Will hard scifi like Gravity get people back 2 science, space travel?

[Metryq]

Re: Will hard scifi like Gravity get people back 2 science, space trav

I think finding, "Krypton," or a planet that has the likely real life chractertics of Krypton as described in the superman comics and films makes astrophysics interesting to a lot more people than calling it planet AEY-312 and perhaps encourages younger people to get into the field.

Actually, the comic called it LHS 2520, not AEY-312, neither of which is real nomenclature. The six-page story does nothing to explain interferometry, or how it is used in astronomy. In fact, no astronomy tools were used to integrate the data—Superman did it all in his head. (Magic.)

The story invoked black holes and wormholes, both of which are fictitious mathematical constructs, in order to get Superman to Earth "instantaneously" so 27 years later he could witness the destruction of a planet 27 lightyears away. (The Pick-a-card maneuver.)

How does any of this popularize or introduce real science?

 

[sojourner]

Re: Will hard scifi like Gravity get people back 2 science, space trav

Wait, blackholes are fictional? Huh, guess all that evidence for them is faked.

 

[publiusr]

Re: Will hard scifi like Gravity get people back 2 science, space trav

I won't watch Gravity, because it is 'hard'. I will continue to demand flying saucer space craft, or at least saucer-shuttle craft, and warp-drive starships. Going 'hard' means going 'rocket' - which means: mass-pollution, and going nowhere.

I'm ok with cutting NASA, as long as NASA favors rockets and spaceplanes over flying saucers - for human spaceflight. I want a new national space agency, that does not have 'aeronautics' in it's name.

Well, rockets are what we have, and they work. I don't buy anti-gravity at all.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2433/1

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Re: Will hard scifi like Gravity get people back 2 science, space trav

I'm ok with cutting NASA, as long as NASA favors rockets and spaceplanes over flying saucers - for human spaceflight. I want a new national space agency, that does not have 'aeronautics' in it's name.

lulz

 

[larryman]

Re: Will hard scifi like Gravity get people back 2 science, space trav

I won't watch Gravity, because it is 'hard'. I will continue to demand flying saucer space craft, or at least saucer-shuttle craft, and warp-drive starships. Going 'hard' means going 'rocket' - which means: mass-pollution, and going nowhere.

I'm ok with cutting NASA, as long as NASA favors rockets and spaceplanes over flying saucers - for human spaceflight. I want a new national space agency, that does not have 'aeronautics' in it's name.

Well, rockets are what we have, and they work. I don't buy anti-gravity at all.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2433/1

Do you buy gravity? Note... that Earths gravity is not produced by air pressure, or rocket thrust. Overcoming gravity attraction should be as logical as overcoming magnetic attraction - by use of the opposing polarity (Dark Energy?).

Your linked article states:
"First of all, getting into space doesn’t require emitting any carbon in principle. Rocket engines are only carbon emitters if they’re burning hydrocarbons; some engines that powered the US Space Shuttles and Saturn rockets burned hydrogen, not carbon."

The writer glosses over their required burning of kerosene in Saturn Vs' 1st stage, and aluminum in the Shuttles' SRB rockets. Try breathing those exhaust fumes!

"Well, rockets are what we have..."
A 19th century automobile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_and_buggy