I LOVE science FICTION. But I keep hearing this book and movie are so fantastic because of the great science content. I can't find the science content in either and when I challenge people to show to me, I get the response that I'm looking too closely and need to enjoy both book and movies as works of fiction.
Three or four real tech scenes would have made all the difference IMHO.
I can't find the science content in either and when I challenge people to show to me, I get the response that I'm looking too closely and need to enjoy both book and movies as works of fiction.
Thus, I now take it we are all agreed that the content and concepts of both works squarely fall into the fiction category - which is great with me.
Also the plasic bag he put over the hole with duct tape
I LOVE science FICTION. But I keep hearing this book and movie are so fantastic because of the great science content. I can't find the science content in either and when I challenge people to show to me, I get the response that I'm looking too closely and need to enjoy both book and movies as works of fiction.
You missing the point of the book. There aren't formula on every page, it's just a "the vibe".
You are one of very few technical people who are complaining about the book, there is a reason for that...
Three or four real tech scenes would have made all the difference IMHO.To who? Us?
It's got 93% on the Tomato-meter. Adding that scene would not have helped with the public's perception of the movie as a "movie that involves science" in the slightest.
We will not get to Mars with these endless circle jerks of fantasy science that let anything we want to believe be true. Magical thinking will not let us travel to the planets and to the stars. Good science will.
Some people who only went through the arts have zero background in science.
It's always going to be a tough thing to bring something like this to a broad audience.
Some people who only went through the arts have zero background in science.
Yet they have no problem expecting scientists to appreciate art.
The real problem is that most people have no background in anything.
No, that's not true. The whole 'background' thing is a red herring. Some people have no natural curiosity. Some people see stuff they don't understand and their reaction is to go on Wikipedia and fill in the gaps. After a few decades of that, well... you end up knowing lots of stuff. It's inevitable. nb. You don't have to be a hardcore scientist to do this, there's taxi drivers who win quiz shows simply because they like reading about stuff.
Other people see stuff they don't understand and their reaction is.... nothing. I've had conversations with people who simply don't have the "why?" reaction. They're perfectly happy to be ignorant unless it's something that immediately benefits them (eg. learning to use a smartphone). What they know today is almost all they'll ever know in their lifetime. I don't get their point of view, they don't seem to get mine.
Yep. We're not that much of a minority.
It would't have scored lower because of a couple of minutes of extra nerdiness.
Calling the science in The Martian "Fantasy Science" is far more grotesque an exaggeration than any artistic exaggeration that was done in the story. Reducing hydrazine into hydrogen and N2 then burning the hydrogen to make water is a real chemical reaction. Determining how many calories he needed to survive to impose a time constraint was completely plausible. Electric propulsion is real. Centrifuges are real. The orbital dynamics were accurate enough that a NASA engineer was able to (correctly) deduce the Ares III launch date from the scant clues in the book. Made particularly difficult since the Hermes did not use impulsive burns on the transfer. The bit with second sandstorm was not only plausible, but his discovery that the subtle effect would kill him and his solution to it was brilliant. Shedding mass on the Ares IV MAV to make the deltaV requirements for escape was 100% plausible. Using waste heat from an RTG to keep warm so he could save battery power is 100% plausible. IIRC, the RTG had the same specs as the Curiosity rover's RTG. Etc., etc. The whole mission architecture is largely based on Mars Direct, which is a massive concession to reality. One could easily call every real NASA Mars DRM prior to Mars Direct "unrealistic."
Comparing any of this to Sci-Fi where they make up substances that have properties that magically allow whatever they need in the story (cavorite, dilithium, element zero, "dark matter" as a power source, etc.) is ludicrous.
Even if it were made absolutely plausible, you could still argue with it. On that note, I think The Martian is a monumental achievement.
You missing the point of the book. There aren't formula on every page, it's just a "the vibe".
You are one of very few technical people who are complaining about the book, there is a reason for that...
Yep, I suspect that nothing would ever satisfy LabSpokane, and that is why hardly anyone else technical shares his viewpoint. Most are able to see it as you described above.
You missing the point of the book. There aren't formula on every page, it's just a "the vibe".
You are one of very few technical people who are complaining about the book, there is a reason for that...
Andy Weir could write a book with all the calculations and justifications for the science in "The Martian", and maybe he should, but it would be a completely different type of book.
Yep, I suspect that nothing would ever satisfy LabSpokane, and that is why hardly anyone else technical shares his viewpoint. Most are able to see it as you described above.I would be satisfied by my tax dollars going to fund a plausible mission to Mars, rather than promoting Andy Weir's book and Ridley Scott's movie.
Yep, I suspect that nothing would ever satisfy LabSpokane, and that is why hardly anyone else technical shares his viewpoint. Most are able to see it as you described above.I would be satisfied by my tax dollars going to fund a plausible mission to Mars, rather than promoting Andy Weir's book and Ridley Scott's movie.
How were your tax dollars spent on this book and movie exactly?
IMO it's one of the best bang-per-buck uses of their budget possible.
The money was spent on endless promotions. Maybe you missed it in Australia, but it was pretty obvious here. You can label it "inspiring the children." I call it corporate welfare. It is re-appropriation of money that was supposed to conduct space exploration, instead frittered away making the rich richer.
While movie promotions may be arguably better uses of the money than the current Orion / Mars mission train wreck, I can think of a TON of better ways to inspire young people to explore the stars. Instead of all this fantasy, how about spending money helping kids explore space REALITY. Building a cube sat, getting telescope time, working as an intern, instrumenting model rockets, teaching basic orbital mechanics... I could go on for pages, and there's a gazillion ways to inspire space exploration that do not involve re-distribution of wealth from the 99% to the 1% - to use common euphemisms.
If NASA wants to promote movies, then we seriously need to consider cutting NASA's budget and funding real science.
Real space science is in a world of shit here.
As one of the 300-odd million people actually paying for NASA's activities, I have a right to voice my opinion on how my tax dollars are being expended. And there are simply much better options than subsidizing the entertainment industry.
How were your tax dollars spent on this book and movie exactly?The money was spent on endless promotions. Maybe you missed it in Australia, but it was pretty obvious here. You can label it "inspiring the children." I call it corporate welfare. It is re-appropriation of money that was supposed to conduct space exploration, instead frittered away making the rich richer.
How were your tax dollars spent on this book and movie exactly?The money was spent on endless promotions. Maybe you missed it in Australia, but it was pretty obvious here. You can label it "inspiring the children." I call it corporate welfare. It is re-appropriation of money that was supposed to conduct space exploration, instead frittered away making the rich richer.Do you have numbers for how much was spent? Without supporting evidence anecdotes like this just sound like the ranting of a grumpy old man.
I don't just sound like a grumpy old man, I *am* a grumpy old man!!!
I don't just sound like a grumpy old man, I *am* a grumpy old man!!!You do realise that is a choice, don't you? Not all of us escalate in grumpiness with age, and its really sad to watch those who do. We are building a new house, and the garden will be unfenced. I invite any local children to play on any lawn we might have there, as long as they keep it tidy and are polite.