|
It will likely be on Prime around December. You can buy the episodes digital now or the Blu-ray in July. Those are the options.
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
SpookyLizard posted:Hey goons, I just watched the first season of this on Amazon because it came when I was looking for Stargate (and discovering that SG-1 is no longer part of prime, what a loving travesty). I enjoyed it, mainly Miller being a hardboiled space detective and the neat hard science fiction stuff (asides from, y'know, stealth tech), although a lot of the stuff with Holden felt like they really didn't do anything proactive until they got the Roci, as they just kinda bounce around and horrible poo poo happens around them. Does S2 kinda improve this? Are there actual answers and poo poo explaining why the bad dudes wasted the second biggest non-terrestrial habitat? And why that creepy blue poo poo ate Adam Jensen? And does Adam Jensen come back, possibly as some kind of evil blue-glowy monster? Does S2 kinda improve this? Yes. Are there actual answers and poo poo explaining why the bad dudes wasted the second biggest non-terrestrial habitat? Two things: Eros was a small backwater, not the second largest. The space-version of a town with one stoplight. Second: Yes. And why that creepy blue poo poo ate Adam Jensen? Late Book 2/early book 3 stuff: Kinda, but not really until next season. And does Adam Jensen come back, possibly as some kind of evil blue-glowy monster? In a word: no.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Toxic Fart Syndrome posted:Are there actual answers and poo poo explaining why the bad dudes wasted the second biggest non-terrestrial habitat? Two things: Eros was a small backwater, not the second largest. The space-version of a town with one stoplight. Neither of you are right. Eros is the second biggest habitat in the Belt, but at best moderately important in terms of the Belt. Ceres is bigger and highly specialized as a transport hub, smaller Belt stations are specialized around other economic niches, Eros is big in Belt population terms but not particularly vital to anything. Think of it like Philadelphia. It's old and has history, is the 5th biggest city in America, but can you think of any particular industry that would be devastated if it disappeared off the map tomorrow? Me either. But it's not a hick backwater or unimportant. In any case, second biggest habitat in the Belt isn't the same as second biggest non-terrestrial habitat. It's way smaller than Luna, Ganymede, probably Titan, and possibly several other outer planet moon colonies.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Toxic Fart Syndrome posted:Eros was a small backwater, not the second largest. Second largest actually sounds right to me. Eros is in decline, but besides Ceres, I can't think of anywhere else with a bigger population that isn't a moon or planet. It's definitely smaller in the show (population ~100K vs ~1.5M in the book), but even the show version's got several times more people on it than, say, Tycho (~15K). Edit: damnit.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Most asteroids are more like piles of loose gravel barely holding together, and at best a pretty brittle conglomerates of a sort of solid chunk of rock that could never ever be "spun up", they'd fly apart if gravel or crack in half if rock. Sorry scify show, once again it's O'Neill Cylinders or bust.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Actually when we discover mass effect fields on Mars we will not need O'Neill cylinders 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Orbitals or bust.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Most asteroids are more like piles of loose gravel barely holding together, and at best a pretty brittle conglomerates of a sort of solid chunk of rock that could never ever be "spun up", they'd fly apart if gravel or crack in half if rock. Sorry scify show, once again it's O'Neill Cylinders or bust. The colonization of Mars is the most anti-science part of the show. Number Ten Cocks fucked around with this message at 20:34 on May 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:The colonization of Mars is the most anti-science part of the show. what the hell is wrong with the forbes website? I get tapped on the wrist for using an adblock, so I disable it, but their software doesn't detect that I whitelisted their site? gently caress it, I'm google-caching this article. Enjoy no revenue.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Article is bad because it just says space colonization period is dumb rather than saying colonizing planets is insanely dumb but space habitats are in fact insanely good.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Article is bad because it just says space colonization period is dumb rather than saying colonizing planets is insanely dumb but space habitats are in fact insanely good. Once you have a space elevator I think that might potentially be true. Anyway, lots of people are unable to admit that colonizing planets is insanely dumb. Like the writers of the Expanse.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Space elevator never going to happen either. The whole key is to get an industrial base going off a gravity well so you don't need to launch anything into space ever again.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
I'm doin some light rewatching of season 1, and uhh, why did the Protogen troops attempt to board the martian vessel in episode 4? Other than needing a plot reason for the party members to survive, I don't see the purpose? They have the martian vessel on the ropes, boarding it seems a much more risky approach for no clear benefit. What's missing?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
double nine posted:I'm doin some light rewatching of season 1, and uhh, why did the Protogen troops attempt to board the martian vessel in episode 4? Other than needing a plot reason for the party members to survive, I don't see the purpose? They have the martian vessel on the ropes, boarding it seems a much more risky approach for no clear benefit. What's missing? Taking the CIC of the MCRN flagship would've been an intel bonanza.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
double nine posted:what the hell is wrong with the forbes website? I get tapped on the wrist for using an adblock, so I disable it, but their software doesn't detect that I whitelisted their site? gently caress it, I'm google-caching this article. Enjoy no revenue. Isn't Forbes the site that bitched at people for using adblock and then immediately served malware ads when people disabled it?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Isn't Forbes the site that bitched at people for using adblock and then immediately served malware ads when people disabled it? Correct, it's also a pretty right wing mouthpiece with little to no curation of who's terrible articles they'll publish. I could write a long article about how autism is actually caused by high business taxes and it would be glowingly published by them. So long as the article has some sort of pro-business slant they'll grab it and throw it on their site.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Toast Museum posted:Taking the CIC of the MCRN flagship would've been an intel bonanza. People say this, but what would Protogen do with that? They aren't a military that can use it very effectively. They're a sinister company developing (they hope) a new weapons technology they will want to sell to the military some day. Why take the very high risk of losing all of your limited and very expensive stealth ships on the small chance the Martian captain is a coward or incompetent? Start a war? They can do that by blowing up the Donnager and releasing deniable modified evidence. They did anyway! The protogen motivations and actions in Season/Book 1 don't make a whole lot of sense.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Were they really betting on a cowardly captain or were they intentionally provoking self‐destruction?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Were they really betting on a cowardly captain or were they intentionally provoking self-destruction? The ship was effectively helpless when they boarded. They could have just blown it up from a distance unless you think they coincidentally ran out of ammo just as they got close enough for a boarding action.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
hmmmm yase why would protogen arrange a scenario where stealing or destroying the donnager would be advantageous :thethinkingemoji:
|
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:hmmmm yase why would protogen arrange a scenario where stealing or destroying the donnager would be advantageous :thethinkingemoji: It had no functioning engines, and it's not stealthy. They never could steal it. Fred Johnson wasn't the only person who would have been watching what happened. They could have destroyed it without boarding it. The boarding action introduced a very high chance of losing all of their otherwise victorious ships for a pretty vague and uncertain payoff. It only happened to give the Rocinante crew a reason to
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
If Earth was going to attack a Martian ship, seemingly unprovoked, they would want something off of it. The attack on the Donnager was an effort by Protogen to try too fix the fact that James Holden leaks information everywhere. It doesn't come across as well in the show because he only made the one broadcast but Holden was constantly blogging to everyone every detail of the Canterbury's death and what investigation they could do into it on the Knight.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Guardians 2 spoilers but the scene of Craiglund chilling on the ship eating space soup while waiting for everyone to come back from Ego reminded me a lot of when Alex was just chilling on the Rossi waiting for everyone else to get back from Ganymede.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Think of it like Philadelphia. It's old and has history, is the 5th biggest city in America, but can you think of any particular industry that would be devastated if it disappeared off the map tomorrow? Tastykake!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Neither of you are right. Yeah, I'm crazy. Don't know where I got my idea, but your comparison to Philly is more apt! I really had the impression from the book that Eros was chosen because it was one of the smallest, backwater habitats that no one really paid attention to any more.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Neither of you are right. Calling eros the space equivalent of Philidelphia is a pretty solid burn in my book. It could only be better if they built a statue to a fictional character, like philly actually did. loving fifth rate New York. I'll keep an eye out for a cheap price on hard copies or just wait it out until December. Btw, do they use nukes in the setting? Or any fantastic nuke based weaponry, like Casaba Howitzers? Or is it mostly just kinetics and explosives, like missiles and torpedos, rail guns and CIWS?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
IIRC the massive fleet of interplanetary missiles Earth sent after Eros were nuclear?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
SpookyLizard posted:Btw, do they use nukes in the setting? Or any fantastic nuke based weaponry, like Casaba Howitzers? Or is it mostly just kinetics and explosives, like missiles and torpedos, rail guns and CIWS? Nukes are practically the first weapon we see in the setting: the Canterbury was destroyed with nukes. (edit: yeah, and the missiles Earth launched at Eros were nukes.) The standard long-range weapon on military ships is plasma torpedoes, whatever exactly those are. Kinetics are the go-to for medium range and close quarters. Lasers come up infrequently. There are a few more exotic weapons out there that need some context.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
Nuclear weapons in space aren't destructive in the same way they are in atmospheres. https://history.nasa.gov/conghand/nuclear.htm
|
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
Toast Museum posted:Nukes are practically the first weapon we see in the setting: the Canterbury was destroyed with nukes. (edit: yeah, and the missiles Earth launched at Eros were nukes.) The standard long-range weapon on military ships is plasma torpedoes, whatever exactly those are. Kinetics are the go-to for medium range and close quarters. Lasers come up infrequently. There are a few more exotic weapons out there that need some context. Ah, okay, I didn't realize that those blue torpedos were nukes as opposed to just some kind of conventional space torpedo. Smiling Jack posted:Nuclear weapons in space aren't destructive in the same way they are in atmospheres. Yeah, but since you don't have to worry about setting off an EMP with every detonation, you can do all kinds of fun stuff. Like Casaba Howitzers, or using a shaped nuclear charge to make an EFP that's effective from 50km out and travels at 3% of C. And that's with a small, 5kt one.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Most asteroids are more like piles of loose gravel barely holding together, and at best a pretty brittle conglomerates of a sort of solid chunk of rock that could never ever be "spun up", they'd fly apart if gravel or crack in half if rock. Sorry scify show, once again it's O'Neill Cylinders or bust. It's asteroid habitats or bust, is my understanding. I'd be interested in reading something that actually examined the feasibility of either habitat type.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
I went looking for the books on Friday, and I could only find the large format versions, not the regular rear end paperbacks.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:54
|
|
SpookyLizard posted:Ah, okay, I didn't realize that those blue torpedos were nukes as opposed to just some kind of conventional space torpedo. Yeah I didn't mean they weren't destructive, I meant they weren't destructive in the same way.
|
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Eiba posted:This is, from my recent hard sci-fi understanding, the exact opposite of the case. Building O'Neill cylinders is absurdly more resource intensive and difficult than hollowing out a solid asteroid. There are thousands of those things out there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN66v_Qtcc8
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Eiba posted:This is, from my recent hard sci-fi understanding, the exact opposite of the case. Building O'Neill cylinders is absurdly more resource intensive and difficult than hollowing out a solid asteroid. There are thousands of those things out there. oh god what have you done
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
O'Neill, two 'L's.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
If you ain't a pair of tubes you can gently caress off.   
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
i like the idea of artificial o'neills but the way its always depicted strikes me as ridiculously inefficient. you're talking about a massive volume that you need to keep pressurized, and a complex internal weather also why the gently caress would you build detached houses with white picket fences and swimming pools and roads
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:also why the gently caress would you build detached houses with white picket fences and swimming pools and roads Because it's the space 50s.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
Now that I think about it the low gravity areas proximal to the axis of spin would be useful for manufacturing, the goods can be moved between low and high gravity locations at different stages in the manufacturing process.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 08:11
|
|