Movie "Gravity" - seen it yet?

wanttaja said:
The keyword, though, it "Orbit" mechanics. What you are describing is perfectly correct for those wishing to change their relative position with minimal propellant usage, but if you've got the power to spare, that deal's off. You *can* fly directly at the target, but you'll have to burn extra to overcome the other effects.

But of course, that wouldn't apply to the MMU in "Gravity". :)

I've been in the space business for 36 years now. I tremendously enjoyed "Gravity," though I'll admit to fairly regular twinges of "That's not right," "It doesn't work that way," and "they couldn't do that." The climactic scene between Clooney and Bullock is totally bogus; there are other ways the same result could have been reached without a phantom force pulling at them. We are so accustomed to the effects of gravity and an atmosphere that it's a ready trap when screenwriters are trying to put someone in peril.

Frankly, warts and all, I loved the film. Saw the 2-D version due to monocular vision, but the wife's going to make me take her back to the 3-D version.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

I agree with you. At first I though it was caused by an angular momentum but they appear steady on the horizon. And I am sure the rope is stronger than the force she would exert on it.

Also the fact that the Hubble, the ISS and the chinese station were all on the same orbit at close angular distances is unreal. I takes more than a jet pack to change orbits. But then the movie would be over when the shuttle was hit.

I was very impressed by the non-gravity effects. They were very realistic. With Sandra Bullock luck she probably landed in North Korea.

José
 
Yeah we just saw it tonight, and I have to agree. My wife commented that it is "like Tom Hanks in cast away but in space" and my retort was that she was him in cast away in the last minute of the movie only. Otherwise she was 10 orders of magnitude worse off than he was for the rest of the movie. I don't think she will survive post movie, but then again, maybe NASA saw where she went.
 
Piloto said:
I agree with you. At first I though it was caused by an angular momentum but they appear steady on the horizon. And I am sure the rope is stronger than the force she would exert on it.

Also the fact that the Hubble, the ISS and the chinese station were all on the same orbit at close angular distances is unreal. I takes more than a jet pack to change orbits. But then the movie would be over when the shuttle was hit.
Click to expand...
Yep. It's really kind of weird; most of the people I work with (in the space biz) aren't going to see it because they figure they'd be too PO'd at the physics mistakes. Good friend of mine (non-professional, but big amateur space nut) is really angry at the film.

Yet I see the mistakes, and still have a good time. On most of them, it's just like you said...if it *didn't* work that (wrong) way, she'd be a corpsesicle.

Easier suspension of disbelief, for some reason. Might be because of my writing background. But probably due to too much time on POA. :)

Ron Wanttaja
 
I guess most of the little "liberties" taken did not bother me too much.

But to have a major plot point hinge on bad physics just seems like lazy screenwriting.

Not to spoil anything, but it harkens back to "Cliffhanger", I think. And lots of other movies - a "trope", as it were.

Anyway, the podcast "Filmspotting" has an interesting discussion of the film in a recent episode.
 
wanttaja said:
Yep. It's really kind of weird; most of the people I work with (in the space biz) aren't going to see it because they figure they'd be too PO'd at the physics mistakes.
Click to expand...

Interesting. All of my colleagues at NASA absolutely loved the movie (as did my flying friends). The only real egregious issue was Hubble/ISS/Chinese station all being in the same inclination and position, but whatever, it's a movie. It's not like it's telling a true story, so who cares if they changed stuff around? It wasn't about a great script or scientific rigor -- it was about an absolute roller coaster ride experience, particularly if you saw it in 3DIMAX. It was easily one of the most thrilling movies I've ever seen.
 
I noticed some of the same things, but not a big deal. I was wowed by the visuals (3D IMAX), and a pretty good survival story.
 
Hey, at least this movie is more realistic than Star Trek where all the alliens speak fluent English where those on the southern border don't.

How did they manage to do so well the non-gravity effects? I didn't see any strings.

José
 
Heh - it was sooo fake. Everyone knows that in zero G space movies you have to move in slow-motion!
 
Saw it. Effects are outstanding. Didn't think much of the plot. Maybe a 6 out of 10. But that's me. My fiancée liked it though.
 
Problem is were it realistic then the shuttle gets hit by invisible debris (things moving at orbital speeds are way faster than bullets) and Sandra Bullock gets knocked off whatever she was one, drifts away in space and dies. The end.
 
Saw it yesterday in 3D. I enjoyed it but it was mostly due to the 3D imagery. Like some have said, without the 3D it would just be a decent space movie. With 3D I'd give it a B+.

Had a group of women sitting behind me talking like they were a bunch of teenage girls. "she's gotta get out of that suit!" Thanks lady, as if I need you to tell me that.
 
steingar said:
Problem is were it realistic then the shuttle gets hit by invisible debris (things moving at orbital speeds are way faster than bullets) and Sandra Bullock gets knocked off whatever she was one, drifts away in space and dies. The end.
Click to expand...

My take is that is exactly what happened, a la "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DocXC-kobmU

The rest of the movie was a dream.

Right?
 
How was the camera work? Did they overuse handheld to "add tension/excitement"?

Some movies are junk because of lousy camera work. Behind Enemy Lines was crap because the director (and/or director of photography) was soooo in love with continuous 360's and handheld.
 
steingar said:
Problem is were it realistic then the shuttle gets hit by invisible debris (things moving at orbital speeds are way faster than bullets) and Sandra Bullock gets knocked off whatever she was one, drifts away in space and dies. The end.
Click to expand...

[SPOILER ALERT]

There were some inaccuracies but without allowing for them you wouldn't have a movie. Realistically any debris in the same orbit would have nearly the same velocity. I think he mentioned "20K MPH" but I think that was gratuitous as a 400KM orbit is much slower than that. She surely would not have encountered the debris a second time. The ISS and Hubble are not as close as depicted in the movie and are on different inclinations. She wouldn't have enough fuel for what she did. Anyway. I'd probably watch it again.
 
MadseasoN said:
Realistically any debris in the same orbit would have nearly the same velocity.
Click to expand...
Only if you're on exactly the same orbital path. Low earth orbit is 17,500mph.

If you were on exactly opposite orbital paths (unlikely), closure would be 35,000 mph. More likely would be debris in equatorial orbit coming in from an angle to the shuttle and ISS' 51* orbit angle, with a ~8,000mph relative velocity.
Also, if the debris were in another orbit angle that intersected with the ISS/shuttle path (on an northward path while the shuttle/ISS were southward), you'd have a 90* relative vector.

An expanding debris cloud at LOE coming from multiple cascading collisions would, in reality, create debris coming from multiple directions at multiple times.
Eventually, it would be like machinegun bullets coming from all directions nearly all the time.
 
Last edited:
PilotAlan said:
Only if you're on exactly the same orbital path. Low earth orbit is 17,500mph.

If you were on exactly opposite orbital paths (unlikely), closure would be 35,000 mph. More likely would be debris in equatorial orbit coming in from an angle to the shuttle and ISS' 51* orbit angle, with a ~8,000mph relative velocity.
Also, if the debris were in another orbit angle that intersected with the ISS/shuttle path (on an northward path while the shuttle/ISS were southward), you'd have a 90* relative vector.

An expanding debris cloud at LOE coming from multiple cascading collisions would, in reality, create debris coming from multiple directions at multiple times.
Eventually, it would be like machinegun bullets coming from all directions nearly all the time.
Click to expand...

True. It would be ~35K mph. Not sure why he said 20K mph in the movie. The debris hit them head on if I remember correctly.
 
PilotAlan said:
Only if you're on exactly the same orbital path. Low earth orbit is 17,500mph.

If you were on exactly opposite orbital paths (unlikely), closure would be 35,000 mph. More likely would be debris in equatorial orbit coming in from an angle to the shuttle and ISS' 51* orbit angle, with a ~8,000mph relative velocity.
Also, if the debris were in another orbit angle that intersected with the ISS/shuttle path (on an northward path while the shuttle/ISS were southward), you'd have a 90* relative vector.

An expanding debris cloud at LOE coming from multiple cascading collisions would, in reality, create debris coming from multiple directions at multiple times.
Eventually, it would be like machinegun bullets coming from all directions nearly all the time.
Click to expand...

nit picking alert: um, he said "in the same orbit". You can't be in the same orbit if there is any difference in velocity (speed and direction).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top