Interstellar

[Whirligig Girl]

I understood the science of Interstellar without having ever read the companion book. You don't need the book to understand it.

- - - Updated - - -

She is the chief scientist and biologist of the expedition and she thinks that love is "Maybe it means something more, something we can't... yet understand.".

So a scientist out to save the human race wants to follow her love instead of using her brain.

Pretty much. No one here except for the dumb and stupid small tiny artistic part of my brain that I hate is saying that Interstellar is perfect. And of course, I recall hearing the story of the evangelical christian biologist who did not believe in completely natural selection. Brand is not a perfect person. She, like any good character, has flaws which can make a character more real. And don't forget that Mann did indeed claim to have a very habitable planet.

Ah screw it, you win this part of the argument, Albert.

Edited June 11, 2015 by GregroxMun

[tater]

I understood the science of Interstellar without having ever read the companion book. You don't need the book to understand it.

If you think there were believable science bits that were used as major plot devices from watching the movie, I don't think you did. I've read excerpts of the book in question, and it is a pretty weak defense of the movie, actually. It is (appropriately for a scientist) very conditional. It's always couched as something like "in my rationalization of what is happening…" On top of that, it's special cases, not the big picture or connecting the dots. The craft MUST have the dv to escape a gravity well so deep that time dilation is a factor (~50% c orbital velocity has no macroscopic SR time dilation). That means that the astronauts don't experience dilation "on the surface," but continuously as a gradient as they even approach. That entire plot device is utter nonsense, and anyone who understands GR at all would know this. The x-ray flux of a world so close to a supermassive BH… should write that world off for that reason alone. That position also would seemingly place the world at great risk from the SMBH sweeping up the local neighborhood of debris… not where you want to move. The SSTO crafts that are not SSTO at earth (for reasons). Etc, etc, etc.

I was annoyed with the science in real time watching the movie. I'm glad my kids didn't see it, frankly, I'd have to disabuse them of all the bad astrophysics---when they ask questions in the car, like how the sun works, I feel the need to start with the "when a proton and a proton love each other, very much" level, lol (my son was 4 at the time).

Edited June 11, 2015 by tater

[Shpaget]

when a proton and a proton love each other, very much

Sounds like a splendid story. Do tell!

[tater]

This is a family forum

[benjee10]

I guess they must be so smart, to do something like that, that they can't figure out how to communicate with their ancestors. Why do they need to hide a tesseract in a black hole? Who would ever look in there?

Their very existence depends on it to be found. Well that and Murph knowing morse code.

It's a time loop/paradox. The future humans have to make it happen that way because to them that's the way it happened... like I said, don't like the ending. I'm not going to defend it because it's disappointing and feels half hearted.

Part of the setting would be "Why do we need space travel if we are starving down here?", you don't need to add "The Moon landings were faked, it says so in this corrected book!".

OK I missed the refused part. That still leaves the question on why they need NASA to do it? If they can fund an interstellar mission then they can fund a small army to do it.

Also NASA is part of the government, if someone refuses to follow orders then they can be replaced.

Standing armies were dissolved. That's mentioned somewhere in it. NASA is effectively an independent organization scrounging what it can in secret - the Endurance mission isn't ordered by the government, it's NASA using up the very last of its equipment and fuel reserves.

I also still don't get your issue with the moon landing fakery thing. What's the problem? It's propaganda which shows how the pursuit of knowledge is being crushed in favour of attempting to grow crops which will inevitably die.

There's nothing exciting happening there

That's a pretty subjective opinion. Personal I find giant tidal waves advancing with the constant knowledge that every hour you spend on the surface is seven years you will miss watching your children grow up rather compelling.

She is the chief scientist and biologist of the expedition and she thinks that love is "Maybe it means something more, something we can't... yet understand.".

So a scientist out to save the human race wants to follow her love instead of using here brain.

Yes. Because love is a powerful force to whoever experiences it. It makes us do things we wouldn't normally do. It gives us a will to survive for other people's sake, not just our own. Brand wants to follow her love because it compels her to do so. Of course that'd be a lot more affecting if they'd made her character slightly compelling and instead it comes off as 'I believe that love is a fundamental force of the universe!' which I'm pretty sure isn't what the filmmakers intended. The movie as a whole could use some sharper editing.

Once again I am not arguing that Interstellar is perfection. It is far from it. But saying it sucks is uncalled for. Sure it has its flaws (a lot of them) but at least it's a movie trying to get people interested in science and space travel in a way which is about exploration instead of about war and violence. It makes an effort to try to get things right where the plot allows it instead of making up a load of handwavium (tesseract aside) and on an artistic level it succeeds. Personally I think it's a great time to be a space fan. We've had Gravity, Interstellar, Europa Report and now The Martian (which will hopefully be pretty scientifically accurate) in the space of what, three years? You can't expect movies to get everything perfectly right and lots of the time the needs of the story and the will of the director outweighs the benefits of scientific accuracy, but at least it's getting science out there in the public opinion. I bet thousands of people have gone out and learned about time dilation now who never knew it existed before thanks to Interstellar. We should be encouraging films which get people interested in space not saying they suck just because they don't meet our standards of scientific accuracy. You need to detach yourself more and enjoy the film for what it is, an illusion, a piece of entertainment, not a statement of fact. I think the movie suffered from mismarketing in that respect. People (including me) were expecting more scientific scrupulousness than actually happened but if you can look past that it certainly doesn't suck.

[tater]

I intentionally didn't read much about Interstellar before seeing it recently to avoid spoilers and have an open mind about it. I had heard some people like it enough that I was expecting to really like it. I had trouble getting past the gaping holes while watching it in real time. If I find myself saying "why aren't they dead?" when they clearly should be, or other errors, it pretty much wrecks suspension of disbelief. It is the same reason we rarely watch medical drama at my house, my wife rolls her eyes and instantly points out what is utterly stupid in real time (she's a surgeon). I have yet to have even a medical scene in something that she thinks isn't dumb, for example.

The more I think back on the movie, the less I like it. Had they avoided any attempt at trying for "hard" SF, and added a warp drive or something, I'd have cut it far more slack, because my standard for suspension of disbelief would have been different.

I don't expect movies to get things perfectly right, but as I pointed out above, you could have exactly the same broad plot (holes and all) without buggering physics so badly that anyone with some background can't enjoy it. Easily, too. A few lines of dialog, smaller but cool BH as a close companion to primary star, etc.

[Whirligig Girl]

If you think there were believable science bits that were used as major plot devices from watching the movie, I don't think you did. I've read excerpts of the book in question, and it is a pretty weak defense of the movie, actually. It is (appropriately for a scientist) very conditional. It's always couched as something like "in my rationalization of what is happening…" On top of that, it's special cases, not the big picture or connecting the dots. The craft MUST have the dv to escape a gravity well so deep that time dilation is a factor (~50% c orbital velocity has no macroscopic SR time dilation). That means that the astronauts don't experience dilation "on the surface," but continuously as a gradient as they even approach. That entire plot device is utter nonsense, and anyone who understands GR at all would know this. The x-ray flux of a world so close to a supermassive BH… should write that world off for that reason alone. That position also would seemingly place the world at great risk from the SMBH sweeping up the local neighborhood of debris… not where you want to move. The SSTO crafts that are not SSTO at earth (for reasons). Etc, etc, etc.

I was annoyed with the science in real time watching the movie. I'm glad my kids didn't see it, frankly, I'd have to disabuse them of all the bad astrophysics---when they ask questions in the car, like how the sun works, I feel the need to start with the "when a proton and a proton love each other, very much" level, lol (my son was 4 at the time).

Let me rephrase

I understood what they thought they were doing without reading the companion book. The tidal waves caused by the black hole, how general relativity compresses time, etc. And as I said, the fuel margins of the spacecraft was my only big problem with the movie. The only important part is that it says that black holes dilate time, which is a real thing.

For Kraken's sake, let's put this into perspective. Armaggeddon. That curse word should be all that needs to be said. As far as I'm concerned, if you can take a story and change whatever you want to it to give it more accurate science, and it still has the same plot overall, then it's fine. The basic idea of the plot is that you have a guy who goes on a space mission to save the world, but because the only solar system within reach is a black hole system, and black holes cause time dilation, he misses his children growing up. He then returns to Earth, finding himself in the future due to general relativity. THe major science point in this is the general relativity. Saying the movie's science is horrible is like saying Kerbal Space Program is horrible because the planets are the wrong size/density/gravity. The basic concept is the same, and a Kerbal Space Program could still work in a full scale world. KSP Still teaches the basics of rocket science and orbital motion.

We should also not forget other science fiction movies that are good, but are not accurate. Deep Impact comes to mind. Not to mention the really hard science fiction movies that are not so good. Personally, I didn't particularly like Europa Report even though the science was pretty good.

Incidentally, I don't think they made the spacecraft not use a warp drive specifically to be hard-science fiction, I think they did it because they wanted to use low-tech hardware to emphasize the state of Earth at the time. Endurance and it's associated spacecraft were designed for exploration of Mars. (I suspect this is part of why the Ranger uses such a flat, paper-airplane like design, gets as much lift as possible from the thin air, not so much to glide but to steer its descent.)

[benjee10]

Let me rephrase

I understood what they thought they were doing without reading the companion book. The tidal waves caused by the black hole, how general relativity compresses time, etc. And as I said, the fuel margins of the spacecraft was my only big problem with the movie. The only important part is that it says that black holes dilate time, which is a real thing.

For Kraken's sake, let's put this into perspective. Armaggeddon. That curse word should be all that needs to be said. As far as I'm concerned, if you can take a story and change whatever you want to it to give it more accurate science, and it still has the same plot overall, then it's fine. The basic idea of the plot is that you have a guy who goes on a space mission to save the world, but because the only solar system within reach is a black hole system, and black holes cause time dilation, he misses his children growing up. He then returns to Earth, finding himself in the future due to general relativity. THe major science point in this is the general relativity. Saying the movie's science is horrible is like saying Kerbal Space Program is horrible because the planets are the wrong size/density/gravity. The basic concept is the same, and a Kerbal Space Program could still work in a full scale world. KSP Still teaches the basics of rocket science and orbital motion.

We should also not forget other science fiction movies that are good, but are not accurate. Deep Impact comes to mind. Not to mention the really hard science fiction movies that are not so good. Personally, I didn't particularly like Europa Report even though the science was pretty good.

Incidentally, I don't think they made the spacecraft not use a warp drive specifically to be hard-science fiction, I think they did it because they wanted to use low-tech hardware to emphasize the state of Earth at the time. Endurance and it's associated spacecraft were designed for exploration of Mars. (I suspect this is part of why the Ranger uses such a flat, paper-airplane like design, gets as much lift as possible from the thin air, not so much to glide but to steer its descent.)

Well said. This is pretty much my thoughts but explained much more coherently XD

On the subject of sci-fi films which get lots of the science wrong but are still good, Sunshine is a vastly underrated movie. Third act is a bit weak but man, the first two are great. And the spaceship has inexplicable artificial gravity. I don't care. It doesn't impact the plot.

[tater]

Let me rephrase

I understood what they thought they were doing without reading the companion book. The tidal waves caused by the black hole, how general relativity compresses time, etc. And as I said, the fuel margins of the spacecraft was my only big problem with the movie. The only important part is that it says that black holes dilate time, which is a real thing.

But of course even within that plot, forget real science minutiae, it breaks everything. Miller's planet is near the BH, and that screws up him getting home in a timely way… actually going into the BH, which should result in division by 0 dilation? No effect.

Incidentally, I don't think they made the spacecraft not use a warp drive specifically to be hard-science fiction, I think they did it because they wanted to use low-tech hardware to emphasize the state of Earth at the time. Endurance and it's associated spacecraft were designed for exploration of Mars. (I suspect this is part of why the Ranger uses such a flat, paper-airplane like design, gets as much lift as possible from the thin air, not so much to glide but to steer its descent.)

SSTO bricks are low tech? The 2d planet has a larger mass than earth, and both the rangers and cargo things are SSTOs. Easily SSTOs, they can land, then take off again. Designed for Mars? LOL. That'd be nice.

The small craft might as well be explicitly powered by a sci-fi magic drive, since they certainly are, since I don't think 90% payload fractions are a thing.

I'd suspend disbelief on the spacecraft, and just assume the drives were SF magic, but the GR stuff is just dumb. Really. Not just because it is wrong, because even within the movie universe, it breaks stuff.

It's like Star Trek. They used their technobabble to invent new technologies almost every TNG episode. Next week, they'd forget that the _____-genic field they invented last week entirely deals with this week's plot in 5 minutes. In this movie, BHs cause dilation at an apparently very safe distance, but the ship happily goes far closer with no ill effects twice. So even not nitpicking the science, it's internally nonsensical.

[Albert VDS]

It's a time loop/paradox. The future humans have to make it happen that way because to them that's the way it happened... like I said, don't like the ending. I'm not going to defend it because it's disappointing and feels half hearted.

Then we agree on that.

Standing armies were dissolved. That's mentioned somewhere in it. NASA is effectively an independent organization scrounging what it can in secret - the Endurance mission isn't ordered by the government, it's NASA using up the very last of its equipment and fuel reserves.

I also still don't get your issue with the moon landing fakery thing. What's the problem? It's propaganda which shows how the pursuit of knowledge is being crushed in favour of attempting to grow crops which will inevitably die.

That makes it even more unbelievable. Operating for that amount of time with equipment they had before NASA was dissolved. Not money? Just equipment?

That's a pretty subjective opinion. Personal I find giant tidal waves advancing with the constant knowledge that every hour you spend on the surface is seven years you will miss watching your children grow up rather compelling.

But there is nothing exciting happening. It's a cliché the-heroes-are-saved-in-the-nick-of-time scene. It's so obvious that the "red shirt" is going to die and that the 2nd wave won't kill them.

Yes. Because love is a powerful force to whoever experiences it. It makes us do things we wouldn't normally do. It gives us a will to survive for other people's sake, not just our own. Brand wants to follow her love because it compels her to do so. Of course that'd be a lot more affecting if they'd made her character slightly compelling and instead it comes off as 'I believe that love is a fundamental force of the universe!' which I'm pretty sure isn't what the filmmakers intended. The movie as a whole could use some sharper editing.

If it's not what the filmmakers intended then why did they make Cooper say:

-I'm here to find a way to tell Murph, just like I found this moment.

-How Cooper?

Love TARS, love! It's just like Brand said, my connection with Murph, it is quantifiable. It is the key.

Once again I am not arguing that Interstellar is perfection. It is far from it. But saying it sucks is uncalled for. Sure it has its flaws (a lot of them) but at least it's a movie trying to get people interested in science and space travel in a way which is about exploration instead of about war and violence. It makes an effort to try to get things right where the plot allows it instead of making up a load of handwavium (tesseract aside) and on an artistic level it succeeds. Personally I think it's a great time to be a space fan. We've had Gravity, Interstellar, Europa Report and now The Martian (which will hopefully be pretty scientifically accurate) in the space of what, three years? You can't expect movies to get everything perfectly right and lots of the time the needs of the story and the will of the director outweighs the benefits of scientific accuracy, but at least it's getting science out there in the public opinion. I bet thousands of people have gone out and learned about time dilation now who never knew it existed before thanks to Interstellar. We should be encouraging films which get people interested in space not saying they suck just because they don't meet our standards of scientific accuracy. You need to detach yourself more and enjoy the film for what it is, an illusion, a piece of entertainment, not a statement of fact. I think the movie suffered from mismarketing in that respect. People (including me) were expecting more scientific scrupulousness than actually happened but if you can look past that it certainly doesn't suck.

Well I give them the trying-to-get-people-interested-in-space point.

Movies don't need to perfectly right. There's still a lot of non-science plot holes and mistakes in the movie and LOTS of unneeded drama which at least made me cringe.

I've got hopes on The Martian, let's hope it's at least halve as good as the book.

[Superfluous J]

actually going into the BH, which should result in division by 0 dilation?

Crossing the event horizon of a black hole does not make your time dilation infinite. It just makes it impossible to go back out. Unless 5th dimensional future humans save you.

[tater]

Yeah, I'd stipulate to the idea that getting people interested is valuable, regardless of the science (some people got interested by star trek, after all, lol). Any that move forward will someday see it again after they know more, and it won't hold up, though

- - - Updated - - -

Crossing the event horizon of a black hole does not make your time dilation infinite. It just makes it impossible to go back out. Unless 5th dimensional future humans save you.

Asymptotically near the event horizon, the time dilation goes to infinity (the difference between clocks in the 2 frames). It absolutely becomes infinite.

T/t = sqrt(1-S®/r )

T is for the guy approaching the Schwarzchild radius (S®) of a black hole. r is his distance. When he reaches S®, that term becomes 1. Solve for t (outside observer's time).

t= T/(sqrt(1-S®/r )) When S®/r = 1 (ie: at the Schwarzchild radius), the denominator is 0, and t = T/0 = infinity

Edited June 11, 2015 by tater

[Superfluous J]

Asymptotically near the event horizon, the time dilation goes to infinity (the difference between clocks in the 2 frames). It absolutely becomes infinite.

I don't math so well these days, but if time dilation goes infinite at the radius of a black hole, then there should be no black holes as none of them could collapse down to that radius. Also, every non-equation-only (i.e., that I can actually take in without spending hours) description I've ever seen counters your equation-only description.

[Whirligig Girl]

--stuff--

You win. You have mentioned Star Trek, which grants you the right to have won the conversation by reason of insanity.

Well I guess I hate Interstellar now. I'm going to go destroy my computer because I listened to the soundtrack on it. You now have a convert. What are we going to do now, Mr. Tater, protest the showing of Interstellar at a private movie theater, or something? I trust you have a plan?

No I'm not serious. I love Star Trek, but for different reasons than Interstellar, and I still love Interstellar. It's not bad. I really could care less at this point, hence me giving up on this argument. I reserve the right to like a movie even if it has bad science.

[tater]

They (the star as it collapses) don't move through that radius at all, it's not a physical thing.

The star collapses first.

The Schwarzchild radius isn't a physical thing, it's just the point in space where the escape velocity = c.

Say the earth somehow retained the same mass, but the radius decreased, there would still be a radius where g=9.82m/s^2 at what was before sea level. g would be higher at the new, magically shrunk sea level. Take an earth mass of degenerate matter, then there is a sphere (imaginary) where g is what we expect (at the radius we expect (simplified)), and the earth mass would be a small ball in the center.

Does that make sense?

Inside? Who knows Black holes are weird.

Edited June 11, 2015 by tater

[Whirligig Girl]

Crossing the event horizon of a black hole does not make your time dilation infinite. It just makes it impossible to go back out. Unless 5th dimensional future humans save you.

(Actually it kind of does, it's like going at the speed of light, where time dilation is infinite, and somehow exceeding that limit would make you go back in time until at 2c where you're going backwards in time just as fast as standing still. This is all based on my basic mathematics, it's a rational equation. Same thing happens at a black hole. But yeah, you can't come out unless the tesseractmakers save you, which they did.)

[vger]

I've watched it once. Honestly, that whole 5th dimension thing was just... I understood it once what's-his-name in the movie understood it.

My first thought when he was falling through it was that he was looking at a manifestation of "infinite worlds" theory. My jaw was just hanging open at that point. I didn't feel any less boggled though when I started realizing that each 'interation' was a bookshelf. Then I thought maybe it was a literal "Akashic Record," a newage spiritual concept that contains the entirety of human experience (though a tesseract like in the film would technically be that anyway, whether Nolan intended it or if it's just an ironic accident).

[benjee10]

My first thought when he was falling through it was that he was looking at a manifestation of "infinite worlds" theory. My jaw was just hanging open at that point. I didn't feel any less boggled though when I started realizing that each 'interation' was a bookshelf. Then I thought maybe it was a literal "Akashic Record," a newage spiritual concept that contains the entirety of human experience (though a tesseract like in the film would technically be that anyway, whether Nolan intended it or if it's just an ironic accident).

I thought it was a visual representation of time effectively ceasing to exist when time dilation reached infinity and Cooper was seeing his whole history up to that point, kinda like your life flashing before your eyes but just before being spaghettified by a black hole. Awesome visuals.

[Superfluous J]

Does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense now, as it did when I made my last post.

Your star is shrinking. Based on its mass, we can calculate what its Schwarzchild radius will be.

How in a non-infinitely-old universe does that star get from (Schwarzchild radius) + 1 millimeter in diameter, down to (Schwarzchild radius) in diameter? When you need to go 99.9999999 percent of the speed of light to escape, time will be slowed down so much that the star will never actually collapse. And as it gets closer, time dilation is worse.

NOTE: I'm not arguing that this is happening. I'm arguing that it's NOT happening, therefore there's something wrong with your premises or conclusions.

[Cydonian Monk]

Science problems aside, which you folks seems to be debating quite well on your own....

I wasn't a big fan of Interstellar when I saw it in the theatres, mainly because it was too long with too much fluff. It grew on me as I had some time to chew on the movie, and I enjoyed it much more on the second viewing. By then I knew the story they were shooting for (Father/Daughter Day at Relativity Inc.), so I was able to watch the movie with an editor's eye.

Given the story, character building and bonding of Murph and Coop is critical at the start. Anything that doesn't really support that could've been dropped. The whole drone chase. Most, if not all of the Parent-Teacher meeting. I'd probably even start the movie at the baseball dust storm. Yeah, ok, so we're selling "Moon landing was fake" and "science is evil" stuff - cover that in passing, as a car conversation on the way home. I get the setting they're trying to do with it, and I also understand how it plays into the "character building and bonding," but it didn't need the awkward minute-plus scene at the school to explain. Lots of the misc. farm stuff and the flash-forward interviews were fluff.

The whole first planet? Why is that even in the movie? Sure, it's cool from a features and visuals point of view (except that whole physics and ÃŽâ€v thing). Story-wise all it does is kill off a character and age another by a few decades. So? Cut it, have RedShirt #1 get killed along with young-Romilly by Mark Watney's potato farm Dr. Mann's booby trap instead. Or even old-Romilly, somehow. I did like using the aging mechanism to show time dilation, just not the whole first planet. Maybe aging Romilly isn't even needed, just drive the point home instead with the messages from Earth and the ending.

Those two groups of cuts alone make this a much more manageable film with negligible plot changes. I'd still cut more, but I'm running out of characters here.

As for the ending.... As Mark Watney Dr. Mann said, "your last thoughts are of your children." Falling into a black hole might trigger some powerful hallucinations. Stretched out to infinity and divided again by zero. Or, given Coop is now communing with Murph using the magic of Gravity and Love..... None of the other "family" that were gathered around Murph's bed even remotely interacted with Coop. Y'know, their [great-]grandfather that flew into a wormhole to save the human race? They didn't even so much as look or nod at him. Like he wasn't there.

Like he was a ghost.

[Whirligig Girl]

It makes perfect sense now, as it did when I made my last post.

Your star is shrinking. Based on its mass, we can calculate what its Schwarzchild radius will be.

How in a non-infinitely-old universe does that star get from (Schwarzchild radius) + 1 millimeter in diameter, down to (Schwarzchild radius) in diameter? When you need to go 99.9999999 percent of the speed of light to escape, time will be slowed down so much that the star will never actually collapse. And as it gets closer, time dilation is worse.

NOTE: I'm not arguing that this is happening. I'm arguing that it's NOT happening, therefore there's something wrong with your premises or conclusions.

Black holes are not objects so much as events. Once something is dense enough it causes an event horizon to happen, which crushes everything else down. Time dilation is infinite at the event horizon. In fact, you would never actually be able to witness an object being absorbed by a black hole because it would slow down as it gets closer, eventually just fading out of view due to light redshifting.

Well, that's how I understand it anyway.

[Superfluous J]

Black holes are not objects so much as events.

I am aware that the event horizon is not a physical object. I am also aware that orbits are not physical objects, yet I (and everybody on this board) have no problems talking about them in the same way I'm talking about the event horizon of a black hole.

I'm leaning toward agreeing with reservations, as I'll admit the whole role of observation and light travel time in any discussion of relativity and time dilation makes makes my brain hurt.

I still think that if you can punch a (plot) hole through the universe and get out of a black hole once you've fallen in, an amount of time less than infinity will have passed on the outside. And when you get back out, you could sit in orbit of that black hole for Eternity, watching yourself fall in.

[Albert VDS]

I didn't want to post this in the NASA logo thread, because it would definitely derail it.

What is even up with changing the NASA logo in their timeline? Sure I get that they are "underground" now, so their logo needs to resemble that they don't have anything in space.

Or the director just thought it would look cooler.

So this version of NASA sat down with each other and thought "Hey, we need to save humanity, but first we need to design a new logo!".

[KerbMav]

What is even up with changing the NASA logo in their timeline? Sure I get that they are "underground" now, so their logo needs to resemble that they don't have anything in space.

Or the director just thought it would look cooler.

So this version of NASA sat down with each other and thought "Hey, we need to save humanity, but first we need to design a new logo!".

They changed their logo in our timeline once - who can say if they would never do it again? Might have happened before everything went downhill.

Maybe the producers of the movie thought it would be more convincing if they had a different logo - or it was a design choice from the arts department.

[Pawelk198604]

Yesterday I watched the Interstellar really cool movie, I liked the "docking" scene . I do not know how anyone could be so hopelessly irresponsible like Dr. Mann in this stage and try to do something that someone does not know quite how to do it. This robot TARS blocked the automatic docking, because I think that people are rational like robots, but people are not.