Does Mark Watney's pirate line make sense in the film?

Question

In Andy Weir's novel The Martian, Mark Watney declares at one point that he's technically a space pirate because

he is going to commandeer the Ares 4 MAV without explicit permission from NASA. The reason he doesn't have explicit permission is that the Pathfinder communications circuits were fried in an earlier mishap, cutting off his communication with NASA. This requires him to undertake his journey to the Ares 4 MAV without external guidance.

In the film, he delivers the same line about being a space pirate; however

he never loses communication with NASA because the Pathfinder communications are never destroyed. He has apparent communications with NASA at least up to the time that he leaves the Hab. So there's no reason he wouldn't have explicit permission from NASA (an explicit order even) to commandeer the Ares 4 MAV.

Given this disparity between novel and film, does the "space pirate" line actually make sense in the latter?

Answer 1

I just re-watched The Martian, and I think a plausible explanation does exist:

It was only casual permission

In the film, Matt Damon's delivery of the line is very specific: he puts a lot of emphasis on the world "explicitly." It's clear from his delivery that the "explicit" part is the crux of his argument.

"Nobody EXPLICITLY gave me permission to do this..."

Given that he's talking about legal nitpicking, he's likely speaking in terms of legal technicalities. According to that standard, he probably never got official permission to use the Ares 4 MAV.

He likely discussed it with them casually, and he almost certainly got some kind of go-ahead from them, but he couldn't have signed any kind of official documentation and he probably spent his time talking to people who don't actually have the clearance required to allow it. We never see the NASA Director (Jeff Daniels) working the comm, for example.

Obviously no one is going to punish him, but Watney is probably right: he's taking over the MAV without having signed any waivers, without having agreed to any changes in clearance or rank, and possibly without having spoken directly to anyone in charge.

It's a legal technicality, but there IS a difference between casual remarks and explicit permission.

Answer 2

According to one person it does:

Mark Watney’s mission is the third manned expedition to Mars, where he resides in a NASA-built “Hab” and drives a NASA rover on the planet’s surface. In a desperate bid to survive, he eventually decides to try driving the rover to a NASA lander that was sent to Mars in preparation for another manned mission taking place roughly four years after his own.

In the meantime, he gets to thinking about Martian law: There’s an international treaty saying no country can lay claim to anything that’s not Earth. And by another treaty, if you’re not in any country’s territory, maritime law applies. So Mars is “international waters.” NASA is an American nonmilitary organization, and it owns the Hab. So while I’m in the Hab, American law applies. As soon as I step outside, I’m in international waters. Then when I get in the rover, I’m back to American law. Here’s the cool part: I will eventually go … commandeer the Ares 4 lander. Nobody explicitly gave me permission to do this, and they can’t until I’m aboard Ares 4 and operating the comm system. After I board Ares 4, before talking to NASA, I will take control of a craft in international waters without permission. That makes me a pirate! A space pirate!

Watney is referencing the Outer Space Treaty signed by the United States and the former Soviet Union in 1967, said Frans von der Dunk, an Othmer Professor of Space Law at UNL.

“Basically agreed upon by the two giant Cold War adversaries, the idea was to prevent the historic land grabs of colonialist times from extending to outer space – thereby hopefully preventing it from becoming another battleground,” said von der Dunk, a foremost authority on space law. “It is often hailed as the Magna Carta of outer space, meaning it serves as the grand framework treaty providing the overarching legal regime for all human activity … in outer space, based on freedom for all to peacefully explore and use (it).”

Von der Dunk generally agreed with Watney’s interpretation of the treaty, saying that “individual space objects … can be made to fall under the quasi-territorial jurisdiction of the state of registry, just like ships or aircraft registered (on Earth).”

As for Watney’s claim to space piracy?

“One could make that argument, yes,” von der Dunk said. “But I would be careful, for analogies with sea piracy are difficult here. If this qualifies as a real emergency, he might well be in his right to grab any craft that could help him out of dire straits if he is not directly endangering others.”

Answer 3

It's just a screw up from the book to the film adaptation. They liked the "Pirate" line so much in the book, they wanted it in the movie but they forgot to include the part where the pathfinder comm circuits were fried in an earlier mishap in the book.

Answer 4

Spoilers AHEAD

Basically the rover is nasa equipment, in the book he loses communication with them, so he must commandeer that vehicle which is outside of the HAB which is also NASA property, no country can lay claim to mars soil which makes it international waters, and they didnt give him instructions to do so, so he essentially stole the rover to make the trip to ARES IV.

.

This makes him a space pirate.

.

In the film however they leave out the part where he shorted out pathfinder, so its a little confusing to someone who didnt read the book, but its essentially the same line.

.

The pathfinder problem is the only thing I felt like they really dropped the ball on, its a plot device that really connects you to a man with noone to talk to, who gets to finally email people, which explains the ending when hes crying when he hears the crews voices.