Author Topic: EP477: Parallel Moons (Read 27535 times)

ElectricPaladin · **Reply #25 on:** January 30, 2015, 07:54:53 PM

Quote from: Fenrix on January 30, 2015, 07:23:31 PM

Quote from: ElectricPaladin on January 30, 2015, 07:15:45 PM
I don't like corporations. I don't trust them in space.

You can totally trust corporations in space. These guys have your best interest at heart: http://www.weylandindustries.com/

I don't trust either corporations or governments, but I distrust them a lot less when they have to balance each other.

Oh, I don't trust the government. The only difference is that the government I can fire if I want to.

And I've got to admit, I find that attitude disturbing. Corporations are not a natural check to the power of the government. They aren't accountable to anyone. They don't balance anything. They just accrue money.

Fenrix · **Reply #26 on:** January 30, 2015, 10:15:53 PM

Quote from: ElectricPaladin on January 30, 2015, 07:54:53 PM

Quote from: Fenrix on January 30, 2015, 07:23:31 PM
Quote from: ElectricPaladin on January 30, 2015, 07:15:45 PM
I don't like corporations. I don't trust them in space.

You can totally trust corporations in space. These guys have your best interest at heart: http://www.weylandindustries.com/

I don't trust either corporations or governments, but I distrust them a lot less when they have to balance each other.

Oh, I don't trust the government. The only difference is that the government I can fire if I want to.

And I've got to admit, I find that attitude disturbing. Corporations are not a natural check to the power of the government. They aren't accountable to anyone. They don't balance anything. They just accrue money.

Congress has ~14% approval rating and ~95% reelection rate. (source) (more) And the politicians are the part of the government that CAN be fired. Do you know how much work it is to fire a bureaucrat? The most effective mechanism I've seen to replacing bureaucrats is to privatize a government function.

The motivation of a corporation is predictable. The motivation of a government is significantly less predictable. They're generally going to be focused on efforts that what will preserve and maintain the entity. In the corporation's case, it's the accrual of money. In the government's case, it's the accrual of power.

MasterZap · **Reply #27 on:** February 03, 2015, 10:19:52 AM

....not to mention, regolith (the material of the moon) is already extremely dark. Covering in ash is likely to *lighten* it. The reason we perceive the moon as at all bright is

a) The sun shines on it and the sun is REALLY BRIGHT
b) We see it when the sun is down, and NOT lighting up our atmosphere, and we see it against a black background with superfaint stars....

Meh. Didn't like the story.

/Z

Chairman Goodchild · **Reply #28 on:** February 03, 2015, 11:40:35 AM

Quote from: Max e^{i pi} on January 30, 2015, 10:42:36 AM

I see that there seems to be some confusion between bad science and science fiction.
I have no problem with science fiction handwaving. Give me a warp drive or portable wormhole generator any day. But I will not accept bad science where the author was too lazy to actually read the entire article, not just the headline.
If you say "they moved the planets using a reactionless, non-inertial drive capable of moving entire planets" (Fleet Of Worlds) I will hands down believe you and totally flow with the story.
But if you say "this is based on actual science that I read on Buzzfeed" (17 Science Things You Didn't Know) then I will expect the science to almost work. To be grounded in reality.
There is a world of difference (several worlds, actually) between science fiction (zero point modules) and bad science (F***ing magnets how do they work? Must be magic").
Science fiction is making a way for things to work, to fit with the story (hyperspace, blinky handheld medical cure-alls). Bad science is taking scientific principles that we know and understand today and just ignoring it.
When I see a story where the science is fanciful and made up, I totally flow with it, because that's what science fiction is all about. But if the story starts off from a plausible point of entry and then just handwaves away actual science that we know and understand today I get upset. It means that the author either hasn't bothered to do the research (allow me to introduce you to the internet) or has such a low opinion of their readers that it's just insulting.
The multiple infractions in that department, compounded with the odd method of storytelling is what made this story a miss for me.

You're not the only one. This bad science grates on me too. There've been a few stories recently with really bad science, and it either comes down to either physics does not work remotely like that, or else engineering does not work remotely like that.

Going out for a forty-day expedition into deep space? Better give the crew exactly forty days of oxygen, without any reserves. Also, CO2 scrubbers? What are those things? The latest story to commit that sin was Inseparable, episode 469.

I know there are many talented authors out there who can create stories around more believable worlds, and I would prefer to hear those stories.

To give a positive example, I really enjoyed The Mercy of Theseus.

Max e^{i pi} · **Reply #29 on:** February 03, 2015, 05:45:08 PM

Quote from: MasterZap on February 03, 2015, 10:19:52 AM

....not to mention, regolith (the material of the moon) is already extremely dark.

And a really good platform for portals.

I resisted for several hours and I'm not sorry.

Dwango · **Reply #30 on:** February 03, 2015, 08:32:13 PM

I don't mind the science in the stories, as I assumed they were both throw backs to turn of the prior century views of space. I'm thinking of the move "A trip to the Moon" where the rocket lands in the moon's eye. ;-) I just didn't think the two stories fit so well together. Two stories of the moon being removed don't necessarily work unless they have some tighter connection. I get the themes, but if you are going to have two separate stories intertwined, they have to resonate more with each other. Tough to pull off.

Unblinking · **Reply #31 on:** February 03, 2015, 08:40:14 PM

Quote from: Dwango on February 03, 2015, 08:32:13 PM

I don't mind the science in the stories, as I assumed they were both throw backs to turn of the prior century views of space. I'm thinking of the move "A trip to the Moon" where the rocket lands in the moon's eye. ;-) I just didn't think the two stories fit so well together. Two stories of the moon being removed don't necessarily work unless they have some tighter connection. I get the themes, but if you are going to have two separate stories intertwined, they have to resonate more with each other. Tough to pull off.

Three stories, no?

hardware · **Reply #32 on:** February 06, 2015, 01:10:20 PM

I liked this, although it took a little while for me too before I completely got the format. But once I got it I enjoyed it as three metaphorical tales of loss and how we deal with it. It reminded me (I suspect, intentionally) of the stories Italo Calvino wrote about the Moon ('The Distance To The Moon' and 'The Daughters Of The Moon' is probably the more famous ones) which I would recommend anyone to seek out in his Cosmicomics and t zero collections. The playfulness in language also fits well with this story as a Calvino homage. And yes, the science is to a large extent nonsense - but I don't see the point where we were asked to take it seriously ...

Unblinking · **Reply #33 on:** February 06, 2015, 02:39:41 PM

Quote from: hardware on February 06, 2015, 01:10:20 PM

And yes, the science is to a large extent nonsense - but I don't see the point where we were asked to take it seriously ...

I think that's one of those things that's just a matter of taste and a matter of how much time you spend focused on the discipline getting screwed up in a story. As a software engineer it is hard to let it go when plots revolve around programming yet have none of the details right--this is especially true of stories with a hacking component. That thing you see in so many movies where a hacker hooks up a widget to a control panel and it finds the password digit by digit--that's garbage, and drives me nuts. I can forgive it IF the story/action/whatever surrounding that dumb moment takes up the slack for that lazy garbage. I'm not a physicist so that physics doesn't bother me unless it gets really bad--I agree that the tone of this story didn't give me the impression it was aiming for plausibility so I didn't think about it too much, but I can understand how someone (especially someone who works with physics for instance) still couldn't get past that. If it drives you nuts, it drives you nuts.

Zelda · **Reply #34 on:** February 07, 2015, 08:57:26 AM

I found the framing device too confusing. It took me time to figure out and even now I don't know what purpose it was supposed to serve. Yes, these are three stories about the Earth losing its Moon. I don't see what was added by jumbling them together.

hardware · **Reply #35 on:** February 09, 2015, 04:20:06 PM

Quote from: Unblinking on February 06, 2015, 02:39:41 PM

Quote from: hardware on February 06, 2015, 01:10:20 PM
And yes, the science is to a large extent nonsense - but I don't see the point where we were asked to take it seriously ...

I think that's one of those things that's just a matter of taste and a matter of how much time you spend focused on the discipline getting screwed up in a story. As a software engineer it is hard to let it go when plots revolve around programming yet have none of the details right--this is especially true of stories with a hacking component. That thing you see in so many movies where a hacker hooks up a widget to a control panel and it finds the password digit by digit--that's garbage, and drives me nuts. I can forgive it IF the story/action/whatever surrounding that dumb moment takes up the slack for that lazy garbage. I'm not a physicist so that physics doesn't bother me unless it gets really bad--I agree that the tone of this story didn't give me the impression it was aiming for plausibility so I didn't think about it too much, but I can understand how someone (especially someone who works with physics for instance) still couldn't get past that. If it drives you nuts, it drives you nuts.

I can see that, my favorite one to hate as a quantum chemist is when people play the sloppy quantum card. But if it plays it's metaphorical cards open I can forgive a lot ...

Rhonda · **Reply #36 on:** February 09, 2015, 11:47:35 PM

I was working I the yard while I listened, and I guess I was too distracted. I was lost in the whole parallel story thing until nearly the end. This just wasn't my thing, but maybe, like others have stated, it might work better in text than in audio.
However, I thought the writer wrote each of the stories quite well, if one could take them each is a stand alone story.

Devoted135 · **Reply #37 on:** February 11, 2015, 07:58:05 PM

I liked the lawyer story as a fun, quirky tale. The "aliens be stealin' our moon" story had way too many science holes for me, already thoroughly covered here. The woman interviewing the old man story I found to be utterly boring and the "big reveal" was frustrating. Overall, I like the big picture concept of three stories exploring loss through our relationship with the moon because there is a huge potential for emotional resonance there. I just can't get behind the way it was executed.

AirWreck · **Reply #38 on:** February 23, 2015, 07:40:52 PM

Bad science aside, I was more interested in the aliens that are stealing the moon. They are never seen. So I came up with a theory in my head, probably affected by "The Sky is Blue, and Bright, and Filled with Stars".

The aliens are long dead, but they left a fleet of robots out there and told them to collect planets within a certain temperature band. The robots aren't thinking too hard, and may have been told "Don't take ones with intelligent life on them", but didn't make the connection to "Don't take ones orbiting planets with intelligent life on them".

UnfulredJohnson · **Reply #39 on:** February 28, 2015, 12:48:37 AM

Can't say this one garnered much of reaction from me one way or the other. It felt a bit anti climatic. And if there was some deeper meaning I missed it. Three mehs out of five.

El Barto · **Reply #40 on:** April 15, 2015, 01:58:34 PM

This one didn't work for me either. None of the real mysteries were ever discussed. How can you have aliens steal something and then never explain it?

Ditto on most all of the other bellyaching above.

Dwango · **Reply #41 on:** May 06, 2015, 02:39:12 PM

I just reviewed this, never have time to look back on posts. I did not realize there were three moon stealing stories. There was the one where aliens are taking the moon, and one where the billionaire is having it painted dark. I don't recall the third.

Unblinking · **Reply #42 on:** May 06, 2015, 06:07:38 PM

Quote from: Dwango on May 06, 2015, 02:39:12 PM

I just reviewed this, never have time to look back on posts. I did not realize there were three moon stealing stories. There was the one where aliens are taking the moon, and one where the billionaire is having it painted dark. I don't recall the third.

The third was about pushing for a change in the scientific classification of the moon to call it a planet.

I think all three are broadly about "losing the moon" in some sense or another, rather than "stealing the moon". Physical loss, visible loss, pedantic loss.

CryptoMe · **Reply #43 on:** August 28, 2015, 05:19:28 AM

As a lunar geologist, I really should have liked this story (or three) about the Moon. But I didn't, for all of the reasons people gave.

I did want to clarify one thing from the forum posts, though:

Quote from: MasterZap on February 03, 2015, 10:19:52 AM

....not to mention, regolith (the material of the moon) is already extremely dark. Covering in ash is likely to *lighten* it. The reason we perceive the moon as at all bright is

a) The sun shines on it and the sun is REALLY BRIGHT
b) We see it when the sun is down, and NOT lighting up our atmosphere, and we see it against a black background with superfaint stars....

Only the mare regolith is very dark, because the maria are made of basalt, a very dark rock. Regolith from the highlands is quite bright, because the highlands are made up of anorthosite, a very bright rock. So, a carbon-based ash would, in fact, darken the highlands. Though, it wouldn't be enough to make the Moon disappear, because even the very dark maria reflect enough sunlight for us to see them.

Also, we do see the Moon when the Sun is "lighting up our atmosphere". It is not uncommon to see the moon during the day, especially in the early morning or late afternoon.

Jane Simmons · **Reply #44 on:** July 20, 2017, 06:21:13 PM

Yeah Buzzfeed is not necessarily the place to find deep riveting science conversations. As far as telescopes go though, I am content with my Celestron 127EQ PowerSeeker Telescope. Helps me look at the star at night and spot the occasional meteor. toponlinereviews.com