Anyone else find themselves endlessly criticizing every depiction of NASA and spacecraft in media?

[G'th]

So I just watched the Family Guy episode where they sent Chris to Space Camp, and literally every moment where something involving NASA or the space shuttle was involved, I found myself going "Ah, thats not how it actually is!". Like when they arrived at space camp and somehow they were allowed to drive all the way up to the VAB, where the Saturn V center is also apparently located >.<.

And pretty much any time I see stuff like this in any kind of television show or movie or what have you I just find myself endlessly criticizing the inaccuracy. And for good reason, as the real thing is infinitely cooler than the usual depiction. Course, that might be because I'm a total NASA fanboy to the point that I hold an annual pass for KSC and go there every other weekend just to hang out xD

[razark]

Like when they arrived at space camp and somehow they were allowed to drive all the way up to the VAB' date=' where the Saturn V center is also apparently located >.<. [/quote']

Space Camp: Huntsville, Alabama

VAB: Merritt Island, Florida

Distance: 886 km

Seems reasonable to me.

[NovaSilisko]

No. It's a great way to make yourself miserable and make you into that guy in the eyes of others.¹ I try to shrug at what's done wrong and praise what's done right. I've developed a high tolerance for it, otherwise it's like trying to stop the tide coming in with a teaspoon. Better to laugh at it than get yourself all riled up over it. Anger leads to hate, hate leads to blah blah something something dark side. Total disregard for common sense bugs me more than a fudging of some laws of physics - I was more annoyed, for instance, at the astronauts in Gravity behaving so unprofessionally as opposed to the unrealism of the orbital mechanics depicted.

I will now add a quote from a synopsis of the hilariously awful Impact miniseries as a tangentially related aside:

After a failed attempt by the United States to destroy the Moon with nuclear weapons,²

1. If, that is, you present it in a nitpicky way. There's a finesse to pointing out inaccuracies without coming off as a pedantic jerk, and this is a finesse most people passionate about such things do not have.

2. This was later seemingly adopted as a major plot point of the Doctor Who episode Kill The Moon, which is one of the few items of media that actually readily gets me angry just to think about.

Edited June 23, 2015 by NovaSilisko

[mikey020202]

Happens all the time at school!

Even with teachers!

I can't help thinking,'Why are you teaching us these lies!'

[Bill Phil]

I'm pretty sure they did that on purpose in Family Guy. To represent the average person's view of NASA or something.

That's what I think, at least.

But in other depictions, it is pretty bad. But I can accept it as a "literary freedom" for the most part. But sometimes it's just too ridiculous.

[ColKlonk]

You probably find NASA short on change at the moment, will sieze any opportunity to grab more (heard that before many years ago ) most likely wanted too much $$$ for their 'walk-on' part, forcing the producer to work around the legalities of too accurate a production to the original items.

[Ethanadams]

and its family guy...

[SemiaCloud]

Happens all the time at school!

Even with teachers!

I can't help thinking,'Why are you teaching us these lies!'

Yes, I am having a debate war with someone who thinks that the moon landings were faked.

[ColKlonk]

They were...

[sam.johnson841]

- Snip-

This was later seemingly adopted as a major plot point of the Doctor Who episode Kill The Moon, which is one of the few items of media that actually readily gets me angry just to think about.

Doctor Who is love, Doctor Who is life.

I actually quite enjoyed that episode.

- Sam

[Space.exe]

Well if you take the tour at Kennedy Space center you get to go to the vab also in KSC They have a Saturn V in a building you go to in the tour. All together it seems they got the places mixed up. If someone will give me the season and ep.# i will go watch it.

[vger]

Doctor Who is love, Doctor Who is life.

I actually quite enjoyed that episode.

- Sam

Yeah, and I'm a little confused as to whether this is about realistic accuracy (which is what this thread is about) or something else. Doctor Who has never even tried to make people think it was realistic. If you accept that you're watching a show about a time-traveling phone-box, shame on you for complaining about the space suits?

However, one example of mine is Armageddon. I can handle a lot of the problems the film has. But then we get to the docking scene, or the shuttles dodging cometary debris like they're jet fighters, and I feel like someone is dragging their nails across a chalkboard about two inches from my ear. Everyone who complains about the docking scene in Interstellar needs to go watch Armageddon.

Edited June 27, 2015 by vger

[Camacha]

Anyone else find themselves endlessly criticizing every depiction of NASA and spacecraft in media?

No, as that kind of behaviour will quickly spoil your own mood, and probably that of all the people surrounding you. No one likes a smartbutt

Edited June 27, 2015 by Camacha

[Motokid600]

... So when when Brian stuck his head out of the shuttle window... You didn't laugh? Because I thought it was hilarious.

[Specialist290]

To a degree it's almost inevitable with any sort of fiction portraying any sort of field. Fiction naturally takes shortcuts and what is often called "artistic license" with a lot of details because, in many cases, if they had to stick to a strictly realistic portrayal of that field, it would take all the drama out of whatever story they're trying to tell. It's the same with primetime crime dramas: I haven't ever been a cop myself, but I have enough contact with them in my day job to know that real police work isn't quite as exciting as shows like Law and Order, CSI, and Castle would have you believe.

That said, I wouldn't say that being able to see the wires that hold up the monsters (to use the analogy) is necessarily a bad thing, as it gives you a greater appreciation for those works that do manage to tell a good story while sticking to the constraints of greater realism (keeping in mind that "realism" is often on a continuum, and not strictly an all-or-nothing affair).

[Zucal]

To a degree it's almost inevitable with any sort of fiction portraying any sort of field.

Definitely. This is everywhere- in any movie with a nuclear power station something always "goes critical" when in reality that's literally how it generates power. The point is that not every movie can be fantasy or a superhero film, so some will have to turn to real-life jobs and opportunities. A lot of the time those are really damn boring, so they liven it up as best they can.

[G'th]

Well if you take the tour at Kennedy Space center you get to go to the vab also in KSC They have a Saturn V in a building you go to in the tour. All together it seems they got the places mixed up. If someone will give me the season and ep.# i will go watch it.

Well yeah, the problem is is that these buildings are no where near each other. The episode depicts the Saturn V center as being literally right next to the VAB and a short distance from a launchpad. (where there's also a Space Shuttle ready to launch) And that you can't actually drive up to the VAB yourself unless you work there.

But yeah I can understand artistic license and all that, it just bugs me a bit when they go really out there with it unnecessarily. Like, I'm not going to get upset at how they portrayed the Shuttles cockpit, or even the idea that they'd have one still in launch condition at all times or that Space Camp would be hosted at the Saturn V center for whatever reason. But as someone who can literally walk to the Space Center it does bug me a little to see how they consolidated this huge complex into one small area.

I mean, even in real life you can see the VAB and several of the Launchpads from the SV Center. Its actually a pretty good view too. Where I watched them launch the Ares I-X all those years ago.

However, its not like I turn into that guy whenever this happens. Its all just in my head

[TheSaint]

To a degree it's almost inevitable with any sort of fiction portraying any sort of field.

I'm a gun guy and a computer professional. My wife is in the medical field. We can't watch anything without finding at least one howling funny inaccuracy.

[vger]

To a degree it's almost inevitable with any sort of fiction portraying any sort of field. Fiction naturally takes shortcuts and what is often called "artistic license" with a lot of details because, in many cases, if they had to stick to a strictly realistic portrayal of that field, it would take all the drama out of whatever story they're trying to tell. It's the same with primetime crime dramas: I haven't ever been a cop myself, but I have enough contact with them in my day job to know that real police work isn't quite as exciting as shows like Law and Order, CSI, and Castle would have you believe

This pretty much sums it up. Storytelling gives us the highlights of an adventure. Sure if you wanted to make "Stand By Me" you could actually document a 10-hour hike, but nobody is going to sit down for that. The same would be true for a trip to the VAB. Did it take a LONG time to get there? Yeah, but the audience doesn't care, they just want to get to the cool stuff. Therefore, the VAB is 2-minutes from Space Camp.

That said, I wouldn't say that being able to see the wires that hold up the monsters (to use the analogy) is necessarily a bad thing, as it gives you a greater appreciation for those works that do manage to tell a good story while sticking to the constraints of greater realism (keeping in mind that "realism" is often on a continuum, and not strictly an all-or-nothing affair).

Slightly unrelated, but as a kid, special effects used to encourage me to think like a scientist. I always knew there was a physical trick of some kind being done, which would lead to countless hours of experimentation, trying to recreate what I saw on the television.

I look at the same thing now, and I just don't feel impressed. And I don't feel the notion of, "Hey, I can do that!" All I see is, "Computer. Computer. That's a computer too. And so is that. That news room isn't even there, that's a computer too." Not that I don't think CGI is cool, but there's far less creative thinking involved in creating an effect that nobody has ever seen before. I've actually become more interested in stagecraft lately for this very reason, because non-digital wizardry is still being used there.

Edited June 28, 2015 by vger

[Dunrana]

I was watching Star Trek TNG the other day, and they had a moon entering the atmosphere of a planet at apogee. I wanted to scream at them.