These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Just watched Interstellar...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Titus Marrs
Doomheim
#21 - 2014-11-09 15:17:50 UTC
It's at least better than Gravity? Yes, the shots from space were spectacular. However, IMO, the story was very weak.
I'm hoping Interstellar has some hard sci fi aspects and better story to tell.
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#22 - 2014-11-09 15:43:29 UTC
Titus Marrs wrote:
It's at least better than Gravity? Yes, the shots from space were spectacular. However, IMO, the story was very weak.
I'm hoping Interstellar has some hard sci fi aspects and better story to tell.


Nope and nope. If you want hard sci-fi, I recommend Leviathan Wakes by James S. A. Corey.

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.
Titus Marrs
Doomheim
#23 - 2014-11-09 16:59:50 UTC
Alpheias wrote:
Titus Marrs wrote:
It's at least better than Gravity? Yes, the shots from space were spectacular. However, IMO, the story was very weak.
I'm hoping Interstellar has some hard sci fi aspects and better story to tell.


Nope and nope. If you want hard sci-fi, I recommend Leviathan Wakes by James S. A. Corey.

I will try to remain optimistic before seeing this film later today Smile
My mind survived Ron D Moores' BSG series ending episode, so I'm well equipped to handle let downs.
Commissar Kate
Kesukka
#24 - 2014-11-09 17:09:44 UTC
Awesome, looks like one to avoid.

I cant remember the last sci-fi movie that I actually enjoyed watching. They all seem to be terrible now.

-k8

My Fanclub
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#25 - 2014-11-09 17:40:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
gf seen it yesterday she say gravity is better but that i should look it anyway so my hopes are not that my mind will be blown....will see it anyway today.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#26 - 2014-11-09 23:13:13 UTC
Good film, well worth a watch. They somehow managed to make me care about a robotic rectangle with great sense of humour.
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#27 - 2014-11-10 04:24:59 UTC
Good one indeed .

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
Reiisha
#28 - 2014-11-11 01:59:35 UTC
I rather like the film, but i do get the strong suspicion that few people get the idea behind 'them' and the concept of the 5th dimension as presented in the movie. It explains a lot of things most people assume to be plot holes...

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...
RoAnnon
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2014-11-11 03:11:08 UTC
Saw it this afternoon, 9/10. If you get the chance to see it on IMAX, pay the extra and do so, it's well worth it.

So, you're a bounty hunter. No, that ain't it at all. Then what are you? I'm a bounty hunter.

Broadcast4Reps

Eve Vegas 2015 Pub Crawl Group 9

Houston EVE Meet
Boom McCondor
Doomheim
#30 - 2014-11-11 17:58:42 UTC
Three words: Big Hero 6.

Guess that two words and a number, but go see it anyway. Also, I liked the Ben Bova books for near future science-fiction. Mars, Mercury, The Rock Rats, etc. Maybe a little softer than "hard" sci-fi but still very plausible.
Norian Lonark
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2014-11-11 18:03:32 UTC
RoAnnon wrote:
Saw it this afternoon, 9/10. If you get the chance to see it on IMAX, pay the extra and do so, it's well worth it.


I saw it in IMAX too I really enjoyed the movie thought the story and visuals were great but the soundtrack was horrid... in IMAX it was actually pain inducing Shocked.

Start wide, expand further, and never look back
Karl Jerr
Herzack Unit
#32 - 2014-11-11 18:16:37 UTC
I put this movie at the same level than Sunshine: too much drama, too much implausible things (out of the wormhole).
Velarra
#33 - 2014-11-11 18:23:40 UTC
Alpheias wrote:
Titus Marrs wrote:
It's at least better than Gravity? Yes, the shots from space were spectacular. However, IMO, the story was very weak.
I'm hoping Interstellar has some hard sci fi aspects and better story to tell.


Nope and nope. If you want hard sci-fi, I recommend Leviathan Wakes by James S. A. Corey.


How did you feel about 2004's "Primer" ?
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#34 - 2014-11-11 22:12:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Akirei Scytale
Charlie Nonoke wrote:
It was excellent, but hardly the film of the year.
Don't expect too much, especially after all the things EVE has taught you.



I watched it with a physics graduate student and the only things she snickered at were gravity moving through time and the love as a coordinate system in time and space bit. Otherwise an extremely solid movie. The science, surprisingly, stands up (generally).

PS: I really hope EVE hasn't taught you anything about space because it simulates a universe of molasses.
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#35 - 2014-11-12 12:57:01 UTC
Velarra wrote:
Alpheias wrote:
Titus Marrs wrote:
It's at least better than Gravity? Yes, the shots from space were spectacular. However, IMO, the story was very weak.
I'm hoping Interstellar has some hard sci fi aspects and better story to tell.


Nope and nope. If you want hard sci-fi, I recommend Leviathan Wakes by James S. A. Corey.


How did you feel about 2004's "Primer" ?


I have actually not seen it. Reading about it though.

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#36 - 2014-11-12 15:13:10 UTC
Alpheias wrote:
Velarra wrote:
Alpheias wrote:
Titus Marrs wrote:
It's at least better than Gravity? Yes, the shots from space were spectacular. However, IMO, the story was very weak.
I'm hoping Interstellar has some hard sci fi aspects and better story to tell.


Nope and nope. If you want hard sci-fi, I recommend Leviathan Wakes by James S. A. Corey.


How did you feel about 2004's "Primer" ?


I have actually not seen it. Reading about it though.


It's the only time travel movie that tries to be accurate, and as a result, is completely incomprehensible. Once you think you have it figured out, you watch it again and realize you missed an entire layer of unseen events.

Definitely worth the watch.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2014-11-13 12:20:47 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:
I watched it with a physics graduate student and the only things she snickered at were gravity moving through time and the love as a coordinate system in time and space bit. Otherwise an extremely solid movie. The science, surprisingly, stands up (generally).

PS: I really hope EVE hasn't taught you anything about space because it simulates a universe of molasses.

Actually gravity-driven time dilation is very real, and the scale they used was about right for being right on the cusp of the black hole. The whole system acted like some sort of bizarre patched-conics setup in which the time dilation was extremely different in areas at similar altitudes but otherwise it didn't horrify me too much. What made me twitch was his total disregard for the amount of delta-V they would have needed to make such drastic orbital changes in such close proximity to a black hole. And the rest of the film pretty much demonstrated a complete absence of any understanding at all of orbital mechanics.

You can't park a ship over a Black Hole. If your altitude is stable at something like 7x the radius of the event horizon (that's what it looked like in the movie) then that is because you are orbiting it at about 1/64th the speed of light--if my simple estimate is giving a semi-accurate ballpark figure here. That's something like 5,000 km/s. (compare to Earth orbit at 8 km/s) Even to merely divert your heading into the event horizon for a full-speed entry, you'd need at minimum something like 4,000 km/s of delta-V, and even then only if you have enough thrust to do all of the accelerating in the time span of under 1/8th of an orbit. If we assume a small black hole with event horizon about the size of the Earth, that's an orbit of about 300,000km, so 1/8th is about 40,000km. So you have about 8 seconds to pump out 4,000 km/s of delta-V, which would produce a G-force of something like 50,000 Gs.

Now that's all calculated with Euclidean physics. If we throw in relativistic effects, you end up with even larger amounts of delta-V required.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#38 - 2014-11-13 12:38:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Akirei Scytale
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Akirei Scytale wrote:
I watched it with a physics graduate student and the only things she snickered at were gravity moving through time and the love as a coordinate system in time and space bit. Otherwise an extremely solid movie. The science, surprisingly, stands up (generally).

PS: I really hope EVE hasn't taught you anything about space because it simulates a universe of molasses.

Actually gravity-driven time dilation is very real, and the scale they used was about right for being right on the cusp of the black hole. The whole system acted like some sort of bizarre patched-conics setup in which the time dilation was extremely different in areas at similar altitudes but otherwise it didn't horrify me too much. What made me twitch was his total disregard for the amount of delta-V they would have needed to make such drastic orbital changes in such close proximity to a black hole. And the rest of the film pretty much demonstrated a complete absence of any understanding at all of orbital mechanics.

You can't park a ship over a Black Hole. If your altitude is stable at something like 7x the radius of the event horizon (that's what it looked like in the movie) then that is because you are orbiting it at about 1/64th the speed of light--if my simple estimate is giving a semi-accurate ballpark figure here. That's something like 5,000 km/s. (compare to Earth orbit at 8 km/s) Even to merely divert your heading into the event horizon for a full-speed entry, you'd need at minimum something like 4,000 km/s of delta-V, and even then only if you have enough thrust to do all of the accelerating in the time span of under 1/8th of an orbit. If we assume a small black hole with event horizon about the size of the Earth, that's an orbit of about 300,000km, so 1/8th is about 40,000km. So you have about 8 seconds to pump out 4,000 km/s of delta-V, which would produce a G-force of something like 50,000 Gs.

Now that's all calculated with Euclidean physics. If we throw in relativistic effects, you end up with even larger amounts of delta-V required.


Not the time dilation. I assure you we were both very familiar with the concept. I'm talking about the main character literally sending gravity waves back in time. I definitely commented on their supremely efficient thrusters, and apparent ability to ignore the effects of thruster placement on the actual thrust vector (ie the off-center docking with a damaged ship and then firing asymmetric thrusters without spinning in another axis).

Also, they weren't hovering over it, I assume you're referring to the scene where they took a wider orbit over the first planet. Perfectly plausible and a perfect waste of fuel, it isn't a natural orbit that they try to make. Nothing unrealistic about it except the ship maintaining it on autopilot for 23 years. That is... a lot of fuel. You also either drastically underestimated the scale of the black hole or overestimated the ship, they definitely weren't that close.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2014-11-13 12:52:42 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Also, they weren't hovering over it, I assume you're referring to the scene where they took a wider orbit over the first planet. Perfectly plausible and a perfect waste of fuel, it isn't a natural orbit that they try to make. Nothing unrealistic about it except the ship maintaining it on autopilot for 23 years. That is... a lot of fuel. You also either drastically underestimated the scale of the black hole or overestimated the ship, they definitely weren't that close.

Oh, and I can tell you play Kerbal Space Program, because the Delta V required to escape Kerbol is 4,500. Earth requires ~9000. That's why fuel is twice as dense in KSP.

They treated orbital mechanics like they were hovering the whole time. They seem to think they can travel short distances easily while near a black hole, ignoring the incredible orbital velocity they must have been going. They would have had an orbit time of a few minutes at most, meaning any extended thrust sequence would just get evened out because they would keep moving to a different part of the orbit. This would force them to make the most inefficient Hohmann transfers to get anywhere--the equivalent fuel usage of increasing or decreasing your orbital altitude in tiny increments, then waiting till you get to the other side to circularize before continuing. This multiplies the already incredible delta-V requirements for making any significant plane changes in such an orbit.

Now if they were in a stable orbit there wouldn't be much fuel cost to maintain it. Orbits really maintain themselves. But hovering over a black hole for 23 years would cost a lot of fuel.



Yes I do play KSP. I learned far more about orbital mechanics from KSP than I had in the rest of my life's studies combined.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#40 - 2014-11-13 13:11:18 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Also, they weren't hovering over it, I assume you're referring to the scene where they took a wider orbit over the first planet. Perfectly plausible and a perfect waste of fuel, it isn't a natural orbit that they try to make. Nothing unrealistic about it except the ship maintaining it on autopilot for 23 years. That is... a lot of fuel. You also either drastically underestimated the scale of the black hole or overestimated the ship, they definitely weren't that close.

Oh, and I can tell you play Kerbal Space Program, because the Delta V required to escape Kerbol is 4,500. Earth requires ~9000. That's why fuel is twice as dense in KSP.

They treated orbital mechanics like they were hovering the whole time. They seem to think they can travel short distances easily while near a black hole, ignoring the incredible orbital velocity they must have been going. They would have had an orbit time of a few minutes at most, meaning any extended thrust sequence would just get evened out because they would keep moving to a different part of the orbit. This would force them to make the most inefficient Hohmann transfers to get anywhere--the equivalent fuel usage of increasing or decreasing your orbital altitude in tiny increments, then waiting till you get to the other side to circularize before continuing. This multiplies the already incredible delta-V requirements for making any significant plane changes in such an orbit.

Now if they were in a stable orbit there wouldn't be much fuel cost to maintain it. Orbits really maintain themselves. But hovering over a black hole for 23 years would cost a lot of fuel.



Yes I do play KSP. I learned far more about orbital mechanics from KSP than I had in the rest of my life's studies combined.


Same here. It was the only way I could even offer insight in the conversation, I don't make a habit of arguing with people who have worked in Los Alamos in their own field. I bought the tesseract explanation, I've though of time as a physical dimension before, but she quickly dismantled it and pointed out that time was still passing on the inside of a black hole, and chuckled at the gravity waves. We didn't spend a lot of time talking the science but it was clear she was impressed by the majority of it. Kip Thorne, Niel Degrasse Tyson and the friend in question all gave it a thumbs up, what can I say.

Now, I'm not sure what part you're referring to. I was talking about when they park in an artificial orbit above the first planet. A wider, circular orbit outside its sphere of influence but keeping pace with it. Impossible unless you keep your thrusters running and continually correct your course, which is absurdly wasteful and something they mention and weigh the costs of. What they don't mention is how it wasn't a catastrophic problem they left it in orbit 21 years too long.

Now I'm beginning to suspect you're taking issue with the point when they use Gargantua to slingshot. Their orbit was, by the nature of what they were doing, definitely not circular at that point, so intuition isn't going to be accurate. They fired their thrusters and dropped a good chunk of weight at their intended periapsis, in order to gain as much speed as was possible before they fell in. Cooper continued along the ship's original course, and the ship edged past. Yes, their window would have been tiny, but they had a demonstrably capable computer on board that was explicitly helping him during the scene. All you can fault them for is stretching the scene out for dramatic effect, just like they condense the hours on the water planet so we don't have to watch water drain slowly while they shoot the ****.
Previous page123Next page