Relevancy of the Educator Astronaut to the Space Program

In article , says...
Can they "walk the dog"?--let the YO YO spin at the bottom of the cycle : -}

I don't know, but a yo-yo in orbit could do the "around the world" trick
with *very* little effort on the part of the operator... *grin*...

--

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for | Doug Van Dorn
thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. |

From Greg Moo
"Stuf4" wrote

I am amazed to see so much support posted on this thread backing the
widely held belief that there is "no gravity" in Earth orbit, let
alone other regions of the solar system and universe. I look forward
to the day that NASA will be clear and accurate in teaching that
zero/micro-g is NOT zero/micro-gravity.

It surprises you because no one said that.

I saw at least six posts supporting (or at least rationalizing) the
term "no gravity".

What they said was the term
zero-gravity was just fine.

Yes, there were lots more posts in this thread backing the term
"zero-gravity".

Now I am left with a distinct impression that at least one person here
feels that there is some significant distinction between the terms...

"zero gravity" and "no gravity".


I say that both are identically bogus in this usage.


~ CT

From Jorge:
This will be my first, and last, post on this thread.

....and this will probably be my last post for roughly the next few
weeks as I take time to focus on a private project that has become a
top priority of mine.

(Stuf4) wrote

This branch of the thread started from the topic of toys in space. My
concern was not only regarding NASA physics PhDs who are promoting
bogus terminology. It included grade school teachers and their
students as well. I see these ends of the spectrum to thoroughly
bracket sci.space.

I am amazed to see so much support posted on this thread backing the
widely held belief that there is "no gravity" in Earth orbit, let
alone other regions of the solar system and universe.

I see no one backing that belief. I do see people acknowledging the fact
that "zero/microgravity" have evolved from technical terms into the popular
lexicon, where they have become figures of speech. And I see people
acknowledging the fact that technical personnel sometimes use figures of
speech when speaking to laypeople, even while knowing that they're not
strictly correct.

I have a hard time seeing how anyone here would want to support a NASA
astronaut with a physics PhD from MIT speak about experiencing "no
gravity" while in orbit. NASA takes pride in promoting science. I
would consider it to be a lot less harmful if NASA astronauts would go
around telling the public that:

2 + 2 = 5

At least the public could easily pick up on this error without getting
led astray.

This is not unique to the terms "zero/microgravity". I've heard scientists
use the term "quantum leap" to describe leaps that were decidedly non-
quantum, "exponential growth" to describe any kind of rapid growth, or
"schizo" to describe behavior better described by other psychological
terms.

Does this mean that they don't know the difference? Of course not - if they
didn't, they'd be unable to function professionally. They still use figures
of speech since they're convenient shorthand and, for 99.99% of their
audiences, the distinction is of no practical importance.

I would give these rough estimates:

80% of the audience gets confused,
15% of the audience wouldn't follow either the accurate or inaccurate
terminology,
4% are aware of the error but don't speak out for whatever reason, and
1% are aware of the error and voice objection.

....and I would continue by saying that "zero-g" vs "zero gravity" is
of practical importance to 100% of all NASA audiences because we can
experience it in our daily lives by simply jumping off the ground (or
driving a car fast over a hill, etc). We feel zero-g during freefall
while remaining cognizant that gravity stayed the same. This same
principle applies while in orbit and NASA could easily communicate
accurate physics to the public (as well as internally) and NASA could
decide tomorrow to trash bogus "figures of speech".

O'Keefe, if he so desired, could take this on as one step toward
shifting "culture" away from that insidious emperor's clothes
phenomenon.


Regarding the notion that NASA *does* know better, here is the full
set of "OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS" advertised on that website referenced
earlier in this thread,
http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/FACILITY/ZERO.HTM :
_____

o Low gravity duration: 5.18 seconds (free fall: evacuated chamber at
10 to the second Torr)
o Gravitational acceleration: 10 to the negative 5 g
o Deceleration levels: a linear ramp from 0 to 65 Gs in 150
milliseconds
_____

....so it appears that at least *one* person at Glenn Research Center
believes that there is some way to achieve "low gravity" at the
surface of the Earth, and that "Gravitational acceleration" changes
radically during a short freefall.

I look forward
to the day that NASA will be clear and accurate in teaching that
zero/micro-g is NOT zero/micro-gravity.

I look forward to the day when you gain the social sophistication to
understand that misuse of figures of speech, even by a professional, does
not imply a lack of understanding of the underlying phenomena. I also look
forward to the day when you gain enough sense of proportion to realize that
this trivia is not worth starting a 100+ post thread on a newsgroup.

If everyone beside me held this issue as meaningless trivia, this
thread would have been a lot shorter than 100+ posts.

The fact of the matter is that many people are confused by this. And
my suggestion, for whatever it may or may not be worth to anyone, is
that replacing the term "zero/micro-gravity" with "zero/micro-g" would
go a long way toward eliminating that confusion.


~ CT

Stuf4 wrote:
[snip]

I am amazed to see so much support posted on this thread backing the
widely held belief that there is "no gravity" in Earth orbit, let
alone other regions of the solar system and universe. I look forward
to the day that NASA will be clear and accurate in teaching that
zero/micro-g is NOT zero/micro-gravity.


Cite 1 post where someone in ths ng supported the belief that there is
no gravity in Earth orbit.

[snip]

I have nothing more to add to this thread at this time.


Incite flamers then leave? Is that what a troll is?


~ CT

Stuf4 wrote:
[snip]


Regarding the notion that NASA *does* know better, here is the full
set of "OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS" advertised on that website referenced
earlier in this thread,
http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/FACILITY/ZERO.HTM :
_____

o Low gravity duration: 5.18 seconds (free fall: evacuated chamber at
10 to the second Torr)
o Gravitational acceleration: 10 to the negative 5 g
o Deceleration levels: a linear ramp from 0 to 65 Gs in 150
milliseconds
_____

...so it appears that at least *one* person at Glenn Research Center
believes that there is some way to achieve "low gravity" at the
surface of the Earth, and that "Gravitational acceleration" changes
radically during a short freefall.

This is a far cry from *all* NASA researchers are confused. But, if you
don't understand what the Microgravity Research Facility is advertising
in the above list, then you should stay away from all science related
matters and indulge yourself in eastern philosophy. There, your deep
thoughts and a vow of silence will satisfy everyone, especially the
managers of the top secret program to spread "microgravity" like an
indestructible meme.

Viva microgravity!



[snip]

From stmx3:
Stuf4 wrote:
[snip]


Regarding the notion that NASA *does* know better, here is the full
set of "OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS" advertised on that website referenced
earlier in this thread,
http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/FACILITY/ZERO.HTM :
_____

o Low gravity duration: 5.18 seconds (free fall: evacuated chamber at
10 to the second Torr)
o Gravitational acceleration: 10 to the negative 5 g
o Deceleration levels: a linear ramp from 0 to 65 Gs in 150
milliseconds
_____

...so it appears that at least *one* person at Glenn Research Center
believes that there is some way to achieve "low gravity" at the
surface of the Earth, and that "Gravitational acceleration" changes
radically during a short freefall.

This is a far cry from *all* NASA researchers are confused. But, if you
don't understand what the Microgravity Research Facility is advertising
in the above list, then you should stay away from all science related
matters and indulge yourself in eastern philosophy. There, your deep
thoughts and a vow of silence will satisfy everyone, especially the
managers of the top secret program to spread "microgravity" like an
indestructible meme.

Viva microgravity!

Thanks for the good laugh.


Perhaps this link offers a clue to the origin of the term "zero
gravity":
http://permanentpeace.org/technology/yogic_flying.html

(Although I didn't see any NASA research referenced under their
"What's the Technology?" link.)



....beginning my vow of silence in lotus position... meditating on
grasshopper in weightless hop through tall grass...


~ CT

Stuf4 wrote:

...and this will probably be my last post for roughly the next few
weeks as I take time to focus on a private project that has become a
top priority of mine.

Really? Really Really?


I have a hard time seeing how anyone here would want to support a NASA
astronaut with a physics PhD from MIT speak about experiencing "no
gravity" while in orbit.

Can a human experience micro gravity compared to no gravity? I doubt
it. Otherwise why have the 0.05g indicator on the Apollo capsules?