Talk:Space Cadets (TV series)

Name & Format

Who came up with the name and format of the show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.207.87 (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Here comes the science

It will be interesting to see how the producers convince the contestants of being in zero gravity given that in order to be in space for several days you would most likely have to enter orbit around earth where the effects of zero gravity would be quite noticable. Anyone have any ideas? --81.103.58.81 13:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just wondering that - not to mention the kinds of forces that one undergoes during the ascent... In fact, the whole thing seems like it would be very hard to fake - maybe they just chose some of the stupidest people yet to appear on UK reality TV? --Si42 21:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No, they just rely on false explanations and the tendency of people to believe what they're told by men in white coats. --Bonalaw 13:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Aaaaah - but surely.... I mean, gravity? Launch forces? Surely.... This might make interesting viewing. --Si42 22:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

They have to endure lengthy lectures which explain why there will still be gravity, apparently. violet/riga (t) 16:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

And they also mentioned that they specifically excluded anyone who showed knowledge or interest in space or astrophysics, making it rather difficult for them to argue with. -- Mithent 13:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

On the subject of launch forces I was reading an article (and I wish I could remember where ....) which says that they built a huge "speaker" system and put the platform on aircraft simulator-style hydraulic jacks. The same article said it had been tested out by a real astronaut who said it was realistic. Anyway the program is on in 2 hours, so I guess we'll see how gullible people can be. Richard W.M. Jones 19:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

On the Zero-gravity front i expect (this would be my approach) that they will try to convince the "astronaughts" that because of the height of the orbit there will still be gravity (of course it's not zero-gravity anyway, but the effect of falling) - Seeing as none of these people have any kind of space experiance I expect they could be easily fooled. Seems a very interesting show, though, although very cruel - Glad to see Wikipedia already have a good sized article on this show even though only one episode has been aired. :) -Benbread 22:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have major mis-givings how the show is going to present "space" to the cadets once they "launch"? I understand the plan is to install large cinema-like screens outside the craft. Surely no-matter how big and impressive these screens its going to be obvious that they are 2D images?

• Surely if they're in a stable orbit (about 17,000mph at that height according to my crude calculations) they are by definition weightless. Gravitational force exactly matching centripetal force? You'd be weightless at sea level if you were going fast enough to be in a stable orbit.

hence "hoax" Guinness 14:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If you were in a stable orbit at sea level you would in fact be standing still on the ground (or more likely on a beach paddling). If you were weightless in this situation everyone would be floating around and the show's producers could have saved themselves a lot of money and lecture time. 195.92.43.117 11:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Er, no: a stable orbit at sea-level would involve travelling very very fast indeed. And it wouldn't be stable, because air-resistance would mean you would crash rather soon. So grand-parent is correct.

I think that really you're both right. Hypothetically, if you orbited at sea level such that your 'rate of fall' was the same as that of the craft in which you were travelling, you would experience weightlessness. Of course what is hypothetical, isn't always possible in practice. Guinness 15:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of being in a geostationary orbit. Which of course is a special case which the cadets won't be in as they won't be high enough. I'll go back in my hole now... 195.92.43.117 15:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

An orbit at sea level would deteriorate very very quickly due to atmospheric drag. Not to mention that it'd be awful hot (the real Space Shuttle begins atmospheric reentry at 120 km, which is above more than 99% of the atmosphere, yet it gets thousands of degrees Celsius due to stagnation temperature. This show was really quite pathetic like the rest of reality TV. Near space is not outer space, near space is, guess what, near space. High altitude balloon-style. Now it's mighty hard to be in orbit when you're not in space @Guinness Yep, orbital velocity for an average (let's say ISS/Shuttle/Soyuz-style 350 km circular orbit), is 7.7 km/s; 28,000 kph; 17,224 mph. --J. Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen that contestant before?

A person very similar to Ryan McBride also features in this UK Blood Transfusion Advert

Which bodes the question, is the hoax on the viewing public?

81.154.88.11

(was in the article) violet/riga (t) 21:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The similarity is uncanny - is it actually him? StephenHildrey 21:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, I'd sure think it was him in a police lineup - Well spotted, either the joke is on us, it's someone similar or he is indeed the same person yet has no idea of the trick? It's looking more like the former to me.. -Benbread 22:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I found a thread on the Channel 4 Space Cadets forums about this topic, as well as an apparent post from "A friend of Ryans" about him being in the advert but out of pure luck, though myself and others doubt the authenticity of the post. See for yourself: http://community.channel4.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/3490031163/m/9410012463

-Benbread 22:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it sure does look like him. McBride is also Scottish, and the chap in the ad is wearing a Scotland football shirt as well as standing in in front of a Scottish flag. I'ts him alright. Jooler 00:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's the same guy, but does that really mean anything? I don't think they use actors for this sort of thing. They probably just pick people from the blood donor lists and offer them the chance. If anything, this tells us that Ryan is the sort of person to say "yes" when offered the chance to appear on television as a non-actor - in reality TV shows and adverts such as this. WMarsh 00:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Rumbled...The whole lot of them are straight from central casting, and the whoops and ghasps are all scripted. All that's missing is Ant and Dec asking us to vote them off one-at-a-time at a quid a vote :-). 160.84.253.241 08:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

And that "Johnny Vaughan" robot is so fake... --80.3.179.56 13:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Someone also said the same thing on the E4 follow-up programme last night (I was waiting for South Park, honest) and I thought I saw the host flinch. Ah, how I love discussion pages, where we can put all the stuff that wouldn't make the encyclopaedia! --Si42 21:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hah! Wow. It's just been mentioned on the programme, and yeah it's the same guy, but he's not an actor - he just got a job as an extra in the advert. --Sum0 21:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Or so they say...! ;) violet/riga (t) 21:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Gullibility?

Actually, I don't think we should blame the participants too much if they are fooled. Apart from the point about the lack of weightlessness, which could cause some some people with only a limited knowledge of science or space travel to start thinking, we must assume that the programme makers have put a lot of thought into making the whole exercise plausible, I don't think we should describe it as patently absurd. Although, are they going to set up an apparent encounter with an alien spacecraft? (Just a thought.) Presumably their training programme has been deliberately designed to encourage them to concentrate on becoming the 4 to go into space, and avoid giving them much time to start thinking. If one of them does show signs of beginning to wonder, presumably one of the actors among the competitors will have a quiet word and they will be pulled out. People often have been taken in by TV hoaxes, "Nationwide" did some brilliant April Fools in the past e.g. I remember my father (normally a level-headed person) was completely taken in by an absurd story about 2 pilots fighting a duel to decide which of them would marry a French woman. PatGallacher 23:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No, by any reckoning the show's definitely patently absurd. But you're right, unfortunately the public believes this sort of rubbish (I mean seriously, spaghetti trees??? come on). And people wonder why BNSC doesn't have astronauts. --J. Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Double-Hoax "Proofs"

I'm not entirely sure that some of the listed Double-Hoax explanations show this programme is a fake - for example:

1. The lack of media interest in going to the base (which is essentially just a large set) and trying to interfere with the hoax

^ It has been said many times throughout the programme that portions (even all of the show) are prerecorded (On doing a Google search there are Space Cadets articles from 14th November). So it is likely everything has been already done (except maybe the Simulation - hence the "Jamies School Dinners" joke) thus there is little media interference.

1. Unrealistic Cadet behaviour, for example not opening the windows in the transport plane

^ How could anyone possible define "Realistic Cadet Behaviour"!?

Finally, although there is plenty of evidence supporting it - What exactly would be the point of hoaxing the audiance? A final "By the way, we're not really that stupid, just actors" would just seem stupid. I don't want to go editing any parts of that section, but can we have a little more discussion on what would be seen as "double-hoax proof"?

-Benbread 12:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a feeling letters from lawyers have been sent to all media, threatening to sue for millions (the cost of the hoax) should the hoax be ruined. Besides, I would have assumed that the windows on aeroplanes are unopenable. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Ho Ho Ho!)} 12:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

On the gravity thing, I'm watching it now and they were talking about having an 'artificial gravity generator' but didn't the 'squadron leader' in the last episode tell them that they were merely 'not far enough up' to experience zero-g. V strange IMHO. --Si42 21:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

He said that they would experience 70% gravity, which the body finds uncomfortable, so the machine would bring it to almost 100%. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Ho Ho Ho!)} 22:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

A quote by one of the "Teachers" seems to make the chance of a Double-Hoax less plausable;

• When asked about special effects on a certain film (I cannot remember which) the Teacher noted most of the effects were done in Hollywood.
• One of the contestants then noted "No, it was mostly done in the UK"
• The teacher then mumbled "Yes, most of it was done here" <-- refering to the UK. This brings up three possible things - It would distinguish the idea that in the Double-Hoax they are in fact at a real Russian Airbase (see link in real article) - it would prove the contestants are in the UK and have been tricked - or going by the lack of reaction by the contestants (Said by the show to be caused by mumbling) that it is a fake and the contestants know they are in the UK.

Any ideas? -Benbread 09:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they would have shown that segment if it was a 'double hoax' - especially when you look at the fact that the training section is supposed to have been recorded some time ago. I'm not saying it proves anything, but IMHO it points more away from the double-hoax theory than towards it. --Si42 00:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In any case, I've been in South Africa on a trip and said "here" and meant the UK. Perfectly plausible mistake. Morwen - Talk 21:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Something of a tenuous link here (understated), but worth mentioning incase anybody has a better idea. If you look at the page source of the official site, a couple of names in the space cadets list are commented out, one of which is "Raine". 5 minutes of googling led me to find that one "Adrian Raine" a psychologist has recently published some research into lying. Like I said, very tenuous, but a starting point. (Incidentally, the other commented name is "Steve"). Guinness 11:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

More likely, though, is that it's a misspelling of Ranie, as she and Steve were the other two actors. --Whouk (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Drug

* "Space Cadets" is also the name of a legal herbal hallucinogenic drug,
similar in effect to LSD - in that it alters perceptions and takes the user
to another dimension

I took this out of the article because I couldn't find a good source for it. I did find a bunch of references on google, but they all appeared to be selling the product. It appears to be more of a 'brand name' than anything else. If anyone wants to put this back in, I'd suggest they reword it also. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 02:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

At first I was very sceptical about the double hoax theory, but Tuesday's show left me wondering. I still think on balance probably not, but e.g. there were some aspects of the hoax which could have been better explained. What did the participants see through the front of the craft during launch? PatGallacher 15:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

They saw the shutters; presumably they were told that the shutters were to protect against sunlight. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Ho Ho Ho!)} 15:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

astronauts vs. cosmonauts

The article states that the team went to Russia to train as astronauts, but afaik russian "astronauts" are called "cosmonauts". I'm not familiar with the series, so I can't "correct" the article if it's sposta be "cosmonauts". Someone who knows? Tomer^talk 05:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

They were called Cosmonauts on the show as well. Might as well change it. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I changed all occurrences of "astronaut" to "cosmonaut"...including one in a quotation. if the actual quotation said "astronauts" tho, that one should be changed back. Tomer^talk 08:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually spoke to Helen Sharman once, she was the first Briton in space and went up on a Russian rocket. Her line on the whole astronaut vs cosmonaut issue was this: it should always be "astronaut" when you're speaking english, and always be "cosmonaut" when you're speaking russian. She felt they were the same word but in two different languages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.46.247 (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Yep, it's really just a language difference; Chinese astronauts are called taikonauts, ESA's astronauts are called spatianauts, it's all down to language. Usually you have to be Russian to be a cosmonaut; Peggy Whitson didn't become a cosmonaut because she flew on the Soyuz. --J. Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Participants' reaction

How did the participants react as they found out it was all a hoax? The article currently only has "viewer reactions". --Sangild 09:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Double hoax

Have there actually been any sources for the section? All the citations are from Channel 4's message board which isn't really a valid source. EvilCouch (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't add anything substantive to this section, but I watched the series at the time and was never in any doubt at all that it was a hoax on the audience and not on the show's participants. It was obvious to me that they were all actors, that no amount of pyschological conditioning could have induced them to accept the nonsense that they were fed.

As I said, I can't prove any of this and am not particularly interested in doing so, but as someone who has (regrettably) watched a great deal of television over the years, including many "reality tv" shows and other unequivocal hoaxes such as Ghostwatch, the texture of a programme such as this is immediately obvious - and it screamed "fake" in a way that genuine reality tv such as Big Brother never did. The demeanour and behaviour of the "cadets" were never even remotely convincing. Internet message boards populated by reasonably intelligent people have a remarkable ability to get to the truth of a matter, and this is what happened on Channel 4's board during this series' run. The whole thing was a big fraud.Shiresman (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Space Cadets (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051217143517/http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk:80/entertainment/filmandtv/tv/s/191/191600_space_cadets_viewing_figures_nosedive.html to http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/entertainment/filmandtv/tv/s/191/191600_space_cadets_viewing_figures_nosedive.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070527031724/http://community.channel4.com:80/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/3490031163/m/6980070563 to http://community.channel4.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/3490031163/m/6980070563

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)