"Stephen" <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote in message
news:4adaeeaf$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > Reading up a little bit more about the movie, manking will apparently
have
> > artificial gravity (!?) in a couple of decades, on top of the other
> > nonsense. Even if we can ignore all the bad physics, it makes absolutely
> > zero sense to me to be sending a *manned* craft for such a mission. What
do
> > you need astronauts for, to steer the ship in the right direction so it
> > doesn't miss (!) the sun? Maybe it's explained somewhere in ironclad
logic,
> > but I highly doubt it. All in all, it sounds like a really bad rehash of
> > last-minute-space-heroics-to-save-the-world genre.

> A couple of things.
>
> One of the tenets of Science Fiction is that you are allowed to change
> one or two science facts and develop your world as if they were true.
>

> human based story. As you will know, this is the suspension of disbelief

I can suspend disbelief easier regarding matters like presence of FTL or
artificial gravity. But decision of manned vs unmanned is not even a high
tech / advanced sci issue, it's about common sense. I find it very hard to
suspend my disbelief about the brightest minds of the world making such a
blunder and sending a survivor/big-brother crew (from the reviews, it looks
like we have the stereotypical young, maverick, ethnically diverse and
politically correct, emotionally pre-teen, and sequentially eliminated
bunch) on a mission that undeniably calls for an unmanned spacecraft. And
yes, of course there wouldn't be a story or a movie without astronauts on
that mission, but then again, did all the other sci-fi avenues run dry that
this movie about an implausible scenario has to be absolutely produced?

Post a reply to this message