Talk:2978: Stranded

This reminds me of the apocryphal UK newspaper headline (sometimes claimed to be The Times in 1957): "Fog in (the English) Channel - Continent Cut Off" See e.g. https://www.quora.com/Is-the-famous-headline-Fog-in-Channel-Continent-Cut-Off-an-urban-myth

It gets worse, SpaceX's Falcon 9 is grounded too: SpaceX's Falcon 9 grounded after failing landing attempt:

Falcon 9 is also due to launch two NASA astronauts in late September on a Crew Dragon spacecraft that will bring home next year the two astronauts who have been stuck on the International Space Station after riding Boeing's troubled Starliner spacecraft. NASA regulates Falcon 9 for its own missions. It was not immediately clear how the rocket's latest grounding will affect that NASA mission. The U.S. space agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Here's hoping those guys like the view. 172.71.166.165 20:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I was going to add something about how the people on Earth not being alone may not be a benefit, considering all the political division and wars going on down here. But I think that's too much editorializing for an explanation. But we can say what we like in the comments. Barmar (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed that howmanypeopleareinspacerightnow.com doesn't list Wilmore and Williams. RegularSizedGuy (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

But it lists people who got back in July 2022, so I'd say it's not kept up to date....

--188.114.102.116 22:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

wow this is JUST like the jevil 172.69.64.184 23:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Bumpf

The transcript currently includes the statement “There's an elliptical window through which they can see the planet below”. Analysing the image carefully, that’s clearly correct - but at first, second and third glance I can’t help but see it as a circular porthole on an isometric view of a non-existent bulkhead on the left… I guess I’m just conditioned to expect things at ~30 degree angles to be isometric, rather than “floating in space”… 172.69.194.83 07:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

In a few moments, I'm going to change it to "large round". Roundedness does not admit to (nor deny) circularity, so covers any orientation of the bulkhead (also not sure what you mean by "non-existent", as the whole greebled wall you see is the probably-at-an-angle outer bulkhead).

It is also very large, in keeping with xkcd's illustrative fiction (bigger, but more believably non-cornered than 2906: Earth, if that's supposed to be a window/porthole; a variety seen looked out of in 865: Nanobots; I recall at least one other with a large window, but can't recall the circumstances at the moment). Noting that the ISS's cupola is probably the most "windowy window" actually in use, due to practical concerns that I'm sure we'd all have about a huge (necessarily thick) spread of 'glass' that's needed in this sort of scene for aesthetic reasons.

Not as bad as "Hollywood"-type submersible picture-windows, of course. You have to resist no more than one atmosphere of pressure, outwards, in space. You have to resist multiple atmosphere's of pressure, inwards, at depth. A hemispherical bubble-end (or a symmetric slice of one) could be adopted from deep-sea applications, but the window would have to bulge inwards for best strength and safety purposes against the outwards pressure, making a more awkward method of viewing at all angles (and possibly distorting astronomical photographs in ways that reduce their convenient usefulness). 141.101.99.218 12:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

My point was that in the picture, I think there are 2 bulkheads - the main greebled wall facing us that contains the large oval window (the backdrop of a stage, if you like), and a small part of a second wall at an angle to the first visible at the right edge of the frame (stage left). We can assume that the narrow strip between the two is some kind of corner reinforcement, and there’s a rectangular greeble that changes shape as it goes around that corner, indicating this is probably not just some kind of vertical conduit. However, there is no 3rd bulkhead to stage right… the window is embedded in the main backdrop. My lazy viewing wants to interpret the large round window as being circular, in the stage right bulkhead - but there is no stage right bulkhead, we only have visibility of the backdrop and a fraction of stage left. Therefore, the original description of an oval window is spot-on… but deliberately or otherwise, the artist is messing with my head. 172.70.85.18 07:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

It took a while to work out what you meant...

• You: The left-sweep of bulkhead is perpendicular to the camera, the 'greeble line' is a convex corner (pointing towards us) leading to a wall that goes away from us, at an angle that might have agreed with the 'circle at an angle' viewing angle.
• Me: Left-sweep is either fully or partly at that angle, agreeing with the window (and the edges of the window/wall-features, many of which have relief features that stand out in perspective to the left more than their rights)... it may subtly curve back to being camera-perpendicular as we reach the corner. The corner is concave, the 'stage right' wall past the greeble line heads back towards us, or at least less away. (Consistent with an internal bulkhead, separating another section of space-station, rather than an externally-flush one round a constructed corner. But could also be flush with a normal 'box corner' of the station.)

Note the corner-greeble's short tranverse curves that hint more at a low camera angle and a 90-degree angle (slightly flush 45-degree 'flat'ish attachment) rather than high angle and a 270-degree one (would have to wrap around as a corner protector).

But, as with all ambiguous perspectives, may depend on which way your eye 'snaps' to understanding it the first time. I had to 'unfocus/refocus’ to comprehend the opposite to my first impression (then I just needed to 'blink', mentally, to pop my internal visualisation across the divide). I probably picked up on the wall-features' innate angled perspective and that then let the rest fall into place. 172.70.160.231 08:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This is basically the plot of Seveneves 162.158.33.196 08:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I can see why they wanna stay in space today, and probably forever tbh 172.70.160.231 10:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fairly concerned that nobody else is concerned that the astronauts will die from 8 MONTHS in space. Unless I'm wrong, prolonged space stays usually lead to atrophy of pretty much every human organ due to the nonexistence of gravity, right? But they'll be there for 8 months... 172.69.71.84 18:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

they’ve had rigorous training, exercise for at least 2 hours a day on the ISS, and 8 months is nowhere close to the 437 day record for the longest stay in space 42.book.addict (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok, but still. To paraphrase Hitchhiker's "2 years is a long time to get stranded anywhere, especially somewhere as mind-bogglingly dull as the Earth". Change the variables and you get the point. At least they're probably fine 172.71.22.167 21:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)