I finally managed to acquire a DVD of Imax's L5 First City in Space
since I have nver been aable to get to one of the Imax theaters where
it was showing.

Overall, I would say it was about as exciting and as informative as
watching Grass Grow.

Because of the cumbersomness of the technowlogy to produce it and
limited length I won't fault it. Though I wish they had refrained
from the futuristic cloths and used the money for more computor
graphics.

Having worked on and published a novel, (not published by one of the
Mainstream Publishers) I respect writers in their efforts to produce.

But I had my expectations. And in this I must confess I am well
disapointed. Very Very Disapointed. Having seen all the futuristic
visions drawn of what a space island interior would look like that
artists have produced since 1973, I wish the producers had bothered
to spand some time with them. Their vision, the tropical garden, the
eatery, the hydroponic farm and the lab were disapoointements. as was
the valley vision of the island interior. The virtual reality chat
room fel to me almost a cheapening of the film. Certainly I am quite
dispointed with the ending since I do not see the space islands as
gateways to space further out but as Man's Promised Land. I was
expecting it to end with the beginning of Island Two phase with
perhaps looking at a Bernal Sphere under construction rather than
another Torus. Just as I am quite diapointed with the them of That
World Cooperation can achieve this. Excuse me, since the nations of
the world have lost competativeness, they have ahieved hardly
anything when compared to the Leaps and Bounds achieved during the
Space Race between America and the Soviet Union.

Certainly Hollywood Can Produce better. Though with this year's line
up of Bombs they really need to go back to the drawing board.

Overall It's good for borrowing but I am sorry to say Mobile Suit
Gundam is better.

> dispointed with the ending since I do not see the space islands as
> gateways to space further out but as Man's Promised Land.

I think eventually we're going to want the materials of the main
belt, the Kuiper belt, the moons of various planets, and eventually
the planets of themselves. It won't make sense to bring all of it
to near-earth space. Eventually there will be more advantage in
being near your sources of mass or energy than in being near earth.
And eventually I think there will be interstellar colonization too.
So in that sense the space islands will be gateways to more distant
space, even though of course that won't be their main purpose.

> Excuse me, since the nations of the world have lost
> competativeness, they have ahieved hardly anything when compared
> to the Leaps and Bounds achieved during the Space Race between
> America and the Soviet Union.

I wouldn't call Hubble, Galileo, commercial communications, and all
the scientific satellites studying the earth "hardly anything".
Give me those over Apollo and ICBMs any day.

Still, it's far less than we could have done if we had put Apollo
resources into a colonization-oriented space program instead of a
show-off mission to go to a high-delta-vee location then turn around
and come home. Once we had proven to the Soviets that our rockets
were good enough for ICBMs, the Cold War didn't do much for space.
Remember, the Cold War continued for years after 1969, but the space
race didn't.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "terrierkeeper"
wrote:
>
> I finally managed to acquire a DVD of Imax's L5 First City in
Space
> since I have nver been aable to get to one of the Imax theaters
where
> it was showing.
>
> Overall, I would say it was about as exciting and as informative
as
> watching Grass Grow.
>
> Because of the cumbersomness of the technowlogy to produce it and
> limited length I won't fault it. Though I wish they had refrained
> from the futuristic cloths and used the money for more computor
> graphics.
>
> Having worked on and published a novel, (not published by one of
the
> Mainstream Publishers) I respect writers in their efforts to
produce.
>
> But I had my expectations. And in this I must confess I am well
> disapointed. Very Very Disapointed. Having seen all the futuristic
> visions drawn of what a space island interior would look like that
> artists have produced since 1973, I wish the producers had
bothered
> to spand some time with them. Their vision, the tropical garden,
the
> eatery, the hydroponic farm and the lab were disapoointements. as
was
> the valley vision of the island interior. The virtual reality chat
> room fel to me almost a cheapening of the film. Certainly I am
quite
> dispointed with the ending since I do not see the space islands as
> gateways to space further out but as Man's Promised Land. I was
> expecting it to end with the beginning of Island Two phase with
> perhaps looking at a Bernal Sphere under construction rather than
> another Torus. Just as I am quite diapointed with the them of That
> World Cooperation can achieve this. Excuse me, since the nations
of
> the world have lost competativeness, they have ahieved hardly
> anything when compared to the Leaps and Bounds achieved during the
> Space Race between America and the Soviet Union.
>
> Certainly Hollywood Can Produce better. Though with this year's
line

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of terrierkeeper

> Overall, I would say it was about as exciting and as
> informative as watching Grass Grow.

I find it thrilling, but I suppose only because there aren't really any
other High Frontier film productions (I wouldn't count Babylon 5) that I
could unfavorably compare it to. But I acknowledge many of the faults
you find.

> Because of the cumbersomness of the technowlogy to produce
> it and limited length I won't fault it.

Yes, that's an important consideration. Though IMAX movies today can be
quite a bit longer, really none were being made longer than 40 minutes
at that time.

> Though I wish they had refrained from the futuristic cloths
> and used the money for more computor graphics.

You have to consider the era. Computer graphics is moving so rapidly
that the state of the art from 1997 looks a bit lacking in detail by
today's standards.

> Having seen all the futuristic visions drawn of what a space
> island interior would look like that artists have produced
> since 1973, I wish the producers had bothered to spand some
> time with them.

I agree. That one, brief glimpse of the torus interior just wasn't
enough. Babylon 5 also shied away from providing many views of that
large, green, cylindrical interior. I guess there's something about
attempts to visualize these curving environments (especially with
people) that's considered very daunting to special effect artists, for
some obscure reason.

> The virtual reality chat room fel to me almost a cheapening of the
film.

If you've read my review, you know I agree.

> Certainly I am quite dispointed with the ending since I do
> not see the space islands as gateways to space further out
> but as Man's Promised Land.

Yes, for some reason there was a curious focus on colonizing the "outer
planets" (would that exclude Mars?). I'm not sure if that was the
Japanese influence, or what.

But at least they did depict the first habitat building the second.
Anyone with a bit of savvy can realize that there's really nothing to
stop that accelerating process.

> Just as I am quite diapointed with the them of That World
> Cooperation can achieve this. Excuse me, since the nations
> of the world have lost competativeness, they have ahieved
> hardly anything when compared to the Leaps and Bounds
> achieved during the Space Race between America and the
> Soviet Union.

Yes, the bit of narration you refer to sticks in my craw as well.
Competition isn't bad, competition is good. It's petty squabbles over
religions and tribal distinctions which are bad for us.

But we must remember that although this might be the slightly more
intellectual corner of Hollywood we're talking about here, it's still
Hollywood.

> Overall It's good for borrowing but I am sorry to say Mobile Suit
> Gundam is better.

I've given that a couple of tries, but find it a bit impenetrable.

Regards,

Mike Combs

As a student of history I have learned that the great achievements
have been brought more through competetion than cooperation.

The petty differences which divide are often the source of identity
and motivation. Though one can argue that these things are the soruce
of instability perhaps it is that instability taht forces things to
get done.

If nationalist prides had been in 1969 what they were like over three
hundred fifty years ago it is possible that man would have begun the
colonization process in space.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
>
> From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of terrierkeeper
>
> > Overall, I would say it was about as exciting and as
> > informative as watching Grass Grow.
>
> I find it thrilling, but I suppose only because there aren't really
any
> other High Frontier film productions (I wouldn't count Babylon 5)
that I
> could unfavorably compare it to. But I acknowledge many of the
faults
> you find.
>
> > Because of the cumbersomness of the technowlogy to produce
> > it and limited length I won't fault it.
>
> Yes, that's an important consideration. Though IMAX movies today
can be
> quite a bit longer, really none were being made longer than 40
minutes
> at that time.
>
> > Though I wish they had refrained from the futuristic cloths
> > and used the money for more computor graphics.
>
> You have to consider the era. Computer graphics is moving so
rapidly
> that the state of the art from 1997 looks a bit lacking in detail by
> today's standards.
>
> > Having seen all the futuristic visions drawn of what a space
> > island interior would look like that artists have produced
> > since 1973, I wish the producers had bothered to spand some
> > time with them.
>
> I agree. That one, brief glimpse of the torus interior just wasn't
> enough. Babylon 5 also shied away from providing many views of that
> large, green, cylindrical interior. I guess there's something about
> attempts to visualize these curving environments (especially with
> people) that's considered very daunting to special effect artists,
for
> some obscure reason.
>
> > The virtual reality chat room fel to me almost a cheapening of
the
> film.
>
> If you've read my review, you know I agree.
>
> > Certainly I am quite dispointed with the ending since I do
> > not see the space islands as gateways to space further out
> > but as Man's Promised Land.
>
> Yes, for some reason there was a curious focus on colonizing
the "outer
> planets" (would that exclude Mars?). I'm not sure if that was the
> Japanese influence, or what.
>
> But at least they did depict the first habitat building the second.
> Anyone with a bit of savvy can realize that there's really nothing
to
> stop that accelerating process.
>
> > Just as I am quite diapointed with the them of That World
> > Cooperation can achieve this. Excuse me, since the nations
> > of the world have lost competativeness, they have ahieved
> > hardly anything when compared to the Leaps and Bounds
> > achieved during the Space Race between America and the
> > Soviet Union.
>
> Yes, the bit of narration you refer to sticks in my craw as well.
> Competition isn't bad, competition is good. It's petty squabbles
over
> religions and tribal distinctions which are bad for us.
>
> But we must remember that although this might be the slightly more
> intellectual corner of Hollywood we're talking about here, it's
still

> If nationalist prides had been in 1969 what they were like over
three
> hundred fifty years ago ...

Nationalism as we know it didn't really get going until the 1800s.
Before that there was still plenty for people to fight about --
religion, empire, and so on -- but nationalism, the ideology that
state and ethnicity should be closely linked, didn't exist to any
significant extent.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "terrierkeeper"
wrote:
>
> As a student of history I have learned that the great achievements
> have been brought more through competetion than cooperation.
>
> The petty differences which divide are often the source of
identity
> and motivation. Though one can argue that these things are the
soruce
> of instability perhaps it is that instability taht forces things
to
> get done.
>
> If nationalist prides had been in 1969 what they were like over
three
> hundred fifty years ago it is possible that man would have begun
the
> colonization process in space.
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"

> wrote:
> >
> > From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of terrierkeeper
> >
> > > Overall, I would say it was about as exciting and as
> > > informative as watching Grass Grow.
> >
> > I find it thrilling, but I suppose only because there aren't
really
> any
> > other High Frontier film productions (I wouldn't count Babylon
5)
> that I
> > could unfavorably compare it to. But I acknowledge many of the
> faults
> > you find.
> >
> > > Because of the cumbersomness of the technowlogy to produce
> > > it and limited length I won't fault it.
> >
> > Yes, that's an important consideration. Though IMAX movies
today
> can be
> > quite a bit longer, really none were being made longer than 40
> minutes
> > at that time.
> >
> > > Though I wish they had refrained from the futuristic cloths
> > > and used the money for more computor graphics.
> >
> > You have to consider the era. Computer graphics is moving so
> rapidly
> > that the state of the art from 1997 looks a bit lacking in
detail by
> > today's standards.
> >
> > > Having seen all the futuristic visions drawn of what a space
> > > island interior would look like that artists have produced
> > > since 1973, I wish the producers had bothered to spand some
> > > time with them.
> >
> > I agree. That one, brief glimpse of the torus interior just
wasn't
> > enough. Babylon 5 also shied away from providing many views of
that
> > large, green, cylindrical interior. I guess there's something
about
> > attempts to visualize these curving environments (especially with
> > people) that's considered very daunting to special effect
artists,
> for
> > some obscure reason.
> >
> > > The virtual reality chat room fel to me almost a cheapening
of
> the
> > film.
> >
> > If you've read my review, you know I agree.
> >
> > > Certainly I am quite dispointed with the ending since I do
> > > not see the space islands as gateways to space further out
> > > but as Man's Promised Land.
> >
> > Yes, for some reason there was a curious focus on colonizing
> the "outer
> > planets" (would that exclude Mars?). I'm not sure if that was
the
> > Japanese influence, or what.
> >
> > But at least they did depict the first habitat building the
second.
> > Anyone with a bit of savvy can realize that there's really
nothing
> to
> > stop that accelerating process.
> >
> > > Just as I am quite diapointed with the them of That World
> > > Cooperation can achieve this. Excuse me, since the nations
> > > of the world have lost competativeness, they have ahieved
> > > hardly anything when compared to the Leaps and Bounds
> > > achieved during the Space Race between America and the
> > > Soviet Union.
> >
> > Yes, the bit of narration you refer to sticks in my craw as well.
> > Competition isn't bad, competition is good. It's petty
squabbles
> over
> > religions and tribal distinctions which are bad for us.
> >
> > But we must remember that although this might be the slightly
more
> > intellectual corner of Hollywood we're talking about here, it's
> still
> > Hollywood.
> >
> > > Overall It's good for borrowing but I am sorry to say Mobile
Suit
> > > Gundam is better.
> >
> > I've given that a couple of tries, but find it a bit
impenetrable.

--- In spacesettlers, "terrierkeeper" wrote:

> I finally managed to acquire a DVD of Imax's L5 First City in Space

Me too. Maybe I should post my own review. Let's see.

> since I have nver been aable to get to one of the Imax theaters
> where it was showing.

Me neither. It would've looked cool on that huge screen.

> Overall, I would say it was about as exciting and as informative as
> watching Grass Grow.

Well, for us, yeah. For the gazillions out there who know nothing
about this stuff, it might be worth something.

> Because of the cumbersomness of the technowlogy to produce it and
> limited length I won't fault it. Though I wish they had refrained
> from the futuristic cloths and used the money for more computor
> graphics.

I've given a lot of thought to what "futuristic" touches I would
include if I were to create a High Frontier themed something. My
main idea has been a prime-time family sitcom set in a Stanford
Torus. Some allowances for the future version of the Walkman,
laptop, and so on. I wouldn't want to be saying, in effect, "The
future is just like now, only in space!" This in fact is one of my
problems with _Mobile Suit Gundum_.

> Having worked on and published a novel, (not published by one of
> the Mainstream Publishers) I respect writers in their efforts to
> produce.

Having tried my hand at writing and gotten mostly NOWHERE! I have to
agree. Congradulations on your novel. Here's hoping that some day I
can say, "me too."

> But I had my expectations. And in this I must confess I am well
> disapointed. Very Very Disapointed. Having seen all the futuristic
> visions drawn of what a space island interior would look like that
> artists have produced since 1973, I wish the producers had bothered
> to spand some time with them.

Well, here I can say, "me too." Me too. Even in the Stanford Torus
there would be some pretty sweeping views. And as this movie's
version has a seperate agriculture ring and some parklands (at least
that is the impression I got from the ALL TOO BRIEF look at the
landscape). Why not more medium and long shots of that? If that
can't be done for my sitcom, I'd just as soon that they not make it.

BTW, does anybody have any idea how much it costs to hire an artist
to create such an image? I'm thinking T-shirts and jigsaw puzzles.

> Their vision, the tropical garden, the eatery, the hydroponic farm
> and the lab were disapoointements. as was the valley vision of the
> island interior.

I loved that island interior shot. I just wish there had been more
of that, as well as the view of the same from Keiko's PoV.

> The virtual reality chat room fel to me almost a cheapening of the

You and Mike Combs have both mentioned that now. But let's face it,
such VR is on the way. BTW, the anime _Uchuu Senken Yamato_ (aka
_Star Blazers_) had a holodeck about a decade before ST:TNG ever
aired. And it did NOT malfunction every three weeks or so.

> film. Certainly I am quite dispointed with the ending since I do
> not see the space islands as gateways to space further out but as
> Man's Promised Land.

It would have been nice if it had been "the Sattelite Solar Power
Stations we build have provided the Earth with abundant, clean energy
and helped to reduce poverty worldwide," instead of "we needed it to
explore the outer planets."

Or even "the Sattelite Solar Power Stations we build have provided
the Earth with abundant, clean energy and helped to reduce poverty
worldwide... almost as a side effect, the Island has made exploration
of the outer planets much easier."

> I was expecting it to end with the beginning of Island Two phase
> with perhaps looking at a Bernal Sphere under construction rather
> than another Torus.

Well I would expect another Turus to be built... and to be finished
three years after the first, with two more three years after that,
and... If Keiko was born in space the day the first Torus opened and
was six years old when the movie begins, then there should be four
Tori, with eight more being built. The idea that it takes thirty
years to go from one habitat to two is simply unacceptable. It would
mean, basically, that the whole space habitat things was a failure
for thirty years.

My sitcom pilot would end with the opening of the first Torus, with
the next episode picking up two years later. If the show lasts even
two seasons, then there will be a season in which the characters can
travel from one Island to the other. If it lasted five seasons,
there would be eight Tori, with eight more on the way, and the start
of Island Two construction would be announced in the final episode.
If it lasted ten seasons...

My other idea is a superhero cartoon for kids.

> Just as I am quite diapointed with the them of That World
> Cooperation can achieve this.

Well, it takes both competition and cooperation to achieve great
things. The Army and Navy competed on making the first nukes, and it
took the cooperation of the Allies to beat the Axis (against whom we
were, of course, competing). I don't have a problem with world
cooperation, expecially if some competitive element can be kept
around to spur the participants on.

> Excuse me, since the nations of the world have lost
> competativeness, they have ahieved hardly anything when compared to
> the Leaps and Bounds achieved during the Space Race between America
> and the Soviet Union.

Well, it sure took that to get it started. A lot has been achieved
since the end of the Cold War, and after Apollo, was a whole lot
achieved during it? One problem with competition is that, after
you've won ("We beat those Commies to the Moon!"), what motivation is
there to keep going?

> Certainly Hollywood Can Produce better.

Well, I'd like to think so. But with the IMAX format being such a
new thing, and such a Big Deal, maybe it was the best they could do
(technically) at the time. I do not believe it was the best they
could do (story-wise) at the time.

> Though with this year's line up of Bombs they really need to go
> back to the drawing board.

Faithful adaptations of books. It has worked for _The Lord of the
Rings_ and _Harry Potter_.

> Overall It's good for borrowing but I am sorry to say Mobile Suit
> Gundam is better.

Well, what do we have to compare MSG to? L5, that's what. Maybe, at
a streach, B5. That isn't a whole lot. Ah, to be rich (and a good
writer).

Xenophile (who is neither)

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Xenophile

> It would have been nice if it had been "the Sattelite Solar
> Power Stations we build have provided the Earth with abundant,
> clean energy and helped to reduce poverty worldwide," instead
> of "we needed it to explore the outer planets."
>
> Or even "the Sattelite Solar Power Stations we build have
> provided the Earth with abundant, clean energy and helped to
> reduce poverty worldwide... almost as a side effect, the
> Island has made exploration of the outer planets much easier."

It made me wonder if Pat Rawlings had rejected SPS as a driving force
for the development of space habitats. It's true that interest in SPS
initially derived from concerns that we were running out of oil, and
then the decades to follow saw abundant, cheap oil flow from the Middle
East. But I think the time may be ripe for a reexamination of SPS. Oil
costs seemed to be on the rise again, many are questioning the wisdom of
allowing oil to necessitate our entanglement in Middle East politics,
and we're concerned that fossil fuels may be causing global warming.

> The idea that it takes thirty years to go from one habitat to
> two is simply unacceptable. It would mean, basically, that
> the whole space habitat things was a failure for thirty years.

NASA's best estimates were that the first habitat would take 22 years to
complete. So the movie saying "nearly 30 years" for the first one
sounds about right. But NASA estimated that the first habitat, once
built, could build another in 2 years.

Regards,

Mike Combs

Actually, things really were very competetive in the begining.

Competive between monarchs and their backers as Spain moved into the
New World.

'Nationalism' the view of Us vs Them probably started popping up as
an ideology earlier than 1800 and the French Revolution. The French
and Indian Wars was a very Us vs Them Conflict. With Pitt the Great
Commoner proclaiming the superior way of Britain which many colonials
in America readily picked up.

As for a TV series, I too would love to see one set up.

I envision a mini series of people starting over. Perhaps in the
ISland Two phase where different types of colonies are built. with
more people migrating upward to settle virgin space. Much like the
westwards migration of America. Perhaps with national conflicts
mixing in as they did the colonial era of the 1700s.

Of course, History is my field and sometimes I dream of what the
present and future might be like if certain thigns were done
differently. SLIDERS had potential but unfortunately they just have
a feel to it. Perhaps if things had been done differently they might
have gotten some real interesting episodes. But sometimes I imagine
what society might be like if Key events in our history had done
differently such as lay off the politics at least as far as
insulting the majority of the American people. My novel is an
alternate history work.So I have a fondness for tnhat kind of
scenerio based works. For example what would our world be like if
the 'Sexual Revoilution' had not happened or happened late. What if
America developed a Manifest Destiny movement towards the stars.
What if the EU were less socialist and more conservative? Things like
that.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Wylie-Sears"
>
> > If nationalist prides had been in 1969 what they were like over
> three
> > hundred fifty years ago ...
>
> Nationalism as we know it didn't really get going until the 1800s.
> Before that there was still plenty for people to fight about --
> religion, empire, and so on -- but nationalism, the ideology that
> state and ethnicity should be closely linked, didn't exist to any
> significant extent.
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "terrierkeeper"
> wrote:
> >
> > As a student of history I have learned that the great
achievements
> > have been brought more through competetion than cooperation.
> >
> > The petty differences which divide are often the source of
> identity
> > and motivation. Though one can argue that these things are the
> soruce
> > of instability perhaps it is that instability taht forces things
> to
> > get done.
> >
> > If nationalist prides had been in 1969 what they were like over
> three
> > hundred fifty years ago it is possible that man would have begun
> the
> > colonization process in space.
> >
> > --- In spacesettlers@...m, "Combs, Mike"
>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
terrierkeeper
> > >
> > > > Overall, I would say it was about as exciting and as
> > > > informative as watching Grass Grow.
> > >
> > > I find it thrilling, but I suppose only because there aren't
> really
> > any
> > > other High Frontier film productions (I wouldn't count Babylon
> 5)
> > that I
> > > could unfavorably compare it to. But I acknowledge many of the
> > faults
> > > you find.
> > >
> > > > Because of the cumbersomness of the technowlogy to produce
> > > > it and limited length I won't fault it.
> > >
> > > Yes, that's an important consideration. Though IMAX movies
> today
> > can be
> > > quite a bit longer, really none were being made longer than 40
> > minutes
> > > at that time.
> > >
> > > > Though I wish they had refrained from the futuristic cloths
> > > > and used the money for more computor graphics.
> > >
> > > You have to consider the era. Computer graphics is moving so
> > rapidly
> > > that the state of the art from 1997 looks a bit lacking in
> detail by
> > > today's standards.
> > >
> > > > Having seen all the futuristic visions drawn of what a space
> > > > island interior would look like that artists have produced
> > > > since 1973, I wish the producers had bothered to spand some
> > > > time with them.
> > >
> > > I agree. That one, brief glimpse of the torus interior just
> wasn't
> > > enough. Babylon 5 also shied away from providing many views of
> that
> > > large, green, cylindrical interior. I guess there's something
> about
> > > attempts to visualize these curving environments (especially
with
> > > people) that's considered very daunting to special effect
> artists,
> > for
> > > some obscure reason.
> > >
> > > > The virtual reality chat room fel to me almost a cheapening
> of
> > the
> > > film.
> > >
> > > If you've read my review, you know I agree.
> > >
> > > > Certainly I am quite dispointed with the ending since I do
> > > > not see the space islands as gateways to space further out
> > > > but as Man's Promised Land.
> > >
> > > Yes, for some reason there was a curious focus on colonizing
> > the "outer
> > > planets" (would that exclude Mars?). I'm not sure if that was
> the
> > > Japanese influence, or what.
> > >
> > > But at least they did depict the first habitat building the
> second.
> > > Anyone with a bit of savvy can realize that there's really
> nothing
> > to
> > > stop that accelerating process.
> > >
> > > > Just as I am quite diapointed with the them of That World
> > > > Cooperation can achieve this. Excuse me, since the nations
> > > > of the world have lost competativeness, they have ahieved
> > > > hardly anything when compared to the Leaps and Bounds
> > > > achieved during the Space Race between America and the
> > > > Soviet Union.
> > >
> > > Yes, the bit of narration you refer to sticks in my craw as
well.

There's been lots of competition, rivalry, conflict and outright
enmity for *at least* as long as genus Homo has existed. Lots of us-
versus-them cultural identification for almost as long. It just
wasn't nationalism until that particular ideology developed. Pride
and loyalty were attached to dynasty, religion, liege, even region
and culture, but not to the specific synthesis of ethnicity and
state that constitutes the nation-state.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "terrierkeeper"
wrote:
>
> Actually, things really were very competetive in the begining.
>
> Competive between monarchs and their backers as Spain moved into
the
> New World.
>
> 'Nationalism' the view of Us vs Them probably started popping up
as
> an ideology earlier than 1800 and the French Revolution. The
French
> and Indian Wars was a very Us vs Them Conflict. With Pitt the
Great
> Commoner proclaiming the superior way of Britain which many
colonials
> in America readily picked up.
>
> As for a TV series, I too would love to see one set up.
>
> I envision a mini series of people starting over. Perhaps in the
> ISland Two phase where different types of colonies are built. with
> more people migrating upward to settle virgin space. Much like the
> westwards migration of America. Perhaps with national conflicts
> mixing in as they did the colonial era of the 1700s.
>
> Of course, History is my field and sometimes I dream of what the
> present and future might be like if certain thigns were done
> differently. SLIDERS had potential but unfortunately they just
have
> a feel to it. Perhaps if things had been done differently they
might
> have gotten some real interesting episodes. But sometimes I
imagine
> what society might be like if Key events in our history had done
> differently such as lay off the politics at least as far as
> insulting the majority of the American people. My novel is an
> alternate history work.So I have a fondness for tnhat kind of
> scenerio based works. For example what would our world be like if
> the 'Sexual Revoilution' had not happened or happened late. What
if
> America developed a Manifest Destiny movement towards the stars.
> What if the EU were less socialist and more conservative? Things
like
> that.
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Wylie-Sears"

> wrote:
> >
> > > If nationalist prides had been in 1969 what they were like
over
> > three
> > > hundred fifty years ago ...
> >
> > Nationalism as we know it didn't really get going until the
1800s.
> > Before that there was still plenty for people to fight about --
> > religion, empire, and so on -- but nationalism, the ideology
that
> > state and ethnicity should be closely linked, didn't exist to
any
> > significant extent.
> >
> > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "terrierkeeper"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > As a student of history I have learned that the great
> achievements
> > > have been brought more through competetion than cooperation.
> > >
> > > The petty differences which divide are often the source of
> > identity
> > > and motivation. Though one can argue that these things are the
> > soruce
> > > of instability perhaps it is that instability taht forces
things
> > to
> > > get done.
> > >
> > > If nationalist prides had been in 1969 what they were like
over
> > three
> > > hundred fifty years ago it is possible that man would have
begun
> > the
> > > colonization process in space.
> > >
> > > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> > > > [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> terrierkeeper
> > > >
> > > > > Overall, I would say it was about as exciting and as
> > > > > informative as watching Grass Grow.
> > > >
> > > > I find it thrilling, but I suppose only because there aren't
> > really
> > > any
> > > > other High Frontier film productions (I wouldn't count
Babylon
> > 5)
> > > that I
> > > > could unfavorably compare it to. But I acknowledge many of
the
> > > faults
> > > > you find.
> > > >
> > > > > Because of the cumbersomness of the technowlogy to produce
> > > > > it and limited length I won't fault it.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that's an important consideration. Though IMAX movies
> > today
> > > can be
> > > > quite a bit longer, really none were being made longer than
40
> > > minutes
> > > > at that time.
> > > >
> > > > > Though I wish they had refrained from the futuristic
cloths
> > > > > and used the money for more computor graphics.
> > > >
> > > > You have to consider the era. Computer graphics is moving
so
> > > rapidly
> > > > that the state of the art from 1997 looks a bit lacking in
> > detail by
> > > > today's standards.
> > > >
> > > > > Having seen all the futuristic visions drawn of what a
space
> > > > > island interior would look like that artists have produced
> > > > > since 1973, I wish the producers had bothered to spand
some
> > > > > time with them.
> > > >
> > > > I agree. That one, brief glimpse of the torus interior just
> > wasn't
> > > > enough. Babylon 5 also shied away from providing many views
of
> > that
> > > > large, green, cylindrical interior. I guess there's
something
> > about
> > > > attempts to visualize these curving environments (especially
> with
> > > > people) that's considered very daunting to special effect
> > artists,
> > > for
> > > > some obscure reason.
> > > >
> > > > > The virtual reality chat room fel to me almost a
cheapening
> > of
> > > the
> > > > film.
> > > >
> > > > If you've read my review, you know I agree.
> > > >
> > > > > Certainly I am quite dispointed with the ending since I
do
> > > > > not see the space islands as gateways to space further out
> > > > > but as Man's Promised Land.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, for some reason there was a curious focus on colonizing
> > > the "outer
> > > > planets" (would that exclude Mars?). I'm not sure if that
was
> > the
> > > > Japanese influence, or what.
> > > >
> > > > But at least they did depict the first habitat building the
> > second.
> > > > Anyone with a bit of savvy can realize that there's really
> > nothing
> > > to
> > > > stop that accelerating process.
> > > >
> > > > > Just as I am quite diapointed with the them of That World
> > > > > Cooperation can achieve this. Excuse me, since the nations
> > > > > of the world have lost competativeness, they have ahieved
> > > > > hardly anything when compared to the Leaps and Bounds
> > > > > achieved during the Space Race between America and the
> > > > > Soviet Union.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the bit of narration you refer to sticks in my craw as
> well.
> > > > Competition isn't bad, competition is good. It's petty
> > squabbles
> > > over
> > > > religions and tribal distinctions which are bad for us.
> > > >
> > > > But we must remember that although this might be the
slightly
> > more
> > > > intellectual corner of Hollywood we're talking about here,
it's
> > > still
> > > > Hollywood.
> > > >
> > > > > Overall It's good for borrowing but I am sorry to say
Mobile

I finally wrote a review of this over at the IMDb.
This is not an action movie... and that's OK!

Today, most if not all science fiction movies are in fact action
movies with science fiction elements. Thus _Men in Black_ is an
action movie with aliens, _I, Robot_ is an action movie with robots,
and so on. There's really no reason a science fiction movie couldn't
be a slapstick comedy in an undersea colony, a tear-jerker romantic
tragedy on the moon, or an intellectual puzzler with robots. But no,
so many SF movies are action thrillers that many people seem not to
realize that they can be anything else.

Which brings me to _L5: First City in Space_. This is the story of a
city in space (the first, in case the title wasn't enough of a clue)
which is running low on water. The story is mostly from the point of
view of Keiko, an adorable little girl. The basic storyline has been
well described by ian-woollard and mikecombs, who seem to have
actually paid attention while watching the movie. I will add only
that there are no laser battles, no homicidal maniac robots (or
homicidal maniac anything else), and no martial arts. Again: THIS IS
NOT AN ACTION MOVIE!

Don't get me wrong, I like sci-fi actioners. I really hope that
Jackie Chan gets the chance to do his thing in zero-G before he dies
or retires. But this isn't the movie for it. This is the movie for
adorable little girls and brave scientists and engineers who
undertake risky but not flashy missions for the sake of the city
thier family lives in. The science is good, the story (mostly)
plausable, and did I mention that Keiko is adorable?

OK, time for my gripe against this movie, aka the reason I didn't
give it a 9 or 10. This also this comment's spoiler. After the
water is secured, Daddy is alive, and Keiko has grown up to be mayor
of L5, they have finally built another city. Yeah. Two cities. In
thirty years. According to the NASA/Ames study the makers of this
film used for reference, the time for one city to build another was
three years, not thirty. Even if we assume that for some reason
(politics, scarce water, whatever) it takes five years, this still
means that five years after the First City in Space, there would be
the Second City in Space, and over the next five years they would
EACH build another, for a total of four. In five more years there
would be eight, five years later sixteen, then thirty-two, then sixty-
four. That's thirty years. So the final shot shouldn't have been
two glorious cities side by side, but somewhere from sixty-four to
ONE THOUSAND TWENTY-FOUR glorious cities (the 1024 number is thirty
years of growth with a three-year doubling time).

Oh, and they should've been making satellite solar power stations.

--- In spacesettlers, "levi1_ca" wrote:

> In figuring out the numbers game we can no go with theory as other
> forces apply to rate of growth - you only need one city if that is
> all you have population for - I could build a house every few months
> but what would be the purpose? The main function of the first city
> is to make enough money to ensure that people want to come up - then
> you make your competition.

Well, I suggested in my review (which still has not shown up at IMDb)
that politics or water scarcity or whatever could make the doubling
time five years instead of three. But really, even if we double it to
six, that means that in thirty years there should be thirty-two
cities. Hells bells, even with a doubling time of TEN years, you
should have eight of them.

You are absolutely right in that the job of the First City in Space is
to make enough money to attract additional capital, including more
settlers. But if it take THIRTY YEARS to do that, and if the First
City in Space sits around for THIRTY YEARS before the Second City in
Space is finally built, then this would suggest that the First City in
Space has been something of a failure for, well, for THIRTY YEARS.

You mention that you could build a house every few months but why
should you. You, as an individual person, almost certainly should
not. There would be, as you suggest, no purpose to that. But if you
run a house-building company, you probably finish several houses a
*day,* with several others being started each day. You may well have
dozens of houses in various stages of construction at any given time.

Everybody be sure to go out and give this review (and all the other
positive reviews) a "helpful" rating. There are a number of negative
reviews where the reviewer, unlike Xenophile, didn't really get it that
this wasn't supposed to be an action movie. It would be nice if we
could push those closer to the bottom of the list. Right now, the first
thing the curious see is "The worst movie in this galaxy...".

L5 comes as close as anything we've ever had to what might amount to a
pop culture promotion of High Frontier concepts. I don't think we need
to be of the opinion that this is a perfect movie in order to see the
need to support it wherever possible.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0116811/usercomments

Thanks,

Mike Combs

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Xenophile
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 10:09 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: IMAX L5 First City In Spase.

My review for this movie has FINALLY shown up at the IMDb.

> OK, time for my gripe against this movie, aka the reason I didn't
> give it a 9 or 10. This also this comment's spoiler. After the
> water is secured, Daddy is alive, and Keiko has grown up to be
mayor
> of L5, they have finally built another city. Yeah. Two cities. In
> thirty years. According to the NASA/Ames study the makers of this
> film used for reference, the time for one city to build another was
> three years, not thirty. Even if we assume that for some reason
> (politics, scarce water, whatever) it takes five years ...

I don't find anything surprising about a thirty-year delay between
doing something and taking the next step. Look how long we've gone
since Apollo without another space effort on the same scale. What's
there a market for that requires people in space, in the movie's
scenario? (Or at least pays for people in space.) How does that
market change over time? Or if it's government financed, what are
the ongoing costs back on the ground, and how would those compare
with the on-the-ground costs needed for another asteroid-mining
mission to get the materials for additional colonies?

Whatever determines how fast we build more colonies after the first,
I doubt it's going to be a matter of just building them as fast as
we can, or even related to how fast we can simply by a fixed
multiple. It's going to be politics or economics or whatever. And
if it says thirty years' delay, it will be irrelevant that we could
have built exponentially with a doubling time of three years.

--- In spacesettlers, "Dan Wylie-Sears" wrote:

> I don't find anything surprising about a thirty-year delay between
> doing something and taking the next step.

The sad thing is that I don't think that that's impossible either. I
never said that it is impossible that the thing could sit there for
thirty years before we get the Second City in Space. I only said that
it would be a three-decade failure if that happened, and that I wish
that the movie wouldn't've shown that as the "normal" sequence of events.

> Look how long we've gone since Apollo without another space effort
> on the same scale.

Good example. MORE than three decades of failure, to the point where
many young people today doubt that we ever DID go to the moon!

> What's there a market for that requires people in space, in the
> movie's scenario? (Or at least pays for people in space.)

Not a whole lot. Instead of making powersats, space hotels, and MORE
HABITATS, they are "the gateway to the outer planets." Being such a
gateway is certainly a role for such a habitat to play, but what about
the other stuff?

> How does that market change over time?

Never explained. Maybe nothing changes, on Earth or in Space, for
thirty years. Barf.

> Or if it's government financed, what are the ongoing costs back on
> the ground,

Apparently it is too expensive to haul water up from the Earth. Makes
sense. How about "It's going to be thirty years before we can build
another city if we can't find a better source of water!" "OK, how
about I undertake this dangerous mission to get more water so we can
get back to that six year doubling time?"

> and how would those compare with the on-the-ground costs needed for
> another asteroid-mining mission to get the materials for additional
> colonies?

Rather favorable for comet-mining, it would seem.

> Whatever determines how fast we build more colonies after the first,
> I doubt it's going to be a matter of just building them as fast as
> we can, or even related to how fast we can simply by a fixed

Sure. I suggested that it could be more than three years, because of
politics or scarse water or whatever.

> multiple. It's going to be politics or economics or whatever. And
> if it says thirty years' delay, it will be irrelevant that we could
> have built exponentially with a doubling time of three years.

It is not irrelevant when you are making a movie that will be many
people's introduction to the whole concept. And remember, I even
suggested a doubling time of TEN years, which would have given us
eight habitats in thirty years.

> a movie that will be many people's introduction to the whole
> concept.

Good point. I was only considering the realism of it.

> it would be a three-decade failure if that happened

Not necessarily. A city that doubles in population in twenty years
is doing pretty well, and the population of the first colony could
much more than double if it went from starting up with mostly area-
intensive agriculture to being mostly filled with people living on
energy- and labor-intensive industrial in-a-vat food production that
doesn't take much space.

It also depends on the economics of building a lot more habitat than
you initially need, versus the economics of lots of little projects
to build new habitats as needed, versus the economics of a
continuous exponential building program. For example if it turns
out, once the engineering is done in lives-on-the-line detail
instead of the feasibility studies we have now, that the way to go
for radiation shielding is the lunar basalt-fiber outer hull
rotating with the colony, and the lunar base has very high cost per
unit time and huge economy of scale, then I would find it plausible
to build a shell around sixty-four times as much volume as you need
in the short term, and then do the labor-intensive (and non-lunar-
materials-intensive) construction of interior structure (walls and
wiring and utilities and transportation) gradually over the years as
the population increases to need the room.

Of course, it also depends on the economics of what the colony
produces. If the demand increases with the economic growth of old
Earth, it may start out huge but then increase at only a few percent
per year. In that case, it may make sense to build a big colony
right away but then not have any more for quite a while.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers, "Dan Wylie-Sears" wrote:
>
> > I don't find anything surprising about a thirty-year delay
between
> > doing something and taking the next step.
>
> The sad thing is that I don't think that that's impossible
either. I
> never said that it is impossible that the thing could sit there for
> thirty years before we get the Second City in Space. I only said
that
> it would be a three-decade failure if that happened, and that I
wish
> that the movie wouldn't've shown that as the "normal" sequence of
events.
>
> > Look how long we've gone since Apollo without another space
effort
> > on the same scale.
>
> Good example. MORE than three decades of failure, to the point
where
> many young people today doubt that we ever DID go to the moon!
>
> > What's there a market for that requires people in space, in the
> > movie's scenario? (Or at least pays for people in space.)
>
> Not a whole lot. Instead of making powersats, space hotels, and
MORE
> HABITATS, they are "the gateway to the outer planets." Being such
a
> gateway is certainly a role for such a habitat to play, but what
about
> the other stuff?
>
> > How does that market change over time?
>
> Never explained. Maybe nothing changes, on Earth or in Space, for
> thirty years. Barf.
>
> > Or if it's government financed, what are the ongoing costs back
on
> > the ground,
>
> Apparently it is too expensive to haul water up from the Earth.
Makes
> sense. How about "It's going to be thirty years before we can
build
> another city if we can't find a better source of water!" "OK, how
> about I undertake this dangerous mission to get more water so we
can
> get back to that six year doubling time?"
>
> > and how would those compare with the on-the-ground costs needed
for
> > another asteroid-mining mission to get the materials for
additional
> > colonies?
>
> Rather favorable for comet-mining, it would seem.
>
> > Whatever determines how fast we build more colonies after the
first,
> > I doubt it's going to be a matter of just building them as fast
as
> > we can, or even related to how fast we can simply by a fixed
>
> Sure. I suggested that it could be more than three years, because
of
> politics or scarse water or whatever.
>
> > multiple. It's going to be politics or economics or whatever.
And
> > if it says thirty years' delay, it will be irrelevant that we
could