Everything wrong with cartoon/kid show rocket (ships)

[catloaf]

The most noticeable one for me is that they are ssto's with at least a 60% payload fraction despite being tiny and not having enough dV to orbit IF they had a super efficient vacuum engine (remember that these things have a twr of like 1.5 asl.) So what we can conclude about cartoon rockets is that they have some sort of dual mode nuclear jet engine, so logically it would make sense to take a fairly horizontal ascent profile (which they don't do, likely due to the massive drag caused by their egg like shapes, which means they won't gain very much speed from the atmosphere.) So yes, the people in silly kids shows are currently colonizing other planets and teaching less intelligent species how to do science (so they don't pollute the planet's the kid show people are preparing to invade.)

Edited July 4, 2020 by catloaf

[kerbiloid]

Like I always say, the fictional stories belong to the world of Aether.
This explains almost any technical inconsistency. The cartoon/kid show rocket use engines to push the aether like a motorboat.
So, they easily can use propellers or even oars to move in space, or sails to catch the aethereal wind.

Just in case, a disclaimer: There is officially no aether in the real universe.

Edited July 4, 2020 by kerbiloid

[Nuke]

its very hard to find any realism with regards to space in most works of fiction. 

cartoon space craft are designed to dumb down the person watching the show so that later on in life they wont call out more adult scifi for committing the same atrocities against realism.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Nuke

[DDE]

That they're rocketships in the first place makes them more realistic than half of 'adult' sci-fi eith its space aeroplanes, space submarines, and flying kitchenware.

[catloaf]

22 hours ago, DDE said:

That they're rocketships in the first place makes them more realistic than half of 'adult' sci-fi eith its space aeroplanes, space submarines, and flying kitchenware.

Wait, so it's probably almost impossible to have a 99% payload fraction. And I though 60 was too low to be real.

I do agree though, at least rocketships don't create 90+ gee's of acceleration... In an atmosphere... With no noticeable effects on the crew.

What I really hate though, even more than sci-fi, is that many of these shows are supposed to be "educational."

Edited July 9, 2020 by catloaf

[catloaf]

What I find funny is that the bad guy mothership from Spaceballs is more realistic than 90% if the ships in Star Wars. At least the crew actually experience gee force's when accelerating and it appears to be mostly mode of fuel. Also the crew is staring at computers not being killed by Darth Vader. It actually has escape pods and life support (Mr coffee.) Just strap a Daedelus engine in the back, remove the vacuum cleaner and transformer features (although that was a prophetic prediction of Disney) and you have a fairly realistic interstellar vessel.

[DunaManiac]

Agree, many cartoon/kid shows vastly dumb down the ship, the "lasers" that they use would be one long continuous beam, not a seperate bolts. Also, lasers would not be visible in a vacuum unless you had an infrared camera because the reason why lasers generate colored beams is because they excite the particles in the atmosphere, and since there is no atmosphere in space, thus the colored light would not show.

On 7/9/2020 at 1:07 AM, catloaf said:

At least the crew actually experience gee force's when accelerating and it appears to be mostly mode of fuel.

The only problem, especially with ships such as post TNG Star Trek for example is that apparently a ship can accelerate from 0 to thousands of times the speed of light and feel nothing, while they experience violent g-forces when they get shot at or bump into something.

 

[Nuke]

On 7/8/2020 at 8:48 PM, catloaf said:

Wait, so it's probably almost impossible to have a 99% payload fraction. And I though 60 was too low to be real.

I do agree though, at least rocketships don't create 90+ gee's of acceleration... In an atmosphere... With no noticeable effects on the crew.

What I really hate though, even more than sci-fi, is that many of these shows are supposed to be "educational."

when you cater to the lowest common denominator, you get it. 

[Nuke]

14 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

Agree, many cartoon/kid shows vastly dumb down the ship, the "lasers" that they use would be one long continuous beam, not a seperate bolts. Also, lasers would not be visible in a vacuum unless you had an infrared camera because the reason why lasers generate colored beams is because they excite the particles in the atmosphere, and since there is no atmosphere in space, thus the colored light would not show.

The only problem, especially with ships such as post TNG Star Trek for example is that apparently a ship can accelerate from 0 to thousands of times the speed of light and feel nothing, while they experience violent g-forces when they get shot at or bump into something.

 

warp drive makes sense though, alcubierre drives would not accelerate the ship, it would move the space. its the impulse drives that dont make any damn sense. essentially they are a fusion torch drives that can get to 1 c in a sane amount of time but manage to do so without any time dilation. the tng tech manual said they have driver coils, which is effectively a small warp coil, and this is probibly the means for handwaving away the effects of constant acceleration. given a drive that makes the epstein look like a bottle rocket, ships seem to move extremely slowly and do combat at knife fighting ranges. 

[DunaManiac]

2 hours ago, Nuke said:

given a drive that makes the epstein look like a bottle rocket, ships seem to move extremely slowly and do combat at knife fighting ranges. 

Well, that makes sense, it's impulse drive is only a small part of the ship and be hard to spot sometimes.

On 7/4/2020 at 12:09 AM, catloaf said:

The most noticeable one for me is that they are ssto's with at least a 60% payload fraction despite being tiny and not having enough dV to orbit IF they had a super efficient vacuum engine (remember that these things have a twr of like 1.5 asl.) So what we can conclude about cartoon rockets is that they have some sort of dual mode nuclear jet engine, so logically it would make sense to take a fairly horizontal ascent profile (which they don't do, likely due to the massive drag caused by their egg like shapes, which means they won't gain very much speed from the atmosphere.) So yes, the people in silly kids shows are currently colonizing other planets and teaching less intelligent species how to do science (so they don't pollute the planet's the kid show people are preparing to invade.)

For me, I can tolerate it because it's impossible to teach rocket science to a 6 year old. For adult sci-fi, not everyone has a phD in physics. I apreciate movies/tv that actually TRIES to be as realistic as possible (i.e Interstellar), but if every movie paid absolute 100% attention to reality, it wouldn't be a very good one.

[catloaf]

2 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

 

For me, I can tolerate it because it's impossible to teach rocket science to a 6 year old. For adult sci-fi, not everyone has a phD in physics. I apreciate movies/tv that actually TRIES to be as realistic as possible (i.e Interstellar), but if every movie paid absolute 100% attention to reality, it wouldn't be a very good one.

You're right about that. The kid shows are bad but sometimes the science in movies can be an immersion killer, especially were special effects are lacking.

[DunaManiac]

Another thing that irks me is that most alien craft are flying frisbees with a crew cabin on top and flashy lights, which is by far the most stereotypical "craft". As it happens, the person who initially came up with it was actually describing craft that "skipped on the air like flying saucers" became "spacecraft shaped like flying saucers".  

Fun Fact: the US actually conducted experiments on a craft shaped like that, but the project was eventually cancelled due to the craft's inherently unstable flight envelope.

Another problem is that with craft with a center of thrust higher than the center of mass (I'm looking at you, Star Trek), which I'm sure anyone who has tried to make a space shuttle replica has encountered, is that the spacecraft torques, sending it spinning end over end. In order to counter this, it would need insanely powerful reaction wheels. But if you have that, than wouldn't the spaceship be able to turn on a dime?

Edited July 14, 2020 by DunaManiac