What is the most scientifically accurate space movie?

[Harryjones (Harry)]

Intestellar I hear was very accurate. Just a question I had

[DaveW (David)]

Hi, The Martian seemed pretty accurate to me, only a couple things questionable. The Expanse series has good realism and accuracy when it came to spaceflight about the solar system.

[Crater101 (Warren)]

I seem to recall that there was a book (actually I think there may have been two) called The Science of 2001: A Space Odyssey which highlighted how efforts had been made at the time to have the science as realistic as possible. The book is out of print and quite a rarity. There's sort of a follow up to it called 2001: The Lost Science, details of which can be found here
https://www.cgpublishing.com/prime/b...926837192.html

[DarkArts]

Well, it definitely wasn't Gravity.

First Man and Apollo 13 would be my picks ... you didn't specify they had to be complete fiction or set in the future!

Beyond that, it's hard to say. Is non-existent technology OK, as long as it purports to use real physics? But humanity doesn't have a complete understanding of physics, so where does that line get drawn?

[Martin_S]

I always thought that " Apollo 18 " an obscure movie that slipped under the radar was pretty accurate.

[OzEclipse (Joe Cali)]

Interstellar started out ok but that whole library thing at the end was a load of codswallop. The Martian started off with a wind storm that threatened to blow their rocket ship over and nearly destroyed the habitation. But the atmospheric pressure on Mars is only about 1% of Earths. Therefore, winds of equal velocity on Mars can only exert 1% of the force on a surface that they can on Earth. So even if a storm produced a 500km/hr wind on Mars, were it even possible, could only exert the force of a 5km/hr wind on Earth and would not have done any damage. The winds of Mars can whip up dust storms but nothing bigger.

There is little to no science in science fiction, just fiction. Maybe call it pseudo-science fiction. I enjoy a good sci-fi but I have to turn off my inner scientist. Don't look for science in science fiction.

Joe

[N1 (Mirko)]

For me, Contact.

[Astrofire (Dale)]

I'd say Apollo 13 was one of the most technically accurate. Including the gold and black Corvettes. I think they played a bit with the characters although Lovell and his family were pretty much spot on. I love the idea of "Passengers" as it reminds me of Arthur C. Clarke's - "The songs of distant earth".

[wasyoungonce (Brendan)]

dare i say 2001?

[TrevorW]

Silent Running (novie), For all Mankind, Expanse (TV)

[refractordude]

Hello There

None. Science is in a constant state of evolution. When we think we know, we know nothing.

Clear Skies

[Steffen]

Hidden Figures (if you allow that as a space movie).

[Startrek (Martin)]

Took both my sons to see Apollo 13 back in 95’ , loved the movie but it’s rife with technical and scientific inaccuracies.
One that comes to mind which is quite silly to say the least , is when Ken Mattingly ( Gary Sinise ) is standing next to his car watching the liftoff of the Saturn 5 from what’s looks like only about 300 metres away.
Both Car and Gary would have been pounded by the enormous exhaust and sound waves , in other words a fatal event. Thats Hollywood for you.

Great movie and I still watch it every few years

Martin

[g__day (Matthew)]

Hopefully - not Dark Star!!!

That beachball pet / monster that goes totally chaotic is a delight however!