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

[Izack]

Wasn't Mir also in Armageddon?

There was a 'rotating Russian space station' that looked like Mir.

 

[Kyle]

There was a 'rotating Russian space station' that looked like Mir.

*cough*itwaslame*cough*

 

[ADSWNJ]

Someone who ran out of fuel I'd imagine.

If I had a couple of m/s of dV left, I wouldn't be accelerating at full speed like they did . But hey, it wouldn't have been as exciting seeing a manual RV at 5 cm/s would it?!

 

[Andy44]

Is this the first non-documentary film to depict a modern-day crewed spacecraft that wasn't American?

I think there was a Vostok in the movie Marooned. Or maybe it was a "Vostok-inspired" craft. It was a 1-man spherical Soviet vehicle anyway.

ETA: There was also a manned Soviet space vehicle in the horrible James Bond movie You Only Live Twice. I can't remember what it looked like, but my recollection of that movie makes me think it was probably made up just like all the physics in the film.

 

[Ghostrider]

I can't remember what it looked like, but my recollection of that movie makes me think it was probably made up just like all the physics in the film.

It looked like a Geminosky.:lol:

Not only that, but they used footage of an American missile for the Soviet launch (a Titan if I remember correctly). Possibly they didn't have any R-7 footage around.

YOLT is one terrible Bond flick and the one that gets parodied the most (Austin Powers among many). It's not just the plot and the physics, but why on Earth would you need to provoke WW3 when you have vastly superior space tech you could sell to both powers? It's like in "The Core" where the most implausible thing is that there's an inventor who made a laser that can cut through mountains in seconds and a material that can withstand any amount of heat and pressure and has problem getting funds!:lol:

 

[Pipcard]

I watched YOLT several years ago, but I got distracted halfway through. Mostly because I wanted to build a gyrocopter (like Little Nellie) out of Lego bricks. Barely paid attention during the film's climax.

This was the most memorable part, which I liked.

 

[Ghostrider]

Ah, John Barry's Space March... The quintessential Villain Setting Plan in Motion Theme. Makes me want going all Despicable Me just listening to it.

The other them that makes you want to Plot Evil Stuff is "Durant is Dead" from The Black Hole.

 

[globalist]

*SPOILERS BELOW*

I'd say one thing that bugged me slightly was the scene where George Clooney lets go of Sandra Bullock and drifts off. What is pulling him away from her? If she just lightly pulled him, he would start moving in her direction and he would be saved.

Then I told myself that his spacesuit had a thruster that was stuck "on" and was pulling him away from her, and we just didn't see it. Then I got over it. :lol:

This scene felt like a slap in the face and I almost walked out. Such a major plot point, brought about by such lame mechanics... Inexcusable.

5/10 - great visuals, terrible inaccuracies

 

[Izack]

My assumption was that the parachute tethers would have let go slightly before his momentum was cancelled, and he didn't want to risk it. :shrug:

 

[sorindafabico]

My assumption was that the parachute tethers would have let go slightly before his momentum was cancelled, and he didn't want to risk it. :shrug:

But isn't strange that the same cables which support the 3000 kg SA at ~1g would break in that situation?

 

[kamaz]

I have watched the movie today. I liked it a lot, my girlfriend LOVED it.

I would be very happy if all sci-fi movies has this level of inaccuracies. Hardly any movie gets Newtonian dynamic and sound in space right. I know of no other movie which gets rotational momentum right (or at least close to it).

Not to mention real hardware with real controls. Wow.

SPOILERS AHEAD.

The fact that all the stuff in reality is different orbits -- well, the director could have handwaved that by adding a single phrase in the intro -- e.g. say that ISS, Hubble and the Chinese station have been all moved into one orbit because of international cooperation or something.

With respect to an ASAT test triggering a Kessler effect in an unrealistic way, the problem is not with what is shown on the screen, but with the explanation provided. The screenwriter needed to create loss of communication with ground, so he has decided to take out TDRS (which sits in stationary orbit) using a Kessler effect. This is using a nuclear weapon to kill a fly. A much simpler explanation would be that astronaut's radio is not strong enough to reach ground directly (not to mention TDRS), and Shuttle is needed as a relay. The collision with the debris kills the radio on the shuttle, presto, no communication. Debris also destroys antennas on ISS and Soyuz. (Or even better, Clooney and Bullock break them off on collision!)

(BTW, in relay life, do astronauts during EVA talk to ground directly, or via a repeater on spacecraft? Does anyone know?)

This solution would also eliminate the lullaby scene, which is not only redundant, but creates a majot plot hole. If she can talk to some random guy on the ground, then she should be able to tune to the aircraft emergency frequency and ask ATC to patch her over to Houston. She would only have ~5 minutes with each ATC center, but given that her orbit is known, and people on the ground have phones, some way of relaying messages could easily be improvised. Particularly if there's no panic, as she has a perfectly operational spacecraft. You could also replace ATC with HAM operators for added fun. (Are you kidding me, darling?!)

Another issue is the ASAT test itself. Kessler syndrome aside, it's impossible that ASAT test would create a cloud of debris in just the right orbit. A much more plausible solution would be a rogue state / terrorist group using an ICBM to launch some junk to orbit in order to destroy ISS & co. This would be both physically plausible and consistent from a story perspective.

I'd say one thing that bugged me slightly was the scene where George Clooney lets go of Sandra Bullock and drifts off. What is pulling him away from her? If she just lightly pulled him, he would start moving in her direction and he would be saved.

I don't think it's shown in the movie, but it's perfectly plausible that when ISS was hit with debris for the first time, the attitude control system was damaged, and it was rotating when Clooney and Bullock hit it. Plus, Clooney and Bullock have also delivered it some rotational momentum when they hit it. Since ISS is a very large object, even slow rotation would cause large centrifugal force.

---------- Post added at 08:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 PM ----------

But isn't strange that the same cables which support the 3000 kg SA at ~1g would break in that situation?

The fear was not that it would break, the fear was that her leg was tangled into the cable, and could become untangled as she moved. Especially as as she was in panic and moving around chaotically.

Oh, and one more thing... IMAX. It's worth the money just for the Earth shots

---------- Post added at 09:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 PM ----------

NASA astronaut Garrett Reisman (CV: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Reisman"]Garrett Reisman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] ) talks about Gravity:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/enterta...ory-fni0bom0-1226742926433?from=trendinglinks

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 PM ----------

2 more astronaut reviews:

Mark Kelly: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...6-11e3-9c68-1cf643210300_story.html?tid=sm_fb

Buzz Aldrin: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gravity-review-by-astronaut-buzz-639883

 

[SiberianTiger]

Here's what Samantha Cristoforetti (ESA Astronaut now in traning for an actual mission) has to say on the movie:

• https://plus.google.com/+SamanthaCristoforetti/posts/eLfr3ND1iid
• https://plus.google.com/+SamanthaCristoforetti/posts/KJ6n9HojWiL
• https://plus.google.com/+SamanthaCristoforetti/posts/YK8FZJb3hjQ

And hey, she looks a lot like Sandra Bullock' character! :thumbup:

 

[kamaz]

Uh. Yeah, technically she's right.

But her criticism reminds me of people who deride the famous Minuteman launch scene in Wargames as unrealistic:

because the actual procedure looks (well, looked) like this:

Technically they are right.

But when I was recently teaching a class on (IT) security I used the Wargames clip, because it clearly shows the main concepts involved instead of people flipping some switches with incomprehensible labels for four minutes.

 

[4throck]

My assumption was that the parachute tethers would have let go slightly before his momentum was cancelled, and he didn't want to risk it. :shrug:

Didn't notice anithing special on that scene at the theater, but read lots of opinions about it.

I simply interpreted it as the parachute + connecting cables had some kind of surface tension / elasticity to them. Like a bungee jumping rope if you will. The effect seemed to be reinforced by the fact that all the cables and parachute where entangled.

So while they are slowing down both astronauts, they are still both moving away from the ISS.
Now, if she was firmly attached to the cable, the cable would extend to the full and then rebound, bringing them both to the ISS.
But since she is only holding on by the boots, she would get loose once the cable stopped extending/unfolding.
With less mass, she didn't drift off.

This was my interpretation at the theatre. I do have many doubts about the behaviour of an opened parachute in space, accompanied by rotations. My guess is nobody knows for sure.

---------- Post added at 22:38 ---------- Previous post was at 22:33 ----------

Uh. Yeah, technically she's right.

But her criticism reminds me of people who deride...

Agreed. It's the same as criticizing hard science for not being fun, or an astronaut by having an expensive training.

You shouldn't review a movie as if it was a space enciclopedia or monograph.
The same way as you should not judge a scientist's work when comparing it to a performer.

Different things.

 

[Izack]

Indeed. Especially looking at this movie in the context of other space movies, it really measures up quite well.

 

[kamaz]

What I find funny is that a professional astronaut (in training) makes some assertions which appear to be incorrect:

Crewmembers really don’t fly around using a jetpack like that. The jetpack (called SAFER) is just an extra safety measure and has just enough gas to quickly fly back to structure if one was ever to come off.

Because it's not SAFER, it's MMU. Of course MMU is not used currently, but neither is the Shuttle, so if a movie can have one, it can obviously have another.

In reality, we have two Soyuz spaceships for six people of ISS. If we have to leave, we use them both.

That's because the US lifeboat (CRV) for the station has been cancelled. But if it was there, it could be used instead of the Soyuz. I even believe that lifeboat is referenced in the dialogue. The movie already has STS and MMU, so it can also have a CRV! That, or skeleton 3-person crew on ISS for whatever reason. Anyway, a spare Soyuz is plausible.

a rendezvous involves firing the engine multiple times in burns of extremely precise orientation and duration. No “aim and fire” here!

Technically, yes.

However, as any Orbiter player knows, in terminal approaches to ISS (<1km, possibly even <10km) one can simply treat the station as stationary and boost towards it -- this will indeed have an effect of raising your orbit on the opposite side of the Earth, but you will hit the ISS before it becomes a problem! You just (ab)use linear RCS to correct any sideways drift as you go.

The inconsistency within the movie is that the distance to the Chinese station is quoted as 100km. If this number were not given then we could assume that the distance between the ISS/Soyuz and the Chinese station is comparable to the distance between the ISS and Shuttle -- and Clooney and Bullock made the latter trip using just the MMU. What's the dV of these retro-rockets on Soyuz - 10m/s? If the distance to the Chinese station was 1km, she would get there in 100 seconds -- too short time to drift away due to difference in orbital elements.

Then she uses the fire extinguisher to match her velocity with the station. Yes, I agree that may encounter practical problems due to center of thrust not matching the center of mass. The scene reminded me of that one from Wall-E:

 

[Andy44]

Did they ever specifically call Cloony's jetpack an MMU?

Because if they didn't name it it could be some other sort of jetpack they made up for the movie, which would've been a good idea.

 

[Izack]

Don't see why not, though it did look identical to the MMU.

 

[Napalm42]

I recall the pack wasn't an MMU, it was "experimental" as I recall.

The destruction of the ISS set me off pretty bad, but once I settled down, I realized it was in fact a rather good film. I appreciated the fidelity with which they reproduced the environments.

 

[Shifty]

Agreed. It's the same as criticizing hard science for not being fun, or an astronaut by having an expensive training.

You shouldn't review a movie as if it was a space enciclopedia or monograph.
The same way as you should not judge a scientist's work when comparing it to a performer.

She said at the beginning that she enjoyed the movie and encouraged folks to go see it. As an astronaut, I'm sure she sees herself as part educator. (Part of every astronaut's job is public relations) and is doing just that -- educating folks about what the movie got right (reaction dynamics, spacecraft detail) and what it got wrong (orbital mechanics, airlocks, spacecraft control.) That's not a bad thing.