What is your biggest science pet peeve in movies?

[Bill Phil]

On ‎6‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 2:52 AM, DDE said:

There is one historic, and one possible future ICBM that are equipped for sending nukes into orbit as part of the illegal Fractional Orbital Bombardment scheme. But escape trajectories would be a step up from that; no ICBM-based booster was used for interplanetary flight either, AFAIK.

Soyuz (R-7 derived), Titan IV (Titan derived, of course), Atlas V (self explanatory), and if we count other ballistic missile types, Delta II.

Or are you referring to something entirely different?

[DDE]

3 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Soyuz (R-7 derived), Titan IV (Titan derived, of course), Atlas V (self explanatory), and if we count other ballistic missile types, Delta II.

Or are you referring to something entirely different?

Yes. I'm talking about actual ICBMs and refitted actual ICBMs (Rokot, Minotaur), not their very remote derivatives.

Also, c'mon... Atlas V has nothing to do with Atlas I.

[Bill Phil]

52 minutes ago, DDE said:

Yes. I'm talking about actual ICBMs and refitted actual ICBMs (Rokot, Minotaur), not their very remote derivatives.

Also, c'mon... Atlas V has nothing to do with Atlas I.

Soyuz isn't very remote at all. It still uses peroxide powered pumps! That tech goes back to the V-2! The main additions are upper stages and various improvements. Right now it's very different, sure. But that wasn't always the case.

Atlas V has the Centaur... That's about it. (and even that's changed quite a bit)

Titan III is very similar to Titan II (a full fledged ICBM) with huge SRBs. These put the Voyager probes on their trajectories. As well as the Viking missions.

Titan IV, not so sure.

Atlas II (very much Atlas derived) put a payload at the Sun-Earth L1 point.

Delta II uses RS-27s. These are newer versions of H-1s (like on the Saturn 1). The H-1s were newer version of the MB-3 engines. So Delta II can trace its lineage all the way back to Thor (but that's not an ICBM, it had shorter range). And Delta II launched Kepler.

Luna 1 is in solar orbit. It was launched in 59 by an R-7 derived vehicle.

So the question then becomes, what do you mean by a "refitted" ICBM? I'd say Luna 1 was launched by a refitted ICBM.

[DDE]

@Bill Phil I'm talking about actual military missiles, typically silo-based, as seen in the movies. R-7 and Atlas don't fall into that category even in their original form; Rokot is orbit-capable, yet still silo-launched, because it's basically an UR-100. Heck, the Russians have launched satellites from submarines.

Or have you forgotten what the original peeve was about because you were too busy arguing with me?

[Frybert]

Let's move on shall we?

[adsii1970]

Tight and unrealistic turns on star ships, sounds in space, and Jedi...

[magnemoe]

26 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Tight and unrealistic turns on star ships, sounds in space, and Jedi...

Jedi is pure magic, star wars is mostly fantasy anyway, rules of cool might easy be the primary rule. 

[tater]

Saw Dr. Strange yesterday. Usually my wife is tired of me griping about some orbital mechanics error, or other stuff I complain about in movies, but this time it was her turn. She thought all the "doctor" stuff in the movie was utter nonsense, and wondered how anyone got paid to advise them. She said, "if they can't even get scrubbing right, the might as well not bother."

[kunok]

I use a simple trick, I don't consider almost any of it sci-fy, just futuristic fantasy. Then you just don't care, and enjoy the film

[NSEP]

-In childrens movies and cartoons, you can go to the moon and plant a flag in just 10 seconds or so, all that, without any fuel tanks.

-Alot of spacecraft somehow have artificial gravity, by some magical force.

-Astronauts in a vacuum can run around and shoot guns and stuff. Even though moving in a vacuum is like moving in a concrete suit.

-Spacecraft move around like airplanes, with their engines constantly on without any gimbal or RCT's.

-UFO's always destroy New York. But why not Singapore? There are way more humans to collect there!

-Aliens are always bipedal creatures with a human face and stuff. The (for example) Grey's are clearly a species of space homonids, not extraterrestrials!

-Alot of Sci-Fi authors pick a scientific theory like space elevators and build up their story out of that, but just because it based around a scientific theory, does not mean it is scientificly accurate.

-Most Sci-Fi is just 1% science and 99% fiction. 

[Bill Phil]

19 hours ago, DDE said:

@Bill Phil I'm talking about actual military missiles, typically silo-based, as seen in the movies. R-7 and Atlas don't fall into that category even in their original form; Rokot is orbit-capable, yet still silo-launched, because it's basically an UR-100. Heck, the Russians have launched satellites from submarines.

Or have you forgotten what the original peeve was about because you were too busy arguing with me?

Titan II was silo-based. It was an actual military missile. It evolved into Titan III (ICBM-based booster) which sent payloads interplanetary. Heck, the Atlas F was silo-based. Although it didn't launch inside the silo (it was elevated above the silo).

The Titan 23G was a launch vehicle. Just because it may not have put payloads into interplanetary trajectories does not imply it was not possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_23G

The payload listed to HCO is a few hundred kilograms.

Of course, just mentioning ICBMs doesn't specify which type. Silo-based ICBMs are different to the first ICBMs for obvious reasons.

The original peeve had to do with various things. ICBMs reaching space and just stopping, or ICBMs not having escape velocity, and so on. That is, however, somewhat irrelevant. You mentioned that you were unaware of any ICBM-based booster being used for interplanetary flight. This did not specify to what degree it was based on the ICBM, or that it was a silo-based ICBM. Thus, Titan III at the very least, fits. All I'm doing is providing examples.

Anyhow, it would be a good idea to simply move on.

[Guest]

Airlocks controlled by digital input, rocket engines that make jet noises when "spooling up", unrealistic space dogfighting mechanics, unrealistic orbital mechanics, unrealistic chemistry.

[p1t1o]

17 hours ago, NSEP said:

-Astronauts in a vacuum can run around and shoot guns and stuff. Even though moving in a vacuum is like moving in a concrete suit.

I dont see why. Contemporary spacesuits are quite bulky and suffer from being "inflated", but it actually annoys me when I see space sci-fi and Im like "Why are they moving around in slow motion just because they're in space? Sorry, I meant: iiiiiiiinnnnnnn spaaaaaaaaaace!!" sometimes this occurs even on-board ship without any spacesuits. Sorry, spaaaaaacesuuuiiiits.

[Tex_NL]

On 12-11-2016 at 4:44 AM, monstah said:

I had heard so many praises about The Expanse for its realism. One of the first things I noticed was a ship burning prograde toward Ceres

Of course there always will be some realism that needs to be sacrificed for the story. But compared to pretty much everything else The Expanse is very accurate and realistic.

FYI: Season 2 airs on February 8

[monstah]

44 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

Of course there always will be some realism that needs to be sacrificed for the story. But compared to pretty much everything else The Expanse is very accurate and realistic.

FYI: Season 2 airs on February 8

Oh, I just watched that one episode yet! I liked it, but I'm really slow on TV shows (my wife's making me watch Breaking Bad right now)

[Technical Ben]

Gravity. Honestly. Get anything else "made up, it's a movie, it's super advanced tech"... but get gravity right.

I know reference frames can be more complicated, because we are use to walking on earth. I know it's expensive to simulate, as well, most sets are on earth.

But the entire "walking in space" breaks the reality of what it IS like. It's like seeing a movie about "the strange unknown place called America, where we boldly go..." and it being inhabited by little green men, being entirely covered in sand, and everyone talking french... we'd be like "what, that's NOT America!"... I feel the same way with most space shows. Exception being the likes of Star Wars, which plays more Space Opera (complete fantasy in space, or "just like here, but labelled space", as suppose to Science Fiction (supposed to be fiction, based in the real place called "space").

If you want an excuse for gravity in space, then add that your story takes place during the interesting parts of the journey, handwave powerful engines and lots of fuel, and just give the spacecraft a tower shape and 1g thrust.

Ah, but the alternative is boring to the average person, isn't it?  Space combat done realistically would look something like Children of a Dead Earth, and the average person doesn't get enough orbital mechanics to know how that actually works.

Or, you get unrealistic combat but at long ranges, such as combat in the Culture series where things get fought across solar systems, instantaneously.  Of course thats not a movie, but still.  To do such in a movie would be difficult.

A realistic space combat would be like Das Boot, along the lines of;

"I hope the enemy doesn't spot us first"

"Damn, they saw us first"

"Evasive maneuvers/Dive, etc"

BOOM!

"Wow, we survived"/or not.

They actually made this a part of the plot point in some sci-fi shorts (I've seen on TV, but I assume in book etc too). You never see the enemy, they never see you. It's a war of who can drop the most nukes on the other (aliens in this case). At least, sometimes they can intercept, but the speed of the craft is just too quick. The story ended when it turned out the enemy had generically engineered clones to subterfuge the crew and change the course of the craft... with no windows, and a hacked terminal, they dropped the bomb on earth, being none the wiser until the alien was court, but too late to prevent the drop...

Edited November 14, 2016 by Technical Ben

[peadar1987]

I love the Expanse (next book coming out in early December ) but the one thing I basically had to block out of my headcanon for the entire series was the concept of spinning up Ceres and Eros to create "upside down" artificial gravity inside them. Obviously for the TV series, having half the thing set in <0.1g would make things an expensive nightmare, but the books have no excuse!

[kunok]

Seriously guys have you ever traveled to gilly in the game? Is easier to land like you were docking in a space station that the regular burn retrograde thing. Ceres is also a very low g place.

 

@peadar1987 IIRC in the expanse verse there is lots of health problem with 0g, that's serious science. The part that isn't realistic at all, is spinning a rock to the level of having 0,3g centrifugal artificial gravity without breaking the rock.

[p1t1o]

3 hours ago, Technical Ben said:

They actually made this a part of the plot point in some sci-fi shorts (I've seen on TV, but I assume in book etc too). You never see the enemy, they never see you. It's a war of who can drop the most nukes on the other (aliens in this case). At least, sometimes they can intercept, but the speed of the craft is just too quick. The story ended when it turned out the enemy had generically engineered clones to subterfuge the crew and change the course of the craft... with no windows, and a hacked terminal, they dropped the bomb on earth, being none the wiser until the alien was court, but too late to prevent the drop...

Ah I think I remember that! Wasn't it an outer limits episode?

I feel like there are several other examples of "fighting a war against an enemy always unseen" floating around, but I cant quite put my finger on any of them. "1984" probably counts, but in a different way.

Starship troopers maybe? Didnt that start with rocks coming out of space, and sending rocks right back?

[DDE]

6 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Starship troopers maybe? Didnt that start with rocks coming out of space, and sending rocks right back?

Nope. Sure, the MIs covered square miles of terrain each and sent out nuclear bazooka rounds, but the longest combat scene in the book involves a melee.

[Tyko]

10 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

I love the Expanse (next book coming out in early December ) but the one thing I basically had to block out of my headcanon for the entire series was the concept of spinning up Ceres and Eros to create "upside down" artificial gravity inside them. Obviously for the TV series, having half the thing set in <0.1g would make things an expensive nightmare, but the books have no excuse!

I love the books and the few issues I saw I can overlook compared to how "right" most of the book series feels. The TV show...ouch...my favs problem is how they handle inertia in the show. In the books Inertia is almost it's own character. Concerns about inertia and g-forces are deeply ingrained in the story and the reader gets a real sense of the challenges of space travel. The TV show doesn't even try to get it right. They'd be better off pretending it doesn't exist than the few poorly executed attempts.

1. Real acceleration couches - all pointing in the same direction - would have been a good start.
2. When Julie escapes her closet and explores the ship random objects, including a body, just coast by her at a walking pace down the hallway? Floating, I understand, but if they're moving relative to the ship at a walking pace, they would have hit something already.
3. How rapidly things appear to accelerate - from the ships shown docking at Ceres in the introduction to the blocks of ice in the hold of Canterbury.

Again, I get that TV isn't going to get a lot of things right. It's just that Corey spent so much time on it in the book series I was hoping for at least an attempt by the TV writers.

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by tjt

[wumpus]

22 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

Airlocks controlled by digital input, rocket engines that make jet noises when "spooling up", unrealistic space dogfighting mechanics, unrealistic orbital mechanics, unrealistic chemistry.

"Airlocks controlled by digital input": just wait until somebody dies in a freezer with a digitally controlled lock.  Never underestimate human stupidity (I swear we beat kerbals somedays).  Bonus if the death is due to IoT insecurity and malware infection.

'rocket engines that make jet noises when "spooling up"': Except that the fuel pumps [turbopumps] (probably the most important bits of a rocket) work the same way.  So they probably do make that sound (except that if you can hear it before a launch, you are almost certainly facing immediate death by being too close to the hot end).  I'm guessing that this will have to be removed in the interest of maintaining "fact free" movie rockets.

[insert_name]

I hate it when they show a picture of a planet with multiple moons, all of which are actually different angles of earths moon or another solar system body

[kerbiloid]

Mouthguards in the first episode of Expanse look nice for true spacemen.
Can't remember this in later episodes. Probably, they've forgotten to put them in.

[p1t1o]

12 hours ago, DDE said:

Nope. Sure, the MIs covered square miles of terrain each and sent out nuclear bazooka rounds, but the longest combat scene in the book involves a melee.

Been a while since I read it.

What about Ender's Game?