
Poking holes in the "Gravity" trailer with NASA's help - RougeFemme
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/10/poking-holes-in-the-gravity-trailer-with-nasas-help/
======
Ogre
Phil Plait's (Bad Astronomer) review(1) on Slate is based on the actual movie
rather than the trailer. The summary is that despite some big problems with
the science, it's a fantastic movie and you should go see it. I agree with
him, I saw it yesterday and loved every minute of it. I'm able to both
recognize that it's not scientifically accurate and still enjoy the hell out
of an otherwise well written, acted, directed, and beautiful film.

(1)
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/04/ba_movie...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/04/ba_movie_review_gravity.html)

~~~
te_chris
Entirely agree. Hater's gonna hate and all that applies more than ever here. I
saw it with my GF in IMAX 3d last night and we both loved it - though it was
touch and go at the beginning with her as the motion was making her feel a tad
ill!

~~~
bpicolo
I loved it. The only part that actually annoyed me for impossibility was the:

SPOILERS BELOW:

The pivotal moment between Clooney and Bullock. They were both moving at 0
velocity relative to each other, yet somehow he's 'pulling' her away?
Definitely not physically accurate how it's portrayed. A simple pull of any
sort should have brought him her way. Was annoying to me that such a key
moment was brought on by a physics inaccuracy.

------
moultano
Buzz Aldrin liked it: [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gravity-review-
by-astr...](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gravity-review-by-astronaut-
buzz-639883)

------
cyanoacry
I saw the movie yesterday, and I really don't think it's fair to blame the
movie producers for their inaccuracies. The premise is real[1], and much of
the rest of the movie is constructed by taking the minimal liberties necessary
to make the movie work. If the premise of the movie happened in real life,
it'd be a 5 minute movie with no survivors, which is no fun, right?

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome)

~~~
jhandl
I agree with some of the liberties they took, for example the ISS, the
shuttle+hubble and a chinese space station being next to each other, but I'm
not so sure about staying in micro-gravity during acceleration phases. Was it
because they didn't think the public would understand what acceleration looks
like?

------
noonespecial
The problem with space is that its really really boring and really really
quiet, and then, if something goes wrong, you die in 10 seconds. It doesn't
make for much of a movie.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Actually its the 'something goes wrong and you're going to die in 7 hrs' that
makes for the drama. If you died in 10 seconds then I agree, its a sad short
film. The story of the Cosmonaut that knew he was going to die was pretty
poignant in that way.

I found the discussion about the recent failure with the water in the helmet
thing more interesting. The weird thing is that in space you can drown in a
half liter of water if you cannot get it to move away from your face. It is
perhaps the scariest thought about a zero-g swimming pool where your own
gravity pulls you into the center of a ball of water.

------
spikels
While this article contains many interesting points the premise is just silly:
criticizing a (very good) 90 minute movie based on a 5 minute trailer. Perhaps
some of the "problems" we're explained away in the other 85 minutes?

SPOILER ALERT

Problem 1: debris - The debris were created after the space walk started by a
chain of collisions began by a Russian anti-satellite weapon. So they could
would not know to abort the spacewalk before it began.

Problem 2: Clooney's jetpack - The movie explains that he is testing an
experimental jetpack that has very long duration. He could apparently set a
spacewalk duration record while fly around almost continuously. Maybe this is
impossible but the move seem to take place in the future, there is a Chinese
space station, and/or alternate reality, the Space Shuttle still flies.

Problem 3: Clooney's Superman impersonation - As explained above this was a
more advance jetpack than ever actually used by NASA.

Problem 4: Clooney's rescue attempt - Again the advance jetpack means it would
make sense for her to rescue her.

The BIIIIIIG problem 5: From HST to ISS - Since it is an alternate and/or
future world there is no reason orbits have to as they are today. It may even
make sense to have the HST in a close orbit to IIS to make repairs such as
this. And again the more advanced jetpack would make such a journey easier.

Problem 6: Suit abuse - Here I think the article may have a good point seems
like the suits would not be able to take all the damage.

~~~
kelnos
_Maybe this is impossible but the move seem to take place in the future, there
is a Chinese space station_

Err... there _is_ a Chinese space station:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong-1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong-1)

~~~
tanzam75
> _Err... there is a Chinese space station:_
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong-1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong-1)

The Chinese space station portrayed in the film is Tiangong-8. Not number 1.

Thus, the movie takes place in the future. Actually, too far into the future.
The Chinese are currently planning to launch their modular space station as
Tiangong-3. They're not planning to go through 7 Salyuts first.

------
rajivtiru
While I love orbital mechanics, I want a movie like Gravity to be made by
artists like Cuaron, not NASA scientists.

The movie was utterly stunning. Just go see it.

------
gkoberger
In the trailer, they use sounds in space (explosions, collisions, etc). In the
actual movie, these are silent (since you can't hear sound in space).

------
nzp
Since I don't really follow Hollywood I found out about this movie only
yesterday. I haven't seen it yet, but watched the trailer. So apparently
there's something about this movie that provokes poking holes in its portrayal
of physics -- I immediately got very annoyed while watching the trailer.

First, they don't have their visors (those Sun protective, gold plated ones).
I'm not sure, but I guess that's a big no-no on EVAs, having the Sun enter
your field of vision so close to it (in Earth's orbit) would probably do some
eye damage. Again, I'm not sure the visor is always mandatory but I don't
remember seeing any photos of actual EVAs without it being down.

Second, Sandra Bullock rotating while attached to Canadarm... My impression
was that the g force would be too high for her to stay conscious, or able to
communicate. But it turns out intuition was wrong on that one: back of
envelope calculation gives ~3 g (assuming 15 m length for the Canadarm
[assuming it is the Shuttle Canadarm], but it was slightly retracted so it
would be less, and a period of ~4 s) while still attached to the Shuttle, and
~1.5 g when the arm broke off (~3 m radius, 2-3 s period). So, that's OK. :)

Third, the abuse those suits were getting! That's just crazy. At that point I
got so annoyed that I didn't bother to notice all the other stuff the article
talks about.

Now I'm just bummed out that all this might have spoiled the movie for me (I
tried not to read the plot section on Wikipedia, but got a glimpse of the
ending as I was scrolling). Nerd rage is a horrible thing. :)

------
orionblastar
I saw the movie today, had to chaperon my son and his girlfriend to the movie.

I noticed some flaws, but for a Hollywood movie they were using "comic book
physics" which most scifi movies and TV shows use.

I assume that it takes place in an alternative universe where NASA didn't
scrub the Space Shuttle program, and space stations are placed close to each
other as some form of disaster planning, and of course commercial companies
like Space-X and Virgin Galactic didn't exist.

I kind of thought it was like "The Net" but instead of running from the police
and computer hackers, she was trying to escape from space and get back to
Earth. :)

Anyway my son and his girlfriend saw it and loved it, and both decided to take
astronomy because of it. They are both freshmen in high school taking physical
science. I think the movie was meant for them. I had to explain after the
movie how in space there is no air, and the space capsule parachute was
tangled on the ISS and she had to cut it free. That it wasn't because it would
slow down the capsule but that it had tethered it to the ISS. That if the
chute was free there'd be no air to slow it down. They thought there was
something in space the chute would slow it down on, but I told them it was a
vacuum. Chutes only work in the atmosphere. That the friction of reentering
the atmosphere is what had caused the heat that was burning up the other
capsule she had to get on the Chinese station.

Some spoilers _Warning_

Let me see, Explorer Space Shuttle trying to repair a telescope with a new
circuit board. Russians go crazy trying to blow up out of control spy
satellite with some super missile that just wipes out all satellites and
throws debris everywhere. NASA was not aware of it, and had miscalculated the
velocity of the debris so there was no way to abort the mission before they
got hit. Some super space suit thruster pack got George Cloney to fly around
like Superman and save Sandra Bullock and get to the ISS. But the ISS has
problems and the Russian space capsule has a deployed parachute in space.
Bullock gets snagged on parachute cord, Cloney has to let go to save her or
else she'll get lose. She has to use Russian capsule to get to the Chinese
station that has a clone of the Russian capsule with a working parachute to
get back to Earth. I won't say how it ends though.

Sure it was mostly animation for 90 minutes, and we saw it in IMAX. But the
main point is that it gets teenagers to study more math and science as a
result of seeing the movie and asking questions about the physics involved. So
I can forgive the mistakes and "comic book physics", if it promotes education.

------
Nursie
Just saw the trailer.

Not sure I can cope with two hours of sandra bullock trying to grab hold of
stuff regardless of the physics...

~~~
objclxt
See it in IMAX (proper IMAX, not those 'fake' IMAX you sometimes get in
multiplexes) and I think you'll have a fantastic time. I saw it today, and as
a piece of film making it's really impressive.

I think if you saw it on a smaller screen you would come away less enthused. I
thought there were definitely plotting and script problems, but that the
visual impact of the film compensated for that. Sandra Bullock is definitely
not the best choice, but she's not _terrible_ (I don't think she was Alfonso
Cuaron's first choice either).

~~~
nzp
> I don't think she was Alfonso Cuaron's first choice either

According to Wikipedia, Angelina Jolie was the first choice, but in my opinion
that would have been a much, much worse choice. What's wrong with Bullock? To
me she seems plausible as an astronaut at least as far as physique and
appearance go.

~~~
hcarvalhoalves
She's not a _career_ astronaut though, from what I understood she's playing a
scientist, sent there to fix the station, having to face her fears and
thinking quick on her feet, which makes it all the more believable.

------
cjreyes
See the movie before poking holes in the trailer.

~~~
nitrogen
This article was released before the movie was available for viewing.

------
electronous
The bigger problem with this movie is all the male gaze and gross gender
roles, not the slightly inaccurate physics.

