Timeline for Why would the satellite debris have followed the Tiangong out of orbit?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 2, 2015 at 1:14 | answer | added | Napoleon Wilson | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 3, 2014 at 0:25 | history | edited | Andrew Martin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Cheeky edit to bump a good question now hopefully more people have seen it.
|
| Nov 23, 2014 at 4:50 | answer | added | James H | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 9, 2013 at 0:12 | comment | added | lonstar | Hand-wavey explanation - Houston said there was a cascade of debris after the initial explosion and it was impacting satellites, which were impacting more satellites, and...let's accept that the net sum of directions from all of the wreckage from the great satellite demolition derby net result was down, toward the Earth. | |
| S Nov 21, 2013 at 2:12 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Nov 21, 2013 at 2:12 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Nov 17, 2013 at 17:02 | answer | added | Frozen Crayon | timeline score: -1 | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 13:41 | comment | added | Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2 | Since this is an I haven't seen the movie answer, I'll post it as a comment. Most people view orbits as being circular in nature, where a specific altitude is kept at all times. While this is one way, there are also elliptical orbits where there is an apogee (far point of orbit)/perigee (close point of orbit). There are ways in which things could meet up in space in this way, but as has been stated, it would be highly improbable. It is definitely one of those Because it's in the script moments. Just go with it and enjoy the movie. | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 1:02 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackMovies/status/400428330266402817 | ||
| S Nov 13, 2013 at 0:42 | history | bounty started | John Smith Optional | ||
| S Nov 13, 2013 at 0:42 | history | notice added | John Smith Optional | Draw attention | |
| Nov 10, 2013 at 23:54 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson | And I should also add that I absolutely agree with Gravity being an excellent movie. | |
| Nov 10, 2013 at 23:52 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson | "Movies set their own rules: That's a given. It's only a goof when they break the rules they have themselves set." - True indeed. But if they don't match the reality in the first place, it's hard to say which rules they have set exactly. Is breaking a rule that you have set yourself out of nothing considered breaking or rather extending? When the movie is not respecting certain parts of orbital mechanics too well, it's not a big stretch that it gets wrong (or merely ignores) other parts of it. But as said, that's just a general thought as I don't have an idea about the specific question. | |
| Nov 10, 2013 at 23:45 | comment | added | John Smith Optional | Movies set their own rules: That's a given. It's only a goof when they break the rules they have themselves set. In this instance, the danger is because they are at a specific altitude...when the altitude changes, the threat matches it for no reason (other than plot, of course) unless I'm missing something? | |
| Nov 10, 2013 at 22:26 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson | While Gravity seemed very realistic to a layman (or at least to me) and probably contained more research than many other movies of this kind, it was nevertheless not too scientifically accurate in many of its details (including relative orbital locations and orbital mechanics), as can be seen in this interview. That just as a side note not attempting to answer anything. | |
| Nov 10, 2013 at 22:22 | history | edited | Napoleon Wilson |
edited tags
|
|
| Nov 10, 2013 at 22:12 | history | edited | John Smith Optional |
Added tags
|
|
| Nov 10, 2013 at 21:02 | history | edited | John Smith Optional | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Corrected Spelling
|
| Nov 10, 2013 at 20:45 | history | asked | John Smith Optional | CC BY-SA 3.0 |