"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Ducking through doors - just make them taller. Ladders to climb up/down
> things that only allow one person at a time.

we're in 2007 -- 6 years after 2001! -- and astronauts are still crawling around
constrained, small spaces in ships and the International Station...

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:00:40 -0000, nemesis  
<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:

> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Ducking through doors - just make them taller. Ladders to climb up/down
>> things that only allow one person at a time.
>
> we're in 2007 -- 6 years after 2001! -- and astronauts are still  
> crawling around constrained, small spaces in ships and the International
> Station...

So why is that?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> And lo on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:00:40 -0000, nemesis
> <nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
>
> > "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> >> Ducking through doors - just make them taller. Ladders to climb up/down
> >> things that only allow one person at a time.
> >
> > we're in 2007 -- 6 years after 2001! -- and astronauts are still
> > crawling around constrained, small spaces in ships and the International
> > Station...
>
> So why is that?

oh, I don't know.  Perhaps it has something to do with it costing millions to
build spaceships with thick and heavy materials and putting them in orbit?
ever heard the old adage:  "space is money"? at least from a relativist point
of view... ;)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:57:37 -0000, nemesis  
<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:

> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> And lo on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:00:40 -0000, nemesis
>> <nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>> > "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> >> Ducking through doors - just make them taller. Ladders to climb  
>> up/down
>> >> things that only allow one person at a time.
>> >
>> > we're in 2007 -- 6 years after 2001! -- and astronauts are still
>> > crawling around constrained, small spaces in ships and the  
>> International
>> > Station...
>>
>> So why is that?
>
> oh, I don't know.  Perhaps it has something to do with it costing  
> millions to
> build spaceships with thick and heavy materials and putting them in  
> orbit?
> ever heard the old adage:  "space is money"? at least from a relativist  
> point
> of view... ;)

So the fact that in 2001:ASO they had a moon base that might have its own  
fabrication plant... :-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:54:36 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:47:45 -0000, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> 
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:26:40 -0800, Chambers wrote:
>>
>>> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>>> Chambers wrote:
>>>>> 2053 was decent when I read it (I think I was 15 at the time).  I
>>>>> couldn't stomach more than a chapter or two of 3001, however (17yo
>>>>> when I tried to read it?).
>>>>
>>>> 	I must have missed out on 2053. I read 2061...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That was probably it (how am I supposed to remember a random number
>>> close to fifteen years later?)
>>
>> 2^2677009:1 against.
>>
>> (Name that number!)
> 
> Picking up Ford and Arthur in the ship (whose name I can't recall) in
> Hitchhiker's.... ?

Close enough; it's the odds of being picked up by a passing spaceship in 
deep space within the 30 seconds it takes to asphyxiate.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> Hmm the most likely reason to perform EVA would be to get to the engines 
> or dish so we'll put the pods at the front of the ship so they have to 
> rotate 180 degrees then move around the cockpit to get there.
> Hard points to attach the EVA pod to the ship so I don't need to float so 
> far? Nah. The ability to dock the EVA pod to the emergency door? Nah.


Except that wasn't the most likely reason to perform EVA.  The EVAs were 
to be performed at the destination to examine the environment.  The 
AE-35 unit malfunctioning was something that had a low probability of 
happening (so low, in fact, that it DIDN'T happen; HAL forced the issue).

> An easy to access emergency computer override system? Nah the 9000 series 
> is perfect which is why they had a Computer Malfunction alert on the 
> hibernation pods.

Overriding the computer was the absolute last thing anybody was 
interested in doing; Dave lobotomized HAL and had an incredibly 
difficult time keeping up with doing all the stuff that HAL handled 
automatically by himself, in the book.

> Ducking through doors - just make them taller.  Ladders
> to climb up/down things that only allow one person at a time.

Why don't they make submarines, F-15s, heck, even trains large enough 
that you can just waltz around freely?  Space is at a premium in just 
about any vehicle.  You use as little as possible.

> Put the engines well out of the way along 
> this spindly connection so they're difficult to get to and easily 
> severed from the rest of the ship. Etc., etc.

Actually that one is fairly common in SF; you're using nuclear-driven 
engines that spit out a lot of radiation and are experimental so you 
want it as far away from your crew as possible just in case it goes boom 
in more directions than the one you want.

> Well you do also go to a jump from radio burst on the Moon to a 18 month 
> later ship heading to Jupiter, which may make you go 'huh, what happened 
> then?'

According to the book, the ship was already being built; the TMA-1 
incident a) sped up the schedule and b) augmented the mission with 
additional parameters.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> Phil Cook wrote:

hey, just out of curiosity:  are you brothers?  The Cook brothers? :)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:01:29 -0000, Tim Cook  
<z99### [at] bellsouthnet> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> Hmm the most likely reason to perform EVA would be to get to the  
>> engines or dish so we'll put the pods at the front of the ship so they  
>> have to rotate 180 degrees then move around the cockpit to get there.
>> Hard points to attach the EVA pod to the ship so I don't need to float  
>> so far? Nah. The ability to dock the EVA pod to the emergency door? Nah.
>
>
> Except that wasn't the most likely reason to perform EVA.  The EVAs were  
> to be performed at the destination to examine the environment.  The  
> AE-35 unit malfunctioning was something that had a low probability of  
> happening (so low, in fact, that it DIDN'T happen; HAL forced the issue).

So you have one facing forward and one backwards, 'Hey the EVA pod room's  
damaged and we can't get in, we need to use one of the EVA pods to fix the  
damage... ah"

>> An easy to access emergency computer override system? Nah the 9000  
>> series is perfect which is why they had a Computer Malfunction alert on  
>> the hibernation pods.
>
> Overriding the computer was the absolute last thing anybody was  
> interested in doing; Dave lobotomized HAL and had an incredibly  
> difficult time keeping up with doing all the stuff that HAL handled  
> automatically by himself, in the book.

In the film they ponder how to cut off HAL's higher functions while  
leaving the automatic systems running, that's the type of cut-off I was  
thinking of.

>> Ducking through doors - just make them taller.  Ladders
>> to climb up/down things that only allow one person at a time.
>
> Why don't they make submarines, F-15s, heck, even trains large enough  
> that you can just waltz around freely?  Space is at a premium in just  
> about any vehicle.  You use as little as possible.

No, it's down to weight and manoeuvrability neither of which apply to a  
spacecraft. In terms of fiction take a look at the Warhammer 40k ships
http://www.wargames.co.uk/Pending/Archive/May03/odds&sods/bfgcover.jpg

>> Put the engines well out of the way along this spindly connection so  
>> they're difficult to get to and easily severed from the rest of the  
>> ship. Etc., etc.
>
> Actually that one is fairly common in SF; you're using nuclear-driven  
> engines that spit out a lot of radiation and are experimental so you  
> want it as far away from your crew as possible just in case it goes boom  
> in more directions than the one you want.

So instead of dying in a big explosion you're simply stranded instead -  
neat.

>> Well you do also go to a jump from radio burst on the Moon to a 18  
>> month later ship heading to Jupiter, which may make you go 'huh, what  
>> happened then?'
>
> According to the book, the ship was already being built; the TMA-1  
> incident a) sped up the schedule and b) augmented the mission with  
> additional parameters.

"According to the book" and its sequels a lot more gets explained then in  
the film.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:01:29 -0000, Tim Cook 
>> Why don't they make submarines, F-15s, heck, even trains large enough 
>> that you can just waltz around freely?  Space is at a premium in just 
>> about any vehicle.  You use as little as possible.
> 
> No, it's down to weight and manoeuvrability neither of which apply to a 
> spacecraft. In terms of fiction take a look at the Warhammer 40k ships
> http://www.wargames.co.uk/Pending/Archive/May03/odds&sods/bfgcover.jpg

Air resistance might not apply, but manueverability does.  Applying a 
force to different parts of the ship will stress different sections in 
different ways.  That's a whole lot of differences there!

Besides which, weight is out, but mass is in.  So smaller is still better.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:49:42 -0000, Chambers  
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:01:29 -0000, Tim Cook
>>> Why don't they make submarines, F-15s, heck, even trains large enough  
>>> that you can just waltz around freely?  Space is at a premium in just  
>>> about any vehicle.  You use as little as possible.
>>  No, it's down to weight and manoeuvrability neither of which apply to  
>> a spacecraft. In terms of fiction take a look at the Warhammer 40k ships
>> http://www.wargames.co.uk/Pending/Archive/May03/odds&sods/bfgcover.jpg
>
> Air resistance might not apply, but manueverability does.  Applying a  
> force to different parts of the ship will stress different sections in  
> different ways.  That's a whole lot of differences there!

Yes except what might be deemed 'travel' ships shouldn't be engaged in  
high stress producing maneuvers; those are reserved for the  
fighters/escorts/shuttles, which I agree need to be smaller.

> Besides which, weight is out, but mass is in.  So smaller is still  
> better.

No because a) although you need more oomph to get the ship moving/stopping  
that's a one-off cost and b) volume doesn't directly equal mass; if I  
increase the height of a room the only mass increase is in the walls and  
'air'.

Create a 7 unit cubic room with walls massing 1kg per square unit (all the  
same thickness). You're pumping it full of a gas that masses 0.1kg per  
cubic unit. So the mass of the initial room is 328.3kg. Now increase the  
height of the room by 1 unit and you get 361.2kg a ~10% increase in mass  
for a ~14% gain in volume. Make it all 8*8*8 and you get a ~49% volume  
increase for a ~32% mass increase.

Not that I'm saying 'Hey why not make all the rooms 300ft square' at some  
point you hit overkill, what I am saying is make the rooms the size they  
need to be for everyone to use them comfortably. So no ducking through  
doors or having a shared up/down ladder. It serves no purpose other then  
being able to use those surplus navy submarine doors.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message