Im just going to say that theoretically if at that particular moment in time, Hubble, the ISS, and the Chinese station were actually on a similar orbital path, and occupied positions close to eachother like that, theoretically you could move between them just like in the movie. The only real problem is that they never were that close, and that the Chinese station was about to reenter while the hubble and ISS were not, which implies a lower altitude.
Although, considering they seemed to move between objects on a path paralell with their orbit, if they were moving retrograde to the chinese station (they did use a soyuz and its landing rockets + all its RCS, could be some signifigant delta V there) they could have dropped altitude. Although that also would mean its orbital path would be different, though if it wasnt that different it could be still possible to rendezvous by just eyeballing it.
[QUOTE=cdr248;48796963]For a late 80s TV show I'd say that TNG's cgi has held up reasonably well.[/QUOTE]
I meant the 2009 film that was edited into this video.
[QUOTE=Anglor;48793514]Please explain why then[/QUOTE]
Momentum conservation took a backseat to the narrative.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;48792179]Lmao that movie couldn't be further from realistic.[/QUOTE]
Eh, I dunno, there could have been some space behemoth at the end or something
That is the exact opposite of what I was expecting
A+.
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;48793044]
If you are talking about the details, yea sure there are things that are unrealistic, but a lot of the overarching things are realistic. Things like they came up there on a shuttle to work on the hubble space telescope, and they visit space stations that look like real space stations, and they fly spacecraft that look like real spacecraft.[/QUOTE]
That isn't realism its [I]modern[/I]ism (if thats a thing). The film takes place in a [I]modern [/I]setting. But it certainly isn't realistic.
Realism isn't jumping from one space station and getting to another. Or a wave of debris that comes around at 800 mph and hits you every orbit. Even coming down from space and ending up walking / swimming immediately. These aren't the details they're the fucking plot.
[editline]30th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;48797597]Im just going to say that theoretically if at that particular moment in time, Hubble, the ISS, and the Chinese station were actually on a similar orbital path, and occupied positions close to eachother like that, theoretically you could move between them just like in the movie. The only real problem is that they never were that close, and that the Chinese station was about to reenter while the hubble and ISS were not, which implies a lower altitude.
Although, considering they seemed to move between objects on a path paralell with their orbit, if they were moving retrograde to the chinese station (they did use a soyuz and its landing rockets + all its RCS, could be some signifigant delta V there) they could have dropped altitude. Although that also would mean its orbital path would be different, though if it wasnt that different it could be still possible to rendezvous by just eyeballing it.[/QUOTE]
no if you actually look at the orbits of these things they would never ever line up like that. they're way too far apart. also reentry doesn't imply lower altitude, it implies a smaller velocity at a similar altitude.
[editline]30th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Anglor;48793514]Please explain why then[/QUOTE]
orbital mechanics doesn't work that way. there's been plenty of articles and youtube videos on why almost everything that happens in this movie does not work from a physics perspective. I can spend my time reiterating those things here or you can take 5 seconds and google it.
Of course the orbits in the movie are not the same as the ones that the objects have in real life, but if they were as close as they are in the movie, which was very close, then with a more or less straight shot I think you could get very close to the object.
I still think that things like how the actors move around in zero gravity, and how detailed the space shuttle and ISS are recreated, and how realistic the chinese station looked are all good things about this film. The main point of the film is also a real problem in spaceflight, granted the situation in the movie would never happen in real life, but space junk collisions are an actual thing.
[QUOTE]also reentry doesn't imply lower altitude, it implies a smaller velocity at a similar altitude.[/QUOTE]
I mean in the movie it looked a lot like the chinese station was reentering due to atmospheric drag while the ISS and shuttle weren't, and seeing how drag is a function of air density which is a function of altitude then its probably at a lower altitude.
Ah been a while since I've seen it.
Anyways aren't they floating around for awhile before they go to other stations? That isn't terribly close...
[QUOTE=cdr248;48796963]MOON was much less ambitious and wasn't as 'deep' (lol) as Interstellar but I felt it to be much more emotionally engaging since the actors performances/characters had a little bit more subtlety than Interstellar's whiny-baby cast.[/QUOTE]
Speaking of moon, I thought the better plot twist was that the AI[sp]actually helped the guy out instead of the usual behavior[/sp]those things have in movies.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;48799980]Ah been a while since I've seen it.
Anyways aren't they floating around for awhile before they go to other stations? That isn't terribly close...[/QUOTE]
I can't remember the scene where she actually meets up with the other station, and how fast she does it (slams in, or comes to a graceful stop) as well as how hard of a burn she has to make at the end of the maneuver
the movie took a bit of artistic license with the setup, most glaring of which is having all the orbits (debris cloud) practically coplanar, but without that there would practically be no hope, and even less plot :v:
terribly close in space, even in an orbital context, can still be relatively very, very far
if the stations weren't coplanar, or very close to it, she'd have to make a substantial corrective burn to avoid missing or splattering all over it
if they were coplanar, its plausible.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;48799462]That isn't realism its [I]modern[/I]ism (if thats a thing). The film takes place in a [I]modern [/I]setting. But it certainly isn't realistic.
Realism isn't jumping from one space station and getting to another. Or a wave of debris that comes around at 800 mph and hits you every orbit. Even coming down from space and ending up walking / swimming immediately. These aren't the details they're the fucking plot.
[editline]30th September 2015[/editline]
no if you actually look at the orbits of these things they would never ever line up like that. they're way too far apart. also reentry doesn't imply lower altitude, it implies a smaller velocity at a similar altitude.
[editline]30th September 2015[/editline]
orbital mechanics doesn't work that way. there's been plenty of articles and youtube videos on why almost everything that happens in this movie does not work from a physics perspective. [B]I can spend my time reiterating those things here or you can take 5 seconds and google it[/B].[/QUOTE]
But can you actually just go off about orbital mechanics for me and the discrepancies in the film?
I saw gravity 4 times in theaters. Fucking loved that movie. I think it deserved every Oscar it got (it cleaned up in the technical awards)
[editline]4th October 2015[/editline]
Something I never understood is why people hate gravity for being unrealistic, but praise other scifi movies that have absolutely 0 basis in reality, like interstellar. Interstellar was like a 15 year olds understanding of theoretical physics. There was a lot of stretching reality in gravity, but at least they didn't outright fabricate it. Also, why does anyone give a shit about the realism of a movie? has anybody EVER cared about the realism of ANY movie? Ever?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48826120]I saw gravity 4 times in theaters. Fucking loved that movie. I think it deserved every Oscar it got (it cleaned up in the technical awards)
[editline]4th October 2015[/editline]
Something I never understood is why people hate gravity for being unrealistic, but praise other scifi movies that have absolutely 0 basis in reality, like interstellar. Interstellar was like a 15 year olds understanding of theoretical physics. There was a lot of stretching reality in gravity, but at least they didn't outright fabricate it. Also, why does anyone give a shit about the realism of a movie? has anybody EVER cared about the realism of ANY movie? Ever?[/QUOTE]
It depends a lot on how the movie is feels. I got the impression that it was going to be a realistic movie about how astronauts would react to getting hit by a ton of debris. If it's supposed to be realistic sci-fi and then some basic physics is wrong, it really hurts my suspension of disbelief. Gravity had cool visuals, but the jumping station to station and George Clooney floating away did not sit well with me at all. Interstellar did have some inaccuracies, too, like the immediate deorbiting of the Endurance after it's blown up by Matt Damon. The ending was a bit off the rail, but if there's a place to insert fantasy physics, I guess it would be inside a black hole. Other than that, it's portrayal of GR effects were pretty accurate, which is cool for a movie. Gravity and Interstellar were both fine movies. I just saw The Martian, and it's more engaging and feels more realistic than Interstellar or Gravity, so go see that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
