This AWFUL, there is no science to this film. If you value any form of logic, science or even good screen writing DO NOT WATCH THIS.
1. Why would you land the ENTIRE ship on the moon? The ship that has all they need to survive as well as the fuel to return to earth. Why not use a lander module like they did in 1969 on the moon? That way, should there be a catastrophic failure of something the loss of life would be minimal.
2. Why would you not have a drone or remote device that can be sent out to fix and problems with the exterior of the vessel. This would save from any potential loss of life should there be a leak of the incredibly toxic fuel. Again, saving human life and not having to jettison a crew member into the infinite darkness of space.
3. Why, when a member of the crew goes out onto the planet is that person on their own? What if she fell over? Damaged her helmet? Or any infinite number of reasons why it is bad idea to send some out onto the surface of an unknown stellar body on a solo mission. Also, why would you investigate some unknown lights or anything mysterious in the dark of an unknown planet with some level of caution, rationality or logical thought.
4. Why so many people? The amount of food, water and room that would be needed for six people for four years (return journey) would be daft. Also, the amount of fuel that would be needed for the take-off on the return journey could be lessened by having less weight. Why not four people that can do more tasks, a general overview. Surely this is an initial survey mission for future detailed missions.
5. Why didn't they send a probe in the first place? Curiosity has done alright on mars without humans having to go. They would have saved six lives and millions of dollars.
Just full of lazy writing in my opinion, no real thought of how this mission could be done in a realistic manner.
1. Why would you land the ENTIRE ship on the moon? The ship that has all they need to survive as well as the fuel to return to earth. Why not use a lander module like they did in 1969 on the moon? That way, should there be a catastrophic failure of something the loss of life would be minimal.
2. Why would you not have a drone or remote device that can be sent out to fix and problems with the exterior of the vessel. This would save from any potential loss of life should there be a leak of the incredibly toxic fuel. Again, saving human life and not having to jettison a crew member into the infinite darkness of space.
3. Why, when a member of the crew goes out onto the planet is that person on their own? What if she fell over? Damaged her helmet? Or any infinite number of reasons why it is bad idea to send some out onto the surface of an unknown stellar body on a solo mission. Also, why would you investigate some unknown lights or anything mysterious in the dark of an unknown planet with some level of caution, rationality or logical thought.
4. Why so many people? The amount of food, water and room that would be needed for six people for four years (return journey) would be daft. Also, the amount of fuel that would be needed for the take-off on the return journey could be lessened by having less weight. Why not four people that can do more tasks, a general overview. Surely this is an initial survey mission for future detailed missions.
5. Why didn't they send a probe in the first place? Curiosity has done alright on mars without humans having to go. They would have saved six lives and millions of dollars.
Just full of lazy writing in my opinion, no real thought of how this mission could be done in a realistic manner.