Comments on: Fed Ex Superbowl commercial Bad Astronomy

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:24:54 +0000

Tailspin Tommy, you are correct that mass and therefore inertia is the same. However, the effort for motion is deceptive. Have you ever dealt with boats? Because waterâ€™s resistance to motion is much less than dry friction (i.e. object on ground), a person can get a large boat moving simply by the act of stepping off. The weightless environment would be even easier. Without gravity to anchor the objects together, friction wouldnâ€™t do much – theyâ€™d just push apart.

More appropriately, if he was able to push the other guy off into space, he should have floated in the other direction

Im smarter nanananananana
Losers

By: Irishman

Irishman — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:18:14 +0000

Tailspin Tommy, you are correct that mass and therefore inertia is the same. However, the effort for motion is deceptive. Have you ever dealt with boats? Because water’s resistance to motion is much less than dry friction (i.e. object on ground), a person can get a large boat moving simply by the act of stepping off. The weightless environment would be even easier. Without gravity to anchor the objects together, friction wouldn’t do much – they’d just push apart.

More appropriately, if he was able to push the other guy off into space, he should have floated in the other direction.

By: LarrySDonald

LarrySDonald — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:56:58 +0000

The dust billowing up around the landing FedEx craft looks like it’s operating in atmosphere, nothing at all like the Apollo missions. I suspect this may have been faked .

By: Tailspin Tommy

Tailspin Tommy — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:48:47 +0000

Um…check me on this Phil, but would the astronaut’s mass and, thus, inertia be the same on the moon regardless of his apparent 35lb weight? That is, wouldn’t it take the same shove (force) to move a 200 pound person on the moonâ€”or in spaceâ€”as it takes here?

By: Irishman

Irishman — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:50:40 +0000

Eli54 said:
> Skirts in zero G?

Great catch! I saw that and forgot to comment. That could be one of the various problems they mentioned, a lack of planning that could be a winfall in some cases.

But the bad science connection – the skirts didn’t behave like they were in freefall. No billowing and floating. They must have been heavily starched.

By: BC

BC — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:22:41 +0000

Gee (or is it 1/6 Gee), when you become a scientist, are you required to give up your sense of humor? Personally, I thought it was one of the 5 funniest of the comercials (along with Bud Lite’s dirty dalmation). My kids and I did discuss the goofy science portrayed and they caught most of the “bad” science

By: CR

CR — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:40:51 +0000

I said it earlier, and I’ll say it again: Phobos, everyone, Phobos! Would have worked perfectly for this ad. Except for the meteors. And the aerodynamic maneuvering of the Eagle–er spaceship. And the billowing dust. And the Earth. And the… oh, nevermind…

Oh, and I still think the helmets look like leftovers from The Abyss, even down to the interior lighting.