Slashdot Mirror
What Ridley Scott Has To Say About the Science In "The Martian"
An anonymous reader writes: Sciencemag has an interview with the people behind the movie The Martian. Director Ridley Scott, author Andy Weir, and Jim Green, NASA's director of planetary science and an adviser on the film talk about the technology and the science in the movie. Scott says: "Almost immediately [after] I decided to do it, we started to have conversations with NASA about process, the habitats, the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV), the suits and everything. And they sent us pictures, almost like photographs, of what they hoped it would all be. If there had been anything in [the screenplay] that actually was suspect—they are not shy—they would have said so."
Okay
.. But driving 3000 miles on a martian landscape with a rover-like vehicle while pulling another vehicle is quite a far stretch.
Apart that.. i loved the book. I read it 'online' - only when i saw the book in the library i realized how thick it was.
Well, ok another nitpick - if he had chatted a bit more with biologists he could have made the potato thingy more interesting. And maybe the writing style and emotional states of several characters could have been bit more developed.
Cute: at the start of TFA Ridley Scott provides the quote given above ('... if there had been anything suspect they would've said so'), which is kind of suspect in itself given that we know that 'The Martian' isn't technically flawless. Then later in TFA, NASA's director of planetary science cheerfully and honestly demonstrates exactly this by listing a bunch of things that were understood as being 'close but not exactly correct', including the Martian dust storm which sets up the entire story of the book. At which time Weir states that he 'deliberately sacrificed reality for drama with the dust storm'. At which point Scott pretty much demolishes his own earlier quote by saying, 'there's a bit of cheating here and there. Eventually they all say, well, you're making movies, so we’ll forgive you!'
On the whole the article reads as though Weir and Green are on the same page throughout, including a shared understanding of the inconsistencies that did make it into the story; not so much Scott...
It is factually inaccurate. For one, last I checked this Matt Damon guy is an actor, not an astronaut. For the life of my I cannot believe NASA let that one go by!!!
Also I noticed that they were using things manufactured before 2015, which this being a movie about the future, likely they would have at least one item manufactured after this date. At this point I couldn't take it any longer and I had to walk out.
Moo?
He might be good at pointing a camera but he's never seemed too concerned about his movies having scientific or historic accuracy. Or even internal consistency for that matter.
Why all the hype these past few days about the science in The Martian? It's a friggin' SciFi movie, for gods sake. You don't see this crap about the science in the new Star Wars movie, so why this one?
I'll admit I haven't seen the move or read the book, but where in hell does he get the seeds and fertilizer to grow plants in Martian soil? From what I gather from the trailers, this wasn't a colonization mission, so why, if they sent seeds and fertilizer, did they send seeds and fertilizer?
--- Keep the choice with the user..
Instead of filming anther robinson-crusoesque storty, give us a good editing of Prometheus and then its sequel.
C'mon man stop being like James Cameron with his Battle Angle Alita mantra.
People didn't expect Gravity to do as well as it did. This paved the way for Interstellar and The Martian. There is a big market for these kinds of movies that was untapped for quite a while, and its finally getting quite a few good developments.
While its just a movie, and a lot of it is drama oriented, a key in all these movies is that they limit their plot choices via science to some extent. A lot of recent sci-fi movies decided to use science as a dues ex to do whatever the hell they wanted instead, which removes the focus from the science entirely and turns it into just an action movie in space. Its a very different approach that produces very different results, and in my opinion, good results. I like movies that make you think.
More and more frantic posts as time passes. Poor guy. It would be awful to be that traumatized by the simple advancement of technology, because there's not going to be any stopping or slowing of it. It's like having a phobia of air.
Quit reading now if you don't want spoilers....
At the beginning the dust storm was strong enough to tear apart antennas, tip over the MAV, and send objects flying through the air.
But at the end, the MAV could use a piece of fabric to cover open panels because the atmosphere is so thin there is very little aerodynamic forces on the craft. (As compared to a launch on earth).
If the thin atmosphere reduces wind forces At the end why didn't it in the beginning?
No go back and re-do Prometheus.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
MORE SPOILERS ALERT... You've got a point, but don't forget that at the end the fabric cover(s) shredded and caused the MAV to go short and set up the next series of events. So I suppose the answer is actually, "only up to a point."
You know, I kind of think people post space-related news only to see if he's still alive. It's not really necessary because he usually rants and raves even on topics that have absolutely nothing to do with space, or 3d printing or SF. That's how lonely and desperate he is. When he's gone, people will find out only because of the smell and nobody will miss him.
Like in Interstellar.
Its just not cheap enough yet, even for governments. Maybe Elon will change that.
Ok, we get the message: you're not dead and decomposing. Yet. Now take your meds and lie down. Take a deep breath. Don't do anything rash. You're a registered sex offender already. Don't make it worse.
It's NUTTERS, not "loons". We are Space Nutters. Mind the terminology. It's our 3d-printed religion after all.
Who cares what he thinks? Just look at the garbage he is putting out now, he is an embarrassment to sci-fi geeks everywhere.
Quit reading now if you don't want spoilers....
At the beginning the dust storm was strong enough to tear apart antennas, tip over the MAV, and send objects flying through the air.
But at the end, the MAV could use a piece of fabric to cover open panels because the atmosphere is so thin there is very little aerodynamic forces on the craft. (As compared to a launch on earth).
If the thin atmosphere reduces wind forces At the end why didn't it in the beginning?
The NASA guy in TFA points out that dust storms on Mars aren't as dangerous as depicted because of the thin atmosphere (as you point out) and Weir acknowledges that but adds that he wrote it that way because it's a man vs. Nature story and he wanted Nature to get in the first punch.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Quit reading now if you don't want spoilers....
At the beginning the dust storm was strong enough to tear apart antennas, tip over the MAV, and send objects flying through the air.
But at the end, the MAV could use a piece of fabric to cover open panels because the atmosphere is so thin there is very little aerodynamic forces on the craft. (As compared to a launch on earth).
If the thin atmosphere reduces wind forces At the end why didn't it in the beginning?
FWIW - I read an interview with Andy Weir a while ago and he stated outright that the sandstorm at the beginning was a plot device to strand Mark Watney and he knew that there really wasn't enough energy in Martian sandstorms to cause the damage described. He wanted a way to strand Watney that was not anyone's fault and to set up the scenario for the rest of the book.
Maybe there is a "market" for fan fiction beginnings that are exciting, interesting, and more scientifically accurate.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
While a real Mars dust storm my not be as visually dramatic as say an Earth hurricane, it could certainly gum up a lot of equipment as dust could get into every nook and cranny.
Being the equipment has to be kept light for space transport, it would probably be engineered for a "typical" dust storm, but not for a higher end one. It's similar to how Earth city infrastructure will target a "100 year storm" (or flood or earthquake), meaning that it's designed so that on average it will be 100 years before a storm big enough to overwhelm the infrastructure would happen.
Cities don't engineer for the biggest possible storm because that would be very expensive. They look at the weather history and target handling "pretty big" but not "biggest possible". It's probably same with space equipment.
Similarly, the Apollo ships were designed for medium-sized solar storms, but if there happened to be a really big solar burst, the kind that may happen say once every 100 years, the Apollo astronauts would be doomed, or at least have their life span severely shortened.
Thus, the impact of a freak Mars dust storm could be huge in terms of functional damage, even if it may not "look" very menacing at the time, because it exceeds the design thresholds of the equipment.
But when you are telling a story on screen, it's hard to illustrate dust damage to equipment in a dramatic or "satisfying" way. Thus, things blowing over and smashing and tearing gives visual teeth to the damage.
Table-ized A.I.
Isn't this like asking Mel Gibson what he knows about Jesus?
The fact that they didn't include algae in the makeshift farm is pretty strong evidence they hired the wrong consultants.
Seastead this.