|
VagueRant posted:Ooh! Ooh! I can answer this. I'll give a few examples from early episodes: -Amos and Holden are outside fixing the communications array, to build tension, the camera goes super tight so you feel claustrophobic like you are in their space helmets brushing up against Holden's sweaty nose hair. This does not provoke the desired tension I think they were going for, rather mild nausea is achieved. This is never done again for sequences in space suits (thank goodness} -The scene on the Donnager where Naomi and Amos are in the holding room patching holes and passing the space caulking gun in zero-g is oddly bereft of tension in the way it's shot, but the score is telling me something really exciting is happening. The sequence before that was amazingly good, and then the scene just sort of trailed off in a soggy fart. -The run across the Donnager walkway to the Roci. Again, everything before and after that action sequence was great, but the sequence itself pumped up the action score and then delivered a sad trombone noise of actual action. It flailed around downplaying all the important beats (like Amos being shot) while overplaying and elongating parts that should have been tight (like Holden pushing against Naomi to get back on the catwalk) I could go on, but I'll stop there. I have no problem with the sets, script, effects or acting, In fact I love all those things, but they sometimes make some really odd choices for framing and editing, which becomes painfully pronounced whenever they try to do an action or tension scene. I'm willing to give a show a lot of leeway if one element of it is off while the rest are completely on point, as I think it is for the Expanse. A show can always improve and the first season is not always indicative of the rest of the run. Just look at Sparticus if you need an example.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
I would kill for a one-off episode based on The Churn (Amos' backstory). I just finished it, and it was WAY better than I expected, and gnarly in a few ways I wasn't expecting, and didn't go in a direction I'd assumed of Amos' background. !!!
coyo7e fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Svaha posted:I'm willing to give a show a lot of leeway if one element of it is off while the rest are completely on point, as I think it is for the Expanse. A show can always improve and the first season is not always indicative of the rest of the run. Just look at Sparticus if you need an example. Seriously. How many of even the very best shows had flawless first seasons? Maybe True Detective? Babylon 5 is pretty much my favorite science fiction show ever, and it's first season was hit and miss at best. These things take time to grow to their full potential. For a freshman season The Expanse was far and away better than we could have reasonably hoped to expect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Would someone mind giving me a simple explanation of ejection mass? I think I understand it but I'd like a clearer idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
JD posted:Would someone mind giving me a simple explanation of ejection mass? I think I understand it but I'd like a clearer idea. When there's no gravity, and nothing to push yourself off (like a wall), the only way to push yourself in one direction is to throw something in the other direction. If you're floating in outer space and you have a baseball, you can throw the baseball, and the force of the throw will send you the opposite way. This is Newton's Third Law - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The harder you throw the ball, the more force you're imparting into it - so the exact same force gets applies to you, in the opposite direction. The ball will be going much faster than you, but that's because you're much heavier; the energy in both you and the ball is the same. (in fact it's also exactly what's happening when you push off a wall in space, it's just that the wall is much heavier than you are) This is why guns and cannons recoil when fired. This is also what rockets are doing. By burning rocket fuel they create a reaction that sends the waste exhaust out of the engine at high speed. Rocket exhaust has a lot of energy and goes very fast, and that's what accelerates the rocket forward. The ejection mass is just the stuff that comes out the back, like the baseball in the example. Boing fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Boing posted:
Momentum, not energy. I'm floating in empty space, I throw a baseball as hard as I can. Say I'm Nolan Ryan in my prime, so I throw that fucker hard, I send it sailing out into space at 45 meters per second. Baseball now has a momentum of 45 meters per second * 0.145 kilograms = 6.5 kg*m/s, and it has a kinetic energy of .5 *.145 kilograms * 45 meters per second ^2 = 146 joules. Momentum is conserved, so I'm gonna fly backwards (well, since my throw isn't symmetric about my center of mass, really I'm gonna start spinning, but let's ignore that, and say I'm just gonna fly backwards). I'm a spherical 70 kilogram adult, I'm gonna wind up with the same momentum as the baseball: 6.5 kg*m/s. How fast am I flying backwards? 6.5 kg*m/s / 70 kilograms = about .1 meter per second. My kinetic energy is .5 * 70 * .1^2 = .35 joules. I mean, energy is (usually) conserved, but in the case of me throwing a ball it's conserved in that my muscles had to do some work, some chemical fuel had to be burned, and fundamentally the chemical potential energy of the glycogen in my muscles got turned into the kinetic energy of the thrown ball. Energy is a scalar, not a vector, it's a directionless quantity. Momentum is a vector, the momentum of the ball is an arrow pointing forwards, the total momentum of me+ball needs to be the same before and after the throw, so that forward arrow needs to be balanced by an equal arrow pointing backwards, so I need to fly backwards at a tiny speed for the momentum of the ball flying forwards at a higher speed to be conserved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
First, let us assume a perfectly spherical goon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:First, let us assume a perfectly spherical goon. What other type of goon is there?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Momentum, not energy. Thanks, I didn't think to distinguish between the two because I learned all my physics from Kerbal Space Program
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
And reaction mass is the fuel for the reactor. So in your standard chemical rocket, reaction mass and ejection mass are the same thing. In an Expanse ship, the reactor generates a ton of energy but isn't venting the fusion plasma directly out the back to drive the ship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Boing posted:When there's no gravity, and nothing to push yourself off (like a wall), the only way to push yourself in one direction is to throw something in the other direction. If you're floating in outer space and you have a baseball, you can throw the baseball, and the force of the throw will send you the opposite way. This is Newton's Third Law - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. There's also a throwaway line in the first book about how the guns they have for space are a special recoilless design, so they don't have the added effect of being propulsion for the shooter. I'm part of the way into the third book now. Having to slow down now that university has resumed 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
If I remember right some small arms are gyrojets in The Expanse. They wouldn't be totally recoilless but would have reduced recoil compared to a conventional slugthrower.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
AirborneNinja posted:If I remember right some small arms are gyrojets in The Expanse. They wouldn't be totally recoilless but would have reduced recoil compared to a conventional slugthrower. Book 2 spoiler: Holden uses a gyrojet pistol to shoot the protomolecule-zombie thing that gets aboard the Roci's cargo bay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
As a  book lover I was honestly initially disappointed with the first 3 episodes (still am to be honest). Most of the points have already been raised. Seeing the Tachi leave the Donager etc really helped to improve it, it also benefits from a second watch after watching the first season in full. But honestly, telling people 'you gotta watch 13 episodes twice before you get the show' is a bad show. Not saying I hate the show, I really love it now (hence watching it a second time to catch what I missed) but it could've been better initially. Still amazing what they did withe the budget. But, while I'll agree, this certainly is one of the best SyFy shows in a very long while, it could always be better. Speaking of, bugs me Amos is limping on the tumbling, gravity free ship, the reality would be some weird reverse limp (the pressure is pulling the magnet boot off the deck not stepping on it in gravity). Optimus_Rhyme fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
For people that have read the books, is there any chance of an in-depth look at Luna/Mars in the upcoming season(s)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
kanonvandekempen posted:For people that have read the books, is there any chance of an in-depth look at Luna/Mars in the upcoming season(s)? Luna: No, I don't think we see much of Luna at this point. Mars: Depends on where the season ends. I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
I've just started reading the first book, maybe 80 or so pages in. I couldn't help thinking that the stakes just feel way higher in the book. The short bit of background about Fred Johnson and about the Belter stations getting taxed all, combined with the stressful nature of living in a station surrounded by billions of miles of nothingness, explained very well why the Cant getting nuked was such a big deal. I thought that as the show went on I started to pick up on some of this stuff but couldn't remember it really being explained in the early episodes. So I started rewatching the series and it turns out that most of that stuff is actually there, I just didn't really appreciate the significance of everything they showed us. There are still some things I like better about the book, but the early episodes of the show really do a pretty drat good job adapting the beginning of story. One thing I'm still a little unclear on is why Earth and Mars don't like each other. So far it seems like it's just a military thing with Mars having better guns/ships vs Earth's larger number of gun/ships. Is it more complicated than a military dick measuring contest? Military strength just seems irrelevant without a reason for conflict.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Inspector 34 posted:One thing I'm still a little unclear on is why Earth and Mars don't like each other. So far it seems like it's just a military thing with Mars having better guns/ships vs Earth's larger number of gun/ships. Is it more complicated than a military dick measuring contest? Military strength just seems irrelevant without a reason for conflict. It has its roots in the fact that Mars unilaterally declared independence from Earth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Oh did I somehow miss that? Or is it just talked about more later on?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
In the books (first book spoilers, not really major, just a difference in adaptation to the show) Earth and Mars start out a fair bit more chummy, whereas in the show I think they skipped that aspect forward in order to make some of their other changes work better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
There's an ideological difference too - Mars is a large community of people all working hard towards the goal of eventually terraforming the planet to be more like Earth. Literally half of Earth's population is unemployed and living off of social assistance, contributing to the squalor of a precious and beautiful planet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
And not because they're lazy, but because there literally are not enough jobs worrh paying someone to do. All those robots and automation scare stories? They all came true and this is the utopian outcome where the government protects everyone. And people still found a way to make it miserable and crime ridden
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Yeah there's a lot of resentment towards Earth because Earth has such bounty and they gently caress it up. They kind of mention this in the show. For people who grow up in the Belt it's like, water just falls from the sky? The air is free? And you're loving it up and coming out here to steal our poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yeah there's a lot of resentment towards Earth because Earth has such bounty and they gently caress it up. They kind of mention this in the show. For people who grow up in the Belt it's like, water just falls from the sky? The air is free? And you're loving it up and coming out here to steal our poo poo?  (I'm so sorry)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:(I'm so sorry) Don't be, just had to fake a cough after laughing out loud at work. Thanks for that. Just now I remember Arnold's Totall Recall (haven't seen the remake yet). Any similarities between those colonies and the ones on Mars in The Expanse? (Minus the triple boobs and other mutations, obviously)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
Evernoob posted:Don't be, just had to fake a cough after laughing out loud at work. The remake isn't on Mars
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
And for all that Earth fucks it up, they're basically a dark twist on the ideal world. It's a socialist utopia where there is food, housing and education for all, and nobody has to work if they don't want to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:And for all that Earth fucks it up, they're basically a dark twist on the ideal world. It's a socialist utopia where there is food, housing and education for all, and nobody has to work if they don't want to. As I understand it, this is true, with the caveat that even if you do want to work, it's very possible you can't get a job because there aren't enough for all the people who want them. So this created a huge permanent underclass of people on Basic and a small middle class of job havers. It's not quite so dire as all that because Basic is enough to live on, but there's still a fair bit of squalor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Also keep in mind that Earth has 30 billion people on it. I seem to recall that it was a 50-50 split of folks on Basic and those with employment, so it isn't like robots took all the jobs and there is 95% unemployment going on. There is just only so much you can do with that huge a population.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:And for all that Earth fucks it up, they're basically a dark twist on the ideal world. It's a socialist utopia where there is food, housing and education for all, and nobody has to work if they don't want to. Well, not exactly education for all. You've got to take a job for work credits for at least a year before a university will consider you. They don't want to waste classroom space on people likely to stay on basic anyway. With the dearth of jobs, it might be a while before you can even get the ball rolling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
I want to say that Basic is pretty, well, basic too. My impression from a the books was that it was literally basic subsistence levels and didn't include stuff like access to their Internet equivalent.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
I dunno, it explicitly says most Basic-ers pass the time with an unending stream of clickbait and porn so I imagine they have internet. In theeeeooory they could be becoming distance learning scholars and artists and stuff, but I don't think it's particularly cynical to say most people would just be miserable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
The James S. A. Corey twitter account (which is run by Ty Franck iirc) tweeted a mild but glorious spoiler for next season: https://twitter.com/JamesSACorey/status/708161525257621504
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:And for all that Earth fucks it up, they're basically a dark twist on the ideal world. It's a socialist utopia where there is food, housing and education for all, and nobody has to work if they don't want to. Bernie Sanders creates the earth dystopia in The Expanse?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
etalian posted:Bernie Sanders creates the earth dystopia in The Expanse? No, Bernie Sanders ensures that people aren't starving to death after robots and 3D printers take all our jerbs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
From what I gathered from skimming the first couple of books looking for how they describe basic assistance, you just get enough to keep from starving, but no money. I'm guessing you'd get a mattress in a zero-bedroom apartment in the middle of an arcology somewhere, a couple sets of clothing, an allotment of water and bread and nutrient paste to live on, and there's a whole world of consumer goods and services for The Better Half that you can never enjoy, because everything still costs money. I can't imagine the sort of riots that had to happen to get the powers that be to start providing assistance for ten billion+ souls. Also, it seemed that the whole "socialist utopia" thing Strategic Tea mentioned was just propaganda for Martians and Belters to tell each other to feel superior to those lazy Earthers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
I think it was stated that people on basic mostly sit around watching tv and playing games in their lodgings all day since they don't have enough money to do anything else. A true goon paradise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Sounds like a dark twist on Star Trek's "nobody has to work if they don't want to, but they still do because humans are just so darn swell" utopian crap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Sounds like a dark twist on Star Trek's "nobody has to work if they don't want to, but they still do because humans are just so darn swell" utopian crap. Individual ambition is a thing but basic applies to a person and you don't get more for having kids. It's not like Soviet Russia where entire communities were built around unemployment and having as many kids as possible to get more money from the state. Everyone gets the same regardless so there's no incentive to overbreed which I assume counters most of the negatives from such a system, in fact having kids probably reduces your standard of living and I'd guess that contraceptives are universally free and easily obtained. Your incentive to contribute is personal wealth, social mobility and whatever personal satisfaction you obtain from it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 10:46
|
|