Slashdot Mirror


NASA Retires Vomit Comet

Mr. Christmas Lights writes "NASA just retired the last of the KC-135 'vomit comets' which were used for reduced (and zero-g) gravity research by flying a parabolic trajectory for about 25 seconds of Zero-G. Two of these planes (originally Air Force aerial tankers) were used with the first one being retired in 2000. /. readers will be happy to know that among the various achievements was 'at least 285 gallons of vomit' .. although unknown how much when it was used for filming the Apollo 13 movie. NASA is replacing the KC-135's with a DC-9. There is some personal significance for me in that my father flew this airplane in the 1970's for the (real) Apollo astronauts ... he commented that maintaining the Zero-G profile was accomplished not by using the sensitive G-Meter, but by hanging a nut from a string in the cockpit ... if it drops, push forward, if it raises, pull back - simple but effective. There is a recent commercial offering in this area where for a measly $3,000, you can go for a ride in Gravity One ."

42 comments

  1. The VC's most important contribution... by I+Be+Hatin' · · Score: 3, Funny
    /. readers will be happy to know that among the various achievements was 'at least 285 gallons of vomit' ... although unknown how much when it was used for filming the Apollo 13 movie.

    Vomit wasn't the only bodily excretion when the vomit comit was used for filming The Uranus Experiment. So I guess that makes 285 gallons of vomit and one pop-shot.

    --
    I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
    1. Re:The VC's most important contribution... by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Which leaves two questions:
      1. How did someone get the money and connections to charter a government plane to make a cheesy sex movie?
      2. Having made a cheesy sex movie, what kind of idiot puts "Uranus" in the title?
    2. Re:The VC's most important contribution... by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Informative
      As the above poster says, I'm skeptical a porn scene was shot on the 'Comet, no matter what IMDB says.

      Even if the military had supplied the equipment and personel, Porn economics dictates that it would be too expensive. The Porn industry could make a few hundred thousand features for the price of one brief spell of zero gravity.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    3. Re:The VC's most important contribution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would only government planes be able to fly in parabolic trajectories? Drug dealers in the americas have their own planes - and links to the porn industry...

    4. Re:The VC's most important contribution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's got the .torrent for the scene, so we can investigate this for ourselves??

    5. Re:The VC's most important contribution... by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Well that's cool of you to doubt it, but I've seen it, and yes, a zero g jizz-shot is super cool :)

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    6. Re:The VC's most important contribution... by apanap · · Score: 1

      Who's got the .torrent for the scene, so we can investigate this for ourselves??

      Out of pure scientific interrest of course.

      --
      Give me a job. Please?
    7. Re:The VC's most important contribution... by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      Having made a cheesy sex movie, what kind of idiot puts "Uranus" in the title?


      Oh, come on. Do you really need someone to explain to you the myriad bad puns that show up in the titles of pr0n? Are you seriously asking why they'd use the word Uranus? With movie titles like 'the Sperminator' ... hardly surprising.

      If it'll make a 13 year old giggle, that's about the level of sophistication most porn goes for.

      These kind of titles are pretty common.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  2. Repeating sentances by Vilim · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Two of these planes (originally Air Force aerial tankers) were used with the first one being retired in 2000

    ...

    Two of these planes (originally Air Force aerial tankers) were used with the first one being retired in 2000"

    Repeating sentances is fun!
    Repeating sentances is fun!

    --
    History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it - Sir Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Repeating sentances by mungeh · · Score: 1

      Welcome, I'm your host, Vincent Twice. Vincent Twice.

    2. Re:Repeating sentances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdupe.org
      Duplication at every level.

    3. Re:Repeating sentances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spelling "sentences" correctly is even more fun!
      Spelling "sentences" correctly is even more fun!

  3. Poor Engineering by pipingguy · · Score: 3, Interesting


    he commented that maintaining the Zero-G profile was accomplished not by using the sensitive G-Meter, but by hanging a nut from a string in the cockpit ... if it drops, push forward, if it raises, pull back - simple but effective.

    My, how far we have come. Nows it's all about thrust-vectoring, F-16 style fly by wire and HUDs. The original test pilots were literally flying by the seat of their pants.

    I wonder why larger planes aren't being used for this type of work.

    1. Re:Poor Engineering by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One thing I noticed in the video of SpaceShipOne was a ping pong ball attached to a string in front of the pilot. It looked like some kind of visual attitude indicator. There was mention of it on the Discovery Channel special (some comment about it working great), but I didn't catch what it was actually there for. So old engineering tricks haven't gone completely out of style.

    2. Re:Poor Engineering by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      That sounds familiar to me as well. Then there was the M&M (or was it Skittles or Smarties) demonstration of weightlessness.

      One thing we *don't* want to do is discourage kids from studying engineering.

      I seem to keep repeating myself on this point, maybe I'll eventually get over the obsession.

  4. * pukes * by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (imagining 280 gallons of VOMIT.)

    fP!!!

    1. Re:* pukes * by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed it by like 15 minutes.

  5. oh, I remember those planes? by conan776 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wait, we're they originally used as Air Force aerial tankers??

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
    1. Re:oh, I remember those planes? by brilinux · · Score: 1

      Yes, the KC135 was a tanker AirCraft, and that was the original use. The "K" means tanker. There were other versions if the C-135 (really a converted Boeing 707) as well, such as the E/RC-135 for electronic surveilance and radar, which I believe detected the radiation from Chernoble. There was also the VC-135 (VIP), which was used as Air Force One for several years. All in all, a widely used aircraft.

    2. Re:oh, I remember those planes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So were they originally air force tankers?

    3. Re:oh, I remember those planes? by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 1

      Yes. Yes.

    4. Re:oh, I remember those planes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we're they originally used

      "were".

  6. Had to wonder... by vandelais · · Score: 2, Funny

    Honorable or dishonorable discharge?

    --
    Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
    1. Re:Had to wonder... by Nimey · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yellowish-white.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  7. Little vomit on the movie by fm6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Heard Tom Hanks talk about the making of A13. Turns out he didn't get sick unless he forgot to take his Scopdex. Never used Scopdex? Not suprising, since it's a combination of scopolamine and dexedrine. Just say no!

    1. Re:Little vomit on the movie by Jormundgandr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So you're saying that they actually used this thing to make Apollo 13!? All this time I thought they were on wires! That is just hellacool.

      --
      -sig removed for tax purposes-
    2. Re:Little vomit on the movie by Glendale2x · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that they actually used this thing to make Apollo 13!? All this time I thought they were on wires! That is just hellacool.

      Absolutely. The weightless scenes in Apollo 13 are the real deal.

      --
      this is my sig
    3. Re:Little vomit on the movie by Jormundgandr · · Score: 1

      What about the various shots that show hands pushing buttons? I assume those were shot with the buttons and hands at 1 G. Do you know anything about that?

      --
      -sig removed for tax purposes-
    4. Re:Little vomit on the movie by fm6 · · Score: 1
      That is just hellacool.
      I guess. It sort of depresses me that 20-odd years after the first trip to the moon, the VC was still the only practical place to film in microgravity.

      The hard part was that each period of microgravity only lasted about 15 minutes. So that was the maximum length of any take.

    5. Re:Little vomit on the movie by another_henry · · Score: 1

      15 minutes? More like 25 seconds!

      --
      "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
    6. Re:Little vomit on the movie by plover · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Of course. Only the scenes that actually showed the crew "free" were filmed aboard the vomit comet. The rest were filmed on a sound stage. The plane was far too expensive to waste time filming the mundane scenes where the lack of zero G wasn't discernable from the shot.

      An interesting "rumor" I heard about the movie was that the NASA geeks were given a special private preview screening of the film. The old timers all wanted to know where they got the footage of the launches, because they had seen it all before and didn't recognize it. Ron Howard had to explain to the guys that it was computer generated, and that not a single frame was old original footage. It was so realistic that several of them couldn't believe it was CGI.

      --
      John
  8. I actually rode on the Comet... by bergeron76 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's highly recommended. After the first parabola you start feel uneasy while simultaneously feeling excited and deeply stimulated. Going into the second "Zero-G" (the steepest of the paraBOLUAAAGGGGHHHRRRRRUUUUGGGGGARRGGGGFFFFH...

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
  9. In Soviet Russia... by WetCat · · Score: 0

    ... there are still some IL-76MDK with the same purpose present. NASA can simply rent those planes.

  10. Vomit Comet is obsolete. by uncoveror · · Score: 1

    The real reason NASA is ditching the Vomet Comet is that it has become obsolete. It would do nothing to prepare astronauts for the experience of being hurled into orbit with the X-4000 Launch Aparatus.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  11. G-Force-One not Gravity One by BiggerBoat · · Score: 1

    Back in September I was privileged to get to ride on Zero-G's plane, and I just thought I'd mention that it's called G-Force One, not Gravity One. What a kick, too! Definitely recommend it for anyone who can scratch up the $3,000 for some frivolous fun.

  12. YAY! For the editors! by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

    I'm so glad the editors actually *read* the submissions they put on the front page.

    A real professional job, folks.

    Yes, offtopic I know.

  13. Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Two of these planes (originally Air Force aerial tankers) were used with the first one being retired in 2000.
    Two of these planes (originally Air Force aerial tankers) were used with the first one being retired in 2000.


    It's a new time-saving feature from the eds here at Slashdot. If they're going to make a story a dupe, they'll do them both at once!

  14. NASA's been using that DC-9 since 1995. by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative
    Talk about old news.

    A much bigger deal was the retirement, last August, of the Dash-80. The Dash-80, the original KC-135/Boeing 707 prototype, first flew in 1954. It was used for many test programs therafter, flying until 2003. This was the prototype of the first really successful jetliner.

    (The DeHavilland Comet flew years before the Dash-80, but the underpowered Comet had metal fatigue problems and all were grounded after several crashes. The Tupolev Tu-104 was a civilian version of the Badger bomber, braking chutes and all. The Dash-80/707/KC-135 was the first commercial transport that really worked.)

    1. Re:NASA's been using that DC-9 since 1995. by jd · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember hearing that it wasn't actually metal fatigue that caused the problem, but rather incorrectly-placed rivets on an overhead panel.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:NASA's been using that DC-9 since 1995. by PerspexAvenger · · Score: 1

      Windows were too square, AFAIK, and the repeated load changes caused stress fractures from the corners.

  15. Save some money by plover · · Score: 1
    A pilot friend of mine took me for some zero G arcs in a Cessna 152 Aerobat. We only got a few seconds of weightlessness at a time before he approached VNE. It was quite a bit longer than even the best rollercoasters I've been on, though. Perhaps four or five seconds.

    But we were indeed weightless for a little while anyway, and yes, it was really an amazing feeling. I don't know if it's worth $3000 to do it without the seatbelts, though.

    --
    John
  16. The good news is... by CodeWanker · · Score: 1

    Now the Olson Twins can have a private jet that assists their weight-loss regimen.

    --


    "Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer