The Martian Movie - Survival Thriller

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Film
AI Thread Summary
Excitement surrounds the upcoming film adaptation of "The Martian," with many fans of survival films expressing their anticipation. The movie has received impressive ratings, notably 93% on Rotten Tomatoes, and features Matt Damon in a leading role. Discussions revolve around whether to read the book before watching the film, with many suggesting that experiencing the movie first can enhance enjoyment of the book later. Viewers have praised the film's visuals and entertainment value, although some critiques highlight that the film simplifies scientific concepts and character development compared to the book. The film has maintained a strong box office presence, remaining at the top for several weeks despite competition. While some viewers enjoyed the film, others felt it lacked the depth and problem-solving elements that made the book compelling, leading to a mixed reception regarding its scientific accuracy and storytelling. Overall, "The Martian" has sparked significant interest and debate about its adaptation from the source material, with fans eager to see how the film portrays survival on Mars.
  • #101
Noisy Rhysling said:
What about the corrosive atmosphere? It took a few attempts to make a lander that survived more than a few minutes.
Wikipedia said:
Venus's sulfuric acid rain never reaches the ground, but is evaporated by the heat before reaching the surface in a phenomenon known as virga

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
And what about the corrosive atmosphere?
 
  • Like
Likes EnumaElish
  • #103
EnumaElish said:
Modern nuclear subs have an estimated "crush" depth of 700-800 meters. That's 70-80 atmospheres' pressure. My guess is if we could transport one to venus it may just be able to withstand the surface pressure (about 90A's). It may even be able to "swim" in the dense atmosphere.

It's not just a matter of withstanding the atmosphere, it's a matter of doing so without weighing several hundred tons or more.
 
  • Like
Likes EnumaElish
  • #104
Noisy Rhysling said:
And what about the corrosive atmosphere?
Navy paint?
 
  • #105
EnumaElish said:
Navy paint?
Navy chow would work too, I think.
 
  • #106
Drakkith said:
It's not just a matter of withstanding the atmosphere, it's a matter of doing so without weighing several hundred tons or more.
This being the sci-fi forum... We first put a space station to Venus orbit. It captures space rock to build the sub, which is lowered to the surface.

Two things working for this story: (1) thick atmosphere acts as a brake on descent, something the Russians counted on when they landed probes. (2) Surface pressure causes CO2 to liqidify, turning the entire surface into something of an ocean. Or at least a shallow sea.
 
  • #107
EnumaElish said:
This being the sci-fi forum... We first put a space station to Venus orbit. It captures space rock to build the sub, which is lowered to the surface.

You'd need a rock with all the required minerals needed to build the sub, along with facilities to process all of the ore, forge everything, assemble it, etc. Or a transporter/replicator.

EnumaElish said:
(2) Surface pressure causes CO2 to liqidify, turning the entire surface into something of an ocean. Or at least a shallow sea.

Well, I suppose we could modify the gravitational constant of gravity in the local area of Venus...
 
  • #108
Noisy Rhysling said:
Navy chow would work too, I think.

No need for probes and subs. Just slather it all over the astronauts' suits and they'd be just fine.
 
  • #109
Noisy Rhysling said:
The IRIS probe exploded because they cut corners on the testing, not because Goddard didn't know what he was talking about.
Yes, they were hurrying and they blew it, no difference in my alternate scenario. In real life this reckless behavior exists as well, it's what caused the Columbia Disaster.
Noisy Rhysling said:
Lewis had the time to try to recover Watney if they went to 60 days in your scenario. As I said, it's "dead", not "missing" that would make them leave without looking for him.
Ah, but that's just it. We're talking about a movie script. If the script states "it is impossible to move that much rock in the time we have to recover his body," then that's it. The script would also state "there is no known way to reach him." In the story he may survive against the odds, still undetectable because of his destroyed biosensor and reach the Martian surface through a previously undiscovered route (maybe something that opened up for the 1st time after the original cave in.) But since this scenario revolves around a movie script, plausibility is integrated with a fictional narrative. We could discuss it further, but it really boils down to "they could dig him out." "No they couldn't."
"Yes they could."
The only stalemate-breaker there is the imaginary script and I'll put an evil robot in there if I have to... don't make me... :)
The idea of going all out to safeguard the lives and/or dead bodies of space explorers is also not consistent with real life. They wrote 2 speeches for the first Apollo Moon landing, one if they were successful, another if they were stranded on the Moon. The stranded speech did not state "hey, we're comin' to get you, hang tight! No man left behind! Rescue mission time!" It was a "nice knowin' ya" speech. Could they have had a rescue mission in place? Of course, you run a parallel project at another facility. They had plenty of cash and time to construct redundant nuke silos all over the country for years, a fraction of that could have paid for an Apollo beta program. Just a matter of money and material, but they chose to spend on doomsday weapons instead of rescuing stranded explorers on the Moon.
If they had been unable to talk Apollo 13 through their problems I doubt very much that NASA would've launched a retrieval mission to track the ship down and get their frozen bodies. The "aw, shucks" response would've come into play if 13 had burned up. Again, a rescue mission would've been theoretically possible, it's a 4 day trip after all. But it's never even considered - either they get back on their own ship or not at all.
Decades later they had a chance to save the Columbia crew, but chose not to because they were in a hurry, cheap and reckless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster#Investigation
This kind of cut-our-losses NASA culture doesn't bode well for a Watney. It's all academic anyway, NASA these days is in the unmanned probe business, not the sending people to space business.
Noisy Rhysling said:
As for the Venus probe, that was the Taiyang Shen's original mission.
1) Doesn't make it a good idea. After all, these same Chinese pollute on such a catastrophic scale they might as well be breathing in a Venusian atmosphere already. What is the real gain in going to Venus anyway, other than watching Watney be crushed, melt and burn all at the same time?
2) There is only ONE Venus probe - the covered golf cart that chased Steve Austin, the Six Million Dollar Man. Now there's a space probe, my friends! It has a circular saw arm (very practical for Venus exploration) and sounds like a clogged Hoover vacuum cleaner. Who remembers this marvel of Soviet technology? Anyone?
1536622_10152158720277236_718955556_n.jpg

Gotta love the fellow attempting to gun it down. Hilarious.
 
  • #110
Okay then.
 
  • Like
Likes Rubidium_71
  • #111
Not sure if this was brought up before, but can someone explain why Watney's habitat blew up when he entered the airlock?
 
  • #112
Drakkith said:
Not sure if this was brought up before, but can someone explain why Watney's habitat blew up when he entered the airlock?
Simple wear and tear? I just thought that the original mission didn't require an airlock that could withstand several years of use.
 
  • #113
Borg said:
Simple wear and tear? I just thought that the original mission didn't require an airlock that could withstand several years of use.

That was my thought, but I didn't know if I'd missed something and there was another explanation.
 
  • #114
Too many cycles on that airlock. He had two, but that was the convenient one. Remember, the HAB was designed for a 30-day mission.
 
Back
Top