Interesting thread.
James Doohan's pre-Trek scifi show: Space Command (1953–54)!
- Thread starter Maurice
- Start date
I totally forgot that Doohan was Canadian, so it shouldn’t have been a surprise to me that he appeared on Canadian television. I guess his performance as Scotty was so great that I erroneously believed he was from the UK.
Not with that accent!
Rocky Jones was also re-edited into TV Movies, since the majority of the stories were 3-part story arcs designed to be part of a movie, hence it’s probably the one 50’s Sci-fi show that has survived in the best condition.
But other sci-fi shows from then have survived in terrible condition, but had still been shot on film, like “Flash Gordon”. And “Flash Gordon” is a really great show, but what’s out there know ranges from 35mm, 16mm and 8mm film prints all the way down to 3rd or 4th VHS generation copies that are from 1970’s/80’s shot-off-a-wall transfers to 3/4-inch Umatic and Betacam SP for syndication (it would be interesting if some studio has 35mm or at least 16mm syndication prints of the show that they could make 1080p transfers from, even if they coloured the episodes so that they could put a copyright on them and maybe authorization from King Media to claim them as “Official Transfers”).
I always thought Ceres was an asteroid rather than a dwarf planet but now I find it is a spherical shape rather than a large battered rock as I had seen before!
JB
It was once considered a planet, then demoted. Sound familiar?I always thought Ceres was an asteroid rather than a dwarf planet but now I find it is a spherical shape rather than a large battered rock as I had seen before!
JB
I wish people would stop calling it "demotion." It's silly to treat scientific classification as a hierarchy. Correctly identifying the category that something truly belongs to is not a demotion -- it's more like recognition, correcting a mistake. It's like a wrestler who was unremarkable as a heavyweight getting reassigned as a middleweight and becoming successful in that category, because it was where they always truly belonged.
I see that former child star Scotty Beckett was with the show for a while before he descended again into alcohol, drugs and crime. What a shame....
There is a rational reason to object to the IAU's definition. It's flawed.
In addition to what I mentioned before, there is an issue with the "clearing the orbit" portion. As Alan Stern pointed out in this interview at Space.com, the Earth would not be considered a planet if it were located where Pluto is because the it wouldn't be able to clear its orbit.
In addition to what I mentioned before, there is an issue with the "clearing the orbit" portion. As Alan Stern pointed out in this interview at Space.com, the Earth would not be considered a planet if it were located where Pluto is because the it wouldn't be able to clear its orbit.
SPACE.com: One of your chief objections is the "clearing your neighborhood" stipulation. Under that definition, Earth wouldn't be a planet in some circumstances, right?
Stern: That's an example of what's so ridiculous about it. Suppose that in your mind, you created a solar system exactly like ours, except at each of the orbits of the nine classical planets, you put an Earth. As you go further outward in the solar system, you cross a boundary where Earth is no longer able to clear its zone, because the zone is too big.
It turns out that happens around the orbit of Neptune, maybe Uranus. So you would have nine identical objects, six of which you would call a planet and three of which you would not. They're identical in every respect except where they are.
In no other branch of science am I familiar with something that absurd. "We're going to call it a cow, except when it's in a herd." A river is a river, independent of whether there are other rivers nearby. In science, we call things what they are based on their attributes, not what they're next to.
And the IAU definition is even worse, because it produces different categorizations for identical objects, depending on where they are.
Stern: That's an example of what's so ridiculous about it. Suppose that in your mind, you created a solar system exactly like ours, except at each of the orbits of the nine classical planets, you put an Earth. As you go further outward in the solar system, you cross a boundary where Earth is no longer able to clear its zone, because the zone is too big.
It turns out that happens around the orbit of Neptune, maybe Uranus. So you would have nine identical objects, six of which you would call a planet and three of which you would not. They're identical in every respect except where they are.
In no other branch of science am I familiar with something that absurd. "We're going to call it a cow, except when it's in a herd." A river is a river, independent of whether there are other rivers nearby. In science, we call things what they are based on their attributes, not what they're next to.
And the IAU definition is even worse, because it produces different categorizations for identical objects, depending on where they are.
But can you land there and set up farming communities and call it home? 
JB
JB