Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame

[DAL59]

On 7/13/2018 at 5:08 AM, kerbiloid said:

But in this case that thin thing turns from a spacesuit into a second skin for daily wearing. An additional body layer.

Future clothing could incorporate automatic tourniquets and makeshift casts by tightening fibers. 

That also could be used for freeze tag.  

 

[DAL59]

On 1/31/2018 at 4:01 PM, _Augustus_ said:

Hermes is supposed to use nuclear power in the book, but it has giant ISS solar arrays in the movie.. why exactly?

A nuclear engine doesn't necessarily also generate power.    

On 1/31/2018 at 4:01 PM, _Augustus_ said:

The Ares missions are month-long "flags and footprints" missions. Why do they have these giant habitats, multiple pressurized rovers, etc.?

In real life they would too.  They shouldn't, they should stay for several months, but because of bureaucracy and subcontractors, every mission would be very bloated.  

[Gargamel]

56 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Hermes is supposed to use nuclear power in the book, but it has giant ISS solar arrays in the movie.. why exactly?

Probably for similar reasons I have 4 nuc reactors on my Motherships for interplanetary missions, but I also have large solar arrays.   I don't want the nucs running all the time, just when the engines require it.  The ships systems can easily be powered by the solar panels all the rest of the time.   In fact I need the solar panels to supplement the nuclear reactors, as they produce like 5% less power than the engines consume, so even with large banks of batteries and capacitors, I have a limited time I can thrust at 100%.  The panels don't entirely make up for the shortfall, but they do offset it enough for a significant gain in dV at 100% thrust. 

[wumpus]

11 hours ago, DAL59 said:

A nuclear engine doesn't necessarily also generate power.   

I'd have to assume that you could set a thermo-nuclear rocket to a sufficiently low setting to allow power generation with closed-loop cooling.  But such a design might not be lighter than solar panels, so you would forget it and bring solar panels.  A TNR is primarily designed around relatively high power and open-loop cooling, kludging it into acting as a power-generating reactor might be quite a kludge.

More likely, the special effects guys knew that the ISS is more or less what any near-term interplanetary spaceship looks like (that's how we know how to build things in space), so they made it "look like ISS" complete with solar panels (and if they have nuclear power anything, make sure the black panels (cooling) are nearly as big (or bigger) than the solar panels).

[NSEP]

Soviet/Russian Technology Youth Magazine covers are cool but...

How many people are supposed to fit in that tin can? There are like 6 Soyuz vehicles in one image, wha... wait a second, the Soyuz vehicles docked to the station are connected via struts, so that means that they are using Soyuz vehicles as modules, including the re-entry capsule and extra fuel for re-entry? Wai... whe.. why?

Or is it just artists conception? I mean, im assuming it was made in 1973, when space stations were a relatively new thing, soooooo...

[p1t1o]

@NSEP

Yep, definitely an artists conception, dont forget that in 1973 the general population knew much less about space than you and me today. Much less about space travel was known at all. They all thought we'd be living on the moon in silver jumpsuits by now.

Artists conceptions, especially from that era, are definitely not winning awards for accuracy:

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, NSEP said:

Soviet/Russian Technology Youth Magazine covers are cool but...

How many people are supposed to fit in that tin can? There are like 6 Soyuz vehicles in one image, wha... wait a second, the Soyuz vehicles docked to the station are connected via struts, so that means that they are using Soyuz vehicles as modules, including the re-entry capsule and extra fuel for re-entry? Wai... whe.. why?

Or is it just artists conception? I mean, im assuming it was made in 1973, when space stations were a relatively new thing, soooooo...

If I recall, Mir was supposed to have Soyuz derived modules, and not FGB modules. These would need propulsion to rendezvous and dock... 

Still not that accurate.

On 7/15/2018 at 8:45 PM, DAL59 said:

A nuclear engine doesn't necessarily also generate power.    

A reactor, as part of a nuclear electric system, would.

[magnemoe]

On 7/16/2018 at 3:37 PM, wumpus said:

I'd have to assume that you could set a thermo-nuclear rocket to a sufficiently low setting to allow power generation with closed-loop cooling.  But such a design might not be lighter than solar panels, so you would forget it and bring solar panels.  A TNR is primarily designed around relatively high power and open-loop cooling, kludging it into acting as a power-generating reactor might be quite a kludge.

More likely, the special effects guys knew that the ISS is more or less what any near-term interplanetary spaceship looks like (that's how we know how to build things in space), so they made it "look like ISS" complete with solar panels (and if they have nuclear power anything, make sure the black panels (cooling) are nearly as big (or bigger) than the solar panels).

Yes, its not totally unrealistic, reactor only designed for the burn or the panels are a backup. It also looks good, ship is not very bad outside of too many windows. You would probably not want windows in an rotating ring as it would be confusing. 

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, NSEP said:

There are like 6 Soyuz vehicles in one image, wha... wait a second, the Soyuz vehicles docked to the station are connected via struts, so that means that they are using Soyuz vehicles as modules, including the re-entry capsule and extra fuel for re-entry? Wai... whe.. why?

Or is it just artists conception? I mean, im assuming it was made in 1973, when space stations were a relatively new thing, soooooo...

This looks like an artist represenation of several orbital station projects of 1960s-70s.
There were at least about ten of them .Mostly Korolev and later Glushko.

Skipping the early ones, this one on the cover looks like a chimaera of:
- Orbital Station-Armory of OKB-1

75 t, max diameter 6, length 25, crew 6, total volume 510 m³, 6 solar panels 110 m² (no reactors).
Nuke ammo.
Tech support of orbital crafts (crewed and uncrewed), docking for it.
 

and of one variant of its descendant MKBS _{(not MBKS like on the caption)} of OKB-1

250 t (2 skylab-sized modules + stuff), max d 6 m, full length 100, 200 kW nuke, several kinds of ammo including a particle beam.

 

Later there was 19K aka MOK (1972-73) — exactly like the journal date.
Its picture is unknown, but it was a near-Skylab sized station + swarm of Soyuz-derived semi-autonomous modules from time to time docking to it, in heliosynchronous orbit, 97.5°.
So, this description looks also close to this picture.

Meanwhile DOS project was going on, with two axial and two radial docking ports for Soyuz-derived modules. Radial ones - on the narrow part of a Almaz/Salyut-derived base module.

In 1978 they updated the DOS project, and it received 4 radial ports (like on the picture), but on a sphere (from Zvezda station project - probably 3rd of its name) later used in Mir.

So, this journal depicts several phases of that story at once.

ISS has several Soyuz habitat-derived modules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisk_(ISS_module)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirs_(ISS_module)
 

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

If I recall, Mir was supposed to have Soyuz derived modules, and not FGB modules.

Two Almaz/Salyut base modules were going to use them, much earlier than this became Mir.
Though the base modules stayed the same, but original projects were wasted, equipment totally reequipped, and the proto-Mir was supposed to use type 37K modules (siblings of Quantum-1), which are OPS+FGB-based.
But they were replaced with FGB-derived 77K modules which we know from photos. Only one 37 K Quantum-1 was used.

Edited July 18, 2018 by kerbiloid

[peadar1987]

I'm more concerned about the fact that they seem to be using solar panels as structural elements

[magnemoe]

3 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

I'm more concerned about the fact that they seem to be using solar panels as structural elements

Good point having struts between solar panels makes no sense. nor should they be needed in this setting. if you dock multiple modules daisy chain you might wants struts but nor for single modules. 

[MDZhB]

What do you guys think space-warfare would really be like? It seems like every mainstream sci-fi does the whole space fleet thing:

I don't think the idea of a space fleet is unreasonable, but I do think the distances involved here are. Even at the scale of these ships, a nuke going off in the center of the fleet would wreak havoc on them. So, a fleet would have to be much more spaced out. In addition, I think that their weapons would probably be at least as powerful as, if not more, than nukes, so enemy fleets would probably stay back a significant distance. I'm thinking that battles may take place at a range of a couple of light-minutes away. That means that there will be a lag in radar and sensors, making it more difficult to predict your enemy's position, and any weaponry would have to travel very fast to do be effective (it would not only have to cross the distance in a reasonable time, but be fast enough to not give the enemy time to dodge it.)

I think the ideal weapon for this type of conflict would be 0.99c mass projectiles. Whole barrages could be sent at a time, aimed by a targeting AI which has learned to predict enemy movements (huge amounts of military R&D would be done to develop AI that could outsmart the enemy AI.) You wouldn't see the projectiles coming until they were already there, and a single hit would be devastating. They also won't lose their energy like a laser would. Or, if spacecraft could travel at this speed (and accelerate fast enough without turning flat,) it may be possible to send near-light "fighters" from bigger, slower "carriers." They would be similarly difficult to detect and dodge, and would be able to do hit and run attacks on vital targets more intelligently than a big tungsten rod.

I don't know why more sci-fi doesn't make use of this kind of combat. Not being able to see the enemy, and trying to predict their movement and attacks would add a lot of tension and drama. What do you all think?

[magnemoe]

21 minutes ago, MDZhB said:

What do you guys think space-warfare would really be like? It seems like every mainstream sci-fi does the whole space fleet thing:

I don't think the idea of a space fleet is unreasonable, but I do think the distances involved here are. Even at the scale of these ships, a nuke going off in the center of the fleet would wreak havoc on them. So, a fleet would have to be much more spaced out. In addition, I think that their weapons would probably be at least as powerful as, if not more, than nukes, so enemy fleets would probably stay back a significant distance. I'm thinking that battles may take place at a range of a couple of light-minutes away. That means that there will be a lag in radar and sensors, making it more difficult to predict your enemy's position, and any weaponry would have to travel very fast to do be effective (it would not only have to cross the distance in a reasonable time, but be fast enough to not give the enemy time to dodge it.)

I think the ideal weapon for this type of conflict would be 0.99c mass projectiles. Whole barrages could be sent at a time, aimed by a targeting AI which has learned to predict enemy movements (huge amounts of military R&D would be done to develop AI that could outsmart the enemy AI.) You wouldn't see the projectiles coming until they were already there, and a single hit would be devastating. They also won't lose their energy like a laser would. Or, if spacecraft could travel at this speed (and accelerate fast enough without turning flat,) it may be possible to send near-light "fighters" from bigger, slower "carriers." They would be similarly difficult to detect and dodge, and would be able to do hit and run attacks on vital targets more intelligently than a big tungsten rod.

I don't know why more sci-fi doesn't make use of this kind of combat. Not being able to see the enemy, and trying to predict their movement and attacks would add a lot of tension and drama. What do you all think?

.99c is idiotic fast even for projectiles, 0.1c is extremely fast even if you have very good fusion and anti matter. 
Now grouping together has benefits as all can concentrate fire especially defensive fire, still formations would be way more spread out than an modern carrier group. 
For one ranges would be far longer you also want to random dodge to avoid energy weapons and to force missiles to do burns and reveal themselves

The typical wall of ships was dead in WW1 as weapon ranges was to long, 

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

41 minutes ago, MDZhB said:

What do you guys think space-warfare would really be like? It seems like every mainstream sci-fi does the whole space fleet thing:

[...]

I don't think the idea of a space fleet is unreasonable, but I do think the distances involved here are. Even at the scale of these ships, a nuke going off in the center of the fleet would wreak havoc on them. So, a fleet would have to be much more spaced out. In addition, I think that their weapons would probably be at least as powerful as, if not more, than nukes, so enemy fleets would probably stay back a significant distance. I'm thinking that battles may take place at a range of a couple of light-minutes away. That means that there will be a lag in radar and sensors, making it more difficult to predict your enemy's position, and any weaponry would have to travel very fast to do be effective (it would not only have to cross the distance in a reasonable time, but be fast enough to not give the enemy time to dodge it.)

I think the ideal weapon for this type of conflict would be 0.99c mass projectiles. Whole barrages could be sent at a time, aimed by a targeting AI which has learned to predict enemy movements (huge amounts of military R&D would be done to develop AI that could outsmart the enemy AI.) You wouldn't see the projectiles coming until they were already there, and a single hit would be devastating. They also won't lose their energy like a laser would. Or, if spacecraft could travel at this speed (and accelerate fast enough without turning flat,) it may be possible to send near-light "fighters" from bigger, slower "carriers." They would be similarly difficult to detect and dodge, and would be able to do hit and run attacks on vital targets more intelligently than a big tungsten rod.

I don't know why more sci-fi doesn't make use of this kind of combat. Not being able to see the enemy, and trying to predict their movement and attacks would add a lot of tension and drama. What do you all think?

It depends on how far in the future the war is. For near future, something like Children of a Dead Earth, the fleets will probably be a bit further apart, but not much since nukes are so weak in a vacuum. Plus, nukes are relatively cheap enough that barrages of them of would be launched.

[mikegarrison]

There are hundreds (or more likely thousands) "hard SF" takes on what space battles would be like. Every author has his/her own idea. Bottom line is that since it would require all kinds of tech that we don't have now, it's all speculative anyway. Warfare is driven by technology, and until the technology is developed then most guesses about what future warfare will be like are dead wrong.

For me, I would guess that having people in ships fighting in space is the biggest mistake most writers make. People in space are so vulnerable compared to machines. Machines don't need life support and can go from zero-g to hundreds of gs (if they are designed for it).

But typically stories about space battles are not actually intended to be predictive of future warfare. Typically they are stories about people, so people are put on board the ships.

[MDZhB]

19 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

For me, I would guess that having people in ships fighting in space is the biggest mistake most writers make. People in space are so vulnerable compared to machines. Machines don't need life support and can go from zero-g to hundreds of gs (if they are designed for it).

I think that this would be a really cool place to insert cybernetics into a story. Space pilots might be 95% machine, but with enough humanity left to be relatable to readers. An explanation may be that when fights are run completely by AI, they result in stalemates and/or random wins (similarly to some video games where you can make bots fight each other.) Of course, like you said, it's all speculative. Hopefully, by the time we have space colonies and large craft, we won't be fighting wars anymore anyway.

[DAL59]

8 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

A reactor, as part of a nuclear electric system, would.

But a solid core engine would not.  

[DAL59]

2 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

For me, I would guess that having people in ships fighting in space is the biggest mistake most writers make. People in space are so vulnerable compared to machines. Machines don't need life support and can go from zero-g to hundreds of gs (if they are designed for it).

The problem is issuing commands and communication jamming.  You would probably want a couple human armed flagships, and then a hundred or so of medium sized(eg Rocinante) unmanned ships (with the possibility of being manned in case of jamming or boarding), and a million drones.    

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

But a solid core engine would not.  

It may or may not.

But in any case, Hermes is explicitly nuclear electric. At least in the book...

[NSEP]

20 hours ago, MDZhB said:

What do you guys think space-warfare would really be like? It seems like every mainstream sci-fi does the whole space fleet thing:

Space warfare is one of those things that can evolve in many different ways. You really have to start from the beginning and develop it all the way through.

In my honest opinion the question what will space warfare be like? is one of the hardest questions to answer but also, one of the most fun questions to ponder about. Thanks for asking.

Edited July 19, 2018 by NSEP

[kerbiloid]

On 7/19/2018 at 1:31 AM, MDZhB said:

What do you guys think space-warfare would really be like?

From TOPS* log:

JD2524792.5156546
Warning # 4509.
Warning type: Unauthorized object.
Space cluster: Earth-Mars gap.
Object material reflection class: Metal.
Object resonant quality class: Hollow.
Flight ID: Not found.
Pilot license: Not found.

Connection procedure activated.
Connection failed.
Connection failed.
Connection failed.

Extended warning: Uncooperative non-licensed potentially hazardous object detected.
Recommended: beam power 6.4 MW, impulses: 3, 

Apply? (Y/N)

Successfully done.
Recommendations are successfully appied.
Irregular potentially hazardous object is neutralized.
Report is automatically delivered to the TOPS HQ office.
Thank you for your co-operation!
Have a nice day!

*TOPS = Terrestrial Orbital Protective System

***

Upd.
Sorry, that's about milspec, OK?
Too many lettaz. 
That's much more clear:

Spoiler

JD25247925156546
WNG4509.
WNGTYP:UNAU OBJ.
SPCCLU: EARMARGAP.
OMRC: MET
ORQC: HLW
FLID: NOF
PLIC: NOF

CONPROC ACTD
CON FAIL
CON FAIL
CON FAIL

EXTWNG: UNCOP NLIC PHO.
RECD: BEAM64 IMP3

Apply? (Y/N)

DONE
SUCC APLD
IRR PHO NEU
REPCOPY TOPS
THX
HAND

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by kerbiloid

[p1t1o]

On 7/18/2018 at 11:31 PM, MDZhB said:

What do you guys think space-warfare would really be like? It seems like every mainstream sci-fi does the whole space fleet thing:

Honestly I think its anyone's guess at this point, we have enough trouble predicting what the next Earth-War will look like, no joke.

[StrandedonEarth]

16 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Honestly I think its anyone's guess at this point, we have enough trouble predicting what the next Earth-War will look like, no joke.

True. They will use what’s most effective from what’s available, and try to make it (or something else) better. 

Warfare has always been the biggest driver of technology. That’s what the first jet engines were used for. 

Which goes back to the question of why hyperdrive weapons were not a thing in Star Wars until TLJ. Sorta seems like a no-brainer. I suppose it goes back to being expensive and needing a lot of mass. Makes you wonder what a Mon Cal cruiser could have done against the Death Star as a hyperweapon. Way more expensive than proton torpedoes though. I guess that answers that. 

[Superfluous J]

56 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Which goes back to the question of why hyperdrive weapons were not a thing in Star Wars until TLJ.

Because they never thought of it before. Instead of a galaxy of people trying to kill each other, it was a room full of writers trying to make entertainment. There are thousands of things they didn't think of.

As an aside, I personally never thought of it.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

Because they never thought of it before. Instead of a galaxy of people trying to kill each other, it was a room full of writers trying to make entertainment. There are thousands of things they didn't think of.

As an aside, I personally never thought of it.

Neither did others, most probably thought you would simply pass trough the target. Now this could still be useful if you dropped hyperspace inside something like the death star. 
You could also likely use it to get inside planetary or region level shields. 

And obvious problem is that this changes everything, giant ships becomes obviously obsolete