100 meters off target


"We flew 590 million kilometers and then landed 100 meters off the mark. It seems insignificant, but it will be difficult
to get useful surface analysis......If they had landed on the target area which was ripe for surface analysis, the mission would have begun with extensive surface tests using the ship's robotic arm followed by a few hours of drilling through the ice to deploy a remote underwater probe.

- So how will that affect procedure?
- ( Sighs ) What it means is we won't get the data we want very easily. That's why I want to move back Daniel's surface test and start the drill immediately. Our best hopes of success lies under the ice.
Daniel, what do you think?
- I wanna argue...
- I'm sure you would.
( Sighs )
...But with our current position in the ice, we won't get key data."


This exchange exemplified the entire movie. Hollywood screenwriter attempts at creating a pseudo-scientific dialogue with a lot of "big word" talk but little real meaning.

(1) If Europa is one big ice shell of a planet, 100 meters shouldn't matter.

(2) Europa has a surface area of 3.09×107 km2. Logically, one would select a landing site with a greater margin of error. A site where being off by <0.0000003% wouldn't matter.

(3) "Key data" couldn't be more generic. What data are you specifically seeking? How do you know what's under the surface here vs. 100 meters to the right?

This was just one example of a pattern throughout the movie. 2 minutes of dialogue. Lots of big words but not one real, scientifically valid reason is given.

*** The ultimate point? The movie's machinations for creating conflict and ratcheting tension were poor, transparent and utterly inept.



reply

I agree fully with the 100m thing being ridiculous, and although I don't profess to know for sure whether this kind of accuracy was something attempted during the moon landings and Mars rovers etc, it does strike me as a little far-fetched. However, despite this my overarching opinion of the film is very different from yours. Rather than thinking this "typified" the film as a whole, I actually thought it was one off-note in an otherwise excellent attempt at sci-fi realism. Aside from the unlikely premise of actually sending people in the first place, virtually everything else about the scientific endeavours were far more cognisant of actual astronautical procedures than usual Hollywood fare. From the believable balance between being ultra-professional astronauts and emotional human beings, through the well researched living quarters and crafts in general, and on to the fact that they actually took into account the realistic dangers of spaceflight. I thought it was great, and one or two slight inaccuracies that help drive the plot along are fine in my book.

reply

I was worried about the weight of the drilling steel 'rope' which had to go down 100's of meters. It must have weighed tons. Far more plausible to have used a nano thread.

reply