The Living Force
I liked Interstellar a lot better. The extra punch for me was the tie in of quantum theory and paranormal activity. I want something special when I go to the movies.
More details here: _http://www.anser.org/docs/The_Radiation_Threat_to_the_Martian.pdfSpace radiation comes from two main sources: solar storms and galactic cosmic rays. Solar storms are intense, short-lived, and infrequent. Fortunately for Mark, there weren’t any during his mission. He dodged that bullet. However, he and his crewmates could not have avoided cosmic rays. These are high-energy particles that arise from supernovas, colliding neutron stars, and other violent events happening all the time in the Milky Way. They are ever-present, 24/7, and there is no way to avoid them. So far, NASA has developed no effective shield against these sub-atomic cannon balls from deep space. “Doubling a nominal spacecraft shielding thickness only reduces the GCR [galactic cosmic rays] exposure by a few percent,” notes Turner.
In the movie, Watney is actually safer than the crew of the Hermes. Turner explains: “The radiation exposure is significantly less on the surface of Mars. For one thing, the planet beneath your feet reduces your exposure by half. The atmosphere, while thin, further reduces the dose. The dose rate on Mars, while high, is only about 1/3rd of that on the Hermes.”
The biggest threat from cosmic radiation exposure is the possibility of dying from radiation-induced cancer sometime after a safe return to Earth. NASA’s radiation limits today are set to limit this life-shortening risk to less than three percent. Taking into account many factors, such as the phase of the solar cycle and the number of days the crew spent in deep space and on the surface of Mars, Turner has calculated the total dose of cosmic rays absorbed by Watney (41 cSv) and the crew (72 cSv). “cSV” is a centi-Seivert, a unit of radiation commonly used in discussion of human dose rates.
There is considerable uncertainty in how these doses translate into an increased risk of cancer. Turner estimates the added risk to Watney as somewhere between 0.25% and 3.25%. For members of the crew, the added risk ranges from 0.48% to 7.6%. The high end of these ranges are well outside NASA safety limits. The crew especially could be facing medical problems after their homecoming.
Post-flight cancer is not the only problem, however. “There is some additional concern that sustained radiation exposure could lead to other problems that manifest during the mission, instead of years afterward. Possible examples include heart disease, reduced immune system effectiveness, and neurological effects mimicking the symptoms of Alzheimer disease.”
I too thought this is NOT a great movie, just usual movie, but Reviews on the net are great for this movie.Solie123 said:I agree! I was expecting a plot twist, something to make the movie extraordinary, but it was just.. 'Eh'SummerLite said:I guess I'm that simple sort that wants to see the "unusual" in sci-fi movies. I was hoping he'd run into The face on Mars maybe, fall through a hidden shaft taking him to ancient realms buried in the sands of time or something out of the ordinary. Maybe a hint of another life form or anomalous energy patterns warping space or something. This wasn't what the story line was about of course and I suppose there are plenty of sci-fi's with what I enjoy in this type of film. So after awhile I found it to be tedious. Ho Hum.
Don't get me wrong, I do think it was a good movie, I just don't think it was great.
I think this depends on reference point instead of desensitization. For me Interstellar was too good to watch. My son watched with me both martian and Interstellar. He liked Martian too much( Thinks story line, effects and funny parts), but he didn't get "Interstellar" and wondered why I liked that much. So I think it is the expectation.Solie123 said: