Can we all agree now that this movie was good and the science

>>7728795

it wasn't just good, it was great

still science fiction though

Yes, 'twas a great film.

Didn't watch it, on account of it being a movie.

Yes, very good, one of the best hard-scifi movies

>>7728795
remember how everybody talked about this movie for like a week and then completely forgot about it

>>7728795
I almost cried when they went through the wormhole. Don't judge me.

>>7728795
We had threads here about it. Consensus was 0/10 popsci piece of shit that brings in cancer into /sci/

>>7728795
Delta-V didn't compute. Not nearly. That SSTO they flew everywhere was a pure -fi of sci-fi. That's a rather glaring hole.

>>7728795
>feels on so many levels

Apart from the amazing science underpinning this film.
Year or 2 ago, I met a girl while i was abroad who looked like the older version of the guys daughter even her facial expressions were identical........never saw her again, and i regret breaking ties with that beautiful quasi stranger.

>>7728795
>go to planet with higher gravity than earth
>SSTO is still possible
>SSTO possible at all

>go into wormhole
>possible

>black hole leads to time travel bookshelf with muh love
>not gay bullshit

>violating causality
>possible

>(you)

how comes they needed a huge rocket to leave earth, but afterwards, they were able to leave the 130% gravity water planet with just a small shuttle?

>>7728946
special effects

File: 132468916563.jpg (44KB, 340x340px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 340x340px

>mfw this song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x3zAMfmpAM

>>7728795
>>7728933

that gay hole at the end was the worst

because you know, love transcends the limits of space and time or something

>Launced from Earth as in Apollo 13
>Flew to Saturn as in 2001
>Crossed the wormhole as in Star Trek and from then on landed on and launched from the planets as in Star Wars

>>7728795
Shitty movie
Shitty science
End yourself OP

>>7728946

they needed the rocket to reach the wormhole near saturn, they used gravitational slingshots later. It's not in the movie (besides a throwaway line about maneuvering around a neutron star), but in the original script there were many other smaller black holes orbiting Gargantua that the crew used to reach planets orbiting at relativistic speeds.

It's the only way the movie makes sense anyway, they would need a delta-V close to c in order to land on Miller's planet - and to leave it afterwards.

>>7729087
You can't use a gravitational slingshot to launch from a planet you have landed on, dummy.

>>7728847
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. SSTO on 130% earth gravity? Forget the wormhole, thats the tech that I wanted to know about. Not only did it make short work of a gravitational field greater than Earth's but it did it twice. Evwn if they refuelled it on the spaceship engines must have been made of unobtanium in order to survive that delta V twice without maintenance. And here's the oddest part, they were still using three stage rockets to get off Earth and even worse they were scratching their heads over antigravity lifter theories when they could have just built a fleet of SSTO spaceplanes to ferry people to Mars or something. Literally every problem in that movie was made obsolete by that little mentioned SSTO technology.

>>7729142
When I say twice I meant it did the ice planet too that had unknown gravity but probably similar to Earth because they werent bouncing.

Loved the first 2/3rds of the movie but it broke down when they explained everything with the power of love spanning dimension lmao.

>>7729176
What I think the movie portrayed well was how limited our human experience is on a universal scale and how cold, deadly and unforgiving space is. How abstract reality in general is if you think about it for too long and how real our existential struggle is.

Was on 1g of shrooms on my first viewing and genuinely just started crying halfway through it just to get seriously annoyed when they started all that love crap.

>>7729079
Star wars fan detected

>>7729126

no, but you can use it to reach the Endurance

It was OK, and then the ending happened and I didn't care for it any more.

>>7728970
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrtROuQFfk
From 0:45

>>7729221
Star wars is even worse
Maybe you should start acquiring a taste that is not brought to you by mass advertising/reddit

>>7729230
IIRC they were docking to Endurance with its motors unpowered. Unless it stopped and began hovering over the planet surface using engines to stay afloat, instead of just orbiting, they need 8km/s of delta-V to reach orbit of Earth-sized planet and dock to the orbiting base.

Do you have any clue what wet:dry mass ratio it takes to reach 8km/s with a decent thrust?

>>7728946
Saving fuel

I liked TARS and CASE

>>7728946
>how comes they needed a huge rocket to leave earth, but afterwards, they were able to leave the 130% gravity water planet with just a small shuttle?
I like to justify this in my head with the fact that the black hole created huge tides on the planet. They could have "rode" the gravitational wave that passed by to gain an extra boost of delta-V away from the planet. If you re-watch it, that's what the writers seemed to be thinking because they began their launch at the base off the wave and used it as a ramp.

>>7728933
the premise was that future, technological superior humans were allowing these things to happen

And no causality is violated, see above. note this is science fiction.

>>7728795
The movie was fucking awful and stupid.

>>7728795
fuck off, disney

I didn't like the plot

>>7729148
Ice planet was 80% earth gravity

it was a terrible movie

bad writing, bad cahracters, bad premise, bad everything

>>7729368
>Unless it stopped and began hovering over the planet surface using engines to stay afloat, instead of just orbiting


Endurance was orbiting Gargantua itself somewhere far away, not the planet (the first planet at least) in order to avoid severe time-dilation

>>7729368
>they need 8km/s of delta-V

they need much much more, as they are leaving a planet deep into gargantua's gravity well.

They don't break any laws of physics by leaving the planet on the small shuttle, the thrust of the ship is not once mentioned - apparently it was enough.

In fact this just prooves how well grounded in real-life physics the movie is, as people who criticise it have to resort to autistic nitpicking.

fun fact: the movie has been praized for the depiction of the black hole and advertized as the first one to accurately do so, even though Kip Thorne himself mentiones many times in his book and at other times that they had to sacrifice realism for storytelling in this regard.

They disregarded doppler shift that would fuck up the colors and brightness of the accretion disk.
They downplayed the distortion of gargantua's shape due do it's rotation ( the event horizon would be D shaped instead of being a black circle)

It would take up something like half of the sky on Miller's planet due to it's proximity.

and nobody complains about that.

>>7731949
>living on a planet where a black hole is half the sky.
Makes you wonder what terrifying sights are out there.

One issue I had with the film was where was the sense in sending humans to explore a planet? Why not send rovers?

>>7731949
> the movie has been praized for the depiction of the black hole and advertized as the first one to accurately do so
yes because all black holes have time travel love libraries inside them

>>7728795
Saw this movie a week or so after it came out with my now ex gf. I cried like a bitch but she said she it gave her a headache. That was when I realized I'll never be happy with a genetically inferior XX human waifu

>>7731992
I was going to say that rovers incur a massive time delay between instruction delivery and response but they seemed to have ftl comms anyway.

Well imagine having a binary system as your sun. Or having a blue star or being very far away and having no day.
Or seeing in the IR spectrum or any other..

We think we've seen it all but we still have so much to learn. Something the general public seems to not understand

>>7732016

i know this is a shitpost, but name one movie, other than Interstellar, or a tv show that takes gravitational lensing into account when portraying a black hole.

I'll make it easier for you: that includes non-fiction shows and movies, so discovery channel documentaries count as well.

I'll be fucking surprised if you can find even a single one, but you won't.

File: 1365107663395.jpg (81KB, 259x383px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 259x383px

>and the science was a 9 out of 10.

Back then I didn't think it was very good but in the light of sci fi shit I watched since then (Martian, SW) it was actually pretty okay.

File: the-martian-poster.jpg (102KB, 600x888px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 600x888px

>>7728795
>the science was a 9 out of 10

Excuse me, sorry, pardon me...actual 9 out of 10 science movie coming through...

>>7728795
The fiction was excellent, but the science was shit.

I mean, that "pocket dimension" type thing the "5th dimensional beings" built for McConaughey was just a joke. The director could've just as well made it look like he was sent to the looney tunes universe, cause that's how ridiculous it was.

>>7732996

I don't think so, pal.

>>7728795
>Can we all agree now that this movie was good

Yes.

>and the science was a 9 out of 10

Love how the SSTO took off and landed (especially on the first planet) with relative ease.....

>>7733052
>I mean, that "pocket dimension" type thing the "5th dimensional beings" built for McConaughey was just a joke.

Come on...we all know Love is the ultimate solution to the quantum gravitation problem........

>>7733052
>the science was shit

your mom was shit.

>>7731992
Mann sums it up quite well. You can't program a robot with fear of death, therefore it can't improvise as well. In situations with complete unknowns where data coming back through the wormhole was extremely basic, they couldn't trust simple rovers with the job.

>>7728946
the rocket was carrying a fully-fueled ranger, Plan B, four humans and a robot, and (presumably) shitloads of cargo and supplies for the mission.

>>7733298

this...actually makes a lot of sense.

File: hermes.jpg (411KB, 2560x1077px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 2560x1077px

>>7733057

Nice point-by-point rebuttal. No wonder you failed your humanities courses.

Anyway, ftfy. The Martian takes into account real-world physics, astrophysics, botany, biology, technological limits, NASA bureaucratic limitations, resupplies, rationing, speed of light delaying communications, etc. because it was written by a Hard SF autist...Ridley Scott left most of that science untouched, to his huge credit. Contrast that with Christopher "Love Dimension" Nolan, who cherry-picked Kip Thorne's input in an attempt to give his soggy, laden screenplay gravitas.

The scene where Watney and NASA have to build a shit-tier communications device using hexadecimal coding and a failed probe to communicate, in order to bootstrap a more efficient information exchange, was particularly brilliant and realistic.

I think it's fashionable on 4chins to hate on it because of Watney's gallows humor about his desperate situation ("Science the shit out of this") and it's upbeat, can-do tone, as opposed to Nolan's relentless feel-baiting (OMG SO SAD QT3.1416 LEFT ALONE ON PLANET BY HERSELF. ;_; :-((((((( )...

2001 is superior. Still a very good film and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Some plot holes and errors in science, but 'twas enjoyable.

>>7731949

Thrust doesn't matter as much as wet/dry mass ratio and engine ISP. Do these SSTO spaceplanes have engines with Isp somewhere in the 10,000 Isp range? Regardless of how much thrust they have, the Ranger's must have enough delta V to get into orbit from a planet significantly larger than the Earth, then escape from it. As long as the thrust of the engines can overcome the weight of the vehicle, then the delta V will be above zero. From there, all that matters is how efficient the engines are, and how much fuel they have. For the engines to be able to lift the Ranger vehicle into orbit, using at most a few hundred liters of fuel (whatever fits onto the ranger, and even then only about 40% of that number or so), which means they must be fantastically, ridiculously efficient.

>>7733298
>>7733878


The ranger also took off form a larger planet than Earth, while carrying several humans, two robots, a bunch of surface equipment, and was down some fuel having landed under it's own power. That shit makes zero sense.

Even if the first rocket that carried the ranger was also carrying lots of fuel for the endurance, why didn't they just use the cargo rangers a few times to fly up a bunch of fuel? They're clearly capable of it, and they'd be able to actually get more fuel up there, since they wouldn't be throwing away a giant rocket for the final launch.

This movie had shit science, shit orbital mechanics, shit logic, and a shit story.

>>7733217

It would be easy to program a robot to have a self preservation protocol that emulated the reactions a person who didn't want to die would take.

>>7728795
>MURIFAT GOES IN BLACK HOLE
>FUKYEA

>>7734277
Thrust matters a lot during launch, because on top of the acceleration to gain orbital speed (which may be as low as you like) you need acceleration against the planet's gravity pull.

And the longer you need to stay in the lift phase (fighting the pull, before reaching orbit) you need to keep wasting propellant on this - so to reduce the time to orbit we use a lot of thrust.

To reach Earth's orbit you need delta-v of [orbital velocity] + [time to orbit * gravitational acceleration / 2] + [losses to air resistance]. The launch speed and gravity turn profile is an optimized function of the latter two. With sucky thrust you'll have excessive time to orbit which means lots and lots of delta-v wasted on fighting the gravity.

>>7731949
>they need much much more, as they are leaving a planet deep into gargantua's gravity well.

But that delta-V must be stored on Endurance, which for all we know could have had some magical ion engines of low thrust but extreme ISp.

The lander must "only" escape the planet's gravity well to reach Endurance. "Only" being used sarcastically here.

>>7733883
Andy dun goofed on several fronts. Light requirements of potatoes, martian storm power, ISp of broken glove, hydrazine byproducts, missing soil composition discoveries by Curiosity...

But it's still better by strides than Interstellar, where most of science problems are handwaved away, actual orbital mechanics is nonexistent ("approach the planet from the back side and drop to its surface?" Puh-leeze!) and there's an overabundance of technology that humanity barely begins to dream about nowadays, not even existing in blueprints.

>>7728795
How can you say the science was 9 out of 10, when their not too futuristic spaceship has the fuel to go into a gravity well capable of massive time warp, land and then rocket its way out?

>>7729087
a movie should stand on its own merit and not rely on additional information to make sense.

>>7729423
well, they certanly didn't intend to be nearly crushed by the wave, which implies that their shuttle would be able to lift of even without the help of grivational wave

>>7735114
A movie that focuses on the science of a plot is called a documentary and they're very boring. If you can fill in the holes with something close to reality it's science fiction.

>>7735132
having a system that just happens to have conveniently placed mini black holes that allow swing by manoeuvres isn't really the same as "filling up the holes"

>>7728970
Time by Hans Zimmer (the song from inception) is even better.

File: 1449459129435.png (197KB, 498x500px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 498x500px

>>7728795
>Mankind was born on Earth. I was never meant to die here.

What they put on the cover of these things is meant to play on and evoke emotion, that's the hook, but why does it have to be so stupid.

It's disgusting.

>>7733883
>The scene where Watney and NASA have to build a shit-tier communications device using hexadecimal coding and a failed probe to communicate, in order to bootstrap a more efficient information exchange, was particularly brilliant and realistic.

I have to agree that was some of the best problem solving I have seen in a sci-fi movie to date...

>>7728933
this

>>7728795
I was really disappointed at the falling into the dark hole scene. Something really gore should have happened there, as at a certain distance the difference between the forces on the top of your head and your toe become significant, and your body breaks like a rope from your intestines.

>>7736782
Nah, spaghettification is only really severe on very small back holes. Big ones like in the move are comparatively tame.

>>7728946
That rocket was the saturn V though