'Stranger In a Strange Land' Coming To TV (ew.com) 227
HughPickens.com writes: EW reports that Paramount TV and Universal Cable Productions are teaming up to develop Robert A. Heinlein's classic 'Stranger in a Strange Land' into a TV series on Syfy. The 1961 sci-fi book, set in the aftermath of a third world war, centers on Valentine Michael Smith, a human born on Mars and raised by Martians, who, as a young adult, has returned to Earth. The true driving forces of the novel are religion and sex, which Heinlein's publisher at the time wanted him to cut out. But as the author noted to his literary agent, if religion and sex were removed from the text, what remained would be the equivalent of a "nonalcoholic martini." "From my point of view, Stranger in a Strange Land isn't just a science fiction masterpiece [...] it also happens to be one of my favorite books ever!" says NBCUniversal Cable Entertainment Chairman Bonnie Hammer. "The story is timeless and resonates more than ever in today's world. As a fan, I can't wait to see it come to life as a world-class television event." A previous attempt at adapting Heinlein's novel came in 1995, when Batman Returns' Dan Waters penned a script designed for Tom Hanks and Sean Connery.
First or second part? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stranger in a Strange Land is really like two novels. The first part is good, classical Heinlein. The second part is some kind of rambling political pamphlet that always manages to bore me. I read somewhere that they were written with several years difference, and it shows.
I hope they base it in the first part, really. Well, probably, if it's a typical TV product, they will take the basic idea and massacre all else, so why do I care?
Re: (Score:2)
“Thinking doesn't pay. Just makes you discontented with what you see around you.”
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how daring the makers are.
I fear no evil.
Dear Diary (Score:2)
We'll soon make America Grrr. Ate again today; food still arguably mediocre.
Re: (Score:2)
Stranger in a Strange Land is really like two novels. The first part is good, classical Heinlein. The second part is some kind of rambling political pamphlet that always manages to bore me. I read somewhere that they were written with several years difference, and it shows.
I hope they base it in the first part, really. Well, probably, if it's a typical TV product, they will take the basic idea and massacre all else, so why do I care?
"Rambling political pamphlet" pretty much describes most of the Heinlein production :)
I think you consider the first part of Stranger in a Strange Land as "good Heinlein" just because you happen to be familiar with the ideas presented.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, what would you like to present as a good production then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree. The religious stuff got so bizarre and obsessed towards the end that I simply could not force myself to finish it. It's like the author had a minor stroke while writing it.
It's been a long time since I've read it but it seemed a pretty standard story: guy comes to Earth with a message that people should love one another and the people kill him for it.
Oh great. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm going to assume this is going to be a "Based On The Novel By" kind of thing, where they basically have a couple of plot elements from the book and nothing more. I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the book, nor that it's not an important book in science fiction history, but I'm not really sure the story holds up for the 21st century. Some of the themes that were controversial at the time, and which I'm sure Heinlein thought that by now would be the norm, kind of went the other direction, too.
It's one of those times where they should just call it something else rather than name it after a famous work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should've done it with lots of things. This is not even the first time a Heinlein book has got this treatment - remember Starship Troopers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In SyFy's *slight* defense, they have done some decent things recently.
I rather enjoyed the Childhood's End mini-series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Was it 100% like the book? No. But it was pretty dang close. The acting was decent. The special effects were decent. I certainly didn't feel like my time had been wasted.
So I'm tentatively hopeful for this as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I lost all respect for "SyFy" when they changed their name to that "to appeal to women".
Also when they cancelled Farscape to churn out crappy movie after crappy movie.
That said, I did enjoy Childhood's End, but to call it "pretty dang close" to the book is pretty far off. "Inspired by", maybe. "Kind of similar", perhaps. "Shares some plot-points", definitely. But it also varies immensely from it, and while some of the story might be the same, it tells a completely different narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
I lost all respect for "SyFy" when they changed their name to that "to appeal to women".
They may have made that claim, I don't know. But the real reason they changed the name was because the trademark for "SciFi" was rejected. SyFy is now a trademark.
Also when they cancelled Farscape
They cancelled a lot of decent stuff when the program director changed. It was a mistake to take off in that direction. But I think they have learned *some* lessons from it as evidenced by The Expanse, The Magicians, and even Killjoys is a decent effort. I've even been surprised by 12 Monkeys. I couldn't imagine trying to do that story line as
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't get into The Expanse and never even tried The Magicians. Killjoys is fun, but honestly the SyFy Low Effort is visible in it. I think the only way these shows are at all decent is the cheapo CG they use has finally got to the point where it looks decent.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised they didn't change their name to "OMG Ponies".
Re: (Score:2)
that was their actual explanation. When they changed their name from "The Science Fiction Channel" to "SciFi", sure, I can see that. But when they changed to "SyFy" they did actually say that it was to appeal to women.
Re: (Score:2)
that was their actual explanation. When they changed their name from "The Science Fiction Channel" to "SciFi", sure, I can see that. But when they changed to "SyFy" they did actually say that it was to appeal to women.
Why would the name SyFy appeal to women?
Re: (Score:2)
This is around the time where they cancelled Farscape, their highest rated show ever, claiming nobody was watching it. When they got over a million fan letters asking them to reconsider, they said that "rating figures don't correspond with that many people watching the show".
So they were saying all kinds of things that made no sense.
Though one might postulate that perhaps they thought "SciFi" appeals to males, so they were divesting from that.
Re: (Score:2)
So they were saying all kinds of things that made no sense.
Though one might postulate that perhaps they thought "SciFi" appeals to males, so they were divesting from that.
Sounds like cocaine might have reappeared on the scene.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the name SyFy appeal to women?
This is the first time I've heard of this, my guess is it's in reference to yy chromosome. But considering at the time of the name change they were showing a lot of pro wrestling, I'm not sure much of their target audience would even think of that. I have no idea of what their programing is these days as I have not watched it in several years.
I can't remember the last time I watched either.
Dark Matter is also really good (Score:2)
Not a book adaptation, but Dark Matter is a show I liked way more than I thought I would, and enjoyed a lot more than "The Expanse" (also produced by SyFy I think?).
Someone at SyFy seems to have figured out how to have them produce decent shows again. I think the free reign Netflix has been giving their own productions and the rewards they've reaped as a result, are affecting productions from other companies now...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to assume this is going to be a "Based On The Novel By" kind of thing, where they basically have a couple of plot elements from the book and nothing more.
You'll be lucky to get that much. (I say "you" because I don't have cable.) Unlike the other responder, I think the telekinetic sex cult chapters translate fine to TV. HBO though, not a basic cable channel. So they won't. This is going to be one of those adaptations where they keep some of the character names, and basically none of the plot. And they'll introduce spurious characters demanded by marketing. And the named characters will not resemble the book characters either physically or behaviorally
Never Got It (Score:4, Informative)
Never got Stranger. For me it is possibly not the worst Heinlein novel, but it far from being worth the read and has the biggest hype to quality ratio.
Other than it being edgy for its time, I cannot see any reason to enjoy it. Personally, I think it was more of a big F*** Y** to his past editors for censoring him than an actual novel.
And I do not see how you will adapt it to the screen. Like Heinlein said the novel is just religion and sex. You could adapt it to a porn film, but there is just not really a storyline. The biggest drama is a legal battle and the only choice any of the characters ever make is "Will I have sex with everyone, or nah?" and spoiler alert they all have sex with everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
I never understood the fascination with Heinlein. There are so many sci-fi writers I'd like to see adapted to the screen before him. Joe Haldeman and James Tiptree Jr come to mind, but there are many more.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess its a combination of media, and breaktrough.
Some of the shorter stories feels like something out of a Light Novel, or reading a better paced comic(i.e Donald Pocket). And I don't mean anything by that: The pacing is just pretty high, and things happen at a radical rate.
A lot of the short stories is 20-30 pages. In contrast, a lot of books quickly use 200-400 pages to do the same thing.
The general formula for the more sci fi stuff seem to be:
1. Some introduction page
2. Something AMAZING HAPPENS
3. Bac
Re: (Score:3)
There are so many sci-fi writers I'd like to see adapted to the screen before him. Joe Haldeman and James Tiptree Jr come to mind, but there are many more.
My two favorites for this are Walter Jon Williams and Neal Stephenson, because I read fast and their books almost feel like movies to me anyway. I almost cannot believe that WJW's Hardwired has not been made into a movie yet, and Aristoi would be an absolute science fiction epic. The names of Stephenson's applicable works scarcely require repetition here — it is essentially everything he has ever written except for The Big U. I'd start with Zodiac because it would be cheap and it's environmentalist wh
SF == movie wishes (Score:2)
I'd call for James P. Hogan on the one hand, for good SF with a strong human element, and Keith Laumer's "Bolo" series for machine intelligence / war stories, and also Keith Laumer's "Galactic Odyssey" for the best... well, galactic odyssey story.
For fantasy, I think I'd like to see Naiomi Novak's Temeraire books, and/or anything by Robin Hobb.
For simple awesomeness, I'd like to see John Birmingham's "Weapons of Choice" series done.
The problem, as has been observed, is that generally speaking Hollywood make
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to criticize Heinlein or Stranger, you should do it in comparison to authors and works available at that time. That eliminates both Haldeman and Tiptree, and I've only seen her works in Ace doubles which is hardly a recommendation.
By 1961, Heinlein's reputation was largely built on his juveniles and short stories. When the restrictions placed on his juvenile works by his publisher made him decide to stop making juveniles, he brought along his maturing audience to his more adult works. He was
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit, lad. I didn't 'criticize" Heinlein, I just said I didn't get his popularity. I suppose I can understand how he might be popular with the young adult market from the 1960s.
If you've only seen Tiptree in Ace doubles, you are poorer for it. She's won Hugo
Re: (Score:2)
He defined and built the genre. He has some less than stellar novels. But most of his catalog was not only great in thier own right but inspired the next generation's greats, like Star Trek. If you enjoy Star Trek, it the novel that featured the federation that was adapted to Star Trek is a must. And the novel that features the plot of TNG pilot is great. And why not see where they got tribbles from as well.
While Asimov was still saying that Scifi was a theme you could overlay onto any story, Heinlein was l
Re: (Score:2)
Neill Blomkamp's films are really interesting, because film critics always view them thorough their own leftist lenses, while he himself is not that at all.
I forget the message behind D9, but Elysium, for example, was a warning about unrestrained immigration. The surface was literally his interpretation of what happens if Trump does not build The Wall.
Re: (Score:2)
You meant to say he, "defined and built the genre" after Isaac Asimov had already defined and built the genre.
Re: (Score:2)
Asimov did not write scifi. He wrote pulp fantasy set in worlds with robots, lasers, and space ships instead of knights, swords, and horses.
"illustrates an idea Asimov advocated, that science fiction is a flavor that can be applied to any literary genre, rather than a limited genre itself." - Wikipedia on The Caves of Steel
Re: (Score:2)
the only choice any of the characters ever make is "Will I have sex with everyone, or nah?" and spoiler alert they all have sex with everyone.
My first thought was they were looking for a lite Game of Thrones, but with some martians to make it a little more sciencey.
You never "Grokked" it (Score:3)
because you mentally turned yourself off after seeing moral/philosophical points that you disagree with. It's okay, this happens.
I know some people who are quite intelligent and big SF fans who never got why Dune is so popular. Precisely for the same reason.
Personally, I hated the movie District 9. I thought it was very shallow, just a not-so-subtle vehicle for the writer/director to push his leftist views. Super intelligent alien beings that have interstellar spaceships and artificial gravity, and yet act
Re: (Score:2)
I posted this to the wrong reply originally:
Neill Blomkamp's films are really interesting, because film critics always view them thorough their own leftist lenses, while he himself is not that at all.
I forget the message behind D9, but Elysium, for example, was a warning about unrestrained immigration. The surface was literally his interpretation of what happens if Trump does not build The Wall.
Re:You never "Grokked" it (Score:4, Informative)
If I recall properly the aliens in District 9 were from a slave caste. The ruling caste of aliens which were presumably smarter, had all died through some catastrophe. The surviving aliens were locked out through genetics and couldn't make use of the technology to escape or exert power over the humans. The plot revolved around a human character that stumbled upon and was accidentally exposed to a fix. The fix starts changing him into an alien of the ruling caste which elicits fear and greed among various parties leading to the action scenes.
I believe District 9 was meant as a commentary on Apartheid. The aliens are treated as sub humans that have to be contained, controlled, and exploited. The main character starts out as a member of the empowered group, and transitions into being part of the oppressed group. In the end even though the main character is an alien to all outward appearances he retains his humanity as demonstrated by leaving gifts for his estranged human wife.
Re: (Score:3)
You've never run into naval ratings on shore leave from their nuclear powered aircraft carrier, I presume.
Re: (Score:2)
Stranger in a Strange Land is well written, worth reading, but ultimately a strawman to support a bunch of cultural values that turned out to be worthless and not sustainable, and to me because he had to create such an extreme earth-based society to contrast and define his own cultural beliefs
Exactly my point. You were unable to enjoy it because of moral/philosophical objections.
For me it helped that I had read other books by Heinlein before I got to Stranger in a Strange Land, so I was already familiar with his political leanings and his views on life. Believe me, Heinlein is very far from a 60's counter-culture hippie. Read Starship Troopers if you want an insight into his political views.
While reading "Stranger", I was not threatened by its moral implications and I did not at any point believ
Re: (Score:2)
So you didn't....grok it? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
He produced a couple good books after that (most notable the Moon is Harsh Mistress) but far too much of the time took a couple good ideas and
Bringing Heinlein to the screen works so well (Score:2)
I'm sure it'll be as true to the novel as Starship Troopers was!
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't think what Verhoeven did with ST was deliberate, then you didn't really get the point. The novel puts a positive-ish spin on society adopting fascist concepts, the movie is a primer of why that's a bad idea.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The movie is a left wing cartoon. The book is only considered fascist by people who don't believe that citizens have a responsibility to serve their country and the common good. It is quite obvious that no one involved with the movie have any idea of what it is like to be in a military organization, how armies actually fight, what kind of tactics a real military uses, or any of that. TO them a military is basically a bunch of people running around in a mob doing violent things.
Like I said a left wing cartoo
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously don't get all that Heinlein hype - there were much better science fiction writers then.
I'm actually still kind of confused as to why nobody has made a big powered armor movie yet. The nerds of the world have been calling out for it for about as long as I've been alive. Personally I'd go with John Steakley's Armor but the fact is that Troopers would have made a perfectly good action film with some philosophical moments thrown in to keep it from being nothing but that without major changes. And nobody has made that movie yet. Maybe they're just anticipating (correctly IMO) that it would be a be
Re: (Score:2)
Robot Jox? (ducking) Joe Haldeman wrote the screenplay and impossible as it might seem after viewing the thing today, it did see theatrical release.
I seem to have blocked that out of my memory. I mean, I dimly recall it being a thing...
What 2 science fiction authors would you recommend (Score:2)
Philip Jose Farmer, Jack L Chalker and Larry Niven. You'll find you don't like half the material, but simply appreciate the half you do like.
For series, get the first book from your library. Don't buy the set (used or otherwise) until you've had a bash at the first. For example, you may like PJF's World of Tiers series and hate Riverworld, because the settings are completely different.
I suspect it will be an "okay" TV Show (Score:2)
10 years ago when we had the Stargate franchise and Battelstar Galactica, things were pretty cool on SciFi, but they followed those up with Warehouse 13 and then later 12 Monkeys which are entertaining enough, but
Have to wait and see (Score:2)
Here's hoping... (Score:3)
Urgh...I hated that book. (Score:2)
I don't know how Heinlen gets so much credit for this book...it's was a rambling, shambolic pulp thing with sex and politics wedged into it at every opportunity in a vain attempt to perk it up a bit. It's not a book that has "stood the test of time" at all. If there's money for classic SciFi, we need someone to get off their butts and make "RingWorld". It's time.
Re: (Score:2)
There are so many "known space" stories, they'd keep lots of cast and crew employed for years. Who's got the rights to Ringworld?
Should be on HBO as SCIFI will cut the sex (Score:2)
Should be on HBO as SCIFI will cut the sex
Re: (Score:3)
If you cut the sex, it's going to be a really short series. If you cut the trademark Heinlein sophomore political commentary as well then there's nothing left other than introducing the word 'grok'. Which is probably for the best.
Iconic (Score:5, Insightful)
Surprised to see all the hate (or lukewarm meh-ness) for Stranger in a Strange Land on here. Maybe it's younger folks that never understood the social shifts and conflicts occurring at the time, I don't know. But the novel actually had a major affect on culture when it came out. I found it to be incredibly insightful.
Updating it for current times might be a good idea for the series. Someone from Mars with no contact with human culture comes to earth. Religion has taken a backseat and sex has exploded into polyamorous and fluid gender orgies, with more labels than species of frogs. And group politics has divided humans into pools vying for elevated victimhood status while countries with world-ending nuclear arsenals fight proxy wars over energy pipelines. Could be quite entertaining.
don't knock nonalcoholic martinis (Score:2)
Hey, don't knock nonalcoholic martinis. That's just a pile of olives, and it's one of my favorite things. No, it won't get you drunk, but it's got a satisfaction of its own.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll have a martini. Hold the vermouth... the gin.
Hollywood to rewrite classic sci-fi (Score:3)
"Hollywood to completely rewrite Robert Heinlein's Stranger In A Strange Land because they don't like most of the ideas put forth by the original author."
There, fixed that headline for you.
Things Fall Apart (Score:2)
They were strangers in a strange land.
No longer at ease,
Definitely Heinlein's best work (Score:3)
HBO / Showtime / Cinemax not Syfy (Score:2)
The book is way too R/X rated in parts to make a good Syfy movie, Childhoods End was reasonably good but this won't translate well to a PG/PG-17 movie but if it was done by HBO / Showtime / Cinemax it could be good.
Bad idea (Score:2)
You want to do something with a Heinlein novel? Make The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress into a feature-length film!
Hoping for the best... (Score:2)
... but expecting the worst. Since this is on a non-premium channel, the abundant sex and nudity will have to be watered down, and since that's one of the central themes (the other being religion), I fear a bland, pale shadow of a sci-fi masterpiece. This concern is made greater by the fact that they're planning a "series," rather than a movie or miniseries. Stranger is a big book, and I could see source material for 6-8 episodes, but moving beyond that will be difficult without going on tangents or "extend
Hippies (Score:2)
It's a satire of the hippy movement. That is, the author is making fun of anyone who could find any deep meaning in the ridiculous views and obvious Christlike suffering of the protagonist. The smile at the end? Ah, I guess some people don't get it. Heinlein was laughing all the way to the grave with this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the films made of Puppet Masters and Starship Troopers. Perhaps TV will be kinder. Never Thirst.
I'd probably agree, but it's the SyFy channel, so I'm not very optimistic. On the other hand, I thought Predestination was really well done. It's been at least 25 years since I read All You Zombies, but the way they set it in a Heinlin parallel universe seems as close as we're ever going to see to staying true to one of his stories.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps TV will be kinder.
One word: Riverworld.
Re: (Score:2)
Something else for Syfy to cancel prematurely.
Well, if they cancel The Expanse, I hope Netflix picks it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stranger in a Strange Land was, perhaps, groundbreaking for 1961 when it was written, but I'd say the "religion and sex" are quaint and tame fifty years later. What little sex there is, that is-- back in 1961, even hinting people were actually enjoying sex was apparently racy.
I suspect that it's the movie The Space Between Us [imdb.com] that allowed this to get the green light for production-- Hollywood loves to latch on to an idea, once somebody else has broken the way.
Friday (Score:2, Interesting)
Friday would be a much better TV adaptation.
Promiscuous hot chick with super powers goes on secret missions for a vague private agency in a balkanized USA. And it resonate with a really divided country and current affairs - California was its own country in the book!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For that matter, I'd be really happy to see Spider Robinson's Callahan novels...
Damn, there was more than one? I came across a copy of Callahan's Crazy Cross Time Bar once, long ago, and it made me laugh / groan so hard. An entire novel written purely to set up the pun at the end. Genius!
Re: (Score:3)
Off the top of my head:
And then Callahan's Lady and The Lady Slings The Blues (Booze?), which are about a different main cast of characters. I'm sure I missed a few, but there's a list here [spiderrobinson.com].
His collaborations with his wife are pretty good, too. He's probably my favorite sci-fi author, or at least in a 3-way tie with Heinlein and Asimov.
Re: (Score:2)
The first two parts are more or less intertwined in time; Lady Sally's House ended
Re: (Score:2)
I'd vote for Citizen of the Galaxy, I find the young-adult oriented books tend to transition to the screen better.
On the basis that you're right I nominate Piers Anthony's Adept series. I don't think he's a great author or anything but I remember thinking that would translate pretty well.
Re: (Score:2)
On the basis that you're right I nominate Piers Anthony's Adept series. I don't think he's a great author or anything but I remember thinking that would translate pretty well.
I remember thinking the same about the Bio of a Space Tyrant series. It's a long long time since I read them but plenty of sex, plenty of violence, and plenty of both together iirc.
Re: (Score:2)
That's something that would do great as a TV series. The book may not be that long but it contains a lot that can be played out quite a bit.
But even Stranger in a strange land is something that can be quite entertaining if it's done right.
Most people seem to underestimate Heinlein - he did write not just to please the readers but also to try out new sociological ideas as well as providing more or less subtle criticism of the current society.
Re:All Grown Up (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure why this is modded down, but it is 100% correct. Most Space Nutters get their "knowledge" from scifi, not reality. The reality is that engineering is tough, very tough. I am not talking about programming either. Anyone who has engineered anything even moderately complex knows we are not going to be living on Mars.
There is no breakthrough technology needed to put a colony of humans on Mars. And I've been heavily involved in a lot of engineering. The questions are method, cost, and will to do it, not inventing new things.
This might be thought of as submarine level technology, not so much on the details, but on the concept of keeping humans alive and healthy in a hostile environment. In fact much of putting people long term on a planet like Mars is in many respects easier.
Questions of "should we?" are valid, and always worth discussing. Questions of "could we" have already been answered. We can.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we get them there? Sure. Will they survive the trip? Maybe. Will they survive long living on Mars? Coin-flip, at best. By the time we got anyone there and established, there'll be a thousand little problems that nobody thought of, or thought wouldn't be as serious as they turn out to be, any one of which will kill everyone. Anyone volunteering to be in the first wav
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen the damn movie - all you need is Matt Damon and some fucking potatoes, Iron Man up already!
Re: (Score:2)
Though, the only reason he was able to pull it off is because everyone else got killed.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not only technological. The problem is psychological and problem management.
Psychological, being in a submarine is a thing in itself. So much that even the russian navy put only volunteers into subs. Now imagine living in an enclosed space not for a few months, but for the rest of your life.
Problem management is going to be a biggie. Basically, no matter what goes wrong, you are on your own. Even in the most remote places on earth, if things go really, really bad, you can radio for help and i
Re:All Grown Up (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you're not much of an engineer.
You've decided to stop making sense? What technology needs to happen that does not exist already?
This isn't even a concept that we shouldn't incorporate new technology as it happens, merely that the whole thing could be accomplished today, without any new inventions.
Imagine the work that had to happen to create say, the F1 engine. This was applied science, but a lot of new things had to happen to pump out that much power from a single engine. And we've built on that since then.
So we can get into orbit and leave Earth's gravity well. We can build structures in space that can maintain human life indefinitely. We can move those structures. We can get to Mars, We can land things on Mars. Questions remain about growing food, but no deal breakers are seen so far. All with present day technology.
And as new technology is learned/developed, it can only get easier.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The technology that allows humans to survive in radiation fields that exist outside the Van Allen belts for more than a few days does not exist. The fact is that the combination of adequate shielding and power to boost ratio for moving that amount of mass is beyond what we can now accomplish with existing technology. Putting a structure in low earth orbit, where it is protected from the balance of solar radiation and moving that same structure outside the protective fields provided by the Earth's magnetic f
Re: (Score:2)
" What technology needs to happen that does not exist already? "
Since we have not sent even a rat to Mars, the answer to your asinine question is: EVERYTHING. Until you've BUILT and DONE it, all you have is WISHFUL THINKING.
How is that an asinine question?
Make a list of the technology needed to send and land humans on the moon.
Make a list of the technology needed to send and land the Curiosity rover to Mars.
Make a list of the technology needed to support humans in the ISS for the last 18 years.
You've just made a list of almost all of the technology needed to send humans to Mars.
So the next question is exactly, " What technology needs to happen that does not exist already? "
I think that the radiation problem, that is, how to li
Re: (Score:3)
I think that the radiation problem, that is, how to lift how much shielding is going to be a big one.
Radiation will be a big problem, especially if there is a solar storm during transit. Mass helps, but not as much as most of us think. Water would be helpful, since we obviously need a good bit, but then there is a plastic named RXF1. It shows a lot of promise. This is a link from 2005. https://science.nasa.gov/scien... [nasa.gov]
It has 3X the tensile strength of Aluminum, yet around a third of the weight. Bring polyethylene based, it is good protection against radiation - I don't know if NASA's product is borated
Re: (Score:3)
" What technology needs to happen that does not exist already? "
Since we have not sent even a rat to Mars, the answer to your asinine question is: EVERYTHING. Until you've BUILT and DONE it, all you have is WISHFUL THINKING.
I can easily build a lot of things in my garage, I have a mill, lathe, and the materials needed. If I decide to build a steam engine - already existing technology, I can do that, and it will work. No wishing needed, just doing.
Make certain to type your reply to me in all caps. That shows that you know what you are talking about, and really turns the ladies on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny because at one time the same thing was said about flying. The engineering was too tough and there is no way humans would ever fly.
That's a bogus comparison; there were already things flying, we just needed to figure out how to emulate them. There no things living on Mars that we can emulate.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no things that ride around on wheels either.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny because at one time the same thing was said about flying. The engineering was too tough and there is no way humans would ever fly.
That's a bogus comparison; there were already things flying, we just needed to figure out how to emulate them.
No, what you just claimed was a bogus comparison, because flapping your wings didn't work.
Space Nutters (Score:4, Insightful)
You're wasting your time. To the GP, the only technological development that will ever matter to achieving space has already happened; the only engineering that will ever matter to achieving space has already been done. It's wholly loony, but it's not uncommon.
Eventually, we'll be all over the solar system. The available space, energy, manufacturing conditions and natural resources all better (and in some cases, dwarf) those we can achieve on earth. Market forces will make this happen. Assuming we don't get hit by a comet or an asteroid, or the ecology doesn't collapse, or we don't nuke each other into glowing dust, of course.
The tech to get into space is known. The tech to live in space is known too, although it is true that the engineering has yet to be done.
The "space nutters" are actually the ones that claim we'll be indefinitely planet-bound. It's a pretty clueless assertion.
Chemical rockets can bootstrap this, though the cost is high; something like a space elevator would change the entire picture, but we're still working on the material science for that, and again, no engineering has been done (because no materials as yet.)
Anyway, fear not the nay-sayers. They know not of what they speak. :)
Re: (Score:3)
You understand what a market force is, don't you? It's demand. Works like this:
1- People want lots of stuff. ... Stuff == Gonna go get that.
2- Stuff is made from resources.
3- There are lots of unclaimed resources out there.
4- Ergo, Resources
I suggest you write that down. It'll help you understand a lot about the world. An area you clearly suffer from a deficit in, at present.
Here's how it doesn't work:
Someone knows where a seam of gold is. They also know it's unclaimed. They ignore it, because "that'd be ha
Re: (Score:2)
On the Siffy channel?
It's going straight to MST3K.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if you really want to get people hot under the collar, James Earl Jones would be a sterling choice. Think Terence Mann in Field of Dreams, only more so.
Re: (Score:2)