BookTalk.org

I'm going out to see it today. I've heard that as far as technical science stuff is concerned, it's pretty accurate. The windstorm that strands the astronaut is probably implausible, the science guys say, but other than that, pretty spot-on. It's a good essay, but I think there's little danger that the public will adopt more unrealistic expectations of science because of it. Hollywood romanticizes and simplifies most of its subjects--cowboys, soldiers, Mafioso, cops, and now scientists. It's their turn.

Rachel E. Gross' article is well enough written and raises an interesting point, she also misses the point.

The science behind "The Martian" is for the most part settled, The proof is in the repeated success' of the space program itself, Which is the foundation for the story, The drama is reactionary to the proposals; [how to survive on Mars, how to execute a rescue mission to Mars]

As DWill points out, there is, for the development of movie/novel drama, some exaggerations made. For example wind/dust storms on the surface of Mars have been documented, but due to the thin Martian atmosphere have less capacity to carry debris such as dust.

Gross; in her article posits science worship, and scientist as wizards, that is her projecting a concept on her consumers.

The unsung hero's as it were, are the NASA engineers, who design/build the equipment used through out a space mission, I'll also include all space agencies from Countries throughout Earth that have been working on their respective missions as well, often space agencies, from various countries work in partnership toward common goals.

So is it really about science worship or more about the articles author ignoring the thousands of hours spent by engineers world wide building the equipment that does make life better? The answers clear, She's using a fiction to create a fictional drama of her own.

Part of the story line is the populous' captured imagination with the drama of the rescue, its demonstrated by scenes of people gathering in public spaces to watch the rescue live on television, They cheer for humanities success not the individuals' or of any scientist.

It was an entertaining movie, I'll give it that, certainly, though not the kind of movie I get really excited about. It was very similar to "Gravity," I thought, another well-crafted celebration of both an individual's resourcefulness and our amazing technologies. I wonder whether any momentum toward an actual Mars expedition will result from it. I didn't catch the date of this fiction, if there were any clues. Regarding unrealistic expectations for a real Mars trip, if viewers get the idea that we're close to being able to pull this off, they'd be disappointed that we're at least a couple of decades away and hundreds of billions of dollars.

DWill:
I didn't catch the date of this fiction, if there were any clues.

The time line is the near future, something like 2030, but you're right, manned missions to Mars are rather far from where we are today, I would hope that the public doesn't cop unrealistic expectations toward the scheduling of this type of mission. One of the major fictions of the story is ion powered or propelled ships of the size necessary for such a long space flight. Ion propulsion exists but not on the stories scale.

I wish we'd focus on building a permanent international lunar base. We could pull this off in the next 20 years for sure.

Saw the recent film with Matt Damon which I believe is based on the book? (Or are there many "martians" out there and many books similarly titled?)

Anyway, re the film: Not sure about the science since a lot of the techniques employed were beyond my understanding although providential.

Matt Damon does a decent acting job and Jessica Chastain and Kate O'Mara are good as well as hot but things get a little jumbled and there is so much "gear" available to Matt on Mars that it boggles the brain. Also, Matt does not seem to get lonely, depressed or (ahem) horny despite the one year plus he lives alone on Mars. And I could not figure out where his space colleagues fly to when they lift off without him since barely a couple of months later they are heading back to pick him up.

Chris OConnor wrote:I wish we'd focus on building a permanent international lunar base. We could pull this off in the next 20 years for sure.

For what purpose?

The science behind "The Martian" is for the most part settled, The proof is in the repeated success' of the space program itself, Which is the foundation for the story, The drama is reactionary to the proposals; [how to survive on Mars, how to execute a rescue mission to Mars]

What?
First of all you're off base here regarding what the article discusses.
Secondly, the science of a trip to Mars isn't "settled" because of "repeated success" of the space program.

Going to the moon is one thing.
Going to Mars is an entirely different thing.

How does a science fiction movie misrepresent science? It's science fiction!