A total trust in technology...
Discussion
There were multiple threads on the movie "Gravity" a few months ago. Can we discuss it on those rather than in the "Science" forum?
Returning to the topic, the use of platforms at the end of the Remote Manipulator System (RMS) has more or rendered the use of MMU devices superfluous in the vast majority of cases.
The RMS allows the astronaut doing the EVA to concentrate on the work they are doing and expending relatively little effort keeping station - one of the biggest problems for an astronaut on an EVA. The controller inside the spacecraft takes care of moving the EVA astronaut about.
When Dale Gradner and Joe Allen used the MMU to capture two wayward satellites back in 1984, it was hailed a triumph for "man in space" by NASA. In reality, it demonstrated to NASA how difficult and dangerous using the MMU actually was.
They never used it again.
Returning to the topic, the use of platforms at the end of the Remote Manipulator System (RMS) has more or rendered the use of MMU devices superfluous in the vast majority of cases.
The RMS allows the astronaut doing the EVA to concentrate on the work they are doing and expending relatively little effort keeping station - one of the biggest problems for an astronaut on an EVA. The controller inside the spacecraft takes care of moving the EVA astronaut about.
When Dale Gradner and Joe Allen used the MMU to capture two wayward satellites back in 1984, it was hailed a triumph for "man in space" by NASA. In reality, it demonstrated to NASA how difficult and dangerous using the MMU actually was.
They never used it again.
scubadude said:
Jez, who pissed in your cornflakes?
Yes its unlikely but it is a work of fiction for the sake of entertainment which other than some minor issues stays surprisingly realistic (for a change)
I was expecting her to land in the sea- sods law says you would if you de-orbit at random in a craft designed to land on the ground only :-)
I just hate being gulled into watching a film by hype only to find that it's rubbish. Minor issues? I enjoy total fantasy like Harry Potter or Star Wars but silliness dressed up as SciFi bugs me slightly.Yes its unlikely but it is a work of fiction for the sake of entertainment which other than some minor issues stays surprisingly realistic (for a change)
I was expecting her to land in the sea- sods law says you would if you de-orbit at random in a craft designed to land on the ground only :-)
There were some "untruths" in it - about the actual mission and spaceflight itself. Hollywood often plays with stuff like this to "gee up" the story a bit and to provide dramatic tension when they think the actual story may not have been tense enough.
For the record I loved "Apollo 13"it and think it is still one of the best "space" movies ever made - despite the odd embellishment.
I also like "Gravity" - even if it isn't 100% correct in its depiction of space flight.
However, I don't particularly want the thread to become a Hollywood space movie debate. we have a "Films and TV" forum for that.
What I would like to ask is if there is any chance that, after 50 years of experimentation, the idea of a a personal independent "rocket pack" is something we will ever see being used again?
For the record I loved "Apollo 13"it and think it is still one of the best "space" movies ever made - despite the odd embellishment.
I also like "Gravity" - even if it isn't 100% correct in its depiction of space flight.
However, I don't particularly want the thread to become a Hollywood space movie debate. we have a "Films and TV" forum for that.
What I would like to ask is if there is any chance that, after 50 years of experimentation, the idea of a a personal independent "rocket pack" is something we will ever see being used again?
Eric Mc said:
There were some "untruths" in it - about the actual mission and spaceflight itself. Hollywood often plays with stuff like this to "gee up" the story a bit and to provide dramatic tension when they think the actual story may not have been tense enough.
For the record I loved "Apollo 13"it and think it is still one of the best "space" movies ever made - despite the odd embellishment.
I also like "Gravity" - even if it isn't 100% correct in its depiction of space flight.
However, I don't particularly want the thread to become a Hollywood space movie debate. we have a "Films and TV" forum for that.
What I would like to ask is if there is any chance that, after 50 years of experimentation, the idea of a a personal independent "rocket pack" is something we will ever see being used again?
There was a programme about the Bell Rocket Pack (as seen in Thunderball) on one of the freeview channels a couple of weeks ago. The project development basically died with its inventor. I didn't realise they'd made a jet-powered version which offered a longer flight duration, but it too never caught on. Unless they can massively increase the chemical energy of the propellant, I think it's forever doomed by its lack of staying power.For the record I loved "Apollo 13"it and think it is still one of the best "space" movies ever made - despite the odd embellishment.
I also like "Gravity" - even if it isn't 100% correct in its depiction of space flight.
However, I don't particularly want the thread to become a Hollywood space movie debate. we have a "Films and TV" forum for that.
What I would like to ask is if there is any chance that, after 50 years of experimentation, the idea of a a personal independent "rocket pack" is something we will ever see being used again?
While reading about the jet belt I came across this interesting snippet (original from New Scientist):
In 1992, one-time insurance salesman and entrepreneur Brad Barker formed a company to build a rocketbelt with two partners: Joe Wright, a businessman based in Houston, and Larry Stanley, an engineer who owned an oil well in Texas. By 1994, they had a working prototype they called the Rocketbelt-2000, or RB-2000. They even asked [Bill] Suitor to fly it for them. But the partnership soon broke down. First Stanley accused Barker of defrauding the company. Then Barker attacked Stanley and went into hiding, taking the RB-2000 with him. Police investigators questioned Barker but released him after three days. The following year Stanley took Barker to court to recover lost earnings. The judge awarded Stanley sole ownership of the RB-2000 and over $10m in costs and damages. When Barker refused to pay up, Stanley kidnapped him, tied him up and held him captive in a box disguised as a SCUBA-tank container. After eight days Barker managed to escape. Police arrested Stanley and in 2002 he was sentenced to life in prison, since reduced to eight years. The rocketbelt has never been found.
XM5ER said:
Gor blimey, have you never watched Gravity. There is nothing to worry about, after a sequence of quite ridiculously unlikely events the astronaut would have landed in a lake in the middle of nowhere. For those of you that have seen the movie, don't you just wish that when she climbed out of the lake, a great big grizzly bear had swiped her head off. s
t film.
Stay away from "Interstellar". Your head will explode at the technical and astro-physics inaccuracies. (and Michael Cain's 'acting')t film.
Stop talking movies.
(I enjoyed "Interstellar"
)
That piece on the jet packs was interesting. However, jet packs or even rocket packs for use on earth are very different to those designed for use in Zero G.
An earth bound pack has to be able to generate a reasonable amount of thrust just to overcome the weight of the occupant. Therefore, they tend to have quite high energy fuels - and are therefore pretty dangerous. There is also the "fall from a great height" problem if the motor quits.
A space use pack can get away with low powered propellants, such as a compressed gas of some sort, like nitrogen. They therefore have no ignition system. The main problem is the astronaut getting stranded too far from help if the pack fails or runs out of fuel.
(I enjoyed "Interstellar"
)That piece on the jet packs was interesting. However, jet packs or even rocket packs for use on earth are very different to those designed for use in Zero G.
An earth bound pack has to be able to generate a reasonable amount of thrust just to overcome the weight of the occupant. Therefore, they tend to have quite high energy fuels - and are therefore pretty dangerous. There is also the "fall from a great height" problem if the motor quits.
A space use pack can get away with low powered propellants, such as a compressed gas of some sort, like nitrogen. They therefore have no ignition system. The main problem is the astronaut getting stranded too far from help if the pack fails or runs out of fuel.
Eric Mc said:
Stop talking movies.
That piece on the jet packs was interesting. However, jet packs or even rocket packs for use on earth are very different to those designed for use in Zero G.
An earth bound pack has to be able to generate a reasonable amount of thrust just to overcome the weight of the occupant. Therefore, they tend to have quite high energy fuels - and are therefore pretty dangerous. There is also the "fall from a great height" problem if the motor quits.
Who remembers the flying garbage cansThat piece on the jet packs was interesting. However, jet packs or even rocket packs for use on earth are very different to those designed for use in Zero G.
An earth bound pack has to be able to generate a reasonable amount of thrust just to overcome the weight of the occupant. Therefore, they tend to have quite high energy fuels - and are therefore pretty dangerous. There is also the "fall from a great height" problem if the motor quits.
I vaguely remember these from Tomorrows World I think. I recall some dodgy footage like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssvn2WzhZv4
I bit more efficient than the jet packs but still an easy target for any snipers.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff