Ad Astra space movie is ridiculous

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
6,282
Location
Pittsburgh,PA U.S.A.
I looked at a video clip for the Ad Astra movie and it showed an astronaut falling like he was subject to gravity on earth, like he fell off a clif, while the giant space antenna he was next to remained in orbit. How can anyone spend the money it takes to make a movie and get the simple physics of what it would be like to be in orbit so wrong. With ridiculous mistakes like that there is no way I could sit through that entire movie.

If you want to see this yourself look at the short video add for the Ad Astra movie.
 
I watched it and disliked it immensely. Nothing about that movie was fun or interesting. The space scenes were OK at best.

Although it is good to note that gravity is only slightly reduced at 200 miles altitude. Generally it's about 90% of 1G. Any stationary object would be subject to gravity.

I would weigh about 180 pounds at 220 miles up on a space elevator, for example.
 
Last edited:
Off topic:

I've flown at some very high aircraft altitudes (FL640) . In general, the higher one goes the faster one must go to remain aloft (in any given aircraft) . At some point in altitude, the speed necessary to remain aerodynamically aloft becomes impossible to achieve. Instead, go fast enough and inertia keeps the craft aloft and orbit is achieved. About 17,500 mph is required.
 
The space antenna was in orbit and the astronaut who fell was right next to it. Both would be traveling around the earth at the same speed but the movie had the space antenna remain in orbit and the astronaut fall. Totally impossible and unrealistic.
 
The mistakes one can find in movies is fascinating. I remember a movie where a person was making numerous gun shots with a double barrel shot gun
33.gif
.
 
My three word review of the movie was: Brad Pitt Speaks

With respect to science, a Flat Earth Society meeting has more accurate science than this movie.

Spoilers, so if you want to go see it, stop now!

The antenna tower is unrealistic and doesn't really offer any significant advantage to terrestrial antenna farms

The moon buggys seems to have pneumatic tires. Also, if you had to go to the far side, why go on the surface. Take a smaller flying craft. It could be hundreds if not a thousand or more miles to get there.

We figured out that you don't land the entire craft on the planet during the Apollo program. But the ship going to Mars lands upright and intact? If they just want his voice for the "secure laser" why not just have him record it on Earth and take the recordings to Mars. It's a lot less costly to send less than a kg of recordings than 80kg of astronaut, plus everything needed to keep him alive. Plus you have control over the message so he doesn't ad lib.

Getting on the craft as it's leaving for Neptune, yeah right!

The grand tour of the planets. Odds are they are not in a line and since this was supposedly in the "near future" as stated in the opening of the movie, there is likely not going to be another alignment of the planets for a grand tour like the Voyager program for about 100 years. So he wouldn't go past every planet on the way to Neptune.

Why park your ship in such a different orbit from the craft you are planning to board?

If the anit-matter needs to be contained to save the solar system, how exactly does a nuclear detonation accomplish this?

Even if the rotating antenna could fling you to your craft in a different orbit, your flimsy shield is not going to protect you from orbiting bits of ring traveling at 10's of thousands of kph.

The nuclear detonation is not going to send you 3 billion miles home.

Exploding space monkeys, not really!
 
Originally Posted by JimPghPA
The space antenna was in orbit and the astronaut who fell was right next to it. Both would be traveling around the earth at the same speed but the movie had the space antenna remain in orbit and the astronaut fall. Totally impossible and unrealistic.



Looked to me like the opening scene's fall took place from a tall antenna-like structure (as improbably as that is), which would make the fall realistic.

My wife and I saw the movie....space scenes ok, first 1/2 actually pretty good but the second 1/2 reaaaaally dragged on, with a bunch of existential stuff that was quite boring unless you're into that.

D. Glad it was a matinee price and definitely not worth seeing again.
 
I bet you had a helluva time getting through the Lord Of The Rings ...‚

I don't go to the theaters for a lesson in astrophysics..I go for the escapism movies provide. ...
 
Brad Pitt sorting out his daddy issues for two hours isn't exactly escapism.

Now Barbarella... (not really, but it's closer to escapism than this drivel was.)

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
I bet you had a helluva time getting through the Lord Of The Rings ...‚

I don't go to the theaters for a lesson in astrophysics..I go for the escapism movies provide. ...
 
Originally Posted by javacontour
Brad Pitt sorting out his daddy issues for two hours isn't exactly escapism.

Now Barbarella... (not really, but it's closer to escapism than this drivel was.)

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
I bet you had a helluva time getting through the Lord Of The Rings ...‚

I don't go to the theaters for a lesson in astrophysics..I go for the escapism movies provide. ...


Just watched Barbarella the other day.. hadn't seen it since when I was a kid. Back then I wasn't allowed to see it because it was taboo and racy, so I had sneak peek it at a friend's house... they had cable TV and we didn't. This was like the late 70's.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by javacontour
Brad Pitt sorting out his daddy issues for two hours isn't exactly escapism.

Now Barbarella... (not really, but it's closer to escapism than this drivel was.)

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
I bet you had a helluva time getting through the Lord Of The Rings ...‚

I don't go to the theaters for a lesson in astrophysics..I go for the escapism movies provide. ...


Just watched Barbarella the other day.. hadn't seen it since when I was a kid. Back then I wasn't allowed to see it because it was taboo and racy, so I had sneak peek it at a friend's house... they had cable TV and we didn't. This was like the late 70's.


I had a good laugh when the EPR paradox was mentioned when Iron Man used it to invent time travel in Avengers End Game.
 
Just the trailers kept us away. I figure I have already seen the best parts, therefore I don't need to go to the movie theater and endure the idiots and the sticky floor!
 
I willingly suspend disbelief for a good story. All fiction requires that to some degree, sci-fi a bit more.

I can even accept Tony Stark's Palladium "Arc Reactor"...

But when the science is flat out wrong, I can't really watch.

"The Martian" was great sci-fi. "Interstellar" was excellent. "Gravity" was gripping and very accurate.

I'm disappointed to hear about this one.
 
Originally Posted by JLTD
Looked to me like the opening scene's fall took place from a tall antenna-like structure (as improbably as that is), which would make the fall realistic.


That was my thought too. I think it was an antenna tower that was affixed at the ground. Not really sure. If so, it's not in orbit.
 
I made the mistake of watching Gravity and listening to Bullock grunt for an hour or so. No more space movies.
 
Originally Posted by Astro14

"The Martian" was great sci-fi. "Interstellar" was excellent. "Gravity" was gripping and very accurate.

3 of the best sci-fi movies in recent years..+1. Gravity was particularly good and gripping like you mentioned but I'm splitting hairs because they're all great movies that I've watched multiple times. (the soundtrack to the Martian is worth watching it alone).
 
Last edited:
I simply don't understand why people knock a movie due to some inaccuracy. It's a move for godsake not a freaking documentary!!! Studios always have to make compromises due to the script.

Here's a perfect example of a movie compromise: Warriors, especially English, carrying their swords in a back scabbard while on horse back. That NEVER happened in real life, it only happens in the movies because it looks better on film because the sword doesn't get in the way of the shot or cause problems for the actor on horseback.
 
Last edited:
Did he "fall" or did he accelerate towards the earth?

BTW things in orbit are technically falling to earth but they fall over the horizon, hence the weightlessness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top