PDA

View Full Version : 2001 A Space Odessy



Sticks
2004-Nov-17, 06:27 PM
I had a chance to watch this on DVD, a digitaly remastered version (whatever that means) :-?

I was looking for the Bad and the prophetic

Bad - Unfair this one, but we have now passed 2001 and we never got those cute space ships :(

Bad - Unfortunate that PAN AM is no longer trading, as it was portrayed

Bad - the video phone camera seems to track the tot that answers it

Bad - In the conference on the moon base, they all seem to walk around as if they are in 1g. The moon is 0.6g. Can you walk normally in 1g or did ACC introduce artificial gravity fields into the original?

Bad - How does that transport achieve lift in the airless terrain of the moon as it takes them to the site of the monolith.?

(possibly others but time is pressing)

Prophetic
Video phone
use of credit cards in a phone,

Query - How feasible is the space station they show spinning. (Is this really a good way to create artificial gravity?)

They seem to operate a ferry service from space station to moon. We discussed this on another thread, and Jay pointed out that there were a lot of issues to address.

Would like to add more, but have to go out

kucharek
2004-Nov-17, 06:36 PM
Bad - Unfair this one, but we have now passed 2001 and we never got those cute space ships :(

Bad - Unfortunate that PAN AM is no longer trading, as it was portrayed

Bad - the video phone camera seems to track the tot that answers it

Bad - Fortunate the Soviet Union is no longer in business, as it was portrayed :-)


Bad - In the conference on the moon base, they all seem to walk around as if they are in 1g. The moon is 0.6g. Can you walk normally in 1g or did ACC introduce artificial gravity fields into the original?

1/6, not 0.6. As the moonwalkers showed, walking in 1/6g is pretty different. And the heavy suit and backpacks actually helped them to get some more common feel. I guess, 1/6g without ballast is somewhat difficult, especially when you want to make a turn. IIRC, ACC even emphasises this in the novel.


Bad - How does that transport achieve lift in the airless terrain of the moon as it takes them to the site of the monolith.?

Lift jets on the bottom. But this would be effcient only for short distances, I guess. For longer ways, as from Clavius to Tycho, going onto a ballistic arc may be better.


(possibly others but time is pressing)

Prophetic
Video phone
use of credit cards in a phone,

Query - How feasible is the space station they show spinning. (Is this really a good way to create artificial gravity?)

Currently the only way - except permanent acceleration by some engines. But it adds a lot to the construction difficulties of a station and there is nothing to be seen on the horizon like this.


They seem to operate a ferry service from space station to moon. We discussed this on another thread, and Jay pointed out that there were a lot of issues to address.

Would like to add more, but have to go out

Damburger
2004-Nov-17, 07:00 PM
Currently the only way - except permanent acceleration by some engines. But it adds a lot to the construction difficulties of a station and there is nothing to be seen on the horizon like this.


Building two stations at either end of a VERY long tether (100km+) provides a small amount of gravity. No where near Earth and probably less than the moon even, but health-wise its much better for you than microgravity.

The construction obstacles to rotation based gravity, AFAIK, are:

1. The station has to be big for it to be practical. Much bigger than the ISS, and we had enough trouble building that. Orbital construction is far from trivial.

2. If the whole station rotates, docking would be problematic. Docking with a non-spinning station is sufficiently difficult that highly trained astronauts and ground staff still cock it up royally from time to time. Docking with a spinning object would be near impossible at present

3. If only part of the station rotates, and you dock at a non rotating part, you've got to have a pressurised tunnel between the moving and non-moving parts. I can see this being difficult and dangerous.

4. If only a part of the station rotates but there is no pressurised tunnel between a spinning and non spinning section, you've still need a counter-torque to stop the stationary section spinning in the opposite direction to the rotating section. It would have to be big and consume a lot of power to work properly.

Granted, the advantages of artifical gravity are significant, but it's simply a matter that we can't do it right now.

kucharek
2004-Nov-17, 07:16 PM
Building two stations at either end of a VERY long tether (100km+) provides a small amount of gravity. No where near Earth and probably less than the moon even, but health-wise its much better for you than microgravity.
You mean both stations rotate around each other, like they did in the 60's with the Gemini and Agena to test it. Or do you mean some gravity gradient orientation in orbit, so the people in the lower station will get the pull of earth's gravity and those in the upper station the centrfugal part?

Damburger
2004-Nov-17, 07:21 PM
Building two stations at either end of a VERY long tether (100km+) provides a small amount of gravity. No where near Earth and probably less than the moon even, but health-wise its much better for you than microgravity.
You mean both stations rotate around each other, like they did in the 60's with the Gemini and Agena to test it. Or do you mean some gravity gradient orientation in orbit, so the people in the lower station will get the pull of earth's gravity and those in the upper station the centrfugal part?

The latter.

This would probably be the easiet form of artificial gravity (or, in the case of the lower station, real gravity :)). The space shuttle has deployed a satellite on a 20km tether before, although I think the tether was severed by space junk so for a permanant application they'd have to make it tougher.

I didn't know that Gemini/Agena did it - I thought it was just to test assembling spacecraft in orbit.

Paul Mitchell
2004-Nov-17, 08:10 PM
[snip]

2. If the whole station rotates, docking would be problematic. Docking with a non-spinning station is sufficiently difficult that highly trained astronauts and ground staff still cock it up royally from time to time. Docking with a spinning object would be near impossible at present

3. If only part of the station rotates, and you dock at a non rotating part, you've got to have a pressurised tunnel between the moving and non-moving parts. I can see this being difficult and dangerous.

4. If only a part of the station rotates but there is no pressurised tunnel between a spinning and non spinning section, you've still need a counter-torque to stop the stationary section spinning in the opposite direction to the rotating section. It would have to be big and consume a lot of power to work properly.

Granted, the advantages of artifical gravity are significant, but it's simply a matter that we can't do it right now.

I believe in the file docking is achieved by rotating the (Orion) shuttle to match the rotation of the space station, and docking along the axis (of rotation).

So there's no stationary part of the station at all, and therefore no link other than that between the station and the shuttle, which rotate together.

Damburger
2004-Nov-17, 08:38 PM
I believe in the file docking is achieved by rotating the (Orion) shuttle to match the rotation of the space station, and docking along the axis (of rotation).

So there's no stationary part of the station at all, and therefore no link other than that between the station and the shuttle, which rotate together.

Yeah, the same as Babylon 5. However, constructing a space station big enough to swallow the shuttle whole is so out of our league for the moment I didn't think it was worth mentioning.

Sticks
2004-Nov-17, 10:00 PM
The discussion about a ferry between Earth and the Moon was discussed on this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=326376)

Dark Helmet
2004-Nov-18, 01:06 AM
The Film was made before the moon landing, so Kubrik had nothing, other than a few Surveyor missions for reference.

The book explains the station as that the hub spins in the opposite direction, at the same speed, as the outer ring of it.

I believe that in some of the interior scene on that station, there were problems with the people inside, as they reacted to the "gravity" not being perpendicular to the floor at where they were. (i.e. they leaned towards the wrong vertical)