I actually argued to my wife (a physicist turned designer) that since inside a back whole there's probably no space-time as we can observe it, we don't know what is there. But I highligy doubt that any tranzition would be non destructive. But, when one gets close to the black hole we have a pretty good ideea that gravitational forces would rip things apart (puling considerably stronger the closer a thing is to it, thus a ship that has any length would be pulled apart). 

Timeframe wise I would guess trouble to have started within the next one or two reusable, pilotable space shuttle itterations. 

This is probably spoiler territory

So while his trip around the black hole as a slingshot was fine (though they had never really used slingshots before... but whatever, I have issuses with the planetary lander's fuel more than anything), the lander falling backwards from the ship didn't make a huge amount of sense...

So yeah, he ejects and his orbit decays into the black hole and the ship is torn apart. The question is how far did he go beyond the event horizon and at what point to weird things start to happen other than being trapped? So, I love the theory that on the other side of a black hole is another universe being created, like the big bang. But that's probably not relevant here

The question is, does his ship get to the middle of the black hole and then end up in the 5th dimensional nonsense, or is he plucked from his imminenent death by the future humans? Just don't get me started on those nonsense strings and love is the 5th dimension. I was quite tempted to walk out of theatre at that point.

Perhaps you went in expecting some sort of scientific documentary. I went in expecting a great movie with some real life concept of general relativity applied. Do note that I am not a physics or science major, for that matter.

Also, what's wrong with speculating what's inside a singularity? Little to nothing is known about what happens inside, so what's wrong with speculating and theorizing a bit? From what I've read, the tesseract and the whole 5th dimension thing is not so far fetched.

Keep in mind that it wasn't a "stationary" black hole. In fact, it was one that was rapidly spinning, or so called rapidly-spinning blackhole. Also, they did mention at the beginning that it was more gentle compared to other black holes.

I was reading this guy's blog about how scientifically accurate the science in interstellar was, but for some reason I can't find it anymore.

I am also a Physics major. I enjoyed the movie a lot. The only thing that really bothered me was the planetary science and the seeming incompetence of the crew's scientists. Also, I found it quite odd how the humans on Earth can created entire ecosystems in space, but they can't find a way to cure the "blight" that is affecting Earth's agriculture (which seemed like some kind of disease that can mutate to affect different crops.) It seems to me as if it would've been so much easier to just genetically modify the plants to become blight-resistant, by studying the disease and why some crops had a period of immunity, rather than build a seemingly impossible spacecraft to travel to a system in which the planets orbit a black-hole or find out a new theory of gravity that allows for artificial space habitats to be efficiently and cheaply constructed.

Spoiler alert:

Despite visual effects,  which were not bad, clearly there was some kind of budget for this movie,  this like any modern Shamalan piece of crap (yup I know he was not the director) suffered from a few terminal illnesses. Terminal logical falicies were abundant, the 'artistic' direction actually gets in the way of enjoying the movie, and Mathew McCantbelievetheycasthim should never be in another space movie, ever, seriously, never.

I don't believe the protagonist is who the character is supposed to be for one second as Mathew Mcknuckldragger hams up the screen with a performance so bad you can smell it from the next theatre over.   The only performance worse than McCantact's is the guy they find on the planet, who should be credited as Alan Smithee to preserve his reputation.

The artistic direction, is masterbatory.  The director's head is so far up his *#$@ that even dialogue is drowned out by one of the worst musical scores I have heard in years.  The visuals are pointless, over the top, and replace any real attempt at story telling.

There are so many logical holes in the story, even without the flimsy silly basic time paradox at the heart of the thing, one does not need a science education to see that none of it makes much sense. If one has taken anything beyond grade 4 science, your alarm bells will be ringing rather loudly throughout the movie.  It is clear that the Nolanator knows all sciences about as well as M. Night Shamaladingdong.

The vast majority of oxygen producing organisms are not the basic cash crops.  A blight in one crop such as wheat, is not going to take out potatoes, millet, corn, barley, legumes, and so on, not to metion enough of the trees, grasses, algea, and other plants to shift atmospheric O2.  The earth is not concerned one way or another with the survival of or presence of any species on it, it is not sentient and lacks any agency.  Can humans fuck up the future to a point that makes modern civilization no longer viable, yes.  Can the planet decide it no longer wants us here? No.

The Nolanator does not know enough about space to make a movie in space.  His understanding of orbital mechenics, propulsion, and basic spaceflight is laughable.  Even forgiving the big lie of a deus ex machinus stable navigable worm hole (I can easily forgive one big lie) there is no way that a three planet system with a dead sun which is now a singularity would be remotely appealing as a home to any scientist, ever.  Why are the planets still there after the star became a singularity with atmospheres intact, orbiting close enough to the event horizon to suffer massive time dilation but otherwise great?  Why is there sunlight on all the planets after the star that used to provide them with light stopped fusing and collapsed into a singularity and any mass, light or heat that it could give off are on the other side of an event horizon from which nothing can escape except the nightmarish acting of Mathew Mcpleasedontshowyourfaceinthisgenreagain.  Sure black holes radiate Hawking radiation as things pass over the event horizon... but this is not what one would consider a stable source of photosynthetically active light to grow crops by.  And what crops are they going to grow if all thier crop species have a fatal blight that made them extinct decades ago?

Sorry I would not recomend this movie to anyone, ever.  Wait, I lied, Mathew and Alan Smithee go watch this together, hang your heads in shame, and seriously consider your carreer path.

When I was watching the movie I assumed it was a binary system with the planets orbiting a center of mass between the black hole and the star (or the black-hole could even be orbitting a distant super-massive star with the planets, and the planets are orbitting the black-hole.) After I searched online, there was an implication that the black-hole was the only object in which the planets were orbiting. There is heat and energy given off by matter circling a black hole, but the radiation from that would likely be too energetic for life.  If we assume that the black-hole is a wandering kerr black hole with a mass of a small star then the tidal forces for its size could be explained, and also so can its stability in the solar system found in interstellar. Also there are more planets in the system, if I recall correctly. Something like 12 or so, but only 3 were good candidates. The black hole didn't have to become a singularity in the system, it could've had its stellar death in  another system and then collided with the solar system (unlikely, but not impossible.) Remember, if we are to assume the plot-device of future superhumans who can manipulate space-time then by the anthropic principle they chose a stable system with the black-hole necessary for cooper's communication of gravity. That can explain why such an exotic, and improbable system exists, as among the billions of billions of star systems in the universe one should have the right requirements. 

edit: As for the wormhole, that was placed there by the future humans. So I don't think it counts as a Deus Ex Machina.

I did study physics and I did generally enjoy the film, but that doesn't mean there are so really stupid bits in it. I didn't expect a documentary, but what I got was half a documentary and half a drama of sorts. But kind of forgot what it was half the time.

I have no issue with weird stuff inside a black hole, but what was there was just so stupid. Then we get the speech about love being the 5th dimension which just made me angry

The real physics issue that annoyed me was the lander. To leave earth, they take this huge rocket to reach outerspace with no problem at all. Yet this tiny lander has enough fuel for 2 planety landings and take offs, in planets that have strong gravity. It just doesn't make any sense

My point with this is if you spend 90% of the time with "hard sci-fi" and then you get lazy, that really annoys me.

But that's not my real problem with the film! The real problem was that the dialogue was poor and everything just felt a tad sloppy. All the scenes on earth took twice as long as they needed to, I just wanted them to get into space. When they did, WOW! The imagary was just fantastic and then the plot kind of fell apart again...

If you're looking to settle humanity on a planet, why would you even consider the first planet? It's so close to the black hole that it's simply not going to be stable. There was no reason to go there other than to speed the plot along. These guys are scientists, they're not stupid! It just doesn't make any sense

I didn't think it was a bad movie, but I certainly wouldn't recomend it.

I'm no Nolan lower, I think the Dark Knight Rises is just one giant plot hole and Inception is not a masterpiece, merely a good film. Memento on the otherhand is a master piece. But yeah, I wouldn't go see this film again

Honestly, I felt the love bit was just how Cooper was interpreting the situation, not really the science behind it. I think it can all be explained either by Cooper's speculation (future human beings rigged it) or some other intelligence rigged it. That means that these beings must connect Cooper and Murph so that Murph could get the knowledge necessary to reformulate gravity. It is just like such beings use a hypercube as a sort of GUI, because that is what Cooper would be able to understand and interpret. 

Well as long as Matthew McConaughey gets another best actor Oscar nomination out of this I will be happy. Once more people have seen it and re watched it I'm thinking it will settle below a 8.5/10 on imdb its currently at 9.0/10.