The Martian by Andy Weir

[Stargate525]

Also Sean Bean being present in a room of nerds discussing "The Council of Elrond"!

I kid you not, that got the biggest laugh in the theater when I went and saw this! xD

[sp1989]

I kid you not, that got the biggest laugh in the theater when I went and saw this! xD

Same here. I am really glad they kept that scene in. Apparently Ridley Scott didn't think people would like or get the significance of Sean Bean being present at another council of Elrond. So he wanted to change the scene entirely. A whole bunch of producers pleaded with him to keep it.

[Robotengineer]

I kid you not, that got the biggest laugh in the theater when I went and saw this! xD

Same here. Possibly the funniest scene in the movie, IMO.

[Bekiekutmoar]

Saw it last evening; good story with some very nice scenery and a bit of humor. Gotta say I've never read the book.

Seems like some scientific errors (too severe dust storm, Martian gravity mostly not simulated) were on purpose to serve the movie. Sounds reasonable to me ... !

[Dodgey]

Was anyone else really annoyed with the design of the rover? That and the "canvas" of the hab really got on my nerves.

[sp1989]

A deleted scene from the martian

[G'th]

Was anyone else really annoyed with the design of the rover? That and the "canvas" of the hab really got on my nerves.

While I definitely understand the whole aversion to the whole "giant windows in space" bit (presuming that's what you're talking about) I have to admit I don't think its really that outlandish nowadays. After all, the Cupola exists and the window space on that isn't that much less than the Rover has.

As for the canvas, well, the movie did take liberties when it came to its space habitats. I mean, no way is the inside of the either habitats (those on the surface or the Hermes) are going to be that clean cut and Trek-like.

[Robotengineer]

Was anyone else really annoyed with the design of the rover? That and the "canvas" of the hab really got on my nerves.

I liked the rover, agree about the hab. I was expecting something like the Hab from Porkjet's HabitatPack mod.

[SpaceXray]

Saw it last evening; good story with some very nice scenery and a bit of humor. Gotta say I've never read the book.

Seems like some scientific errors (too severe dust storm, Martian gravity mostly not simulated) were on purpose to serve the movie. Sounds reasonable to me ... !

Many often complain that they walk too hesvily, but you must remember they can easily adjust the Hermes ring section's RPM to simulate Earth or Mars gravity, depending which way they are going. Also, remember how far the airlock flew?

[Teilnehmer]

 . . .

 The suit saw this problem and moved into an emergency mode the engineers call “bloodletting.†Having no way to separate out the

COâ‚‚, the suit deliberately vented air to the Martian atmosphere, then backfilled with nitrogen. Between the breach and the bloodletting, it quickly ran out of nitrogen. All it had left was my oxygen tank.

 So it did the only thing it could to keep me alive. It started back-filling with pure oxygen. I now risked dying from oxygen toxicity, as the excessively high amount of oxygen threatened to burn up my nervous system, lungs, and eyes. An ironic death for someone with

a leaky space suit: too much oxygen.

 . . .

What pressure did the spacesuit try to maintain with pure oxygen?

If it’s 21 kPa â€â€Ã¢â‚¬â€šthe partial pressure of oxygen in the Earth atmosphere, then why did Mark risk dying from oxygen toxicity. Apollo astronauts breathed pure oxygen at 21 kPa and were OK.

If it’s higher than 21 kPa, then why?

[55delta]

What pressure did the spacesuit try to maintain with pure oxygen?

If it’s 21 kPa â€â€Ã¢â‚¬â€šthe partial pressure of oxygen in the Earth atmosphere, then why did Mark risk dying from oxygen toxicity. Apollo astronauts breathed pure oxygen at 21 kPa and were OK.

If it’s higher than 21 kPa, then why?

The suit would be trying to maintain about 21 kPa atmosphere. A pure oxygen atmosphere causing oxygen toxicity is one of the most notable errors in the book.

[magnemoe]

I love the movie, except the end who was to much Hollywood writing.

However I don't really understand the end, why the bomb? could the not use trusters or engines, it was only a 20 m/s burn, they will need some magnitudes more getting into Earth orbit then they return. they would anyway need to do an correction burn for the 20 m/s burn done near Ap.

Next is the intercept itself as I have learned to do then in KSP, to get an low speed intercept they need to launch the rocket so it match the trajectory to the spaceship almost perfect 10-30 m/s difference.

Don't see how they could manage this with one long burn from the surface. Would assume launch, trajectory matching with an lower speed then burn to match speed.

[Deutherius]

I love the movie, except the end who was to much Hollywood writing.

However I don't really understand the end, why the bomb? could the not use trusters or engines, it was only a 20 m/s burn, they will need some magnitudes more getting into Earth orbit then they return. they would anyway need to do an correction burn for the 20 m/s burn done near Ap.

20 m/s can be a lot if your ship is massive and the only thrusters other than the main ion drive (on the other side... and too low thrust) are attitude thrusters, which had no fuel to spare after matching approach distance. The bomb was neccesary because no sane engineer would design the airlock to allow deliberate (or accidental) depressurization.

I do agree that the movie took some Hollywoodization to the end (and some other parts) with the rescue, the rotating gravity ring (expressly stated in the book to be stationary long before any rendezvous, be it the MAV or the supply probe from Earth... But hey, they needed to give Beck some epic screen time), Iron Man...

It's hard to love the movie after reading the book. But it was still very enjoyable and I would love to get my hands on an extended version with all the stuff that didn't make the final cut.

[lodestar]

the rotating gravity ring (expressly stated in the book to be stationary long before any rendezvous

Actually, in the book there's no centrifuge at all. The whole ship spins, with the reactor on one end, the crew area in the other, and the engines in the middle.

This design made by a fan is a lot more accurate, but I understand general audiences would be puzzled by that.

http://francisdrakex.deviantart.com/art/Hermes-Infographic-486185729

[G'th]

Actually, in the book there's no centrifuge at all. The whole ship spins, with the reactor on one end, the crew area in the other, and the engines in the middle.

This design made by a fan is a lot more accurate, but I understand general audiences would be puzzled by that.

http://francisdrakex.deviantart.com/art/Hermes-Infographic-486185729

Even as someone who understands whats going on there even I think that it looks weird. XD

It is an interesting design though, and one I might have to try in KSP

[sp1989]

Even as someone who understands whats going on there even I think that it looks weird. XD

It is an interesting design though' date=' and one I might have to try in KSP [/quote']

I always pictured it more like the constellation program.

[RainDreamer]

Actually, in the book there's no centrifuge at all. The whole ship spins, with the reactor on one end, the crew area in the other, and the engines in the middle.

This design made by a fan is a lot more accurate, but I understand general audiences would be puzzled by that.

http://francisdrakex.deviantart.com/art/Hermes-Infographic-486185729

That does make a lot more sense operationally...

But then how does they pull that stunt at the end off where they blew up the air lock then...

[sp1989]

That does make a lot more sense operationally...

But then how does they pull that stunt at the end off where they blew up the air lock then...

That's true even in the book the ship would need to have enough modules to perform the maneuver. Atleast 2 modules so that one could be sealed off and to get the explosive deceleration there would need to be quite large.

[Deutherius]

Actually, in the book there's no centrifuge at all. The whole ship spins, with the reactor on one end, the crew area in the other, and the engines in the middle.

This design made by a fan is a lot more accurate, but I understand general audiences would be puzzled by that.

http://francisdrakex.deviantart.com/art/Hermes-Infographic-486185729

...Ok. That's nowhere near to what the Hermes looked like in my head. Very interesting.

I think my poke at the Hollywood is still valid though. The spinning is just too risky to have on any rendezvous.

[lodestar]

I always pictured it more like the constellation program.

I had something like that in mind, more like the Terra Nova from Race to Mars.

But then I realized the Terra Nova could spin during the cruise phase because it uses NTRs and a Hohmann transfer, unlike the Hermes.

[Guest]

I finally got to see it on Friday!

[Dispatcher]

Regarding what I think of the movie: having read the book I think it follows the book well; in fact there was not enough time to portray all the events in the book. I regret that and would have sat through a longer movie. Its science is pretty good and technically the movie was done well. There was a lot to like about the teamwork and sacrifice exhibited by the characters in the show.

Another point about the movie is simply this: my favorite movies are those that can be enjoyed by the entire family. So, while this is a good movie for adults and others old enough not to be made uncomfortable by some expressions; if you haven't seen the movie and you don't like your kids being exposed to some occasional strong language, you might consider leaving your kids at home when you go see it. Its rated PG-13 for a reason. (I know, aren't ALL movies the same way?) The movie follows the book in this sense too, and thus the movie wouldn't be true to the book if were to have a G or PG rating.

So I'm saying to those that haven't seen the movie yet: go see it if you want to see a movie that's fairly realistic in how people interact and how they communicate in the community at large. If you are squeamish about some occasional strong language, this might dampen your enjoyment of the movie, but keep in mind that its pretty true to the book.

[Deutherius]

So I'm saying to those that haven't seen the movie yet: go see it if you want to see a movie that's fairly realistic in how people interact and how they communicate in the community at large. If you are squeamish about some occasional strong language, this might dampen your enjoyment of the movie, but keep in mind that its pretty true to the book.

I disagree. There was a very noticeable lack of f-bombs, compared to todays movie industry and, especially, compared to the book. One extreme example would be Annie Montrose, but overall I feel the language was held back too much in order to keep the low age rating.

[sp1989]

I disagree. There was a very noticeable lack of f-bombs, compared to todays movie industry and, especially, compared to the book. One extreme example would be Annie Montrose, but overall I feel the language was held back too much in order to keep the low age rating.

I agree. It would have been nice to see watney fully unleashed but I think it was a good decision keep it to pg-13. Keeping it pg-13 definitely helped ticket sales you can reach and appeal to more people. I think they made a good compromise.

[KerbMav]

It is not so much what is good for the children in the case of "language" being used - let's face it, they know of and use far worse, especially when their parents are not around -, but that they were able to see the movie because of the rating is what counts for me. If they have to lower the frequency of cursing, so be it.

But yeah, his inappropriate messages to NASA and the tantrums of Ms Potty-Mouth from PR ... ah well, I will always have the book.

(Did I mention that I love R. C. Bray as a narrator of audiobooks? )