What Sci-Fi Got Wrong: Alcohol in Space

[DaveC426913]

Where exactly are the forces on the person coming from in your diagram? If the person is on the other side of the ship, the ship pushes on them and they experience a force. Nothing is pushing on them when they're on the back side of the rotation.

Yeah. I'm looking at "spinning disc" simulations and noting in which direction the net forces act.

The transverse force on them is to pull them away from the ship (left diagram). As you say: negative g's.

"Path of ball" shows what the ball is doing in free fall, from the carousel's POV. It's pulling away against the carousel spin.

So, you're right.

But I'm not sure it's a fault in the film. I don't think the intention of the narrative was to suggest that they were being crushed against the ship.

 

[Filip Larsen]

No, I mean that the ship is rotating away. They should end up free floating in space until the other end of the ship comes around and hits them.

We are talking about the same thing then.

However, they are attached with a line (and not free falling) and while we don't see exactly where the line is attached it is is showing with a clear angle with respect to the spaceship on the shots we do get to see, meaning it likely is attached or clamped to the side of the ship somewhere "above" them but "below" the center of rotation, and in that case there should be a small acceleration towards the side of the ship as long as they keep their radial velocity low. I'm too lazy right now to estimate how much angle they need to keep their boot soles in static friction against the ship side and I'm also pretty sure the director and movie crew wasn't thinking through such arguments when setting up for the shots.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm also pretty sure the director and movie crew wasn't thinking through such arguments when setting up for the shots.

There's the rub.

The first film is famous for its technical accuracy.

 

[Filip Larsen]

The first film is famous for its technical accuracy.

Indeed. I only remember they clearly missed to portray proper physics (at least to first order) in the scene with the small moon shuttle where outside shot shows the shuttle in free fall while inside shots show crew move around as if in near-normal gravity, and another obvious slip on the moon base meeting where the photographer clearly moves in Earth and not moon gravity. On the other hand the mind blowing scenes with sitting and running crew in the rotating ring onboard Discovery (considering it was from 1968) more than compensates for those mistakes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There's the rub.

The first film is famous for its technical accuracy.

You are ignoring their magnetic shoes.

 

[Imager]

Don't forget that in the future, your are also going to FTL communications across the universe. So of course you've got quantum entangled particles that are spilt so they can transmit data instantly.

Not scifi, but honorable mention to Anderson Consulting (now accenture) for the TV advertisements promising a "Quantum" Leap in technology by using their services.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

"Quantum" Leap

That's been so wrongly used in so many contexts that surely it is now an acceptable anti-meaning? To whit, lay people think it means a huge leap, and just look baffled if you try and explain why it is anything but!

 

[Imager]

That's been so wrongly used in so many contexts that surely it is now an acceptable anti-meaning? To whit, lay people think it means a huge leap, and just look baffled if you try and explain why it is anything but!

Correct, I tried to explain one time without success.