Perhaps this has been addressed previously,
Only about a thousand fraking times ad nauseum... other than that... No. Never discussed.
There was no rotating of the craft in such a way that would be causing any centrifugal force that would be throwing them outward. This part made absolutely no sense. Did I miss something?
Yes you did and it is quite obvious if you go back and know what to look for.
And yes it was Centrifugal force.
The Station was not rotating. THEY were swinging about the station.
The swing was inevitable as the only way for the lines to bring her up short and NOT be swinging is if she was moving directly away from the point of anchor. She was not. She was offset and thus when the line brought her up short it set her to moving in an arc, rotating about the station. This is very obvious in watching the scene again, but many missed the details when caught up in the drama of the situation on first viewing. And every shot after that, you can see her and Clooney moving laterally in an arc relative to the station and/or the earth in backdrop as well as the stars in the background.
They were never "at rest" relative to the station. and no... a simple tug would not have brought him back. His mass was greater than hers. His body and thus his suit was larger plus he had the MMU attached to his back. Her being held by the line was very tenuous at best and slipping under the strain of both Astronauts and centrifugal force. Any "tug" she would make (AND DID MAKE) would seek to pull her to him and increase the strain on the line holding her causing it to slip more (WHICH IT DID WHEN SHE TRIED TUGGING HIM)
https://youtu.be/DYDaIyfitn8At 20 seconds, She is brought up short by the shroud lines and set to swinging.
The swing is VERY Obvious.
At 25 seconds is a close up of her swinging, The Earth Backdrop is moving laterally behind her because of her swing.
At 30 seconds is a reverse angle showing Clooney moving out towards her and you can see she is swinging laterally in relation to the ISS.
At 42 seconds She grabs Clooney's tether and he is brought up short as well, both are now swinging but much more slowly.
At 44 seconds you have a wide angle side shot. Their outward movement is not fully arrested and as various loops slip free of her leg, they move further out but there is still an upward drift as well as they are still rotating but slipping further out as well.
46 seconds, another reverse angle shot showing the ISS behind Bullock and they are rotating still.
48 seconds, Clooney closeup has stars moving laterally behind him due to swing.
52 Seconds, Reverse angle again showing their movement in relation to the ISS behind her.
56 Seconds, another close up showing lateral movement of stars behind Clooney.
and so on and so on and so on...
They were swinging in an arc and that produced enough centrifugal force that the very tenuous hold the shroud line had on her leg was slipping under the strain of both astronauts.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
reply
share
9 years ago
[deleted]
CGSailor
9 years ago
Actually, after you said that it had been addressed multiple times, I decided to dig a little more, and you are absolutely correct in that this has been addressed multiple times.
It is perhaps THE SINGLE MOST TALKED ABOUT POINT of the entire film.
I have come to the same conclusion, and evidently so have many other scientists,
By many other scientists, you mean Neil Degrasse Tyson, which your original post was practically a word for word Copy/Paste of his tweet. Most of Dr Tyson's tweets have been proven false. His tweets were mainly in jest and were spurious and not meant as a serious condemnation of faults in the film.
The fact remains, they were rotating and there was Centrifugal Force at work.
Even if you were to calculate their mass using the mass of the suits and MMU and an educated guess to the actor's mass.. then calculate the amount of centrifugal force by measuring the angular speed and such using the film... It won't matter because the unknown is just how much friction force the shroud lines wrapped around her foot were holding her by. THAT is an unknowable.
And here is the rub... For the scene to be a goof, you have to prove that the centrifugal force is not enough, that they were not moving fast enough. And since you cannot know the amount of force the shroud lines were capable of holding, the range of possible answers is from not enough, to more than enough.
This means it could possibly be a goof and could possibly be correct. In the absence of any other evidence, it must be assumed then that whatever force the shroud lines were capable of holding against, it was not enough for their rate of rotation no matter how slight. Scene is not a goof.
And the other guy was neither a troll nor an idiot. Just sick and tired of the same damn question having to be explained Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over...Ad Nauseum.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
reply
share
Gabe1972
9 years ago
With regard to the last part, I am in COMPLETE disagreement. I don't care if a question has been asked a million times, there is still a respectful way to reply and a reply that you would expect from a twelve year old kid. "Scan the posts, it's been asked many times" is an example of a respectful reply.
Respecting other people is a very simple philosophy, but sadly it's one that trolls don't seem to get.
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. - George W. Bush
reply
share
CGSailor
9 years ago
With regard to the last part, I am in COMPLETE disagreement.
So I take it by your choice of wording and complete lack of discussion concerning the first part, that you are not in complete disagreement?
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
reply
share
Gabe1972
9 years ago
Not at all. I still disagree with the rest, as well, but there's no point in discussing it. Why bother with it?
And, as the statement reads, the complete disagreement comment was in regard to the last part, not the rest of the statement. Comprehension problem?
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. - George W. Bush
reply
share
CGSailor
9 years ago
And, as the statement reads, the complete disagreement comment was in regard to the last part, not the rest of the statement. Comprehension problem?
No comprehension problem at all. I am fully aware that your "complete disagreement" comment was concerning the last part.
WHICH IS EXACTLY MY POINT.
You very deliberately differentiated that there are two parts and that you disagreed completely with the second part. Why not say you just completely disagreed with the entire statement? By separating to two portions of the statement, then only commenting about disagreeing with one portion of the statement, you left it open to interpretation that the other part you may not be in complete disagreement with.
Seems YOU have a comprehension problem, not I.
Which doesn't surprise me in the least being that you fail to grasp the physics of the situation and just parrot the words of someone smarter than you making an in jest halfassed conment never meant to be taken seriously.
FACT: they were moving in a swinging arc
FACT: This would produce some amount of centrifugal force. just how much or little is immaterial because of the next fact...
FACT: We cannot know how much resistance force the lines holding her would have before slipping free. This means that it is false to presume a too high force that would be greater than whatever little amount of centrifugal force was present, creating a goof. Whatever level of resistance it was... it was clearly low enough to be overcome by even a small amount of centrifugal force.
Scene is NOT a goof unless you dishonestly make a false presumption on a stronger grip by the loops on her leg than the scene justifies.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
reply
share
Gabe1972
9 years ago
My not including the whole statement was to avoid exactly what you just did and what is going on.
Here. How's this? I COMPLETELY disagree with ALL of your statements, and don't wish do discuss any of them, save one, which I was refraining from to save you embarrassment. It concerns the centrifugal force, or should I say, near lack of. The speed with which they are spinning would create such a low amount of force there would be absolutely no need to detach. They had already stopped, then surprisingly, as her feet slip, she instantly moves out further, which is ridiculous, as they had already stopped. Again, the centrifugal force produced would be of such minimal level that it wouldn't be a factor. There was absolutely no need for him to release himself from her.
If they were spinning like she was when she was still attached to the arm after the initial hit, then yes, there would be a tremendous amount of centrifugal force, but during the scene we are discussing, there would be almost none. They would need to be spinning MUCH faster than they are to produce any amount of force that would cause what was going on.
With that said, the discussion is over. No more of your constant posting of the same points will convince me of anything, so just let it go.
Get it? LET IT GO.
I never expected that the first response I would get would be from a child, or at least a child's psyche, nor the rest from someone who seems to have a problem with English comprehension, and doesn't seem to know a whole lot about the physics pertaining to this argument.
BTW, my argument may have sounded like Tyson's, and perhaps that is because we are of the same thought on this issue. I hadn't read his statements until after I had made mine. Whether you believe that or not is not my problem. And I think he knows a heck of a lot more about this than you, although you seem to think his comment was mainly in jest, which is not true. It was simply a statement by him, and a true one, at that. He wasn't condemning the film, just giving his thoughts on this particular issue.
Now...LET IT GO. Can you do that? Probably not.
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. - George W. Bush
reply
share
CGSailor
9 years ago
They had already stopped, then surprisingly, as her feet slip, she instantly moves out further, which is ridiculous, as they had already stopped.
They Never, not once....stopped.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
reply
share
the_la_baker
9 years ago
I see you met CGSailor. He can be a bit abrasive.
On to your inquiry. You are correct. That part is BS.
"All she had to do was give the tether a gentle tug and Clooney would’ve been safely pulled toward her. Literally an ounce of force applied for a few seconds would’ve been enough. They could’ve both then used the shroud lines to pull themselves to the station."
"Well, when Bullock is holding onto Clooney, they’re both stationary and have the same angular momentum. But he inexplicably tells her that she has to let go or they’ll both die, at which point he gains momentum from some invisible force and is thrown into space. Even if they weren’t stationary, why didn’t she just pull him towards her? He would have just drifted past, and then could’ve grabbed hold of the rope. Or she could have left him there, turned around, grabbed more of the rope, then turned round and picked him up again. And, even if all this failed, why did Clooney think it was such a stupid idea that she go get the Soyuz and come pick him up? Didn’t he do exactly the same thing but in his jetpack earlier on? Gah! Oh well, at least we got rid of the worst astronaut ever."
Good Day.
reply
share
pjmcgill142
9 years ago
I see it's deja vu all over again.
reply
share
the_la_baker
9 years ago
I see it's deja vu all over again.
I truly wish I knew what you meant.
Your avatar is familiar, though.
reply
share
pjmcgill142
9 years ago
I truly wish I knew what you meant.
I don't think you do. Any cursory check of this board would reveal the number of times this question has been discussed. Gabe may have missed them... all.
I was surprised the subject was raised from the dead. That's all.
reply
share
the_la_baker
9 years ago
Any cursory check of this board would reveal the number of times this question has been discussed.
I have posted on many of them. I have given up on people treating a message board as such. It is all just random madness these days.
Myself, I continue to try and set a good example, but I don't think anyone notices. If you are trying to make a point to tell people to use proper message board etiquette,
good luck, friend.
reply
share
pjmcgill142
9 years ago
If you are trying to make a point to tell people to use proper message board etiquette, good luck, friend.
No, I didn't realise this was an etiquette thing. I just had that figurative slap-the-forehead as I thought 'what, again??' No matter what side of the argument you're on, I'm not going through this again!
reply
share
the_la_baker
9 years ago
No, I didn't realise this was an etiquette thing. I just had that figurative slap-the-forehead as I thought 'what, again??' No matter what side of the argument you're on, I'm not going through this again!
So you don't know the etiquette either?
The (sometimes not so)artisan rule in question(or the one I thought was) is:
"Check older posts to make sure you aren't duplicate posting", to put it in laymen terms.
As far as I can tell no one ever checks old posts before posting. They just post and wait for the answer that has already been given multiple times on other previous posts....
GAH!
reply
share
Gabe1972
9 years ago
It wasn't so much the abrasive part that was a problem, as I can be abrasive, as well. It was the fact that saying the same incorrect statements over and over doesn't make them true.
Films often get things incorrect, and it's no big deal, as they are just movies. It was just that this was such an important, very emotional part of the film. I think when it comes to scenes that are this important, they need to focus on realism, not fantasy. After all, this entire film is supposed to be based on the possibility of this type of thing happening. This isn't Avatar or Aliens. Science reality rather than science fiction, if you will.
Anyway, thanks for quotes. Are they quotes from other people on these boards?
I think, in reality, due to the shroud lines almost assuredly having a level of elasticity to them, once they had stopped, they would have been pulled back in the opposite direction, as if the lines had been a rubber bands, though not that drastically.
Even with all of this, it's still a great film. Definitely one of the better space films to come out in recent years. The background sounds and music surely added to it. Plus, if it gets people talking, even like this, it's a good thing, too.
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. - George W. Bush
reply
share
CGSailor
9 years ago
It was the fact that saying the same incorrect statements over and over doesn't make them true.
You are absolutely right. Which is why so many of us get fed up with people making the same errors over and over, like stating they were at rest with no angular momentum acting upon them.
They were never at rest.
The incorrect statements are YOURS.
I have said nothing that was incorrect.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
reply
share
the_la_baker
9 years ago
It was the fact that saying the same incorrect statements over and over doesn't make them true.
You are absolutely right. Which is why so many of us get fed up with people making the same errors over and over, like stating they were at rest with no angular momentum acting upon them.
They were never at rest.
The incorrect statements are YOURS.
I have said nothing that was incorrect.
Oh come on now CG,
There are plenty of 'space scientists'(intentionally moronic term) who agree, the physics in that scene are garbage.
You may disagree, but without credentials, we are not likely to give that much weight.
reply
share
pjmcgill142
9 years ago
There are plenty of 'space scientists'(intentionally moronic term) who agree, the physics in that scene are garbage.
You may disagree, but without credentials, we are not likely to give that much weight.
That's fine. But I think what riles is when those who disagree with the scene, like the OP, base their whole premise on 'they had stopped' when clearly, there are any number of visual clues to the contrary.
And yes, there is the celeb scientist who criticised the scene. I'm sure he must have been tweeting during the movie, and either missed or ignored those clues.
And that's the crux of my frustration: 'they were stopped!' No, they weren't. And anyone watching (instead of eye-rolling) would have got that.
Maybe I was watching a different movie.
reply
share
the_la_baker
9 years ago
That's fine. But I think what riles is when those who disagree with the scene, like the OP, base their whole premise on 'they had stopped' when clearly, there are any number of visual clues to the contrary.
And yes, there is the celeb scientist who criticised the scene. I'm sure he must have been tweeting during the movie, and either missed or ignored those clues.
And that's the crux of my frustration: 'they were stopped!' No, they weren't. And anyone watching (instead of eye-rolling) would have got that.
Maybe I was watching a different movie.
You should do some research.
reply
share
the_la_baker
9 years ago
Anyway, thanks for quotes. Are they quotes from other people on these boards?
I will provide links. Those quote are from people in the know.
https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/10/gravity-covering-scientific-plausibility/http://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/16-things-gravity-got-wrong-and-some-things-it-got-right-too/
reply
share
Gabe1972
9 years ago
Thanks for the links. They are definitely interesting reads. I like the one about Clooney flitting himself around while jabbering away at the beginning of the film. I never figured that anyone would actually bother to call them out on that one, being that pretty much everyone who's seen the film would know how absolutely ridiculous his action is in that scene. It's sort of stating the obvious. LOL.
Again, thanks for the links.
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. - George W. Bush
reply
share
genesim
9 years ago
Besides Centrifugal force there is also the fact that Clooney, Bullock, and the Station are not in the same orbit. It is obvious that tension is being created when you have different orbits and even if you had no initial centrifugal force, a wimpy parachute barely looped around a leg isn't go to be enough to hold Clooney when you have constant normal gravitational forces acting on objects (you are ware that it is still earth we see in the movie).
Of course you also have a spring constant because of the binding nature of the actual tether.
Pity the nimrods that question the science debate about this the most because this is truly the most easily explained part of the movie. I hate stupid people, but worse I hate ones that get to edit main IMDB posts and are spouting things off as "facts".
reply
share
Gabe1972
9 years ago
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, no matter how ignorant they are.
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. - George W. Bush
reply
share