We have the technology for a manned mission to Mars but not the technology as described in the book. Ion engines and nuclear reactors exist but not nearly as efficient as the Hermes. The mission in the book is pretty crap anyways. 500 billion+ for a huge ship that only puts people on the surface for 30 days. rescuing The Martian in the movie was the best cost move made. The cost vs surface time curve for him was off the charts.
From the video I posted, Weir says that apparently we have the technology and ability to make all the equipment and vehicles used, but we haven't actually made them yet. The analogy given: whatever the world's largest aircraft is, we have the ability and knowledge to build another aircraft that is 4 times larger, but we haven't actually done it.
That isn't a good analogy. You can research Obama's rock collecting project as a confirmation. It's entire purpose is to develop ion drive (for no reason other than to then have an ion drive) To push a large ship, you would need a reactor that is so large it is impractical because of the energy requirements. Ion drives with current energy production in space won't do anything except push small rocks around.
Yeah it isn't a good one. I heard him say it is like building a C5 that is 5 times bigger. Sometimes he adds the caveat is also needs to be much more efficient. That is the real kicker because if nuclear reactors existed with the kg/kW capability you would need it would be great for many things in space flight. I want to add I like the book, I don't care the propulsion is fake I am just clarifying because people are mislead into thinking you need such a ship to go to mars.
Just viewed it, it was very good and had the Ridley Scott feel as it did in Prometheus... With that said im gonna say that Interstellar will propably be the best space movie i will watch for the simple reason that is Hans Zimmer. This is what kept this movie from that next level. Everything was there, acting, scenery ect but the music was very generic. The story urkrd me the way everytime nasa tried to come up with a new idea or way, they would get it to work. Everytime they told that asian guy, crew member or even when Damon tried something new to get something done in whatever timeframe it was, they always found a way. I know its all fiction but so are other movies and they dont stretch it to that extent. Good movie beside that but i would of prefered imax over 3d.
We put a man on the moon with a TI calculator. We have spent a working space craft farther than pluto. If there was any political will I am sure we could put a man on mars in the next few years if we wanted.
I enjoyed the movie a lot - i havent read the book but I may go back and read it now. My dad works at JPL and worked a lot on the various Mars projects of the last 20 years so seeing some of the things he worked on being mentioned in the film was nice at least for me.
Well, to be fair, put a person on the way to Mars. It's a long trip and we have to wait/plan for advantageous orbital alignment.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/perpetua/the-martian-is-not-a-true-story#.qyEbwwrQ3 Based on a True Story . . . .lol An Alarming Number Of People Think “The Martian” Is A True Story Rocket River
I finally had the chance to catch this flick. I read the book previously, so was very excited about this movie. I really enjoyed it, but also felt they didn't really convey how nearly impossible pretty much all the stuff he pulled off was. It was already a 2.5 hr long movie, so you can't put it all I guess. Spoiler Like his rover trip to the Ares 4 mission site was a huge deal. They touched on him making the rover go further, but not THAT far. The modification of the rover itself was done, but they didn't really say why (having to bring the large life providing equip from the Hab with him in the rover, etc.). Not to mention he nearly fell into a crater on the way there. His ordeal with the air lock getting blown from the hab, and the fact that he not only had a leak from his suit but also the air lock itself. And then the Hermes and MAV rescue deal. I don't think they really conveyed how crazy of a maneuver this was. That the Hermes was steady accelerating the entire trip. They obvious talked about it, but I felt like in the movie they were just, "yeah, we're gonna do this, no prob. It'll be hard, but we got this." In the book it really felt like...man, naw, that stuff is impossible. They convey this with Watney just saying, "Are you fu**ing kidding?"
The best example I know of is "The Shawshank Redemption" The short story "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" is a mildly engaging read at best.
I loved the movie. I just can't take Kristen Wiig seriously at all. And that math wiz guy was annoyingly weird.
That fairly sums it up for me. I loved it, but I did wonder, If you're gonna hire Kristen Wiig over other capable actresses, shouldn't she at least have more of a part than just rubber-stamping semi-mute Jeff Daniels sidekick? And how did she get third-top billing? Not that it matters, but I half-wonder if much of her part didn't make it in the final edit.
I enjoyed it. It's so much about plot that it's hard to enjoy seeing the movie as much as I enjoyed the book. Thought Jeff Daniels was unusually bad, but it's an awkward part. I didn't like the soundtrack at all, but everyone I saw it with loved it. I think the soundtrack was a similar problem I had with another local fave on here, GotG. It's like... okay, put some vintage cheesy songs in your scifi movie, but put them in the context of what's happening on screen. Like, if starlord is playing some crap song on a crap handheld tape player, make it sound like a tinny crap tape player, not Dolby 5 million X or whatever. That just says "we're playing this song for the audience, not to make the audience feel like they're immersed in another world or experience." /pet peeve. I actually thought Bruce (?) the chubby engineer stole every scene he was in. He was fantastic.
Thanks. Glad I'm not the only one. The scenes that had creepy ambient music were really effective -- Spoiler like when he's injured, getting in to the hab, and trying to treat his injury. great ambient soundtrack, adding tension and worry. Contrast that to: Spoiler very important sequence of near-Earth rendezvous and other activity all blasted by David Bowie's star man or whatever. And you're like, "am I watching an ad for something? a music video? should I care what's happening on the screen?" I think younger audiences dig it though, and it clearly doesn't hurt the box office receipts.
I think the Martian is a good journey movie, B+, but where it fails in the big picture is that it never really pursues successfully a big thought ( say like how Star Wars deals with the difference between how one becomes good versus evil and does it in a clear way, or say like how contact has a great journey and deals clearly with the choice between believing in a religion or science. ). So I look for a epic journey and a big thought that is presented clearly. Interstellar went for both, the journey started great, but got lost in space, and the epic thought was not clear enough as it mingled with the science, so it too came up short on both ends. Because Martian hits on the journey perfectly, it is a better movie than interstellar. Matt Damon carries the movie. Terrific performance. Almost all of the character were like-able. The movie carries you to the end. The only areas where it failed for me was where they covered his head for the weight loss scenes, as I think the audience is too smart for that, and the tether catch has been used in too many movies before, they needed a variant tense ending. I think that ending almost teeters on the "too many" lucky breaks in a row rope, but pulls through ok, and if if teeters over then all of that almost flys in the face of the one thought they try to deliver at the end. But it walked the line and survived. Must see.
I actually would have given this movie higher praise if they would of killed off some of the crew that came back to save him. Everything just felt way too convenient. Music was wack, and i didnt like the cast tbh.
Someone best described it as a scientific-minded Jerry Bruckheimer ensemble rescue movie. I think it sums it up pretty nicely.
