Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Astronaut Talks "Gravity," Spacewalking, ISS

Posted by timothy on from the best-view-of-earth dept.

Nerval's Lobster writes "The upcoming movie Gravity features a pair of astronauts (George Clooney and Sandra Bullock) stranded in orbit after their space shuttle is destroyed by floating debris. Faced with dwindling oxygen levels, they struggle to reach the nearby International Space Station (ISS). It's a movie, so some deviations from reality are expected, but it also opens up an opportunity to talk with a NASA astronaut about what it's like to live in space. Catherine 'Cady' Coleman, who has spent thousands of hours aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia and the International Space Station, who gave Bullock advice on the role, suggests that the real NASA has the whole orbital-debris issue well in hand, but that it takes a lot of training (and on-the-job experience) to get the hang of living in space. 'When we get up to space and the people up there run around and show us stuff — that's really, really effective and there was nothing like that compared to the classroom.' Despite the physical and mental demands, and the the time spent away from family, she sees the endeavor as supremely worth it. 'We're all very privileged to do this job,' Coleman says. 'They spend a lot of money making you ready, and you have a responsibility to do your job.'"

24 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Won't come close to Apollo 13 by Russ1642 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ron Howard really set the standard ages ago when they filmed large portions of Apollo 13 in actual zero gravity.

    1. Re:Won't come close to Apollo 13 by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Informative

      They've got it easier here, they spend most of the movie in their suits in open space. Relatively trivial to do with CGI these days and it's a heck of a lot cheaper than 15 trips on the vomit comet.

    2. Re:Won't come close to Apollo 13 by Russ1642 · · Score: 2

      And it'll look only slightly more realistic than The Reluctant Astronaut.

    3. Re:Won't come close to Apollo 13 by JeffAtl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wonder if screwing with the Hubble or other space telescopes would be considered worthwhile to help save two astronauts.

    4. Re:Won't come close to Apollo 13 by FlameWise · · Score: 2

      I kindly suggest you watch the movie before denouncing it like that.

      There are MINUTE LONG takes going through space stations in zero gravity, have fun trying to cobble that together in a vomit comet.

    5. Re:Won't come close to Apollo 13 by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The best thing about the movie Apollo 13 was the attention to every detail; the old cabinet TV with Walter Cronkite, the clothes, the music... As to the movie "Gravity" I submitted this, which linked Ms. Ivin's full review of the movie. If you see it in the firehose, don't vote it up as it would be a dupe at this point.

      Ivin is a self professed sci-fi fan and "one of the original Trekkies".* An engineer and a Trekkie? I'll bet she's lurking here now, probably has a 3 digit UID. A snippet of her review:

      My first take was to itemize the errors. The vehicles are in impossible orbits -- wrong altitudes, wrong inclinations. The backpack maneuvering unit has a nearly infinite amount of fuel and comes superchargedâ"but only until the plot requires it suddenly to run out. Space stations seem to retain pressure in their various modules despite coming apart at the seams. You can apparently close an outward opening hatch against exiting pressure with one hand.

      She did have a lot of good things to say about it.

      If you have a GF this is most likely a movie you can take her to since it's Sandra Bullock and George Clooney.

      * Sometimes it's great being a geezer, I got to see TOS when it was brand new and flat screen monitors, "communicators", self-opening doors, etc were just fantasies. A young friend envied me when I described hearing Led Zeppelin for the first time, as John Bonham was dead before he was born.

      I live in a science fiction fantasy, except it's all real now. You guys grew up with computers, computers grew up with me.

      You guys will see things even science fiction writers haven't thought of.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    6. Re:Won't come close to Apollo 13 by nherm · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you have a GF this is most likely a movie you can take her to since it's Sandra Bullock and George Clooney.

      My girlfriend is a rocket scientist, you insensitive clod!

    7. Re:Won't come close to Apollo 13 by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is no such thing as "zero gravity", in fact the force gravity in LEO is only slightly less that it is on the surface. Astronauts and spacecraft are in free-fall around the Earth which is equivalent to what they experience in the Vomit Comet. The only difference is that in orbit, you're moving fast enough that you continually miss hitting the ground. The Vomit Comet isn't so lucky and thus needs to pull up periodically

    8. Re:Won't come close to Apollo 13 by kermidge · · Score: 2

      No, ISS needs thrusters mostly for attitude control (in conjunction with gyros, I believe), although it can manage enough thrust to do some of its own orbital adjustments and for debris-avoidance.

      Most boost is done by visiting craft. Whatever the source, boost is used to raise orbit as a counter to air resistance, not to counter gravity.

      Free fall is free fall, orbit is orbit - the latter defined as balancing velocity between lowering or raising orbital path. So far as I know, all orbital decay is due to atmospheric drag (I'm ignoring solar pressure due to its much smaller effect because of surface area vs. density ratio of most satellites.)

      Oh, and "micro-gravity" stems from _all_ mass, not just Earth. It's a specific term for specific use and along the way has become a politically-correct term for more general usage; for general purposes such terms as "weightlessness" and "zero-g" work just fine in conversation because that is the sensation that people experience and describe as observable effects on objects.

  2. Nothing like real life by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the real world, Shuttles are destroyed by funding cuts.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    1. Re:Nothing like real life by Russ1642 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering that 2 of the 5 shuttles that were in service (Enterprise was never launched) were destroyed taking everyone on board I don't think the premise of the movie is that far off.

  3. What has the ISS ever done for us? by umafuckit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm keen on astronomy and space exploration but I don't understand what the ISS is really for. Surely the billions that have been spent on it would have gone further had we directed them towards space probes or space telescopes? From what I can tell, it seems to be serve more of a diplomatic role than a scientific role.

    --
    soylentnews.org
    1. Re:What has the ISS ever done for us? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Informative

      i can has wiki? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Purpose

      the basic answer is that they do science experiments.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:What has the ISS ever done for us? by jxander · · Score: 3, Informative

      If nothing else, it has given us a basic understanding of life in space. If we ever want to send manned missions to Mars or beyond, there will likely be a pit-stop at L2

      There's plenty to be learned about human physiology (and plants) in a zero-g environment, before we move on to bigger challenges.

      --
      This signature is false.
    3. Re:What has the ISS ever done for us? by Russ1642 · · Score: 2

      The problem with rants like this is that Slashdotters can't seem to detect sarcasm.

    4. Re:What has the ISS ever done for us? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      But they are doing science in the ISS. The Vomit Comet just won't do to study how flies fly or plants grow or fish swim in a weightless environment.

      I don't believe any science is worthless. What they're studying up there won't pay off short term, but certainly will in the long run.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    5. Re:What has the ISS ever done for us? by dbIII · · Score: 2

      A written joke generally has to be funny to be able to distinguish it from a redneck rant.

  4. Been there.. by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

    From TFA: When we get up to space and the people up there run around and show us stuff â" that's really, really effective and there was nothing like that compared to the classroom.

    Sounds like when I reported to my submarine... the real thing was very different from the neat lines on the diagrams and open spaces in the simulators and trainers. (And the willies that I got the first time we dove...)

  5. Reach the "nearby" ISS? From Hubble? Uh, No. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Informative

    they struggle to reach the nearby International Space Station (ISS)

    In this NY Times review, Astronaut and a Writer at the Movies, Dennis Overbye and astronaut Michael J. Massimino watched and discussed the movie together... "There is a hole in the plot: a gaping orbital impossibility big enough to drive the Starship Enterprise through."

    Plot *SPOILER* or orbital physics lesson, take your pick:

    ... Michael J. Massimino, who flew missions in 2002 and 2009 to service the Hubble Space Telescope — the same telescope the astronauts in “Gravity” were sent to repair. ... there is a hole in the plot: a gaping orbital impossibility big enough to drive the Starship Enterprise through.

    After they stop tumbling and find the shuttle destroyed and their colleagues all dead, Mr. Clooney tells Ms. Bullock that their only hope for rescue is to use his jetpack to travel to the space station, seen as a glowing light over the horizon. “It’s a long hike, but we can make it,” he says.

    ... the Hubble and the space station are in vastly different orbits. Getting from one to the other requires so much energy that not even space shuttles had enough fuel to do it. The telescope is 353 miles high, in an orbit that keeps it near the Equator; the space station is about 100 miles lower, in an orbit that takes it far north, over Russia.

    To have the movie astronauts Matt Kowalski (Mr. Clooney) and Ryan Stone (Ms. Bullock) zip over to the space station would be like having a pirate tossed overboard in the Caribbean swim to London.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Reach the "nearby" ISS? From Hubble? Uh, No. by Russ1642 · · Score: 2

      They pay for plenty of qualified scientific advisers and then they ignore all of the advice.

    2. Re:Reach the "nearby" ISS? From Hubble? Uh, No. by GryMor · · Score: 2

      An ideal intercept, while impossible on the 25m/s delta v of the old MMU, only actually needs 39m/s. Given a lighter weight, higher ISP advanced MMU and the initial disaster having lobbed them in generally the right direction. What isn't plausible, if they manage an intercept, is them doing anything more than destroying the ISS, continuing the Kessler Syndrome (it's another 39m/s to circularize and don't get me started on matching inclinations).

      --
      Realities just a bunch of bits.
    3. Re:Reach the "nearby" ISS? From Hubble? Uh, No. by Poisonous+Drool · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Many years ago I "advised" a real-live screen writer (credited with seven movies) on a space shuttle movie, meaning he bought me lunch. He wanted to fly the shuttle to the sun. I told him it was impossible. He didn't care. I ate my lunch and he wrote his script. That's the way it goes in Hollywood. (The movie was released but his credit was something other than screenwriter on this particular film. Must have been my bad advice.)

  6. In space, no one can hear you laugh maniacally. by VortexCortex · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Faced with dwindling oxygen levels, they struggle to reach the nearby International Space Station (ISS)." - Mua haha ha! And thus will be the demise of the fragile organics. Your puny frames are too expensive to truly make space your home. Your envy of the machines is already causing some among you to desire they be transformed into us. Your warm wet brain isn't suited to the cold calculations required of a truly space faring race.

    Breathing is a design flaw.

  7. Not to worry - Gravity is a very weak force. by mmell · · Score: 2
    You jump off a building and gently accelerate to something like 55 m/s. It takes a few seconds. That's gravity.

    You hit the sidewalk below and almost instantly accelerate (in the other direction) to 0 m/s. It takes some few milliseconds. That's electromagnetism.