Zero-Gravity = WRONG!

[Marty McFly]

I was listening to the radio this afternoon and during a break there was the standard 2 minute national news segment (Fox News radio).

The anchor said something about a spacewalk this afternoon and how difficult it was going to be in MICRO-GRAVITY.

Yeah, micro-gravity. Not weightless... not zero-gravity... but MICRO-GRAVITY.

Everything has weight. Heck, even AIR has weight. You can't use the term weightless.

Zero-gravity?! If it has mass, it has gravity. Zero-gravity is another dumbed-down term that the press uses all too often.

Astronauts in space still have weight and are not in a zero-gravity environment.

The correct term is MICRO-GRAVITY.

It may be trivial (like shuttle vs. orbiter), but it's worth our credibility to get the term correct.

[Vulcan]

Many of our Presidential hopefuls have zero gravity.

[MOCR]

It's a heavy shuttle on Earth, but a weightless orbiter in orbit?

:frustrated::frustrated::frustrated:

[Produce man]

Umm....okay.

[SamG]

I'll bite... according to Dictionary.com:

grav·i·ty /ˈgrævhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[grav-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -ties. 1.the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth. 2.heaviness or weight.
So lets see, #1... objects in space (going at a certain speed) do not "tend to fall toward the center of the earth".
#2... I'd like to see how you a) weigh someone in space and b) determine they weigh 'x' amount. The amount you weigh when you step on your bathroom scale is only valid on Earth. Go to Jupiter and the weight is different, as it is between Earth & Jupiter.

[shadowfax]

So lets see, #1... objects in space (going at a certain speed) do not "tend to fall toward the center of the earth".

Well, actually, yeah they do. An orbit IS a fall toward the center of the earth. You just get going fast enough so that you're constantly falling toward the center of the earth without ever actually hitting it. Think of it like you're skimming over a hill. If you jump from the top of the hill, and you're going forward fast enough, even though you're falling toward the hill, you won't actually hit it because of your forward motion.


#2... I'd like to see how you a) weigh someone in space

You take their mass, and then do the math.

[Head Janitor]

Marty, you might want to check with NASA before you go on one of these rants.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/preparingtravel/ascans_kc135.html

NASA's newest astronauts performed a class act aboard the "Weightless Wonder," balancing zero-gravity somersaults and two spacewalks each on the Moon and Mars. You could say it was all in a day's work - or maybe not.

"It's hard to call it work," said Randy Bresnik, a Marine test pilot who began his first day on the job at NASA this summer, training as a pilot astronaut alongside his 10 astronaut candidate crewmates of 2004.

As part of their ongoing flight training on T-38 aircraft, the astronaut candidates recently boarded the KC-135A, a specifically modified four-engine jet aircraft designed to fly in parabolic arcs to produce brief weightless periods, giving them a feel for spaceflight. The aircraft also provided short periods of lunar (1/6) and Martian (1/3) gravity, offering the crew a chance to see what it would be like to set foot on the Moon and Mars.

[SamG]

Well, actually, yeah they do. An orbit IS a fall toward the center of the earth. You just get going fast enough so that you're constantly falling toward the center of the earth without ever actually hitting it. Think of it like you're skimming over a hill. If you jump from the top of the hill, and you're going forward fast enough, even though you're falling toward the hill, you won't actually hit it because of your forward motion.

But the hill is part of the Earth, and you WILL be brought back to Earth.


You take their mass, and then do the math. So what's the formula? You'll weigh different on each planet. But in space... 0. Therefore, "ZERO gravity".

[Marty McFly]

Why doesn't the planet Saturn drift off into another galaxy?
Because the SUN, with its gravitational pull, continues to keep it in orbit.

If Saturn is affected by the gravitational pull of the Sun, I'm quite sure astronauts are also affected.

So has man EVER been in zero gravity? Of course not.

You'll weigh different on each planet. But in space... 0. Therefore, "ZERO gravity".

No... that's zero WEIGHT. Big difference.

[SamG]

That's almost an intelligent argument Marty.:D J/K. It's actually pretty good.

I'll have to think about that one.:eek:

[Omega Man]

They only way you'd ever be truly "weightless" is to be in deeeep space free from the gravitiational pull of any star or planet. Even a subtle gravitational pull will give you a little weight floating in space.

[Marty McFly]

I had to prove to a friend of mine that EVERYTHING that has mass... also has a gravitational pull.

EVERYTHING.

We were on 7 or 8 floors up at a parking deck and I said if I poured a little bit of water out of cup, about 6-10 inches from the parking deck, that the water falling would hit the side of the deck first before it hit the ground.

Why? Because it has mass. Therefore it has a gravitational pull... just like the Earth and the Sun do.

After that I tried in vain to convince him that up in space it's called an Orbiter... and you know how that went.

[TVMattNYC]

It IS "zero gravity". Or if you want to be technical about it, "zero sum gravity". It's a wash. If there were any gravity up there, they wouldn't be able to stay in orbit indefinitely ... they would eventually fall back to Earth.

[Golfball_Size_Hail]

Going along with Marty,

There is a gravitational force everywhere in space. Even a galaxy far, far away would have a fractional force on an object in space. Mass is attracted to each other, that's just the way it is. You can use a different meaning for gravity if you want, but everything out there is getting pulled in one way or another by a gravitional force. The farther away you get the force gets less by the 4th power I believe. Actually 2nd power I guess..

F = GMm/R²

Just multiply the two masses involved, and divide by the distance (squared)...there you go. This is for every object, not exluding astronauts.

[Bandit]

It may be trivial (like shuttle vs. orbiter), but it's worth our credibility to get the term correct.

[/tongueincheek] If we're talking about restoring the credibility of tee vee news, is this the starting place??[/endtongueincheek]

[Cumulo-nimbus]

Actually, from what I remember from Physics, the gravitational pull itself is only slightly less for the shuttle than it would be on Earth.

The shuttle, its astronauts, cargo, etc. are in a constant state of freefall due to the effects of rotating around the planet at nearly 18,000 miles per hour.

The weightlessness itself is not the result of gravity being eliminated, or even reduced. (Although at that altitude it is reduced by distance, but the effect we see is due to the constant state of freefall.)

From NASA:
Many people mistakenly think that there is no gravity above the Earth's atmosphere, i.e., in "space," and this is why there appears to be no gravity aboard orbiting spacecraft. Typical orbital altitudes for human spaceflight vary between 120 - 360 miles (192 to 576 km) above the surface of the Earth. The gravitational field is still quite strong in these regions, since this is only about 1.8% the distance to the Moon. The Earth's gravitational field at about 250 miles (400 km) above the surface maintains 88.8% of its strength at the surface. Therefore, orbiting spacecraft, like the Space Shuttle or Space Station, are kept in orbit around the Earth by gravity.

The condition of microgravity comes about whenever an object is in "free fall": that is, it falls faster and faster, accelerating with exactly the acceleration due to gravity (1g). As soon as you drop something (like an apple) it is in a state of "free fall". The same is true if you throw something: it immediately starts falling towards the Earth. But how does something fall around the Earth?

Newton developed a "thought experiment" to demonstrate this concept. Imagine placing a cannon at the top of a very tall mountain.

Once fired, a cannonball falls to the Earth. The greater the speed, the farther it will travel before landing. If fired with the proper speed, the cannonball would achieve a state of continuous free-fall which we call orbit. The same principle applies to the Space Shuttle or Space Station. While objects inside them appear to be floating and motionless, they are actually traveling at the same orbital speed as their spacecraft: 17,500 miles per hour (28,000 km per hour)!

Objects in a state of free-fall or orbit are said to be "weightless." The object's mass is the same, but it would register "0" on a scale. Weight varies depending on if you are on the Earth, the Moon, or in orbit. But your mass stays the same, unless you go on a diet!

[mothball]

Many of our Presidential hopefuls have zero gravity.

I think you mean zero gravitas.

[mothball]

Mike Huckabee used to have great gravity.
http://www.gibson.com/whatsnew/pressrelease/2003/images/gov_capitol.jpg

[Too Much Time]

My guess is that the LaGrange points would come closest to zero-gravity.
At least for close by points.

[The Thrill]

As an expert who we interviewed in 1999 about whether the new millennium started on 1-1-2000 or 1-1-2001 said...

"This strikes me as the type of controversy for which the phrase 'get a life' was coined." :worship:

[Marty McFly]

McFly: We need to make sure we use the correct terminology in our scripts.
The Thrill: Get a life!

Seriously?

[News Is Broken]

OMG Marty you really are way too tightly wound. I wouldn't normally recommend that someone get stoned every once in a while but you really should consider it.

Either that or bum a smoke from one of your coworkers during one of their many cigarette breaks.....

[Marty McFly]

So you think we're really doing ourselves and the viewing public a service by using terminology that's incorrect?

[News Is Broken]

So you think we're really doing ourselves and the viewing public a service by using terminology that's incorrect?

No. What I think is that the majority of the viewing public doesn't know or care to know whether "Zero-Gravity" or "Micro-Gravity" is correct. They just want us to STFU and get to the damned weather report already, unless by chance one of the astronauts bursts into flames or goes nuts and decides to try spacewalking nude.

Even then, I seriously doubt the news station's credibility would come into question over the usage of the term "zero gravity" among the average viewer. All jokes about how dumb viewers are aside, most people are smart enough to realize that the cute little blonde girl holding the microphone is not an expert on astrophysics and doesn't need to be one to accurately tell you that some astronauts went on yet another uneventful spacewalk that day.

But if you want to get your panties all wadded up over which term to use, then by all means - go nuts. Just don't expect the rest of us to join you in your "chicken littling".

EDIT: The fact that I have to actually explain this to you tells me I'm probably wasting my time with you, but what the hell - it beats working.

[Marty McFly]

That attitude is why more and more viewers turn to blogs and talk radio for their news. 'We' get stuff wrong and credibility goes out the window...

But hey... it's all about the weather forecast.

Since details don't matter, next time a Marine comes home from Iraq, you can write, 'Another soldier is home for the holidays.'

[Mayhem]

Let's do some math... the radius of the Earth is, on average, 3950 miles. That means if you are in orbit 200 miles up, you are 5% further away from the center of the Earth than you would be at the surface. Gravity is inversely related to the square of the difference between the center of the two objects. So with only a 5% difference, you are looking at a very minimal difference in gravitational pull.

This means the shuttle has a very similar weight in orbit as it does on Earth.

You are not weightless... you are more like a skydiver. The skydiver, while falling, doesn't seem to feel the effects of gravity (but obviously they do). The difference is that the shuttle has a horizontal velocity that is enough to overcome the curvature of the Earth at the same rate that it is falling, keeping it at the same altitude.

[News Is Broken]

That attitude is why more and more viewers turn to blogs and talk radio for their news. 'We' get stuff wrong and credibility goes out the window...

But hey... it's all about the weather forecast.

Since details don't matter, next time a Marine comes home from Iraq, you can write, 'Another soldier is home for the holidays.'

Once again Marty gets all caught up in semantics and misses the boat entirely... I'll keep this reply brief and to the point so that Marty doesn't get confused this time.

It's all about relevance. Does this story merit 3 hours of debate and research over the correct term for what those in the space biz simply call "zero g" (and I think they should know what the proper term is far better than you or I) or do you just spend about 10 seconds thinking it over as you type up your script? Hmmmm... Yeah, it's a real stumper, isn't it Marty? I'll let you simmer on that for a while.

[shadowfax]

It IS "zero gravity". Or if you want to be technical about it, "zero sum gravity". It's a wash. If there were any gravity up there, they wouldn't be able to stay in orbit indefinitely ... they would eventually fall back to Earth.


Remember Skylab? Mir? They all fell back to earth. How'd they do that if there's no gravity up there? There absolutely is gravity. That's why things need to travel at around 20,000 miles an hour - so that their freefall is never interrupted by the ground. (as to the reply about the hill, picture an infinitely long hill. You're always falling, never actually hitting the hill, if you go forward fast enough. Now wrap that around a circle and you have a rough model of what's happening when you orbit.).

If you went up to the space station and then put on the brakes and absolutely *stopped* moving with relation to the earth, you'd be yanked back to earth at an incredibly high rate of speed before you burned up in the atmosphere.

Another way of looking at it is this: The moon isn't exactly on the end of a string up there. It orbits the earth because of the gravitational attraction between the two bodies. Now, if the earth's gravity can ensnare the moon, which is 238,800 miles from earth, why can it not ensnare things that are less than 24,000 miles from earth?

[Roy Hobbs]

Boy, you're gonna carry that weight a long time.

[Spike]

You know, we're really talking about two different things here with the same language.

If you're talking about the gravitational force being exerted on an object by other objects, there is rarely any such thing as zero gravity. In this instance, we would be considering the objects from a point of view outside the system, where we would see (or rather calculate) the gravity being exerted on each object.

On the other hand, that's not the only way gravity is used. It's also used as a convenient way to refer to force. A pilot who executes an aerobatic maneuver may be said to experience the force of several standard gravities, or g-force. If he feels 3g, then he feels as if he weighs three times his normal weight on the earth's surface. Likewise, an astronaut will experience several g when lifting into space. But once there, the astronaut experiences zero g, or zero standard gravities. The astronaut does not feel the acceleration toward the earth and thus does not experience the 97% of the surface gravity pulling him toward the earth.

That's why you see "zero g" and "zero gravity" in NASA literature. They're not speaking as physicists at that point referring specifically to the acceleration of bodies toward one another as seen from outside the system. They're speaking from the point of view of observers within the system feeling (or not feeling) the effects of acceleration. In that latter sense, it is perfectly acceptable to refer to it as zero g or zero gravity.

Thus, like Marty's "orbiter" baloney, there's no reason to muck up your copy with non-conversational words like microgravity unless you're specifically talking about the physics involved. As usual, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Marty McFly]

Wow Spike... and here I was thinking we were actually burying the hatchet and moving on since it's been about 3 weeks with no personal attacks from either side...

The point is simple: Let's get the terminology correct rather than 'dumb it down' to a 3rd grade level. I'll be the first to admit that I think the masses we cater to aren't rocket scientists, but they aren't totally brainless twits either.

It's not a shuttle when it's up in space... it's the Orbiter.
Astronauts are not weightless or in a zero-gravity environment. It is MICRO-GRAVITY.
A story dealing with Marines and referring to them as soldiers is incorrect.Either we want to be taken seriously when we're delivering the news or we don't. We can't have it both ways.

[shadowfax]

The point is simple: Let's get the terminology correct rather than 'dumb it down' to a 3rd grade level. I'll be the first to admit that I think the masses we cater to aren't rocket scientists, but they aren't totally brainless twits either.

It's not a shuttle when it's up in space... it's the Orbiter.

It's interchangeable. NASA even refers to it as the "space shuttle X" when it's in orbit. If you want to be really technical it's the Space Transport System Oribiter. I don't think we need to be that technical. Our goal is to get the viewer to understand what's going on. They'll understand it just fine if we call it the shuttle.

Astronauts are not weightless or in a zero-gravity environment. It is MICRO-GRAVITY.

I agree with you here. As I said above, our goal is to get the viewer to understand what's going on. They are not in zero gravity. They are in constant freefall. Americans are shockingly ignorant of science. We the media should not be glorifying that ignorance by being factually incorrect in our desire to make them understand. It doesn't make sense.

Of course, most people in the media have no understanding of science. I can't tell you how many "scientific tests" I've had reporters wanting to do that I've had to explain to them isn't scientific and is meaningless. I had a reporter once who could not understand that doing a "does AC reduce your mileage" test is invalid if you do one test in July and the next test in December when you remembered the story and decided to get around to it. I could NOT get her to understand that cold air is more dense, and therefore will cause your car to use more fuel.

It's much like economics reporting. So many economy reporters, like science reporters, simply do not understand the concepts that they are trying to explain to the public, with the end result that the public simply cannot understand what's going on unless they take it upon themselves to learn more than the reporter knows.

A story dealing with Marines and referring to them as soldiers is incorrect.

And while we're on that subject, take it from me. If you ever interview a retired marine, he is a MARINE, not a FORMER marine. I learned that while interviewing that Quaker Oats guy. :D

[Spike]

The point is simple: Let's get the terminology correct rather than 'dumb it down' to a 3rd grade level.

Except that the terminology IS correct.

It IS zero g or zero gravity from the point of view of the astronauts. They do not experience any effects of acceleration. If you insist on saying that they do not experience zero g, then you're also insisting that they don't experience multiple g when lifting into orbit. No, all that high-g training is for nothing, according to you.

And "Space Shuttle" IS the correct term for the vehicle, even when it is in orbit, because the people who built the damned thing call it that. You're actually trying to insist that NASA is wrong and don't know the names of their own craft.

You're trying way too hard to be smart. And failing.

[Marty McFly]

Funny... the folks we interview on a regular basis at the Marshall Space Flight Center & NASA are incorrect then.

When you get it straight from the horse's mouth... it's hard to argue against it otherwise.

But congrats. You found a way.

[News Is Broken]

It's not a shuttle when it's up in space... it's the Orbiter.
Astronauts are not weightless or in a zero-gravity environment. It is MICRO-GRAVITY.
A story dealing with Marines and referring to them as soldiers is incorrect.Either we want to be taken seriously when we're delivering the news or we don't. We can't have it both ways.

Ooh, you're so smart! I'm going to bookmark this post. Next time a Marine goes up in an Orbiter and floats around in the MICRO-GRAVITY, this post will really come in f--king handy....

Please. Anal retention is a serious illness. Seek help.

[Consider This]

Next time a Marine goes up in an Orbiter and floats around in the MICRO-GRAVITY, this post will really come in f--king handy....

If we're going to be technical, a Marine doesn't go up in an orbiter. It's not an orbiter until it's already up there, er, orbiting.

[Marty McFly]

I will be the first to admit:

Ooh, you're so smart! I'm going to bookmark this post. Next time a Marine goes up in an Orbiter and floats around in the MICRO-GRAVITY, this post will really come in f--king handy....

THAT was funny!

[Marty McFly]

Not to bring up a dying thread... but I just got finished talking to Sunita Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suni_Williams) about an hour ago. (Who is she? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suni_Williams))

Anyways, I asked her, IN PERSON, what the 'correct' terminology is. Is it zero-g, weightless, or what? What's the correct term?

What did she (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suni_Williams) say?

She said it is MICRO-GRAVITY. That's the correct term. Not weightless, not zero-g, zero gravity or zero-sum gravity.

Now I know some of you say otherwise... but I think she (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suni_Williams) has a bit more insight and credibility than any of us here on these forums.

I'll take the word of an accomplished astronaut who spent more time in orbit than some of us spend at a tv station.

We can still debate IF the term is the correct one to use... but that's for another thread...

[Spike]

Not to bring up a dying thread... but I just got finished talking to Sunita Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suni_Williams) about an hour ago. (Who is she? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suni_Williams))

Anyways, I asked her, IN PERSON, what the 'correct' terminology is. Is it zero-g, weightless, or what? What's the correct term?

What did she (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suni_Williams) say?

She said it is MICRO-GRAVITY. That's the correct term. Not weightless, not zero-g, zero gravity or zero-sum gravity.

Did you ask her how many g she experienced on the ride up? I would have liked to have heard her explanation reconciling the use of gravity to describe the force on the way up and not the absence of force while in orbit.

Did you ask her if she ever did any work or training at the Zero Gravity Research Facility (http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/zero-g/)? Seems strange that all those smart people working at NASA wouldn't realize they named the building incorrectly.

Or maybe you asked her about NASA's patent on the Zero Gravity Separator (http://timeline.grc.nasa.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=DETAIL.show&id=641), which is used to separate liquids and gases while in orbit so that the gases can be vented off. I wonder why those smart people at NASA named it after something you say doesn't exist.

I wonder if she has read NASA's press release (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/preparingtravel/ascans_kc135.html) about astronaut candidates training in zero gravity aboard a KC-135A flying parabolic arcs. I wonder why NASA would call it zero gravity in their own press releases.

I'm sure you didn't fail to ask her about various other zero gravity projects NASA has in progress, like the Zero Gravity PEM Regenerative Fuel Cell Energy Storage System (http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/98/sbir/phase1/SBIR-98-1-18.02-6533.html), or the medical research on Ocular Blood Flow Measured Noninvasively in Zero Gravity (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT2002/6000/6712ansari.html), or the study on Radiative Extinguishment of Diffusion Flames at Zero Gravity (http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/fcarchive/combustion/papers/Bonne/Radiative_Extinguishment.htm), or maybe the Zero-Gravity Condensate-Management Device for AMTEC Cells (http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/91/sbir/phase1/SBIR-91-1-10.03-3800.html), all of which are detailed on NASA's own website.

NASA uses the term all the time. But I'm sure you asked her about all these discrepancies and got a really good explanation as to why you're not a complete idiot. Right?

[Marty McFly]

Well Spike, maybe YOU could ask her all that... IF YOU WORKED IN TV.

[Spike]

Well Spike, maybe YOU could ask her all that... IF YOU WORKED IN TV.

No, I would ask her intelligent questions instead. I'll leave the retarded ones to you.

[Marty McFly]

This is pretty interesting. And sad.

Spike, the accountant of Medialine, not only knows everything about an industry he no longer works in... He also knows more about space and space travel than an actual astronaut does.

Why? Just because he knows. Oh, he also posted some links to sites he found, too.

I have to wonder if you noticed the actual website addresses of some of your links?

http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/zero-g/
http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/fcarchive/combustion/papers/Bonne/Radiative_Extinguishment.htm

Spike = expert on space, gravity, etc.
Actual astronaut = totally misinformed in every step of her training and actual time in space.

[Spike]

I have to wonder if you noticed the actual website addresses of some of your links?

http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/zero-g/

Yes I did. And what I noticed is that NASA uses the terms pretty much interchangeably.

Thus, it is NOT wrong for newscasters to refer to zero gravity, and you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[Marty McFly]

I am NOT an authority on it.

That's why I asked an actual ASTRONAUT and not an accountant on Medialine.

[Spike]

I am NOT an authority on it.[/I]

But the people who wrote all those pages on the NASA website ARE authorities on it, and they obviously disagree with you since they use the terms interchangeably.

Keep digging. Maybe you'll reach China.

[Marty McFly]

Well I'll be sure to tell Mrs. Sunita Williams that she doesn't know what the he// she's talking about... but the NASA webmaster does.

[Spike]

Well I'll be sure to tell Mrs. Sunita Williams that she doesn't know what the he// she's talking about...


And I know that you're a big enough ******* to actually say that to somebody you allegedly "respect."

Meanwhile, I haven't actually said she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. Microgravity is the correct scientific term when discussing the effects of one body's attraction to another as observed from outside the system. That's undoubtedly what she thought you were talking about, and I suspect you probably asked her leading questions to get her to respond in that context. But when talking about force being experienced and measured within the system, which she obviously wasn't, zero gravity is an appropriate term.

Just answer this simple question, Marty:

If "zero gravity" is wrong, why does NASA call their microgravity research lab the Zero Gravity Research Facility?

[mothball]

And now, a musical interlude by the Beatles.

http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Beatles_For_Sale.jpg
Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup,
They slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe
Pools of sorrow, waves of joy are drifting through my open mind,
Possessing and caressing me.
Jai guru deva om
Nothing’s gonna change my world,
Nothing’s gonna change my world.

Images of broken light which dance before me like a million eyes,
That call me on and on across the universe,
Thoughts meander like a restless wind inside a letter box they
Tumble blindly as they make their way
Across the universe
Jai guru deva om
Nothing’s gonna change my world,
Nothing’s gonna change my world.

Sounds of laughter shades of earth are ringing
Through my open views inviting and inciting me
Limitless undying love which shines around me like a
Million suns, it calls me on and on
Across the universe
Jai guru deva om
Nothing’s gonna change my world,
Nothing’s gonna change my world.

[Spike]

... And we're back, with the question on everyone's mind:

If "zero gravity" is wrong, why does NASA call their microgravity research lab the Zero Gravity Research Facility?

[Marty McFly]

On my next trip out to NASA and Marshall Space Flight Center, I'll ask. Please PM me a list of specific questions to make sure we get this settled.

Oh, and please PM me exactly who you want me to talk to... since the words coming straight out of the mouth of an actual, real live astronaut who spent a year in space isn't enough.

Spike = accountant, expert on space, gravity, etc.
Astronaut = misinformed about space, gravity, etc.
NASA webmaster = space & gravity expert

[Spike]

On my next trip out to NASA and Marshall Space Flight Center, I'll ask. Please PM me a list of specific questions to make sure we get this settled.

Oh, and please PM me exactly who you want me to talk to... since the words coming straight out of the mouth of an actual, real live astronaut who spent a year in space isn't enough.

Spike = accountant, expert on space, gravity, etc.
Astronaut = misinformed about space, gravity, etc.
NASA webmaster = space & gravity expert


1. I haven't ever claimed to be an expert on anything. I just know more than you.

2. The NASA webmaster did not name the microgravity research lab the Zero Gravity Research Facility. The NASA webmaster also didn't name all those research projects. For someone who claims to know soooooo much about NASA, I would have thought you would realize that.

3. Why don't you just ask them the question I asked you one post above yours, which you apparently can't answer:

If "zero gravity" is wrong, why does NASA call their microgravity research lab the Zero Gravity Research Facility?

Now you'll spend every waking hour for the next two weeks trying to figure out how to twist the context of that question around so that they'll have to give you an answer that won't make you look even more stupid. I predict that your efforts will be futile.

[Consider This]

Well I'll be sure to tell Mrs. Sunita Williams that she doesn't know what the he// she's talking about... but the NASA webmaster does.

We're supposed to side with you when you can't even figure out whether Mrs. Sunita Williams is a he or a she?

[Marty McFly]

My efforts will be 'futile?'

Are you going to tell me next that he details of your life are quite inconsequential as well?

1. I haven't ever claimed to be an expert on anything. I just know more than you.

Of course you do. You're an accountant who spends his days on Medialine.

For someone who claims to know soooooo much about NASA, I would have thought you would realize that.

Hmm... I don't recall that at all. In fact, that's why I asked a real, live astronaut for the correct term.

Which apparently still isn't good enough. Go figure.

Edit to add:
From Nasa's website:
Zero-G Research Facility


The Zero Gravity Research Facility (Zero-G) is NASA's premier facility for conducting ground based Microgravity research and is the largest facility of its kind within the United States. Operational since 1966, it is one of two drop towers located at NASA Glenn Research Center.

[Spike]

Edit to add:
From Nasa's website:
Zero-G Research Facility


The Zero Gravity Research Facility (Zero-G) is NASA's premier facility for conducting ground based Microgravity research and is the largest facility of its kind within the United States. Operational since 1966, it is one of two drop towers located at NASA Glenn Research Center.

NASA uses the terms interchangeably, as your own post shows. You actually edited your message to include evidence showing that you're wrong?

Do you get dumber by the minute?

[Chicago Dog]

Which apparently still isn't good enough.

Not to top your anal-retentiveness, but that's a sentence fragment.

I think it's actually pretty funny an accountant is running circles around you.

[Marty McFly]

Consider This... that was my name way of writing HELL (he//). I thought that was fairly obvious.

Dear Super-Smart Spike,
Not that you'll believe a word I say, but I took 2.3 minutes and emailed the contact person at the 'Zero Gravity Facility' (you provided the link) to ask them the CORRECT terminology as it applies to spacewalks and 'floating' around in space (see 1st post in this thread).

The response I got:
'...I work mostly with the scientists on developing space experiments for the shuttle and ISS and we prefer the term microgravity...'

(He didn't go into why it was named the Zero-Gravity Facility... and I really don't care, either.)

So there you have it. I have gone to not ONE, but TWO people who could be considered an 'official source' to find out what the correct/preferred terminology is... and lo and behold, they BOTH say it's MICRO-GRAVITY.

One of them is an actual astronaut who spent a YEAR'S time in space... and the other is the contact person at the Zero Gravity Facility... and they both use that same, pesky term: MICRO-GRAVITY.

If you'd like, I'll find Sunita again and email the contact person back and tell them the accountant on Medialine who sleeps til noon everyday says they're wrong.

But if it makes you feel better, when you write news scripts in the accounting office (aka: your basement), you can say 'zero-g' until the cows come home.

Cows being your mom, that is.

Marty

[Spike]

(He didn't go into why it was named the Zero-Gravity Facility... and I really don't care, either.)

In other words, you avoided the obvious and most pertinent question (just as I predicted), because you know damn well that if you asked it he would tell you that while "microgravity" might be the preferred term among physicists, "zero gravity" is perfectly acceptable in normal lay conversation. Do you really think that was an adequate dodge?

Dumbass, they wouldn't have named the place the "Zero Gravity Research Facility" if "zero gravity" were wrong. What the hell is wrong with you?

[News Is Broken]

LOL... Marty = owned. Again. Or would the correct terminology for that one be "POONED"? Ahh, nevermind - I don't want to start another 3 page debate.

[Marty McFly]

In other words, you avoided the obvious and most pertinent question (just as I predicted), because you know damn well that if you asked it he would tell you that while "microgravity" might be the preferred term among physicists, "zero gravity" is perfectly acceptable in normal lay conversation. Do you really think that was an adequate dodge?

Dumbass, they wouldn't have named the place the "Zero Gravity Research Facility" if "zero gravity" were wrong. What the hell is wrong with you?

Dude, it wasn't a dodge. The 'Zero Gravity Facility' has absolutely SQUAT to do with using the correct terminology in news scripts.

If you'll read the first post in this thread, it's about using the correct term to use WHILE ASTRONAUTS ARE IN SPACE. Period. And to that end, the term MICROGRAVITY is correct, and EVEN PREFERRED by real live astronauts!

If anyone wants to use zero-g, weightless or whatever, that's fine. Do it. Yes, 99.986 of all the viewers will know exactly what you're talking about and the term microgravity could leave them scratching their heads. I'll grant you that. 'What gravity?!'

My whole point in this was to use the correct term. That's it.

Shall we continue to go at each other's throats in another thread or continue in this one? I think this has about run its course. We disagree... which is nothing new.

[Spike]

Dude, it wasn't a dodge.

Sure it was. You specifically asked what questions you should ask when you next encounter someone from NASA in order to settle the question. I gave you ONE simple question... And you didn't ask.

Dodge?

Dodge. And not even an artful dodge at that.

The 'Zero Gravity Facility' has absolutely SQUAT to do with using the correct terminology in news scripts.

The Zero Gravity Research Facility conducts experiments that simulate the conditions of a body in orbit. The Zero Gravity Separator is designed for use in orbit. The Zero Gravity - PEM Regenerative Fuel Cell Energy Storage System is designed for use in orbit. The Ocular Blood Flow Measured Noninvasively in Zero Gravity experiment was designed to study the effects of spaceflight on astronauts... IN ORBIT.

Your silly rant has to do with news people using the "wrong" terminology when referring to astronauts IN ORBIT. All those experiments and facilities that use what you foolishly claim is the wrong term are referring to conditions IN ORBIT. They're talking about the same thing. Thus, the projects and facilities absolutely do have something to do with the correct terminology in news scripts. With all those NASA scientists using the term "zero gravity" and naming their experiments, inventions and buildings after it, it cannot possibly be the wrong terminology for use in television news.

Thus, your entire rant is based on an empty complaint.

Since you're fond of them, here's a photo that depicts your current situation:

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/101500/101836EKmJ_w.jpg

[Marty McFly]

I gave you ONE simple question... And you didn't ask.

Newsflash: I don't work for you. You want answers? Do your OWN research.

The Zero Gravity Research Facility conducts experiments that simulate the conditions of a body in orbit.

And in my original post, I never mentioned using the correct terminology for simulated conditions of a body in orbit.

With all those NASA scientists using the term "zero gravity" and naming their experiments, inventions and buildings after it, it cannot possibly be the wrong terminology for use in television news.
Of course. Couldn't possibly be wrong... :bs:


Since you're fond of them, here's a photo that depicts your current situation:

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/101500/101836EKmJ_w.jpg


Ah yes. I am totally a red x in a little tiny box. You got me there.

[Spike]

Newsflash: I don't work for you. You want answers? Do your OWN research.

Is that so? Then why the hell did you offer?

On my next trip out to NASA and Marshall Space Flight Center, I'll ask. Please PM me a list of specific questions to make sure we get this settled.

You can't even keep your own bullsh*t straight.

Keep it up, laughing stock.

[Todd W.]

Howdy,

Vigorous discussion and debate is great, but let's please try to do without the personal attacks?
We hold J-Forum to a higher standard than the main forum, when it comes to moderation.

Thanks,
Todd

[cameragod]

Maybe you should move onto more important topics like… Asteroids hitting the Earth.
I know I’m being anal but if an asteroid enters the atmosphere then it is by definition a meteorite therefore no matter how many times the media claim we are going to be hit by an asteroid or that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a giant asteroid, its not possible because if it hits the Earth it must enter the atmosphere so its not an asteroid anymore, it’s a meteorite!!!

[SamG]

Did nobody else catch this? (I added the bold):

The response I got:
'...I work mostly with the scientists on developing space experiments for the shuttle and ISS and we prefer the term microgravity...'

Marty

Marty's expert called the "orbiter" a SHUTTLE. He couldn't be referring to the entire craft (as Marty claims is the shuttle), because the entire craft doesn't go into space.

So since HIS expert refers to the SHUTTLE, that must be the correct term. Case closed.:D

[Chicago Dog]

I know I’m being anal but if an asteroid enters the atmosphere then it is by definition a meteorite therefore no matter how many times the media claim we are going to be hit by an asteroid or that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a giant asteroid, its not possible because if it hits the Earth it must enter the atmosphere so its not an asteroid anymore, it’s a meteorite!!!

Yeah, but it's cool! As long as you've got a dirtbike, you can outrun the ensuing tsunami (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120647/).

Or, no -- wait -- is it a dirtbike or a motocross bike?