Starship Asterisk*

I was amused that the spacesuit/fur parka girl at the end took the time to put on some makeup. Priorities!

Movie does not show in Chrome...

geckzilla wrote:I was amused that the spacesuit/fur parka girl at the end took the time to put on some makeup. Priorities!

Hey, people are people. If ordinary people (as opposed to just researchers and adrenaline junkies) are in space, they'll bring all their culture, which includes makeup.

I'm curious where she is. It's unlikely she's wearing a spacesuit- who would put a parka on the outside? There's an atmosphere. It looks like she's using some kind of rebreather or filter device. Probably not pressurized. It's cold, but not extremely so. Someplace with a fairly thick atmosphere, but not enough oxygen, maybe?

GJvL wrote:Movie does not show in Chrome...

Yes it does, with Win 7, Win 8, OS X Mavericks, Android 4, Android 5. No plugins required in any of these cases.

Whatever problem you're having, it's not Chrome itself. Something about your system.

Chris Peterson wrote:

geckzilla wrote:I was amused that the spacesuit/fur parka girl at the end took the time to put on some makeup. Priorities!

Hey, people are people. If ordinary people (as opposed to just researchers and adrenaline junkies) are in space, they'll bring all their culture, which includes makeup.

It's likely that trends in makeup will change radically by the time ordinary people are in space. If your face is hard to see through a mask or because of environmental lighting, then it might be appropriate for the makeup to become more extreme in order to emphasize what details do make it through. It might even have some kind of utility to facilitate nonverbal communication but that is probably pushing it. Also, men and women might both commonly wear makeup at that point. Or it might fade out completely. Who knows!

Could be replaced by facial tattooing also

geckzilla wrote:It's likely that trends in makeup will change radically by the time ordinary people are in space.

Kim Stanley Robinson's book 2312 envisions a future when we're spread all over the Solar System, not unlike much of what this video portrays. We're far beyond simply makeup in this future, making radical elective changes to our bodies and gender (there are maybe a dozen gender choices), multiple times over lifetimes that extend to a couple hundred years.

In the film's disclaimer "All locations depicted in this short film are recreations of actual places in our solar system"

recreation (ˌrɛkrɪˈeɪʃən)
n
1. refreshment of health or spirits by relaxation and enjoyment
2. an activity or pastime that promotes this
3. (Education)
a. an interval of free time between school lessons
b. (as modifier): recreation period.


I wonder if the lack of a hyphenated "recreations" was intentional?

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote: I wonder if the lack of a hyphenated "recreations" was intentional?

Hyphenating words like "re-creation" is going out of fashion is some English speaking circles. As such "recreation" is sometimes preferred. I don't think it makes a difference apart from style. What did you mean?

Nitpicker wrote:

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote: I wonder if the lack of a hyphenated "recreations" was intentional?

Hyphenating words like "re-creation" is going out of fashion is some English speaking circles. As such "recreation" is sometimes preferred. I don't think it makes a difference apart from style. What did you mean?

The astronauts depicted in the film appeared by be enjoying their "recreation" in the various settings. In re-watching the video I noticed the disclaimer stating the obvious "..re-creation of the actual places.." and it seemed (close to) a humorous double entendre. The film presented tremendous insight into a possible future and was highly enjoyable. The comment was only meant to point out a possible, intended or unintended, bit of foreshadowing by its talented creator.

Do'h, I see what you mean now, re the ambiguity. My mind didn't think of "recreations" as a relaxing pastime at all in this context, but of creating something based on something else. (A place is not a pastime.)

wonderful video.... for those debating the physics of it, just try enjoying the wonder of the cosmos and mankind within it.

les7 wrote:wonderful video.... for those debating the physics of it, just try enjoying the wonder of the cosmos and mankind within it.

For many of us, thinking about the physics and making the effort to understand it, is very much a part of the wonder.

Rob

rstevenson wrote:

les7 wrote:wonderful video.... for those debating the physics of it, just try enjoying the wonder of the cosmos and mankind within it.

For many of us, thinking about the physics and making the effort to understand it, is very much a part of the wonder.

Personally, the wonder of nature is greatly diminished for me when I do not understand some aspect of it. The source of wonder isn't the cosmos itself, but having some sense of how the cosmos works.

Well said, Rob and Chris. I feel sorry for anyone who has never seen beyond the tip of an iceberg, where profound wonder waits in the deep for anyone willing to explore it.

Lovely and enchanting video, but one question: If all scenes represent actual places in the solar system, what is the tunnel of light into which the space craft descends on a rail? I understand that the video shows some imagined dwellings on other planets and moons -- is this supposed to be part of one of those?

martinharoldjensen wrote:Lovely and enchanting video, but one question: If all scenes represent actual places in the solar system, what is the tunnel of light into which the space craft descends on a rail? I understand that the video shows some imagined dwellings on other planets and moons -- is this supposed to be part of one of those?

All I see is a settlement at the base of the elevator, lit up because it's in night.

martinharoldjensen wrote:Lovely and enchanting video, but one question: If all scenes represent actual places in the solar system, what is the tunnel of light into which the space craft descends on a rail? I understand that the video shows some imagined dwellings on other planets and moons -- is this supposed to be part of one of those?

I believe you are referring to the scene beginning at 2:06. There is a convoy of 4 ships traveling to an asteroid/minor planet towards a lighted settlement. Next scene is the view from the lead craft heading toward the asteroid. I believe this is followed by the tunnel you are speaking of.
My best estimation is that it is a Docking Rail for a Habitat that was Tunneled through of the center of the asteroid to create an area where Liquid Water could exist. Part of the internal environment mapping reminded me of Egypt, The Red Sea, and Saudi Arabia

It would actually be a fairly ingenious method of creating a "1G" artificial gravity environment in an asteroid of almost any size.
Bore a hole through the center of mass
Cap both ends with Air Locks large enough for ships to enter
Spin the asteroid relative to the central axis of the bore hole
fill with atmosphere and add water.

Might be tough to land on the outside though if the centrifugal force wants to through you away from the surface. (which also might require some strengthening)

BMAONE23 wrote:My best estimation is that it is a Docking Rail for a Habitat that was Tunneled through of the center of the asteroid to create an area where Liquid Water could exist. Part of the internal environment mapping reminded me of Egypt, The Red Sea, and Saudi Arabia

Or maybe a structure supporting what appears to be an artificial sun on the central axis. (Certainly, part of Earth's surface was mapped onto the inside of the cylinder.)

This is a VERY late post. Like a number of people, I doubted that a lighter than air craft could work on Mars, except for one thing. Mars' atmosphere is carbon dioxide, molecular weight 44. That makes it much denser than nitrogen, molecular weight 29. So you could fill the blimp with nitrogen, with enough extra pressure to maintain its shape, and it would still float. I suspect it would be really flabby, but it would still float. In fact, you don't even need to ship air from Earth. Strip off oxygen from the CO2 to make CO, molecular weight 28. You get a buoyant gas (at least on Mars) and oxygen, too. A CO2 atmosphere makes lighter than "air" travel a lot simpler. This sort of thing has also been proposed on Venus, where it would be incredibly effective.

The settlements perched on a long ridge are likely on Iapetus. The yin-yang symbol at bottom center at 1:53 is a clue, and of course Saturn in the far distance.

Steve Dutch wrote:This is a VERY late post. Like a number of people, I doubted that a lighter than air craft could work on Mars, except for one thing. Mars' atmosphere is carbon dioxide, molecular weight 44. That makes it much denser than nitrogen, molecular weight 29. So you could fill the blimp with nitrogen, with enough extra pressure to maintain its shape, and it would still float. I suspect it would be really flabby, but it would still float. In fact, you don't even need to ship air from Earth. Strip off oxygen from the CO2 to make CO, molecular weight 28. You get a buoyant gas (at least on Mars) and oxygen, too. A CO2 atmosphere makes lighter than "air" travel a lot simpler. This sort of thing has also been proposed on Venus, where it would be incredibly effective.

The problem isn't really helped much by the higher density of the atmosphere. The problem is the extreme thinness of it. That means that even a large volume has a very low total mass. It doesn't really matter than one particular gas is buoyant in it- what matters is that the mass displaced by the airship must be greater than the total airship mass. And that's a problem in a near vacuum.