The Martian by Andy Weir

[sp1989]

With solar arrays and radiators?

They probably retract. The ones on the ISS retract. So do the radiators. Plus that front bit could be an expanding or inflatable heart sheild.

[BagelRabbit]

The smoke is from the SRBs in your Delta launch. Watch Blue Origin taking off from Mars, erm, Texas .

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/04/30/blueorigin_1stlaunch.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg

That's not smoke, it's mostly dirt. (same dirt that we have here right over the line in NM)

So the smoke in the movie is wrong, period (as you said). Some dust, then nothing would be better, IMO.

At 2:30 or so in the video, the base of the ascent rocket is shown. It looks like this:

I'm not sure what those little side-mounted rockets are, but I have good reason to believe that they are strap-on SRBs that just augment the main motors through the beginning of the boost. In that case, there would be SRB smoke a la Delta II. But again, this is just speculation based off some iffy source material.

Regarding the video, bandwidth is not a problem from earth at all. They can broadcast with vastly more signal strength than a small space probe. A manned craft with a nuclear reactor should not have much of a problem, either, frankly.

Okay, that's fair. However, I still don't see why NASA couldn't have just sent a single image. Even if bandwidth wasn't a problem, sending that sort of video would be pointless.

You are 100% correct about the idiotic landing site. The reason is cinematography, I would imagine. They filmed in Jordan, and wanted it "scenic." They could have put it a little farther from the hill, and made a line saying that the MAV ended up closer to terrain than planned due to a problem.

That would have been nice. Alas, it was not so.

Oh right, since that rocket is lifting off from Mars ambient pressure, the plume should be way wider than shown! It should also be nearly transparent, because the fuel is almost nessecarily hypergolic. You are right about the lame landing site.

But about the spacesuits, I was really discussing aesthetics. It simply doesn't say spacesuit when you look at it. At least Hermes shamelessly stole enough cues from Space Station to look like a real spacecraft. Even if it's completely unrealistic.

If I'm understanding your original post correctly, it's not so much of "bad aesthetics" and more of "putting aesthetics before function." And in my opinion, the spacesuits weren't really unrealistic... though they could have been done a bit better.

You know, if I'm honest, this sort of attitude is why a lot of people find hard science fiction and its community rather alienating.

If I may counter with a statement:

If one creates a film that's supposed to be "artsy" and it has terrible art direction, all of the aesthetically-oriented critics will bash it into small pieces. If a movie is supposed to have great sound design and it actually sounds like a cat vomiting, all of the sound-oriented critics will get out their sledgehammers and blowtorches. If a movie adaptation of a book is done improperly, all of the book's fans will grab pitchforks and sharp pieces of glass. If, however, a film is supposed to be accurate to science and it's not, you get a bunch of irritated people complaining about the scientifically minded individuals in the audience.

I really don't understand this dynamic. I think it's caused by peoples' general lack of knowledge of science. At any rate, it's a little annoying.

...As for the 'sticks' - I went to a lecture from one of the Curiosity surface mission planners. Really interesting talk, lots of cool pictures, including ones of a rock formation that looked like nothing so much as the edge of a Styrofoam sheet poking out from under the sand. I was tempted to ask whether that was just the stage crew being sloppy with the packaging when they filmed that part, but thought better of it.

So I can live with odd things on the Martian surface too.

I see where you're coming from. I should note, however, that there could not possibly be a cause for stick-like formations on Mars... unless they're mineral veins that were denser than the surrounding substrate. The substrate could have been worn away, exposing the small linear veins. However, this is quite unlikely, given that we've only seen these mineral veins in a few places on Mars.

The "sticks" are more likely pieces of the broken communications antenna (the one that stabbed poor Mr. Watney in the chest). Even then, though, there are a few problems. The relatively light sticks would have been blown much further than Watney was, and besides, the antenna probably wouldn't have come apart into so many tiny pieces.

As for NovaSilisko's theory that the set may have still had little scraps and such on it, you'd think that they'd at least try to clean up the scenes that would be in the trailer before releasing it. Failure to do so would be rather shoddy and would not bode well for this film, in my humble opinion.

-Upsilon

[PakledHostage]

Plus that front bit could be an expanding or inflatable HEART sheild.

Wrong movie... "the power of lurve!" was interstellar.

[NovaSilisko]

If I may counter with a statement:

You're missing my point. By all means, inaccuracies can be pointed out, but damn it there's no requirement to be completely condescending and pedantic about it all. That is what alienates others. There's almost never any credit given to what's done right or how much better it is compared to the current status quo. And, you know, it's almost exclusively done in these case by the armchair experts. In my observations, the actual scientists and experts are usually a lot more enthusiastic about a given film/book/series/whatever than those those in "fan" communities, and are a lot more laid-back about things it got wrong.

It eventually becomes this endless cascade of "everything's so horrible and scientifically inaccurate and I hate it and I'm not even going to bother with any movies anymore because hollywood will never learn how to do this right..." and so on.

I tire of it. Greatly. And of course, I expect now to be pigeonholed as someone who doesn't understand science or spaceflight and is just trying to defend their ignorance, because that's usually the reaction I get to pointing this sort of stuff out.

I love scientific accuracy in movies, and you know what? I'm always very happy for what they get right. Negativity-for-the-sake-of-it just gives me gas.

Edited June 11, 2015 by NovaSilisko

[KerbMav]

Question is, does the ship in the movie look like the author imagined it?

[PakledHostage]

I tire of it. Greatly.

I think you guys both have a good point. The problem comes when it is taken to extremes.

If it were up to me, movies would be judged on plot (hence my dislike of Gravity and Interstellar) rather than scientific accuracy and special effects, but I know that my position would also be unpopular if it were taken to extremes. A lot of Shakespeare's plays have great plots but I wouldn't waste my time going to see one... A movie version, sure, but not an actual play. I need some "special effects" just as I need some scientific accuracy to hold a story together.

[tater]

I'm happy if they get anything right at all. The mesa by the landing site is for looks. The backgrounds will be better with terrain. There are logistic reasons as well. It means they can shoot continuous shots without the trailers, etc (they hide those behind the hill---for all we know there is a highway on the other side of the hill, or a hotel).

As for aerobraking, if they don;t do it in the movie, then the craft doesn't need that capability.

I think this has a lot of promise to be pretty good, unlike Interstellar (which was visually appealing but otherwise I could not manage to enjoy much without second-guessing. I could say the same for Gravity---note that Squad is creating a group of people that notice as a gut reaction things wrong in Gravity that before only physics/astrophysics/areo-astro engineers would have likely noticed before (point directly at the chinese station that is retrograde 100km away, and just burn to get there, for example ).

[sp1989]

At 2:30 or so in the video, the base of the ascent rocket is shown. It looks like this:

http://i.imgur.com/gTIEOmy.jpg

-Upsilon

Its an ascent stage and a decent stage. Remember Watney harvests the spent hydrazine from that decent stage.

This is an interview with Andy Weir and Adam Savage. All they do throughout the interview is gush about the book. But Weir talks and admit happily about all the stuff that he got wrong. I think the trailer is getting alot from the book right. Its hollywood everything has to look cool or else people might not be interested int it. I love the suits I hate the helmets. Remember these have to be suits that he has to take on and off alone. Real spacesuits are impossible to take on and off alone. So the suits in the book take a giant leap forward in spacesuit technology. Again from the trailer you can clearly hear the abrupt cutouts and sound editing to make it all sound more compelling in a three minute trailer. There is no way they throw away the plot of the crew not knowing. Its too good a plot. So that bunch of pictures is probably Watneys FIRST transmission to NASA. Listen to it again its an abrupt cutout. Its "Houston be advised" in one tone and then "we are receiving a video message" in another tone. From the sound of it, its two differnt people actually. Jessica Chastain first and then Kate Mara. Then it flashes to the pictures. How do you know thats not some NASA engineer piecing the pictures together. To be critical of that part of the trailer really annoys me because it is clearly a nonlinear chain of event edited together to create a cool moment in the trailer. The hermes is gorgeous. Also to be annoyed at a transmission is ridiculous! It is nit picky and pedantic beyond anything that is acceptable. I am disappointed it doesn't look more realistic but lets pretend for the movies sake that NASA all of a sudden has an unlimited budget. And again its hollywood deal with things looking pretty! Edited June 11, 2015 by sp1989

[KSK]

You're missing my point. By all means, inaccuracies can be pointed out, but damn it there's no requirement to be completely condescending and pedantic about it all. That is what alienates others. There's almost never any credit given to what's done right or how much better it is compared to the current status quo. And, you know, it's almost exclusively done in these case by the armchair experts. In my observations, the actual scientists and experts are usually a lot more enthusiastic about a given film/book/series/whatever than those those in "fan" communities, and are a lot more laid-back about things it got wrong.

It eventually becomes this endless cascade of "everything's so horrible and scientifically inaccurate and I hate it and I'm not even going to bother with any movies anymore because hollywood will never learn how to do this right..." and so on.

I tire of it. Greatly. And of course, I expect now to be pigeonholed as someone who doesn't understand science or spaceflight and is just trying to defend their ignorance, because that's usually the reaction I get to pointing this sort of stuff out.

I love scientific accuracy in movies, and you know what? I'm always very happy for what they get right. Negativity-for-the-sake-of-it just gives me gas.

Yep - hard to please a crowd to whom something will always be 5% wrong rather than 95% right.

[Whirligig Girl]

Does anyone have a picture of the spacecraft that will be in the movie? A space-station-like construction is by no means unrealistic. It's just a question about how much is propellant and how much is reactor/habitation/structure. And of course the Isp of the engine. But if you have a nuclear reactor, I suspect engine efficiency is not a problem.

[NovaSilisko]

Does anyone have a picture of the spacecraft that will be in the movie? A space-station-like construction is by no means unrealistic. It's just a question about how much is propellant and how much is reactor/habitation/structure. And of course the Isp of the engine. But if you have a nuclear reactor, I suspect engine efficiency is not a problem.

It's nuclear-electric, if I recall from the book correctly. Some sort of VASIMR descendent, probably. It has heat radiators. Heat radiators! On a movie spaceship! <3

Also, in the trailer proper, they show scenes from inside the centrifugal gravity portion, which is pretty cool - the rest of the ship spinning around from the point of view of inside the ring modules. Only issue I have with it is the offset nose section, which might alter the center of mass a bit much. However, I would assume the engine could be angled in some fashion. There also appears to be another section behind the centrifugal ring that's jutting upward, which might balance it out.

Edited June 11, 2015 by NovaSilisko

[sp1989]

Wrong movie... "the power of lurve!" was interstellar.

Hahahahaha heat shields!!*

[waterlubber]

It moves like our rockets in KSP do, except with an LV-1 on a 3.5m tank.

2mm/s² FTW.

Also, favorite parts of the book?

Pathfinder update scene for me. Just one thing:

hmm reminds me of this

[sp1989]

Does anyone have a picture of the spacecraft that will be in the movie? A space-station-like construction is by no means unrealistic. It's just a question about how much is propellant and how much is reactor/habitation/structure. And of course the Isp of the engine. But if you have a nuclear reactor, I suspect engine efficiency is not a problem.

I'm not talking about the construction I'm talking about the cost of materials and the innovations that need to be made and then implementing those innovations. Plus it's a program the likes of Apollo. The Hermes although reusable would be most likely be exceedingly more expensive than the ISS. Then there are the habs and rovers and return vehicles that are sent ahead of the crew. I don't think that if it would be done today it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars most likely approaching trillions of dollars. Sadly funding like that is the most unrealistic part of the whole endeavor.

[Kibble]

Does anyone have a picture of the spacecraft that will be in the movie? A space-station-like construction is by no means unrealistic. It's just a question about how much is propellant and how much is reactor/habitation/structure. And of course the Isp of the engine. But if you have a nuclear reactor, I suspect engine efficiency is not a problem.

The fact that it is powered by a nuclear reactor is the unrealistic part.

Edited for entirety:

Also the centrifuge section. In almost every study, slip-roll joints were considered much too difficult to integrate with despun sections, especially when both are meant to be habitable.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Kibble

[Dodgey]

Honestly it seems like the more realistic a movie it is the more it gets shot down for its inaccuracies. Take Gravity for example, properly modelled the light based on the orientation of the actors, O2 running out isn't instant death, Newtonian motion is mostly correct, so many things are correct however it got destroyed by hard science fiction fans due to things that had to be the way they are because it is a movie and it needs a plot, same with Interstellar. Now it looks like another potentially great hard science fiction movie will be shot down as well because people like to only see what's wrong, I'm with Nova on this one, people are so quick to ignore what is right and point out what is wrong.

Oh and UpsilonAerospace, sticks, really? That's getting conspiracy level pedantic in my books.

Edit:

@Kibble, ever heard of rule of cool?

[Dodgey]

So is it just me or is that a familiar looking antenna array?

[Kibble]

I actually really really like Gravity.

[tater]

Nukes are the way you'd power a vasimr, why would that possibly be unrealistic (not that vasimr itself is realistic so far)? Space nuclear power is fine. I used to hang with a bunch of guys at UNM-ISNPS (and some from LANL) that worked on SP-100, SAFE, etc.

I remember when the russians flew in a topaz to test at Sandia, too.

- - - Updated - - -

I actually really really like Gravity.

It was pretty to look at, but pretty much all the orbital mechanics related stuff was wrong.

It's still enjoyable, though largely because it is so pretty to look at.

[PakledHostage]

Honestly it seems like the more realistic a movie it is the more it gets shot down for its inaccuracies. Take Gravity for example, properly modelled the light based on the orientation of the actors, O2 running out isn't instant death, Newtonian motion is mostly correct, so many things are correct however it got destroyed by hard science fiction fans due to things that had to be the way they are because it is a movie and it needs a plot, same with Interstellar.

Just for the record, some of us who thought that Interstellar and Gravity sucked had no problem with the "science" or the special effects. There was plenty in the cringe inducing plots to turn many people off those movies. It was as if the writers were trying to pack too much in - to hook as many people as possible with emotionally affecting scenes. They ended up coming across as contrived and clichéd instead. I honestly felt like I was being manipulated.

Sometimes you have to look past any inaccuracies in the technical details and special effects that support a story. It is much harder to look past a story itself, when that story is badly flawed.

Edited June 11, 2015 by PakledHostage

[sp1989]

Just for the record, some of us who thought that Interstellar and Gravity sucked had no problem with the "science" or the special effects. There was plenty in the cringe inducing plots to turn many people off those movies. It was as if the writers were trying to pack too much in - to hook as many people as possible with emotionally affecting scenes. They ended up coming across as contrived and clichéd instead.

Sometimes you have to look past any inaccuracies in the technical details and special effects that support a story. It is much harder to look past a story itself, when that story is badly flawed.

There is a simple truth with gravity and interstellar. Both were about graphics first and story second. Gravity for all intents and purposes is a terrible story. It was all about how to make those movies. This story was a novel and has gone from great story to how to make it. AND it looks beautiful. So I am very optimistic, also they must be doing something right because it's now been bumped up to an October 2nd release. It's being released two months early! So now no competition with Star Wars, bond, and mockingjay.

[sp1989]

New date for movies release had been bumped to October 2nd. Yay two months less waiting!

[Dodgey]

Just for the record, some of us who thought that Interstellar and Gravity sucked had no problem with the "science" or the special effects. There was plenty in the cringe inducing plots to turn many people off those movies. It was as if the writers were trying to pack too much in - to hook as many people as possible with emotionally affecting scenes. They ended up coming across as contrived and clichéd instead. I honestly felt like I was being manipulated.

Sometimes you have to look past any inaccuracies in the technical details and special effects that support a story. It is much harder to look past a story itself, when that story is badly flawed.

Which is fine, I am in no way excusing the plot however in almost every movie there are concessions made worth regards to reality for the sake of the plot, what people do is see these concessions and complain as if the movie could survive without those inaccuracies.

Yes I know I'm complaining about complaining. But yeah nothing can save a bad plot.

[theend3r]

...note that Squad is creating a group of people that notice as a gut reaction things wrong in Gravity that before only physics/astrophysics/areo-astro engineers would have likely noticed before...

I unfortunately have this syndrome that has ruined Gravity, Interstellar, even the new Star Trek (the old ones are fine for some reason) and many others for me. There are some movies that don't take the sci of sci-fi too seriously (like Star Wars) where I don't mind but when the producers want to make something realistic and believable, those mistakes really bug me.

[BagelRabbit]

You're missing my point. By all means, inaccuracies can be pointed out, but damn it there's no requirement to be completely condescending and pedantic about it all. That is what alienates others. There's almost never any credit given to what's done right or how much better it is compared to the current status quo. And, you know, it's almost exclusively done in these case by the armchair experts. In my observations, the actual scientists and experts are usually a lot more enthusiastic about a given film/book/series/whatever than those those in "fan" communities, and are a lot more laid-back about things it got wrong.

It eventually becomes this endless cascade of "everything's so horrible and scientifically inaccurate and I hate it and I'm not even going to bother with any movies anymore because hollywood will never learn how to do this right..." and so on.

I tire of it. Greatly. And of course, I expect now to be pigeonholed as someone who doesn't understand science or spaceflight and is just trying to defend their ignorance, because that's usually the reaction I get to pointing this sort of stuff out.

I love scientific accuracy in movies, and you know what? I'm always very happy for what they get right. Negativity-for-the-sake-of-it just gives me gas.

To be honest, Nova, I don't disagree. Which is precisely why I said numerous times over the course of the video I made that I was being pedantic and actually apologized at the end. I understand your point of view, and I'm sorry you feel that way. I think my inherently OCD nature got the best of me here. It won't happen again. (or at least, I don't think it will.)

That being said, there only really seem to be two or three people in this thread that are being overtly negative about the film, with the remaining group being neutral-to-positive. That's hardly a sign that our community is going in the "I-hate-this-movie-and-it's-so-scientifically-inaccurate-and-wrong-and-Hollywood-sucks" direction.

Oh and UpsilonAerospace, sticks, really? That's getting conspiracy level pedantic in my books.

Conspiracy theorists are so awful because they draw absurd conclusions from seemingly normal images and ideas. Take

, for example. It alleges that Mars has a bunch of big buildings built by aliens long ago... and as evidence, it shows some lovely pictures of sedimentary rocks. It's quite difficult to believe because it's implausible and backed up by scant evidence.

On the other hand, with the sticks, I merely commented that there were a bunch of little linear things in the sand that really looked like sticks, and that I wasn't sure how they got there. It's not implausible that the filmmakers were shoddy and left a few sticks on the dunes. It's not implausible that the 'sticks' were meant to depict something else, either, which is why I never said that the things were sticks. I just said that they looked a bit like sticks, but whatever they were, I didn't understand why they were in the shot.

I do agree that I need to become a bit less pedantic in the future, though. I suppose next you'll be telling me to watch movies because it's fun to do so

-Upsilon

Edited June 11, 2015 by UpsilonAerospace