Enorats Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 That wasn't ever part of the mission though. The spuds were a surprise for the astronauts packed for Thanksgiving. They were supposed to eat them, not use them as seed potatoes. He didn't even have any seed/plants/fertilizer or whatever packed to perform any sort of botanical experiments, which is why he used Martian soil and "human" fertilizer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varsi Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 That wasn't ever part of the mission though. The spuds were a surprise for the astronauts packed for Thanksgiving. They were supposed to eat them, not use them as seed potatoes. He didn't even have any seed/plants/fertilizer or whatever packed to perform any sort of botanical experiments, which is why he used Martian soil and "human" fertilizer.I think it wasn't explained in the movie but they did have other stuff to grow as well. Watney just ended up growing potatoes since they had highest calories output. They also had some earth soil to use in growing experiments.It should be considered that pretty much everything they had in the book they also had in the movie but they just weren't mentioned due to time constraints.Back to topic on had tho. I just got inspired to try and throw dozens of satellites in ~80km orbit, have them nicely spaced and then cause a lot of debris from each of them (preferebly so that debris is thrown to forwards and backwards).Might be interesting to do launches after that even tho I still wouldn't expect collisions. Also hundreds of parts flying around might cause trouble to my computer... Will have to try this once I get back home! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MalevolentNinja Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) Upon further reflection.. I do have to admit that The Martian has one major flaw not yet noted. Maybe it is explained in the book.. but I don't think the movie did. Of all the people you could pick, why would you send a botanist to Mars.. a planet with no botany to study? Of course, we know its because he has to be a botanist to have the knowledge to properly prepare Martian soil to grow potaties, but within the context of the story it makes little sense. It's not quite as bad as Gravity sending a medical doctor to repair Hubble, but it still seems a bit odd.I'm not 100% sure, but I seem to remember it being explained in the book as him being there to study the potential for growing food on future missions, with an eventual goal of colonization. Regardless, that's not really a critique of the science of the story... That would be a literary device or plot hole. The book explains that everyone on the mission has multiple specialties, something the movie glosses over.I thought Martian soil contained perchlorate salts, making it poisonous to plants (and people?)According to modernfarmer.com it is possible but the book (and movie) overlooked the step needed of washing the salts out of the soil first. The fact that we're even discussing something so detailed just further solidifies the accuracy of the science in the book (in my mind at least).There are some other science goofs in the book, but they mostly have to do with discoveries made after the book was written that make the science in the book wrong in retrospect. For example the complicated method Watney uses to create water from hydrazine, when recent discoveries show that there's a lot of water trapped in the Martian soil. Edited November 3, 2015 by MalevolentNinja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfos31 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) Upon further reflection.. I do have to admit that The Martian has one major flaw not yet noted. Maybe it is explained in the book.. but I don't think the movie did. Of all the people you could pick, why would you send a botanist to Mars.. a planet with no botany to study? Of course, we know its because he has to be a botanist to have the knowledge to properly prepare Martian soil to grow potaties, but within the context of the story it makes little sense. It's not quite as bad as Gravity sending a medical doctor to repair Hubble, but it still seems a bit odd.It's explained in the book, and possibly in the movie but I don't recall, that Watney was their mechanical engineer/repair person as well as the botanist. The idea of crew members having multiple expertise is not out of norm either. As early as Apollo astronauts were taught a diverse blend of skills so they would be better prepared for various situations. In Apollo they took dozens of classes on geology so they could better understand the rocks and formations found on the moon. So a botany/mechanic isn't unusual once you think about it. I think a line in the book specifically points out that as unlucky as Watney's situation is, he is about the best person you could hope to get out of that problem because of what he knows.As for Gravity, it's sort of hand waved away but Sandra Bullock's character was the one who developed whatever system it is that she's installing/calibrating at the start of the movie. That's still pretty weak, as lots of amazing systems designed by people on the ground get installed and maintained by different people in orbit. But there you have it. I personally think Gravity has close to no scientific accuracy. But I also really disliked Interstellar for the extremes it went to in liberty with science fiction. On the whole I liked both movies but both left me frustrated by some of the things that they did and treated as scientifically plausible. Gravity was the worst offender. The only way it would have been plausible is if the debris cloud was in a retrograde orbit. The Hubble, ISS, and Chinese station would all have to be in perfect equatorial prograde orbits at similar altitudes, and the debris would have to be at the same altitude, inclination, etc. But retrograde. Of course that throws the 90 minute interval out the window, it would be 45 minute intervals. Them moving between orbital stations is still a huge leap of faith. Either we need to believe that they made the correct orbital maneuvers to set up an intercept, or we take it at face value that they simply aimed directly at the next destination and hit go. I'm guessing the latter since she had to use the "one time use, solid fuel landing engines" to get to the Chinese station and then managed to slow herself down just by grabbing on. The Martian is great, I like when Hollywood makes movies about space, especially ones like this where they stay very close to scientific accuracy. It gets people excited about space exploration and pushes us to ask "Why the hell are we still spending more on military budgets as opposed to exploring our neighborhood?" Edited November 3, 2015 by Wolfos31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enorats Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Hmm. A retrograde orbit. I hadn't considered that. Still, if they've got everything orbiting at the same altitude and inclination, with other things orbiting retrograde at those same values.. that might explain why they ended up with a debris field. Actually, that sounds rather kerbal of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 There are some other science goofs in the book, but they mostly have to do with discoveries made after the book was written that make the science in the book wrong in retrospect. For example the complicated method Watney uses to create water from hydrazine, when recent discoveries show that there's a lot of water trapped in the Martian soil.I don't think recent discoveries have shown there is "a lot" of water on Mars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uglyduckling81 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 I don't think recent discoveries have shown there is "a lot" of water on Mars.https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-evidence-that-liquid-water-flows-on-today-s-mars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MalevolentNinja Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I don't think recent discoveries have shown there is "a lot" of water on Mars.https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-evidence-that-liquid-water-flows-on-today-s-marsAnd I would like to add that you're right mikegarrison - I should have said "a huge amount of water"http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/167581-mars-soil-contains-a-large-percentage-of-water-reports-nasas-curiosity-rover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 A planet with a huge amount of water:Mars:"Hey, it looks like there might be a trickle of briny water that has left some gullies behind!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rocketeer Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 A planet with a huge amount of water:http://www.billfrymire.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/globe-earth-space-western-hemisphere.jpgMars:"Hey, it looks like there might be a trickle of briny water that has left some gullies behind!"@MikeGarrison, your argument doesn't hold water (sorry).1. Earth's water fraction is probably tiny compared to other planets out there, so defining it as the archetype 'huge amount of water' planet is a bit silly. Even in out own solar system there may very well be other orbital bodies that have more water both in quantity and as a mass fraction.2. I have drunk a huge amount of water this week, but I didn't drink all the Earth's oceans. See where this one is going?3. Mars very probably does have quantities of available water. It's smaller, colder and further from the sun than the Earth, and has less volcanic activity, so the Martian water cycle will be incredibly slow compared with the Earth's, but it's still an object possessed of an atmosphere under constant solar energy bombardment. Based on what I've seen and read as a casual browser of the scientific media, I'd posit that with the right machine you could comfortably extract enough water moisture from the atmosphere and geology to keep a small outpost from dying of thirst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomRyan Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Just EZ. shoot a satelite, (at a high Velocity) like in the moviemake sure you have a shuttle, HST, and all that other detail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lajoswinkler Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The question is, how to recreate the moment where Clooney Kerman loses his grip on Sandra Kerman and flies off in defiance of physics... Again, one of KSP forumers that has no understanding of basic physics, hasn't seen the scene properly and claims to know it all. Bussiness as usual.Seriously, of all the recent near-future sci-fi movies, Gravity is probably the least offensive to the space-physics-enlightened.Not just recent. Of all times. It is among the top best space movies ever and because of that, Internet nerds of today that never saw any older movies are more critical to it because they take it for granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MalevolentNinja Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) Again, one of KSP forumers that has no understanding of basic physics, hasn't seen the scene properly and claims to know it all. Bussiness as usual.A little harsh don't you think? Let's keep it classy. We all have our opinions and they are just that - opinions (even yours). Edited November 4, 2015 by MalevolentNinja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enorats Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Hmm. I smell a troll in that one.To just end the argument here.. this is the response a real former NASA astronaut had to say about Gravity. A few good things (mainly small details and how well they captured spacewalks), but he pretty much backs up everything we've been saying.http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/10/17/what-does-a-real-astronaut-think-of-gravity/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rocketeer Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 If you think that article means u won the argument then I don't think u understood what the argument was actually about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enorats Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 How does a real astronaut almost word for word backing up everything we've said not win the argument? Are you saying an astronaut doesn't know how spaceflight works? That he, of all people, doesn't know what he's talking about? Surely you're kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 This thread has wandered quite far from its topic, and is turning into personal animosities. Time to move on to other discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts