NASA artwork (probably 1970s/early 80’s) of a dual-fuselage DC-9. This would double the capacity while not doubling the weight; drag would go up, but so would aerodynamic efficiency due to increased effective aspect ratio of the wing, as well as being more structurally sound for the weight. The need for a pretty wide runway is something of a concept-killer, though.
Today’s Silicon Valley billionaires grew up reading classic American science fiction. Now they’re trying to make it come true, embodying a dangerous political outlook
This was written by Charles Stross, a sci-fi author whose work I tend to like. I kinda understand why he has reached the conclusion that he has… a *lot* of his work is heavily Lovecraftian, with the universe laden with horrible, horrible things. If you believe that the universe truly is filled with cosmic horrors just waiting at the edges for some fool to go poking at them, then of course you’re want to prevent people from pushing forward. You will, instead, live by this quote from Lovecraft himself (from “The Call of Cthulhu”):
“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.”
But the thing is… those horrible things are out there anyway. You can’t hide from them. They’ll come and getcha. If we are to avoid colonizing space because “imperialism” is wrong, then we’ll be simply stepped on by the next imperialist species over. If you are afraid of the consequences of AI – and there are valid concerns – taking that tech away from Our Guys and leaving it in the hands of the likes of the Chinese Communists *guarantees* that some form of AI is going to come along and take a giant dump on us. If you want to stop “eugenics” because there’s been some bad history and because it could maybe lead to bad things, you’re stranding us in the reality we’re now facing of ongoing dysgenics which is *already* screwing society.
In particular the argument against space colonization is just vacuous and insane. The benefits are damn near infinite. The risk are comparatively minimal. If over the next millennium we lose a million habitats to a hard learning curve, taking with them a trillion lives… it will be a small price to pay to bring life to a trillion worldlets just within this single solar system.
Yeah, sci-fi provides warnings of potential bad futures. But it also provides innumerable examples of futures we *want* to bring about. Focusing solely on the dystopias of sci-fi is black-pilled doomerism at its worst. For every “1984” or “Brave New World” or “Star Trek Discovery” that show horrible worlds filled with horrible people living in horrible societies, there are “2001” and “Star Trek” and “Star Trek the Next Generation” and “Stargate SG-1” and “The Orville” and even “The Expanse.” The thing is… “bad” always sells better than “good,” because “bad” tends to have more interesting drama. Imagine any sort of plotline. What’ll be more interesting, or at least easier to write interesting: the story without some sort of villain or disaster, or the one where there aren’t such antagonists? A movie about, say, an architect designing and building his dream building, whatever it might happen to be, will almost certainly have competitors trying to sabotage it, or bureaucrats grinding it down, or local activists trying to stop it, or earthquakes, storms, floods, fires, asteroid impacts or alien invasions trying to trash it. So the fact that sci-fi – like *every* literary genre – includes Very Bad Things from time to time is no reason to avoid trying to see the best of sci-fi brought to life, anymore than heartbreak and rivals in romance stories are reasons to avoid trying to find love.
Movie and TV remakes are often garbage. But covers of songs? Sometimes the remake is a triumph. Some examples:
“My Body Is A Cage” by Arcade Fire, then covered by Peter Gabriel.
“Smooth Criminal” by Michael Jackson… then perfected by Alien Ant Farm.
“Hurt” by Nine Inch Nails. It was good… but what Johnny Cash did with it is astonishing.
“Tainted Love” by Gloria Jones from 1964 was utterly eclipsed by “Soft Cell’s” 1981 cover.
Cylon and Garfunkel’s “Sound of Silence” is peak 60’s pretentiousness. But Disturbed’s remake kicks substantial ass.
David Bowie’s “Heroes” is OK. Peter Gabriels’ cover gives it emotional depth wholly lacking in the original.
And… what the heck. “All Along The Watchtower” by Bob Dyna was meh, the Jimi Hendrix cover was pretty good, but Bear McCreary reworked it into the best season-ending cliffhanger music ever.
Long story short: I’ve been a *casual* watcher of “Dr. Who” for 40+ years. From watching it from time to time on PBS back in the 80s – the Tom Baker era, mostly – to catching the revived version in more recent years, I would generally find it amusing if somewhat baffling. The fact that not only was it stories set over multiple episodes, meaning you’re in the dark if you’ve missed any, but that it was terribly *British* meant that it just didn’t quite hit for me. But still, I liked it well enough, and I respect the IP and the fandom.
But not everyone respects the IP or the fandom. This includes the makers of the show these days.
One thing I could always expect from any iteration of The Doctor would be that he was some flavor of “British Man.” Generally some variant of the Brit known as the “boffin,” a weird eccentric science type. But then came the “insufferably smug British woman” variant of the Doctor. And next up… gay sub-Saharan African Doctor, which seems to be meant specifically to annoy the long-time fans. So, yeah, I haven’t felt the urge to watch Dr. Who in a good long while. Recent events have not changed that. In fact, recent efforts by the makers of the show to gaslight fans of the show make me actively uninterested.
The latest nonsense has been the race swapping of historical figure Isaac Newton. For a British show to *intentionally* replace an important English historical figure with an Indian actor seems at best odd, at worst part of a wider ongoing and undeniable effort to replace the English within their own history. But the people behind this have themselves a new strategy to defend their decisions from those who don’t like it:
Behold: pointing out that Newton was English, or Cleopatra was Greek, or Hannibal was Phoenician, has gone from merely being a racist position to now “villainizing minorities.” If you say that so-and-so wasn’t black or Indian or whatever, you are now equating blacks or Indians or whatever with criminals. It is dishonest, it is unhinged, it doesn’t make sense, but it’s what they’ve got.
That’s their argument against those who point out the folly and malignity of race swapping historical figures. What’s their argument *for* doing this? The Dr. Who casting director says:
“It then becomes even more important to give people a voice and for people to be represented, especially for young people growing up who might be trans or from any minority. If they can see themselves on screen, then that can be a huge lifeline for some people. That can make them feel part of the world, which indeed they are.” … “Growing up as a gay man, I’m as aware as anybody else of how this stuff makes you feel when you see it. “
Uh-huh. So he likes to see his little subset “represented.” But he somehow doesn’t understand – or pretends not to – how a large *majority* of people do not like to watch their “representation” getting not just erased, but culturally appropriated and colonized by outsiders who didn’t earn it, don’t deserve it and don’t fit in it.
Black and white concept art, Rockwell illustration from the early 70’s represents the almost-final B-1A configuration, from back when being very supersonic was the goal rather than being stealthy at low altitude. Most obvious differences between this and the as-built B-1A are the ride control vanes (the small canards) and the discontinuity in sweepback angle between fixed and movable portions.
The full image has been made available as a thank-you to APR Patreon and Historical Documents Program patrons at the $4 and above level, placed in the 2023-12 APR Extras . If interested in this piece or if you are interested in helping to fund the preservation of this sort of thing, please consider becoming a patron, either through the APR Patreon or the Monthly Historical Document Program.
On one hand, the utility of this ad for selling Chevy’s seems limited. After all, it doesn’t tell you much about how they perform or what they cost, though there is the suggestion that they can last a long time. On the other hand, the nature of the ad is such that people will be talking about it (and they are), and any publicity is good publicity. On that latter score it’s a remarkably effective ad, very effectively mastering the “holiday tearjerker” trope. If this *doesn’t* work you up a little, I can only assume that “Jurassic Bark” left you unmoved and the Iron Giant’s final “Suuupermannn” was met with a shrug.
Bruce Springsteen’s 1984 song “Born in the USA” is famous not only for having been incredibly popular, bit for being “misunderstood.” Springsteen’s intent, as is pretty clear by a straight reading of the lyrics, is to tell the tale not just of a Viet Nam vet (the US was barely a decade out from that expensive but successful war and incredibly unsuccessful peace), but of a nation in disrepair. But it was grabbed onto by the political right – such as President Ronald Reagan – as a a rah-rah USA USA USA song to rally around. Then as now, leftists explain this as Republicans & conservatives being “media illiterate” or simply dumb. But is that really the case? Consider my own experience.
When it came out I was a dumbass early teenager with no particular political leanings. Yet I also saw the song as pro-USA, and I loved the hell out of it. And, yes, I listened to and understood the lyrics, and saw the darkness therein. But I – and I suspect a whole lot of other people – simply interpreted them differently from the intention of Springsteen. Yes, the lyrics reference the dire economic situation faced by *many* people at the time, coming out of the OPEC oil embargoes and Carters economic flailings and the collapse of the Apollo program and all the rest. But here’s the thing: two people can look at the same thing and see very different results… same screen, different movies.
Everybody in the US in the early 80’s knew that things sucked. You could hardly experience Carter and inflation and stagflation and Iran and the Soviets and the collapse of the iron, auto, farming and a bunch of other industries and not notice it. But there are two ways to deal with “things suck:” despair and determination. And thus we had two different approaches to understanding the song:
Leftists: “Things suck in the USA, therefore the USA sucks.”
Rightists: “Things suck in the USA right now. But we’ll fix it.”
In 1984, things sucked. But they didn’t suck quite as bad as they had a few years before, and things were clearly improving. Those in the middle and on the right saw this, and interpreted “Born in the USA” in that light.
And we got this for the 1984 Presidential campaign:
Essentially, “Born in the USA” was a negative ad against the US that got turned into a positive ad for the US. And that irritated the hell out of a lot of lefties who wanted to wallow in despair… and wanted everyone else to do the same. Turning it into a nationalistic anthem was a giant middle finger to the nattering nabobs of negativity.
Positivity and optimism can do wonders in an election, and in society. “I Like Ike,” JFK’s “Camelot,” “Morning in America,” “Make America Great Again,” etc. Turning a negative into a positive is a sign you’re on the right road.
I recently re-watched the 1998 movie “Pleasantville.” For those unaware, this starred a pre-Spiderman Tobey McGuire as a kid who’s a fan of the fictional 1950’s black and white TV show “Pleasantville,” sort of a cliche of the bland, utopian family shows of the time. It turns into a fantasy when Don Knotts shows up as a TV repairman who gives Tobey’s character a magical remote that zaps Tobey and his sister, played by Reese Witherspoon, into an episode of “Pleasantville.” There everything is in black and white, the world is *extremely* limited, and the other people are devoid of curiosity or initiative, just fulfilling their roles. The two new people begin to add a note of chaos to things, and in the process the characters begin to have awakenings… and color seeps into the environment. A flower here, a tongue there, and soon signs, trees, cars and whole people are appearing in glorious technicolor as they realize that there’s more to life than their roles. It’s an amusing fantasy that I first saw in the late 90’s, and last saw probably more than 20 years ago.
But upon rewatching it… I’ve decided it’s not just some lighthearted fantasy. It’s a sequel to “Tron.”
The “TV show” is a simulation based on the old TV show. The characters are actual NPCs, nonsentient avatars just going through their programmed motions. The “magic remote” is a much more advanced version of the laser “scanner” from “Tron,” and it uploads the two new users into the Pleasantville grid. The simulation is capable of learning and growth, and the non-sentient NPC slowly, and sometimes quickly, come to awareness. And when characters or objects get a resolution increase, they go from black and white to color. At the end, the simulation expands: previously, when you went to the end of Main Street, you found yourself at the beginning of Main Street: the simulated universe was at best a few miles across. but now there is a college in the town of Springfield, 12 miles away. The simulation is growing.
I assume Don Knotts is a former employee of Encom, likely a friend and co-worker of Kevin Flynn. In “Tron: Legacy” Flynn is stated to have disappeared in 1989, and we find out that he’d been stuck in a simulation of his own ever since. In 1982’s “Tron,” the laser scanner was the size of a building; by 1989 it was portable enough to be installed in a basement. I guess Knotts, who was clearly enough of a fan of the old “Pleasantville” show to have created a simulation based on it, had continued development to the point where the scanner was now hand-held. Throughout the course of the movie it’s shown that he stays in a “TV Repair” van outside the real-world house of the two experimental subjects; perhaps the scanner is connected to the actual simulation hardware contained within the van through a wifi system.
At the end of the movie, Tobey returns to the real world, while his mean-girl, vapid and slutty sister stays behind: she does so because she, too has come to an awakening, and is now going to the college that appears at the end of the movie. Since several days had passed within the simulation while less than and hour had passed in the real world, the sister should be able to get a fair education in relatively short real-world time; of course, the education will be uncredentialed. But it’s better to be educated than not, regardless of whether you can prove it with paperwork. On the other hand… at the end Knotts drives away, presumably taking the simulation with him. How will Tobey get back into it? How will his sister get out? How will they communicate? These are left unanswered
The second Starship/Superheavy launched today. Vastly more successful than the first flight, but both stages were still destroyed.
This sort of thing would be unacceptable for a modern NASA launch system… but it was common in early launch vehicle development. Atlas and Titan kerploded with regularity. This sort of thing is not desirable, but it is a natural part of the learning process.
Scott Manley has done an analysis of the video and has some good suggestions about what happened with the booster. There would seem likely to be some serious issues with slosh and propellant hammer effects, caused by the sudden deceleration and flip maneuver. These are resolvable.
But beyond the technical issues and successes… this flight was simply *gorgeous.*
Some beautiful views of the Starship II 🚀,
before the take-off, while take-off, during the Hot-Staging phase and after separation and charting its solo Odyssey. One day a similar machine will carry a human to Mars, beside all the negativity.#Space #SpaceX #StarshipBest… pic.twitter.com/Qm3BxrBIj3
— Masroor H. Bukhari (@MasroorBukhari) November 18, 2023
I LOVE this view of the Raptors shutting down in segments!! 🔥 #SpaceX #Starship@DJSnM @Erdayastronaut pic.twitter.com/UaNdMMUfAx
— Debapratim (@debapratim_) November 18, 2023
So majestic – look at her!!#SpaceX #StarshipLaunch
— This Brown Geek (@thisbrowngeek) November 18, 2023
OMG! No Words!! #SpaceX #Starship #ITF2 #Elonmusk #Liftoff #Starbase #Texas https://t.co/TGuheUrBqZ pic.twitter.com/av5nIGyUVz
— Scott Schilke (@SchilkeScott) November 18, 2023
How wonderful!👍
Congratulations #SpaceX pic.twitter.com/klliKCEvpA— Ri's Kitchen (@TanKitchen91) November 18, 2023
The most awaited lift off of the year. Few more steps towards success 🚀 what a view 😍🫶#SpaceX #StarshipLaunch #Starship pic.twitter.com/tJf9T1kdz7
— cosmichaos (@karmicoder) November 18, 2023
Several models of the Starship Enterprise were built for the original “Star Trek” series. The most famous is the 11-foot model which was used for most of the effects shots, and *amazingly* managed to survive long enough to end up in the hands of the National Air and Space Museum. But before the 11-footer was a 3-footer. This was made early on, and was solid wood with no lighting; still, it was used in a number of shots. This model stayed in the hands of Gene Roddenberry, modified to rest on a mike stand bolted to a wooden base. This model was lent to the first special effects house during the production of the aborted “Star Trek Phase II” series in the mid-70’s… and then it vanished. Whether it was stolen, misplaced or lost has not been clear, but Roddenberry considered it to be stolen. Stuff like this that disappears stands a good chance of never being seen again. Witness many of the models made for “2001: A Space Odyssey.”
But then, the “Aries Ib” model for “2001” was found a few years ago. And as it turns out, that 3-foot Enterprise was recently found. It was in a storage unit, purchased by someone who buys such things at auction. The new owner then put it on ebay with a starting price of a mere $1000. And then Star Trek fandom found out about it and has been going nuts. The Roddenberry estate contacted the seller and the auction has been pulled.
News was revealed here:
https://www.therpf.com/forums/threads/red-alert-lost-3-ft-tos-enterprise-found.354596/
The current seller has broken no laws… it seems he just bought an abandoned storage unit. But the Enterprise remains stolen property and should be returned to the Roddenberry estate. Still… it sure seems like the seller aught to be compensated for finding this thing, even if he didn’t really know quite what he had. It’s in pretty rough shape, as can be expected. With luck it’ll receive some sort of restoration, though arguments can be made for exactly how far that should go. It should definitely be cleaned up. It’s drooping and cracked; that should be fixed. But fixing the paint and decals? I don’t know about that. Perhaps it, unlike the NASM Enterprise, should retain the appearance of years. There are some “errors” that were there from the beginning, those should stay.
It is very unlikely that this will ever see an auction. But if it does, it’ll doubtless go for Lotto-levels of cash.
The photos from the ebay listing:
