Internet Gravity, space movie directed by Alfonso Cuaron. Trailer up!

[Pipcard]

Were those green onions on the expanded Tiangong?

The scene in question (split-second shot from the trailer)

Green onions look like this, so they're probably not green onions. (If I had a space station, there would be a module/room filled with green onions)

 

[teslax]

Voice commands to a spacecraft seem like a very bad idea...

I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

And those plants are rice I think.

---------- Post added at 20:32 ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 ----------

Btw I have question guys. Spoilers alert.

--------------

I don't understand why people consider the scene where Kowalski detached himself from Ryan inaccurate. It seems to me it's clear that Kowalski, after colliding with several ISS modules, has too much momentum to be able to be stopped by Ryan and her weak tether to the parachute. Of course the two of them are still falling because they are in orbit, but if Kowalski doesn't let go then both of them will drift from the ISS because the weak tether cannot decelerate both Kowalski and Ryan. (the friction between Ryan's foot and the tether is not great enough.)

 

[Izack]

I don't understand why people consider the scene where Kowalski detached himself from Ryan inaccurate. It seems to me it's clear that Kowalski, after colliding with several ISS modules, has too much momentum to be able to be stopped by Ryan and her weak tether to the parachute. Of course the two of them are still falling because they are in orbit, but if Kowalski doesn't let go then both of them will drift from the ISS because the weak tether cannot decelerate both Kowalski and Ryan. (the friction between Ryan's foot and the tether is not great enough.)

The parachute tether is certainly not weak. After all, it is capable of violently decelerating a Soyuz capsule during the late stages of reentry. As I (and others) have mentioned in this thread, it's probably the unraveling mess of a knot connecting the tether to Ryan's foot that Kowalski was worried about.

I have a feeling that this will become this movie's "There was/wasn't room for two" argument.

 

[teslax]

The parachute tether is certainly not weak. After all, it is capable of violently decelerating a Soyuz capsule during the late stages of reentry. As I (and others) have mentioned in this thread, it's probably the unraveling mess of a knot connecting the tether to Ryan's foot that Kowalski was worried about.

I have a feeling that this will become this movie's "There was/wasn't room for two" argument.

Yes that's what I am referring to, the messy knots that surrounds Ryan foot. Suppose Ryan is attached to those mess pretty weakly, then I think Kowalski action is justified because it could unravel. He couldn't have known the exact capability of the knots and there's just too much risk involved.

 

[Ghostrider]

He could, however, have detached his MMU. Being out of fuel it would have been useless and only added to his inertia. Of course, no emotional scene if he had saved himself and less drama with a competent pilot handy. The whole point of the movie is the she's utterly alone and out of contact with anyone and the only person whom she can hear doesn't even speak her language (hint/spoiler: he's not simply singing a lullaby to his child as she believes).

Gravity is a great space movie, glaring inaccuracies notwithstanding, but it's mostly a spiritual movie with a lot of symbolism. Not surprising, Cuarón's Harry Potter entry was heavy on symbolism too.

 

[Pipcard]

I have a question: (spoiler)

 

[Andy44]

The thing with Kowalski letting go was that he had no momentum; he and she were already stopped. There is no explanation for the force that is magically pulling him away from the station.

Gravity gradient? Extremely weak and in the wrong direction.

Slight spin on the station? Maybe, although I don't recall seeing any, do you?

Just chalk it up to poetic lisence and enjoy the film, I guess.

 

[N_Molson]

Yeah, and he would have been a Soyuz veteran, and given what he can do with a MMU, I guess he would have been able to offer Sandra a Lunar Pass honeymoon before returning to Earth ! :lol:

 

[Kyle]

The thing with Kowalski letting go was that he had no momentum; he and she were already stopped. There is no explanation for the force that is magically pulling him away from the station.

Gravity gradient? Extremely weak and in the wrong direction.

Slight spin on the station? Maybe, although I don't recall seeing any, do you?

Just chalk it up to poetic lisence and enjoy the film, I guess.

Well, the Earth always stayed below the ISS in the film, which leads me to believe it wasn't in free-drift, instead it was staying level to the horizon.

 

[Mandella]

The thing with Kowalski letting go was that he had no momentum; he and she were already stopped. There is no explanation for the force that is magically pulling him away from the station.

Gravity gradient? Extremely weak and in the wrong direction.

Slight spin on the station? Maybe, although I don't recall seeing any, do you?

Just chalk it up to poetic lisence and enjoy the film, I guess.

They looked like they were themselves "slowly" moving laterally to the station, which would produce increasing centripetal force as they wrapped around the station, which probably would have pulled her foot out of the knot.

Of course, that might have just been my brain trying to give reason to a scene that wouldn't have made much sense otherwise...

 

[C3PO]

Well, I finally got to see it last night.

Space Hardware porn: Check.
Predictable plot: Check. (Even without this discussion)

The most disappointing part was IMHO that ALL the problems that 'drove' the story were dodgy at best.

A single satellite strike that cascades into a giant cloud of debris in a few orbits. I don't think so.:thumbsdown:

An astronaut drifting away after being stationary for long enough to have a conversation. A pile of taural fecal matter. :thumbsdown: You can't even blame it on gravity gradient or rotation, because they are ignored during the whole movie. The entangled Soyuz stays perfectly stationary while Dr. Stone tries to uncouple the shute. After watching astronauts twanging from tethers since the opening shot, when it finally matters it magically stops twanging.

How exactly do you crash a Soyuz Sim during landing? There's no manual input required once the deorbit burn is done.

Not that the solutions were any better. They went from a circular 600 km orbit down to a reentering orbit in 3 orbits using an MMU and the Soyuz landing rockets. Even Jeb Kerman couldn't manage that. (although I sent him on a suborbital EVA where he got flung off, and he was below 40 km before I got him onboard the capsule again, but that's another story :lol

I hope that someone in the movie industry eventually figures out that space travel is extremely dangerous, and they really don't have to invent unrealistic problems to provide the drama. Until then I'll just go back to enjoying the hardware porn part.

 

[sorindafabico]

They went from a circular 600 km orbit down to a reentering orbit in 3 orbits using an MMU and the Soyuz landing rockets.

Furthermore, we can assume that the Soyuz was already in a reentry trajectory, after all, Tiagong was already reentering, and I presume that the delta-v of Soyuz landing rockets is much less than the ~100 m/s required for deorbiting from the ISS altitude.

 

[Codz]

Besides the myriad of scientific and technical errors and concessions, my biggest issue with the film is the rather (in my opinion) ham-fisted religious undertones and symbolism shoved in partway through. This excerpt essentially sums it up for me.

Now, Gravity is of course a major Hollywood production by a major Hollywood director featuring two (three, if you count Ed Harris) major Hollywood stars. There’s probably a rule somewhere at Warner Brothers that you can’t kill Sandra Bullock, so it doesn’t come as a surprise that she miraculously survives the ordeal. What is surprising, however, is the mixed message sent by the film’s final act which stands defiantly in contrast to both logic and the drama which precedes it. It’s been said that there are no atheists in foxholes, but having Stone — who professes to having never prayed before in her life — suddenly find inner peace knowing that her new (and newly deceased) astronaut friends will be meeting the daughter she lost at age four on the other side of the pearly gates carries the dual stench of both McKee-ist Hollywood resolution and didactic religious proselytizing.

http://consideringfilm.com/2013/10/04/gravity/

 

[Mandella]

Besides the myriad of scientific and technical errors and concessions, my biggest issue with the film is the rather (in my opinion) ham-fisted religious undertones and symbolism shoved in partway through. This excerpt essentially sums it up for me.



http://consideringfilm.com/2013/10/04/gravity/

I have a problem that anyone would have a problem with that. Perhaps hard to comprehend, but many people, some even in technological and scientific industries, consider there a remote possibility in the reality of such primitive concepts as "god" and "afterlife."

/sarcasm

She wasn't even praying for herself. She was trying to come to grips, finally, with the lose of her child. She needed to do it then, because she knew she likely didn't have much time left in life to do it, even with the plan to get to the Chinese station. I found it a very believable and touching moment, and note very, very well I am *not* a believer.

Oh, and as a personal opinion, any writer who could un-ironically write such a hamfistedly buzzword chocked phrase as, "dual stench of both McKee-ist Hollywood resolution and didactic religious proselytizing" needs to find himself (or herself) stranded in space without even a hallucination of George Cloony to comfort him. (Or her.)

 

[Hlynkacg]

:hesaid:

 

[Codz]

I have a problem that anyone would have a problem with that. Perhaps hard to comprehend, but many people, some even in technological and scientific industries, consider there a remote possibility in the reality of such primitive concepts as "god" and "afterlife."

There's no need to be so offended by another individual's opinion. I have no problem with religious people, but I simply felt it an unnecessary addition to the movie. If you disagree with me, or the author of the article, that's perfectly fine.

 

[Mandella]

There's no need to be so offended by another individual's opinion. I have no problem with religious people, but I simply felt it an unnecessary addition to the movie. If you disagree with me, or the author of the article, that's perfectly fine.

And indeed, I think I interjected far more heat than the topic deserved in your direction, and for that I apologize.

But we're going to have to agree to disagree here. Especially since my wife, who loves the imagery of space but does not enjoy technology just for the sake of technology found the moment beautiful, and it contributed much to her enjoyment of the movie. She certainly would have missed that moment of "McKeeist Hollywood resolution" if it had not been included.

 

[Codz]

But we're going to have to agree to disagree here. Especially since my wife, who loves the imagery of space but does not enjoy technology just for the sake of technology found the moment beautiful, and it contributed much to her enjoyment of the movie. She certainly would have missed that moment of "McKeeist Hollywood resolution" if it had not been included.

Different strokes for different folks. If that scene helped someone to enjoy the film, then that's great. I personally wouldn't have included it, but as you said, we can certainly agree to disagree.

 

[Codz]

Trailer for Gravity done in KSP.

 

[N_Molson]

Another version in Kerbish :rofl: