Space-themed TV shows (that care a little about realism)?

[silent_prtoagonist]

Why assume that artificial gravity will never be possible? Or do you know something I don't...

And while we're at it, I'm pretty sure the main engine of the firefly is a gravity drive.

Artificial gravity (other than by acceleration) is about as impossible as ftl, which is to say there a few oddball theories that explain ways in which it might be done without completely throwing the laws of motion, thermodynamics, etc out the window, but they either require new physics or are simply many orders of magnitude beyond our current technical ability. If you want to include them in your sci-fi that's fine, but most authors/writers don't bother to explore the consequences of these technologies. For example, if the civilizations in Star Trek can routinely convert matter to energy and back again (transporters and replicators) why do they bother with the obvious safety hazards of powering their ships with antimatter?

That's not to say that shows like Star Trek are bad shows (I'm a trekkie through and through), but I tend to find stories that at least acknowledge the presence of reality (such as the one scene in the new Star Trek movie with no sound in space...it's a step in the right direction at least) more rewarding that those that don't.

Btw, a great website on the topic of realistic sci-fi that y'all should look at if you haven't already:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/index.php

Edited August 25, 2012 by silent_prtoagonist

[Carthaginian]

Well, if we're going to be that general, why not point out that all conflict falls into broad categories and is always boring? "Oh, it's another 'man vs. man' plot, followed by another 'man vs. nature' plot, followed by another 'man vs. self' plot, and finally, a 'man vs. society' plot. Can't they come up with anything original?"

Part of the problem, I think, is that we're not used to things having consequences for more than one episode for anything other than interpersonal conflict ("soap opera plots"). But it doesn't have to be that way. Conflicts are not frequently resolved quickly in the real world, and even whether or not they are resolved can be an open issue.

Consider Apollo 12 (the actual mission). They had a problem on launch (the rocket was struck by lightning twice during ascent), and they were unable to check whether or not the pyros that would open the parachutes were still in working order. They knew that when they brought the crew back, there was a chance that they would fall into communications blackout and never come out (hitting the ocean at high speed). That's kind of an extreme example, but it's the sort of thing that generates dramatic possibilities for more than one episode. But we're not used, as an audience, to having technical conflicts that have lasting effects. I disagree that keeping things realistic forces us into a repetitive corner.

(Of course, one can always say "And then what?" until creative ideas are exhausted, but I maintain that that's true for any genre; it's not a particular weakness of realistic science fiction.)

At the end of the day, my point is not to bash anyone's favorite sci-fi franchise. It's to point out how difficult this is, but that it's clearly not impossible (since examples do exist, and I'm always hoping someone has found more that I'm not aware of), and to bemoan the fact that there aren't more of them (to scratch my particular geeky itch -- my brain likes to be entertained, too, really).

First off- don't feel bad about bashing. I am a RABID Trek fan- but I'm also very quick to bash it.

Anything 'engineering-wise' in Star Trek is such a statistical improbability as to border on comedic. The aforementioned 'Heisenberg Compensator' is just one example of the blatant hand-wavium that takes place all the time. While the characters might be great and the stories can be excellent... honestly, the fact that they have to reinvent physics is annoying. The thing is that it works 'in-universe.' No matter how insane it seems to us, it is completely believable if you look at the universe the show takes place in and turn on your 'suspension of disbelief.'

The problem with a 'realistic' show versus a 'sci-fi' show is the same thing I experience all the time while watching something to do with the military, police work, or medicine. A 'realistic' show means that they cannot reasonably expect 'suspension of disbelief' regarding the subject matter. I watch NCIS- and though I find it entertaining, I always keep a mental list for the duration of the show that covers 1.) how many times each character should have been suspended/released/prosecuted for breaking procedure, 2.) how many times they completely BS the tech involved, like getting a DNA match over an in-show lunch break and 3.) how often they create some kind of romantic entanglement that real professionals would not allow to happen. You enjoy the characters, you like the stories- but you can never really get over the fact that it's utterly and totally unrealistic in it's 'realism'... just as 'fake' as any sci-fi show.

Any 'realistic' space show would be just as fake as a 'realisitc' cop show.

It wouldn't be any more 'real' than a sci-fi show; it would just be a completely different kind of untruth.

Additionally, it would run into the 'realism' problems that I pointed out earlier.

Not that I wouldn't necessarily watch it and like it- but it would get old a lot faster than a sci-fi show.

[Awaras]

For Star Trek, I always figured that battles DO happen at significant fractions of the speed of light and astronomical ranges. This is because they would often mention 'full impulse' or ranges of several thousand kilometers. Also, the (suposedly FTL) photon torpedoes take several seconds to reach their target. The only reason they make it look like they are dogfighting at point blank range is that otherwise the battle visuals would consist of tiny dots flashing this way and that, shooting invisible beams at each other - not very exciting for a TV show... Same with sound in space...

[Awaras]

Ah, the Picard Maneuver. All species involved had possessed both FTL travel and FTL sensors for centuries, and yet, using FTL tactically is suprising. And for some reason, a widely-known tactic with no known defense isn't used in every single combat situation until someone comes up with a defense for it.

Unfortunately, star trek often falls into the trap of 'it would be surprising to a 20th century tv viewer so it should be surprising to a 23rd century starship crew as well.'

[Monkthespy]

Oh, and watch Babylon 5 for a while, it's story arc is amazing.

[RedDwarfIV]

Of course, B5 gets past the 'many orders of magnitude of technology above our own' by having aliens give us Jumpgate tech.

Then again, the Centauri seem to fall into the 'insufficiently advanced' category, what with them being an analogue of post-Revolutionary France.

[Nikolai]

Any 'realistic' space show would be just as fake as a 'realisitc' cop show.

I think part of the problem seems to be that you're accepting it as a given that NCIS is a "realistic" cop show. If so, I think you're setting the bar for "realism" rather low.

Not that there haven't been realistic cop shows. Dragnet was about as real as could be squeezed into an episodic format, and it did well for years, both on the radio and on television.

Additionally, it would run into the 'realism' problems that I pointed out earlier.

And again, for the reasons I cited, I fail to see why those reasons are particular to realistic science fiction. The hurdles are higher, yes, but I do not think them insurmountable.

[Carthaginian]

I think part of the problem seems to be that you're accepting it as a given that NCIS is a "realistic" cop show. If so, I think you're setting the bar for "realism" rather low.

Not that there haven't been realistic cop shows. Dragnet was about as real as could be squeezed into an episodic format, and it did well for years, both on the radio and on television.

I will admit that I am taking a loose view of 'realistic'- present day, available technology and equipment, etc.

Dragnet was an anomaly- and, frankly, confusing to those not familiar with police procedure. It's a sad sign of the times that a show today must be dumbed-down to avoid offending the audience, while Webb had an audience that would actually research what the police terminology used on the show meant. Imagine how hard it would be to create a 1 hour show which was as realistic with Dragnet involving space technology in this day and age! Seriously, how much technology would you have to gloss over, how much physics would you have to leave unexplained, and how many technical terms would you leave unexplained? Heck, the show would sound like a sci-fi show if you went full 'Dragnet' with it! People would have to do homework to understand what you were talking about... and in spite of our little community here, most people don't like doing homework for fun (part of the reason boards like this exist is so information can be passed on with a minimum of that kind of research).

And again, for the reasons I cited, I fail to see why those reasons are particular to realistic science fiction. The hurdles are higher, yes, but I do not think them insurmountable.

I hardly say the reasons are 'particular' to sci-fi... indeed, I use shows that are not sci-fi to explain them! But, as we both agree, any 'realistic' show dealing with a science-based setting has a far harder time with these issues because there isn't that expected 'suspension of disbelief' buffer that a sci-fi show automatically has. All of the problems that I've pointed out individually might not be insurmountable; but if you package those problems together in a box and tie it off with a big red bow and present it to a panel of network execs, what's inside the box looks like a tough sell.

[Nikolai]

Dragnet was an anomaly- and, frankly, confusing to those not familiar with police procedure. It's a sad sign of the times that a show today must be dumbed-down to avoid offending the audience, while Webb had an audience that would actually research what the police terminology used on the show meant.

Even sadder if one considers how much easier it is to do that research now than it was then. Yeah, that's a very good point.

It seems that the larger sticking point -- as you mention later on in this post -- is finding and keeping an audience willing to stay with something "realistic", especially when there's much outside everyday people's everyday experience. And, ultimately, if you're selling a show to people who would pay for it (and expect a return on their investment), the absence of that kind of audience seems fatal indeed.

I guess we agree in the final analysis, but for different reasons. Still, it seems a shame.

[Carthaginian]

I guess we agree in the final analysis, but for different reasons. Still, it seems a shame.

It is a shame- I'd love to see a series based on a modern space program... but it just isn't something that would sell. The travel time (and related lack of 'television-friendly action') would be the biggest issue for the actual writers- that's why all sci-fi shows make use of some handwavium to get the ship somewhere interesting.

Hopefully, someone at a studio somewhere plays KSP, and is reading this.

[Kosmonaut]

Oh my days I finished Planetes recently and I am in love with that show.

You may want to try Steins Gate. I know it isn't about space, but it has some real science, pop culture references, real science, excellent characters, real science, commonly accepted theories about time travel and real science. Also, the second season may be coming out soon, so watch

[Dispatcher]

Men Into Space.  This story hasn't happened yet, but it will ... 

Its ancient yes, but its cool to see what expectations were during the infancy of space flight.

 

[Nuke]

On 8/22/2012 at 11:31 AM, Suzaku said:

All the other shows being listed, I.E. Star Trek, Firefly, babylon 5, etc. Are grounded in the far future and have ridiculous technological advances and are extremely EXTREMELY inaccurate due to the lorentz doppler effect which causes time dilation. The only shows that have featured the lorentz doppler effect prominently that I can think of are Andromeda, Gunbuster (Main plot is the doppler effect), and Voices of a Distant Star.

So no, Babylon 5, Star Trek, and Firefly are not scientifically accurate, they just choose the science they want and ignore all the science that they don't like.

i have to say that b5 was more accurate than the others in that list. firefly had a good cast of characters, thats about it (i like to call it a 'space western', because it is, they actually hauled cows in one episode). trek is highly technobabble driven, sometimes it meshes with theoretical concepts, but a lot of cases its garbage (voyager). tos was more a social commentary, but became more sciencey with tng, then ds9 was highly character driven, and then voyager got lazy and just started spewing jargon out of context, then enterprise tried to mix all the things and came out mediocre (then turn into "zomg terrorists!" in later episodes).

in b5 the humans were still using centrifuges, less advanced species were still using zero g ships. only the extremely advanced species had artificial gravity. i liked b5 because of its tech gradient, you had species barely able to fly in space and super advanced species. people are floating around in some circumstances and walking around in others. ships conserve momentum, if you watch some of the star fury combat you only see engines firing when they are needed and they ship responds accordingly. it had some really good characters too. hyperspace was handwavium, but you get always get one free. it at least showed that it cared about real physics.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Nuke

[Herr Doktor Strangemember]

What about the 'Expanse'?

What I loved about the show is scene were one of the characters pours himself a drink, and the stream of liquid curves since Ceres is spun up for the sake of gravity.

Sure there are places when the plot overrules science, but that is a choice that the writers have in every show, it's that they make an attempt, and the attempt is consistent throughout the run of the show. That is where Star Trek fails for me, and shows like B5 and Firefly succeed.