Copernicus: Science Vs. Interstellar, Part 1

How does Christopher Nolan’s perplexing spectacle measure up when weighed adjacent proper science? Read the full article on AICN For months, people have been asking what I thought of INTERSTELLAR.  I was lucky enough to catch one of the early IMAX screenings earlier this year, and soon after I promised to write up my thoughts.  As I started doing some of the research and calculations, the scope of what I wanted to write grew to a daunting level, and then real-world astrophysics got in the way before I could finish.  And many astrophysicists have shared their takes on it — you can find Neil deGrasse Tyson’s, for example, here (though I think he’s wrong about a few things).  Phil Plait’s is on his Bad Astronomy blog at Slate here.  But of course, the best is Kip Thorne’s book The Science of Interstellar.  INTERSTELLAR was initially the brainchild of Kip Thorne and producer Linda Obst, and both are producers on the film.  Thorne’s book is fascinating account of the history of the project, and just how much thought and scientific rigor went into the finished version.  I highly recommend it no matter if you are a lover or hater of the film. I haven’t seen anyone articulate my position on INTERSTELLAR exactly, so I thought I’d take the occasion of the DVD release to write up my thoughts.  This got very long, so I’m splitting it into two parts.  This article will cover mainly the science of the finished film.  In part two, I’ll go into the history, earlier drafts, and the project it could have been.     MILLER TIME One area they nailed Finish the article on AICN