Internet Video Thread

[Graham2001]

A couple more well known media properties reimagined if they were made in the 1950s via the use of procedural generation (aka 'AI')...

 

[Urwumpe]

!​

Oh, the dark age myth revisited. Our bus stops currently show some nice ads about it and how the reality actually looks like (To get more support for maintaining historic monuments, so everybody is able to see the reality before it becomes legends and fakes).

The people didn't forget how to build aqueducts. The economy simply broke down with the Roman Empire to afford maintaining the large roman ones, but there are many examples of smaller ones, build more economic. Also many richer cities kept the Roman aqueducts maintained until the 15th century (like Rome). Once the economy kicked up, the middle ages even exceeded by far, what the Romans (including Vitruvius) had been able to build. Also technology never advances linear, it often needs advances in other fields to follow, to make the next big step. Just to stay at the aqueduct example: To distribute the water in the cities, the Romans needed vast amounts of lead, about a ton per 40m water pipeline. You need a certain economic power to produce that. And for getting this production, you need to be able to produce large amounts of metal in general.

Also, contrary to the less popular misinformation in bad science TV, the Romans had not been able to build their aqueducts with a standard grade. The grades varied a lot, every building had a different one. But the buildings were build pretty accurate, but thats not something, only the Romans could do.

And the same with spaceflight. It doesn't stagnate at all. It just advances in other fields. Apollo was just a faster shot at the moon, afforded with a much bigger investment into spaceflight than before or later. Keeping this rate of funding would not have gotten us further at all, it would maybe stagnate at the moon, but it could also still have been smarter to focus on LEO.

 

[TheShuttleExperience]

Oh, the dark age myth revisited. Our bus stops currently show some nice ads about it and how the reality actually looks like (To get more support for maintaining historic monuments, so everybody is able to see the reality before it becomes legends and fakes).

The people didn't forget how to build aqueducts. The economy simply broke down with the Roman Empire to afford maintaining the large roman ones, but there are many examples of smaller ones, build more economic. Also many richer cities kept the Roman aqueducts maintained until the 15th century (like Rome). Once the economy kicked up, the middle ages even exceeded by far, what the Romans (including Vitruvius) had been able to build. Also technology never advances linear, it often needs advances in other fields to follow, to make the next big step. Just to stay at the aqueduct example: To distribute the water in the cities, the Romans needed vast amounts of lead, about a ton per 40m water pipeline. You need a certain economic power to produce that. And for getting this production, you need to be able to produce large amounts of metal in general.

Also, contrary to the less popular misinformation in bad science TV, the Romans had not been able to build their aqueducts with a standard grade. The grades varied a lot, every building had a different one. But the buildings were build pretty accurate, but thats not something, only the Romans could do.

And the same with spaceflight. It doesn't stagnate at all. It just advances in other fields. Apollo was just a faster shot at the moon, afforded with a much bigger investment into spaceflight than before or later. Keeping this rate of funding would not have gotten us further at all, it would maybe stagnate at the moon, but it could also still have been smarter to focus on LEO.

Yeah. I'm not that much into ancient history. So you are probably right.

There is actually more spaceflight going on than ever before for sure, but only because we have the ISS in orbit, put together with a system that rests in museums, and because NASA ordered someone else to re-establish manned LEO capability. But the capabilities of going beyond LEO manned were zero for decades. And it's still a very slow progress, for doing something that was done already in 1968 with far less advanced technologies in a much shorter period of time. Although the mission profiles of Artemis are more complex, I know.

I personally compare it with modern airliners: they are all nice and candy and more environmentally friendly. There are more airliners and more passengers than ever before. But there is no chance anymore these days, to get from Paris or London to New York in three and a half hours... (I would love to). Another part of the past, that was supposed to be the future, that rests and dusts in museums.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yeah. I'm not that much into ancient history. So you are probably right.

There is actually more spaceflight going on than ever before for sure, but only because we have the ISS in orbit, put together with a system that rests in museums, and because NASA ordered someone else to re-establish manned LEO capability. But the capabilities of going beyond LEO manned were zero for decades. And it's still a very slow progress, for doing something that was done already in 1968 with far less advanced technologies in a much shorter period of time. Although the mission profiles of Artemis are more complex, I know.

Yes, but at the same time, the ISS has set the common standards and economic base to create a MUCH larger economy around spaceflight than ever. We have startups really moving to launch astronauts. Maybe a bit late for the old sci-fi geeks (See world of 2001), but better than never. And thats pretty much what I expect from a good government: Pave the way, but not tell the people how to walk on it.

Hell, even German companies will launch into space itself from German soil waters this year, if nothing really surprising happens.

I personally compare it with modern airliners: they are all nice and candy and more environmentally friendly. There are more airliners and more passengers than ever before. But there is no chance anymore these days, to get from France or London to New York in three and a half hours...

Yeah, but we sure haven't lost the technology to build it. Actually France and UK work together better today, than during the Concorde development. Even if the result is great, it was really finding a common goal great enough to make those two divas of aerospace engineering play together, that makes it impressive. Without the Concorde, Airbus would never happened.