Gravity (2013)

All i could think of when sandra bullock was crying was:

Abefroman_sl said:

Even though the debris was at 20k the shuttle and stuff was also traveling in the same direction at a very high rate of speed. Wouldn't that explain it?

Click to expand...

The 90 minutes between impacts would suggest that the destroyed satellites were geosynchronous. (They rotate at the same rate as the earth so their relative positions are fixed) The shuttle in reality orbits in about 92mins, per this super nerd math:

The centripetal acceleration must equal the gravitational force...

G*Me*Ms/R^2 = Ms*v^2/R

The Ms cancel, along with one R,

v^2 = G*Me/R

v = sqrt(G*Me/R)

G = 6.67428*10^-11

Earth's radius: Re = 6371km

250 miles = 250*5280*12*2.54/100 = 402.3*10^3 m

Orbital Radius: Ro = 6.371*10^6 + 402.3*10^3m = 6.7733*10^6m

Mass of Earth: Me = 5.9742 ? 10^24 kg

v = sqrt(6.67428*10^-11 * 5.9742*10^24/6.7733*10^6) = 7.6726*10^3 m/s

The orbital circumference is:

c = 2*?*Ro = 2*?*6.7733*10^6 = 42.558*10^6m

T = c/v = 42.558*10^6/7.6726*10^3 = 5,547 seconds

T = 5547/60 = 92.45 minutes

Click to expand...

Araysar_sl said:

My biggest gripe with realism is how everything was so close to each other. Chinese Space Station (which doesnt even exist) is right next to the ISS, which is right next to the hubble

Click to expand...

Even if you overlook the slim chance they would be orbiting near one another, their altitudes are separated by >100mi.

My only gripe to be honest was the Hollywood fire extinguisher at the end. We should just use those for orbital thrusters.

I think they used just enough hard science to make the film as realistic as they could before it became impossible to actually make. Yes you probably wouldn't be able to see debris going that fast, and no hopping from Hubble to ISS etc likely isn't possible but then the movie wouldn't have been entertaining. It conveyed its struggle well enough that the artistic license taken was palatable.

Hell, Neil deGrasse Tyson who can and DID nitpick this movie better than any of us and his message at the end was he still liked the movie. Don't get hung up on the little things.

when i saw Sandra using the fire extinguisher i laughed and said, Wall-E!

I went to see this to see stuff happening in space. There was quite a bit of that and it was pretty well done so I liked it.

Maester Chuk_sl said:

when i saw Sandra using the fire extinguisher i laughed and said, Wall-E!

Click to expand...

That scene in Wall-E was absolutely magical. It nearly brought a tear to my eye.

I really enjoyed the movie, glad I saw it in a theater. Unfortunately it was only a mediocre screen, not a full blown IMAX. But just the same it was very, very absorbing. My girlfriend kept squirming around in her seat and looking away from the screen, because she was getting so emotionally invested in Stone's situation. Lots of little details to nitpick about the orbits and such, but nothing that really detracts from the movie overall or that anyone other than geeks like us would notice.

Maester Chuk_sl said:

when i saw Sandra using the fire extinguisher i laughed and said, Wall-E!

Click to expand...

same here ahah

I enjoyed the 3D aspects of this film, they did it well without making it gimmicky like the vast majority of 3D movies out there heh

This pretty much sums up the whole movie.

solid movie, and amazing effects. (saw it in IMAX 3D)

Easily the most impressed I've been with special effects in a movie since the original Matrix, or maybe the original Jurassic Park.

Probably the first movie I've ever seen that I felt the 3D actually made the movie better. In fact, I think the 3D was so integral to the movie that I actually don't want to see it without the 3D, I think I'd be incredibly disappointed with the movie in 2D. None of the other major 3D movie releases I've seen(Avatar, Hobbit) gave me the feeling that the 3D was significantly adding to the quality of the movie.

I get that its fiction..... but I got frustrated as hell with Sandra Bullock in this the entire way through. NASA would never send someone like her character to space. All the stupid mistakes she continually made, especially towards the end (when she lands), ruined this movie for me.

yeah, it was pretty unrealistic for nasa to have a slightly unstable astronaut
Astronaut Charged With Attempted Murder - New York Times

Didn't Richard Gariot go to the International Space Station? Granted he wasn't working on the Hubble, but to say they wouldn't send someone with less experience as a contractor etc isn't true. I mean what would he do against the deadly space debris? Likely shit his pants harder then Sandra did that's for sure.

Richard Gariot went with the Russian's..... because they will take anyones money for a ride. And re: Lisa Marie Nowak, she was at least trained and not a blubbering idiot in space. She may have gone pyscho but at least she was trained, Bullock's character made so many rudimentary mistakes it wasn't at all believable for me. My 2 cents.

Yeah like you're totally aware of the rudimentary mistakes in that kind of situation.

Stench_sl said:

Richard Gariot went with the Russian's..... because they will take anyones money for a ride. And re: Lisa Marie Nowak, she was at least trained and not a blubbering idiot in space. She may have gone pyscho but at least she was trained, Bullock's character made so many rudimentary mistakes it wasn't at all believable for me. My 2 cents.

Click to expand...

And even Garriott had to live in Russia and train for like a year. They'll take your money, but they still make sure you are pretty well trained and in the proper shape to make it through the mission.

Let's face it, in real life they would just train an Astronaut on how to install the hardware/software, which might take a few days or weeks rather than training the scientist to be an astronaut, which takes 6-12 months minimum.(I think she said 6 in the movie).

Suspend your disbelief. No sci-fi movie has ever been 100% factually accurate, because that movie would be boring as shit.

Rombo_sl said:

God damn, that last trailer. If CGI tech isnt where its at to produce something your realistic scene needs and you end up with something that looks like shit, then dont fuckin use CGI. Sick of producers half-assing it rather than using old school methods that look 100 times better than that. Sure they require a fuckton of man hours, but you end up with something the public will beleive in.

This is jarjar 2.0

And we're gonna have another 3d eye-fuck with this.

Click to expand...

Holy fuck was i wrong.
Time to go kick my own ass.