Discussion:
Not too late for more Shuttle flights
(too old to reply)
Pat Flannery
2010-03-11 03:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Dissent in the ranks for General Bolden of Star Command!
No matter what Obama wants, they can still fly more Shuttles:
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts131/100310extend/
As to what those Shuttle flights are supposed to carry up to the ISS,
that's a good question.
Well, we could replace the troublesome piss extractor toilet I imagine.
And can you ever have "too many" cupolas?

Pat
Brian Thorn
2010-03-11 04:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Dissent in the ranks for General Bolden of Star Command!
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts131/100310extend/
As to what those Shuttle flights are supposed to carry up to the ISS,
that's a good question.
Four more MPLMs full of cargo, with a few external spares will really
go a long way until Dragon and Cygnus can get up to speed.

Brian
Matt Wiser
2010-03-11 07:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Pat Flannery
Dissent in the ranks for General Bolden of Star Command!
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts131/100310extend/
As to what those Shuttle flights are supposed to carry up to the ISS,
that's a good question.
Four more MPLMs full of cargo, with a few external spares will really
go a long way until Dragon and Cygnus can get up to speed.
Brian
Assuming they do, you mean. I'd go with ULA and a variant of Orion by L-M.
At least all the Orion work L-M did wouldn't go to waste. (Assuming also
that Congress doesn't require an independent Government launch capability to
LEO as part of the price for going along with this...plan)
Jeff Findley
2010-03-11 15:40:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Pat Flannery
Dissent in the ranks for General Bolden of Star Command!
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts131/100310extend/
As to what those Shuttle flights are supposed to carry up to the ISS,
that's a good question.
Four more MPLMs full of cargo, with a few external spares will really
go a long way until Dragon and Cygnus can get up to speed.
True. Spare parts and extra supplies would be a good thing to stockpile on
location at ISS.

There is already a plan to leave one MPLM at ISS. I wonder if NASA has
considered modifying more than one MPLM for permanent attachment at ISS and
where it could be permanently berthed.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
David Spain
2010-03-11 05:39:04 UTC
Permalink
From the article:

/quote
President Obama plans to visit Florida's Space Coast in April for a conference
to discuss his administration's new approach to manned spaceflight.

"A foundational element of this new strategy is to invest in the development
of a targeted set of inter-related technologies and capabilities that can help
us travel from the Earth's cradle to our nearby solar system neighborhood in a
more effective and affordable way, thus laying the foundation to support
journeys to the Moon, asteroids, and eventually to Mars," the White House said
in a statement."
/end quote

Might I suggest Astral Projection?

:-)

Dave
Pat Flannery
2010-03-11 14:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
"A foundational element of this new strategy is to invest in the development
of a targeted set of inter-related technologies and capabilities that can help
us travel from the Earth's cradle to our nearby solar system neighborhood in a
more effective and affordable way, thus laying the foundation to support
journeys to the Moon, asteroids, and eventually to Mars," the White House said
in a statement."
/end quote
Might I suggest Astral Projection?
We must travel via The Mother Wheel, but Ol' Whitey won't be along for
this trip, nor will those damn Jews:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#The_Mother_Plane_and_Ezekiel.27s_Wheel

Pat
OM
2010-03-11 05:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
As to what those Shuttle flights are supposed to carry up to the ISS,
that's a good question.
...Some makeshift MLPMs, most likely.

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
2010-03-11 12:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by OM
Post by Pat Flannery
As to what those Shuttle flights are supposed to carry up to the ISS,
that's a good question.
...Some makeshift MLPMs, most likely.
Why makeshift? We've still got perfectly functioning ones.
Post by OM
OM
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
h***@aol.com
2010-03-11 13:12:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 11, 7:37�am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
Post by OM
Post by Pat Flannery
As to what those Shuttle flights are supposed to carry up to the ISS,
that's a good question.
...Some makeshift MLPMs, most likely.
Why makeshift? �We've still got perfectly functioning one
Yeah NASA is going to get exactly what they wanted from the beginning,
more shuttle flights, most likely till it kills again:(
Jeff Findley
2010-03-11 15:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Post by OM
Post by Pat Flannery
As to what those Shuttle flights are supposed to carry up to the ISS,
that's a good question.
...Some makeshift MLPMs, most likely.
Why makeshift? We've still got perfectly functioning ones.
I thought OM was referring to the MPLM contents, not the MPLM's themselves.
I'm sure that there is a huge list of items that NASA would like to launch
to ISS (spares, supplies, and etc.) so filling the MPLM's with useful
payload shouldn't be a problem.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
2010-03-11 18:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
I thought OM was referring to the MPLM contents, not the MPLM's
themselves. I'm sure that there is a huge list of items that NASA
would like to launch to ISS (spares, supplies, and etc.) so filling
the MPLM's with useful payload shouldn't be a problem.
Jeff
And I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to be able to return some stuff back also.

It also reduces reliance on the Russians for carrying our crew up.

(Of course one could dream about finally completing and flying the CAM. :-)
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Jeff Findley
2010-03-11 18:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Post by Jeff Findley
I thought OM was referring to the MPLM contents, not the MPLM's
themselves. I'm sure that there is a huge list of items that NASA
would like to launch to ISS (spares, supplies, and etc.) so filling
the MPLM's with useful payload shouldn't be a problem.
Jeff
And I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to be able to return some stuff back also.
It also reduces reliance on the Russians for carrying our crew up.
(Of course one could dream about finally completing and flying the CAM. :-)
One can dream... I really wish the CAM would fly.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
Pat Flannery
2010-03-11 21:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Greg D. Moore (Strider)
And I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to be able to return some stuff back also.
It also reduces reliance on the Russians for carrying our crew up.
(Of course one could dream about finally completing and flying the CAM. :-)
One can dream... I really wish the CAM would fly.
Didn't Jorge Frank state a while back that CAM had vibration issues
during operation that made it unsafe, so that's why it got dumped?
It's too bad, because it was one of the few experiments that could be
done on the ISS that would have yielded really interesting data in
regards to long term habitation of the Moon or Mars.

Pat
Jeff Findley
2010-03-11 20:09:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
One can dream... I really wish the CAM would fly.
Didn't Jorge Frank state a while back that CAM had vibration issues during
operation that made it unsafe, so that's why it got dumped?
It's too bad, because it was one of the few experiments that could be done
on the ISS that would have yielded really interesting data in regards to
long term habitation of the Moon or Mars.
Something to that effect, yes. While ISS is the "obvious" first choice for
something like CAM, I think something that doesn't "fit" with ISS, like CAM,
might be better to do as a "free flyer". Dock the thing to an ATV or HTV
and visit it in a "man-tended" mode with shuttle, Orion, Dragon, Soyuz, or
whatever else might be flying at the time.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
Pat Flannery
2010-03-12 01:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
Something to that effect, yes. While ISS is the "obvious" first choice for
something like CAM, I think something that doesn't "fit" with ISS, like CAM,
might be better to do as a "free flyer". Dock the thing to an ATV or HTV
and visit it in a "man-tended" mode with shuttle, Orion, Dragon, Soyuz, or
whatever else might be flying at the time.
Problem is that whatever it is will need electrical power, and that
means solar arrays have to be attached to it. It's also going to need
life support if a visiting crew is going to spend any time on it, so the
actual mass that can be devoted to its experiments drops off compared to
something that can be phsichally attached to the ISS.
The Russians are looking into mini-station concepts at the moment:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/opsek.html

Pat
Jeff Findley
2010-03-12 14:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
Something to that effect, yes. While ISS is the "obvious" first choice for
something like CAM, I think something that doesn't "fit" with ISS, like CAM,
might be better to do as a "free flyer". Dock the thing to an ATV or HTV
and visit it in a "man-tended" mode with shuttle, Orion, Dragon, Soyuz, or
whatever else might be flying at the time.
Problem is that whatever it is will need electrical power, and that means
solar arrays have to be attached to it.
ATV has solar arrays.
It's also going to need life support if a visiting crew is going to spend
any time on it, so the actual mass that can be devoted to its experiments
drops off compared to something that can be phsichally attached to the
ISS.
ESA is looking at these sorts of upgrades as ATV evolves into a fully crewed
system:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ATV/SEMNFZOR4CF_0.html
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/opsek.html
The Russians are always looking into what to do next, even though they've
never found the money to replace Soyuz or found the money to do their own
space station again after Mir. I'd bet ESA would be able to do more with
ATV than the Russians with what they've got simply because they have more
money.

As a long shot, how about Bigelow inflatable station modules?

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
Pat Flannery
2010-03-12 19:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
Problem is that whatever it is will need electrical power, and that means
solar arrays have to be attached to it.
ATV has solar arrays.
Enough to power it itself, but how about the centrifuge and all the life
support a independent station needs?
Post by Jeff Findley
It's also going to need life support if a visiting crew is going to spend
any time on it, so the actual mass that can be devoted to its experiments
drops off compared to something that can be phsichally attached to the
ISS.
ESA is looking at these sorts of upgrades as ATV evolves into a fully crewed
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ATV/SEMNFZOR4CF_0.html
You could see it mutating into something like that, as it seems like
they are basically re-inventing the Soviet TKS module:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/tks.html
Post by Jeff Findley
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/opsek.html
The Russians are always looking into what to do next, even though they've
never found the money to replace Soyuz or found the money to do their own
space station again after Mir. I'd bet ESA would be able to do more with
ATV than the Russians with what they've got simply because they have more
money.
As a long shot, how about Bigelow inflatable station modules?
I see Bigelow modules being used for both scientific and commercial
space applications as a lot more likely than for space tourism; I don't
think there is any long-term market for that that can sustain the high
launch costs to do it.
There's also the space sickness problem to contend with, and the fact
that the space stations that have been built so far tend to get very bad
smelling after a few visits by crews.
The smell of Mir was compared to being in a moldy shower room, and
although the crews got used to it, it never got to the point where they
didn't notice it 24/7.
If there are post-ISS stations in the remaining decades of the 21st
century, I suspect they will be a lot closer in size to those things in
the Russian painting than the ISS.
I made a collection of models of space stations in 1/144th scale, and my
jaw nearly dropped on the floor when I built a model of the ISS to the
same scale and saw just how huge the ISS was compared to anything that
had flown before.

Pat
Fred J. McCall
2010-03-12 20:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Pat Flannery <***@daktel.com> wrote:

:On 3/12/2010 6:58 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
:>
:> As a long shot, how about Bigelow inflatable station modules?
:>
:
:I see Bigelow modules ...
:

You guys mean the ones Lowell Wood proposed be used in a different
design for the ISS back when its costs started going through the roof?
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
2010-03-13 01:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
As a long shot, how about Bigelow inflatable station modules?
Definitely would be worth trying to get one flying. Even as a test unit.
Post by Jeff Findley
Jeff
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Brian Gaff
2010-03-12 09:41:44 UTC
Permalink
If you think about it though, any centrifugal device needs to be balanced,
and how do you do that with people in it?
I suspect small scale devices containing animals is al one will see.

Look at what happened to the iss when a rocket firing produced low frequency
vibrations. do you really think a centrifuge would be a viable addition?
a large one that is.


Brian
--
Brian Gaff - ***@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Greg D. Moore (Strider)
And I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to be able to return some stuff back also.
It also reduces reliance on the Russians for carrying our crew up.
(Of course one could dream about finally completing and flying the CAM. :-)
One can dream... I really wish the CAM would fly.
Didn't Jorge Frank state a while back that CAM had vibration issues during
operation that made it unsafe, so that's why it got dumped?
It's too bad, because it was one of the few experiments that could be done
on the ISS that would have yielded really interesting data in regards to
long term habitation of the Moon or Mars.
Pat
Pat Flannery
2010-03-12 16:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Gaff
If you think about it though, any centrifugal device needs to be balanced,
and how do you do that with people in it?
I don't think it was large enough to put people into, so tests would
have been limited to animals like smaller monkeys.
I assume they would been in cages, with two cages balanced on opposite
sides of the centrifuge.
You would want them to be able to move around, so as to measure the
effects exercise had on bone and muscle loss in different g environments.
Unfortunately, the small diameter of the centrifuge would mean they
could get very dizzy while moving around as it spun.
To totally eliminate that effect at one g, you need something around the
diameter of the station in 2001.
Post by Brian Gaff
I suspect small scale devices containing animals is al one will see.
After the demise of the ISS centrifuge module, some private group was
working toward a mini centrifuge module carrying frogs or mice (I forget
which) that could be launched all on its own.

Pat
David Spain
2010-03-12 20:16:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
To totally eliminate that effect at one g, you need something around the
diameter of the station in 2001.
Rather than a centrifuge, why not just spin the whole craft? That eliminates
bearings and vibrations (to some degree) and helps spin-stabilize the craft.
Also the entire mass of the spacecraft can offset small shifts in mass inside
the craft, eliminating the need for a high rim mass centrifuge to achieve the
same effect. Also it's not clear you need to spin to 1g when something smaller
might suffice and thereby avoid the coriolis effects on the inner ear at a
higher spin rate.

This of course puts some design constraints on the spacecraft and requires a
fair degree of axial symmetry. There are always trade-offs....

?

Dave
Pat Flannery
2010-03-13 02:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Post by Pat Flannery
To totally eliminate that effect at one g, you need something around the
diameter of the station in 2001.
Rather than a centrifuge, why not just spin the whole craft? That eliminates
bearings and vibrations (to some degree) and helps spin-stabilize the craft.
Also the entire mass of the spacecraft can offset small shifts in mass inside
the craft, eliminating the need for a high rim mass centrifuge to achieve the
same effect. Also it's not clear you need to spin to 1g when something smaller
might suffice and thereby avoid the coriolis effects on the inner ear at a
higher spin rate.
This of course puts some design constraints on the spacecraft and requires a
fair degree of axial symmetry. There are always trade-offs....
Then you've got the docking problem; you need a de-spun docking port,
you have to stop the spinning when you want to dock, or you do the 2001
trick and spin your spacecraft up to the same rotational speed as the
module.
You could put a de-spun section on one end of the module and use that to
hold the docking collar, solar arrays, and communication antennas (this
is done on a lot of communications satellites where the cylindrical
solar-cell-covered body spins for stability, while the antennas remained
pointing at Earth), but now you are spinning a large diameter airtight
seal between the two sections, and that's going to be difficult to
design from both a air leakage and no torque transference point of view.
To keep the centrifuge in balance you could use a vibration sensor that
detects it being off-balance and transfers some sort of fluid from one
side to the other to balance it out.
Another concept would be to not directly attach the centrifuge proper to
the module at its axis points, so that vibrations can't be transferred
from one to the other; it could either spin on a air bearing at either
end like a lot of gyroscopes do, or use a magnetic field to do the same
thing.
I'm really surprised they had such trouble with the ISS centrifuge
module, as this doesn't sound like a insurmountable problem to address
in its design.
One oddball problem would be that the centrifuge would act like a gyro
wheel and try to rotate the station as it orbited around the Earth.
Two counter-spun sections to it might solve that problem by canceling
out the gyroscopic effects.

Pat
David Spain
2010-03-13 17:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Then you've got the docking problem; you need a de-spun docking port, you
have to stop the spinning when you want to dock, or you do the 2001 trick
and spin your spacecraft up to the same rotational speed as the module.
I'd go with the 2001 trick, but rather than a slot, I'd go with a conical
docking adapter with axial symmetry at the centerline front of the main
spacecraft. Doesn't present any special problem for docking.
You could put a de-spun section on one end of the module and use that to
hold the docking collar, solar arrays, and communication antennas (this is
done on
Nah. Spin the whole thing. If you're using solar arrays, arrange them in
cylindrical shells around the craft with mirrors to direct sunlight into them
as the craft rotates.
a lot of communications satellites where the cylindrical solar-cell-covered
body spins for stability, while the antennas remained pointing at Earth),
but now you are spinning a large diameter airtight seal between the two
sections, and that's going to be difficult to design from both a air leakage
and no torque transference point of view.
For comms, send out a non-spinning co-orbital satellite module that can use
standard wi-fi techniques for comms between the main craft and itself but
since it's not spinning it can have the high gain dishes and be able to
carefully align them back to Earth w/o fancy mechanics to keep it pointed
properly on a spinning spacecraft.

Also provides some failure isolation from the main ship and if you co-orbit a
couple of them, some failure redundancy as well....
To keep the centrifuge in balance you could use a vibration sensor that
detects it being off-balance and transfers some sort of fluid from one side
to the other to balance it out. Another concept would be to not directly
attach the centrifuge proper to the module at its axis points, so that
vibrations can't be transferred from one to the other; it could either spin
on a air bearing at either end like a lot of gyroscopes do, or use a
magnetic field to do the same thing. I'm really surprised they had such
trouble with the ISS centrifuge module, as this doesn't sound like a
insurmountable problem to address in its design.
Not me. I've always considered a spinning centrifuge inside a spacecraft to be
a major mechanical headache/nightmare. You don't want *that* gyro seizing up
on you. No way....
One oddball problem would be that the centrifuge would act like a gyro wheel
and try to rotate the station as it orbited around the Earth. Two
counter-spun sections to it might solve that problem by canceling out the
gyroscopic effects.
Yep. Seen that all over the place. The issue is addressed head on in the book
and movie 2010. In fact it is a major plot element for the first EVA team.

Dave
David Spain
2010-03-13 17:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Nah. Spin the whole thing. If you're using solar arrays, arrange them in
cylindrical shells around the craft with mirrors to direct sunlight into them
as the craft rotates.
My preference for a 'cycler'/habitat craft would be to skip the solar cells and
go straight to nuclear-thermal-electric. Why limit ourselves to the inner solar
system?

Dave
Pat Flannery
2010-03-13 22:14:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
For comms, send out a non-spinning co-orbital satellite module that can use
standard wi-fi techniques for comms between the main craft and itself but
since it's not spinning it can have the high gain dishes and be able to
carefully align them back to Earth w/o fancy mechanics to keep it pointed
properly on a spinning spacecraft.
Also provides some failure isolation from the main ship and if you co-orbit a
couple of them, some failure redundancy as well....
This seems awfully involved compared to just installing a vibration
damper system on the centrifuge...
Post by David Spain
Post by Pat Flannery
To keep the centrifuge in balance you could use a vibration sensor that
detects it being off-balance and transfers some sort of fluid from one side
to the other to balance it out. Another concept would be to not directly
attach the centrifuge proper to the module at its axis points, so that
vibrations can't be transferred from one to the other; it could either spin
on a air bearing at either end like a lot of gyroscopes do, or use a
magnetic field to do the same thing. I'm really surprised they had such
trouble with the ISS centrifuge module, as this doesn't sound like a
insurmountable problem to address in its design.
Not me. I've always considered a spinning centrifuge inside a spacecraft to be
a major mechanical headache/nightmare. You don't want *that* gyro seizing up
on you. No way....
Now the visiting crew is going to get stuck to the inside walls of the
module on boarding it from the centrifugal force, throwing it
off-balance, and as its diameter is so small, they will get vertigo as
they move around inside of it.
Post by David Spain
Post by Pat Flannery
One oddball problem would be that the centrifuge would act like a gyro wheel
and try to rotate the station as it orbited around the Earth. Two
counter-spun sections to it might solve that problem by canceling out the
gyroscopic effects.
Yep. Seen that all over the place. The issue is addressed head on in the book
and movie 2010. In fact it is a major plot element for the first EVA team.
This can be solved by how you align the centrifuge; if it's aligned with
one end bearing facing towards Earth, and the other towards space, it
will act like a gyro as it orbits; but if it's aligned at a ninety
degree angle to the direction of the orbit so that it appears to be
"rolling" along the orbital path like a tire rolling in a circle around
the Earth, then the problem is alleviated, as the spin axis stays in the
same direction during the whole orbit.
Surprisingly, that's not how the centrifuge module was to be mounted on
the ISS, and it would have ended up with its rotational axis pointing
towards Earth.
Here, NASA's Intelligent Systems Division works on balancing the
centrifuge: http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/ssrl/centrifuge.html
You can see the movable weights to keep everything balanced in this
illustration: Loading Image...

Pat
David Spain
2010-03-13 21:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
For comms, send out a non-spinning co-orbital satellite module that can use
standard wi-fi techniques for comms between the main craft and itself but
since it's not spinning it can have the high gain dishes and be able to
carefully align them back to Earth w/o fancy mechanics to keep it pointed
properly on a spinning spacecraft.
Also provides some failure isolation from the main ship and if you co-orbit
a couple of them, some failure redundancy as well....
This seems awfully involved compared to just installing a vibration damper
system on the centrifuge...
I disagree. It's something on the complexity of a couple of comm sats next to
the cycler, that should be NBD. Besides Earth/Cycler comms, although
important, by necessity cannot be critical.

A vibration damper, and a highly reliable bearing for a centrifuge on a cycler
is going to be key and probably requires some expensive development work as
well.
Post by David Spain
Post by Pat Flannery
To keep the centrifuge in balance you could use a vibration sensor that
detects it being off-balance and transfers some sort of fluid from one
side to the other to balance it out. Another concept would be to not
directly attach the centrifuge proper to the module at its axis points, so
that vibrations can't be transferred from one to the other; it could
either spin on a air bearing at either end like a lot of gyroscopes do, or
use a magnetic field to do the same thing. I'm really surprised they had
such trouble with the ISS centrifuge module, as this doesn't sound like a
insurmountable problem to address in its design.
All this is LESS complex than a comm sat? If I had a preference I'd go with a
magnetic bearing, based on PERMANENT magnets. But I'd rather just avoid the
whole problem altogether. If I put the liquid consumables along the outer rim
of a spun cycler I can get vibration and (with plumbing) mass balance damping
that way too, plus extra radiation shielding. The tradeoff is the puncture
problem.
Post by David Spain
Not me. I've always considered a spinning centrifuge inside a spacecraft to
be a major mechanical headache/nightmare. You don't want *that* gyro
seizing up on you. No way....
Now the visiting crew is going to get stuck to the inside walls of the
module on boarding it from the centrifugal force, throwing it off-balance,
and as its diameter is so small, they will get vertigo as they move around
inside of it.
Again we're back to spacecraft design trade-offs. You make your spacecraft
look like a (very) scaled down version of the 2001 space station, where
habitation is out on the rim, you won't have to spin so fast to get to say .1g
or perhaps .5g... (I know, handwave alert, this is a sci.space... posting not
an AIAA paper). Yes, that makes it more expensive, so maybe a larger cylinder
like a spun Bigelow module would be cheaper. Just thinking out loud...
Post by David Spain
Post by Pat Flannery
One oddball problem would be that the centrifuge would act like a gyro
wheel and try to rotate the station as it orbited around the Earth. Two
counter-spun sections to it might solve that problem by canceling out the
gyroscopic effects.
Yep. Seen that all over the place. The issue is addressed head on in the
book and movie 2010. In fact it is a major plot element for the first EVA
team.
This can be solved by how you align the centrifuge; if it's aligned with one
end bearing facing towards Earth, and the other towards space, it will act
like a gyro as it orbits; but if it's aligned at a ninety degree angle to
the direction of the orbit so that it appears to be "rolling" along the
orbital path like a tire rolling in a circle around the Earth, then the
problem is alleviated, as the spin axis stays in the same direction during
the whole orbit.
Good points. But for a cycler that may not really matter if always stays out
of a planetary orbit after injection.

For a spinning cycler you'll have to spin around the thrust axis/CG if you
want gravity while under low acceleration propulsion. For a cycler that enters
planetary orbit once in orbit you can align it so that it's rolling along the
orbital path as well, but only when any 'lander' is not docking/un-docking.
Surprisingly, that's not how the centrifuge module was to be mounted on the
ISS, and it would have ended up with its rotational axis pointing towards
Earth. Here, NASA's Intelligent Systems Division works on balancing the
centrifuge: http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/ssrl/centrifuge.html You can see
http://iss.jaxa.jp/iss/pict/cr.jpg
I guess it just goes to show you can't think of everything.... This is easier
to engineer than a co-orbiting comm sat???

Dave
David Spain
2010-03-13 21:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
For a spinning cycler you'll have to spin around the thrust axis/CG if you
want gravity while under low acceleration propulsion. For a cycler that
enters planetary orbit once in orbit you can align it so that it's rolling
along the orbital path as well, but only when any 'lander' is not
docking/un-docking.
Well if you're trying to minimize issues around redevous and docking. But you
could certainly 'deal' with it...

Dave
Pat Flannery
2010-03-14 01:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
This seems awfully involved compared to just installing a vibration damper
system on the centrifuge...
I disagree. It's something on the complexity of a couple of comm sats next to
the cycler, that should be NBD. Besides Earth/Cycler comms, although
important, by necessity cannot be critical.
This is for the Buzz Bus? I thought we were discussing the test one on
the ISS and trying out the same experiments in a free-flying module in LEO.
If you are going to do it for crew gravity, then spinning up the whole
works is probably the way to go. But a cylindrical shape is probably
going to be of too small of diameter to get rid of the vertigo effects,
and the old classic donut shape is a better choice. IIRC, the diameter
has to be around 400' before the different rotation rates between the
feet and the head aren't noticeable.

Pat
David Spain
2010-03-14 00:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
This seems awfully involved compared to just installing a vibration damper
system on the centrifuge...
I disagree. It's something on the complexity of a couple of comm sats next
to the cycler, that should be NBD. Besides Earth/Cycler comms, although
important, by necessity cannot be critical.
This is for the Buzz Bus? I thought we were discussing the test one on the
ISS and trying out the same experiments in a free-flying module in LEO.
Sorry, mixing too much together. Yes to your first question. No to the ISS
module and yes to the free flyer. But attaching a spinning centrifuge to the
ISS of any sizeable mass scares the hell out of me! Is the plan to keep it
spinning all the time?
If you are going to do it for crew gravity, then spinning up the whole works
is probably the way to go. But a cylindrical shape is probably going to be
of too small of diameter to get rid of the vertigo effects, and the old
classic donut shape is a better choice. IIRC, the diameter has to be around
400' before the different rotation rates between the feet and the head
aren't noticeable.
At what g along the rim? Can you shrink it if you spin it slower and go for
less g? Say 1/6g?

Dave
Pat Flannery
2010-03-14 03:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Sorry, mixing too much together. Yes to your first question. No to the ISS
module and yes to the free flyer. But attaching a spinning centrifuge to the
ISS of any sizeable mass scares the hell out of me! Is the plan to keep it
spinning all the time?
No, it would be spun up and down to change the biological samples that
were being tested; spin-up could take anywhere from a minute to an hour,
and g range was .01 to 2.0.
The spinning rotor weighed 1,875 kg, so you can see why they were
concerned about it getting a little out of balance. How exactly the
Station's gyrodynes were supposed to overcome that sort of gyroscopic
force is a good question.
As to why it needed to go to 2g is another good one, as anything above
1g could be done on the Earth's surface a hell of a lot easier than in
space.
Post by David Spain
If you are going to do it for crew gravity, then spinning up the whole works
is probably the way to go. But a cylindrical shape is probably going to be
of too small of diameter to get rid of the vertigo effects, and the old
classic donut shape is a better choice. IIRC, the diameter has to be around
400' before the different rotation rates between the feet and the head
aren't noticeable.
At what g along the rim? Can you shrink it if you spin it slower and go for
less g? Say 1/6g?
I think that was for 1g.
I assume reducing the g force would help things as far as diameter goes,
but then you could be back into muscle/bone mass loss territory.
Which is why we need something like the ISS centrifuge to figure out
what happens along the whole reduced g curve in this regard.
When I designed this thing:
http://www.starshipmodeler.com/gallery/pf_disc.htm
I got around the rotation diameter problem by having the whole ship spin
around its center of mass where the de-spun ion engines and
sensor/antenna arrays are, counterbalancing the crew quarters at the
front with the power reactors and nuclear engines at the rear.
This made the effective diameter of rotation around 1,000 feet, while at
the same time getting the crew far away from the reactors for radiation
protection.

Pat
David Spain
2010-03-13 17:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
same effect. Also it's not clear you need to spin to 1g when something
smaller might suffice and thereby avoid the coriolis effects on the inner
ear at a higher spin rate.
BTW, you can get a 1g effect in a <1g environment by providing a circular
running track and have the crew run around the track in the spin-wise
direction to experience a higher g.

They did that in the movie 2001 too, but only those in the know realized what
it was about. Too bad they didn't do the special effects to show what happens
when Bowman runs the OTHER* way... ;-)

Dave

*A very QUICK way to get from one point to another in the centrifuge. In a
less UP TIGHT version of 2001, there'd be all these hand painted signs hung up
by the crew saying ONE WAY ---> pointing in the spinward direction....

;-)
bob haller safety advocate
2010-03-13 19:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Post by David Spain
same effect. Also it's not clear you need to spin to 1g when something
smaller might suffice and thereby avoid the coriolis effects on the inner
ear at a higher spin rate.
BTW, you can get a 1g effect in a <1g environment by providing a circular
running track and have the crew run around the track in the spin-wise
direction to experience a higher g.
They did that in the movie 2001 too, but only those in the know realized what
it was about. Too bad they didn't do the special effects to show what happens
when Bowman runs the OTHER* way... �;-)
Dave
*A very QUICK way to get from one point to another in the centrifuge. �In a
less UP TIGHT version of 2001, there'd be all these hand painted signs hung up
by the crew saying ONE WAY ---> pointing in the spinward direction....
;-)
didnt the crew spin skylab once? i forget the details:(
Pat Flannery
2010-03-13 23:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
They did that in the movie 2001 too, but only those in the know realized what
it was about. Too bad they didn't do the special effects to show what happens
when Bowman runs the OTHER* way... ;-)
The centrifuge in the Discovery was supposed to generate 1/6 g (lunar
gravity) when the astronauts were at rest; I don't know how much higher
you could get that be running around in it like shown in the movie.
But even at 1/6 g the diameter was pretty small for this to work without
getting the astronauts dizzy as they moved around in it.
Here's Pete Conrad running around the the inside circumfrance of the
Skylab station, ala' 2001:

As can be seen in this video, once the astronauts had been on Skylab
long enough, they were capable of doing pretty wild gymnastics without
any space sickness:

Post by David Spain
*A very QUICK way to get from one point to another in the centrifuge. In a
less UP TIGHT version of 2001, there'd be all these hand painted signs hung up
by the crew saying ONE WAY ---> pointing in the spinward direction....
Other than air circulation pushing you along, if you ran against the
spin hard enough to go weightless, you should just end up floating in
the air above the "floor".
Babylon 5 had a scene in one episode where Sheridan ended up floating in
the weightless middle of the station after the central monorail car he
was riding in was blown up, and as was correctly pointed out in the
episode the danger he was in was what would happen when he floated into
the rotating inside hull of the station, which from his point of view
would be going sideways at high speed.

Pat
David Spain
2010-03-13 22:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
They did that in the movie 2001 too, but only those in the know realized what
it was about. Too bad they didn't do the special effects to show what happens
when Bowman runs the OTHER* way... ;-)
...and before someone jumps down my throat, yes I know, I AM WRONG!
It was Poole, not Bowman, running around the centrifuge...
The centrifuge in the Discovery was supposed to generate 1/6 g (lunar gravity)
when the astronauts were at rest; I don't know how much higher you could get
that be running around in it like shown in the movie.
But even at 1/6 g the diameter was pretty small for this to work without
getting the astronauts dizzy as they moved around in it.
I'm guessing a bit but it looked to be about 40ft in diameter? Aha wikipedia
says 35.65 ft. (11.6m) at 3 RPM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_One
Here's Pete Conrad running around the the inside circumfrance of the Skylab
station, ala' 2001: http://youtu.be/Awe6vOXURpY
As can be seen in this video, once the astronauts had been on Skylab long
enough, they were capable of doing pretty wild gymnastics without any space
sickness: http://youtu.be/oYsKGDJe4zE
Post by David Spain
*A very QUICK way to get from one point to another in the centrifuge. In a
less UP TIGHT version of 2001, there'd be all these hand painted signs hung up
by the crew saying ONE WAY ---> pointing in the spinward direction....
Other than air circulation pushing you along, if you ran against the spin hard
enough to go weightless, you should just end up floating in the air above the
"floor".
Unless you do a few hops and jumps along with it. See above... ;-)
Babylon 5 had a scene in one episode where Sheridan ended up floating in the
weightless middle of the station after the central monorail car he was riding
in was blown up, and as was correctly pointed out in the episode the danger he
was in was what would happen when he floated into the rotating inside hull of
the station, which from his point of view would be going sideways at high
speed.
I'm losing my lunch already....

Dave
Pat Flannery
2010-03-14 02:11:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
The centrifuge in the Discovery was supposed to generate 1/6 g (lunar gravity)
when the astronauts were at rest; I don't know how much higher you could get
that be running around in it like shown in the movie.
But even at 1/6 g the diameter was pretty small for this to work without
getting the astronauts dizzy as they moved around in it.
I'm guessing a bit but it looked to be about 40ft in diameter? Aha wikipedia
says 35.65 ft. (11.6m) at 3 RPM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_One
What's odd about the one on the Discovery is that it's not located where
you think it would be in the control sphere; you would expect it to go
around the equator of the sphere dividing it into front and back halves
for maximum diameter on the centrifuge, but it's aft of center.
The rotating set in the movie was indeed 40' in diameter.
It also points out what I always thought was the big problem with 2001;
it's fascinating to look at the thing going around, but it doesn't add
one whit to the storyline (what little there is of it) while being very
hard and expensive to produce (as in $750,000 dollars back when that was
real money) The whole movie is like this spectacular gift box with
sparkly wrapping paper and glittering bows and ribbons all over it...and
nothing much inside, a triumph of packaging over content.

Pat
David Spain
2010-03-14 17:14:45 UTC
Permalink
What's odd about the one on the Discovery is that it's not located where you
think it would be in the control sphere; you would expect it to go around
the equator of the sphere dividing it into front and back halves for maximum
diameter on the centrifuge, but it's aft of center.
This is a quirk that I think helps authenticate the movie. Of course you'd
start out with a paper design that places it squarely on the equator only to
discover later you have to move it to make way for lab space, or other gear
that for one reason or another has to be close to the command module. So you
back the centrifuge back towards aft to make room, making it slightly smaller
in the process. Sounds like the typical design trade-off to me...
The rotating set in the movie was indeed 40' in diameter. It also points
out what I always thought was the big problem with 2001; it's fascinating to
look at the thing going around, but it doesn't add one whit to the storyline
(what little there is of it) while being very hard and expensive to produce
(as in $750,000 dollars back when that was real money) The whole movie is
like this spectacular gift box with sparkly wrapping paper and glittering
bows and ribbons all over it...and nothing much inside, a triumph of
packaging over content.
You mean like Avatar and Waterworld?

Essentially contributing to the visuals of a movie is major. Sometimes even
more so than the plotline when it comes to an audience draw. The story of the
Wizard of Oz was well known when the definitive movie came along in the
30's. But the big draw wasn't just the story; it was the music, the sets, the
actors and the careful presentation of color framed around what starts and
ends as a B&W movie.

For 2001, it seems that the overriding quality Kubrick was going for was
disorientation. I think he was striving to provide this quirky environment
that you could never quite get confortable with, a constant reminder of where
you were during the movie. There was more alienation going in that movie that
just that provided by the esoteric monolith. A movie very much of its time,
the late 60s...

Dave
Pat Flannery
2010-03-15 00:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
What's odd about the one on the Discovery is that it's not located where you
think it would be in the control sphere; you would expect it to go around
the equator of the sphere dividing it into front and back halves for maximum
diameter on the centrifuge, but it's aft of center.
This is a quirk that I think helps authenticate the movie. Of course you'd
start out with a paper design that places it squarely on the equator only to
discover later you have to move it to make way for lab space, or other gear
that for one reason or another has to be close to the command module. So you
back the centrifuge back towards aft to make room, making it slightly smaller
in the process. Sounds like the typical design trade-off to me...
What's odd about Discovery is that it's perfectly designed to generate
artificial gravity by spinning the whole ship around the center section
where the communication system is (as is shown in 2010) but it doesn't
do that. The reason Discovery looks the way it does in the 2001 isn't
about science, it's to resemble the skull and spinal column of an animal
to connect it with the bones the apes were using as weapons in the
movie's beginning, as well as a sperm cell (with the crew as the genetic
material in its head) that's going to knock up the funny light show at
the end and create the Star Child floating around in the womb of space.
Although this all sounds unhinged in retrospect, this is just the sort
of stuff that came out of the LSD-soaked late 1960's.
As the studio knew that when they marketed the movie with posters like
this: Loading Image...
After they realized what an oddball thing they had just spent so much
money on and were desperately trying to recoup their losses any way they
could.
I never did it, but at the time it was considered way cool to see the
movie while three sheets to the wind on acid.
"Can't understand it? Man, it's just too deep for squares like you. Eat
this little piece of blotter paper and soon all will be clear.
Dig it, man! Now the emperor has hip new glowing clothes!"
Post by David Spain
The rotating set in the movie was indeed 40' in diameter. It also points
out what I always thought was the big problem with 2001; it's fascinating to
look at the thing going around, but it doesn't add one whit to the storyline
(what little there is of it) while being very hard and expensive to produce
(as in $750,000 dollars back when that was real money) The whole movie is
like this spectacular gift box with sparkly wrapping paper and glittering
bows and ribbons all over it...and nothing much inside, a triumph of
packaging over content.
You mean like Avatar and Waterworld?
Haven't seen either of those, but those Star Wars prequels certainly
come to mind.
I wonder if watching them on acid would make them better?*
Probably not, but dipping the film emulsion _into_ acid might vastly
improve them.
Post by David Spain
Essentially contributing to the visuals of a movie is major. Sometimes even
more so than the plotline when it comes to an audience draw.
Sure didn't work for 2001; the audience stayed away in droves after it
had been out for a week or so, helped by the critical reviews that
basically said: "What...the fuck...was that?".
(other critics of course went with the "It's totally incomprehensible,
so it _must_ be great, and I'm not going to admit that I couldn't
understand it and be the subject of scorn by my peers" approach, which
was very big in the modern art and modern music criticism of the time also.)
Post by David Spain
The story of the
Wizard of Oz was well known when the definitive movie came along in the
30's. But the big draw wasn't just the story; it was the music, the sets, the
actors and the careful presentation of color framed around what starts and
ends as a B&W movie.
Yeah, but the Wizard Of Oz has a good storyline, and flying monkeys to
boot (though even it wasn't an instant classic when it was first
released, as Hitler made the Wicked Witch look pretty mundane by
comparison, although one can certainly picture Goering ordering flying
monkeys around.)
That M-Factor was vital to its success as in any good sci-fi or fantasy
movie, and I would have been much more entertained if 2001 had just
stayed with the "Smart Killer Monkeys" concept through the whole movie
like Planet Of The Apes from the same year did.
If you wanted to make that fit in better with the timbre of the times,
the monkeys could be seen as the downtrodden colonial populations of the
world and the Monolith as Marxist-Leninism, liberating them through
creative violence against the sell-out lackeys of the capitalist system
among them.
HAL would be the CIA in this version, talking calmly while killing
everything in sight, and Moonwatcher Che Guevara.
But I digress.
Post by David Spain
For 2001, it seems that the overriding quality Kubrick was going for was
disorientation.
Worked for me; I saw that movie for the first time and didn't know what
the hell going on, and that was after reading the book.
Post by David Spain
I think he was striving to provide this quirky environment
that you could never quite get confortable with, a constant reminder of where
you were during the movie.
Staring at my watch a lot, and trying to figure out how to apologize to
my parents for suggesting we see this?
Post by David Spain
There was more alienation going in that movie that
just that provided by the esoteric monolith. A movie very much of its time,
the late 60s...
Speaking of alienation, wouldn't it have been fun if the Monoliths had
stuck a little something funny in Bowman's food when he was hanging out
in that bedroom at the end, and later when the Star Child was floating
in space near Earth, it suddenly screamed and convulsed as something
horrifying tore itself out of its stomach and attacked the planet?
The audience wouldn't have seen that one coming, would they?
And it's the perfect set-up for the sequel, "2002-The Monolith
Monsters". ;-)

* "Man that little green guy is so completely Zen! Look, he's jumping
all over the place! Jump Zen Yoda, jump! Okay, who let the Dewback
Lizard crawl under my seat? I can feel it's down there, panting in the
darkness...FUCK...THAT THING HAS FOUR ARMS AND ASTHMA! A ROBOT WITH
ASTHMA! That is SUCH a bad trip! Are there going to be any Ewoks in
this? I've heard you can understand what they say if you play it
backwards in your head. Look, it's Saruman! SARUMAN IS IN THIS! I should
have recognized his foul stench when we entered the theater!
My feet are turning all wet and soft...Dewback spit no doubt, but I
can't move or the Womp Rats will detect my fear and that will be the end
of me...I didn't know you were a Wookie. Just a beard? Let's see if it's
on your back also; that would be a sure sign that you're a Wookie. We
must shave your back or you will be detected and killed by Saruman."

Pat
David Spain
2010-03-15 06:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Essentially contributing to the visuals of a movie is major. Sometimes even
more so than the plotline when it comes to an audience draw.
Sure didn't work for 2001; the audience stayed away in droves after it had
been out for a week or so, helped by the critical reviews that basically
said: "What...the fuck...was that?". (other critics of course went with the
"It's totally incomprehensible, so it _must_ be great, and I'm not going to
admit that I couldn't understand it and be the subject of scorn by my peers"
approach, which was very big in the modern art and modern music criticism of
the time also.)
Well maybe. 2001 certainly was the kind of movie you'd probably only go to see
once, unlike Star Wars episode IV.
Post by David Spain
For 2001, it seems that the overriding quality Kubrick was going for was
disorientation.
Worked for me; I saw that movie for the first time and didn't know what the
hell going on, and that was after reading the book.
Well I read the book before seeing the movie and didn't have that problem.
But my mom and sister, who went with me at the time, hadn't and they
*definitely* had trouble with this movie.
Post by David Spain
I think he was striving to provide this quirky environment that you could
never quite get comfortable with, a constant reminder of where you were
during the movie.
Staring at my watch a lot, and trying to figure out how to apologize to my
parents for suggesting we see this?
:-D

Maybe I should have been more explicit. This was (placing reverb control to
11) "Kubrick In Space". All the quirky camera angles, people walking upside
down, the strangely disorienting experience of Poole running in the
centrifuge. This was not Ozzie and Harriet at home on the sofa. In fact, in
retrospect, the spacecraft interiors (at least the centrifuge) were an
asthetic nightmare and deliberately chosen to be so. Think how easily it would
have been to cozy it up with overhead screening so as to block the upcurve
view and reduce the disorientation of watching the people walking around
upside down directly overhead.
Post by David Spain
There was more alienation going in that movie that just that provided by
the esoteric monolith. A movie very much of its time, the late 60s...
Workaholic Dad jaunting off to the moon, instead of being home for his
daughter's birthday.

Lying to close professional colleages about a 'space plague'. Not to mention
what such a callous cover story would do to Clavius family members back on
Earth, but hey, we already know how important the family scores in this movie.

Frank Poole's birthday party telethon. That whole scene was about space
isolation, alienation from family, topped off with a pre-programmed best
wishes from HAL. Frank's cold reaction to HAL in that scene actually made me
feel sorry for HAL. The whole scene was as heartwarming as an audit notice
from the IRS.

Orders to HAL to keep secret the mission's true purpose and to deny knowledge
about it if directly asked even to his own crewmates. (Would have been a great
scene what would have happened when HAL was doing the crew psyche profile if
Bowman had just come straight out and asked HAL WTF? But Bowman choses instead
to cut to the chase and by exposing HAL's subterfuge, triggers the start of
the psychosis with the antenna failure).

The crew plotting to 'kill' HAL and HAL secretly watching in turn.

Aliens so esoteric there's no discerning their intentions.

An incomprehensible final third of the movie that ends with a Star-Child(tm)
that destroys the Earth in the end? Or what? ? Alienating the audience to the
point of wanting a refund on their ticket?

If the aliens and computers weren't out to get you, "the man" certainly
was....

;-)

Dave
Pat Flannery
2010-03-15 18:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Well maybe. 2001 certainly was the kind of movie you'd probably only go to see
once, unlike Star Wars episode IV.
I saw that what? 17 times? at the theater.
I think I saw 2001 twice at the theater - once when it came out, once
when it was re-released, thinking it might be better second time around
after having read so much about it...it wasn't...it was still way
bloated in length for the story it had to tell. When a computer and some
monkeys are far more interesting characters than the people in the
picture, you've got a problem.
Ever realize that you know absolutely nothing about what Poole and
Bowman's personalities at the end of the movie? They might as well have
been mannequins with tape recorders inside of them for all they added to
the film.
Post by David Spain
Post by David Spain
For 2001, it seems that the overriding quality Kubrick was going for was
disorientation.
Worked for me; I saw that movie for the first time and didn't know what the
hell going on, and that was after reading the book.
Well I read the book before seeing the movie and didn't have that problem.
About the time all the weird lights started, I turned off and tuned out.
Post by David Spain
But my mom and sister, who went with me at the time, hadn't and they
*definitely* had trouble with this movie.
Post by David Spain
I think he was striving to provide this quirky environment that you could
never quite get comfortable with, a constant reminder of where you were
during the movie.
Staring at my watch a lot, and trying to figure out how to apologize to my
parents for suggesting we see this?
:-D
Maybe I should have been more explicit. This was (placing reverb control to
11) "Kubrick In Space". All the quirky camera angles, people walking upside
down, the strangely disorienting experience of Poole running in the
centrifuge. This was not Ozzie and Harriet at home on the sofa. In fact, in
retrospect, the spacecraft interiors (at least the centrifuge) were an
asthetic nightmare and deliberately chosen to be so. Think how easily it would
have been to cozy it up with overhead screening so as to block the upcurve
view and reduce the disorientation of watching the people walking around
upside down directly overhead.
Really, I doubt that would bother me at all; in fact it might be fun to
never know where someone might be or in what orientation.
Having HAL staring at me all day would get creepy real fast though.
One thing you don't see in the movie is if Poole and Bowman had some
sort of small private quarters onboard Discovery, or if they just slept
in the centrifuge; I don't remember seeing any beds in there other than
the three chambers for the crew in hibernation.
In the Salyut 6 mock-up in Moscow, the two-man crew slept in two
sleeping bags strapped to the wall, although Mir did give the crew tiny
independent rooms. Cosmonauts aboard Mir stated it was important for
each module to have a "ceiling" and "floor" aspect to it that you could
align yourself with to avoid disorientation, but going from one module
to another one that had a different orientation was always disconcerting
till you could make the mental adjustment to the new orientation.
One reason that centrifuge set cost so much might have been who they
chose to build it; the British aerospace firm of Vickers Armstrong.
I imagine a spaceship set built by Lockheed's Skunk Works might be
fairly pricey also.
Post by David Spain
Post by David Spain
There was more alienation going in that movie that just that provided by
the esoteric monolith. A movie very much of its time, the late 60s...
Workaholic Dad jaunting off to the moon, instead of being home for his
daughter's birthday.
Lying to close professional colleages about a 'space plague'. Not to mention
what such a callous cover story would do to Clavius family members back on
Earth, but hey, we already know how important the family scores in this movie.
Remember though, that rumor was leaked to the Russians; we don't know if
anything about funny going-ons at Clavius made the news Earthside.
Post by David Spain
Frank Poole's birthday party telethon. That whole scene was about space
isolation, alienation from family, topped off with a pre-programmed best
wishes from HAL. Frank's cold reaction to HAL in that scene actually made me
feel sorry for HAL. The whole scene was as heartwarming as an audit notice
from the IRS.
One gets the feeling that Frank and his family were none-too-close.
I imagine he spends a lot of time in space, and a close family
relationship is about as impossible as it was for sailors in the age of
sail, when you could be gone for years at a time.
Haywood Floyd's daughter (who wants the pet Bush Baby) was played by
Kubrick's five-year-old daughter Vivian BTW.
Post by David Spain
Orders to HAL to keep secret the mission's true purpose and to deny knowledge
about it if directly asked even to his own crewmates. (Would have been a great
scene what would have happened when HAL was doing the crew psyche profile if
Bowman had just come straight out and asked HAL WTF? But Bowman choses instead
to cut to the chase and by exposing HAL's subterfuge, triggers the start of
the psychosis with the antenna failure).
I think that Bowman was treating HAL the way he would a person during a
conversation, and didn't realize that HAL had been given Abbie Normal's
brain. :-)
Post by David Spain
The crew plotting to 'kill' HAL and HAL secretly watching in turn.
Aliens so esoteric there's no discerning their intentions.
Or shape. At one point during the production you were going to see them,
described as "people in rubber monster suits", but that got dropped,
probably to make the movie more intentionally obscure yet.
Post by David Spain
An incomprehensible final third of the movie that ends with a Star-Child(tm)
that destroys the Earth in the end? Or what? ? Alienating the audience to the
point of wanting a refund on their ticket?
In the book the Flying Fetus Monster destroys those nuclear warhead
carriers in Earth orbit that we saw before the space station scene...
and which of course were nowhere identified as nuclear warhead
carriers...to make things intentionally more obscure yet.
Post by David Spain
If the aliens and computers weren't out to get you, "the man" certainly
was....
How about this: The Star Child is wearing a diaper, reaches down and
takes one of the safety pins out of it, and pokes the Earth...which then
flies off like a deflating balloon.
Then Haywood wakes up, and we realize the whole movie was a strange
dream he had while he was on the Pan-Am Space Clipper heading for the
Space Station.
Audience wouldn't see that one coming, would they?
They'd be ready to kill at that point. ;-)

Pat
John Doe
2010-03-15 21:48:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
after having read so much about it...it wasn't...it was still way
bloated in length for the story it had to tell.
If the monkey opening had been shortened to 1 or 2 minutes, the movie
would have been far better.

You need to realise that this wasn't about a story or actors. It was
about special effects and a audio-visual entertainment. Reading up on
imdb, you learn about how they did the trick of the pen floating in the
shuttle to the space station. Considering the then state of the art for
computers, that movie was a true masterpiece.

Today, we take many of the tricks for granted. But back then, they were
brilliant.

2001 was more like a symphony being played by an orchestra than a movie
with a story line. And it also has interesting product placement from
companies that no longer exist as they did back then (Bell System, Pan
Am etc).

BTW, found out that HAL was canadian, and he recorded his lines at home
while relaxing (they wanted to make sure the voice was as relaxed and
stress free as possible).
Pat Flannery
2010-03-16 04:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
Post by Pat Flannery
after having read so much about it...it wasn't...it was still way
bloated in length for the story it had to tell.
If the monkey opening had been shortened to 1 or 2 minutes, the movie
would have been far better.
You need to realise that this wasn't about a story or actors. It was
about special effects and a audio-visual entertainment. Reading up on
imdb, you learn about how they did the trick of the pen floating in the
shuttle to the space station. Considering the then state of the art for
computers, that movie was a true masterpiece.
Today, we take many of the tricks for granted. But back then, they were
brilliant.
I think that the story comes first, and the special effects are there
to support the story, not the other way around.
2001 certainly looked great, but there was a very confusing and mediocre
story that went along with all those special effects; at least with the
original Star Wars trilogy, you got a Golden Age science fiction story
to go with all the cool special effects (you also got Ewoks, but nothing
is perfect, and they were a very good warning about what the prequels
were going to be like). Decent special effects in science fiction films
didn't start with "2001"; The effects in Disney's "20,000 Leagues Under
The Sea" from 1954 are still damned impressive to see, and the story
works well also.
A more recent example of ground-breaking special effects combined with a
good story would be "Jurassic Park", which had the first really
convincing dinosaurs ever put on film.
Science fiction movies certainly have gone down the "special effects are
everything" road since Star Wars, and only now are starting to recover
from that trend and putting special effects back in their proper
supporting roll.
But of course now we have 3D so it's all going to start over again.
Like in "Fahrenheit 451" we are about to get that third video wall, and
they are already figuring out ways for the audience to interact with the
movie.
Someone tries to warn people about what the future could bring, and not
only do they ignore the warning, they use it as an instruction book on
how to bring that thing about...a rewatching of the 1976 movie "Network"
will bring that home like nothing else. When that was released, it was
considered a black comedy; now it's mainstream TV, with Glenn Beck as
our very own Howard Beale.
Post by John Doe
2001 was more like a symphony being played by an orchestra than a movie
with a story line. And it also has interesting product placement from
companies that no longer exist as they did back then (Bell System, Pan
Am etc).
Good product placement should be a warning about what the movie is going
to be like (a giant commercial), as it's probably most well known from
the late and forgettable James Bond films; this is the movie not as art,
but purely as product. Its sole purpose is to make as much money as
possible versus what it cost to produce*, and it's just a throwaway
means to that end, like Barnum's Fiji Mermaid was. The audience is also
throwaway, and must quickly move on to see the Egress once having been
separated from their dollars. ;-)
Here's one company (still existing) that didn't make it into 2001:
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2010/03/12/why-does-blonder-tongue-offer-two-new-indoor-boosters/
This is the name that could have been stuck on the communications system
on Discovery. ;-)
It would have been fun to have been a fly on the wall while 2001 was
being filmed, as I get the feeling the Kubrick and Clarke knew that they
had a real mess on their hands, and were desperately trying to figure
out some way to do a salvage operation on it in best "SOB" tradition.
For a real blast from the past, here's the original 2001 script, where
people were actually going to talk, and a narrator would tell you what's
going on: http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/2001.html
Reading this, the whole movie sounds like a "Dr. Strangelove" style comedy:

"C27
CENTRIFUGE

WE SEE BOWMAN AND
POOLE GO TO A CUPBOARD
LABELED IN PAPER TAPE,
"RANDOM DECISION
MAKER."

THEY REMOVED A SILVER
DOLLAR IN A PROTECTIVE
CASE.

POOLE FLIPS THE COIN.
BOWMAN CALLS "HEAD."

IT IS TAILS. POOLE
WINS.

POOLE LOOKS PLEASED."

WTF?
Post by John Doe
BTW, found out that HAL was canadian, and he recorded his lines at home
while relaxing (they wanted to make sure the voice was as relaxed and
stress free as possible).
They were very pleased that they could get him back for "2010".

*Although that concept does bring up one of my favorite quotes:
"Movie critics telling producers how to make movies is like virgins
telling whores how to fuck."


Pat
Alain Fournier
2010-03-17 02:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by John Doe
Post by Pat Flannery
after having read so much about it...it wasn't...it was still way
bloated in length for the story it had to tell.
If the monkey opening had been shortened to 1 or 2 minutes, the movie
would have been far better.
You need to realise that this wasn't about a story or actors. It was
about special effects and a audio-visual entertainment. Reading up on
imdb, you learn about how they did the trick of the pen floating in the
shuttle to the space station. Considering the then state of the art for
computers, that movie was a true masterpiece.
Today, we take many of the tricks for granted. But back then, they were
brilliant.
I think that the story comes first, and the special effects are there
to support the story, not the other way around.
You still don't get it. I think you still think of it as a science fiction
film. It isn't. It is in a genre all by itself. If one has to put a genre
on it, it is usually put in the science fiction category just because there
was a space ship in it, but it is in a genre all by itself. If you really
want to compare it to something else, it should not be to Star Wars it should
probably be to Thriller by Michel Jackson. Nobody says that Thriller was
a flop because the Zombies didn't look real and the story line was poor.
It isn't about a story line. Think of 2001 as a the result of breading
Thriller with a Picaso. Forget the story line, just listen to the music
and watch the colors.


Alain Fournier
David Spain
2010-03-17 03:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Fournier
It isn't about a story line. Think of 2001 as a the result of breading
Thriller with a Picaso. Forget the story line, just listen to the music
and watch the colors.
Alain Fournier
Or the white socks....
Pat Flannery
2010-03-17 10:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Pat Flannery
I think that the story comes first, and the special effects are there
to support the story, not the other way around.
You still don't get it. I think you still think of it as a science fiction
film. It isn't. It is in a genre all by itself. If one has to put a genre
on it, it is usually put in the science fiction category just because there
was a space ship in it, but it is in a genre all by itself. If you really
want to compare it to something else, it should not be to Star Wars it should
probably be to Thriller by Michel Jackson.
Or "Fantasia" by Disney, I imagine.
Whatever it was, I'm glad it didn't catch on, because every time I've
seen it what impresses me is how long it is...it seems to go on forever.
I used to have a collection of those "Mind's Eye" computer animation
films, and those worked a lot better for combining music and special
effects, by keeping the individual segments fairly short, as did "Fantasia".
Kubrick did three technically experimental movies in his career; the
first being "2001" (visual special effects and Cinerama), next
"Clockwork Orange" (first use of Dolby Surround Sound), and then "Barry
Lyndon" (used natural candlelight for illumination).
Outside of "Eyes Wide Shut" I've seen all of his films post-1956, and of
those "2001" is my least favorite. (Dr. Strangelove is on the very short
list of all-time favorite movies, and I'm apparently one of the few
people who liked "Barry Lyndon") That doesn't mean I don't sometimes
watch parts of "2001" if it's going to be on TV, it means I'm not going
to be at all upset if I miss it.
Post by Alain Fournier
Nobody says that Thriller was
a flop because the Zombies didn't look real and the story line was poor.
I never saw the whole thing, although the parts of the video I saw
looked damn silly.
On the other hand, I hated Michael Jackson music from the word go.
Post by Alain Fournier
It isn't about a story line. Think of 2001 as a the result of breading
Thriller with a Picaso.
Never liked Picasso either. Only thing he ever painted that I even
halfway liked was "Guernica" and that's only because it was about Nazis
dropping bombs on deformed people and livestock, which sounds exactly
like something they'd do.
Liked Dali though.
Of course Dali thought Hitler looked really cool and erotic, so there's
no accounting for political taste among the modern Spanish artists,
although their predecessors could do a tortured Christ like no one's
business. Sucker looked he'd been dead a week by the time they got done
with him.
Post by Alain Fournier
Forget the story line, just listen to the music
and watch the colors.
That's just what they told Alex before cranking up the old Ludwig van
and ultraviolence movies. ;-)

Pat
Doug Freyburger
2010-03-17 16:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Pat Flannery
I think that the story comes first, and the special effects are there
to support the story, not the other way around.
You still don't get it. I think you still think of it as a science fiction
film. It isn't. It is in a genre all by itself. If one has to put a genre
on it, it is usually put in the science fiction category just because there
was a space ship in it, but it is in a genre all by itself. If you really
want to compare it to something else, it should not be to Star Wars it should
probably be to Thriller by Michel Jackson. Nobody says that Thriller was
a flop because the Zombies didn't look real and the story line was poor.
It isn't about a story line. Think of 2001 as a the result of breading
Thriller with a Picaso. Forget the story line, just listen to the music
and watch the colors.
It's true that most people watched 2001: A Space Odyssey for the special
effects and the music. Few have any idea at all what the story line is
about. It's part of why I think the movie Gattaca, almost completely
lacking special effects, is a better science fiction story.
Pat Flannery
2010-03-17 21:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Freyburger
It's true that most people watched 2001: A Space Odyssey for the special
effects and the music. Few have any idea at all what the story line is
about. It's part of why I think the movie Gattaca, almost completely
lacking special effects, is a better science fiction story.
That one bored the hell out of me; I can't even remember anything about
it except it had Gore Vidal and Uma Thurman in it.
Since this seems to be about "The thinking man's science fiction film"
that's a pretty rarefied category. Certainly "Blade Runner" was thought
provoking, as were "The Matrix" and "Fahrenheit 451". The new movie
"Moon" is also good in this regard, although I have yet to be able to
sit through all of either version of "Solaris", or even the first third
of "Alphaville".

Pat
David Spain
2010-03-17 03:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Really, I doubt that would bother me at all; in fact it might be fun to
never know where someone might be or in what orientation. Having HAL
staring at me all day would get creepy real fast though. One thing you
don't see in the movie is if Poole and Bowman had some sort of small private
quarters onboard Discovery, or if they just slept in the centrifuge; I don't
remember seeing any beds in there other than the three chambers for the crew
in hibernation.
There is a short scene where you see Poole walking around in the centrifuge
and Bowman is asleep in his hibernaculum. There were 5. There are scenes in
the movie where you can see two are set up as beds. Poole and Bowman were not
to use theirs for cold sleep until mission end. When not used for hibernation
the hibernaculum served as beds. And herein lies a plot flaw in the
book. While Bowman is asleep, the cover of the hibernaculum is firmly in
place. It would not be much of a stretch to assume they could be made
airtight. Thus in case of rapid decompression, sleeping/hibernating crewmates
could survive and perhaps even don pressure suits while safe in their
hibernaculum. In the book Bowman never attempts a rescue of Poole and remains
on-board. HAL opens both airlock doors in the pod bay and sucks the air out of
the ship, killing all the hibernating crewmembers and nearly killing
Bowman. Big hole. The movie version was far more believable.
Post by Pat Flannery
Haywood Floyd's daughter (who wants the pet Bush Baby) was played by
Kubrick's five-year-old daughter Vivian BTW.
I remember reading that somewhere way back when....
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by David Spain
Aliens so esoteric there's no discerning their intentions.
Or shape. At one point during the production you were going to see them,
described as "people in rubber monster suits", but that got dropped,
probably to make the movie more intentionally obscure yet.
A good move IMO.
Post by Pat Flannery
In the book the Flying Fetus Monster destroys those nuclear warhead carriers
in Earth orbit that we saw before the space station scene... and which of
course were nowhere identified as nuclear warhead carriers...to make things
intentionally more obscure yet.
So obscure I never knew that is what they were until just now. They are
mentioned in the book, but I did not know they were depicted in the movie as
the seque from the tossed bone. But it makes sense.
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by David Spain
If the aliens and computers weren't out to get you, "the man" certainly
was....
How about this: The Star Child is wearing a diaper, reaches down and takes
one of the safety pins out of it, and pokes the Earth...which then flies off
like a deflating balloon.
If you put Terry Gilliam in charge of special effects rather than Douglas
Trumball?
Post by Pat Flannery
Then Haywood wakes up, and we realize the whole movie was a strange dream he
had while he was on the Pan-Am Space Clipper heading for the Space Station.
Audience wouldn't see that one coming, would they? They'd be ready to kill
at that point. ;-)
Yes they certainly would. In a college town, I can just imagine everyone
getting up and throwing chicken bones stolen from the cafeteria at the screen
at that point whilst dressed in ape suits and grunting oh oh oh oh.....

;-)

Dave
Pat Flannery
2010-03-17 09:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Post by Pat Flannery
Really, I doubt that would bother me at all; in fact it might be fun to
never know where someone might be or in what orientation. Having HAL
staring at me all day would get creepy real fast though. One thing you
don't see in the movie is if Poole and Bowman had some sort of small private
quarters onboard Discovery, or if they just slept in the centrifuge; I don't
remember seeing any beds in there other than the three chambers for the crew
in hibernation.
There is a short scene where you see Poole walking around in the centrifuge
and Bowman is asleep in his hibernaculum. There were 5. There are scenes in
the movie where you can see two are set up as beds. Poole and Bowman were not
to use theirs for cold sleep until mission end. When not used for hibernation
the hibernaculum served as beds. And herein lies a plot flaw in the
book. While Bowman is asleep, the cover of the hibernaculum is firmly in
place. It would not be much of a stretch to assume they could be made
airtight. Thus in case of rapid decompression, sleeping/hibernating crewmates
could survive and perhaps even don pressure suits while safe in their
hibernaculum. In the book Bowman never attempts a rescue of Poole and remains
on-board. HAL opens both airlock doors in the pod bay and sucks the air out of
the ship, killing all the hibernating crewmembers and nearly killing
Bowman. Big hole. The movie version was far more believable.
Are two of the other three astronauts to stay out of hibernation on the
way back, I assume?
Post by David Spain
Post by Pat Flannery
Haywood Floyd's daughter (who wants the pet Bush Baby) was played by
Kubrick's five-year-old daughter Vivian BTW.
I remember reading that somewhere way back when....
Here's a good one for you: instead of taking bush babies clean up to the
station and then transporting them back to various locations on Earth,
wouldn't it have made more sense for Floyd just to contact a pet shop in
the vicinity of his home and have them deliver one?
In the script the bush baby is going to get to the house the next day,
so they must have a lot of those spaceliners showing up on a daily basis
and taking cargo back to a lot of different cities on Earth.
(Cue William Mook and one of his silent flying lunch boxes showing up
clean from orbit with the bush baby in it.)
The mind staggers at what that space station pet shop must be like if
they have - check the script - _several_ bush babies on hand.
I have never seen a bush baby in a pet shop, and if they handle this
obscure of animals one wonders what else they have on hand...if she'd
likes a bush baby, that baby chimp is really going to blow her mind. ;-)
(Boy, throw that odd little plot twist in for the audience to chew
on...they'll know it means something, but what? Especially when you show
the chimp being delivered in a big black box.)
Maybe there was a pet bush baby craze at the end of the 20th century?
Or is the bush baby to connect with Africa, like in the beginning of the
film?
The critics ponder.
Maybe she should beat the bush baby to death with a bone on
arrival...no, too "Clockwork Orange". :-D
Post by David Spain
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by David Spain
Aliens so esoteric there's no discerning their intentions.
Or shape. At one point during the production you were going to see them,
described as "people in rubber monster suits", but that got dropped,
probably to make the movie more intentionally obscure yet.
A good move IMO.
Well there are those flying tetrahedrons during the big light show at
the end; they never explain what those are.
(Like they actually knew what those were all about themselves. Douglas
Trumbull thought they would "look really cool, man!")
Maybe the aliens _actually look_ like monoliths, and extend legs when
they need to move around:

Post by David Spain
Post by Pat Flannery
In the book the Flying Fetus Monster destroys those nuclear warhead carriers
in Earth orbit that we saw before the space station scene... and which of
course were nowhere identified as nuclear warhead carriers...to make things
intentionally more obscure yet.
So obscure I never knew that is what they were until just now. They are
mentioned in the book, but I did not know they were depicted in the movie as
the seque from the tossed bone. But it makes sense.
The fact that you can't see any national markings or bombs on them
doesn't help matters much.
In the script there are a whole pile of them, they have markings, and
the narrator tells you what they are:

B1
EARTH FROM 200 MILES UP

NARRATOR
By the year 2001, overpopulation
B1a has replaced the problem of starvation
THOUSAND MEGATON but this was ominously offset by the
NUCLEAR BOMB IN ORBIT absolute and utter perfection of the
ABOVE THE EARTH, weapon.
RUSSIAN INSIGNIA AND
CCCP MARKINGS

B1b NARRATOR
AMERICAN THOUSAND Hundreds of giant bombs had been
MEGATON BOMB IN ORBIT placed in perpetual orbit above the
ABOVE THE EARTH. Earth. They were capable of
incinerating the entire Earth's
surface from an altitude of 100
miles.

(Uh, guys, you may want them to be a bit higher than that, unless you
are expecting WWIII to break out in the next week or so, before the air
drag makes them come down all on their own)


B1c
FRENCH BOMB NARRATOR
Matters were further complicated
by the presence of twenty-seven
nations in the nuclear club.

(Those God-damned Iranians got one, didn't they? But who would have
though Iceland would develop one? Britain was right; they are a
terrorist nation, just like back in the Viking days.)

There had been no deliberate or
B1d use of nuclear weapons since
GERMAN BOMB World War II and some people felt
secure in this knowledge. But to
others, the situation seemed
comparable to an airline with a
B1f perfect safety record; in showed
CHINESE BOMB admirable care and skill but no
one expected it to last forever.
Post by David Spain
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by David Spain
If the aliens and computers weren't out to get you, "the man" certainly
was....
How about this: The Star Child is wearing a diaper, reaches down and takes
one of the safety pins out of it, and pokes the Earth...which then flies off
like a deflating balloon.
If you put Terry Gilliam in charge of special effects rather than Douglas
Trumball?
Yep, that bush baby would be replaced by a hedgehog.
Hedgehogs are apparently becoming a pet craze; and I'm willing to bet
that 90% of them are named "Spiny Norman".
Post by David Spain
Post by Pat Flannery
Then Haywood wakes up, and we realize the whole movie was a strange dream he
had while he was on the Pan-Am Space Clipper heading for the Space Station.
Audience wouldn't see that one coming, would they? They'd be ready to kill
at that point. ;-)
Yes they certainly would. In a college town, I can just imagine everyone
getting up and throwing chicken bones stolen from the cafeteria at the screen
at that point whilst dressed in ape suits and grunting oh oh oh oh...
Well, we could do the movie as first part of a double feature with
"Planet Of The Apes".

Pat
David Spain
2010-03-17 12:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Post by Pat Flannery
quarters onboard Discovery, or if they just slept in the centrifuge; I don't
remember seeing any beds in there other than the three chambers for the crew
in hibernation.
There is a short scene where you see Poole walking around in the centrifuge
and Bowman is asleep in his hibernaculum. There were 5. There are scenes in
Are two of the other three astronauts to stay out of hibernation on the way
back, I assume?
No. There were 5 hibernaculum in the centrifuge which could double as beds.
Enough for all 5 crew members. Two awake and three asleep on the way out.
All five asleep at mission end until picked up by Discovery II. Well
according to the book.

But in the movie since they were in Jupiter space, and Discovery I was
supposed to be able to return from Jupiter, maybe you're right...

Dave
David Spain
2010-03-17 12:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Here's a good one for you: instead of taking bush babies clean up to the
station and then transporting them back to various locations on Earth,
wouldn't it have made more sense for Floyd just to contact a pet shop in the
vicinity of his home and have them deliver one?
In the script the bush baby is going to get to the house the next day, so they
must have a lot of those spaceliners showing up on a daily basis and taking
cargo back to a lot of different cities on Earth.
Um, I always assumed this was a stuffed animal?

"What do you want for your birthday sweetie?"

"A Tasmanian Devil, daddy..."

"OK sweetheart. I'll send you one tomorrow, let's let it be a surprise
for your mother. So be sure to keep it our secret for now ok?"

;-)

Dave
Pat Flannery
2010-03-17 19:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Post by Pat Flannery
Here's a good one for you: instead of taking bush babies clean up to the
station and then transporting them back to various locations on Earth,
wouldn't it have made more sense for Floyd just to contact a pet shop in the
vicinity of his home and have them deliver one?
In the script the bush baby is going to get to the house the next day, so they
must have a lot of those spaceliners showing up on a daily basis and taking
cargo back to a lot of different cities on Earth.
Um, I always assumed this was a stuffed animal?
No, it's a live one; here's a tiny image from the cut scene showing the
station's Macy's Department Store where it was purchased:
Loading Image...
There were some scenes on the space station that were filmed but then
cut. Here's the scene from the script:

B18
VISION PHONE
PROCEDURE FOR
INFORMATION

VISION PHONE
PROCEDURE FOR
DIALING

OPERATOR
Good morning, Macy's.

FLOYD
Good morning. I'd like the
Vision shopper for the Pet
Shop, please.

OPERATOR
Just one moment.

12/7/65 b25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B19
THE PICTURE FLIPS AND
WE SEE A WOMAN STANDING
IN FRONT OF A SPECIALLY-
DESIGNED DISPLAY SCREEN

VISION SALES GIRL
Good morning sir, may I
help you?

FLOYD
Yes, I'd like to buy a bush baby.

VISION SALES GIRL
Just a moment, sir.

THE GIRL KEYS SOME
INPUTS AND A MOVING
PICTURE APPEARS ON
THE SCREEN OF A CAGE
CONTAINING ABOUT SIX
BUSH BABIES,
BEAUTIFULLY DISPLAYED
AGAINST A WHITE BACK-
GROUND

VISION SALES GIRL
Here you are, sir. Here is a
lovely assortment of African
bush babies. They are twenty
Dollars each.

12/7/65 b26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B19
CONTINUED

FLOYD
Yes, well... Pick out a nice one
for me, a friendly one, and I'd
like it delivered tomorrow.


VISION SALES GIRL
Certainly, sir. Just let us have
your name and Bank identification
for V.P.I., and then give the
name and address of the person
you'd like the pet delivered to
and it will be delivered tomorrow.

Now this is interesting; is the bush baby on the station, or is he
speaking to a Macy's pet section on Earth? If it's on Earth you would
have thought they would have asked him where he wanted it delivered to
first, then connected him with the closest Macy's that had some on hand
so he could pick one of those for delivery. So it sounds like it is
indeed on the station when he purchases it, and will be sent to Earth on
a returning Space Clipper, then forwarded to the address.
Alternately, maybe Macy's has one giant pet shop on Earth where they
send pets to all locations from.
Post by David Spain
"What do you want for your birthday sweetie?"
"A Tasmanian Devil, daddy..."
"OK sweetheart. I'll send you one tomorrow, let's let it be a surprise
for your mother. So be sure to keep it our secret for now ok?"
That chimp in the black box being delivered for the birthday...angry,
hungry, and with a femur from a tapir in its murderous hand...his wife's
head caved in like a melon, "Squirt" dragged into the box and eaten. The
perfect crime! No alimony, no child support, and the foolproof alibi:
"Well it couldn't have been me, as I wasn't on the planet when this all
occurred."
Step one.
Then the multimillion dollar damages suit against Macy's for delivering
the wrong pet.
Step two.
Finally, Floyd purchasing insurance for all the Discovery
astronauts...with himself as one of the beneficiaries...then a little
reprogramming of HAL...just like was done with the Macy's computer on
the Station.
Step three.
Then a bumbling French detective shows up on the Moon and everything
starts to unwind.
By God, the audience will remember this one for a while! ;-)

Pat
Pat Flannery
2010-03-17 11:10:47 UTC
Permalink
On 3/16/2010 7:08 PM, David Spain wrote: When not used for hibernation
Post by David Spain
the hibernaculum served as beds. And herein lies a plot flaw in the
book. While Bowman is asleep, the cover of the hibernaculum is firmly in
place. It would not be much of a stretch to assume they could be made
airtight. Thus in case of rapid decompression, sleeping/hibernating crewmates
could survive and perhaps even don pressure suits while safe in their
hibernaculum.
Ever seen these things BTW? They also served as beds on the spacecraft:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/1creboat.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/1crgterm.htm
Wouldn't you like to spend a year floating around in that second one? As
pointed out in Miller's "Dream Machines", they look way too much like
coffins.

Pat
David Spain
2010-03-17 12:40:23 UTC
Permalink
No I hadn't, thanks for the links...
Post by Pat Flannery
Wouldn't you like to spend a year floating around in that second one? As
pointed out in Miller's "Dream Machines", they look way too much like
coffins.
Project Constellation based upon what Congress is actually willing to budget
for it?

Dave
OM
2010-03-17 18:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Post by Pat Flannery
Or shape. At one point during the production you were going to see them,
described as "people in rubber monster suits", but that got dropped,
probably to make the movie more intentionally obscure yet.
A good move IMO.
...They also experimented with taking a really skinny guy, wrapping
his naked body from head to toe in grey latex, and then shooting him
with an anamorphic lens turned the wrong way, so that he literally
looks like a stickfigure man. Think the "field trip instructor" from
CE3K, but with a thin, tapering head.

...Something else they worked with was combining video feedback of a
gas flame, and then slitscanning that effect to produce a "telepathic"
vision of an alien. They actually made some progress with that, but it
was taking too long so Kubrick dropped it.

...One of these days I'm going to do my own 3D model of Discovery, and
throw on the massive radiator array that got ditched before we first
see Discovery. Kubrick said they looked like wings, but if you turned
them to where they're facing the Sun it actually looks cool.

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

John Doe
2010-03-13 23:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Babylon 5 had a scene in one episode where Sheridan ended up floating in
the weightless middle of the station after the central monorail car he
was riding in was blown up, and as was correctly pointed out in the
episode the danger he was in was what would happen when he floated into
the rotating inside hull of the station, which from his point of view
would be going sideways at high speed.
Actually, from Sheridan's point of view, he would remain "weightless"
all the way to the ground were it not for the wind.

It would be the atmosphere, rotating with the structure, which would
gradually accelerate sheridan tangentially to the ground and that would
cause him to drop in altitude, at which point the wind would get
stronger and his acceleration be greater towards the ground.


What I have not seen mentioned in any such movies is the effect of
humans routinely changing from g to 0g environments and back to some
level of g.

If, after having had dinner at the restaurant, you take the elevator to
the centre of the vehicle where it is 0g so you can catch the train to
the other side of the station, how will your stomach react ? And how
will it recat when you then take the elevator back to "ground" level
where the gravity will increase once again ?
Pat Flannery
2010-03-14 02:49:38 UTC
Permalink
On 3/13/2010 3:07 PM, John Doe wrote:
That's a good point, and the airflow patterns in something like that
(basically a Island Three Lagrange colony) would be pretty strange
especially as you got near ground level and buildings and what-not
started affecting the airflow around them.
The atmosphere itself has mass which will resist it picking up speed due
to the tidal effect as it gets near the surface, and of course the wind
will have to accelerate the person as they "fall" through it and get
pulled down towards the surface by centrifugal force, so he would
probably hit at an angle while not being fully up to the rotational
speed of the surface.
Post by John Doe
What I have not seen mentioned in any such movies is the effect of
humans routinely changing from g to 0g environments and back to some
level of g.
For real fun imagine walking around inside of this sometime:
Loading Image...
I assume it's designed like that to rotate for artificial gravity on the
way to and from Venus, but it's going to be fascinating as you slide
into one of the corners of the thing.
Post by John Doe
If, after having had dinner at the restaurant, you take the elevator to
the centre of the vehicle where it is 0g so you can catch the train to
the other side of the station, how will your stomach react ? And how
will it recat when you then take the elevator back to "ground" level
where the gravity will increase once again ?
I think it would take a lot of getting used to, but if the Skylab
astronauts could do that stuff shown in the YouTube videos with out
barfing all over the place, it's probably possible to do.
The axis tramline on B5 was one way of doing things, but you could have
also just traveled around or down the length of the inner surface to get
point-to-point in the interior.
The thing about both B5 and Island Three is that they are incredibly
wasteful of internal volume due to the vast open space above the "ground".

Pat
John Doe
2010-03-14 01:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
The thing about both B5 and Island Three is that they are incredibly
wasteful of internal volume due to the vast open space above the "ground".
There may be a lot of unused volume, but is it really wasted ? Wouldn't
such a colomy require a fair amount of spare atmosphere ?

And remember that while a relatively small portion had empty space in
the core, the ends had substandtial structures used for spacecraft
parking. So not all of the core was unused.

And having some "wide open spaces" would probably do a lot of good for
mental health of permanent human inhabitants. One might support living
in a collection of tin cans with one window for 6 months, but for
permanent habitation, the requirements would likely be different.
Pat Flannery
2010-03-14 13:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
Post by Pat Flannery
The thing about both B5 and Island Three is that they are incredibly
wasteful of internal volume due to the vast open space above the "ground".
There may be a lot of unused volume, but is it really wasted ? Wouldn't
such a colomy require a fair amount of spare atmosphere ?
The amount of air used for a given population remains the same no matter
what the size of the thing they are housed in.
You could probably make a argument regarding the amount of acreage
required for plants to replenish the oxygen and produce food, but those
could also be grown in hydroponic decks as well as in the open.
In fact, the B5 design doesn't have clouds or rain in it, so all the
plants in the garden must get their water via some sort of "underground"
plumbing.
Post by John Doe
And remember that while a relatively small portion had empty space in
the core, the ends had substandtial structures used for spacecraft
parking. So not all of the core was unused.
Island Three had the side windows to let sunlight in for illumination
and to let the plants grow; B5 didn't have those, and although its
always shown as illuminated inside, and having a "day" and "night",
that's apparently done via lamps on the core shuttle:
Loading Image...
(This is fun BTW:
http://darthmojo.wordpress.com/2008/06/01/b5-flashback-2/ )
The big interior space is no doubt good from psychological point of view
for its inhabitants, but it means the whole thing is larger for the same
number of inhabitants than it would need to be.
In reality something along these lines of B5 might more closely resemble
the Death Star internally, although with the decks arranged in layers
for centrifugal gravity generation:
Loading Image...
The Island Three approach does give optimized gravity on its interior
surface for humans, but that misses some of the advantages (and fun) of
having lower gravity sections nearer the center of rotation, where heavy
cargo can be moved around with greater ease, and you can play sports
while jumping high into the air or fly around on artificial wings
strapped to your arms. Soccer in low gravity would really be something
to see, as would dancing.
Post by John Doe
And having some "wide open spaces" would probably do a lot of good for
mental health of permanent human inhabitants. One might support living
in a collection of tin cans with one window for 6 months, but for
permanent habitation, the requirements would likely be different.
That's no doubt true. One gets the feeling that the Skylab astronauts
enjoyed their spacious interior far more than the Salyut crews did,
although when I got into a Salyut-6 mock-up in Moscow, it seemed less
crowded internally than I was expecting. Still no running around space
though.
For wide-open spaces, the concept of converting Shuttle ETs into space
station modules would have really been something:
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/craft/stsation.htm

Pat
John Doe
2010-03-13 08:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Gaff
If you think about it though, any centrifugal device needs to be balanced,
and how do you do that with people in it?
I suspect small scale devices containing animals is al one will see.
Shirley they thought about that when they designed the CAM ? Wouldn't
there have been some accelerometers that would control some
counterweight rotation to balance the module ?

Was the CAM originally designed to be attached to a far more massive
station where its effects would have been smaller (due to larger station
mass) and could have been mitigated by the CMGs ?
Space Cadet
2010-03-13 13:58:27 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 11, 12:41 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
Post by Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Post by Jeff Findley
I thought OM was referring to the MPLM contents, not the MPLM's
themselves. I'm sure that there is a huge list of items that NASA
would like to launch to ISS (spares, supplies, and etc.) so filling
the MPLM's with useful payload shouldn't be a problem.
Jeff
And I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to be able to return some stuff back also.
It also reduces reliance on the Russians for carrying our crew up.
(Of course one could dream about finally completing and flying the CAM. :-)
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Here! Here! I second that.

Just my $0.02

Keith W of St Louis AKA Space Cadet
OM
2010-03-11 22:43:18 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:42:03 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
Post by Jeff Findley
I thought OM was referring to the MPLM contents, not the MPLM's themselves.
...Actually, both. Again, AISIAP, there's only a couple of MPLMs "on
the shelf" at the moment, with the others still needing to be refurb'd
for use, and a collection of some major spare parts.

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
OM
2010-03-11 21:14:16 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:37:52 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
Post by Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Post by OM
...Some makeshift MLPMs, most likely.
Why makeshift? We've still got perfectly functioning ones.
...IIRC, we've only got two that are "on the shelf", and parts for a
third and a half if what I read last year on NSF was correct.

Jorge? What's the real tally on these?

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
2010-03-11 21:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by OM
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:37:52 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
Post by Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Post by OM
...Some makeshift MLPMs, most likely.
Why makeshift? We've still got perfectly functioning ones.
...IIRC, we've only got two that are "on the shelf", and parts for a
third and a half if what I read last year on NSF was correct.
That's basically correct, but since they re-usable, no need for makeshift
ones.

Leonardo and Raffaello have both flown multiple times.

Donatello has not flown and is not scheduled to fly.

Leonardo is scheduled to be left at the station.
Post by OM
Jorge? What's the real tally on these?
OM
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
OM
2010-03-11 22:45:44 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:31:11 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
Post by Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Donatello has not flown and is not scheduled to fly.
...What's the story on this?

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Anthony Frost
2010-03-12 09:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by OM
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:31:11 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
Post by Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Donatello has not flown and is not scheduled to fly.
...What's the story on this?
During station construction the flight rate didn't really need three,
but once it was finished most visiting shuttles would have carried one
so the extra gave space in the processing schedule.

Anthony
Jorge R. Frank
2010-03-12 04:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by OM
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:37:52 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
Post by Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Post by OM
...Some makeshift MLPMs, most likely.
Why makeshift? We've still got perfectly functioning ones.
...IIRC, we've only got two that are "on the shelf", and parts for a
third and a half if what I read last year on NSF was correct.
Jorge? What's the real tally on these?
ET-135 through 138 are scheduled to fly on the remaining flights
(STS-131-134).

ET-122 is the tank for the last LON rescue flight (335) and if 335
becomes a nominal flight (135) it would use that tank.

ET-139 through 141 are partially assembled and could be completed for
extension flights.

ET-94 and 95 are LWTs that could be refurbished/completed for flights
with some payload penalty since they're heavier.

There are spare parts beyond that but not enough for a complete tank, so
supply contracts would have to be re-started and the lead time would be
about two years. But the existing tanks could sustain a low flight rate
until the new tanks were ready.
Me
2010-03-12 12:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by OM
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:37:52 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
Post by OM
...Some makeshift MLPMs, most likely.
Why makeshift?  We've still got perfectly functioning ones.
...IIRC, we've only got two that are "on the shelf", and parts for a
third and a half if what I read last year on NSF was correct.
Jorge? What's the real tally on these?
                               OM
There are 3 operational MPLM's
In a cost savings maneuver, NASA is only using Leonardo and it will
also be the one converted to an PMM.
The other two have been "mothballed"
Donatello has extra capabilities for returning powered payloads but
has yet to fly.
Raffaello has flown and is being used for spares for the few systems
that an MPLM has.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...