Interstellar

[Mangerman]

After the teaser from last December, we finally have a first real look at the film!



Suffice to say, I am hyped.

[Mangalore]

What's Alfred doing there? That said, looks interesting in possibly trying to stick to actual physics and be more a tale of actual near FTL and some such? Given the time jump in the trailer and authentic looking astronaut equipment.

[brandbll]

Yeah, im real hyped about this too. Thanks for posting it. I had heard they were playing it at some planetarium or something and it was only going to be a matter of time before they finally released it.

[Raradir]

Wow that looks great, I'd like to think this will get the publics attention in space travel again and for goverments to actually start think about trying to achieve stuff like this

[Condottiere 40K]

On the face of the trailer, doesn't look very interesting.

[Katsumoto]

In Nolan we trust.

[IZob]

What's Alfred doing there?

MASTER WAYNE!!!!!!!!!!



Anyway, it looks very interesting! I want more.

[Shneckie]

The first trailer is one of the best trailers I've seen like, ever, that latest one though was more revealing than I liked.

Still I'm so ing hyped for this. I loved Contact, Europa Report, Apollo 13, 2001... space exploration just fascinates me and this is done by Nolan!

[IZob]

All aboard the Nolan Hype Train.

New Trailer:

[RubiconDecision]

Matthew McConaughey is something of a hot commodity at the moment due to the extraordinary True Detective, the excellent Mud, and the controversial Dallas Buyers Club. He's taken risks for his art, as well as taking what jobs he could find in his earlier career. I'm not sure why he had as much difficulty as he did? He certainly had no shortage of interested leading ladies both on and off the screen. There's a diversity in his choices, that's for sure. Watch Amistad, Frailty, Contact, or Reign of Fire to see very different roles, but perhaps not always fully developed and made unique. There's rather a brand burned into his portrayals.

Interstellar will probably have a genuine pathos about it. The Earth is doomed. The choice to send a ship into deep space is desperate. A million things can go wrong as we've never had a Mars landing much less pressed further into space. That means all manner of issues based upon the speed of the ship, the mechanical stress from the velocity, and cracking due to structural integrity failure. Or atmosphere issues, suspended animation issues, or even common minutia like bacteria in space and molds, a real problem on space stations recycling the atmosphere as well as human waste.

On top of this, is his mission one way? It's doubtful he could return, right? It would be set up so he could communicate back in some manner, that would have to happen, but not necessarily that the astronauts could return. They'd be expendable. The ship would have to be massive to carry the astronauts, the fuel, any materials, and then the bigger it is, then more of the same to man and service it. It's likely that the ship would be dismantled and those materials used to house the astronauts, but only for a brief time. They'd have to find food and water, and while water isn't usually an issue on the Earth, that's far from certain on whatever planet they arrive on. Then would it support agriculture that we knew how to manipulate. Even then that's months of work to get the soil ready, plant it, issues with light, temperature, plant diseases, bacteria working differently, what is needed to fertilize it, etc. The astronauts would starve to death, most likely.

At best, it would mean a small handful of carefully chosen diverse, talented, brilliant, healthy, interdisciplinary scientists (men and women most likely families) would leave the Earth to start a new colony. That's all. That would be the Hope, for there's no chance of sending multiple ships, no means of transporting basic things like water for lots of people, never enough materials or fuel to perform any real evacuation.

Why families? You can't just send strangers into space with no relationships and expect it to work. They might not get along. They might be secretly homosexual. They might not be fertile. They might have trouble getting pregnant due to low sex drive. Etc. Which brings up some pretty awful issues about would NASA send homosexuals to space to form a colony, right? There would be ethical issues about which families were chosen due to their abilities in diverse scientific disciplines, life skills, medicine, interpersonal skills, pre-existing health conditions,etc. The list would be a small one. Some mathematician would look at sustainability versus numbers versus the chances of repopulation versus attrition due to a host of hostile living conditions. If they discuss that, all manner of ethics would come up, as most of us wouldn't have any chance of being on such a mission. We'd be eliminated through a cruel Malthusian strategy, and who decides? The head of NASA? The world leaders? Popular vote?

Even picking the best people would be risky, but the final last ditch effort to save those Elite. Such an action would cause chaos and rioting on the Earth with folks killing each be the last ones to survive if they're doomed.

So unless the director and writers are careful to transition the audience into accepting that, then it comes off gloomy. It's making the viewer accept death as inevitable and a heroic sacrifice so that an elite intelligentsia can live. That's a tough sell especially today as people are realizing the massive concentration of wealth of 85 uberwealthy billionaires having more wealth than 3 Billion literally.

I'm looking forward to it, as long as it's not a Deux ex machina film where suddenly at the last moment a way is found to transport Humanity to Planet X. That would be simplistic escapist fare and silly Summer entertainment for mass appeal.

[Knight of Heaven]

The thing with Nolan is, some of his trailers are always better then its films.

[Biggles]

The thing with Nolan is, some of his trailers are always better then its films.

Agreed. I'm a space nut though so I'll see this for sure. I loved Gravity and if more competent directors decide to take on space then all the better!

[Captain Jin]

Why aren't they wearing NASA's new planned space suits?

http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/03/nasa-z-2-spacesuit/

Oh. Because they look horrible you say? Is this what happens when a bunch of physics nerds are allowed to design the space threads. I really hope the final product looks less like this cartoonish suit and more like something you see in this film. Seriously, could you take this movie seriously if the actors were dressed in these suits? And if you can't then how horrible will the real events they partake in seem on film or in pictures... oiiii.

[Biggles]

Aaah here we go...well it's fair I guess. If Gravity get tons of moaning about inaccuracies that has little to no bearing about the quality of the movie as a craftmanship, I guess Interstellar should too.

[Captain Jin]

I'm making a joke man. I'm glad they don't wear NASA new spacesuit designs. Those things look stupid as hell.

[tarvu]

Matthew McConaughey is something of a hot commodity at the moment due to the extraordinary True Detective, the excellent Mud, and the controversial Dallas Buyers Club. He's taken risks for his art, as well as taking what jobs he could find in his earlier career. I'm not sure why he had as much difficulty as he did? He certainly had no shortage of interested leading ladies both on and off the screen. There's a diversity in his choices, that's for sure. Watch Amistad, Frailty, Contact, or Reign of Fire to see very different roles, but perhaps not always fully developed and made unique. There's rather a brand burned into his portrayals.

Interstellar will probably have a genuine pathos about it. The Earth is doomed. The choice to send a ship into deep space is desperate. A million things can go wrong as we've never had a Mars landing much less pressed further into space. That means all manner of issues based upon the speed of the ship, the mechanical stress from the velocity, and cracking due to structural integrity failure. Or atmosphere issues, suspended animation issues, or even common minutia like bacteria in space and molds, a real problem on space stations recycling the atmosphere as well as human waste.

On top of this, is his mission one way? It's doubtful he could return, right? It would be set up so he could communicate back in some manner, that would have to happen, but not necessarily that the astronauts could return. They'd be expendable. The ship would have to be massive to carry the astronauts, the fuel, any materials, and then the bigger it is, then more of the same to man and service it. It's likely that the ship would be dismantled and those materials used to house the astronauts, but only for a brief time. They'd have to find food and water, and while water isn't usually an issue on the Earth, that's far from certain on whatever planet they arrive on. Then would it support agriculture that we knew how to manipulate. Even then that's months of work to get the soil ready, plant it, issues with light, temperature, plant diseases, bacteria working differently, what is needed to fertilize it, etc. The astronauts would starve to death, most likely.

At best, it would mean a small handful of carefully chosen diverse, talented, brilliant, healthy, interdisciplinary scientists (men and women most likely families) would leave the Earth to start a new colony. That's all. That would be the Hope, for there's no chance of sending multiple ships, no means of transporting basic things like water for lots of people, never enough materials or fuel to perform any real evacuation.

Why families? You can't just send strangers into space with no relationships and expect it to work. They might not get along. They might be secretly homosexual. They might not be fertile. They might have trouble getting pregnant due to low sex drive. Etc. Which brings up some pretty awful issues about would NASA send homosexuals to space to form a colony, right? There would be ethical issues about which families were chosen due to their abilities in diverse scientific disciplines, life skills, medicine, interpersonal skills, pre-existing health conditions,etc. The list would be a small one. Some mathematician would look at sustainability versus numbers versus the chances of repopulation versus attrition due to a host of hostile living conditions. If they discuss that, all manner of ethics would come up, as most of us wouldn't have any chance of being on such a mission. We'd be eliminated through a cruel Malthusian strategy, and who decides? The head of NASA? The world leaders? Popular vote?

Even picking the best people would be risky, but the final last ditch effort to save those Elite. Such an action would cause chaos and rioting on the Earth with folks killing each be the last ones to survive if they're doomed.

So unless the director and writers are careful to transition the audience into accepting that, then it comes off gloomy. It's making the viewer accept death as inevitable and a heroic sacrifice so that an elite intelligentsia can live. That's a tough sell especially today as people are realizing the massive concentration of wealth of 85 uberwealthy billionaires having more wealth than 3 Billion literally.

I'm looking forward to it, as long as it's not a Deux ex machina film where suddenly at the last moment a way is found to transport Humanity to Planet X. That would be simplistic escapist fare and silly Summer entertainment for mass appeal.

In vitro fertilization, fertility tests, and homosexuals can and do have children so I'm not sure why that issue needs to be a main plot point for you to enjoy a movie about space travel.

What year do you live in Rubicon? Yes clearly we must send the Robinson family as they are pure and a perfect example of wholesome family life on Earth, oh wait even that show had a flamboyant homosexual.

[RubiconDecision]

How silly. People struggling on a remote world with no idea if they will succeed with agriculture, and then will have in-vitro fertilization? Yeah right. That would make perfect sense in an apocalyptic space film. Not.

That's my point. It isn't that homosexuals shouldn't go into space. It's that NASA would have these monumental ethics decisions like, "Well there's a history of CAG repeats in their family, so the males might get Huntington's Disease, and we have no idea if we'll be able to treat it with genetics and medicines on the new planet. We'll have to eliminate that family.

Or this. "Yes, she's a brilliant nuclear physicist. She can run circles around anyone on the design team for engineering. She has medical skills too. But she's infertile, so we probably have to eliminate that family."

Or this. "Well I'd like to include Grant as he's healthy, has no pre-existing conditions, is brilliant and likable, but he's too old. If we start putting some 45+ year old in space, then he's got a limited window to succeed, and who knows if he'll end up slowing the others down. His experience is essential, but his age makes him a questionable candidate. It's a quandary."

Or this. "She can do anything well, but get along with others. She's obstinate and stops communicating when angry. The psych eval was inconclusive, and she may be borderline schizophrenic. That's not unusual given her creativity. I don't want to do this, but we better choose someone else."

Or this. "There's actually going to be a pressing need for bushcraft skills. One or more of the colonists will have to explore the regions, and know how to survive. Half of the candidates you presented failed to hit the minimal marks during the survival solo test. 25% improperly sterilized their water since they didn't have iodine and couldn't manufacture a wooden bowl and a fire to produce the coals to use the Viking method of rock-boiling. As such those folks might actually die pretty quickly on their own. I think we have to eliminate anyone not making survival benchmarks...."

Space pioneers on a new planet will have scant pharmaceuticals and no gene therapy or in-vitro fertilization or surgery or anesthesia or CAT imagery, etc. They might have some at the beginning, but they can't manufacture it. They can't get more drugs as they run out, and these are complex processes with rare Earth active ingredients extracted from rare Earth plants.

They won't be able to fabricate much. They have to bring lots of spare parts. Unless they're really creative, and have blacksmithing skills, and can weld, and can fabricate, and can repair, then all of their scientific knowledge is really moot.

See how complicated it would be as a Space Pioneer?

Star Trek, even Enterprise (the last series) worked because it was set so far in the future with things like replicators, but what's more, the Earth was still around, and they could return for retrofitting, supplies, medicines, etc.

Interstellar is brave because it's something new, an apocalyptic story in which in the not too distant future, Earth is dying, and that means incredible planning to send anyone into space with extreme amounts of skillsets, an eerie disciplined mind under enormous pressure, and teamwork. That includes bushcraft, agriculture, and scientific skills.

Multiple colonists have to have multiple skillsets, for if they don't, and one gets sick, then the whole mission is in jeopardy. That's my main point. It's why astronauts alone are the elite of the elite, and space colonists in this scenario, would be vastly more elite due to these questions.
...
Science fiction writers have long mused over these issues in books like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. You'd likely see an evolution in human coupling, in order to survive, with multiple partners and group families with people outside of the normal husband-wife or even commited lovers role. So if I'm discussing anything, it's an alternative sexuality, and not the Robinson family on Lost in Space, for the former would become essential to repopulation and sexual happiness and compatibility, and the latter would self-destruct in all likelihood.

[tarvu]

How silly. People struggling on a remote world with no idea if they will succeed with agriculture, and then will have in-vitro fertilization? Yeah right. That would make perfect sense in an apocalyptic space film. Not.

That's my point. It isn't that homosexuals shouldn't go into space. It's that NASA would have these monumental ethics decisions like, "Well there's a history of CAG repeats in their family, so the males might get Huntington's Disease, and we have no idea if we'll be able to treat it with genetics and medicines on the new planet. We'll have to eliminate that family.

Or this. "Yes, she's a brilliant nuclear physicist. She can run circles around anyone on the design team for engineering. She has medical skills too. But she's infertile, so we probably have to eliminate that family."

Or this. "Well I'd like to include Grant as he's healthy, has no pre-existing conditions, is brilliant and likable, but he's too old. If we start putting some 45+ year old in space, then he's got a limited window to succeed, and who knows if he'll end up slowing the others down. His experience is essential, but his age makes him a questionable candidate. It's a quandary."

Or this. "She can do anything well, but get along with others. She's obstinate and stops communicating when angry. The psych eval was inconclusive, and she may be borderline schizophrenic. That's not unusual given her creativity. I don't want to do this, but we better choose someone else."

Or this. "There's actually going to be a pressing need for bushcraft skills. One or more of the colonists will have to explore the regions, and know how to survive. Half of the candidates you presented failed to hit the minimal marks during the survival solo test. 25% improperly sterilized their water since they didn't have iodine and couldn't manufacture a wooden bowl and a fire to produce the coals to use the Viking method of rock-boiling. As such those folks might actually die pretty quickly on their own. I think we have to eliminate anyone not making survival benchmarks...."

Space pioneers on a new planet will have scant pharmaceuticals and no gene therapy or in-vitro fertilization or surgery or anesthesia or CAT imagery, etc. They might have some at the beginning, but they can't manufacture it. They can't get more drugs as they run out, and these are complex processes with rare Earth active ingredients extracted from rare Earth plants.

They won't be able to fabricate much. They have to bring lots of spare parts. Unless they're really creative, and have blacksmithing skills, and can weld, and can fabricate, and can repair, then all of their scientific knowledge is really moot.

See how complicated it would be as a Space Pioneer?

Star Trek, even Enterprise (the last series) worked because it was set so far in the future with things like replicators, but what's more, the Earth was still around, and they could return for retrofitting, supplies, medicines, etc.

Interstellar is brave because it's something new, an apocalyptic story in which in the not too distant future, Earth is dying, and that means incredible planning to send anyone into space with extreme amounts of skillsets, an eerie disciplined mind under enormous pressure, and teamwork. That includes bushcraft, agriculture, and scientific skills.

Multiple colonists have to have multiple skillsets, for if they don't, and one gets sick, then the whole mission is in jeopardy. That's my main point. It's why astronauts alone are the elite of the elite, and space colonists in this scenario, would be vastly more elite due to these questions.
...
Science fiction writers have long mused over these issues in books like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. You'd likely see an evolution in human coupling, in order to survive, with multiple partners and group families with people outside of the normal husband-wife or even commited lovers role. So if I'm discussing anything, it's an alternative sexuality, and not the Robinson family on Lost in Space, for the former would become essential to repopulation and sexual happiness and compatibility, and the latter would self-destruct in all likelihood.

Well you wouldn't even need in vitro obviously for homosexuals to reproduce, but it would definitely be a good idea to stock any mission that has the future of humanity in its hands with such an important technology and the means to do that. As well as lab equipment to deal with any medical problem they could face including alien/unknown ones. So I think they'd have the means for in vitro fertilization down no problem.

Specializations sure, and I'm sure that will be in the movie. But your original point before you backed out of the room and across the street embracing alternative couplings and scientific reproduction/rearing strategies WAS that they couldn't send homosexuals, and how you couldn't send strangers into space together who didn't have a relationship. Like NASA or some agency is going to put the faith of humanity in someone's marriage being some kind of unbreakable bond ensuring their co-survival.


However I really doubt they are going to go Lost in Space here and be sending families. Your whole family based selection process is not only silly, but is frankly not good science fiction. Maybe for a "science fiction" show on a family channel or aimed at children but not in any kind of gritty reality. Societies and certainly a space mission relies on a bit more than family cohesion to ensure success in survival and reproduction.

Screening people for health conditions is likely, sending only "established" wholesome families is not. Sorry, but if space and survival was such a concern if anything it would favor an essential crew of single people who would not be jeopardizing the mission at every turn because of their concern for their family member who most likely would not be individually qualified to take such a spot over someone else.

I doubt the first thing they think of is going to be gee we better send the Robinsons because they will succeed through the power of FAMILY!!! Such a take on science fiction did indeed have its place, to comfort scared Americans during the cold war with such sentimental nonsense.

[IZob]

I'm making a joke man. I'm glad they don't wear NASA new spacesuit designs. Those things look stupid as hell.

Looks like it was only a concept design (a lot of concepts tend to look retarded exm).

[RubiconDecision]

The NASA analysis of the new Chinese spacesuits, which was a big deal when it happened in the last few years.

During the late 70's and early eighties, there was a lot of science fiction speculation and stories about using LaGrange point technology to anchor space stations. They're special geosync spots in which a rotating space station shaped like a large bicycle wheel would spin to create gravity. If the Earth was dying, as long as the Sun was still around and producing the same intensity of light, wavelength, and temperature, then that's much more likely than interstellar space travel.

If that was done, then many more people could be evacuated. It's something that comes up in the fairly recent Tom Cruise film Oblivion.

There was actually an L5 Society pushing for research in this area.


Water has always been the main problem, and that likely will come up in Interstellar, for it's not just that water is around, but in sufficient quantities for agriculture, and can be channeled or diverted with cisterns or tapped with wells. Otherwise, life on another planet would be hopelessly impossible.