![]() Well the answere to that have nothing to do with science (and not that much about artistic freedom in fact), but with general public perception of a space flight. Why did they not just fly to the Endurance with the Ranger's own fuel and power? Why did they need a standard rocket? I mean, it obviously had enough fuel to land on Miller's planet(which has higher gravity than Earth and is probably a little bit bigger too) and then take off again AND fly back to the Endurance from near a quite large black hole One thing in particular(which doesn't make sense to me even considering artistic freedom) as to the physics is on the Ranger. So where do they get the strenuous funds to build and run particle accelerators to produce sufficient amounts of the stuff without having the project exposed? Not only that but, if it is indeed antimatter fueled, where do they get it? Scientific inquiry isn't high on the public's order of business as mentioned. ![]() But that it can't store enough to do what they used it for AND take off from Earth as well. My only guess is that it is antimatter fueled? No other propulsion method makes sense with that kind of payload/fuel ratio as the Ranger has. Why did they not just fly to the Endurance with the Ranger's own fuel and power? Why did they need a standard rocket? I mean, it obviously had enough fuel to land on Miller's planet(which has higher gravity than Earth and is probably a little bit bigger too) and then take off again AND fly back to the Endurance from near a quite large black hole. All the religious, moral, humanist and spiritual discussions aside there are a few lackluster things that bothered me. So I'm obviously on the hype train/plane for Interstellar and I loved the movie.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |