Comments on: Buzz kill

By: How sci-fi fans can contribute to science | Geekend | TechRepublic.com

How sci-fi fans can contribute to science | Geekend | TechRepublic.com — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:45:29 +0000

[...] fiction as children. This claim does have merit. But as Phil Plait pointed out in a post for Discover Magazine, science-fiction fans may love science because of the sci-fi, but they do little to push the [...]

By: Beauxdean

Beauxdean — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:10:12 +0000

Just because you can moonwalk doesn’t mean you can write or be a critic…

By: Bad Move Buzz, Science Fiction DOES NOT Make Space Boring | My Life in Bits and Bytes

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:45:21 +0000

[...] agree with my fellow space bloggers, such as Bad Astronomer Phil Plait, who points out that Buzz has his argument totally wrong. In fact, it is the precise opposite. [...]

By: Buzz Parsec

Buzz Parsec — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:37:51 +0000

Sturgeon’s Law

By: tim

tim — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:23:02 +0000

Counterpoint for Buzz: Paul Allen. He financed the first privately-funded human spaceflight, and he’s a huge scifi buff.

Buzz should know better – he’s been to Paul Allen’s Science Fiction Museum here in Seattle, and he was at the SpaceShipOne first flight.

By: quasidog

quasidog — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:22:41 +0000

This is all about point of view.

By: James Davis Nicoll

James Davis Nicoll — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:51:05 +0000

That Space:1999 idea sounds a little like something I once toyed with:

http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/71718.html

In my version, they could turn the inertialess drive on and off and steer to some extent but because the leading edge would be polished smooth due to interactions with the interstellar medium, they have to wait until the Moon is oriented so that a part of the Moon that they don’t care about is pointed in the direction they want to do.

I hereby admit my version probably violates all kinds of conservation laws.

By: Elwood Herring

Elwood Herring — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:04:50 +0000

Gary 7: regarding flying cars, the idea had no chance of ever getting off the ground (pardon the pun) even if the cars themselves were cheap and efficient. The problem until now has always been sky management. You can’t simply let every loon who currently owns a driving licence take control of a potential guided missile. No, there has to be a solid failsafe infrastructure in place first, namely computer control of all vehicles via an accurate GPS system, which will keep all air traffic safe from collision from other vehicles, buildings and pedestrians. This is now just about possible, but it still requires a great deal of planning and financing.

Once we have all that, then maybe – maybe…

By: Michael L

Michael L — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:57:16 +0000

Gary, Moller recently stated that one of these things was going into production and would be available in 2010 I think. But, he’s been stating that for years. Personally, I wouldn’t touch one of those things with a ten foot pole! It’s bad enough that we have people driving our freeways text messaging, talking on the phone, surfing the net, and eating a cheeseburger all at the same time. Can you imagine what would happen if these people were flying around over our heads in these things?

Personally, I don’t see the point. I don’t think flying cars will ever catch on. ( How many times have those been someone’s famous last words!) Seriously, we don’t have the infrastructure. It would cause us to overhaul every major city, and how would you determine traffic routes? People would be flying all over the place?

By: Gary Ansorge

Gary Ansorge — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:19:52 +0000

Mollers been working on that flying car concept for over 30 years. Vertical take-off and landing craft are unsubtle devices, requiring that there be enough power to lift the vehicle against gravity. Aircraft work by using low pressure lift. They don’t need to overcome gravity directly. As far as helicopters, the rotating blades are an airfoil, acting in much the same way as wings. The airframe is stationary while the “wings” move. If Moller was able to use large blades on his motors he’d have a helicopter but it wouldn’t fit in a garage,,,
I expect if Moller had just applied his ingenuity to perfecting user friendly helicopter control systems, by now we’d all have 2 passenger choppers in our drive ways,,,and just think of the five PM traffic jams in the sky,,,

GAry 7

By: Buzz Killers on the Internet | Mike Brotherton: SF Writer

Buzz Killers on the Internet | Mike Brotherton: SF Writer — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:29:59 +0000

[...] that list, and had a paragraph echoing my recent negative post about Michael Crichton. Finally, Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy completely disagreed with Aldrin, and a very interesting discussion ensued in the [...]

By: Sillysighbean

Sillysighbean — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:25:40 +0000

Phil,
The man WALKED ON THE MOON! get off his back.
Who remembers ‘Colonel Bleep”? That cartoon got me interested in space travel.

By: Michael L

Michael L — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:24:53 +0000

Ronn! I believe this is what you’re looking for?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElS9BKSsezw

By: Ronn! Blankenship

Ronn! Blankenship — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:12:06 +0000

# Dunc Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 7:51 am

Where’s my atomic cigarette lighter?

– - -

More importantly: Where’s my flying car?

By: Ronn! Blankenship

Ronn! Blankenship — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:10:34 +0000

Michael L Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

BTW, it was a very early 1970’s British show, produced by Gerry Anderson of Space 1999 fame that got me excited about space. Anyone remember U.F.O.? Anderson’s wife had all the characters wear wigs because they felt that wigs would be standard military issue by the early 1980’s when the show was set.

– - -

Well, back in the early 70s (Vietnam era) some soldiers did invest in wigs to wear off-duty so they wouldn’t stand out so much among their longer-haired peers, but I don’t require any of those wigs being purple . . .

By: Elwood Herring

Elwood Herring — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:06:58 +0000

Just a comment on the order of the comments here: It’s a tad annoying to come back to this page (or any page of comments on Phil’s blog) and discover that there are new comments embedded in the old ones. I want to read the new posts when I return to the page so I usually find the last one I’ve read and go down from there. But now I’ve noticed that some posts have appeared in between ones I’ve already read.

What’s going on? Are some posts being delayed for some reason? I thought the old “moderation limbo” had been abolished here. I don’t want to have to scan through the whole list every time I return, but I don’t want to miss a post that’s been held back for some reason. So if a post is delayed, would it be possible to place a marker at that point to inform us of the fact?

Just thought I’d mention it.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:33:17 +0000

Buzz also said what he did inside the context of the documentaries For All Mankind and In the Shadow of the Moon, the latter of which has talking heads of many astronauts including Buzz. I`m sure you guys have probably seen these films but for those who haven`t it would help to further understand where he is coming from.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:25:55 +0000

Actually… I’m thinking both Phil and Buzz are wrong.

Phil: if you can’t blame sci-fi for making kids bored with real science, you also can not blame it for inspiring them to study real science.

Also, it’s just plain bad reasoning to say “Ask any astronaut, any astronomer, any space enthusiast…”

It’s both begging the question and confirmation bias.

Of course many will call it an inspiration. And not one of them will say it was the sole inspiration. But, really the point is that sci-fi is an incredibly popular genre and that there are *more* people who fall outside of those groups who have enjoyed it and been inspired by it. I would be willing to bet that there are more people who have been inspired by sci-fi to become writers, movie makers, animators, and actors than there people who have been inspired to go into science.

And finally… I’m certain there are many people in the groups you name who *won’t* say it was an inspiration for them…

Buzz Aldrin, for example.

By: Quiet Desperation

Quiet Desperation — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:20:39 +0000

@Ken B: The inertialess mass has a gentle tendency toward gravitational sources, but just strong enough to steer the Moon to a different star system every so often. When the inertia drive is switched on, it merely projected the anti-inertia field with no force vector applied, so the Moon, freed mostly from the effects of external gravitation, would just go off on what ever vector it was following at the moment.

See Blish’s Cities in Flight and the E.E. Smith’s Lensmen series for similar ideas.

Hey, it was *our* made up physics. Stop arguing. The point is to get a different adventure every week.

In fact, the drive used gravitational fields as part of its drive mechanism, which we *totally* stole from First Men In The Moon. The dreaded and cliche “reversing the polarity” actually does something sensible with our space drive.

By: Tom Hill

Tom Hill — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:59:32 +0000

@Mike Brotherton – Great! Hope you had a good turnout.

By: BadMA

BadMA — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:30:15 +0000

As far as I can remember (even when watching TOS when I was 8 or so, or Star Wars way before that), I never *expected* space to looked like it did on TV. I wanted it to, but even than I was aware of what we could do versus what we couldn’t. It was inspirational, though. The BA has it right!

By: Mike Brotherton

Mike Brotherton — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:28:38 +0000

Tom Hill, we have had a few science meetings with “science fiction tracks.” Similar to how science tracks at sf cons are for education as much as fun, so are the science fiction tracks at some astronomy meetings. This year at the American Astronomical Society meeting in St. Louis, I participated in a workshop about using fantasy series to teach science (read about it at http://www.mikebrotherton.com/?p=624). A couple of years ago at another AAS meeting in San Diego, there was a track about using the humanities to teach astronomy at which David Brin was a speaker, and I presented a paper about a short story anthology I’m editing (not out just yet but coming later this fall) designed to enhance intro astronomy courses. These sorts of talks/tracks have been quite well attended at these meetings. Educators are looking for any method they can find to reach kids.

By: LaCreption

LaCreption — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:20:35 +0000

Talking for myself, I completely agree with Phil. For several reasons. Science fiction brought futuristic worlds to life. In my childhood there were no computers and you had read all 5 astronomy/space travel books in the local library. Science fiction on TV, any, was fabulous, I didn’t mind sounds in space or having everybody talking with an American voice. I was not expecting it to be really real since I was 7 or 8 years old.

The discovery of Star Trek in my teens was another gear set in motion. Good stories and more ‘realistic’ technology. Star Trek caused me to explore real concepts. To see how plausible things were. I enjoyed discovering not-so-obvious flaws. And I enjoyed discovering true class, like ’2001 a space oddyssee’.

Was I disappointed when I finally got involved with real science and technology? On the contrary. Until now I am discovering things that I did not know. Reality has proven to be far more richer than the most incredible fantasy story. For instance, a deep space picture from Hubble on my desktop keeps fascinating me. It blows my mind, it inspires me. It’s the universe singing in beauty. Billions of worlds. Billions of landscapes. Billions of possibilities. While you’re looking into the past you know you’re actually looking at the present and the future too.

Back to SF, I do agree that there is a lot of rubbish and stupid mistakes are made. But that doesn’t influence science enthusiasts negatively. We don’t see a decline in musicians because there is more and more bad music available. The same thing.

By: Ibid

Ibid — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:17:01 +0000

If you’re looking to remake an old show then you should look to “The Starlost” by Harlan Ellison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Starlost
It was a great idea about a colony ship that was carrying the remains of mankind from the doomed Earth. It was divided into sections to help preserve old Earth cultures. But there was an accident and they were all sealed off. They soon forgot they were on a ship. The cultures changed over the years. Finally a refugee from an Orwellian Amish community finds his way into the main ship. He and a few others explore the ship and see what happened to the other communities while trying to figure out what went wrong and how to repair the ship before it crashes into a star.
They wanted big names in sci-fi of the day to write many of the stand alone episodes while the regular staff moved along the main storyline.
Alas, the CBC didn’t know how to make sci-fi back then and totally screwed it up.

By: Tom Hill

Tom Hill — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:10:43 +0000

@DaveS: I didn’t mean to say that scifi conventions are only scifi. The scifi conventions in DC have a science track as well. I’ve spoken at them. But if a science convention were to have a scifi track, I’m willing to bet that attendance will be lower than a scifi convention with a science track.