Great ad, horrible danger! All those particulates in the air are a serious risk to the crew! Unless, of course, it’s real snow…
Was that an actual ISS configuration in the outside shot? It didn’t match the interiors, obviously, but the side-module on what might have been the FGB didn’t correspond with what I remember in the assembly sequence.
Hate to say it but when I saw that commercial I was thinking besides how did that get through checks was that kid just killed her mother and everyone on board. Not exactly Merry Christmas
If you dont like the ad or if all you can do is criticize it technically, that might just be the reason NASA is not making a lot of progress in gaining support for human space flight. The interior shots were particularly well done and reasonably accurate. The exteriors and soap bubbles, snow or packing peanuts (whatever they were) were fanciful.
If NASA is where it is exploration-wise because of reader commentary about a department store ad out in the blogosphere, they are in bigger trouble than any of us have dared to imagine.
That’s the symptom, not the disease. We (space exploration advocates) have a nasty tendency to criticize over very technical details. Many scientists are just as bad when it comes to science fiction. I’ve heard scientists call “The Martian” totally unrealistic junk, over details in the movie (and without either reading the book or watching the movie too carefully) which really pretty trivial. Or complaints about historical accuracy in “Apollo 13”, over whether or not a particular person was actually the one who used a particular phrase. When it comes to public support for human spaceflight, that sort of thing does matter. It gives the impression that even the people advocating it are mostly interested in debating minor, trivial details.
Yea, for this, that’s probably an overreaction. For a ad, and comments which are (almost entirely) limited to the sort of geeks who read NASA Watch comments (no offense, Keith and everyone else, but I think that describes most of the readership…) this isn’t a big deal. Just say, “cool, but all that floating debris…” But it does irritate me when really good publicity for spaceflight gets spoiled by a newspaper quoting an expert saying it’s all wrong because the wall in the background was actually painted blue.
Sweet and touching, yes, and good vibes too. But OMG, all those particles floating around….!?!
Great ad, horrible danger! All those particulates in the air are a serious risk to the crew! Unless, of course, it’s real snow…
Was that an actual ISS configuration in the outside shot? It didn’t match the interiors, obviously, but the side-module on what might have been the FGB didn’t correspond with what I remember in the assembly sequence.
And that kids, is the story of how I brought down the International Space Station with package peanuts.
Hate to say it but when I saw that commercial I was thinking besides how did that get through checks was that kid just killed her mother and everyone on board. Not exactly Merry Christmas
If you dont like the ad or if all you can do is criticize it technically, that might just be the reason NASA is not making a lot of progress in gaining support for human space flight. The interior shots were particularly well done and reasonably accurate. The exteriors and soap bubbles, snow or packing peanuts (whatever they were) were fanciful.
If NASA is where it is exploration-wise because of reader commentary about a department store ad out in the blogosphere, they are in bigger trouble than any of us have dared to imagine.
That’s the symptom, not the disease. We (space exploration advocates) have a nasty tendency to criticize over very technical details. Many scientists are just as bad when it comes to science fiction. I’ve heard scientists call “The Martian” totally unrealistic junk, over details in the movie (and without either reading the book or watching the movie too carefully) which really pretty trivial. Or complaints about historical accuracy in “Apollo 13”, over whether or not a particular person was actually the one who used a particular phrase. When it comes to public support for human spaceflight, that sort of thing does matter. It gives the impression that even the people advocating it are mostly interested in debating minor, trivial details.
Yea, for this, that’s probably an overreaction. For a ad, and comments which are (almost entirely) limited to the sort of geeks who read NASA Watch comments (no offense, Keith and everyone else, but I think that describes most of the readership…) this isn’t a big deal. Just say, “cool, but all that floating debris…” But it does irritate me when really good publicity for spaceflight gets spoiled by a newspaper quoting an expert saying it’s all wrong because the wall in the background was actually painted blue.