I have always wondered how the peeps in hollywood do special effects with astronauts floating around in their spaceships. How do they do it? How do they make it seem like they are floating, and also the objects around them? I am talking about movies like Apollo 13 and the sort. When I was little I actually thought that they sent actors into space and actually shot the scenes in space :rolleyes: So how do they do it?
Apollo 13 (the movie) used the actual NASA plane, the ‘Vomit Comet’, for the weightlessness scenes.
They get in a plane and let it fly in a parabolic arc so the people inside the plane are falling at the same rate as the plane and it simulates outer space very well.
For a few seconds.
For Apollo 13, they filmed some scenes on the Vomit Comet, a KC135A jet used to simulate zero-gravity for brief periods. Basically, the plane flies a series of parabolas, producing about 30 seconds of zero-g at the top of each parabola.
Other zero-g effects can be done using green screen techniques, or with wires.
To expand a little on what postcards said, the “Vomit Comet” is a plane that is simply designed to give its occupants 30 seconds or so of 0g freefall as it flies in a parabola much like an extended ride down the hill on a roller coaster. You may or may not know it, but this not only simulates what happens in an orbital spacecraft, it is exactly the same thing. Most people believe that there is no gravity in outer space and this is simply %100 incorrect. There is almost as much gravity in orbit around the earth as there is an the ground. The weighless effect comes from the fact that an orbital spacecraft is constantly falling around the earth in a circle at the same speed as the people and things inside. Brief periods of weightlessness can occur near the ground such as on a rollercoaster but the effect is relatively short.
Cecil descibes the filming technique used in 2001: A Space Odyseey and Royal Wedding, basically a huge rotating set. It doesn’t look realistic, but it’s the best you can do without spending buttloads of money on riding the Vomit Comet or calling ILM. There were a number of zero-G sequences in Mission to Mars (2000) that I believe relied heavily on computer animation. This is likely the future trend.
A 1987 British TV series, Starcops, featured law enforcement on 21st-century space stations and whatnot. They used wires and wierd filming angles to make things look topsy-turvy, though a large amount of cheesiness was always apparant.
Additionally, smaller efx in 2001 were achieved with large glass disks, or monofilament. Not only did the main set rotate akin to a ferris wheel, but the famed sequence when the flight attendant walks upside down was done with separated set pieces, some of which rotated in perfect tandem and some of which did not.
The remarks about the Vomit Comet are on the money. It’s a pricey move to make. In reading the American Cinematographer article on the shooting of that film, it’s apparent that quite a few scenes were faked by shooting overcranked.
Oh, in 2001 the scenes where the dead astronaut Frank Poole floats off into space, as well as the scene where Bowman enters the Main Memory Banks for H.A.L. 9000 were shot with an actor suspended from wires. Overcranked again ( that is to say, shoot at 48 frames per second or 96 frames per second and project back at standard 24 fps- or 25 fps, in the case of Britain ), and you get a slow moving floaty feel, shot in realtime.
Side note: During the construction of the H.A.L. memory banks mentioned above, a worker building the set fell three stories, breaking his back. It was the only significant injury during production.
Cartooniverse
Only some of the zero-G scenes from Apollo 13 were filmed on the Vomit Comet. Other scenes were shot with the actors standing on hydraulic platforms that slowly moved up and down in a semi-random motion to make it look like they were floating. As long as you don’t shoot their feet, it’s surprisingly effective.
Zero-G isn’t nearly as hard to simulate as LOW-G. It’s easier to make someone float by hanging them from wires or shooting in front of a green screen than it is to simulate the giant bounding steps that astronauts took on the moon. And as for things like dirt being spit up from the wheels of a rover and landing realistically, it’s pretty much impossible without heavy-duty CGI effects.
Only some of the zero-G scenes from Apollo 13 were filmed on the Vomit Comet. Other scenes were shot with the actors standing on hydraulic platforms that slowly moved up and down in a semi-random motion to make it look like they were floating. As long as you don’t shoot their feet, it’s surprisingly effective.
Zero-G isn’t nearly as hard to simulate as LOW-G. It’s easier to make someone float by hanging them from wires or shooting in front of a green screen than it is to simulate the giant bounding steps that astronauts took on the moon. And as for things like dirt being spit up from the wheels of a rover and landing realistically, it’s pretty much impossible without heavy-duty CGI effects.
About the only “design” involved is heavily padded walls. It’s the altitude they gain that gives them the 30 second dive. That, and pilots that know how to safely execute the manuver.
Any airplane will do this, and sometimes it’s done for fun. Most people seem to think they’ll like zero-g, but in reality the first reaction is usually either nausea or fear or both.
Apparently, a lot of barf bags got used during the zero-g filming in Apollo 13
And such as when I jump. 
Only if you have extremely long legs.
Did they have the same problem on The Uranus Experiment? 
I guess you mean so that the effect is relatively long, but Shagnasty was talking about effects that are relatively short.
OTOH, what about BASE jumping?
Only if shagnasty is doing the long jump…–rimshot-.
Okay, sorry. Point taken. Yes, or if you go over a sharp rise in the road as you drive along, you are very temporarily airborne AND weightless.
I get the feeling I’d get sick AND dig it, to be weightless for some period of time…
I’ve been out to the Johnson Space Centre, and out at NASA there is, located in one building, a very very very big “swimming pool” like thing, where apparently they test the spacesuits and other equipment to cheaply simulate the floating aspect and I suppose air-tightness of everything. I think I remember my tour guide telling me that they had employed the same method for filming some anti-gravity scenes in movies, but that was seven or eight years ago and I don’t remember the name of the film now.
I could be wrong about the reasons they send guys in spacesuits in the pool, but it was definitely there. I have a picture of it somewhere in my box of photos from that trip. It was very big and insanely deep, and you could only view it and what they were working on from this balcony with windows all the way up to the ceiling (so you couldn’t jump off the ledge or try to dive in, I guess. :))
The HBO miniseries From the Earth to the Moon did a really good jod of simulating low moon gravity. For the astronauts ‘hopping’ around they attached helium weather ballons to their space suits and for the rover they just used a really light powder for moon dust.
Actually to properly simulate how moon dust would fall in Earth atmosphere you would need to use a super heavy powder.
Given that there is no atmosphere on the moon, dust particles fall straight down as fast as ball-bearings rather than wafting about in the air and settling slowly like in Earth atmosphere.
See this NASA Video from the Apollo 15 mission that shows a hammer and a feather falling at the same rate on the moon.
Fergus
With moon dust, the difficult effect isn’t actually the low gravity, but the vacuum. You don’t get clouds of dust suspended in air; rather, each individual dust grain follows a nice parabola, and settles back to the ground at a very predictable time.
In fact, all low-gravity effects can be simulated by just changing the speed. An astronaut will take longer to fall to the ground and a pendulum will take longer to swing, and by the same proportion. It’s only when you include effects of the atmosphere (or lack thereof) that things get difficult.
Incidentally, lightweight powder would make atmospheric effects even more pronounced, not less. The HBO miniseries was made recently enough that they probably could have done a convincing job with computer effects, relatively easily. Parabolic trajectories for a bunch of particles are not at all difficult to model.