Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:32PM   Printer-friendly
from the man-on-mars-before-the-year-2000 dept.

This vintage half-hour special of the BBC's "Tomorrow's World", first aired in 1987, looks at manned space exploration in the wake of the Challenger disaster, the context of the then still-present Soviet Space program and space race, and of course the technology of the time. Tomorrow's World was a much-loved and respected science and technology television series that ran for almost 40 years, which will be fondly remembered by Brit Soylentils of a certain generation.

Early plans for the ISS (referred to throughout as "the American Space Station") focus on the manufacturing of drugs and microchips in freefall, and political concerns about the militarisation of space. Plans for European and Soviet shuttle-like vehicles are compared. Mention is made of the Challenger investigation and the technical (but not the managerial) failures and solutions. Bold predictions about pre-millenial Mars missions are bandied about and big, chunky mid-80s sweaters are worn. If hindsight makes parts of this video seem politically or technologically naive, that only adds to the fascination of this window into an optimistic, turbulent and pivotal era in manned spaceflight.

[Note: This link is to the BBC iplayer. This may present some not-insurmountable obstacles for those of you who are outside the UK and/or opposed to DRM.]

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:11PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:11PM (#131322) Journal

    Easy: Big organizational red tape, bureaucracy, high cost, cumbersome technology and government that won't fund stuff, especially from the Republican side.

    Now we have private incentives, people that can fund space on their own, good ideas like asteroid mining, way more efficient technology and a possibility of a space race with China vs private entrepreneurs vs US government.

    • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:26PM

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:26PM (#131417) Journal

      The thing that I found interesting was the promise of space manufacturing to justify the expense of the ISS, when in fact the true justification was to provide somewhere for the shuttle to fly to, because keeping the shuttle alive was crucial for (a) pork and (b) military missions. By the time the ISS was in the sky all that zero-g manufacturing stuff vanished, "for science" was suddenly justification enough. Did the collapse of the USSR change everybody's priorities, or was it simply the same old story of the spin machine throwing excuses at the wall until something sticks.

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday January 03 2015, @10:15PM

        by kaszz (4211) on Saturday January 03 2015, @10:15PM (#131433) Journal

        Could be that manufacture in space didn't work out economically or technically. The big use is likely to learn how to sustain human life in space for a long time. Asteroid mining and other natural resources will likely be a killer-app.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:49PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:49PM (#131340)

    [Note: This link is to the BBC iplayer. This may present some not-insurmountable obstacles for those of you who are outside the UK and/or opposed to DRM.]

    You'd think insisting on using flash video in 2015 would present some obstacles for a publicly funded, public service broadcaster?

    • (Score: 1) by soylentsandor on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:41PM

      by soylentsandor (309) on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:41PM (#131352)

      I'm not sure it would. I think it should though.

    • (Score: 2) by umafuckitt on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:57PM

      by umafuckitt (20) on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:57PM (#131355)

      Not sure I see why. Using Flash doesn't restrict who can see the content. There's a streaming version, a client for downloads, and apps for mobile devices. Everyone with a TV license and no TV should be catered for. So what's the real problem?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:47PM

        by Arik (4543) on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:47PM (#131390) Journal
        "Not sure I see why. Using Flash doesn't restrict who can see the content."

        Sure it does. It restricts the content to people that are presumed to have agreed to an unconscionable contract with Adobe.

        I hope the BBC are at least collecting a substantial bribe from Adobe for making sure people cannot watch this.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday January 03 2015, @10:39PM

          by cafebabe (894) on Saturday January 03 2015, @10:39PM (#131438) Journal

          The BBC's techies tried to make a system which was as open and resilient as possible [soylentnews.org] but it was doomed from the start because the management concentrated on one dominant platform rather than solving one or more niche cases and then working backwards to ensure it worked more widely. Anyhow, all of this idiocy with codecs and Flash as a poor man's DRM didn't require a bribe. A middle manager thought it was sufficient to watch video on his/her desktop and screw you if your setup differed.

          --
          1702845791×2
      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:38PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:38PM (#131544) Homepage
        > There's a streaming version,

        requiring a proprietory player

        > a client for downloads,

        "a client" sounds like proprietory software to me.

        > and apps for mobile devices.

        "apps" sounds like proprietory software

        If they were really interested in distributing it, they'd just distribute it. It's as easy as just having a url like http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/tv/archives/TommorowsWorld/1987/RaceToMars.mp4. No proprietory player, no proprietory downloading client, and no proprietory apps.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 1) by soylentsandor on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:45PM

    by soylentsandor (309) on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:45PM (#131353)

    It think it's easiest to bypass the iPlayer [youtube.com] altogether.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @05:39AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @05:39AM (#131491)

      i want to bypass FLASH altogether! what of us?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:20PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:20PM (#131625)

        you know you can open https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I2c9vlpb9Q [youtube.com] directly in VLC instead, right? I'm not 100% sure it works with all youtube videos though.

        But yes, lets hope we get rid of the flash plugin like we got rid of java from webpages.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @02:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @02:45PM (#131574)

    International Space Station sure has a better acronym than American Space Station.