No, this post is not about my recent trip to Sri Lanka and riding in their infamous tuc-tucs in crazy traffic. It is the title of the recent video released by NASA describing the anticipated descent of the Mars rover Curiosity from orbit to the surface of the red planet planned for August 6 at 1:31 am ET. The “seven minutes of terror” phrase refers to the time it will take for the vehicle to descend through the atmosphere and be deposited intact and functioning on the ground. The terror will be experienced by the NASA scientists back on Earth as they wait to learn whether the mission has succeeded or not (60% of Mars missions have failed).
The video has been called “stunning”, “exciting”, and “terrifying” by various news outlets and bloggers. I don’t think I would go that far, but I would describe the video as excellent and a successful effort to dramatize and advertise the upcoming Mars landing. It also manages to get across some technical information but in a palatable way. It’s short: 5:07 minutes and highly visual, with outstanding animations and graphics. Take a look and then read my assessment below:
The video starts off with a good “hook”: The opening sequence shows Adam Steltzner (EDL engineer) who says, “When people look at it, it looks crazy. That’s a natural thing. Sometimes when we look at it, it looks crazy. It is the result of reasoned engineering and thought. But it still looks crazy.” The video creators have identified an intriguing aspect of the landing, which is the untested approach to putting the rover safely onto the surface of Mars. The viewer is immediately curious about what’s crazy and why NASA would be trying something so crazy. The title is also a good attention grabber. Right from the start, the viewer is wondering what the connection is between this crazy idea and the seven minutes of terror. This video thus provides a good example of how to capture the attention of viewers and keep them watching.
Information and images are continually introduced, keeping the video moving forward at a steady clip. Each new segment adds a bit more information, e.g., about the challenges of the landing (thin atmosphere), the mechanics of the landing, what will happen if some step fails, how long it will take for scientists waiting back on Earth to learn if the rover has safely landed. Each new aspect is illustrated with a different animation and described by a different scientist who worked on that aspect of the landing.
They kept the text to a minimum and used it to get across startling statistics: 6 vehicle configurations, 76 pyrotechnic devices, 500,000 lines of code…..ZERO margin of error. This text is superimposed on animations and other graphic sequences that illustrate what those numbers represent. And the text is moving across the screen, further adding to the impression of movement. This is the way to use text in a science video.
There is no traditional beginning, middle, and end. That’s OK, as I’ve described previously. The lack of these traditional components does not mean that the video is not organized around a logical manner. In fact, the video has a definite sequence to it, which is highly organized and keyed to the actual landing sequence it is discussing: what the 7 minutes refers to and what it means to the scientists waiting back on Earth, an explanation of EDL (entry, descent, landing) and all the steps in the landing sequence, violent entry through the atmosphere, Mars atmospheric characteristics and what it means for the landing process, the supersonic parachute and why it’s important, getting the heat shield off, cutting the parachute and coming down on rocket motors, the skycrane maneuver to avoid stirring up dust, and avoiding a collision between the descent vehicle and the rover once it’s on the ground. The ending screen image has a single, bold statement: “Dare Mighty Things” followed by the date and time of the landing event.
The style of the NASA video is more like a movie trailer than a movie, which is appealing and immediately recognizable by the average video viewer. Most people have seen hundreds of movie trailers and are familiar with the format, so will readily relate to this style. Even the music sounds reminiscent of movie trailers. The major difference is the lack of a voice-over narrator, which is more typical of a movie trailer. Instead, they used the voices of the scientists to substitute for the narration.
Overall, the NASA video has all ten attributes I identified previously as being important in making an interesting and appealing science video. I recommend studying this video yourself to better understand the features that will help you create better science videos.