Gravity movie mistakes

Clooney's speed should be very close to Bullocks' and the ISS', hence.

This article is a list of all the inaccuracies in Gravity. While it's true that the film is very scientifically accurate; even down to the star patterns in space, some liberties were made to sustain the story, leading to some minor yet rather glaring inaccuracies. For more information, See the full article. Rather than using the medium as a gimmick, 'Gravity' uses it to depict a real environment that is completely alien to most people. But the question that most people want me to answer is, how realistic was it? The very fact that the question is being asked so earnestly is a testament to the verisimilitude of the movie.

Gravity movie mistakes

Sign In Sign In. New Customer? Create account. Explorer is in a spin due to debris impacts. When Stone travels back to Explorer, it is seen almost stable. When arriving at Explorer, it is spinning fast again. When George Clooney mentions the same distance a few minutes later it becomes miles, which is km. Either there was a mistake in the script or George Clooney misspoke. Early in the movie, the backdrop is the Nile Valley at night. As the sun rises, the Sinai, to the east, begins to lighten. Soon after, the Sinai is dark again. Factual errors. When Kowalski asks Stone to let go of him because the rope will not hold them both, that could never happen because they are both in the same orbit around the earth. A short simple tug would have brought him back to her. Additionally, once they are drifting away from the ISS, disconnecting from Kowalski would not cause her to rebound back toward the ISS unless another force pulled her back in its direction.

If you are going to advertise a film as being realistic, people are allowed to scrutinize its authenticity of that claim till the day they day. It all happens in free fall. TheGatesofLogic Gravity movie mistakes April 8,

Hi everyone, Gravity has been bothering me a lot since I watched it in theaters last year, in particular some of the factual issues regarding the Kessler syndrome we observed the characters going through. I don't understand how that's possible, because everyone knows that orbital period in LEO is once every 90 minutes, that means that the debris must have been stationary over earth as in, net velocity of ZERO and the orbiter was flying through it.. If the satellite was in a retrograde orbit, wouldn't they run into the debris once every 45 minutes?? Does anybody have an explanation for this or any other factual errors that we have not been made aware of yet regarding this film? PS: Please don't reply with the classic "it's a movie" response. If you are going to advertise a film as being realistic, people are allowed to scrutinize its authenticity of that claim till the day they day. Gravity deserves to be picked apart on a factual level because of this claim, no matter how much audiences enjoyed it.

By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy. We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. The New York Times pointed out a key problem involving the vast distance the astronauts manage to travel in a relatively short period of time after their shuttle is destroyed in a hail of debris. All that debris that wrecks the Shuttle? The relative velocity of the debris with respect to the shuttle and, later, the space station violates basic principles of orbital mechanics.

Gravity movie mistakes

Sign In Sign In. New Customer? Create account. Explorer is in a spin due to debris impacts.

Hacker mask

But both were still moving in relation to the ISS look at the scene again; there is a wide shot that establishes this , with both their masses pulling on the parachute cords, straining the tenuous connection of the cords looped around Bullock's foot. Also the Tiangong is the one they are preparing to build by , and the movie shooting began in , when the shuttle was still there. Uh, probably not. But did we really want to see a sweaty, nappy-wearing Sandra Bullock emerge from that spacesuit? The thing that bothered me the most was when they try to grab onto the Main station. Does anybody have an explanation for this or any other factual errors that we have not been made aware of yet regarding this film? They'd all be inside the orbiter and die when the debris hits. Rather than using the medium as a gimmick, 'Gravity' uses it to depict a real environment that is completely alien to most people. A great story teller can satisfy both the learned and the common if the tale is told well. DVDs can be longer or shorter under different countries' TV systems. It should be flowing because there is no gravity. So, the space jetpack spacepack space-flying-thing Clooney was using? For these reasons, it takes nearly as much energy to change orbits from one to the other as doing an entirely new launch if one is only using the space shuttle. Posted April 8,

And so, in the new—and extraordinary—movie Gravity , when Sandra Bullock comes inside after a spacewalk, she shucks her pressure suit and floats about in a crop-top and boxer briefs, perfectly toned, perfectly lovely, zero-g eye candy.

This means that the field could not have knocked out the communications with Houston. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one. The next time he pronounces it "ko-AWL-skee". In fact, even the ISS needs to be regularly boosted to prevent it falling into the atmosphere. This was admitted by the director to not be a mistake, but an artistic liberty. Later on, when Ryan is in the Soyuz capsule, she looks at her watch and says "Seven minutes to get out of here. More to explore. In any case, objects moving at different velocities in space wouldn't stay at the same orbital elevation unless they had independent thrusting means. PS: Please don't reply with the classic "it's a movie" response. While it's true that the film is very scientifically accurate; even down to the star patterns in space, some liberties were made to sustain the story, leading to some minor yet rather glaring inaccuracies.