Quick_Nick
Passed the Turing Test
It's probably just as Neil deGrasse Tyson said: "To 'earn' the right to be criticized on a scientific level is a high compliment indeed."
Internet Gravity, space movie directed by Alfonso Cuaron. Trailer up!
- Thread starter Ark
- Start date
It's probably just as Neil deGrasse Tyson said: "To 'earn' the right to be criticized on a scientific level is a high compliment indeed."
Pipcard
mikusingularity
Just saw it again in 3D.
Ghostrider
Donator
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 3,606
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 78
- Location
- Right behind you - don't look!
Saw it yesterday in 3D.
Well, as expected orbital mechanics is so, so, double so and more so. It brought my suspension of disbelief into early uncontrolled re-entry. I had to call up my brain CLI and mentally type >ROUTE RATIONALTHINKING TO NULL.
But it's a good drama. George Clooney notwithstanding - he plays a rather stock character as the Fearless Overdependable Astronaut - Bullock throws in a good solo performance.
And...
The scenario. My God the scenario. I haven't seen space photography that good in a LOOOOONG time. Makes you wish to take Earth for a date, pay her ice cream and cuddle her. The Blue Marble is the other protagonist of the story.
The hardware. Gravity is heavy on hardware hardcore porn. If Apollo 18 was the Hustler of hardware porn, Gravity is the Private Penthouse of hardware porn. There's so much hardware porn here I'm not even sure it's legal. Of course, as an astronautics fan I could probably spend hours watching Sandra Bullock ride that Soyuz until it's really spent, docking and undocking with the ISS on all ports. Seriously, there's some great spacecraft-on-spacecraft action. The microgravity money shots are there.
Satisfying ending too. But I'm not discussing it now because I need another cold shower. Phew!
Well, as expected orbital mechanics is so, so, double so and more so. It brought my suspension of disbelief into early uncontrolled re-entry. I had to call up my brain CLI and mentally type >ROUTE RATIONALTHINKING TO NULL.
But it's a good drama. George Clooney notwithstanding - he plays a rather stock character as the Fearless Overdependable Astronaut - Bullock throws in a good solo performance.
And...
The scenario. My God the scenario. I haven't seen space photography that good in a LOOOOONG time. Makes you wish to take Earth for a date, pay her ice cream and cuddle her. The Blue Marble is the other protagonist of the story.
The hardware. Gravity is heavy on hardware hardcore porn. If Apollo 18 was the Hustler of hardware porn, Gravity is the Private Penthouse of hardware porn. There's so much hardware porn here I'm not even sure it's legal. Of course, as an astronautics fan I could probably spend hours watching Sandra Bullock ride that Soyuz until it's really spent, docking and undocking with the ISS on all ports. Seriously, there's some great spacecraft-on-spacecraft action. The microgravity money shots are there.
Satisfying ending too. But I'm not discussing it now because I need another cold shower. Phew!
SolarLiner
It's necessary, TARS.
Ghostrider, there's too much truth in your post: "hardware hardcore porn for orbinauts". That's how I classify this film. I'll have to watch it 2-3x before I will be satisfied :lol:
teslax
New member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2013
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I think this movie is what brought me to Orbiter.
And oh how I like the cockpit of Soyuz. I don't know if it's realistic, but it's pretty detailed cockpit there that even you can see Sandra Bullock's character typing высота = 3 in the MFD, when she tried to deploy the breaking parachute in the orbit.
And oh how I like the cockpit of Soyuz. I don't know if it's realistic, but it's pretty detailed cockpit there that even you can see Sandra Bullock's character typing высота = 3 in the MFD, when she tried to deploy the breaking parachute in the orbit.
Izack
Non sequitur
The cockpit was physically accurate as far as I could tell from watching the film once. Her use of it, however, was not.
It's pretty awesome to receive a new member through Gravity. Welcome to the forum!
It's pretty awesome to receive a new member through Gravity. Welcome to the forum!
astrosammy
Dash!
Went to the cinema yesterday.
My ultra long review: epic!
My ultra long review: epic!
Cosmic Penguin
Geek Penguin in GTO
After receiving so many positive reviews I finally got the chance to watch this in 3D (my first ever 3D movie watching!) today, and I like every single minute of it! Alfonso Cuarón and his team really did a great job in balancing making a thrilling spaceflight disaster movie with close-to-accurate scenarios and models that makes the movie more or less close to reality, and I really can't dislike it when I actually think that Armageddon was actually quite interesting 
rolleyes.....
As a long time follower of Chinese spaceflight I had to check out the accuracy of the Shenzhou and the Chinese space station (which they simply called it Tiangong......and guess what? Last Thrusday the Chinese Manned Spaceflight Office announced that the future space station will be named.....Tiangong! :lol, and the producting team did an even better job than I have imagined! The station looks 70% similar to the real design of the future Chinese space station (with a cargo spacecraft that really looks like TG-1, a core module similar to the real design and some extension modules that looks a bit close...), the interior looks genuine enough, and the Shenzhou control panels actually looks two-thirds similar to the real thing! Even the buttons have accurate descriptions and translations on them (oxygen valves controls, solar array controls, selection of communication radio bands etc.). Given the lack of photos of the real thing, I think this is as good as they could do to minmick the real thing!
Oh and of course the Chinese saves the day! Probably the first time this has happened in Hollywood blockbusters....
rolleyes.....As a long time follower of Chinese spaceflight I had to check out the accuracy of the Shenzhou and the Chinese space station (which they simply called it Tiangong......and guess what? Last Thrusday the Chinese Manned Spaceflight Office announced that the future space station will be named.....Tiangong! :lol
, and the producting team did an even better job than I have imagined! The station looks 70% similar to the real design of the future Chinese space station (with a cargo spacecraft that really looks like TG-1, a core module similar to the real design and some extension modules that looks a bit close...), the interior looks genuine enough, and the Shenzhou control panels actually looks two-thirds similar to the real thing! Even the buttons have accurate descriptions and translations on them (oxygen valves controls, solar array controls, selection of communication radio bands etc.). Given the lack of photos of the real thing, I think this is as good as they could do to minmick the real thing!Oh and of course the Chinese saves the day! Probably the first time this has happened in Hollywood blockbusters....
N_Molson
Addon Developer
Ok, I finally went to it after everyone urged me too. Like Galactic Penguin it was my first 3D movie ever.
And my feelings are very mixed at this point.
The 3D thing worked well, and yes, true, it's spectacular. I smiled at my seat neighbour reaction when his brain told him he was hit by a debris. I wasn't affected by this, probably videogames experience (I remember I had similar reactions when I first played Doom on a small CRT a looong time ago). The Earth views are nice, also.
Now the casting. Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. Weird. Somewhere I didn't found them convicing, maybe even more Clooney than Bullock. I highly suspect the French voices to ruin a good deal of the ambience. I couldn't tell what, but I felt there was something a bit wrong there.
The "story". Well, it's where it hurts a lot. Basically there is no story. A russian missle hit a satellite that triggered a "chain reaction" and that's it. We have to deal with an absolute lack of background. I know that it is somewhere wanted to "drop" the spectator in space, but still. The only elements come from S. Bullock's character, which lost a daughter and that led her to a depressive state. It doesn't fit. Astronauts or Cosmonauts recruitement processes go through extensive psychological tests. She would have had no hope to get up there without a therapy of several years, given her completely wasted state. And G. Clooney is really too much in a "space cowboy" role, which doesn't fit to him at all. Clint Eastwood was credible as a "space cowboy", obviously. Not Clooney, he is too "nice" for that. The few dialogs between the characters are very formal and empty. Again, I think this is wanted, but still...
Realism and documentation work. OK, all the spacecraft are very well done, even the interiors. As the title suggests, the physics are decent too. I appreciated the scenes where the Soyuz is manoeuvered with RCS jets. Real white exhaust plumes and not the usual "orbiteresque default plasma flames" we all have seen too much. Sandra Bullock, however, is made of stainless steel. She endures trauma after trauma that would bruise the skeleton of anybody into small bits. At some point it's too much. Hypoxia and CO2 intoxication, collisions against all sorts of objects, no pre-breathing procedures, exposure to extreme temperature changes, drowning, that's endless... At the end some people where laughing at it and yes, that becomes a bit ridiculous. Now some technical points.
- Why and how the Soyuz-TMA chute deployed in vacuum and got wrapped around the ISS panels ?? Hard to believe.
- Clooney's ultra-jet-pack. Even though he runs out of fuel, he makes circles around the Shuttle for hours, then uses it extensively.
- Day & Night follow at an incredible speed. Of course the lighting effects are spectacular and I understand it was necessary, but again, hard to buy.
- The ISS, Hubble, the Chinese station, and the blown satellites appear share the same orbit, and exactly the same inclination. Impossible. In the movies those three objects share a "cube" of roughly 100 km of side. Collisions would be inevitable even without the help of debris.
- All satellites get wasted. Problem is, the ISS flies a 400x400 km at 51.6° inc. orbit (roughly), while the GPS satellites that don't work any longer fly a 36,000 x 36,000 at 0° inc. orbit. All the fleet can't be wasted like that in 1 hour. That scenario made me think to a massive solar flare more than anything else.
- Pseudo-Sokol EVA's. Look very very easy. I say Sokol because it is obviously not the massive Orlan-M, that probably doesn't fit the 80 cm Soyuz hatch clearance anyway. In fact, that suit looks a bit like Russian suits of the 60's. I doubt it can protect it's wearer from space more than a few minutes.
- Using the Soyuz SA retrorockets as a propulsion mean. Strong doubts about the possibility of any accuracy. Supposing that the ship is correctly oriented.
- Even if she survived all the bad luck she gets from the beginning, Bullock's character life should end in the bottom of the swamp. No way to get free from a spacesuit, even a Sokol, underwater. Period.
- I liked the "weight" effect when her body finally rests on the ground, but why they made her rise and walk ? It ruins it ! She should be left on the shore happy but half-dying after all what she got through.
And, endly, it looks like a list of all went wrong into spaceflight. Randomly you find all these : Mir's fire caused by the oxygen candles, intoxication caused by toxic smoke in the Soyuz SA, Soyuz capsule sinking into a lake that almost killed cosmonauts, Hubble woes, space debris collisions, faulty propellant gauge... Yes, all that happened for real, but not at the same time !
So I know I'm a bit harsh, but the movie lost me at some point. My favorite sequence, I think, was when Bullock is in the crippled Soyuz, tries to get away from the ISS and drifts away, preparing herself to die. Good immersion at this point. I must say I had a doubt when the imaginary Clooney invites himself into the Soyuz. Bullock's ungeared head being exposed to explosive decompression and hard vacuum for 30 good seconds, plus rapid recompression, that was too much.
Edit : just read this :
:rofl:
But I totally agree ! :lol:
And my feelings are very mixed at this point.
The 3D thing worked well, and yes, true, it's spectacular. I smiled at my seat neighbour reaction when his brain told him he was hit by a debris. I wasn't affected by this, probably videogames experience (I remember I had similar reactions when I first played Doom on a small CRT a looong time ago). The Earth views are nice, also.
Now the casting. Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. Weird. Somewhere I didn't found them convicing, maybe even more Clooney than Bullock. I highly suspect the French voices to ruin a good deal of the ambience. I couldn't tell what, but I felt there was something a bit wrong there.
The "story". Well, it's where it hurts a lot. Basically there is no story. A russian missle hit a satellite that triggered a "chain reaction" and that's it. We have to deal with an absolute lack of background. I know that it is somewhere wanted to "drop" the spectator in space, but still. The only elements come from S. Bullock's character, which lost a daughter and that led her to a depressive state. It doesn't fit. Astronauts or Cosmonauts recruitement processes go through extensive psychological tests. She would have had no hope to get up there without a therapy of several years, given her completely wasted state. And G. Clooney is really too much in a "space cowboy" role, which doesn't fit to him at all. Clint Eastwood was credible as a "space cowboy", obviously. Not Clooney, he is too "nice" for that. The few dialogs between the characters are very formal and empty. Again, I think this is wanted, but still...
Realism and documentation work. OK, all the spacecraft are very well done, even the interiors. As the title suggests, the physics are decent too. I appreciated the scenes where the Soyuz is manoeuvered with RCS jets. Real white exhaust plumes and not the usual "orbiteresque default plasma flames" we all have seen too much. Sandra Bullock, however, is made of stainless steel. She endures trauma after trauma that would bruise the skeleton of anybody into small bits. At some point it's too much. Hypoxia and CO2 intoxication, collisions against all sorts of objects, no pre-breathing procedures, exposure to extreme temperature changes, drowning, that's endless... At the end some people where laughing at it and yes, that becomes a bit ridiculous. Now some technical points.
- Why and how the Soyuz-TMA chute deployed in vacuum and got wrapped around the ISS panels ?? Hard to believe.
- Clooney's ultra-jet-pack. Even though he runs out of fuel, he makes circles around the Shuttle for hours, then uses it extensively.
- Day & Night follow at an incredible speed. Of course the lighting effects are spectacular and I understand it was necessary, but again, hard to buy.
- The ISS, Hubble, the Chinese station, and the blown satellites appear share the same orbit, and exactly the same inclination. Impossible. In the movies those three objects share a "cube" of roughly 100 km of side. Collisions would be inevitable even without the help of debris.
- All satellites get wasted. Problem is, the ISS flies a 400x400 km at 51.6° inc. orbit (roughly), while the GPS satellites that don't work any longer fly a 36,000 x 36,000 at 0° inc. orbit. All the fleet can't be wasted like that in 1 hour. That scenario made me think to a massive solar flare more than anything else.
- Pseudo-Sokol EVA's. Look very very easy. I say Sokol because it is obviously not the massive Orlan-M, that probably doesn't fit the 80 cm Soyuz hatch clearance anyway. In fact, that suit looks a bit like Russian suits of the 60's. I doubt it can protect it's wearer from space more than a few minutes.
- Using the Soyuz SA retrorockets as a propulsion mean. Strong doubts about the possibility of any accuracy. Supposing that the ship is correctly oriented.
- Even if she survived all the bad luck she gets from the beginning, Bullock's character life should end in the bottom of the swamp. No way to get free from a spacesuit, even a Sokol, underwater. Period.
- I liked the "weight" effect when her body finally rests on the ground, but why they made her rise and walk ? It ruins it ! She should be left on the shore happy but half-dying after all what she got through.
And, endly, it looks like a list of all went wrong into spaceflight. Randomly you find all these : Mir's fire caused by the oxygen candles, intoxication caused by toxic smoke in the Soyuz SA, Soyuz capsule sinking into a lake that almost killed cosmonauts, Hubble woes, space debris collisions, faulty propellant gauge... Yes, all that happened for real, but not at the same time !
So I know I'm a bit harsh, but the movie lost me at some point. My favorite sequence, I think, was when Bullock is in the crippled Soyuz, tries to get away from the ISS and drifts away, preparing herself to die. Good immersion at this point. I must say I had a doubt when the imaginary Clooney invites himself into the Soyuz. Bullock's ungeared head being exposed to explosive decompression and hard vacuum for 30 good seconds, plus rapid recompression, that was too much.
Edit : just read this :
:rofl:
But I totally agree ! :lol:
Last edited:
sorindafabico
New member
Code:
PROGRAM story
while (ground_contact==false)
print ("We have a problem!")
something goes wrong
bullock almost dies
bullock escapes from danger
END PROGRAM
Kyle
Armchair Astronaut
FWIW, I think when Clooney's character said "half of North America just lost Facebook," or whatever, I think he was just trying to be ironic, not implying satellites in GEO were lost.
Regarding the ISS/Shenzhou/HST in the same orbit scenario, it was very easy for me to slip into the mindset of an alternate reality (actually, I think a significant portion of the technical details could be solved if you think "oh, alternate reality"). No need for STS-400 in that case with a HST-replacement in a 51.6 degree, 400km by 400km orbit. Seeing as the Chinese station hasn't been launched yet, also easy to assume they're going to dock it to the ISS at a future data ala Mir/ISS discussions in the early 2000s.
Regarding the ISS/Shenzhou/HST in the same orbit scenario, it was very easy for me to slip into the mindset of an alternate reality (actually, I think a significant portion of the technical details could be solved if you think "oh, alternate reality"). No need for STS-400 in that case with a HST-replacement in a 51.6 degree, 400km by 400km orbit. Seeing as the Chinese station hasn't been launched yet, also easy to assume they're going to dock it to the ISS at a future data ala Mir/ISS discussions in the early 2000s.
Ghostrider
Donator
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 3,606
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 78
- Location
- Right behind you - don't look!
I think it's symbolic. After being "hatched" by the spacecraft and shedding off her gear, she swims out of the water, crawls out, starts walking on all four and then on two legs, just like humans evolved. There's also the scene where she almost falls down on her head - which is how her daughter died.
4throck
Enthusiast !
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,502
- Reaction score
- 1,008
- Points
- 153
- Location
- Lisbon
- Website
- orbiterspaceport.blogspot.com
I think I read somewhere that Shenzou had some voice commands. Or at least it was studied, specially having the computer speak to you, as a means of reducing isolation in long duration missions. But I may be wrong.
Izack
Non sequitur
Voice commands to a spacecraft seem like a very bad idea...
PhantomCruiser
Wanderer
"Ah-hell means continuous fire in Minbari" says Lorien to Ivanova (I think?)
I hope to see Gravity this Friday, I've got Thursday night off, kid's away at college and the wife's away at work.
I hope to see Gravity this Friday, I've got Thursday night off, kid's away at college and the wife's away at work.
Last edited:
Ghostrider
Donator
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 3,606
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 78
- Location
- Right behind you - don't look!
Well, it could work as long as you have failsafes. If the computer only responds to a limited set of commands and you have - for instance - to hold on a switch in order to input the command, then it can declutter the user interface a lot, provided you have some manual backup. It could mean true HOTAS piloting for a spacecraft, and for an ACRV-like vehicle it means less training. When you're untrained and in a hurry, it's easier to push on a button and command "undock" and "engage reentry program" (and of course go through the confirmation steps) then it is to seek for the control on a panel.
Remember in The Wrath of Khan when Khan Noonien Singh was searching for the manual shields override after being hacked through and couldn't find it before Kirk opened a can of phaser-powered asskicking on him? OK, not relevant to realistic space travel but you get my gist...
JonnyBGoode
Sky Marshal
Ghostrider
Donator
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 3,606
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 78
- Location
- Right behind you - don't look!
No figures for the ejection velocity. Bogus.:lol:
Quick_Nick
Passed the Turing Test
Saw the movie yesterday. Definitely liked it. I feel like the theater screen wasn't enough though. Especially since a significant part of the top and bottom of the screen were black the whole time. Seems like it would have been much better in IMAX. It was a pretty short movie, but luckily I have a short attention span anyways and didn't need more story.
Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
Trying to use the voice text feature on my phone leads me to agree with you...
