Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #494183 > unrolled thread

YASID space station underwear for reaction mass

Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written

Contents

  YASID space station underwear for reaction mass Nyrath <winchellchung@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 09:15 -0700
    Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass Panthera Tigris Altaica <northerntiger@outlook.com> - 2018-06-25 09:53 -0700
    Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2018-06-25 20:16 +0200
    Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass mwstone1948@gmail.com - 2018-06-25 13:40 -0700
      Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-06-25 14:00 -0700
        Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-25 22:04 +0000
          Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2018-06-25 17:02 -0700
            Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> - 2018-06-26 00:57 +0000
              Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass hamish.laws@gmail.com - 2018-06-25 18:02 -0700
                Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-06-25 18:12 -0700
                  Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-06-25 18:39 -0700
              Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2018-06-25 18:08 -0700
            Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-26 04:08 +0000
              Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass hamish.laws@gmail.com - 2018-06-25 21:48 -0700
                Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-06-26 10:18 -0700
                Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) - 2018-06-26 20:24 +0000
                  Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2018-06-26 21:31 +0000
                    Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-06-26 15:36 -0700
      Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass Nyrath <winchellchung@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 16:42 -0700
        Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2018-06-25 23:52 +0000
    Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass mwstone1948@gmail.com - 2018-06-26 10:15 -0700
    Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass mwstone1948@gmail.com - 2018-06-26 10:19 -0700
      Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 10:42 -0700
      Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-06-26 10:55 -0700
        Re: YASID space station underwear for reaction mass nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) - 2018-06-26 20:33 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#494183 — YASID space station underwear for reaction mass

I am pretty sure this is an old short story by Arthur C. Clark or Robert Heinlein.

There was a scene on an early model space station. One of the construction crew relates an embarrassing story. At that time the station had not spun up to create artificial gravity so everything was in free fall. The man had somehow managed to get himself stranded in the middle of a room, with no way to move to within grabbing distance of a wall hand-hold.

He figures the only thing to do is to throw an object away and use the recoil to propel himself towards a wall. Unfortunately he had just woken up so is only dressed in his underwear. He has to throw that away since that is the only reaction mass available.

The embarrassing part was of course that was the day the station was entertaining visiting VIPs who were inspecting the progress. Who were annoyed at the nude man frantically scrambling away down the corridor.

Does this story sound familiar?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#494184

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 12:15:05 PM UTC-4, Nyrath wrote:
> I am pretty sure this is an old short story by Arthur C. Clark or Robert Heinlein.
> 
> There was a scene on an early model space station. One of the construction crew relates an embarrassing story. At that time the station had not spun up to create artificial gravity so everything was in free fall. The man had somehow managed to get himself stranded in the middle of a room, with no way to move to within grabbing distance of a wall hand-hold.
> 
> He figures the only thing to do is to throw an object away and use the recoil to propel himself towards a wall. Unfortunately he had just woken up so is only dressed in his underwear. He has to throw that away since that is the only reaction mass available.
> 
> The embarrassing part was of course that was the day the station was entertaining visiting VIPs who were inspecting the progress. Who were annoyed at the nude man frantically scrambling away down the corridor.
> 
> Does this story sound familiar?

There was, I think, a Heinlein story which had as an aside a tale about a gentleman who applied Newton's Laws by ripping pieces off his underwear and throwing them as hard as he could to move towards one wall of a station. He threw the last piece just as the station commander's wife came into view. Would that be the story you're thinking of?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494190

On 25-6-2018 18:15, Nyrath wrote:
> I am pretty sure this is an old short story by Arthur C. Clark or Robert Heinlein.
>
> There was a scene on an early model space station. One of the construction crew relates an embarrassing story. At that time the station had not spun up to create artificial gravity so everything was in free fall. The man had somehow managed to get himself stranded in the middle of a room, with no way to move to within grabbing distance of a wall hand-hold.
>
> He figures the only thing to do is to throw an object away and use the recoil to propel himself towards a wall. Unfortunately he had just woken up so is only dressed in his underwear. He has to throw that away since that is the only reaction mass available.
>
> The embarrassing part was of course that was the day the station was entertaining visiting VIPs who were inspecting the progress. Who were annoyed at the nude man frantically scrambling away down the corridor.
>
> Does this story sound familiar?
>
No,

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494193

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 5:15:05 PM UTC+1, Nyrath wrote:
> I am pretty sure this is an old short story by Arthur C. Clark or Robert Heinlein.
> 
> There was a scene on an early model space station. One of the construction crew relates an embarrassing story. At that time the station had not spun up to create artificial gravity so everything was in free fall. The man had somehow managed to get himself stranded in the middle of a room, with no way to move to within grabbing distance of a wall hand-hold.
> 
> He figures the only thing to do is to throw an object away and use the recoil to propel himself towards a wall. Unfortunately he had just woken up so is only dressed in his underwear. He has to throw that away since that is the only reaction mass available.
> 
> The embarrassing part was of course that was the day the station was entertaining visiting VIPs who were inspecting the progress. Who were annoyed at the nude man frantically scrambling away down the corridor.
> 
> Does this story sound familiar?


It's from ACC's *The Sands of Mars*. One of the crew is describing an embarrassing moment when he found himself stranded in mid-air in the zero-g section, and using his underwear as reaction mass. Unfortunately the Director was showing his wife around the station, hence the man's change of jobs.

Mike Stone, Peterborough, England

Always drink upriver from the herd.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494195

On Monday, 25 June 2018 21:40:52 UTC+1, mwsto...@gmail.com  wrote:
> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 5:15:05 PM UTC+1, Nyrath wrote:
> > I am pretty sure this is an old short story by Arthur C. Clark or Robert Heinlein.
> > 
> > There was a scene on an early model space station. One of the construction crew relates an embarrassing story. At that time the station had not spun up to create artificial gravity so everything was in free fall. The man had somehow managed to get himself stranded in the middle of a room, with no way to move to within grabbing distance of a wall hand-hold.
> > 
> > He figures the only thing to do is to throw an object away and use the recoil to propel himself towards a wall. Unfortunately he had just woken up so is only dressed in his underwear. He has to throw that away since that is the only reaction mass available.
> > 
> > The embarrassing part was of course that was the day the station was entertaining visiting VIPs who were inspecting the progress. Who were annoyed at the nude man frantically scrambling away down the corridor.
> > 
> > Does this story sound familiar?
> 
> 
> It's from ACC's *The Sands of Mars*. One of the crew is describing an embarrassing moment when he found himself stranded in mid-air in the zero-g section, and using his underwear as reaction mass. Unfortunately the Director was showing his wife around the station, hence the man's change of jobs.
> 
> Mike Stone, Peterborough, England
> 
> Always drink upriver from the herd.

There's a controversial Doctor Who episode where
the Doctor uses a cricket ball; it bounces off the
hull and he catches it.  That part is okay...
but he is /outside/ the spaceship.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494196

In article <0f1a6aae-93d3-4735-a33e-acb2b6fe69aa@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>On Monday, 25 June 2018 21:40:52 UTC+1, mwsto...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 5:15:05 PM UTC+1, Nyrath wrote:
>> > I am pretty sure this is an old short story by Arthur C. Clark or
>Robert Heinlein.
>> > 
>> > There was a scene on an early model space station. One of the
>construction crew relates an embarrassing story. At that time the
>station had not spun up to create artificial gravity so everything was
>in free fall. The man had somehow managed to get himself stranded in the
>middle of a room, with no way to move to within grabbing distance of a
>wall hand-hold.
>> > 
>> > He figures the only thing to do is to throw an object away and use
>the recoil to propel himself towards a wall. Unfortunately he had just
>woken up so is only dressed in his underwear. He has to throw that away
>since that is the only reaction mass available.
>> > 
>> > The embarrassing part was of course that was the day the station was
>entertaining visiting VIPs who were inspecting the progress. Who were
>annoyed at the nude man frantically scrambling away down the corridor.
>> > 
>> > Does this story sound familiar?
>> 
>> 
>> It's from ACC's *The Sands of Mars*. One of the crew is describing an
>embarrassing moment when he found himself stranded in mid-air in the
>zero-g section, and using his underwear as reaction mass. Unfortunately
>the Director was showing his wife around the station, hence the man's
>change of jobs.
>> 
>> Mike Stone, Peterborough, England
>> 
>> Always drink upriver from the herd.
>
>There's a controversial Doctor Who episode where
>the Doctor uses a cricket ball; it bounces off the
>hull and he catches it.  That part is okay...
>but he is /outside/ the spaceship.

Hm, I don't think I've seen that one.  Can you remember the
title?  Which Doctor it was?

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494203

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:30:05 AM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <0f1a6aae-93d3-4735-a33e-acb2b6fe69aa@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

<snip>

> >There's a controversial Doctor Who episode where
> >the Doctor uses a cricket ball; it bounces off the
> >hull and he catches it.  That part is okay...
> >but he is /outside/ the spaceship.
> 
> Hm, I don't think I've seen that one.  Can you remember the
> title?  Which Doctor it was?

Definitely Peter Davison. Google tells me it was "Four to Doomsday". The Doctor finds himself floating in space between a spaceship and the TARDIS. He hurls a cricket ball at the spaceship, it bounces back to him and his catching it gives him enough momentum to reach the TARDIS.

-Moriarty

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494205

On 2018-06-26, Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:30:05 AM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <0f1a6aae-93d3-4735-a33e-acb2b6fe69aa@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >There's a controversial Doctor Who episode where
>> >the Doctor uses a cricket ball; it bounces off the
>> >hull and he catches it.  That part is okay...
>> >but he is /outside/ the spaceship.
>> 
>> Hm, I don't think I've seen that one.  Can you remember the
>> title?  Which Doctor it was?
>
> Definitely Peter Davison. Google tells me it was "Four to Doomsday". The Doctor finds himself floating in space between a spaceship and the TARDIS. He hurls a cricket ball at the spaceship, it bounces back to him and his catching it gives him enough momentum to reach the TARDIS.

Why would that be controversial? He would gain momentum from both his throw,
and catching the ball. The ship would gain equal momentum the other way.
Very basic physics.
-- 
Carl Fink                           nitpicking@nitpicking.com 

Read John Grant's book, Corrupted Science: http://a.co/9UsUoGu 
Dedicated to ... Carl Fink!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494207

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:57:04 AM UTC+10, Carl Fink wrote:
> On 2018-06-26, Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:30:05 AM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >> In article <0f1a6aae-93d3-4735-a33e-acb2b6fe69aa@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >There's a controversial Doctor Who episode where
> >> >the Doctor uses a cricket ball; it bounces off the
> >> >hull and he catches it.  That part is okay...
> >> >but he is /outside/ the spaceship.
> >> 
> >> Hm, I don't think I've seen that one.  Can you remember the
> >> title?  Which Doctor it was?
> >
> > Definitely Peter Davison. Google tells me it was "Four to Doomsday". The Doctor finds himself floating in space between a spaceship and the TARDIS. He hurls a cricket ball at the spaceship, it bounces back to him and his catching it gives him enough momentum to reach the TARDIS.
> 
> Why would that be controversial? He would gain momentum from both his throw,
> and catching the ball. The ship would gain equal momentum the other way.
> Very basic physics.

a) The amount of momentum may not be huge. (Of course TV and movies commonly show knockback from being hit by bullets etc)
b) I suspect that throwing something in space could be an interesting exercise.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494209

On 6/25/2018 6:02 PM, hamish.laws@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:57:04 AM UTC+10, Carl Fink wrote:
>> On 2018-06-26, Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:30:05 AM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>> In article <0f1a6aae-93d3-4735-a33e-acb2b6fe69aa@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> There's a controversial Doctor Who episode where
>>>>> the Doctor uses a cricket ball; it bounces off the
>>>>> hull and he catches it.  That part is okay...
>>>>> but he is /outside/ the spaceship.
>>>>
>>>> Hm, I don't think I've seen that one.  Can you remember the
>>>> title?  Which Doctor it was?
>>>
>>> Definitely Peter Davison. Google tells me it was "Four to Doomsday". The Doctor finds himself floating in space between a spaceship and the TARDIS. He hurls a cricket ball at the spaceship, it bounces back to him and his catching it gives him enough momentum to reach the TARDIS.
>>
>> Why would that be controversial? He would gain momentum from both his throw,
>> and catching the ball. The ship would gain equal momentum the other way.
>> Very basic physics.
> 
> a) The amount of momentum may not be huge. (Of course TV and movies commonly show knockback from being hit by bullets etc)
> b) I suspect that throwing something in space could be an interesting exercise.
> 
Unless the person figures out how to throw hard from their center of 
mass, it strikes me that the most likely result is them spinning nearly 
in place with only a slight drift.

-- 
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation 
instinct are running screaming.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494210

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:12:18 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 6/25/2018 6:02 PM, hamish.laws@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:57:04 AM UTC+10, Carl Fink wrote:
> >> On 2018-06-26, Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:30:05 AM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >>>> In article <0f1a6aae-93d3-4735-a33e-acb2b6fe69aa@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>>> There's a controversial Doctor Who episode where
> >>>>> the Doctor uses a cricket ball; it bounces off the
> >>>>> hull and he catches it.  That part is okay...
> >>>>> but he is /outside/ the spaceship.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hm, I don't think I've seen that one.  Can you remember the
> >>>> title?  Which Doctor it was?
> >>>
> >>> Definitely Peter Davison. Google tells me it was "Four to Doomsday". The Doctor finds himself floating in space between a spaceship and the TARDIS. He hurls a cricket ball at the spaceship, it bounces back to him and his catching it gives him enough momentum to reach the TARDIS.
> >>
> >> Why would that be controversial? He would gain momentum from both his throw,
> >> and catching the ball. The ship would gain equal momentum the other way.
> >> Very basic physics.
> > 
> > a) The amount of momentum may not be huge. (Of course TV and movies commonly show knockback from being hit by bullets etc)
> > b) I suspect that throwing something in space could be an interesting exercise.
> > 
> Unless the person figures out how to throw hard from their center of 
> mass, it strikes me that the most likely result is them spinning nearly 
> in place with only a slight drift.
> 

I'm watching baseball at the moment, and know comparatively little
about cricket, but.....

Bodyline....IN SPACE!!!!!!

Kevin R

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494208

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:57:04 AM UTC+10, Carl Fink wrote:
> On 2018-06-26, Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:30:05 AM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >> In article <0f1a6aae-93d3-4735-a33e-acb2b6fe69aa@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >There's a controversial Doctor Who episode where
> >> >the Doctor uses a cricket ball; it bounces off the
> >> >hull and he catches it.  That part is okay...
> >> >but he is /outside/ the spaceship.
> >> 
> >> Hm, I don't think I've seen that one.  Can you remember the
> >> title?  Which Doctor it was?
> >
> > Definitely Peter Davison. Google tells me it was "Four to Doomsday". The Doctor finds himself floating in space between a spaceship and the TARDIS. He hurls a cricket ball at the spaceship, it bounces back to him and his catching it gives him enough momentum to reach the TARDIS.
> 
> Why would that be controversial? He would gain momentum from both his throw,
> and catching the ball. The ship would gain equal momentum the other way.
> Very basic physics.

I'm not sure. It may be that I've mis-described the scene, it being well over 20 years since I saw it.  Perhaps Robert, who made the claim, can expand?

-Moriarty

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494212

In article <f9f9f970-4725-417a-a2d9-27b64299ae68@googlegroups.com>,
Moriarty  <blues95@ivillage.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:30:05 AM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <0f1a6aae-93d3-4735-a33e-acb2b6fe69aa@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >There's a controversial Doctor Who episode where
>> >the Doctor uses a cricket ball; it bounces off the
>> >hull and he catches it.  That part is okay...
>> >but he is /outside/ the spaceship.
>> 
>> Hm, I don't think I've seen that one.  Can you remember the
>> title?  Which Doctor it was?
>
>Definitely Peter Davison.

Yes, I rather suspected it would be he.  He's the one who went
around in cricketing togs all the time.  I saw only the first two
or three of his episodes, because KQED stopped showing them.

>Google tells me it was "Four to Doomsday". The
>Doctor finds himself floating in space between a spaceship and the
>TARDIS. He hurls a cricket ball at the spaceship, it bounces back to him
>and his catching it gives him enough momentum to reach the TARDIS.

And, come to that, throwing the ball in the first place would
have given him some momentum away from it.  (Remember
_Destination Moon_, and the Woody Woodpecker cartoon, showing
Woody propelling a rowboat along by firing a shotgun off the
stern?)

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494214

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 2:30:04 PM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <f9f9f970-4725-417a-a2d9-27b64299ae68@googlegroups.com>,
> Moriarty  <blues95@ivillage.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:30:05 AM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >> In article <0f1a6aae-93d3-4735-a33e-acb2b6fe69aa@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >There's a controversial Doctor Who episode where
> >> >the Doctor uses a cricket ball; it bounces off the
> >> >hull and he catches it.  That part is okay...
> >> >but he is /outside/ the spaceship.
> >> 
> >> Hm, I don't think I've seen that one.  Can you remember the
> >> title?  Which Doctor it was?
> >
> >Definitely Peter Davison.
> 
> Yes, I rather suspected it would be he.  He's the one who went
> around in cricketing togs all the time.  I saw only the first two
> or three of his episodes, because KQED stopped showing them.
> 
> >Google tells me it was "Four to Doomsday". The
> >Doctor finds himself floating in space between a spaceship and the
> >TARDIS. He hurls a cricket ball at the spaceship, it bounces back to him
> >and his catching it gives him enough momentum to reach the TARDIS.
> 
> And, come to that, throwing the ball in the first place would
> have given him some momentum away from it.

More than he'd get from the catch (barring some 'force field' effect which pushes it away from the ship faster than it comes in)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494234

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 12:48:28 AM UTC-4, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:

> > And, come to that, throwing the ball in the first place would
> > have given him some momentum away from it.
> 
> More than he'd get from the catch (barring some 'force field' effect which pushes it away from the ship faster than it comes in)

Throwing a ball against a wall and fielding it is a drill that young
baseball players can practice on their own.  In a gravity well, you
have to throw it very hard to have it return on the fly, and it won't
travel all the way back to you. What one usually does is aim low on the
wall, and the rebound will be a ground ball.  Throw it other than straight
on, and you'll have to move to your left or right to field it, which is
the point of the drill.  When the ball caroms one way or the other,
it imitates a ball batted other than right at you, and you have to
scramble to field it.

Pitching or bowling a ball in space and having it return to you would be
a neat trick.  The ball has to rebound to the spot you will be in after 
your relative motion changes by the act of throwing it in the first place,
as I understand it.  Granted, Time Lords may be able to do orbital mechanics
like that in their heads, but unless one is tethered to a ship or wielding
a SAFER-type jetpacks or equivalent, one wouldn't be able to do much to
"get in front of the ball," as my coach-father would have instructed.

Kevin R

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494247

In <06382cab-4c34-45d6-a355-03a94b2cda47@googlegroups.com> hamish.laws@gmail.com writes:

>On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 2:30:04 PM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

>> And, come to that, throwing the ball in the first place would
>> have given him some momentum away from it.

>More than he'd get from the catch (barring some 'force field' effect which pushes it away from the ship faster than it comes in)

        Unless the spaceship's moving in The Doctor's general direction.
(Try bouncing a tennis ball off a slow-moving car for a demonstration.)

        I mean, the practical problems of getting this to work are huge,
but we are talking The Doctor here.  He can work it out.

        (Remembering now the ancient argument about whether one of
Mr Incredible's powers is super-aiming.)



-- 
                                                                Joseph Nebus
 Math: Reading the Comics: Friday the 13th Edition?   https://wp.me/p1RYhY-1nL
Humor: Comfort Disasters                              https://wp.me/p37lb5-244
--------------------------------------------------------+---------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494251

In article <pgu7ej$q1s$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Joseph Nebus <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
>In <06382cab-4c34-45d6-a355-03a94b2cda47@googlegroups.com>
>hamish.laws@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>        I mean, the practical problems of getting this to work are huge,
>but we are talking The Doctor here.  He can work it out.
>

Try to see it his way!
-- 
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494253

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 5:31:10 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <pgu7ej$q1s$1@reader1.panix.com>,
> Joseph Nebus <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
> >In <06382cab-4c34-45d6-a355-03a94b2cda47@googlegroups.com>
> >hamish.laws@gmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> >        I mean, the practical problems of getting this to work are huge,
> >but we are talking The Doctor here.  He can work it out.
> >
> 
> Try to see it his way!

"Life is very short, and there's no time..." just doesn't seem 
very Gallifreyan. :)

Kevin R

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494200

> It's from ACC's *The Sands of Mars*. One of the crew is describing an embarrassing moment when he found himself stranded in mid-air in the zero-g section, and using his underwear as reaction mass. Unfortunately the Director was showing his wife around the station, hence the man's change of jobs.

That's it! Thank you so much!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494201

In article <560b392b-4771-4d15-a75f-0127d1da7eef@googlegroups.com>,
Nyrath  <winchellchung@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's from ACC's *The Sands of Mars*. One of the crew is describing an
>embarrassing moment when he found himself stranded in mid-air in the
>zero-g section, and using his underwear as reaction mass. Unfortunately
>the Director was showing his wife around the station, hence the man's
>change of jobs.
>
>That's it! Thank you so much!

Could you propel yourself by directed exhalation?  (Maybe if you turned your
head the opposite way to inhale?)

Of course I presume there was air circulation anyway, else people would
suffocate in CO2 pools, but I suppose that would take too long to get wafted
to an intake vent.
-- 
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written

csiph-web