Are things they have showed in movie THE MARTIAN possible, actually i wanna know the answer from physicist or cosmologists , i have just very basic high school level physics knowledge so couldn't guess that it was either so well written/filmed bullshit/fanatsy or there may be possibility of humans inhabiting mars
You can have an isolated zone fed with water and sunlight, and if the temperature or air pressure doesn't prevent anything, you can grow vegetables. Also you need the right fertilizers, which I'm not sure if hjuman shit alone would be enough.
most of it was worked out on the author's blog long before the Martian became published. One exception: the original storm could not have been strong enough to knock over the return capsule. The martian atmosphere simply isn't thick enough, even it it picked up dust and sand. They only did that in the movie and book to make an initial crisis to set up the rest of the story.
My only problem was how long he survived the radiation from the thing they buried.
Not unless I missed something.
He had all the rad burns towards the end, but he wasn't vomiting or anything. I doubt most of the audience even recognized the burns. Plus exposure to people would not be good after that long under the effects of radiation.
Ideally he got help sure, they didn't mention anything about the radiation though besides when he initially dug the thing up.
I thought it was alright. The author seemed to have done his research. Sometimes things get very hard to believe like the whole regrouping operation with his suit etc. But all in all it did a good job for a semi realistic science movie.
Also the part with the autistic proposal of earth slingshot. The visual aid was definetly for the movie goer.
A simple, "slingshot around this planet, math checks out" would suffice for anyone with a brain at nasa
It's worth reading. I mean I really liked the movie, but in the book (written as a journal) everything is explained in detail. There's simply no time for that in a 2h movie. So if you're interested in the science part - definitely pick up the book.
Read the book first. Watch the Movie until the scene where they blow the airlock.
RTG's don't give of enough radiation to give radiation burns. The case acts as a shield. Watney would probably see a long term increased risk of cancer but not actual radiation burns. Of course he'd also get a long term increased risk from simply being on mars that long so the RTG wasn't really anything to be concerned about.
Well one of the people in that room isn't a scientist or engineer but a PR person so it makes sense.
The Martian had many ridiculous features, but surviving contact with the RTG isn't one of them.
Plutonium-238 is an alpha emitter. That means the radiation it gives off is in the form of helium nuclei. These are shot out at relativistic speeds, and so if you ate Pu-238, they would blast through your tissues, tearing molecutes apart, resulting in radiation sickness and mutations leading to cancer.
However, you need only the thinnest layer of protection to stop this from happening. A piece of paper will block alpha particles effectively.
As long as the containment wasn't breached, which is to say, as long as the container the Pu-238 was stored in didn't have any holes in it, it would pose no threat whatsoever to the health of a nearby person.
I feel like I wouldn't have enjoyed the movie as much if I didn't read the book. Seriously the book is great and I read it again when I head they were making the movie. It is definitely supplementary to the book.
The science was garbage. Every major plot point was based on something impossible happening.
The windstorm that forced their return and separated him couldn't happen. Ordinary indoor lighting wouldn't have been nearly enough light to grow a crop of potatoes. Hydrazine is volatile and highly toxic; catalytic decomposition in such a crude apparatus would have released much of it into the habitat, seriously poisoning Mork. In the drama of the final rendezvous, there would have been no such urgency to avoid missing the rendezvous, since they would have to match velocities in any case; rather, the concern would have been about the rendezvous taking so long that life support would run out.
The mission design problems are as bad as the science problems. NASA wouldn't have sent a botanist to Mars with no seeds and no plan to attempt to grow food. NASA wouldn't have sent everything a person needs to survive indefinitely on Mars except a means to produce food. Radios are cheap and simple to make, it's not plausible that they wouldn't have spares and backups around, so communication through NASA's various Mars satellites would be possible as soon as the separated astronaut regained consciousness. It doesn't make any sense that they'd produce rocket fuel and oxygen on Mars, but not food; food is not harder, in a pinch you can grow carbohydrate-rich fungi and microbial protein in small vats from a chemical energy supply, without any elaborate greenhouse. Considering the amount of hardware they landed on Mars, the mass budget for food was ridiculously parsimonious. Realistically, considering that this was one of a series of long-term missions separated by spans of time similar to their durations, they would have accounted for the possibility that there would be a problem with the return vehicle and included a store of food sufficient for stranded astronauts to survive until resupply.
You realize that the plot must revolve around something, right? Yes, NASA is really good at B plans and redundant machinery, but I bet even you wouldn't read a book about a guy that gets stranded on Mars and sits on his ass for 4 years watching cartoons and jerking off. Then again I'm on 4chan so maybe you would after all.
RTG are alpha emitters. You could hug the thing for days and be fine. The only potential danger is eating or breathing in some material.
The radiation from Mars itself is many orders of magnitude worse than the RTG
There are any number of ways to set up an exciting "surviving alone on Mars" story.
They could have landed in a bad spot, and had the ground collapse under them, tearing open hab modules and killing all but one of the crew.
An unusually severe meteor shower could have destroyed all orbital assets and damaged some of the surface equipment, requiring that a radio be set up that could contact Earth directly.
The mission could have been deliberately sabotaged.
A crew member could have gone nuts.
A key piece of equipment could have just failed, as in Apollo 13.
If I spent the day at it, I could probably come up with a hundred options for scientifically plausible set-ups for a martian robinsonade.
I don't know how you think this works, but themes and settings get mined out in the public interest. If I were going to write a novel, it certainly wouldn't be about a guy surviving alone on Mars, now that The Martian has happened, in the same way that I wouldn't have wanted to write a story about wizard school when Harry Potter was at its peak.
Gritty near-future hard sci-fi -- maybe there's a market. Martian robinsonade -- not for at least ten years.
The writer is a giant nerd and actually yes, somewhat, the only major thing that wasn't possible was a dust storm on mars
The only problem about the movie, which was unforseen in the book, is the calcium perchlorates in the soil.
However, he wouldve still survived, he just would've been depressed (or other mental health issues) and would possibly have had a goiter.
And yet, sadly, they chose a dust storm with unrealistically high wind pressure.
The air is so thin, a storm like that is extremely rare and not going to happen near mountain ranges.
>the only major thing that wasn't possible was a dust storm on mars
...and growing a crop of potatoes with ordinary indoor lighting.
...and a bunch of NASA spaceflight experts thinking you can miss, rather than merely delay, a rendezvous between two spacecraft which have to match velocity anyway, so you better spend extra propellant you don't have making that rendezvous happen as quickly as possible.
...and dripping a large quantity of hydrazine over an open catalyst bed and not getting highly toxic hydrazine vapor all through the space you're doing it in.
The Author was aware that such a storm was impossible, but went with the sandstorm because story wise it's a good way to:
1) Keep the rest of the Crew alive
2) Keep the Hab intact
3) Keep the Hermes intact
4) Destroy the long range communications equipment
and most importantly
5) Provide a believable reason for the rest of the crew to leaving Watney behind.
Most of the other inaccuracies were also done knowingly. The book had a decent balance between keeping things accurate and ignoring science for the sake of the story.
The Mountain Ranges being there was a movie thing. Arcadia Planitia is mostly flat.
>Most of the other inaccuracies were also done knowingly.
Nobody writes a story about growing potatoes on Mars and decides, "Hmm... I'll just have the trained botanist (who NASA sent to Mars, over all the other candidates, without any seeds or plan for growing stuff, but everything else he needs to survive on the Martian surface indefinitely, including a magical atmosphere rebalancer) say that the obviously grossly inadequate indoor lighting will provide 'plenty of light' for a crop of potatoes, rather than bother to write in something that would work like windows."
It's sloppy thinking and ignorance.
>without any seeds or plan for growing stuff
Except he did have seeds and plans for growing stuff. It's explicitly stated in the book that part of his mission was going to be testing plant growth in various combinations of earth and mars soil.
>he did have seeds and plans for growing stuff.
If that's true, all the more ridiculous, then, that he didn't have a selection of food crop seeds to start with, and that he acted as if his only source of soil bacteria was human waste.
He did not have his crop area windowed over so adequate sunlight would reach it.
I don't recall the exact figure, but human eyes evolved to work well in a wide range of light levels, and typical indoor lighting is only about one hundredth the brightness of direct sunlight.
>It's sloppy thinking and ignorance.
It's much more likely that the author and producers etc realize that the vast majority of movie-goers don't give a shit about scientific accuracy and wouldn't know any better anyway.
Their plan was to write the best book/movie that would sell the most copies/tickets, and you simply don't get that by being scientifically rigorous. You do get that by pretending to be scientifically rigorous while ignoring actual facts. That helps dumb people feel smart.
>It's much more likely that the author and producers etc realize that the vast majority of movie-goers don't give a shit about scientific accuracy and wouldn't know any better anyway.
Oh bullshit. The author clearly wanted to be scientifically accurate, he just didn't manage it.
Oh God, how I want Red Mars model for colonization to happen.
>IRL moholes to release planet core heat into atmosphere
>Melting the ice caps to get liquid water
>Using lichens and cyanobacteria to metabolize a more suitable atmosphere
>A new society shedding its colonial relationship with the dying, festering Earth.
What's the opinion on Interstellar? I haven't been here in a while.
Is it possible for humans to ever reach 5D?
Isn't "forward time travel" as we think it to be possible more like localized dilation than actual travel? It's not as if we have any actual control over what's happening (at least not in the same way we move around in 3D space). It just so happens that the effects resemble forward time travel.
Very interesting. I decided to read up on alpha decay (it's been a while), and it seems that ingestion of a sample of alpha-emitting material would cause the most significant issues due to "alpha recoil," or the nucleus of the atom resonating as it emits He due to conservation of momentum -- ionization damage that is. Never thought of that before. The actual He atoms shooting from the parent nucleus may not cause too much damage to your body (since the particles will interact with epithelial cells, stomach contents, water, gas, etc.) but the energy that's transformed into the parent nucleus will certainly fuck your day up since it's heavier, and heavy metals tend to collect on chromosomes.
You can live on only potatoes for quite along time. He also has nutrient rich protein suppliments and rationed out a big bottle of daily vitamins.
He would have muscle loss in his heart, though. Low protein, low gravity and conserving food and water would damage his heart somewhat.
No, Mars soil has 2 problems.
>perchorates that makes it too caustic for anything to grow(you would need to treat it before)
>rigolith, which means that if you don't thoroughtly clean all you stuff before entering everybody will die by breathing that tiny poisonous dust.
True. Perchlorate remediation isn't impossible, however. Limiting contamination will be simple, like washing as you mentioned. Also, lots of microbes use perchlorate for energy, and release chloride ions. A source of chloride/chlorine might not be a bad thing in terms of organic synthesis/practical uses.
>Hydrazine is volatile and highly toxic
This really bothered me too. The first attempt at catalysis when he blew up the apparatus would have launched Hydrazine everywhere. He would have been dead as fuck.
It's on America's tortured brow
That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
Now the workers have struck for fame
'Cause Lennon's on sale again
See the mice in their million hordes
From Ibiza to the Norfolk Broads
Rule Britannia is out of bounds
To my mother, my dog, and clowns
But the film is a saddening bore
'Cause I wrote it ten times or more
It's about to be writ again
As I ask you to focus on
Sailors fighting in the dance hall
Oh man! Look at those cavemen go
It's the freakiest show
Take a look at the Lawman
Beating up the wrong guy
Oh man! Wonder if he'll ever know
He's in the best selling show
Is there life on Mars?
That's another silly thing about this book/movie. They're doing these huge multi-launch Mars missions that totally dwarf the Apollo Program, but when it comes time to launch something, their launch options aren't any better or more available than what we've got today.
The NewSpace phenomenon was already well underway in 2009, when Weir started writing The Martian. The Falcon 9/Dragon contracts were signed in 2008, and the first Falcon 9 flew in 2010, well before The Martian was released in 2011.
There's no hint in either version of the story at the kind of increased launch capability, reduced costs, and launch cadence that would make the Mars program feasible. They can get one shot at an emergency resupply launch by bumping a satellite launch, and they have to design a custom spacecraft for it. When that fails, their only hope is to bump a secret Chinese launch.
How the fuck did people with such a feeble and inflexible launch capablility put together multiple manned Mars missions?
>How the fuck did people with such a feeble and inflexible launch capablility put together multiple manned Mars missions?
Wasn't that more a factor of launch windows than of infrastructure issues?
If you only have one rocket available in the window, that's launch infrastructure.
They had time to design and build a custom spacecraft, but not time to prep another launch vehicle for a second try?
I can completely see that happening today, but it's badly inconsistent with the kind of launch capability that would make these missions possible in the first place.
>I can completely see that happening today, but it's badly inconsistent with the kind of launch capability that would make these missions possible in the first place.
non sequitur much?
He wasn't getting direct radiation from the isotopes.
The radiation would have been absorbed by the many layers of protective material around the radioactive core.
The absorption results in heat transfer, and the heat spreads through the case to the outer layer.
Outer layer re-emits the heat as plain old infra-red.
The reason it was dangerous is if the case is breached, anything the contents touches is contaminated, as well as the air itself if pressures are low enough.
Anything you use to attempt to clean it up is also contaminated.
If that thing leaked into the rover, he would have been dead in days, weeks at most.
We obviously can't do something like the Mars missions described in the book with today's launch capabilities. We might be able to use today's vehicles, but only if their production and operations were far more efficient and vigorous.
The idea that we would be able to do these huge manned Mars missions, and at the same time be unable to arrange two launches on short notice, is absurd.
Launching to Mars means launching within windows. When you have a launch failure, you need to be able to launch a replacement within the window. They need the capacity to launch many times within a window, and the flexibility to replace failed launches.
Good points. I'm sure NASA would include some sort of vitamin powder supplement mix since we sorted out scurvy back in the 18th century.
I'm curious about how human physiology would change over the generations in response to the lower gravity, increased radiation and constant breathing from life support systems.
I imagine new generations of Martians would grow much taller with the lower gravity, longer limbs and bones, but also less bone and muscle mass making them permanent inhabitants incapable of walking under Earth's gravity.
The increased exposure to radiation through the thin, translucent atmosphere would also expedite the rate of mutations among Martians, making them suffer from higher rates of tumours but also potentially higher rates of selecting and absorbing, new advantageous genetic features into the new population.
NASA is dead
Private Industry has long taken over. .
For the last 20 years NASA is nothing more then a shamble bureacracy giving orders to private industry, and now private industry is aiming to colonize the shit out of mars.
>Mars average: 0.6 kilopascals (0.087 psi)
Kek literally less than 1% of sea level air pressure.
Well, it explains why the crops got roasted so fast.
But yeah, that plastic sheet isn't going to cut it.
Holy fuck, that's almost a negligible atmosphere.
How do we plausibly turn that barren rock into pic related?
It was flapping around.
Nothing that lightweight and flexible could withstand a 100kPa pressure difference.
Look at what happened when the little tiny rip took out the airlock, it was fucking explosive.
Well even on earth you can easily get regions close to 50kPa at high altitude.
He could have lowered the pressure to maybe ~40kPa which is survivable, just not for much more than a few hours without causing quite horrific mental fatigue.
Either way, being in there for hours on end would not be healthy, and the plants wouldn't appreciate the low pressure much.
idk but the pressure on mars is 0.6% of Earths. Lets say the doorway had a diameter of 1.12 meters (this makes the area a nice 1 m^2) and the pressure inside the as on earth 1 atm (100kN/m^2). This means that 100.000 Newton is pressing from the inside and 1000 Newton from the outside, resulting in 99000 net Newtons. To put this in perspective if you flipped the doorway on its side a column of water would have to be 10 meters tall to create the same pressure.
Pic related. Its in scale if Matt Damon is 10 foot 2
As this guy pointed out: >>7808018
...sea level air pressure is the equivalent of covering the bottom end of a 10-m-tall pipe full of water. However, only about half this much pressure is necessary for human survival, even without increasing the relative concentration of oxygen.
That's a fair amount of pressure, but since it's pressure that's evenly applied, you don't need anything extraordinary to hold it. These pressures are common in household plumbing. There have certainly been paper-thin steel and aluminum pressure tanks that could support this much pressure.
Ordinary soda bottles can take over 4 atmospheres. It's really not that remarkable for a high-quality plastic sheet reinforced with good tape to take 1 atmosphere.
>It was flapping around.
It's a movie. He was obviously walking around in 1g, too. Not every prop is going to be perfectly visually identical to what it's supposed to represent.
kek, nice bait.
BTW, how did the ascent craft sent down to the water world manage to break free of the gravity well of that planet without burning an additional 300 tons of fuel?
In the novel Red Mars, they dig gigantic moholes into the mantle of the planet and use the convective heat generated by the core of the plan to introduce more heat into the atmosphere but they have a negligible effect.
I think they also used orbital space mirrors to harvest more solar radiation.
Yes, they consulted a physicist on how a black hole should look, for one visual effect. Then they threw his advice out the window and winged it because the realistic effect didn't look as cool as they wanted it to.
The entire rest of the movie is total scientifically-illiterate nonsense.
>The visual representation of the black hole in the movie doesn't account for the Doppler effect, which when added by the visual effects team, resulted in an asymmetrically lit black and blue black hole. Nolan didn't like the asymmetry caused by the Doppler effect and thought moviegoers wouldn't understand why it was asymmetrical, so the finished black hole ignored the Doppler effect. Nolan found the finished effect to be understandable, provided that he maintained consistent camera perspectives.
So they figured out how to accurately depict it, then they threw out an essential part of the model and rendered it inaccurately and from cherry-picked angles so it would look how they wanted.
...and remember, this one, brief visual effect was the only thing in the whole movie that benefitted from the seriously-considered input of a physicist. The entire rest of the movie was pseudoscientific gibberish.
But my problem is that the entrance is so big. Pressure x area = force and this adds up to a huge force. If the entrance has a diameter of 2 meters (more realistik than my earlier 1 meter) then the force on his makeshift door would be 286346.02 Newton and that makeshift door would not hold
Matt Damon's Bad Guy character in Interstellar didn't make any sense.
I get that he realized his planet was just a ball of ice and he didn't want to die. So he fakes his data in hopes that the spacecraft with Plan B(really Plan A) would rescue him.
So why then continue on the deception once he knew he was rescued? Why not just tell them that the planet is not suitable and leave with them to the third planet?
Him sticking to the lie was counter productive to his stated motivation, of ensuring the success of the Plan B Mission. Since he was going to strand the scientists and most of the supplies on the Ice World. Leaving him with barely anything to try and restart civilization.
I get that he was supposed to be crazy. Though it just comes off as retarded.
Colonizing Mars is a bad idea.
Gravity isn't close to 1g. So humans on Mars would become weak.
No Magnetosphere or Van Allen belts. So solar/cosmic radiation is always going to be a problem.
Even if you can pump up the atmosphere to a decent pressure and get it breathable. It will require a huge maintenance effort. Since low gravity and radiation means you are going to lose atmosphere.
Mars doesn't have as stable seasons.
Mars doesn't much in the way of tidal effects, because of pitiful moons.
Venus makes more sense. Though it would be a greater challenge.
>Venus makes more sense. Though it would be a greater challenge.
>No Magnetosphere or Van Allen belts. So solar/cosmic radiation is always going to be a problem.
Venus has no magnetosphere or Van Allen belts, and is much closer to the sun.
>Mars doesn't much in the way of tidal effects, because of pitiful moons.
Venus doesn't have moons at all.