Out Of The Strong Came Forth Not The Botanist.

generic viagra

zoloft

propecia

buy viagra

To the person who said "its a movie, not the history channel," the history channel is horribly inaccurate. Just thought I'd let you know.

Anyway, I was disappointed because I know Danny Boyle could have done much better. I never expect science fiction films to get the science right (these days I hardly think of them as science fiction) but what bothers me is that this was marketed as a plausible science fiction movie, when it is absolutely not on so many different points.

To start with, all the uranium and plutonium on earth couldn't create a bomb large enough to reignite the sun. Even if it could, they would have to detonate it at the core for it to have any real affect, which is not what they did.

The ship would have burnt up not far past Mercury. As with the hydrogen bomb, we simply can't make a heat shield powerful enough to withstand the sun at such close proximity with any materials found on Earth, or our surrounding planets. I doubt anything could, but I'm no science expert, just a science fiction fan.

Also, the "Q-ball" postulated to be the reason behind the sun's sudden death is a subatomic particle. Accepting that these "balls" exist, the sun doesn't possess the density to be affected by one.

There are so many other things this movie got wrong, but its really not a bad movie in my opinion. Unlike other modern science fiction movies, at least it has science and some of it is accurate and presented in a fashion that is easy to follow and entertaining. It is better known for its spiritual and psychological themes that do well to drive the plot. If Alex Garland had written the script in conjunction with a science fiction writer (refer to Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's collaboration on "2001: A Space Odyssey") they could have cleared up some of the more glaring scientific inaccuracies and made something really special out of this. As it is, it comes off as an amateur approach to epic science fiction, a specific genre that should only be approach by veterans of the field.

lmfao.. Seriously people. Stop critiquing the film as if it's an actual proposal of mission details, data and machinery. It's just a movie! And although the characters befell unfortunate fates... I think the actors did a damn fine job. Sunshine possessed excellent cinematography and was very well cast.

ROFLMAO @ all the little kiddies getting pissy because the things in a fucking MOVIE don't match up with what they learned in Science class. Fucking cunts, anyone who complains deserves to be burned alive while they watch their family being raped/sodomized then executed via hot steel rod though both eye sockets, then disemboweled and their intestines strung around the city and a huge celebration held to celebrate their pathetic existance coming to and end. Then their corpses are sodomized by sadistic serial-rapists, and burned to the worthless ash they truely are. Then let a few dogs and cats piss and shit in the ass just for the fuckin' hell of it.

All of this is just gratuitous. Is this supposed to be entertainment? Art?

I got to pee

you guys are lameass bitches nobody cares about science shit or whatever its a fuckin movie not the history channel

BLAH BLAH BLAH IT'S ALL HOGWASH

ok, maybe i should go and see the movie and give it a chance before i rant about ID tags :-)

that is not an ID tag... >.< that is a communication device...

another little detail - it just seems odd to me that you have 7 or 8 crew members on a ship that will live together in such an isolated environment for so long and the they would need to hang ID or name tags around their necks ... uh ?

Understanding orbits

There are a few common ways of understanding orbits.

* As the object moves sideways, it falls toward the orbited object. However it moves so quickly that the curvature of the orbited object will fall away beneath it.
* A force, such as gravity, pulls the object into a curved path as it attempts to fly off in a straight line.
* As the object falls, it moves sideways fast enough (has enough tangential velocity) to miss the orbited object. This understanding is particularly useful for mathematical analysis, because the object's motion can be described as the sum of the three one-dimensional coordinates oscillating around a gravitational center.

As an illustration of an orbit around a planet, the much-used cannon model may prove useful (see image below). Imagine a cannon sitting on top of a tall mountain, which fires a cannonball horizontally. The mountain needs to be very tall, so that the cannon will be above the Earth's atmosphere and we can ignore the effects of air friction on the cannon ball.

If the cannon fires its ball with a low initial velocity, the trajectory of the ball curves downwards and hits the ground (A). As the firing velocity is increased, the cannonball hits the ground farther (B) away from the cannon, because while the ball is still falling towards the ground, the ground is increasingly curving away from it (see first point, above). All these motions are actually "orbits" in a technical sense — they are describing a portion of an elliptical path around the center of gravity — but the orbits are of course interrupted by striking the earth.

If the cannonball is fired with sufficient velocity, the ground curves away from the ball at least as much as the ball falls — so the ball never strikes the ground. It is now in what could be called a non-interrupted, or circumnavigating, orbit. For any specific combination of height above the center of gravity, and mass of the object being fired, there is one specific firing velocity that produces a circular orbit, as shown in (C).

As the firing velocity is increased beyond this, a range of elliptical orbits are produced; one is shown in (D). If the initial firing is above the surface of the earth as shown, there will also be elliptical orbits at slower velocities; these will come closest to the earth opposite the firing the point.

At a faster velocity called escape velocity, again dependent on the firing height and mass of the object, an infinite orbit such as (E) is produced — first a range of parabolic orbits, and at even faster velocities a range of hyperbolic orbits. In a practical sense, both of these infinite orbit types mean the object is "breaking free" of the planet's gravity, and "going off into space".

here is a precise definition of "orbit" :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_(celestial_mechanics)

in other words, enough height allows orbit but hight and orbit are 2 different issues. its not the same thing.
so the term astronaut means if you reached space and not weather you went into orbit or not.
or, you can fly high enough to reach space and be called an astronaut without getting into orbit.
(which is what spaceshipone did)
ok, now i am going to start singing "daisy ... daisy ..." :-)

ok, yes, spaceshipone did have a heat shield because it heats up as it falls back down into the atmosphere BUT it is not the same as the shuttle for example which is in orbit and must re - enter the atmosphere at a very precise angle (because of it great orbital speed).
spaceshipone went straight up and came straight down.
there was no orbit.
ok, a 100 km above the earth is where you can put something in orbit in order to avoid atmospheric drag. that doesn't mean you are in orbit if you reach that hight, silly :-)

Yes, it is harder to make an accurate and entertaining book, but the makers should at least try harder than this, this movie is ridiculous. And what in the hell kind of marketing ploy is it to show clips of the characters dying as "teasers"?

The term "astronaut" is given to anyone who has flown to 100 km, or the height at which something can be put into orbit, even if only for a short time because of what you called atmospheric drag...that's why the pilot of SpaceShipOne is the first civilian "astronaut"...plus SpaceShipOne DID have a heat shield...more commonly called a Thermal Protection System (or TPS). Look it up at scaled.com. Any and all vehicles traveling to those heights need a TPS of some sort so that they do not overheat the structure, systems, or pilots/passengers upon there return to earth...it's been fun...i gotta get back to work

by the way, spaceshipone flew vertically up high enough to reach the outer layers of our atmosphere and glided straight back down. if you look at the pictures of it after it landed, you will notice it has no heat shield and has no burn marks against its hull. (the shuttle does)
that is because spaceshipone never went into orbit. it simply flew high up enough to reach space.

there is no such thing as "orbital height"
you can put a pencil in orbit if you throw it fast enough parallel with the ground.
the closer you are to the ground the faster you have to move horizontally to gain enough momentum to break free from the earth's gravitational pull.
"orbital velocity" is the speed the pencil will have to travel to break free from the earth's gravitational pull.
height has nothing to do with anything.
the only reason why we put our shuttles and space stations so high up in orbit is because the vacuum in space doesn't cause any "air - friction" to slow down the ship and cause it to fall back to earth. its like putting your hand out through a car's window while driving and not having to fight the air pushing against it.
that is by the way the reason why the moon landers didn't need a heat shield.
they could orbit the moon very close to the surface before they came down for a landing.
in fact, if you hit a tennis ball and it travels horizontally away from you, it is in fact in orbit around the earth for a few brief seconds.

It's the year 2057...they have engineered plants that are more than capable of producing enough oxygen for the crew...regardless of how small the oxygen garden may be...and you can't really say for sure one way or the other about the star wars spaceship thing because you don't know how fast they were going. And plus if anything falls from orbital heights it will heat up...think SpaceShipOne...beeeeyaaaaahhhhh!!!

about shutting up ...
no, we should not shut up.
if anyone gets more than a million dollars and more than one assistant to make a movie today - they better get their inaccuracies straightened out.
there is no excuse for that - not if you have so many people holding your little hand for you.
by the way, the scene in revenge of the sith where the jedi's pilot "half the ship" back into the upper atmosphere of coruscant - where it starts to heat up and burn - that is nonsense.
the ship wasn't moving at orbital velocity around the planet - it was just flying high above it. things dont burn up in the atmosphere of a planet because it falls too fast. if that was true, then every free falling parachute jumper would have a nice glowing tail following them to the ground.
an object only burns up when it HITS the upper layers of a planet's atmosphere after it had been traveling through space at orbital or escape velocity (more than 2 - 3 times the speed of sound).
like hitting water after diving off a diving board and it burns your skin. it cant happen if you dive down from drifting on the surface.

speaking of inaccuracies .... anyone noticed the cracked dried mud and the mars surface in the mars lander footage in transformers ??

I know crap when I see it, and I'm looking at it right now. I will complain about any inaccuracies in any film, especially when they negate the suspension of disbelief. Anyone who doesn't is a fool.

Budding plant life that could mean survival on Icarus II is immediately negated by Corazon's death, which is followed by the deaths of the remaining crew. Throughout the film chances of survival pop up and are suddenly shut down, perhaps that’s what makes the final scene so satisfying.

Anyone who complains about the inaccuracies of any film should shut up and make a film themselves. Anyone can find flaws in any screenplay/book/etc. Its harder trying to make an accurate AND entertaining piece of work. So until you do...put up or shut up.

Oxygen garden...oxygen garden? I hate to be the barer of bad news and all but a few plants here and there, while they might brighten this stale plot up a bit, would NOT support a crew of seven for all of their oxygen needs. Not even 10% or that would have to be one damn big garden...