This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Astronomy

Sometimes NASA Learns From Science Fiction Movies (Correction)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 26, 2019
Filed under ,
Sometimes NASA Learns From Science Fiction Movies (Correction)

Keith’s note: I got this response from NASA GSFC PAO with regard to my initial posting last night. This is what happens when a biologist (me) thinks they are a know-it-all. I stand thoroughly corrected. My initial post follows below this correction.
Hi, Keith. You write:
“Anyone who saw the film Interstellar would recognize the similarity between the NASA and film images of a black hole. Oddly there is no mention by NASA of the fact that the initial work on the core aspect of this visualization was done by a team formed by Nobel laureate Kip Thorne who was working on.”
The initial work on the core aspect of this visualization is much older than you suggest. It was first calculated to produce in a “simulated photograph” published by Jean-Pierre Luminet in 1979 (Image of a Spherical Black Hole with Thin Accretion Disk, Astronomy & Astrophysics 75, 228-235), where he specifically linked it to the possible appearance of the supermassive black hole in M87 (his image can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Luminet#/media/File:Luminet’s_Simulation_of_a_Black_Hole_Accretion_Disk.jpg); the results have been replicated in many visualizations since, including the one shown in Interstellar. One aspect shown by Luminet and the visualization we released (and that Interstellar chose not to, apparently because the director thought it would confuse the audience) is the asymmetric emission across the disk. We also released numerous extra graphics that show the simulation from perspectives not seen in the movie.
Jeremy has been working on his black hole rendering code since his graduate work in the early 2000s. You may be interested in Jeremy’s talk, “The Science of Interstellar: Life on Planets Around Black Holes,” on the Library of Congress website (https://www.loc.gov/item/webcast-7344). We have also issued a couple of other videos around Jeremy’s work: “Turning Black Holes into Dark Matter Labs” (2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_HlPxZUkIo) and “Peer into a Simulated Stellar-mass Black Hole” (2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rhJOLzwraA). Links to the stories can be found in the descriptions.
Best regards,
Frank”

Keith’s original note: Usually when a science fiction film with a space theme comes out all of the space people dive in on the film’s inaccuracies. Some times, however, a sci fi flick can break new ground and actually contribute to scientific knowledge. Such was the case with the 2014 film “Interstellar”.
NASA GSFC recently posted NASA Visualization Shows a Black Hole’s Warped Worldwhich shows some NASA pictures of what a black hole looks like. The posting has a link to another page with many more pictures and animations.
https://media2.spaceref.com/news/2019/interstellarbh.jpg
Anyone who saw the film “Interstellar” would recognize the similarity between the NASA and film images of a black hole. Oddly there is no mention by NASA of the fact that the initial work on the core aspect of this visualization was done by a team formed by Nobel laureate Kip Thorne who was working on. Director Christopher Nolan wanted the most accurate depiction of a black hole possible. So Thorne got a team together and modeled theoretical factors into language that a special effects team could use to generate the imagery that Nolan wanted. They even published a scientific paper on the process.
Its not like NASA is unaware of this since one of the key researchers behind NASA’s black hole visualizations gave a lecture on “The Science of Interstellar” in 2016 which includes the same NASA-generated imagery based on Thorne’s.
https://media2.spaceref.com/news/2019/blkhole.jpg
Given the tortured relationship between science fiction and science fact one would think that these occasions where a productive synergy emerges that it would be openly welcomed. One would think a little common courtesy would be exercised and that the film “Interstellar” and Kip Thorne would be mentioned by NASA in situations such as this. Just sayin’
Reference: Gravitational Lensing by Spinning Black Holes in Astrophysics, and in the Movie Interstellar, Oliver James, Eugenie von Tunzelmann, Paul Franklin, Kip S. Thorne, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32 (2015) 065001 (larger image)

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

4 responses to “Sometimes NASA Learns From Science Fiction Movies (Correction)”

  1. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    The GSFC post is really underwhelming. They usually cite a recently published scientific paper and talk about how important the conclusions are. In this case, it looks like they are just saying that someone at Goddard produced some cool images and animations. I wouldn’t mind that, if they referenced the work the images and animations were based on. (E.g. James et al., 2015.)

    And, I also agree that NASA and the scientific community should welcome things like movie producers supporting research. If they want a realistic depiction of something in space, and are willing to pay scientists to provide it, why not? The movie producers get what they want and the scientists get funding for their research.

  2. Al Jackson says:
    0
    0

    “tortured relationship between science fiction and science fact”…. welp… John W Campbell when he became editor of Astounding Science Fiction magazine in 1938 started a long process to put an end to brass bras and bug eyed monsters (Campbell had a degree in physics from Duke university). He promoted authors like Issac Asimov (PhD in chemistry from Columbia) and Robert Heinlein (degree in engineering from Annapolis) and many other writers with street smarts about science. A good example of science fiction that was already science fact is Destination Moon, Heinlein wrote the novelette in 1949 and then was technical adviser on the movie in 1950. The movie narrative is a bit flatfooted “popular mechanics” , still the basis is known physics about space flight as it was in the literature by rocket pioneers it is only the engineering physics that is extrapolated. The ship in the story and film has nuclear propulsion , the physics of which had been recently published by in the late forties in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society*. So sometimes I see science fiction becomes science fact framed as ‘remember that silly Buck Rodgers stuff that was utter bilge? now it is fact… well no…. good hard science fiction (the best stuff) was always ‘science fact’ ,it just had a fictional framing.

    *L. R. Shepherd and A.V. Cleaver; “The Atomic Rocket
    …1 and 2,” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society,
    volume 7, no. 5 and 6, 1948.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      The BIP deserves far more recognition; it is the oldest popular space advocacy organization in the world, having many lofty names attached over the decades, including Mr. Clarke. I can’t help compare the BIP, for instance, with the Planatary Society. Projects supported by BIP over the years are stunning.

      http://www.bis-space.com

      Personally I find that constant yammering about American ‘leadership’ eclipsed by ‘someone’ else can become quite tiring. The BIP provides a useful POV.

      And I also recommend the BIP podcast, which is thoroughly British both in approach and content. There is huge benefit gained from non-American reporting. It’s quite even-handed and very enjoyable.Unless you are some sort of wanker, that is!

      https://www.bis-space.com/c

    • Bill Housley says:
      0
      0

      Right. Professional scientists sometimes disparage us Science Fiction authors. The truth is, we love science. We know more about science than most folks and many are professional scientists themselves (as you mentioned with Asimov and Heinlein).

      But we do have a story to tell, and what we call hard-scifi (stories about the science instead of about the people and which adhere strictly to correct science) just haven’t sold as well in the past. Science Fiction is hard enough to write and sell as it is. You mentioned Buck Rogers…that is a thing called Space Opera where true science goes out the window. Guess what, Star Wars is openly Space Opera and Fantasy and makes no excuses for it, Star Trek is Space Opera masquerading as Hard-Scifi (and drives hard-scifi fans to madness). Well, Space Opera sells big and like you said, sometimes it gets it right anyway.

      We are advised by those who help us learn what we do that it is ok to break the rules, but we have to know what rule we are breaking, do it for a reason, and “hang a lantern on it” which means to note it in some plausible way so that it logically makes sense and doesn’t distract a knowledgeable reader too much.

      Like one of my alien characters said once to an Earthling about FTL travel, “Ya, we laugh about that. Eisenstein was a smart guy and got enough things right, it’s OK that he got a thing or two wrong.”

      Problem solved. 😉

      Still, the hard-scifi folks and some scientists like Tyson get grumpy. Oh well.