Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame

[Just Jim]

I am like @adsii1970. I grew up on old Godzilla movies, and I am normally very, very forgiving... and I love Mystery Science Theater 3000

However, having said that... there is one fairly recent scene that really, really bothered me... it may have already been mentioned... The bomb run at the beginning of The Last Jedi.  I know Star Wars is magic physics from first movie to last... and I know there are a bunch of explanations online why it could work... I don't care. They were dropping bombs... in space... with no gravity... and for me, that one was just above and beyond painful to watch.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Just Jim

[razark]

1 hour ago, Just Jim said:

They were dropping bombs... in space... with no gravity...

Obviously, the bombs are not "dropped", but are ejected from the bomb bay with a small amount of force that makes it appear as though they were being dropped in a gravity field.

Why this is considered any sort of useful method, rather than just launching a huge number of missile instead, I have no idea.

 

I found it utterly frustrating to watch, as well.

[Just Jim]

11 minutes ago, razark said:

Obviously, the bombs are not "dropped", but are ejected from the bomb bay with a small amount of force that makes it appear as though they were being dropped in a gravity field.

Why this is considered any sort of useful method, rather than just launching a huge number of missile instead, I have no idea.

I found it utterly frustrating to watch, as well.

Yeah, exactly... I know there are ways to explain it... but visually that one was just was hard to watch.
And this is coming from me... the guy who twisted physics into a pretzel and gave Magic Boulders the ability to create their own wormholes... lmao.... 

Edited August 21, 2020 by Just Jim

[DDE]

2 hours ago, Just Jim said:

However, having said that... there is one fairly recent scene that really, really bothered me... it may have already been mentioned... The bomb run at the beginning of The Last Jedi.  I know Star Wars is magic physics from first movie to last... and I know there are a bunch of explanations online why it could work... I don't care. They were dropping bombs... in space... with no gravity... and for me, that one was just above and beyond painful to watch.

Now, now. Not everyone knows what a Y-wing is, so it's OK...

Spoiler

Meanwhile in the previous SW film:

Yes, that was an actual defense of TLJ in a Youtube video.

Don't forget the turbolaser blasts arcing in space as if there's gravity later in the film.

[cubinator]

6 hours ago, Just Jim said:

I am like @adsii1970. I grew up on old Godzilla movies, and I am normally very, very forgiving... and I love Mystery Science Theater 3000

However, having said that... there is one fairly recent scene that really, really bothered me... it may have already been mentioned... The bomb run at the beginning of The Last Jedi.  I know Star Wars is magic physics from first movie to last... and I know there are a bunch of explanations online why it could work... I don't care. They were dropping bombs... in space... with no gravity... and for me, that one was just above and beyond painful to watch.

The powered ships in Star Wars are usually not in orbit, but are hovering over the planet's surface. I don't remember if the orientation is such that the bombs are pulled towards the planet, but if it is then there's absolutely no problem.

[DDE]

1 hour ago, cubinator said:

I don't remember if the orientation is such that the bombs are pulled towards the planet

They maintain this exact orientation throughout the battle.

[DDE]

Alright, I think this thread has gone into dangerous territory.

Distraction time!

 

Apparently a lot of people think it's real. You can have a Wikipedia entry, and people would still spew fake news about you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_the_Robot

[Just Jim]

23 minutes ago, DDE said:

Alright, I think this thread has gone into dangerous territory.

Distraction time!

Apparently a lot of people think it's real. You can have a Wikipedia entry, and people would still spew fake news about you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_the_Robot

That's hilarious!!!

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, cubinator said:

The powered ships in Star Wars are usually not in orbit, but are hovering over the planet's surface. I don't remember if the orientation is such that the bombs are pulled towards the planet, but if it is then there's absolutely no problem.

Making hitting them much easier. Drop something and it will intercept target at at pretty high speed, bombs away. 
Star wars try to move WW2 naval and air into space, it mostly looks cool outside the bombers in The Last Jedi and some other stuff, The Last Jedi also had the hyperspace ramming, who would change strategy a bit
That movie had so many issues it will take skill to add more. 

Raises an question in WW2, was combinations of naval gunfire and air attack at once common? I know it was used during Taffy 3 battle but that was destroyers against battleships and so pretty desperate. 
I guess lots of planes staffing would mess up the radar return on capital ships radars so much they could not spot their shells splashdown and adjust their aim, radar back then was primitive. 
Yes you have an issue with friendly fire, but that is mostly an issue with proximity guided shells who was mostly used for AAA but in the late pacific was used against ground targets, it would not make sense against ships where you wanted to get inside before detonating. 

[DDE]

6 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Raises an question in WW2, was combinations of naval gunfire and air attack at once common?

No. Why would it be? The difference in range is so enormous, any meaningful air attack force would be done with the enemy long before the task force would reach gun range/

I'm not sure how the strategists of the 1930s, who expected carriers to participate in the line of battle, imagined that situation.

1 hour ago, Just Jim said:

That's hilarious!!!

I searched YouTube, and that thing was at that particular Dubai expo since at least 2017!

Reminds me of the continuing Kantanka spectacle.

[kerbiloid]

8 hours ago, razark said:

Obviously, the bombs are not "dropped", but are ejected from the bomb bay with a small amount of force

Of Force.

7 hours ago, DDE said:

Not everyone knows what a Y-wing

The easiest prey in Tie Fighter.

I liked their engines spreading around.

[razark]

3 hours ago, DDE said:

There's a simple reason for it.  Look at the bombers.  They have wings.  Obviously, they are designed to be used both in and out of atmosphere.  They "drop" bombs in space because that way you only have to train the crews one method to hit both planetary and space targets.

It's the same reason x-wings bank when they turn.  They don't have to, but if the pilot is trained in atmosphere, then they get used to the vehicle behaving a certain way, and then they can expect the same behavior no matter where they are operating.  It's also why the pilot can hear what's going on around, even though they shouldn't hear the enemy.  Like all control inputs, the sensor system is also fed through a computer to provide an output that the pilot expects, so he is never surprised.

 

[kerbiloid]

Their 3d designers were trying to make a 3d model of this

Spoiler

, but stuck on the bombs.

[radonek]

10 hours ago, razark said:

… They "drop" bombs in space because that way you only have to train the crews one method to hit both planetary and space targets.

It's the same reason x-wings bank when they turn.  They don't have to, but if the pilot is trained in atmosphere, then they get used to the vehicle behaving a certain way, and then they can expect the same behavior no matter where they are operating…

In short, they are not using full capabilities of their craft. No wonder those silly rebels got their backsides kicked. In short time empire will be ruled by anyone who can train half competent space combatants.

[s_gamer101]

Armageddon:

Two shuttles being launched to land on an asteroid that is approaching Earth. They‘re under constant acceleration from the SSME‘s during the entire flight, completely ignoring orbital mechanics. They made a Moon gravity assist (with SSME‘s still on full throttle) and they were experiencing a very high G force because of the Gravity assist (like 8 G‘s or more). They were also ignoring the fact that the SSME‘s need fuel from the external tank. There were also some ridiculous boosters attached to the shuttle orbiter that were also constantly running. And they also managed to plan the mission and do the entire launch preparations in a few weeks.

[s_gamer101]

Salyut 7:

If it was Sci-Fi it would be ok, but for a movie based upon real events it should be more realistic in my opinion. In the movie there was a fire on the station (I think this didn‘t even happen in real life, did it?) and they managed to stop it but they said that the Soyuz capsule wasn‘t controllable any more because all the electronics and stuff on the inside were completely burned. And later in the movie, they discussed about the possibility that one cosmonaut could escape with the Soyuz. (Apparently the electronics and stuff were suddenly fully operational again). And then NASA sent a Space Shuttle to rescue them all (in real life the Soyuz was still working and the Cosmonauts were able to return to Earth without problems). I don‘t think the docking system of a shuttle was compatible with the one used on the Salyut station.

Edit: I still like this movie.

Edited August 22, 2020 by s_gamer101

[DDE]

13 hours ago, razark said:

There's a simple reason for it.  Look at the bombers.  They have wings.  Obviously, they are designed to be used both in and out of atmosphere.  They "drop" bombs in space because that way you only have to train the crews one method to hit both planetary and space targets.

Training an aircraft crew to use different types of ordnance? Why, that's completely unheard of!

Spoiler

Wait, remember the other kind of craft with two weapon types?

Spoiler

 

[kerbiloid]

The shape of the X-wing wing can hardly be called aerodynamical.

It isn't properly curved, it looks like a panel.

And why open them in vacuum?

I would guess, they are total nonsense because other planes easily operate without these wings some kind of radiators or so.

[s_gamer101]

19 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

I would guess, they are total nonsense because other planes easily operate without these wings some kind of radiators or so.

That's indeed the official explanation for it as far as I know. And there are guns at the end of those wings. If the guns are further apart, the chance that one of them hits the target is higher.

But I don't wan't to say that Star Wars is realistic because it is not realistic. It doesn't even try to show realistic spaceflight. When watching Star Wars I try to not think too much about physics and enjoy it (I like Star Wars).

[DDE]

4 hours ago, s_gamer101 said:

And later in the movie, they discussed about the possibility that one cosmonaut could escape with the Soyuz. (Apparently the electronics and stuff were suddenly fully operational again).

You're forgetting key plot points. They could release the Soyuz in low orbit and let it naturally decay, but this process would take (IIRC) 68 hours, and they barely had enough breathing mixture for one person.

4 hours ago, s_gamer101 said:

And then NASA sent a Space Shuttle to rescue them al

No. The official line currently proliferated by Roscosmos through its documentary filmmaking arm, and the foundation of the movie's entire plot, is that STS-51-G was supposed to steal Salyut 7.

The entire Soyuz-T-13 mission - and the military's constant desire to just shoot the station with an IS - are thus presented as an exercise in denying intelligence to the adversary.

[DDE]

4 hours ago, s_gamer101 said:

They‘re under constant acceleration from the SSME‘s during the entire flight, completely ignoring orbital mechanics.

Put that down to the film's scientific inaccuracy.

4 hours ago, s_gamer101 said:

There were also some ridiculous boosters attached to the shuttle orbiter that were also constantly running.

They actually weren't. The OMS was, with the same characteristic "future space engine' light instead of a weak hypergolic plume.

The film may have been comparatively solid when their science advisors submitted the write-up to the actual writers. You can still see that below the thick layer of the usual Hollywood dreck. You're telling me that those brickheads came up with an orbital propellant depot and a semi-plausible velocity-matching maneuver involving a gravity slingshot all by themselves?

It's likely the original plot involved either an ET replenishment or a propellant tank in the cargo bay. Heck, perhaps the new super-duper shuttles were actually built with the additional dV in mind, maybe even as Lunar dual-axis landers (VTOLs, in plebian parlance). And the additional boosters actually look like GEMs, and it's possible to get ridiculous accelerations with solids:

Spoiler

 

 

But then, Hollywoodification happened.

[kerbiloid]

44 minutes ago, DDE said:

STS-51-G was supposed to steal Salyut 7.

Why not? 20 t of aluminium for free.

***

While Armageddonish propaganda depicts Soviet cosmonauts wearing eared hats, actually they wear the ski hats.
This is more scientifically correct.

Spoiler

(And gas masks, but they are not shown).

***

While machos believe that the laser rangefinder was a tank one (it sounds more brutally), actually it was just a standard handheld field laser rangefinder.

***

A nice background side of the whole event (regardless of the movie).

A standard small spaceship (related to 7K-PPK and 7K-VI) with the crew of two has approached to the uncooperative object, inspected it with handheld equip (laser, binoculars, night vision), manually  docked, boarded, overrode the controls, and successfully possessed.

***

After the googling for the S-7 ski hats picture, am shocked-shocked.

Spoiler

See the magazine date: 1984 №2

Somebody wise had published the absolutely detailed and truthful picture of the secret (for the magazine date) ship (TKS aka (C/K)osmos-1443), and nobody noticed.
Probably because everyone was sure it's just artist's silly sci-fi fantasy.

Even the RCS nozzles shown right and local shrouds are correctly oriented, unlike the wiki model, just the sight shroud (on VA) should be jettisonned, but as this is a crewless flight, maybe it wasn''t.

Edited August 22, 2020 by kerbiloid

[s_gamer101]

35 minutes ago, DDE said:

You're forgetting key plot points. They could release the Soyuz in low orbit and let it naturally decay, but this process would take (IIRC) 68 hours, and they barely had enough breathing mixture for one person.

Okay, that makes sense.

36 minutes ago, DDE said:

No. The official line currently proliferated by Roscosmos through its documentary filmmaking arm, and the foundation of the movie's entire plot, is that STS-51-G was supposed to steal Salyut 7.

Yes, but as I understood the ending of the movie, the STS-51-G Crew saved them at the end. However, in real life, no Shuttle with an empty cargo bay was launched at this time (says Wikipedia) and the cosmonauts returned with the still working Soyuz.

And the refueling station scene in Armageddon doesn't make sense too (in my opinion): If you have hydrogen leaking inside a station and it starts exploding you probably wouldn't have enough time to float back in your ship, close the hatch, undock, and fly away because there would probably be just a fireball like the one when the "Hindenburg" exploded.

[NFUN]

I'm being subjected to Charmed, a show that I've long since trying to apply any kind of logic to, let any science. But this episode is absolutely bonkers. Bad things are happening because it's a blue moon. Sure, whatever. Then a character says the next blue moon won't be for 50 years. I object (because they happen every year or two), and I'm told that the blue moon that they're referring to is the second blue moon in a month.

I'm in awe

[NFUN]

Somewhat related: