• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Rotational Gravity (or not) in the movie 2010

Something's always bugged me about 2010. I rented it tonight to make sure I wasn't remembering it wrong, but I think the mistake is there...

The Russian ship seems to have artificial gravity. That makes sense since it has a rotating section. The movie also does a good job explaining how Curnow and Max begin to feel heavier as they climb "down" toward the end of the Discovery when it was spinning around. Basically, this movie was using rotation as a way of creating gravity just as B5 does.

However, later in the movie, people walk around the non-rotating section of the Russian ship as if there's gravity, at least low gravity. One of the Russian characters is seen walking "down" the side of a wall, thus still implying no/low gravity. I guess one could assume that those walking "upright" were doing so with boots that stick to the floor, magnetically, or with something like velcro.

But the more the movie goes on, the more people seem to walk around normally, not just upright but with arms dangling by their sides instead of "floating". This is both in the Discovery and the Russian ship, even after the Russian ship stopped spinning in order to dock with Discovery. The only exception is Chandra, who still appears to be weightless inside the HAL chamber.

So, am I missing something, or did this movie just screw up artificial gravity? They seemed to have it right in the beginning, and then they seemed to just give up on it. If the Russian ship didn't have to spin to create gravity, how did they create gravity during the dock and what else could have been the purpose of a rotating section? I swear, I think they just screwed up. Help me out; am I right?
 
{snip}
So, am I missing something, or did this movie just screw up artificial gravity? They seemed to have it right in the beginning, and then they seemed to just give up on it. If the Russian ship didn't have to spin to create gravity, how did they create gravity during the dock and what else could have been the purpose of a rotating section? I swear, I think they just screwed up. Help me out; am I right?
Probably. Simulating zero gravity in a film studio means that they will have to hang the actors from wires. That sort of special effect sounds expensive to film.
 
I have never paid that close attention to the gravity issue. Knowing A.C. Clarke, though, I'd imagine if there were a discrepency it would be as AMS said: more due to practicality of filming, rather than a mistake in the writing.

A.C. was usually pretty on-the-nose when it came to the science in his books.
 
It would seem to me that the artificial gravity would only be specific to the rotating sections themselves. As far as I understand, the spinning would create a centrifugal force that would pull objects toward the outside of the section that was spinning. In stationary sections, the gravity would either have to be generated by another method of magnetism or objects would simply be weightless.

Not that I've ever seen this as a proven scientific fact. :p

I've noticed that in B5, it is mentioned that AG is generated by rotating sections, but never really explained. It is only touched upon briefly in the pilot and when the characters are using the train ("low gravity areas"). But as has been stated, weightlessness is hard to replicate on the set. Characters are strapped down in Starfuries, but their hair remains nice and flat. Must be some kind of spaceage hair gel.
 
It would seem to me that the artificial gravity would only be specific to the rotating sections themselves. As far as I understand, the spinning would create a centrifugal force that would pull objects toward the outside of the section that was spinning. In stationary sections, the gravity would either have to be generated by another method of magnetism or objects would simply be weightless.

Not that I've ever seen this as a proven scientific fact. :p

Watch pictures of the astronoughts in the Space Station.
I've noticed that in B5, it is mentioned that AG is generated by rotating sections, but never really explained. It is only touched upon briefly in the pilot and when the characters are using the train ("low gravity areas"). But as has been stated, weightlessness is hard to replicate on the set. Characters are strapped down in Starfuries, but their hair remains nice and flat. Must be some kind of spaceage hair gel.
True. Ivanova's hair would trail behind her when the Starfury accelerates. It would point sideways when the ship changes course and twist all the way round her head when the Starfury about turns.
 
Characters are strapped down in Starfuries, but their hair remains nice and flat. Must be some kind of spaceage hair gel.
True. Ivanova's hair would trail behind her when the Starfury accelerates. It would point sideways when the ship changes course and twist all the way round her head when the Starfury about turns.

I can see a real marketing opportunity here:

"Are you a starfury pilot, but you don't want to cut your hair short? Ever been blinded when you did a sudden turn? Then try Cenaturi Hair Gel! Strong enough to make the Centauri crest stand on end, it will keep your hair nicely under control in your helmet. Never have one of those bad hair days again."

:LOL: :LOL:
 
Having never seen the film, I have to ask a question; was the ship accelerating when the people walking around. Acceleration produces an effect similar to gravity (G-forces) with the "gravity" increasing as acceleration increases.
 
Keep in mind, however, that Starfury pilots always wear helmets, so we wouldn't see hair anyway. The only person we've ever seen pilot a Starfury in such a rush that he didn't suit up first was Garibaldi in Season 5's No Compromises. However, by then, Garibaldi had no hair, so it wasn't an issue then either.

I'm not a A.C. Clarke expert, but what I do know made me think he would get all those details right too. You can tell they at least try to explain gravity in some spots. They go to the trouble making the Leonov have a rotating section, etc., but then they so blatantly mess it up in other areas. It just seems strange.
 
Having never seen the film, I have to ask a question; was the ship accelerating when the people walking around. Acceleration produces an effect similar to gravity (G-forces) with the "gravity" increasing as acceleration increases.

You should check it out. The effects are good and you would be shocked at how much the "Alexei Leonov" looks like the EAS Agamemnon. Good entertainment despite the fact that the movie is terribly dated by it's Cold War theme (which was not in the book - Clarke got it right again) and the context seems just a little silly now that we're in 2004 and hopelessly grounded here on Earth.

As for your comment, when the ship does accelerate and decelerate (air-braking), the crew experiences very high degrees of G-Force, but the scenes the post originally refers to are probably supposed to be crewmen using magnetic boots (who forgot to swing their arms). The scene where Roy Scheider uses the pen in the air to describe the docking procedure (some great bloopers from that one) indicates Zero-G on the bridge.

Which brings to mind something that's bothered me about the Agamemnon. The presence of gravity would indicate that the bridge is buried somewhere within the rotating section, but the missle impact scenes in "Endgame" make it appear that the bridge is at hte head of the ship, above the launch bays. Whaddya think?
 
Which brings to mind something that's bothered me about the Agamemnon. The presence of gravity would indicate that the bridge is buried somewhere within the rotating section, but the missle impact scenes in "Endgame" make it appear that the bridge is at hte head of the ship, above the launch bays. Whaddya think?
The CGI and the set may not match. The rotating part of the Agamemnon forms a shoulder so it is exposed to frontal missiles providing they bypass the mouth.
 
I agree. During the scene in question, the Captain said, "Missiles are impacting on all sides", so it could've been any missile that did the damage. Still, the editing in the scene followed one particular missile as it slammed into the front of the Aggy, then cut to the explosions inside, so it gives the (misleading?) impression that the bridge is up there.
 
Ok, I'm not a physicist, and I haven't seen 2010 in a while, so please forgive me if I'm talking pants here...

But unless I'm mistaken, the scenes in question take place near to the planet, yeah? If so, then there would be a low amount of gravity caused by the nearby planetary mass.

The reason astronauts on the shuttle etc appear to float isn't that there is no gravity, it's that they are in free fall. Essentially, they are perpetually falling around the earth, creating the weightless effect.

Now, whether the gravity felt at that distance would be enough to enable walking freely, I don't know.

VB.
 
But unless I'm mistaken, the scenes in question take place near to the planet, yeah? If so, then there would be a low amount of gravity caused by the nearby planetary mass.
The ship was in orbit around the moon, so the people would be in free fall.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top