PDA

View Full Version : What about Red Planet?



Bounced Check
2004-Nov-18, 06:47 PM
Has anyone gone over the "science" in this movie? I find the idea of martian bugs that eat terran algea a little insulting.

And the robot that goes wacko - is it just me ro is the concept of failsafe programs just not an optin in Hollyweird?

papageno
2004-Nov-18, 06:52 PM
Do not forget the most important martian base with no telemetry and the oxygen in the martian atmosphere that was not detected from Earth (no spectroscopy?).

BUT, I liked the ship with the two "wheels" spinning in opposite directions (artificial gravity without anuglar momentum that can make maneuvring more complicated), and I loved the flexible computer.

Wolverine
2004-Nov-18, 07:28 PM
Don't forget this (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/redplanet2.html). :wink:

Van Rijn
2004-Nov-18, 11:41 PM
I'm actually a lot tougher than the BA on this movie, and I didn't like the story very much (sometimes I like movies with silly science - ID4, for example - but not in this case). He covers a number of points but:

(1) It would take a LOT of CO2 ice at the poles, and many very high yield nuclear bombs to create a significant atmosphere. It is unlikely there is that much dry ice available, and this would be a far greater task than sending a single manned spacecraft to Mars.

(2) It would take tens of thousands of years to convert a significant amount of that CO2 to oxygen with algea. Even with "magic algea" that didn't care about temperature, nitrogen, water, etc. and used sunlight at 100% efficiency, it would take centuries.

(3) The spacecraft is massive, yet has a tiny crew. Why didn't they bring more or have a smaller spacecraft?

(4) The BA mentions the radiation issue, but this one really annoyed me. There was the nonsensical gamma flash, but also NASA designs spacecraft to handle high radiation loads. I can't believe a spacecraft would be this badly designed. This was completely unrealistic.

(5) The lander had no provision for human control or landing position adjustment. Another bad spacecraft design. And - they land it next to a cliff??

(6) The advanced robot - though unlike everything else electronic suffered no significant radiation damage - managed to get a switch stuck in "kill" mode. Oh, please.

(7) The atmosphere is thick enough for a simple flyer, but everyone wears spacesuits? Sure, you'd expect to need oxygen, but why bother with a bulky suit?

(8) Bugs that make oxygen? Where are they getting the energy?

(9) A robot lander that just happens to be in the right place, has been sitting around this long and still has power - AND has an ascent module that will still work, that can take a man and fly him to a stable orbit???

I'm sure there's more, but I haven't seen it in a long time.

DataCable
2004-Nov-19, 01:22 PM
(5) The lander had no provision for human control or landing position adjustment. Another bad spacecraft design. And - they land it next to a cliff??
"Hey, we can drop unmanned probes onto Mars in a cluster of airbags, so why not a pod with people in it?" :o Clearly designed by someone who never expected to meet any of the intended vict... er, occupants.


(9) A robot lander that just happens to be in the right place, has been sitting around this long and still has power - AND has an ascent module that will still work, that can take a man and fly him to a stable orbit???
...And a lovable cartoon bear on the error message displays. :roll:

The HAB, Mars Rover, and fictional Russian probe were all within walking distance of each other (with no food or water, at that.) Nope, too much to swallow. It's a planet, fer cryin' out loud, why is everything being sent to this infinitecimal plot of real-estate?

papageno
2004-Nov-19, 01:33 PM
But the flexible computers were cool, weren't they? 8-[

Van Rijn
2004-Nov-20, 12:24 AM
The HAB, Mars Rover, and fictional Russian probe were all within walking distance of each other (with no food or water, at that.) Nope, too much to swallow. It's a planet, fer cryin' out loud, why is everything being sent to this infinitecimal plot of real-estate?

Yes, I think that sort of thing was my biggest problem with the movie. It wasn't just that they kept throwing dumb science in your face - rather, they had dumb science AND the plot didn't make sense AND there were too many coincidences.

JonClarke
2004-Nov-20, 02:03 AM
I watched this and Mission to Mars back to back. Compared to MtM this was a good movie At least it told a slightly interesting story that was slightly less cliched than MtM. That was a movie that inspired projectile vomiting!

Jon