to terraform a planet in a normal human lifetime, if it's even feasible in the first place.  But you can build an airtight apartment building, easy.

As a bonus, I also hate space elevators, per se.