|
MikeJF posted:I imagine that it's more reliable than an automated landing if you happen to have a pilot in orbit. So the first one was thrown there by a rocket and then later missions the Hermes drops off the next mission's MAV.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
Alternately, Ares I may have just carried two MAVs and enough fuel for their own to take off and taken a bit longer to get there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Even that trouble was more than necessary, as hydrazine will burn directly in oxygen, so there was no need for his catalytic decomposition apparatus. I guess the point was getting laughs for him blowing himself up, but even that could have been done another way. The hydrazine came from the Ares 3 MDV, that's its fuel and there was some left because Martinez landed very efficiently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
The water recycler can only reclaim existing water. He needed a lot of water for the potatoes. So just using what he had on hand wasnt enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:The water recycler can only reclaim existing water. He needed a lot of water for the potatoes. So just using what he had on hand wasnt enough. My point was that hauling all their water with them was inefficient. If NASA was going to send a fuel-production module ahead of time, they could send a water-production one just as well. The amount of water in Mars' atmosphere varies a lot, but there's enough for there to be visible frost and water-ice clouds. Extracting potable water from it wouldn't be that hard, even if they landed at a spot without much subsurface ice. Thus the whole water shortage plot item seemed a bit contrived. It made for good fun in the movie, but if people want to get into "how would this work in reality?" it seems like a hole.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
It might've just not been worth sending a manufacturing plant. They needed to haul most of the water with them to Mars anyway for the Hermes flight, and the recycler was pretty decent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
IIRC the water was a back-up in case the recycler broke down. They could have sent a water generator of some sort but then they'd still have to send liquid water in case the water generator broke. The book also said that the only single failure point that could cause a mission abort is if the MAV didn't land safely, and everything else had redundancies and back-ups. They probably sent twice or three times as much water as they thought they need in a worst-case scenario in case one or more of the supply drops didn't make it. But if they sent generators instead they'd either have to send extras or they'd have a second lynchpin that could scrub the entire mission if it broke down, since at that point the recycler breaking down would mean that people die. And around that time is probably when someone at NASA crunches the numbers and decides it's a whole lot easier, cheaper and safer to just send liquid water.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
A movie about intelligent, competent, level-headed people doing intelligent, competent, level-headed things. I enjoyed it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:A movie about intelligent, competent, level-headed people doing intelligent, competent, level-headed things. I enjoyed it. I particularly enjoyed how when things did go wrong, it wasn't a total disaster. During the rescue scene where the tether starts to wrap around both of them I expected it to go the way of Gravity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
Mesmerized posted:I particularly enjoyed how when things did go wrong, it wasn't a total disaster. During the rescue scene where the tether starts to wrap around both of them I expected it to go the way of Gravity. The tether thing bugged me a little because they seemed to suddenly lose all their angular momentum. They were spinning around each other struggling to get closer, yet the instant they touched there was no longer a problem. Unless I'm misunderstanding how angular momentum works when dealing with non-rigid connectors like tethers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:The tether thing bugged me a little because they seemed to suddenly lose all their angular momentum. They were spinning around each other struggling to get closer, yet the instant they touched there was no longer a problem. Unless I'm misunderstanding how angular momentum works when dealing with non-rigid connectors like tethers. The commander still had her chair thrusters to stabilize them. One thing that bugged me was that they let Beck go outside the Hermes without a tether. Nothing came of it but for a movie that emphasized real processes and being safe, it seems insane to send the guy just climbing along the outside of the ship and hope he doesnt slip.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Would've liked to see a cut of this film just with the Matt Damon parts. Everything dealing with NASA and the crew and the crowds on Earth was cliched was gently caress. More "Moon" and less "Armageddon" basically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Terrible Horse posted:The commander still had her chair thrusters to stabilize them. That was weird and seemed like there must have been a deleted scene where he slips and only barely catches on, or something. Especially they way they showed how he was struggling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Terrible Horse posted:The commander still had her chair thrusters to stabilize them. Yeah I thought that was pretty crazy given he's flailing his arms along the hand holds. One of those robotic arms like we had in the space shuttle wouldve been useful here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Terrible Horse posted:The commander still had her chair thrusters to stabilize them. Even better, he didn't need to do anything at all. The whole reason he needed to climb around the outside of the ship in the book was because the airlock doors weren't automated and they wanted to blast a hole in the inner airlock door, not the outer door. In the movie they had motorized doors they could control from the cockpit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Has anyone watched it twice, once in 3d? I originally went to watch the movie in 3d but the theater screwed up and played the standard version. It has been bugging me for the past week that I really want to see it in 3d but not sure if the 3d is worth another 10 bucks and 2 hours of time even though I enjoyed the movie and will probably pick it up at home.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
nessin posted:Has anyone watched it twice, once in 3d? I originally went to watch the movie in 3d but the theater screwed up and played the standard version. It has been bugging me for the past week that I really want to see it in 3d but not sure if the 3d is worth another 10 bucks and 2 hours of time even though I enjoyed the movie and will probably pick it up at home. They didn't offer you a refund or a different showing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Finally got to watch this today and found it wholly engrossing. This was a kick rear end Ridly Scott film. So drat good. Hope it encourages science. Are there any actual plans for us to go to Mars?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Yeah I think a reality TV show wanted to send its cast to mars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Psawhn posted:Even better, he didn't need to do anything at all. The whole reason he needed to climb around the outside of the ship in the book was because the airlock doors weren't automated and they wanted to blast a hole in the inner airlock door, not the outer door. In the movie they had motorized doors they could control from the cockpit. I wondered that and thought I missed something. He was stationed at the airlock for [some reason], then things change and is sent along the hull for [some reason]. Then Lewis decides she wants to go get Watney and Beck just reels them in. It seemed so out of place and pointlessly risky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Finally got to watch this today and found it wholly engrossing. This was a kick rear end Ridly Scott film. So drat good. Hope it encourages science. Are there any actual plans for us to go to Mars? Vague "plans" but no, nothing realistic or concrete. At present it would take an Apollo-like budget for a decade or so, meaning we'd need to give NASA 8 times its current budget for awhile. Good luck getting that passed in Congress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Yeah I think a reality TV show wanted to send its cast to mars. That's Mars One, which to put it diplomatically is a blatant scam that will never get anywhere near a rocket, let alone Mars. As for real plans, there was a NASA design study released recently that plans for Phobos in 2033 and a crewed Martian surface mission in 2039 or the early 2040s. The Martian supposedly takes place in the 2030s, so that seems about right. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/nasa-considers-sls-launch-sequence-mars-missions-2030s/
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Evolvable Mars is pretty achievable assuming SLS payload capabilities develop as expected. There is a more in-depth examination of the mission architecture here: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150006952.pdf It also involves the development of some cislunar space infrastructure, which is great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:They didn't offer you a refund or a different showing? I got two free tickets to a movie of my choice, but I passed them on to a friend to use because I rarely go to the movies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:As for real plans, there was a NASA design study released recently that plans for Phobos in 2033 and a crewed Martian surface mission in 2039 or the early 2040s. The Martian supposedly takes place in the 2030s, so that seems about right. Oh yeah, the plans exist and are in progress, are fairly easily achievable, and honestly don't cost that much as federal programs go. It's absolutely not going to happen. Without the spectre of the cold war big NASA projects and grand government spaceflight schemes are just incompatible with the cycle of government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
Tehan posted:IIRC the water was a back-up in case the recycler broke down. They could have sent a water generator of some sort but then they'd still have to send liquid water in case the water generator broke. Weir has stated that he didn't know water was abundant in Martian soil until after he had finished the book, when curiosity did some sampling. I think something like 30% of the soil is actually ice so all that soil he dumped indoors would really have turned into mud. It's also full of perchlorates which is toxic enough that NASA is concerned with dust getting into a theoretical habitat so yeah. It's not a 100% accurate sciency movie - it's a fun sciency movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
This was a cool movie. I agree with what some other people said about the simplification of the problems/ reduction in number of issues kinda removes some of the tension and sense of high stakes, but I can't really see a way around that without making it four hours long, so. The other story, of Guy Stranded In Space, That's No Fun, Everyone Tries To Help Him was enough to still make watching the film a good time. Though, did anyone find the one scene where the two Chinese scientists decide to help them kinda weird? It was like the actors had only been given the script a minute before and hadn't decided how they were going to read it yet. Serious issue, however: Given that in the film he's not cut off from NASA during the later part of the mission, there's no way he'd actually be a Space Pirate. The only reason NASA hadn't given him explicit permission in the book was because they weren't able to contact him and so he had to blindly just trek over to Ares 4 as it was the only plan they both knew of. Movie ruined. Also I wanted more swearing. I like the idea that there's someone specifically employed in the mission control room to replace all the cuss words with asterisks before it goes up on the big fancy screen. (Actually, come to think of it, it would totally make sense for them to automate that after the first conversation. Dude cannot be trusted to watch his drat potty mouth.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
this movie was very very long, too long some might say...
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
I just saw this movie and it was really very good. I pretty much can't muster any real complaints about it, which is probably why the movie's thread is so small! Couldn't have shot it better, the problem-and-solution dynamic is engaging even if some of the science is fake.... the only thing I was left wondering when I left the theater was if Matt Damon really lost all that weight or if it was done with CGI.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:I just saw this movie and it was really very good. I pretty much can't muster any real complaints about it, which is probably why the movie's thread is so small! Couldn't have shot it better, the problem-and-solution dynamic is engaging even if some of the science is fake.... the only thing I was left wondering when I left the theater was if Matt Damon really lost all that weight or if it was done with CGI. Considering they only showed him skinny for a couple minutes on screen, I doubt it was real
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
I doubt he went all Machinist on this movie. There's no need, really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
I'm guessing they CGIed his head on a skinny body, like in Captain America.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Not even, they always obscure his face for shots of his skinny body. That's why he's drying his hair so intensely during the first skinny wide shot. Wide shots of skinny body double and close ups of Damon where you can't see his body. No wide shots of actual Damon again until he has an outfit that obscures his skinniness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
How come the MAV capsule has a heat shield, is it also the Earth lander? Also, did anybody else notice: - the Hermes thrusting toward Earth when they said they were in the braking burn (before the Purnell maneuver) - during Watney's MAV ascent, a screw floating by his face (as in zero G) while still under acceleration with the engines firing vessbot fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Just got back from seeing this. Overall the great film, a great premise, and a breathtaking climax. There were some pacing issues, like how every single problem was introduced and then solved before going onto the next problem in a somewhat repetitive fashion, or Donald Glover's character only being introduced when he was important to the story and then disappearing right after.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
vessbot posted:How come the MAV capsule has a heat shield, is it also the Earth lander? Hermes accelerated towards Earth so that they would be going faster when slingshotted around. The Hermes had an ion engine so it works best when thrusting over a long time. I don't think the screws started floating around until after the MAV engines were spent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:That wasn't a heat shield on the top of the MAV quote:Hermes accelerated towards Earth so that they would be going faster when slingshotted around. The Hermes had an ion engine so it works best when thrusting over a long time. That is the Purnell maneuver itself, and would not be happening before they decided to perform it. They should have been thrusting away from Earth so as to slow down, and they said as much in the movie...Just didn't show it. Surely the shot was put there after whoever was responsible for accuracy was finished checking things over. quote:I don't think the screws started floating around until after the MAV engines were spent. They did, there was a shot of a single screw floating by. After engine cut out, there were a whole lot more. vessbot fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
The MAV had to land on Mars, vessbot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
old dog child posted:The MAV had to land on Mars, vessbot. To be fair, you'd expect it to dump the heatshield for weight on ascent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
MikeJF posted:Oh yeah, the plans exist and are in progress, are fairly easily achievable, and honestly don't cost that much as federal programs go. It's still probably not the best bang for your buck science wise, so many other missions would need to be sidelined just to send dudes to Mars that I doubt it's worth it to start budgeting for it just yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 09:16
|
|