Subject:
|
Re: (Movie) Mission to Mars
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:21:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
121 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> This is somewhat off-topic for this group, but it is space related.
>
> I went to see Mission to Mars last night and found it to be one of the worst
I saw it last night too, and from a "movie" perspective I have to agree
with you.
>
> The final straw for me was also an EVA rescue scene. One character had run his
> pack out of fuel and managed to turn himself into a Martian Satellite. The
> rescuing character, after expending half of her fuel trying to reach him, was
> commanded to stop at about the midway point otherwise she wouldn't have enough
> fuel to get back to the ship. This bothered me very much, because it would
> have taken the same amount of fuel to reach the victim and turn around as it
> would have to stop midway and turn around. The only difference being the
> ammount of time that a person would have to wait.
That really bothered me too! And anyone else that passed high school
physics!
The significant thing about this movie is that it is the first major
Hollywood film to deal with the humanoid life on mars issue in a serious
way. Even more significant is that NASA apparently worked very closely
throughout the making of the film. It's a little odd that the Organization
that spent the past 25 years ferociously denying that there was anything
artificial in Cydonia would help make a movie blatantly promoting exactly that,
and even went beyond artificiality to promote the "earth as seeded planet"
theory.
It might signal a change of policy, where serious scientific evaluation
of the features in Cydonia are undertaken. I'm not holding my breath.
For some pictures of the "real" Cydonia face, here's an enhancement of the
1998 Mars Global Surveyor image (which was taken underexposed, at a
45 degree angle through fog):
http://www.maj.com/mars/c1/part2.html
(I hope I diddn't offend any lurking NASA folks)
KL
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: (Movie) Mission to Mars
|
| (...) On the other hand it might be taken to mean that NASA will now do anything to get funded. I tend to agree with Jerry Pournelle's screed that NASA has outlived its purpose (each time it holds back private rocketry and space launch.) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | Re: (Movie) Mission to Mars
|
| (...) I haven't seen it yet, but it's on my list of movies to see... (...) how many SF movies have you seen lately that DIDN'T fail high school physics, as you say? I'm at the point now that I don't expect them to make sense in our universe laws - I (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | Re: (Movie) Mission to Mars
|
| (...) his (...) enough (...) that, (...) If you want vicious reviews, you should see the ones posted here at Mars "face" central (Jet Propulsion Lab). Merciless. :-) Bruce (24 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
