How did they expect to leave the water planet in the Ranger if they knew it had 130% Earth-gravity? I get that they ended up using the giant waves as a sort of launch-pad to escape, but they didn't know about the waves before they came..
It's because the rangers were more than capable of leaving a 130% earth gravity planet on their own, without a "launch pad," in the same way they left Mann's planet.
This begs the question as to why they used a Saturn V to shuttle the Rangers from earth, and I guess it was to save the Rangers from having to use any fuel before they went through the wormhole? Did they pack anything else aboard the Saturn V, other than the Rangers?
Also because Nolan thought it worked well as a ham-fisted counter to the "moon landings were faked" scene. It's supposed to look like we have to resort to the old tech of our glorious past because the blight is so bad
Because Nolan can make a decent movie, but not a scientifically accurate or even technologically consistent movie. He's a meme director, and a hack.
If you want some well thought out interstellar spaceship designs in modern cinema you should be looking into the ISV VentureStar from Avatar.
I thought that it was clear.
They used the Saturn V to save the fuel of the rangers.
The movie explanation to the rangers capabilities are the experimental magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters using normal rocket fuel acelerated by magnetic fields and antennas.
It work on paper but we don`t have this tecnology yet.
>experimental magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters using normal rocket fuel acelerated by magnetic fields and antennas
They knew they had the power of anne's anus thruster to escape the water planet if needed.
About half way down the page.
>The ship is 1.5 kilometers long. In the Sol departure phase, a battery of orbital lasers illuminates a 16 kilometer diameter photon sail attached to the ship's nose (sail not shown). A mirror shield on the ship's rear prevents the laser beams from damaging the ship. The lasers accelerate the ship at 1.5 g for 0.46 year. At the end of this the ship is moving at 70% the speed of light (210,000 kilometers per second).
>after the laser boost period is over, the sail is then collapsed along molecular fold lines by service bots, and stowed in the cargo area. The ship then coasts for the next 5.83 years to Alpha Centauri.
>There are no batteries of laser cannon at Alpha Centauri so the lightsail cannot be used to brake to a halt. Instead, the twin hybrid fusion/matter-antimatter engines are used. These engines are not used for the Sol departure phase because that would increase the propellant requirement by about four times with a corresponding decrease in cargo capacity. The engines burn for 0.46 year, producing 1.5 g of thrust, thus braking the ship from a velocity of 70% c to zero.
It's actually pretty well thought out.
the Rangers were bad ass. It never showed how they normally went about leaving/entering the atmosphere, though. IIRC the movie always just skipped those parts with some lame scene transition.
Is Nolan the modern day Kubrick? All of his movies are memorable. All so well shot...
I mean I like art house and all but I'm not so far up my ass (*cough* /tv/ *cough*) that I can't respect good work juat because it's mainstream.
Why was the tidal wave so steep?
Shouldn't the wave look more like a mound then like a cliff?
That annoyed me as well among other things
>the wave is made by the black-hole pull
Where are you getting this from?
A black hole is so immense it would pull apart the planet not a tiny portion of it at a time and let it go.
no the planet is rotating so that's why you get the wave moving around.
when they leave the planet they fly towards the drag of the blackhole so it should help them get out of the gravity pull of the planet.
most of the things happening in this movie is cool things planned out by a theoretical physicist. so don't think you will find some obvious holes.
one of the obvious flaws is that the wave was so steed >>64917507
Are you telling me that the gravity 10meters in front of the wave tip was so much weaker that the wave suddenly stopps there?
IIRC the big wave was caused by the planet wobbling or rocking back-and-forth as it moved (back) into a tidally-locked position. This wobbling caused the entire world ocean to slosh around in gigantic bulges.
As for why Millers world wasn't already tidally-locked to begin with (considering its closeness to the black hole), I guess it's because some other huge force of gravity (like the neutron star) was routinely disturbing it during the planet's super-fast orbit. The gravity of the black hole was so strong that the planet was stretched into an oval-shape, with one of the poles always pulled into facing the black hole
The moon is tidally locked to earth because her spin is slow, and in order to have a atmosphere and a pretty good ocean like showed in the movie it would have to spin faster, so it wouldn't be tidally locked anymore.
I am not saying that it NEED to spin to have a atmosphere, I am saying that to have that ocean it would need to spin.
>most of the things happening in this movie is cool things planned out by a theoretical physicist.
No, everything was planned out by the Nolan bros, their ideas had to be approved by Kip Thorne as "theoretically possible" (he was basically staking his scientific reputation on this). Kip also had to write a whole book explaining the physics of the movie. I think the image in >>64918720 is from that book.
He said the main thing he wished he hadn't approved to be in the movie were the ice clouds on Mann's planet; nothing could support the weight of all that that ice like that
the mile high wave didnt even break when it rolled over knee deep water. If it was just a bulge then why was it so steep? You can see both sides of the wave in this webm
because interstellar tryhards the scifi but ends up in an star trek tier of lets get off the planet on a chemical shuttle
>It work on paper but we don`t have this tecnology yet.
>everything was planned out by the Nolan bros
except that the entire thing was conceived by Thorne and Lynda Obst and Spielberg was the first director they got on the film. Both Nolans rewrote the thing heavily, true, but they weren't the ones that started the whole thing.
>A black hole is so immense it would pull apart the planet
No, it wouldn't. The bigger the black hole, the weaker the tidal forces just outside the horizon, and Gargantua was a big guy.
>Spielberg was the first director they got
Would it be a better movie? I feel like the dialogue would be better but it would become more "family" movie and it wouldn't have some of the cool shots, neither the awesome soundtrack
68 RPM my fucking ass, Nolan.
CASE clearly sucks at analyzing spin because you can see from that webm that it takes 3 seconds for the Endurance to do a complete revolution. That means 20 RPM, not 68
The science wasn't a joke. Everything that happened up to the whole entering-a-black-hole thing was *possible* (except maybe the ice clouds); there were just a lot of parts that were incredibly unlikely or where scientists can only speculate what might really happen. Most of my gripes with the movie came from the irrational behavior of NASA and the crew, and that's not science.
IIRC the Gargantua black hole simulation cost over a million dollars to create and is the most advanced and realistic simulation of a celestial body ever made
it was to save on the special fuel that the Ranger used. No need to waste it if they can use a conventional rocket.
No, you pay attention you assfuck. That station was already in earth orbit. they only went to it using the Ranger
the webm cuts short before a full rotation.
also, showing it at 68rpm wouldnt be pleasing to the eye. all the stars, and the sun would just be a streak.
nolan confirmed for hack
Wrong. We can't say that effective SSTO craft like in the movie could never be created in the future. Who knows know what kind of technology we will have in 2067? That's standard movie suspension-of-disbelief shit
okay, i read that, and googled shit, and either shit isnt adding up, or i cant understand it.
Which way is the direction of travel on this ship?
why do some pics illustrate 4 layers of shields, while in the movie only one is shown.
does the ship go in reverse on the way back? how does the sail work backwards?
or does the ship just rotate while at 70% of c?
For the planet to be that close to the black hole without getting pulled in, it would have to be orbiting at nearly the speed of light.
dolan is a hack but I still liked the flick
>without getting pulled in,
You can easily orbit a black hole safely especially if its that huge. Also if you avoid the event horizon, it's pull isn't has powerful as you think, in fact you could easily escape its' pull with conventional rockets retard.
Nit-picking aside, I thought the water-planet scene was the best, most fascinating part of the whole movie.
If the gravity is strong enough to create a 2 mile tidal surge, then that planet would be under constant geological pressure. Io, jupiter's moon, is covered in volcanoes that are constantly resurfacing the planet due to the tidal stresses of Jupiter and Europa and Ganymede. Water planet should be a fucking volcano planet.
not if it's a rapidly-rotating black hole, like the one in the movie. Gargantua is extremely ancient and is spinning at close to the speed of light (an incredibly unlikely scenario, but possible nonetheless)
The point you're missing is if they had SSTO craft that could just up in and out of orbit, and completely escape from a 1.3g planet's gravity well like it was nothing, then roughly half of the movie just wouldn't need to exist. There wouldn't be any need for any magical gravity math to get people off earth, as they could just go back and forth between mars for as long as necessary.
How did future humans even get inside the event horizon to build the big cube? If they built it outside of the event horizon and then put it in there, how did it not get ripped apart and pulled into the singularity?? Was it just sitting in there using magic?
I thought your point was that -- contrary to what I said in my post -- the science and physics in this movie were inaccurate? How does irrational decision-making made by future-NASA count as science or physics?
Did I violate your safespace?
I'm going to violate your boipussy next.
No, I'm really not. The retarded decision making process of a future space agency does not count as an inaccurate depiction of science or physics you fucking mongoloid.
An example of inaccurate science/physics in Interstellar would be more like the existence of the ice-clouds "floating" over Mann or something. Human behavior is not considered a depiction of science.
>and completely escape from a 1.3g planet's gravity well like it was nothing
>people think this is the biggest problem
>most accurate sci-fi
according to scientific sources they managed to extract up to 400 grams of fecal matter from Anne Hathaway's suit after the shoot.
>Assuming the BH isn't rotating very fast
It is rotating at close to the speed of light. I like that you put those kool edits & put the iFunny reaction image in to make the Nolanfags cry. But the sad truth is that your image means nothing and that quora explanation only shows that Gargantua must be spinning ridiculously fast (as it is in the movie), which has already been established as extremely unlikely but still possible.
they were not even using the wave as a launch pad. The Ranger is powerful enough to have them launch straight up into the air like a rocket. If they had even touched the wave at that speed (as though they were using it like a launch-pad) they probably would have broken up and been destroyed. Coop had to pull up incredibly hard to NOT touch the wave
I'd like one of you geniuses to explain to me how the hell both cooper and brand lost the same amount of time after the slingshot maneuver around garganutua at the end of the movie when cooper was supposed to lose even more time since he was dropping towards garganuta while brand was moving away from it.
cooper ditched from the main ship so brand could get away from gargatuas pull, so while she was getting further away he was only getting closer and closer until eventually going inside, but while he was dropping closer he should have even more time then brand probably thousands of years if not more and in the end we see that the same amount of time passed for him as for brand..
how is this not the biggest plot hole in the movie?
by the time Coop was in the Tesseract, trillions of years had already passed in the universe around him. He was able to go back in time through finding Brand's hand in the wormhole: >>64924767
This inexplicably led him to be floating outside Cooper station just in time to be picked up by the space ambulances. The cop-out explanation on that is that "love did it" or "the fifth dimensional beings planned it that way" but it is never actually explained.
Basically, for everything that happened after cooper went into the wormhole, the whole "realistic science" thing gets thrown out the window and Nolan's creative license takes over. But that's okay because no one knows what an observer would perceive if they went into a black hole (assuming they somehow survived)
One thing Nolan wanted to do in the movie was have Cooper die/disappear in the tesseract once he had closed the paradox. The scenes on the space station and on the other planet were pretty pointless, I wish he had been able to go through with that.
It's implied that future humans are living in a plane of existence that regular people can't comprehend, the tesseract probably didn't even exist conventionally, it was just them helping cooper to visually manipulate gravity through spacetime.
ITT: fucking science idiots
can't even begin with you guys..
The ice clouds weren't wholly impossible, they were attached to the ground that they eventually landed on. They thought that there was a livable surface underneath, but there wasn't, that was just the ground.
Not even close to spielberg. I don't think I'd compare him to kubrick (because nolan cares about the performances his actors give so little) but JJ is far closer to what spielberg was in his time.
How did the future humans get to the point at which they could make sure Cooper was safe in the hole? At some point in the timeline, the first human had to go into a black hole unassisted, and somehow survive. It's never really explained.
good enough for a movie
Why does no one ever complain about the wormhole? It's just as much Hollywood pseudo-science as the rest of the shit people complain about
>was able to go back in time through finding Brand's hand in the wormhole
but when he found her hand that was right at the start when the first went through the wormhole, before all the time loss, so he should have gone back in time to the very beginning, not the same time as when brand finished the shot around gargantua..
1. Because the wormhole is clearly stated to have been created by future humans
2. Because while wormholes are purely theoretical, they are consistent with general relativity, just not with any physical materials we have. The wormhole was depicted as it would exist if it could exist. The fact that you call it pseudoscience is a bit ridiculous considering how theoretical wormholes are used to teach general relativity.
I feel they shouldn't have considered the water planet at all due to apparent comparative time loss while spending time on it.
Even if the planet didn't have a super wave disaster always happening; if they selected that planet and managed to get everyone there.. what is the time loss going to be compared to other places in the universe, possibly other civilizations?
It seems like it would be a tremendous waste to be there and lose so much time compared to the rest of the universe, who knows how much further advanced a potential enemy is going to get.
>He can make a decent movie
>He is a hack
The biggest problem I have with these modern space films (Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian) is that they always have an unrealistic MacGuffin problem that starts everything off. It illegitimizes the rest of the film right from the offset.
Gravity - Crazy space debris chain reaction.
Interstellar - Somehow jumping ship for another planet is preferable to fixing the fucking crops.
The Martian - Wind storm fucks up the mission despite the fact that Mars has an extraordinarily thin atmosphere and even the largest storm would feel like a light breeze.
You are thinking about this using back to the future time travel logic. There is no alternate timelines, all time is occurring simultaneously. There is one cooper, who using gravity crashes his spacecraft, setting in motion the events leading to him eventually being able to crash his spacecraft.
>fixing the fucking crops
A global disease was wiping the crops out and the atmosphere with it. Even if they fixed the crops, they would have run out of breathable air.
Martian was somewhat unrealistic but they can't just have accidentally forgotten him or something, that is the only premise that would have worked.
Gravity is actually retarded though.
>A global disease was wiping the crops out and the atmosphere with it
They could just grow their crops in environment controlled habitats. That's probably what they'd have to do on another planet anyways since no other planet is going to be perfect for growing crops. Might have to hide in some kind of underground vault while the rest of humanity starves to death since it would be hard to support the whole human population off this method, but it's easier than going to another planet. And less likely to be a huge waste of time.
>that is the only premise that would have worked
I'm sure I could think of a more realistic one given some time.
Instead of the dust storm blowing the rocket over or whatever, make it be some kind of systems failure caused by the dust fucking up something important. Matt Damon gets caught in some kind of explosion or whatever and the movie proceeds from there.
Probably didn't bring any crops/vegetation with them. I think for the most part the point was that the farmland was just completely fucked, like the dustbowl but worldwide, and they needed to start over.
I think he makes the connection between the weird anomalies and his crash when he first gets to the NASA base, but I'm not sure. I actually think it was the future humans who crashed his spacecraft with one survivor now that I think about it.
at the very beginning of the movie he has nightmares about how he crashed the ranger during test flights on earth years before, with a robot not-unlike TARS as his copilot. Accompanying this are the voiceovers and video clips of the people in the Cooper farmhouse-museum on Cooper station as seen at the end of the movie. Then, also at the end of the movie, he steals a ranger on a mission to go find Brand and brings TARS along with him
then he crashes it again and wakes up again at the beginning of the movie
He keeps living this nightmare over and over
Cooper is a future human with memory loss, and the crash he dreams/flashes back about at the start of the film is the remnants of his recollection of his life before? I like that.
Why did they decide to settle on a planet in a system with a black hole instead of a sun? Seems like a bad move considering how important sunlight is to warming the planets in a system and growing your crops. Do they not understand the importance of sunlight to growing crops? I have a theory why their crops are dying. They don't know how crops work. Protip: Brawndo doesn't have what plants crave
Just seems like a stupid concession they had to make in the story to get a black hole in there. I guess maybe you could argue they'd still get enough light from the accretion disk, but if that's true, how did they fly a fucking ship into the black hole without burning to death?
A thing causing itself. It's a way to weasel out of paradox. Heinlein liked using them in his stories ("By his Own Bootstraps" and "All you Zombies" which was adapted into the movie predestination). By the time to get to Heinlein's later work you get Lazarus Long having a unique philosophy of time travel and causality from being his own grandpa.
No anon, remember he talks about slingshotting around a neutron star. And there is obviously some g-type mid sequence star because it has earth like light levels... on three different planets... in the same system.
You do realize the space debris chain reaction is actually thought to be a possibility?
There's so much shit up there, that if something like that did happen, we would effectively be unable to go back into orbit for a fucklong time, as in decades.
So that means no space missions, no ISS, no satellites and no Sandra Bullock in space.
Stuff like that has happened and it is not even remotely the same thing as kessler syndrome. Gravity was a fun flick but any semblance of actual orbital mechanics went straight out the window the second time the debris came around.
When something disintegrates because it is blown up, shit goes everywhere. It does not stay in a neat group and fly around the planet. Half of the debris from that satellite would have de orbited immediately, and the other half would go into an elliptical orbit where it wouldn't pose a threat. If the satellite had been close to the ISS it is possible that much debris could have hit it... once. After that, it would be long gone.
Kessler syndrome relies on there being enough objects on a similar orbit that their collisions with eachother can fill one orbital range with debris, because they are going the same direction at the same speed. It requires a fuck ton of satellites and other debris to be up there. It would not "render space travel impossible for generations", it would mean we can't put satellites near that orbit for a decade or two.
they can only go where the wormhole takes them. It would potentially take them millions of years to get to the nearest star system just using their engines. It kind of makes sense that the other wormhole would be near a black hole, if it were to be near anything. Who knows how old the universe is on gargantua's side.
The Ranger was always powerful enough, the wave had nothing to do with the launch procedure, they only surfed it to avoid being crushed by it. They only use a rocket to get it off of Earth because why waste fuel?
as you approach the event horizon of a black hole, time slows down exponentially until you reach the horizon itself, where time is theoretically supposed to come to a complete halt
The singularity is where gravity is effectively infinite and all physics breaks down. Using the anus analogy, It's like if Jenna Haze eternally clenched her butthole so tight that her butt parasite got shredded in her wormhole.
yes, the singularity is at the center. It is infinitely small but contains all the mass. The event horizon is just the point at which the singularity's gravity is strong enough to prevent even light from escaping. The event horizon's diameter is proportional to the mass of the singularity
also, as you get closer to the event horizon, it would start to encompass your entire field of view in its blackness. Eventually, the rest of the universe shrinks down to the size of a pinhead as it ages millions to billions to trillions of years per second, from your point of view.
only invisible as in blackness is the absence of light. It's still going to block us from seeing any light coming from the other side of it.
maybe cooper dies as he falls into the black hole, and the whole movie is just like his dying hallucinations? I mean if time slows to a stop...
wtf is gravity anyway?
Why is it directly proportional to mass?
Why is time dilation directly proportional to mass?
Why do we consider time dilation an effect of gravity, and not the other way around?
Interstellar's plot was such forced convoluted crap. Nolan (or at least the Nolan brothers) don't know how to write a screenplay that has believable events happening or doesn't have forced exposition or emotions.
Good visual effects and black hole science though.