# Cubing in Outer Space



## Michael Womack (Jun 1, 2014)

I've be wondering what it will be like if we try Speedcubeing in the ISS(International Space Station)? Like will the 0 Gravity have an effect on the speed of the cube?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 1, 2014)

I don't think normal speedcubing requires gravity, although you might have to hold the cube a bit tighter than usual in zero gravity (depending on your grip style). Even for OH I don't really use the bottom face, but rather hold my cube using friction, with fingers on F and B.

Someone ought to book a ride on one of those weightless-experience planes (cost: $4,950 + 5% tax) and spend one of the loops doing a solve or two.


----------



## Michael Womack (Jun 1, 2014)

qqwref said:


> I don't think normal speedcubing requires gravity, although you might have to hold the cube a bit tighter than usual in zero gravity (depending on your grip style). Even for OH I don't really use the bottom face, but rather hold my cube using friction, with fingers on F and B.
> 
> Someone ought to book a ride on one of those weightless-experience planes (cost: $4,950 + 5% tax) and spend one of the loops doing a solve or two.



Well here on earth gravity is always pushing on all sides of the puzzle. But in space there is not a force that's always pushing on all the sides.


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jun 1, 2014)

gravity is only a little bit weaker in the ISS than it is on the earths surface


----------



## qqwref (Jun 1, 2014)

Michael Womack said:


> Well here on earth gravity is always pushing on all sides of the puzzle


wat


----------



## Michael Womack (Jun 1, 2014)

qqwref said:


> wat



You see since that gravity is always pulling things down and take that and apply it to the puzzle when you're rotating it.


----------



## Tempus (Jun 1, 2014)

The only problem I can see with cubing in zero-G is that you would need a whole new system of notation for algorithms because there would be no difference between U and D.


----------



## Phillip1847 (Jun 1, 2014)

There is gravity alright. You are just falling all the time so it doesn't feel like it.


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jun 1, 2014)

Michael Womack said:


> You see since that gravity is always pulling things down and take that and apply it to the puzzle when you're rotating it.



"down" is not the same as "centre of the cube"

(unless you are talking about the core's gravity which you probably arent)


----------



## Tempus (Jun 1, 2014)

Phillip1847 said:


> There is gravity alright. You are just falling all the time so it doesn't feel like it.


By that definition of gravity, there isn't a zero-G place in the universe. I find definitions that render words useless to themselves be useless.


----------



## Rocky0701 (Jun 1, 2014)

We could create a fundraiser to send Feliks to Mars.


----------



## Lazy Einstein (Jun 1, 2014)

OH would be better x and y rotations would be so much easier.


----------



## mDiPalma (Jun 1, 2014)

In a vessel in space, the speedcubing experience would be highly similar to that on Earth. As qqwref said, you may need to hold the puzzle more tightly to account for the fact that gravity is no longer playing a major role in your grip.

Outside of a vessel in space, the low temperature and pressure would have interesting effects on the functionality of the puzzle. The viscosity of the lubricant would approach infinity (as it froze) and the puzzle itself would not rotate under any human amount of force. A dry cube may maintain minimal functionality before eventually cracking (or it may crack right off the bat! I'm not sure!).


----------



## kcl (Jun 1, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> In a vessel in space, the speedcubing experience would be highly similar to that on Earth. As qqwref said, you may need to hold the puzzle more tightly to account for the fact that gravity is no longer playing a major role in your grip.
> 
> Outside of a vessel in space, the low temperature and pressure would have interesting effects on the functionality of the puzzle. The viscosity of the lubricant would approach infinity (as it froze) and the puzzle itself would not rotate under any human amount of force. A dry cube may maintain minimal functionality before eventually cracking (or it may crack right off the bat! I'm not sure!).



Outside of space it doesn't matter, you'll be dead anyway


----------



## brian724080 (Jun 1, 2014)

Tempus said:


> The only problem I can see with cubing in zero-G is that you would need a whole new system of notation for algorithms because there would be no difference between U and D.



No you don't, the notation system is based on how you hold it


----------



## newtonbase (Jun 1, 2014)

Pieces could end up anywhere if you had a pop and reassembling would be a nightmare without gravity.


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 1, 2014)

Using a stackmat timer would be tricky. You'd need to tether the cube somehow rather than placing on the mat, and if you stop the timer too hard, your head could hit the ceiling.


----------



## ryanj92 (Jun 1, 2014)

'Danish' solves would be a lot easier


----------



## CiaranBeahan (Jun 1, 2014)

I wonder how feet would work? HAHA!


----------



## cubernya (Jun 1, 2014)

Tempus said:


> By that definition of gravity, there isn't a zero-G place in the universe. I find definitions that render words useless to themselves be useless.



http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/1-is-there-gravity-in-space.html


----------



## Evan Wright (Jun 1, 2014)

there is no zero g place in the universe. of course, because gravity decreases exponentially, there are places where gravity is so small that it can pretty much be considered zero g.


----------



## Tempus (Jun 1, 2014)

Evan Wright said:


> there is no zero g place in the universe. of course, because gravity decreases exponentially, there are places where gravity is so small that it can pretty much be considered zero g.


...such as on the ISS, or anywhere else that you're traveling in a straight line in 4-dimensional space-time.


----------



## cubernya (Jun 1, 2014)

Evan Wright said:


> there is no zero g place in the universe. of course, because gravity decreases exponentially, there are places where gravity is so small that it can pretty much be considered zero g.



Not quite. Especially on the ISS. Here says that it is 89% gravity on ISS, which can be calculated. It is because the station is literally in freefall is why it has NET zero-G


----------



## goodatthis (Jun 1, 2014)

Tempus said:


> By that definition of gravity, there isn't a zero-G place in the universe. I find definitions that render words useless to themselves be useless.



There isn't a zero-G place in the universe. Every place in the universe has gravity. Unless that's what you meant, and in that case, you didn't word things very well. (Hmm I wonder if you rendered a uselessness to themselves word useless?) <--- this was a joke


----------



## Evan Wright (Jun 2, 2014)

I encourage you all to enlighten yourselves with a little internet research. The answer to this debate is only a few keystrokes away, and I would hope we can all stop our useless bickering and just imagine an astronaut solving a rubik's cube while floating in space. Like, with the gloves and everything. That would be cool.



theZcuber said:


> Not quite. Especially on the ISS. Here says that it is 89% gravity on ISS, which can be calculated. It is because the station is literally in freefall is why it has NET zero-G



thats what i was trying to say. I didnt mean between earth and the iss, a meant like somewhere really really far away from anything.


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jun 2, 2014)

Evan Wright said:


> gravity decreases exponentially



doesnt it decrease like distance^-2?


----------



## Bindedsa (Jun 2, 2014)

theZcuber said:


> http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/1-is-there-gravity-in-space.html



That was his point, technically gravity exists everywhere, but the feeling of weightlessness is what would affect cubing and the actual gravitation force becomes irrelevant . Technicalities quickly become semantics.


----------



## Tempus (Jun 2, 2014)

If you want to get beyond Newtonian physics, you need to stop thinking of Gravity as a force. Gravity is mass-induced curvature of 4-dimensional space-time. No part of space-time is entirely flat, and so no part of space is without gravity. Therefore, for the term zero-G to ever have any meaning at all, it must be defined sanely as what happens when a body is moving along a straight line in 4-dimensional space-time. As I understand it, a planet in orbit around a star is actually moving in a straight line in a curved space, and so Earth as a whole is experiencing zero-G. A person standing on Earth is constantly being pushed by the ground, however, so he is not moving in a straight line. It's counterintuitive, but it's apparently how the universe works.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 3, 2014)

I suddenly have the urge to take one of those zero-G (in reality just free-fall) flights, and see if I can keep my cool enough to solve the cube in the free-fall time allotted. It'd make for a fun video.

And think of it, having 3 cubes in the air, floating next to you as you try to solve them all before time runs out.


----------



## xlmmaarten (Jun 3, 2014)

Dane man said:


> I suddenly have the urge to take one of those zero-G (in reality just free-fall) flights, and see if I can keep my cool enough to solve the cube in the free-fall time allotted. It'd make for a fun video.
> 
> And think of it, having 3 cubes in the air, floating next to you as you try to solve them all before time runs out.



That sounds pretty freaking awesome!
Someone should do this xD


----------



## ryanj92 (Jun 3, 2014)

10461394944000 said:


> doesnt it decrease like distance^-2?



Yes, I was about to point that out 

and zero-G is to do with acceleration and not gravity. every mass attracts every other mass so there is no such thing as 'zero gravity', but you can cancel out gravitational force with other forces in order to counteract gravity, so there is no net force on you therefore weightless feeling therefore zero-g etc. etc.


----------



## CubeSurfer (Jun 4, 2014)

Dane man said:


> I suddenly have the urge to take one of those zero-G (in reality just free-fall) flights, and see if I can keep my cool enough to solve the cube in the free-fall time allotted.


I think it may be hard enough to keep your breakfast down let alone keep your cool enough to solve a cube in one of those zero-G flights (At least for me!) But that would definitely be interesting to try/see.


----------



## mns112 (Jun 4, 2014)

Dane man said:


> I suddenly have the urge to take one of those zero-G (in reality just free-fall) flights, and see if I can keep my cool enough to solve the cube in the free-fall time allotted. It'd make for a fun video.
> 
> And think of it, having 3 cubes in the air, floating next to you as you try to solve them all before time runs out.



+1 I'D come too. Then we can have a factory solve or a relay


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 4, 2014)

mns112 said:


> +1 I'D come too. Then we can have a factory solve or a relay



Why not just get into one of those wind tunnel like things where skydivers practice?


----------



## Cm_Hu (Jun 4, 2014)

An Chinese astronaut did that two years ago.
[video]http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNDE3NjAyOTM2.html[/video]
At 34 second. But i don't think she actually know how to solve it.


----------



## Tempus (Jun 4, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Why not just get into one of those wind tunnel like things where skydivers practice?


Because that would no more be zero-G than would lying on a waterbed. In either case, your support base is uneven, but you're still being pushed upward by the air/water just like you're pushed upward by the ground now.

Still, it would be interesting. Perhaps the cheapest analog to zero-G cubing would be underwater cubing. It's not zero-G, but buoyancy might make it feel a bit like it, and for a lot less money than other options thus far discussed. Not sure what the water might do to the cube, though.... :confused:


----------



## Dane man (Jun 4, 2014)

Cm_Hu said:


> An Chinese astronaut did that two years ago.
> [video]http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNDE3NjAyOTM2.html[/video]
> At 34 second. But i don't think she actually know how to solve it.



Nice find bro!



Tempus said:


> Because that would no more be zero-G than would lying on a waterbed. In either case, your support base is uneven, but you're still being pushed upward by the air/water just like you're pushed upward by the ground now.
> 
> Still, it would be interesting. Perhaps the cheapest analog to zero-G cubing would be underwater cubing. It's not zero-G, but buoyancy might make it feel a bit like it, and for a lot less money than other options thus far discussed. Not sure what the water might do to the cube, though.... :confused:



Yeah but even then, you've still got gravity pushing down on your insides. You don't get the awesome butterflies in your stomach effect that comes with 0-G or Freefall.


----------



## Michael Womack (Jun 8, 2014)

Here is a video that might hep you all under stand what i'm trying to say.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jun 8, 2014)

Except the floating cubes would reach terminal velocity before you would so they would probably not stay next to you.


----------

