|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:49:42 -0000, Chambers
> <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:
>> 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
It's a four-off cost.
1) Cost of materials to build a larger room
2) More fuel needed to accelerate the additional mass
3) More fuel needed to decelerate (brake)
4) More fuel needed to carry the additional fuel for 2) and 3) above.
> 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'.
While volume != mass, as your rooms grow in volume, the mass needed to
enclose them also grows. It's not a linear relationship, but it is there.
> 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.
But what is that 32% mass increase is not feasible? What if an
additional 10% isn't feasible? This is a government funded project,
remember, and their budget is spread over many things - not just the rec
room for the astronauts.
> 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
And the point was that it's not reasonable to just make it as big as you
want; due to the (assumed) constraints, this is the ship that was
created. A bit cramped, yes, but it gets the job done.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:35:39 -0000, Chambers
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:49:42 -0000, Chambers
>> <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:
>>> 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
>
> It's a four-off cost.
> 1) Cost of materials to build a larger room
But like mass/volume the cost is not necessarily proportional to the vol
ume
> 2) More fuel needed to accelerate the additional mass
> 3) More fuel needed to decelerate (brake)
> 4) More fuel needed to carry the additional fuel for 2) and 3) above.
Except by default the mass of the fuel has to be less then the mass that
fuel can move and as I've already shown mass and volume are not
proportionate.
>> and b) volume doesn't directly equal mass; if I increase the height o
f
>> a room the only mass increase is in the walls and 'air'.
>
> While volume != mass, as your rooms grow in volume, the mass needed
to
> enclose them also grows.
No not really if you break it down to the simplest situation which is ju
st
the one room, simply expand the room and section it. Okay the external
walls may be thicker then the internal ones, but the principal stilll
holds.
> It's not a linear relationship, but it is there.
>
>> Create a 7 unit cubic room with walls massing 1kg per square unit (al
l
>> the same thickness). You're pumping it full of a gas that masses 0.1k
g
>> 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.
>
> But what is that 32% mass increase is not feasible? What if an
> additional 10% isn't feasible? This is a government funded project,
> remember, and their budget is spread over many things - not just the r
ec
> room for the astronauts.
No you're conflating feasible with cost, the budget that has been set is
simply someone's guess. If you look at almost any government project fin
al
cost is always greater then initial budget, yet amazingly they've manage
d
to locate the additional funds.
Now if you were saying "But we need to make these on Earth then transpor
t
them up into space" then I'd agree that volume and mass are important.
Before anyone mentions raw materials we're discussing 2001:ASO and if
they're sending a manned spacehip out to Jupiter I'm betting they're
mining asteroids.
>> 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 duck
ing
>
> And the point was that it's not reasonable to just make it as big as y
ou
> want; due to the (assumed) constraints, this is the ship that was
> created. A bit cramped, yes, but it gets the job done.
Except what I'm saying is there was no need for it to be "a bit cramped"
at all. Having a 300ft square bedroom is overkill, having a 7.5 cube
instead of a 7 cube isn't.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|