|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
Yeah, that was another thing that bugged me. Slingshots would've been the second or third thing NASA thought of. The fact that the movie made it look like it was a brilliant idea only this one special nerd could've come up with made me roll my eyes
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Pretty much everyone at JPL and NASA would have been old enough to have seen 2010, which means the word slingshot would've come out of somebody's mouth in a meeting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Hey, but nitpicks aside, I just want to reiterate that this was a great movie. My favorite thing about it was the unexpected lengths to which people would go. Blowing up half their spaceship was a breathtaking moment. Playing with poop, removing almost everything from a launch vehicle including the control panel, windows, and nose cone, etc, there were a lot of holy poo poo moments
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Plastik posted:The reason the Rich Purnell maneuver was unique wasn't because of the "slingshot" concept, it's because it proposed a circumsolar maneuver That's not unique at all, and would have come up in a meeting just the same.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Plastik posted:I mean, I understand where you're coming from, because this is the normal way we get space things anywhere, but I feel a combination of functional fixedness and knowing full well that the Hermes is not designed for significant solar orbits could suppress the idea. I'm not saying it's rock-solid proof that it's not a hole he fixed later, I'm just saying it's more than enough for anyone willing to put in a small effort to suspend their disbelief. It's entirely possible that the people who realized it was possible thought better of it before they even opened their mouths. Because in a situation like that every idea gets blurted out and then evaluated, nobody mutters a possible life-saving plan to themselves and then decides "nah, I won't tell everyone else, it's dumb." They are always going to want contingencies, even if they don't go with a particular plan. Especially in an organization where they have thousands of people smarter than either you or I. Several people would have brought it up and then they'd have arguments over its viability.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:We all like to think we'd be the one who would keep their cool in a situation like that, but in reality most of us would break down within a week- when it finally hit you that you're the only one on an inhospitable planet and help might not be coming for years, if at all, there's really no way to psychologically deal with that kind of situation. I dunno, is it really that different from living in your parents' basement and only communicating with people through your computer for a few years
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
What a coincidence, last week they had a Drunk History episode about Gordon Cooper, and they went out of their way to emphasize how chill he was despite being in a life and death situation. Annoying Yahoo commentary interspersed in this clip: https://www.yahoo.com/tv/colin-hanks-plays-astronaut-like-his-father-on-072946372.html From wikipedia: quote:Toward the end of the Faith 7 flight there were mission-threatening technical problems. During the 19th orbit, the capsule had a power failure. Carbon dioxide levels began rising, and the cabin temperature jumped to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38°C). Cooper turned to his understanding of star patterns, took manual control of the tiny capsule and successfully estimated the correct pitch for re-entry into the atmosphere. Some precision was needed in the calculation, since if the capsule came in too steep, g-forces would be too large, and if its trajectory were too shallow, it would shoot out of the atmosphere again, back into space. Cooper drew lines on the capsule window to help him check his orientation before firing the re-entry rockets. "So I used my wrist watch for time," he later recalled, "my eyeballs out the window for attitude. Then I fired my retrorockets at the right time and landed right by the carrier."[5][6] Cooper's cool-headed performance and piloting skills led to a basic rethinking of design philosophy for later space missions.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
When you watch The Right Stuff, the movie kinda argues that Chuck Yeager was better than the astronauts because he had full control over his vehicle and was able to handle a life-threatening crisis. The astronauts had to fight to get any semblance of half-assed vehicle control and then after they get it they show Gus Grissom loving up his escape hatch. Gordon Cooper's manual re-entry is a good rebuttal to that movie.
Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Oct 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
well why not posted:Apologies if this has been handled already, but I have a question: Why would a botanist be sent to a planet with no plants or botanic organisms? Well why not
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 12:01
|
|