"Battlewings" model miniatures

[Stingray]

Also, here's what I have so far on Gateway:

[Captain Canada]

Holy ! That's quite the collection ! And I always knew them Ponies was evil. Evil !

[Stingray]

They're the good guys in this. It was us humans and the ponies that formed Battlewings in order to defend the planet from the true evil, an enemy faction of humans seeking total conquest of the planet at any cost.

[zenrat]

So, will your space battles be silent or will the sounds of battle magically travel through the vacuum of space?

[Stingray]

Given that this is a slight reboot of the 80's B-movie style (you know, most of the Star Wars wannabes), there will definitely be sound in space. I tested the footage silently and it just comes off as... weird. With added sound, the quality is enhanced in a way (my camera is not that professional, I'm afraid).

Besides, the show this is spinning off from already defies the laws of physics.

[zenrat]

IMO no sound in space, if done well, can bring an extra something to battle scenes because of the contrast between the silence of the external shots with all the visuals like explosions and blaster fire (and big arse rail guns obviously) and the noise of the internal shots with alarms going off, control panels exploding in showers of sparks and Kryten changing the light globe to go to Red Alert.
But it's your project and I get where you're coming from.

[Weaver]

Another way to deal with no-sound-in-space is music, but of course, that's not easy to generate either. You can use the contrast between silence and music and/or authentic sound effects to great dramatic effect if done well. Look at the pod/airlock scene from 2001 for an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpwvJzcfL1w

[scooter]

Or you could do a mix of all, as done in the Kelvin v. Narada fight in the opening of Star Trek (2009), especially when the crewman gets sucked out into space

[Stingray]

Well, I'll have to do more experimenting when I get more footage done. Yes, I agree with the use of music, and there will be plenty of it throughout. Some of the softer and slower Vangelis/Carpenter-style synth tracks by me, some Multipac for the action, plus some 80's rock selections to top it off.

Come to think of it, the soundless vacuum might work after all. I had only been testing the external dogfight sequences, no cuts to interiors, so this may explain the unusual flow I was experiencing with the lack of sound. Like I said, need to experiment with it the more I get done.

[Weaver]

I don't suppose anybody knows the answer to this, but I've always wondered: if you were ejected from a ship with a body of air (say an airlock full), how quickly would the transmission of sound cease? It would obviously be pretty quick, but would it be instantaneous, as though you'd turned a stereo off, or would there be a noticeable tail-off, as though you'd turned the volume control down fairly quickly?

Speaking of explosions in space, I had an idea years ago for a scene where a group of people are watching a ship explode in space through a big window. The explosion is utterly silent and so are the people, no one knowing what to say in the face of such an awful, tragic event. Then the sound of debris hitting the (presumably very strong) window begins to intrude on the silence, an occasional, tiny "dink" at first, then building up in volume and frequency. The sound makes it "real" for the watchers, one of them begins to cry quietly, and the build up of debris "dinks" subtly comes to match the pattern and tone of human crying, before music gradually fades in as the camera moves away. The idea is to create a scene that not only avoids breaking the no-sound-in-space principle, but actually uses the silence to make an emotional point.

[Stingray]

I assume it would trail off, as a mass of air would still probably allow sound to travel through it (or deflect off of it? My memory of how these physics work is a little rusty), before all of it is fully expelled into the vacuum.

Speaking of explosions in space, I had an idea years ago for a scene where a group of people are watching a ship explode in space through a big window. The explosion is utterly silent and so are the people, no one knowing what to say in the face of such an awful, tragic event. Then the sound of debris hitting the (presumably very strong) window begins to intrude on the silence, an occasional, tiny "dink" at first, then building up in volume and frequency. The sound makes it "real" for the watchers, one of them begins to cry quietly, and the build up of debris "dinks" subtly comes to match the pattern and tone of human crying, before music gradually fades in as the camera moves away. The idea is to create a scene that not only avoids breaking the no-sound-in-space principle, but actually uses the silence to make an emotional point.

That's amazing.

I had actually written something similar in the script, where the Dreadnaught crew watch speechlessly as the fast-attack corvette explodes, with occasional debris hitting the hull. It would be interesting if it were done the way you described, soundless. It would really intensify the emotional aspect of the scene.

[zenrat]

Very poetic Weaver.  I can really visualise that.

[Old Wombat]

Depending on the volume of air escaping & the rate of loss, the loss of sufficient density to transmit sound could occur in anything from milliseconds to weeks.

However, assuming an explosive decompression event, a room the size of a normal airlock (let's say a 6' cube), through a standard hatch (0.8m x 2.0m), would lose all of its air in about 1 second but would lose the ability to transmit sound in about 0.75 sec (about the time it would take the average person to get out 1.5 words).

Now, to use an example many of us may recognise, the cargo bay of the Sulaco, from "Aliens", when the smaller secondary loading airlock is opened would take up to 2 minutes to lose all its air but the loss of sound would occur from between about 60 sec's after the event within the majority of the bay to about 75 sec's after the event in the actual loading lock (because the air would be flowing through the lock & being compressed as it went through - fast).

I don't claim that these are exact times but they are vaguely reasonably accurate.



Interestingly, the human body can last longer, once vacuum is reached, from a rapid loss of air pressure (decompression) than it can from a gradual loss; I believe it is approx. 30 seconds without serious complications - like the "bends", blindness & ruptured lungs. A person can hold a regular breath & close their eyes, which will prevent their lungs rupturing too quickly & slow down the evaporation of moisture from their eyes. During gradual decompression, although you may last longer over all, as you approach vacuum your body is already reacting to the loss of pressure & is not able to maintain its integrity for as long once vacuum is reached.

[zenrat]

I read a Sci-Fi short story about passengers being rescued from a crippled spaceship to one with an incompatible airlock when that had no suits.  The writer (and I can't remember who it was) had them hyperventilating to oxygenate the blood and then exhaling as the lock cycled so their lungs were as empty as possible when they were exposed to vacuum.  The accompanying authors notes claimed this was based on scientific principles and theories and that a human could last a surprisingly long time if they did this (minutes rather than seconds IIRC).  The passengers all survived but suffered from killer sunburn through being exposed to sunlight direct from the source with nothing in between.

[Old Wombat]

From memory that was Robert Heinlein (although it may have been Arthur C. Clarke or Jerry Pournell) but I can't remember the name of the story, & was from (iirc) the early-70's, maybe late-60's.

I read it a decade or so later & again about a decade after that, when I decided to look into it in a bit more depth out of curiosity. At the time I looked into it the current theory was that a regular breath could be held without detrimental effect (I forgot about the hyperventilating bit but that could be hard to do in an explosive decompression event) because the human body could take quite a bit of punishment without breaking.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that there was a new theory or set of theories floating about now which are much better than my half-remembered early-90's one.