The Martian - November 2015 - Starring Matt Damon

[Terralthra]

Saw it. Loved it. Will comment more when it's been out for a bit and I've had a chance to rewatch and let it percolate.

[Iroscato]

Just come back from the cinema, holy shit. Like, holy shit. Scott was absolutely on the top of his game there. As was pretty much every beautiful bastard involved in the making of this goddamn masterpiece.
Damon, of course, carried the film - and did it superbly. I never knew he was that good an actor. I mean I knew he was good, but damn. The effects were flawless, I honestly could not tell what was CGI and what wasn't, pretty much for the entire duration. Spoiler

The plot element of China and the US co-operating to save this one man struck a very powerful chord with me, I was noisily and damply clearing my throat at several moments in the film. Fuckin' powerful stuff.

Holy shit what an amazing film. Kicked the shit outta Interstellar, which I already thought was superb. Best film of the year easily for me, and possibly for several other years as well

[Zaune]

All I have to say is, that was the best film I've seen since Chappie and the best adaptation of a book since the 80s TV version of The Day of the Triffids. Even the soundtrack was awesome! I bet Andy Weir wishes he thought of having Watney play Donna Summer's "Hot Stuff" on the rover's stereo during that scene with the RTG.

[GuppyShark]

I will add my voice to the chorus of accolades for this movie. It has been a really long time since I felt this impressed with a movie.

About the only fault I really have is I don't understand why the Ares IV launcher was not designed to reach orbit. They were not seriously expecting to rendezvous with the parent craft in the upper Mars atmosphere, surely?

[Terralthra]

I will add my voice to the chorus of accolades for this movie. It has been a really long time since I felt this impressed with a movie.

About the only fault I really have is I don't understand why the Ares IV launcher was not designed to reach orbit. They were not seriously expecting to rendezvous with the parent craft in the upper Mars atmosphere, surely?

Spoiler

It could make orbit. It couldn't match velocities with the Hermes on its ridiculously fast non-orbit trajectory. Remember, Hermes burned hard into a gravity assist off of Earth.

[GuppyShark]

Spoiler

I just came out of the session. Was that from the book or movie?

The dialogue in the movie seemed pretty explicit about it not being able to exit the atmosphere, not that it would be able to clear atmosphere but not able to catch the crazy fast Hermes. Movie audience dumb down?

I've played KSP so the orbital mechanics were not completely foreign to me.

[Elheru Aran]

Spoiler

On a conventional mission, Hermes was supposed to slow down and remain in a parking orbit around Mars until the mission was over and the MAV could rendezvous with it easily. In this particular circumstance, Hermes was far more of a moving target than it normally would have been.

[Terralthra]

Spoiler

No, it was explicit that it was going to get out of the atmosphere. That's the only way that having essentially a tarp for a nose cone would work: the atmosphere was thin enough that by the time the MAV was going fast enough for the open top to matter, it'd be out of the atmosphere entirely.

[Nephtys]

My viewing group predicted there would be a large number of control rooms bursting into cheers. And we were not let down. There were what, about 9 times that a control center cheered after a radio message?

[Elheru Aran]

Spoiler

No, it was explicit that it was going to get out of the atmosphere. That's the only way that having essentially a tarp for a nose cone would work: the atmosphere was thin enough that by the time the MAV was going fast enough for the open top to matter, it'd be out of the atmosphere entirely.

I'm not disagreeing?

Rereading Guppy's last post...
Spoiler

They were concerned that it would make it that far due to all the stuff Watney had to pull off it and they weren't sure how well the tarp over the nose thing would work (in the movie it looked almost like he actually used Pathfinder's parachute). There was a lot of concern going on in general really... understandable given the situation. But they weren't worried about it being *able* to make it to Hermes, they were just worried that it wouldn't be able to *catch* Hermes, but it was hard to express that in simple terms. I'm not great at remembering specific dialogue though, I'm afraid.

[Zaune]

I'm... just going to leave this here. Many people think 'The Martian' is based on a true story, so that's cool

Though the original Buzzfeed piece made an important point; if enough people are disappointed we haven't really landed on Mars yet, perhaps they'll vote for people willing to do something to change that.

[GuppyShark]

I am probably just misremembering the dialogue. I'll check again after I get the Blu Ray.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oddly enough, someone I went with said the same thing about Kristen Wiig's character. I made the point that she was the Watson character that needed astrophysics concepts explained to her.

That's fine, but that still makes her pretty pointless. It's not like any of the conversations between the NASA scientists were incredibly dense and technical to begin with, and even then it shouldn't have been that difficult for them to make her a little more than a target for other characters to explicate at. Again, the movie was good enough to overcome this, but it still is an example of lazy writing.

Without Rich Purnell, who would have calculated that the Hermes would be able to save Mark?

Any of the already introduced characters? I mean, there were already a half-dozen NASA scientists that had already been well developed as characters for over an hour by that point. And while the Purnell manuever was certainly an unusual plan, it's not something so outlandish that it would absolutely require an outsider character to come up with. It certainly wouldn't have raised any eyebrows if any of the other characters had brought it up.

You seem to have misunderstood what I meant when I said that these two characters were pointless. Obviously they both played a role in the movie, my point being was that there roles could have easily and seemlessly been filled by the already introduced characters, and that they were extraneous. They didn't have personalities other than "explain science to me" (in the case of Wiig) and "ooh look at me I'm quirky!" (in the case of Glover). Removing them from the movie wouldn't have changed a single thing, which isn't the case with the other main characters.

Again, it didn't REALLY bother me, because the movie was really fucking good overall, and I understand the reasons that they did what they did, but that doesn't change the fact that it was lazy writing.

[Zaune]

That might be down to editing. They both had bigger roles in the book, as well as more developed characters, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of that ended up getting cut for pacing and/or runtime reasons. Though it would've been nice if they'd kept the fact that Annie sides with Purnell and Henderson and calls her boss out on the fact he's more worried about NASA's public image than Watney's life.

[Adam Reynolds]

That might be down to editing. They both had bigger roles in the book, as well as more developed characters, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of that ended up getting cut for pacing and/or runtime reasons. Though it would've been nice if they'd kept the fact that Annie sides with Purnell and Henderson and calls her boss out on the fact he's more worried about NASA's public image than Watney's life.

That likely was the problem. I saw in an interview with Ridley Scott that an original cut of the film was 2:45, much of the characterization of secondary characters went with it.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Went to see it again today, and it's still excellent on a second viewing (always a good sign) but a few things having been bugging me:

1. How did the crew land on the surface initially? It can't have been in the MAV since the Ares IV MAV was already there.
2. Why did the crew immediately leave for Earth? They still had 12/13 days left in their mission, so the launch window wouldn't have been an issue. They could have stayed in orbit and gone back down once the storm passed.
3. They left Hermes in orbit, unmanned, for 18 days? That seems...unlikely.

[Terralthra]

Went to see it again today, and it's still excellent on a second viewing (always a good sign) but a few things having been bugging me:

1. How did the crew land on the surface initially? It can't have been in the MAV since the Ares IV MAV was already there.

Probably some sort of disposable lander.

2. Why did the crew immediately leave for Earth? They still had 12/13 days left in their mission, so the launch window wouldn't have been an issue. They could have stayed in orbit and gone back down once the storm passed.

Not enough fuel to launch the MAV multiple times, assuming they could even land it again in the first place.

3. They left Hermes in orbit, unmanned, for 18 days? That seems...unlikely.

NASA protocol would probably be to leave a crew aboard the orbiting module, I suppose, but it's an awful lot of dV to burn to get crewmembers there just to orbit for a month.

[Guardsman Bass]

Not enough fuel to launch the MAV multiple times, assuming they could even land it again in the first place.

Spoiler

But if they're in orbit for nearly 2 weeks, then Watney has a window of time to communicate with them (or they have a window to look down and see that he's moving stuff around). Then "all" he has to do is make the long trip to the Ares IV MAV and rendezvous instead of doing long-term survival.

It feels a little contrived, to be honest. They'd probably have to spend a couple of days in orbit just doing all the checklists to get ready for the return, at the very least. I still really enjoyed the movie, but that stands out now.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Yeah it doesn't exactly detract from from the film. But, addressing the "not enough fuel for the MAV" part, why would you design a mission of 31 days duration where your only option if something goes wrong on Day 3 is to hightail it back to Earth.

Now, if you allow enough fuel for multiple launches and landings (and given the size of Hermes, it would hardly have been a make-or-break payload) then if something does go wrong, you can retreat into orbit and return a day later when the storm clears, thus avoiding wasting a huge amount of resources and planning due to a sandstorm.

At least, that is how I would design such a mission, in addition to leaving a small crew aboard Hermes. Martinez says to Watney that they've all had to take turns filling in for his duties, so losing one crewman is a problem, and yet we can leave the ship unmanned in orbit for a month? Really?

[Adam Reynolds]

Now, if you allow enough fuel for multiple launches and landings (and given the size of Hermes, it would hardly have been a make-or-break payload) then if something does go wrong, you can retreat into orbit and return a day later when the storm clears, thus avoiding wasting a huge amount of resources and planning due to a sandstorm.

The whole point was that the MAV was landed first(hence why Mark was able to make it to Ares 4). It would begin creating its own fuel before the astronauts were launched so that it was available when they got there. Adding the excess fuel to the Hermes would be wasteful. This was an adaption of Mars semi-direct. Mars direct skipped the Hermes and simply had the return rocket delivered to Mars. It was a one way trip back home.

The realism problem wasn't the idea of a one way escape, it was the fact that a Martian sandstorm would never have been powerful enough to do that kind of damage in the first place.

At least, that is how I would design such a mission, in addition to leaving a small crew aboard Hermes. Martinez says to Watney that they've all had to take turns filling in for his duties, so losing one crewman is a problem, and yet we can leave the ship unmanned in orbit for a month? Really?

What would taxpayers say when they find out that NASA sent a crew to Mars and left them in orbit? That is quite a waste. Though I suppose they could do science in a similar manner to the ISS. It's not like people in orbit would have been able to do anything to help.

[Adam Reynolds]

I just looked again at the opening pages on Amazon. To answer the question about how they got down, they had the MDV(Mars Descent Vehicle) that allowed them to make a one way trip down. It obviously meant that once they got up to Hermes, they immediately had to return to Earth as there was nothing else they could have done even if they knew what had happened.

It also described that the MAV only carried 1 kg of hydrogen for every 13 kg of fuel it created. It also took 24 months to produce its fuel. In the book Mark also created fuel using water at the end for the Ares 4 MAV that he used as there wasn't enough fuel yet.

The other final point is that with an ion engine, it was more efficient to leave immediately rather than to wait around. They left within a day of making it back to the Hermes.

[Ziggy Stardust]

There is also the issue of supplies. It is possible that the Hermes didn't have enough supplies on it for two weeks of loitering around Mars AND the trip back to Earth. You could also argue the decision was political. Let's say that the evacuation from the storm happened as planned, and they didn't leave Mark behind. Maybe in that situation they DO loiter around Mars, but simply because of the perception that he had died, NASA decided to rush the surviving crew members back, because of the debacle that would have occurred if another crewmember was lost.

As for why it was unmanned, it is possible that the Hermes during that time was basically acting like an automated probe along the line of New Horizons, taking a lot of pictures of Mars and gathering data (likely that was how the crew on the planet got their weather forecasts, for example). It is possible that it is simply a more efficient use of manpower to have the people on the planet and let the Hermes act as an unmanned probe during that timeframe.

In other words, I don't find it to be utterly outlandish how things played out, there. I think there are multiple plausible explanations.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I can see that there are plausible reasons for why the opening happened as it did in the film, and it doesn't really detract from my enjoyment of the film. It's just my looking at that and thinking "huh." Call it Fridge Logic if you will.

[Adam Reynolds]

It is interesting that the author admitted that there was something of a handwave with that. The problem is that the atmospheric pressure on Mars is only 1% of Earth. Thus a sandstorm would never have the power to disconnect a satellite dish and throw it into an astronaut.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Yeah it doesn't exactly detract from from the film. But, addressing the "not enough fuel for the MAV" part, why would you design a mission of 31 days duration where your only option if something goes wrong on Day 3 is to hightail it back to Earth.

Now, if you allow enough fuel for multiple launches and landings (and given the size of Hermes, it would hardly have been a make-or-break payload) then if something does go wrong, you can retreat into orbit and return a day later when the storm clears, thus avoiding wasting a huge amount of resources and planning due to a sandstorm.

Well, while you can do a single-stage-to-orbit ascent on Mars ... that's still a lot of mass Hermes would have to schlep around. Also, you'd have to make the MAV much heavier, since now you're designing it to sustain multiple ascent/descent cycles without the luxury of mostly tearing it down after each mission ... maybe if you had some sort of in-situ resource extraction operation taking place on Phobos ... some ideas for a manned Mars mission assume using Phobos as a sort of base of operations.

At least, that is how I would design such a mission, in addition to leaving a small crew aboard Hermes. Martinez says to Watney that they've all had to take turns filling in for his duties, so losing one crewman is a problem, and yet we can leave the ship unmanned in orbit for a month? Really?

Also, NASA would almost certainly design the mission so that a couple of astronauts get to sit up in orbit while their comrades putz about on the surface. Anyone remember Michael Collins, Richard Gordon, Stuart Roosa, Alfred Worden, Thomas Mattingly II, and Ronald Evans?

But ... yeah, that's one of the things the book and the movie do ... it gets me to thinking about all the ways that one could put together a better manned Mars mission than Weir did. Unfortunately, there's very little I can think of, that would result in Watney being stranded alone (and alive) on Mars.

As has been discussed, a severe dust storm on Mars would feel like a lightly breezy day on Earth; owing to the paper-thin Martian atmosphere. A bad enough storm could cause a manned surface mission to abort to orbit, but it'd be because all the airborne dust would block out enough sunlight that a solar-powered habitat would be in danger of not having enough power to keep the expedition alive (and even then, planning for the habitat design would almost certainly include enough power margin that the only thing that could chase them off Mars would be a deep, persistent, regional or global dust storm.)

So let's assume this is a thing that happens. How can we make Watney be convincingly dead? Maybe his task is to lock down the habitat and equipment prior to their abort to orbit; except that he'd have a buddy with him, because such a task would involve a very long and thorough checklist. Perhaps we can have the main antenna fall on him again because some defective bolt made it through quality control and the structure gives way while he and his buddy are securing it. So, assuming he gets skewered and his bio-monitor gets taken out ... his crew knows where he is, so there'd be no reason for them not to dig him out and strap his corpse in for the ride back to orbit ... which is a thing that they will almost certainly do. So, that's out; unless there's some reason the surface commander has to ascend to orbit right fucking now ... but most of the things I can think of that would make that happen would also immensely complicate Watney's eventual retrieval (some sort of disaster aboard the Hermes,) or make the mission commander out to be a complete asshole (she holds off the decision to abort way too long, and they have to leave because remaining on Mars would mean that crew death would be almost guaranteed.)

There is another way to involutarily strand Watney on Mars, and that's if something goes wrong in the Entry/Descent/Landing phase of the mission (or the habitat suffers explosive decompression while he's scheduled to be out on EVA) ... except the sole survivor of a horrific crash story is really quite cliche. Also, in a story like this, nobody is going to sit around on their thumbs for two months because they're afraid of showing the public corpses. Imaging the crash site would be top priority for NASA. They'd get all the orbiters involved, and Hermes too, because something like that would trigger an exhaustive investigation involving multiple congressional hearings, blue-ribbon commissions, and boards of inquiry ... you know, like what happened after Challenger or Columbia. They'd immediately know Watney survived and was out and about.

One could postulate that they voluntarily strand Watney on Mars. Say Hermes has a cryotank explode or something, and now not only do they don't have enough oxygen or water for the ship to keep the crew alive for the planned mission duration, they're now so badly crippled that one of them has to be left behind so that the rest of the crew might make it back home. Only now, it becomes a different story, where NASA has to send him resupply missions while Hermes limps back to Earth and has to be patched up enough and resupplied to the point where they can go back for Watney.

So ... yeah, not many ways to plausibly have a story that would unfold like the one in The Martian. It's better to simply accept it as the Robinson Caruso ... IN SPAAAAACE that it is.

As for the movie itself ...

My girlfriend enjoyed it, immensely. As for me ... well, it felt a little flat, and a little rushed (which, for a film that runs nearly two and a half hours, is saying something.) Also, the science nerd in me was displeased that they left out much of what made the book such a pleasurable read. Some of the science and engineering in the film wandered into the territory where I could envision the Mythbusters putting it to the test due to the implausibility. The Martian surface CGI wasn't great (incredibly obvious CGI clouds and dust devils for one, and the ridiculous number of hoodoos and slot canyons Watney drove though for another ... I mean, we know that the locales in the film look more like the vast expanses of nothing seen in Spirit, Opportunity, and Pathfinder imagery and less like some of the spectacular scenery at the foot of Mount Sharp (as seen by Curiosity.))

So, it's not quite the best space disaster flick I've ever seen. I think Apollo 13 is a better example; it gave me fewer "fridge logic" moments. I think it would've helped a lot if I hadn't re-read the book a couple weeks before seeing the movie. Still, for what it is, it's a good movie.