:01 Twilight Zone
:20 Naked Barbie Doll
:30 Destination Moon (rocket)
.33 MTV logo
.35 Trip to the Moon movie
.36 Lost In Space
:47 Logans Run, Back to the future, Men in Black, Eye of HAL, Rollerball
.55 Nineteen Eighty-Four, MSTK3
.57 Dr. Who phonebooth, THX 1138 on the wall
1:01 Battlestar Galatica tattoo, BB8 from Star Wars
1:04 Matrix (red/blue pill in glasses reflection)
1:08 Armageddon or Independence Day.
1:11 5th Element
1:14 Patches (Prometheus, Silent Running, Alien)Major Tom Logo On Space Suit.
1:14 Star TreK (USS Enterprise (NCC-1701))
1:21 Posters (War of the Worlds, Body Snatchers, Soylent Green)
1:28 Area 51, Alien Autopsy, Logo from Lost
1:54 and 2:00 Day The Earth Stood Still robot
2:16 Barbarella
2:22 Metropolis
2:23 ET
2:24 Forbidden Planet (Robby The Robot)
2:25 Outland and Enemy Mine posters
2:29 Close Encounters (Devil's Tower)
2:41 Time Machine (on left), 2001 monolith, Star Trek
2:43 Max Headroom
2:35 Alien
3:04 Buckaroo Banzi Ending
3:18 Dr. Who (dalek)
3:36 Flash Gordon rocket ship

To many space suits Adam. They are catching on to you!

I don't think I want to be the one to test that theory, I'd be worried about what would happen after the initial phase... it is quite true though that the two gases need to be in a certain range of ratios to explode. Since earth has a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere we normally talk about the gas concentration in air, but in the reverse situation you also need a certain percentage of oxygen like your chem teacher said.

There has been talk of coal mining in an oxygen free environment, with the workers wearing space suits, see this Deseret News article from 1970 for instance - http://goo.gl/PEZKp8

I didn't find any evidence that the idea got past feasibility testing.

Gravity uses existing technology, existing spacecraft, existing spacesuits.

Interstellar uses make believe technology, make believe spaceships, make believe space suits, make believe calamity, make believe killer sandstorms, make believe space planets and plenty more hokey bullshit.

S'ok if you want space opera for 2 hours but I like my sci-fi more believable.

Worm hole = the worst bullshit fantasy since Star Trek.
This film looks WORSE than Mission to Mars.

To even postulate that the Earth or Humanity could be 'saved' by a multi-billion dollar mission light years away is so fucking ridiculous I can't even be bothered to write anymore.

This is way worse than even Inceptions 'a dream in a dream in a dream up your ass' crap.

Love the thumbnail for the video, McConaughey looks so dumb in his plastic toy space suit.

Actually I'm about as English as they come but crucially I spent my advanced academic career studying Philosophy and rhetoric (lamentably only to Hons. due to laziness) and consequently have an ingrained habit of arguing around a problem rather than relying on established parameters (not always entirely helpful when discussing more day to day matters as I'm sure you've by now gathered but it is essential to working with advanced epistemological problems and so serves me well none the less). I'm also prone to poor punctuation and odd patterns of grammar when I'm not going back over everything I write with a fine tooth comb which has likely not helped. (A consequence of learning to describe tangent after tangent when trying to thoroughly encapsulate some conceptual problems with language alone)

That said, while I may have gone around the houses so to speak I think my conclusion is entirely compatible with what I now understand your own to be.

I didn't want to describe my original counter-point by simply working with the idea that weight is lower on the moon relative to the earth (though I did not try to refute this either) because that would not illustrate why a 2-300kg man in a space suit still takes some shifting (relatively speaking) even if there were no gravity at all. (Would have been faster to just crunch some numbers but that's not what I specialise in)

Sure you could move anything with any force in 0G (which I do understand is technically relative as every object in the universe with mass exerts gravitational forces proportionately (and inversely proportional to the distance between)) but the resulting velocity is directly proportional to mass vs force applied. Weight here then, can be seen as another competing force in the equation rather than the whole thing which it can be convenient to treat it as for a simple calculation (which is what I think you are doing).

To put that another way I was applying a different/deeper linguistic/descriptive paradigm to the same objective facts because that's what we philosophers do. Single paradigm approaches to any subject have a dangerous habit of making one believe one possess such a thing as truly objective facts rather than interpretations only (which are all that truly exist).


In other terms weight alone isn't the whole story (as I assume you well know). Overcoming inertia due to mass scales up all by itself, then gravity comes along and complicates matters. This is why rocket scientists measure potential thrust in DeltaV rather than Watts, Joules etc. right? The mass of the object dictates how much velocity a given input/output of energy would equal.

Gravity and thus the force in newtons it induces (weight) in these terms is an additional force which depending upon the direction in which it is acting multiplies the required DeltaV to achieve the same effect. Moreover when concerning a force of inconstant nature (such as pushing up/jumping or a brief burn of an engine) brings duration into play also. (the foundations of why rocket science gets its fearsome reputation for complexity in its calculations)


Man on the moon lies on the ground and pushes off to try and stand back up.
This push must impart enough DeltaV to his body to produce a sufficient velocity and duration to travel the 2 meters or so needed to get upright so he can then balance the downward gravitational force with his legs&back and successfully convert the chemical/kinetic energy from his arms into potential energy as weight (the energy he uses to stand up is the same energy that would drag him down again right?).

One could practically speaking reduce this to a simple calculation of weight and thrust if all one wanted was a number. Weight would be the only number we need here as it incorporates the mass in it's own calculation (weight = mass x gravity)

But where's the fun in that? My way let's one go round all the houses see how the other bits of the paradigm that support this basic isolated equation function and inter-relate.

Plus (and probably more accurately) I've been playing loads of Kerbal Space Programme lately and have ended up conditioning myself to think in terms of rocketry and thus massively overcomplicated everything here for basically my own amusement/fascination.


Basically few things are more verbose and self indulgent than a bored Philosopher, sorry .


Re: Your challenge. (And I'm just guessing here) something to do with your leg muscles not being able to deliver the energy fast/efficiently enough? (as your feet would leave the ground faster/at a lower level of force?). This is the only thing I can think of as it's easier to push away from things underwater and it certainly looks difficult to push away hard from things when people are floating in 0g.

So lower resistance from gravity = less force to push against the floor with?

Warm? Even in the Ballpark? (Regardless I'm really pleased to discover you weren't the nut I originally thought you to be! (though I imagine you now have some idea what a nut I am))


If I got any of that wrong I'd be happy for you to explain to me why and where (assuming you can keep up with my slightly mad approach to syntax in the 1st place). I'm an armchair physicist (not that I haven't studied it in my time but I'm far from PHD) I'm always happy to learn and improve.

That's not what I was saying at all though perhaps I explained poorly.

So imagine you are in a 0 gravity environment. You have 2 balls (lol) one has a mass of 1 kg the other a mass of 100kg. You throw both equally hard. What happens?

One ball travels away from you at 100x less the velocity of the other. This is intertia, it is an effect of mass not gravity. Gravity is an additional force but it's absence would not change the fact that a big heavy space suit requires a significant force to move at a usefully velocity in the 1st place.

It was perhaps misleading to use the example of a fulcrum (lever) but in this context it's quite illustrative. If it was 0 gravity you could apply a tiny force to a massive object and just wait however long it takes to get it where you want (like an infinitely long lever). When gravity becomes a factor duration becomes more and more of a concern (like the fulcrum of the lever gets shorter and shorter).

Concequence: the lower the gravity the easier (less work/deltaV) it is to move an object. However a massive object still requires a proportional large force to move in a useful way (in this case fast enough to overcome 0.16g for long enough to get upright).

I'm not saying gravity has no effect (quite the opposite) I'm saying big heavy thing requires big heavy force to shift even in reduced gravity environments.


As for bases on the moon, mars, stargates, ueo's, void whales, phobos being hollow (phobos is some crazy shit), hexagon on Saturn etc. Etc. I'm not outright dismissive, but to treat it as anything but food for thought/entertainment is a little worrying to say the least. What do you have to go on there other than the testimony of other people who claim to have been involved or whatever?

There's no hard data avaliable to the likes of you and I on such things. Many of these ideas cannot be entirely refuted, but nor can they be confirmed either. That puts us squarely in the realm of superstition and religion.

I'm a part time discordian/khaos magus/git wizard so I do have more time than most for superstition and flights of fantasy but I steer well clear of treating any of that kind of think as objective fact.

The realms of materialism and idealism should stay entirely separate except when they converge and compliment each other e.g. If I can imagine a black swan and then go out and find one (after performing the necessary experiments to disprove any other possible explanations for why it might seem black) then I can tell others that black swans are definitely a real thing. The same cannot be said for say the flying spaghetti monster or the chocolate tea pot orbiting the sun even though believing in such things makes my life more interesting under certain circumstances (and such liberated thought processes can eventually lead to as yet undiscovered ideas which may indeed prove to be "true" or helpful).

"Given all theories of the universe are absurd, it is better to speak in the language of one which Is patently absurd so as to mortify the metaphysical man." -Alaistair Crowley

Translation: if your going to indulge stuff like this don't take it or yourself too seriously or you will go mental!

Praise be to pope Bob!
23

he's copycatting the "Radioactive Boyscout" who built a reactor in his backyard in 1995
http://harpers.org/archive/1998/11/the-radioactive-boy-scout/

it leaked radiation and he was picked up and his back yard was dug up, garage and all, and put into barrells and taken to nuclear waste area. The EPA were all in "space suits" in his yard, and he had tricked the nuclear regulatory agency and several places into providing him with info by faking his age and making fake letterheads.

the wild thing is the boy scout actually made a breeder reactor, but it was leaking a lot of radiation the EPA was registering radioactive material all over the yard and into neighbor yards.

I created an account a long time ago. The first time I got on I wandered around for the whole day. I met a few people and found some cool stuff. NASA had a second life exhibit where you could get a space suit and space ship. I think I burned myself out because I didn't get on it again for a while. It must have been a year or more later when I realized I still had it installed. I updated it and got on again. Once again I spent the whole day exploring. I found some bar type place that at first it seemed cool and fun, they had music and dancing and a lot of chatting. Then I got invited to the basement where they had a virtual bondage thing going on, complete with torture devices and stuff. People would actually pay you in the game currency to smack them around, talk dirty to them and shit. There is pretty much something for everyone in Second Life. I don't think I've played it again since that 2nd time.

The graphics make it look a lot like a motel. Set up like individual log-cabins. I wonder if in 2023 this habitat will be as dated as the video editing on these space suits. Can someone please clean their visors? We are live here.

>> ^ghark:

There's a video somewhere on the net of the actual experiment where the guy survived being in a vacuum. There was a malfunction in his suit while he was in a testing chamber, if I remember rightly he collapsed after a few seconds, but after he was dragged out he recovered and was ok.



Shown on a series called "Moon Machines," in the episode detailing the development of the apollo space suit.

Picard lost alot of weight since he had is space suit tailored.

erm.. not really impressed. Animation is good but really nothing I havn't seen in pretty much any descent animation done today. On the other hand aside from the human/suit, the model design of the robots and scenery was dreadful and boring. Then there is the whole "Space suits and lasers but you're using a hand held communicator through an air tight glass helmet" aspect which just kills it for me. Our FIRST space suit had a com built into it, this would never actually happen.

That space suit one, which film was that from?

@quantumushroom Infestation.. also MAN-POWER!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contagion_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

@westy

In that situation, however, you'd have someone else to spray it on for you. A coach or someone else. And I doubt they'd wear this because it doesn't seem all that aerodynamic to me. It looks very fluffy, not anything like the skin-tight suits that athletes wear.

Also, the more I think about it, the sillier a "booth" idea is. There's no way a booth can estimate your exact dimensions to properly give you a shirt, so you'll either end up with this in your hair, or have some form of tube top.

Also:

You:
"what are you on about vacume rapping ?"
"for example if u wanted to protect something as a way of rapping things quickly could be equivelent to vacume packing"

There's no way this material would be able to vacuum seal anything, it's a FABRIC, fabrics BREATHE. Even Astronauts space-suits have a layer of rubber and kevlar. Surgeons already have skin-tight gloves, it's a requirement, and how do you expect this to act as a raincoat when it doesn't repel water?

If you're in a survival situation, why wouldn't you already be prepared with thick gloves and a thick jacket, and even still, how would a paper-thin fabric retain enough heat to stave off either hypothermia or frostbite?

The only thing this opens up is field-bandaging, as anything else it basically flops.

Before you start opening up with more things it could do, think about that for a while. What practical use could it serve, and how would it achieve that?