The Martian by Andy Weir

[Mister Dilsby]

Well as long as we're discussing design flaws I think it odd that

the MAV can be knocked over in a dust storm. Especially since they land it in advance and leave it there for months making fuel before its crew arrives. What happens if it gets knocked over while Hermes is still en route? "Whoops, MAV fell over. I guess we'll just do a flyby." You'd think that if they can make the rovers and hab survive a dust storm they could tie down the MAV with a 200% safety factor.

[Motokid600]

Well as long as we're discussing design flaws I think it odd that

the MAV can be knocked over in a dust storm. Especially since they land it in advance and leave it there for months making fuel before its crew arrives. What happens if it gets knocked over while Hermes is still en route? "Whoops, MAV fell over. I guess we'll just do a flyby." You'd think that if they can make the rovers and hab survive a dust storm they could tie down the MAV with a 200% safety factor.

Well. If it was in real life the wind couldn't blow hard enough to be an issue. It's the constant sand blasting that will be the problem to overcome.

[sp1989]

Saw the movie this morning! It was fantastic! I can't say what I love more the book or the movie. And I can't make that determination the boom isn't better than the movie and the movie isn't better than the book. They are both fantastic in their own right. In that case I guess I was able to separate them and appreciate them both for what they are. They are both love stories to science. I think that both the book and the movie hit the threshold of sacrifice of science for narrative. Let's be honest we can nit pick every scene but the bottom line is that it is a movie and the purpose is to escape reality. I think I can easily say this was the most accurate science fiction movie ever made. Any more accuracy and you start going toward being boring and only appealing to really nerdy people like all of us. The solutions to the problems were science based. There was very little luck involved. There was no "power of love" moment. It was all lets just work our asses off to get mark watney home. So if you read the book don't expect the movie to be exactly like the book. There is a lot from the book in the movie. More than I have ever seen in a novel to film adaptation. But book readers you just have to go in and expect a thouroughly entertaining movie and satisfying on nearly every level. If you expect it to be exactly like the book you are going to have a bad time. For me they are both fantastic on their own. I am 1000% ok with that. When it comes to not picking science and engineering. Yea you all have great points but come one this movie was the closest to we are going to get to a really accurate Sci fi movie. Go see it I give it 5 kerbal heads out of 5. :D :D

Edited October 5, 2015 by sp1989

[RainDreamer]

I wonder if after this movie they will always send viable, growable potato (any better vegetable to provide calories?) on any manned mission to Mars in the future. Just in case they need to do the Martian in real life.

Or maybe they will always have a resupply rocket on standby all the time during mission time so that if anything went wrong they can instantly send resupply for rescue.

[Mister Dilsby]

This is totally fridge logic, but I have to wonder why you would send a botanist to the surface if NOT for the express purpose of trying to grow a variety of plants in Martian soil. If they only wanted to examine the soil itself, they would have brought a (yes i had to look it up) siviculturist!

[RuBisCO]

This is totally fridge logic, but I have to wonder why you would send a botanist to the surface if NOT for the express purpose of trying to grow a variety of plants in Martian soil. If they only wanted to examine the soil itself, they would have brought a (yes i had to look it up) siviculturist!

Yes according to the book he was sent to mars to test growth of a couple of hardy non-edible plants, model organisms, not to attempt sustenance agriculture. So the book does make a reason to send him.

I wonder if after this movie they will always send viable, growable potato (any better vegetable to provide calories?) on any manned mission to Mars in the future. Just in case they need to do the Martian in real life.

Or maybe they will always have a resupply rocket on standby all the time during mission time so that if anything went wrong they can instantly send resupply for rescue.

Potatoes are pretty good, especially in that they are easy to process, wheat and rice on the other hand need thrashing and dehulling machines to prepare the grain. Potatoes though provide a lot of fiber mass though, which means more defecation, but the book only briefly eludes to Mark crapping his space suit.

Edited October 5, 2015 by RuBisCO

[Tex_NL]

I wonder if after this movie they will always send viable, growable potato (any better vegetable to provide calories?) on any manned mission to Mars in the future. Just in case they need to do the Martian in real life.

Or maybe they will always have a resupply rocket on standby all the time during mission time so that if anything went wrong they can instantly send resupply for rescue.

Having a re-supply mission on stand by might not always be an option. We as KSP players know all too well you can not simply go to Mars at any random point. OK, with excessive dV you can go anywhere fast but that might not be worth it. A much better and probably cheaper option is to place an emergency resupply lander in Mars orbit. Freeze dried food and fertilizers, cryogenic preserved food, water frozen solid, shelter, emergency (medical) equipment. All those things can be dropped to the surface on a moments notice by remote control, either from Earth or from the surface.

[Motokid600]

There's something I'm really confused with. The hab breach. In the book it's the canvas fabric that fails from fatigue. But how exactly did the failure occur in order to launch the airlock? The airlock remained pressurized afterwards except for a few holes. So it wasn't the airlocks canvas that failed.

Which is where I'm confused. The hab remains constantly pressurized, right? So how did that canvas wear down and fail? It's the airlock that should've failed and that wouldn't have sent it flying.

Somethings wrong there. So again it's the canvas of the airlock that gets fatigued from constant pressurizing and depressurizing. But... It was the Hab that failed? Doesn't make sense.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Motokid600

[RuBisCO]

This is totally fridge logic, but I have to wonder why you would send a botanist to the surface if NOT for the express purpose of trying to grow a variety of plants in Martian soil. If they only wanted to examine the soil itself, they would have brought a (yes i had to look it up) siviculturist!

According to the book he was sent to mars to test a few hardy non-edible plants growth in martian soil, so the book dies explain why a botanist was sent to mars.

I wonder if after this movie they will always send viable, growable potato (any better vegetable to provide calories?) on any manned mission to Mars in the future. Just in case they need to do the Martian in real life.

Or maybe they will always have a resupply rocket on standby all the time during mission time so that if anything went wrong they can instantly send resupply for rescue.

Potatoes are a very logical plant for space travel in that they don't require the preparation of wheat and rice in thrashing and dehulling the grain, but Potatoes do have a high fiber load, which means more defecation, astronauts are often put on very high protein, very low fiber diets to reduce defecation rates because even with spacesuit diapers no one wants to crap their pants, the book eludes to Mark having to do this often because of potatoes and convenience.

There's something I'm really confused with. The hab breach. In the book it's the canvas fabric that fails from fatigue. But how exactly did the failure occur in order to launch the airlock? The airlock remained pressurized afterwards except for a few holes. So it wasn't the airlocks canvas that failed.

Which is where I'm confused. The hab remains constantly pressurized, right? So how did that canvas wear down and fail? It's the airlock that should've failed and that wouldn't have sent it flying.

Somethings wrong there.

It was the seal between the hab and airlock, The airlock expands and deflates a little ever time it was pressurized and depressurized, and that would pull the seal out and in. It not explain in enough detail but it is plausible.

Edited October 5, 2015 by RuBisCO

[Motokid600]

That still doesn't make sense. If that was the case then the entire hab wouldn't have depressurized. Just the airlock. For the hab to fail and launch the airlock it would've had nothing to do with the airlock itself. But a much larger issue of the hab canvas failing.

[sp1989]

That still doesn't make sense. If that was the case then the entire hab wouldn't have depressurized. Just the airlock. For the hab to fail and launch the airlock it would've had nothing to do with the airlock itself. But a much larger issue of the hab canvas failing.

I think you're just gonna have to take solace in the fact that you know what was supposed to be represented. Obviously they didn't quite do that part justice. It's easier to represent a rupture that's to represent a failure of the fabric of the jab. Now that might seem like a marginal difference and can be represented just the same but again they needed to show it how might be easily interpreted by the average person or non book reader. To them it was an explosive decompression which caused the airlock to explode off.

[Motokid600]

No forget the movie I'm talking about the book. That hab breach does not hold up in the manner in which Andy Weir described it. The hab is not what's constantly fatigued. That remains pressurized. The airlock is what would've failed and that didn't happen. The seal holding the airlock to the hab failed and launched the airlock.

Okay.. So that's a massive issue. Because what then would've caused the hab itself to fail? Because again the hab stays pressurized. So there is no contraction fatigue on the canvas.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Motokid600

[bloodgusher]

Saw the movie last night. Great movie, go see it! But I suspect I'm preaching to the choir.

I had to suspend disbelief a few times. The gravity assist off the earth seemed wrong. They would be coming in faster than the earth so a gravity assist would slow them down (and possibly give them a little radial velocity). Useful for visiting Venus maybe but not useful for going back to Mars. Also Mars would be in the wrong position for a Hohmann transfer (assuming they had just arrived from a Hohmann transfer). You would have to add velocity and swing out beyond Mars orbit, making the transfer time much more than the 9 months they seemed to be saying it would take. Or maybe I'm missing something?

Still, awesome movie, highly recommend it.

[sp1989]

Saw the movie last night. Great movie, go see it! But I suspect I'm preaching to the choir.

I had to suspend disbelief a few times. The gravity assist off the earth seemed wrong. They would be coming in faster than the earth so a gravity assist would slow them down (and possibly give them a little radial velocity). Useful for visiting Venus maybe but not useful for going back to Mars. Also Mars would be in the wrong position for a Hohmann transfer (assuming they had just arrived from a Hohmann transfer). You would have to add velocity and swing out beyond Mars orbit, making the transfer time much more than the 9 months they seemed to be saying it would take. Or maybe I'm missing something?

Still, awesome movie, highly recommend it.

Interesting however Andy Weir wrote a program to make sure that all the orbits were correct and that all of the maneuvers were possible and realistic. I mean he was so particular about the orbits that he needed to figure out when the orbits made sense because he had them on Mars around thanksgiving. So he wanted to make sure that all of the orbit lined up from the beginning of the novel through all of the planned resupplies that were projected as well. I think the orbital mechanics are one of the most accurate things about the book and the movie because Andy Weir went through painstaking efforts to ensure the accuracy and realism of all that. He even said that in an interview (I cant remember which one) that if he was anyone in the book he would probably be Rich Purnell.

[RuBisCO]

NASA has actually been looking into more slim spacesuits for years now. It is quite clear that the current generation is more a matter of the best we've got, rather than the best for the situation. I know NASA has been looking at both skin tight suits that provide mechanical pressure rather than air pressure to the body, and more comfortable excursion suits for Mars exploration.

I would actually consider it quite ridiculous if movies portrayed Martian exploration with current generation suits, or even Lunar suits. Those are already outdated.

Well this is important to point out but even if the inside is skin tight the outside would be multiple layers of insulation, it would still look bulky, just not as bulky as a pressurized suit.

[sp1989]

Can we talk about the soundtrack?! I absolutely loved the soundtrack. The clever use of disco music and somewhat inspiring 70's music throughout the film was incredible!

I mean Starman during the resupply montage.......genius!!!

Edited October 6, 2015 by sp1989

[-ctn-]

Harry Gregson-Williams' music was brilliant as well. When I first heard it, I immediately thought of a mix between Ross and Reznor's score for The Social Network, old-school classical adventure epic, and pulsing, driving, spy-thriller music. The guy really is a genius with music, his work for Kingdom of Heaven is absolutely beautiful.

[CptRichardson]

Saw the movie last night. Great movie, go see it! But I suspect I'm preaching to the choir.

I had to suspend disbelief a few times. The gravity assist off the earth seemed wrong. They would be coming in faster than the earth so a gravity assist would slow them down (and possibly give them a little radial velocity). Useful for visiting Venus maybe but not useful for going back to Mars. Also Mars would be in the wrong position for a Hohmann transfer (assuming they had just arrived from a Hohmann transfer). You would have to add velocity and swing out beyond Mars orbit, making the transfer time much more than the 9 months they seemed to be saying it would take. Or maybe I'm missing something?

Still, awesome movie, highly recommend it.

Nope. The maneuver as depicted in the book/movie is not only plausible, but actually exactly worked out with a lot of work. That is the real deal. There's a bit more to it than shown in the movie, but they do burn straight through the intended capture window and get pointed back at Mars.

[Dodgey]

No forget the movie I'm talking about the book. That hab breach does not hold up in the manner in which Andy Weir described it. The hab is not what's constantly fatigued. That remains pressurized. The airlock is what would've failed and that didn't happen. The seal holding the airlock to the hab failed and launched the airlock.

Okay.. So that's a massive issue. Because what then would've caused the hab itself to fail? Because again the hab stays pressurized. So there is no contraction fatigue on the canvas.

As the airlock expands and contacts the seal which connects it to the HAB weakens. There was an imperfection in the canvas along the seal which connects the inner airlock to the HAB which then failed. The airlock stayed intact until it hit the ground.

[vger]

Can we talk about the soundtrack?! I absolutely loved the soundtrack. The clever use of disco music and somewhat inspiring 70's music throughout the film was incredible!I mean Starman during the resupply montage.......genius!!!

Jeeze, I knew both of the "Major Tom's," but hey, another David Bowie space-themed song I didn't know about!

[Motokid600]

As the airlock expands and contacts the seal which connects it to the HAB weakens. There was an imperfection in the canvas along the seal which connects the inner airlock to the HAB which then failed. The airlock stayed intact until it hit the ground.

Still doesn't sound right. The manner in which the failure was described would've resulted in only the airlock failing. The hab would've remained pressurized. The hab does not expand and contract.

[manaiaK]

I think it's a great movie.

But ... a few little things are starting to become apparent. I'm not talking about "wrong science". This is Hollywood, people! By the standards of Hollywood, it was excessively accurate about the science. Any remaining flaws in the science do not bother me. (Well, just the one...)

Don't get me wrong, I think the movie was extremely faithful to the book, as far as the medium of film allowed it to be. It does look a little rushed to market, though. Things like two crew members referring to "altitude adjusters" instead of attitude adjusters: stuff like that, that would be picked up with a more leisurely post-production process.

NASA is famously risk-averse and plans really well. Yet somehow, for a multi-mission exploration program:-

• They don't add a backup Mars surface radio reception capability to the fleet of GPS/imaging satellites they set up in low Mars orbit. (Comms equipment can fail; it'd be really cheap to add a radio to the satellites so that the Hab and the rovers -- the suits, even -- can SMS the satellite network and so get messages back to Earth (along with the images that the satellites are already sending, presumably by way of a high-orbit comms satellite.))
  
• They don't send, ahead of time, a craft full of spares (food and critical equipment), orbiting in low Mars orbit and able to drop supplies at any of the five planned mission surface sites.
  
• They both do and don't make use of advanced automation -- the satellites, the MAV making its own fuel, the hab environment control, but only two large rovers, not lots of little ones as well (helpers for the crew, as in Interstellar). Just for example.
  

Also, launches are somehow cheap and expensive at the same time. With all the pre-supply missions, they'd have had to send at least 30 craft to Mars by the time Ares III comes along, and they're planning to send several more ... but they can't just get the next rocket (or the "spare in case of launch failure") out of finished goods inventory at Jeb's Junkyard the factory, and launch that to supply Watney with food? Or work a bit of overtime at the factory, because the next launch can't be that far away in the program ... can it?

On the other hand, if launches are still expensive (no SpaceX in this alternate history), why isn't the program international? A bit of "Hollywood diversity" there, I think.

The one bit of "wrong science" that bothers me at all is the way the whole story ignores radiation. The Hermes might be able to generate a massive magnetic field to deflect cosmic rays and so on, but the hab? The rovers? In the book it's just hand-waved away by saying the hab fabric has miraculous radiation-blocking powers. Not possible with known physics.

Edited October 6, 2015 by manaiaK
close parentheses.

[pTrevTrevs]

I saw the movie on Sunday, it was ok. I do have a few pet peeves.

The spacesuit looks stupid. Is he an astronaut or a clone trooper? Why doesn't the suit look pressurized? Why is does it have orange highlights, wouldn't that make it harder to see if someone got lost on Mars while wearing the suit? Why does he wear the clone trooper suit throughout the whole movie when on Mars, but puts on the realistic looking suit to launch in the MAV?

The landscape doesn't look like Mars. I heard they filmed it in Jordan, which is a pretty bad choice in my opinion. The giant plateaus and mountains, plus the orange filter they put on everything, makes it seem more like he's trapped in Mexico than on Mars. We can tell from pictures sent back by probes that Mars appears more flat and barren than the film depicts it as being. Why didn't they film it in the Sahara, it seems like they would have been able to find a more Mars-like location in Egypt or Algeria.

Why does Hermes have such giant windows? I know it looks cool, but giant windows in space is a bad idea! The Mercury Seven had to fight just to get a tiny porthole installed in their spacecraft, because the engineers were worried about the added weight and increased danger of depressurization. It might have been ok if they at least had some sort of debris shield like the Cupola on the ISS has, but I couldn't see any.

Alright, rant's over. Aside from those things, the movie was fairly good, it had nice effects, some good science, and stayed pretty true to the book. Good choice of actors, good acting, the jokes made me laugh even though I had already read them in the book. Good job, Ridley Scott.

[Motokid600]

Point A is what expands and contracts.

Point B does not. Point B is what failed in order to launch the hab. Yet in the way Andy Weir describes it Point A is what fails. Makes no sense. The if the airlock failed the hab would've remained pressurized. Now im not arguing that such a thing cant happen. It can. Im arguing the way Andy Weir described the failure with the constant stretching of the airlock canvas.

Edit: Wow. Must've been a longer day at work then I thought in order to abbreviate airlock with AR. Maybe there's something else I'm missing here then lol.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Motokid600

[sp1989]

http://i.imgur.com/SPe2yDV.jpg?1

Point A is what expands and contracts.

Point B does not. Point B is what failed in order to launch the hab. Yet in the way Andy Weir describes it Point A is what fails. Makes no sense. The if the airlock failed the hab would've remained pressurized. Now im not arguing that such a thing cant happen. It can. Im arguing the way Andy Weir described the failure with the constant stretching of the airlock canvas.

Edit: Wow. Must've been a longer day at work then I thought in order to abbreviate airlock with AR. Maybe there's something else I'm missing here then lol.

Isn't it that all the escaping pressure from the Hab that launches the airlock. I understand the why you might have a problem with it but regardless of how the airlock flipped or if it flipped the point was to have the airlock fail. Which caused a breach in the Hab. Which in turn caused the potatoes to fail which adds drama. Also it needed to be easily repaired. So I think you are right to question the validity of the failure but I also think you are just gonna have to accept it as narrative driven drama with a splash of some questionable science.