What is your biggest science pet peeve in movies?

[monstah]

28 minutes ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

I have to say that this is really not science but its sort of related. I cant stand those scenes where there are sliding doors on a spacecraft (Star Wars) and they slid open, but there is no room for them to slide into. Also, similarly, Iron Man has missile launchers that pop up out of his arms. However, they have a large enough diameter that they would take up all of the space taken up by Tony Stark's arm.

There's a scene I like (a lot) on a movie I like (a lot) that fits this description, up to eleven: Ahnold removing the "Surprise, surprise!" mask, in Total Recall. That one totally passes Rule of Cool, tho  

[DDE]

On ‎23‎.‎11‎.‎2016 at 8:00 PM, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

I have to say that this is really not science but its sort of related. I cant stand those scenes where there are sliding doors on a spacecraft (Star Wars) and they slid open, but there is no room for them to slide into. Also, similarly, Iron Man has missile launchers that pop up out of his arms. However, they have a large enough diameter that they would take up all of the space taken up by Tony Stark's arm.

It's called Hammerspace.

Also known as TARDIS pockets.

[1101]

On 23/11/2016 at 5:00 PM, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

 Also, similarly, Iron Man has missile launchers that pop up out of his arms. However, they have a large enough diameter that they would take up all of the space taken up by Tony Stark's arm.

 

Not a directly science related point, but it bugs me.  In Iron Man 2 ( I think), Tony Stark asks Elon Musk (in a cameo) how his Merlin Engines (or some such) are getting along, while having a technology that renders every propulsion system known to man obsolete.  And generally, putting a Fantastical element as MCU into reality - awkward for continuity.  At least Doctor Who can just blame 'Wibbly wobbly, timey wimey'.

[DestinyPlayer]

I've always found the whole "space battles are like naval battles" thing annoying. Come on, Submarine movies ARE popular after all! Or at least were popular... Just make a submarine movie and move it to space. That would be much closer to reality.

Edited November 25, 2016 by DestinyPlayer

[p1t1o]

Ooh ooh! I've got one.

In the movie Elysium, someone (cant remember if it was the matt damon character or not) uses a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher, approximately the same size and shape of a contemporary stinger missile, to shoot down a shuttle in *orbit*.

That tiny little missile must have had some seriously sci-fi propulsion...Not to mention how did he aim the dang thing...technology such as this being in the hand of the poor and downtrodden, kinda throws the whole plot into question, if the rich live in space...but the poor demonstrably have weapons capable of reaching them...the rich would be safer on the ground (easier to build a large fortress-city than a vulnerable space station) and the poor could use some of their amazing technology to increase their quality of life.

I admit its been a long time since I saw it so might not be remembering it with complete accuracy, but there was *something* iffy about that rocket launcher...

[Tex_NL]

21 minutes ago, DestinyPlayer said:

I've always found the whole "space battles are like naval battles" thing annoying. Come on, Submarine movies ARE popular after all! Or at least were popular... Just make a submarine movie and move it to space. That would be much closer to reality.

You've got a great point there. Pretty much everything about submarine battles would apply to an orbital battle.
Radar/laser (sonar) pings to locate and target enemies.
Going to 'silent running' to limit emissions in order to avoid detection.
Mines (depth charges) to flush out a hiding ship.
Slow cumbersome ships trying to outmanoeuvre fast running torpedo's.
Combine all that with the claustrophobia of too many men packed together in too small a space in a very hostile environment.

---

 

9 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Ooh ooh! I've got one.

In the movie Elysium, someone (cant remember if it was the matt damon character or not) uses a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher, approximately the same size and shape of a contemporary stinger missile, to shoot down a shuttle in *orbit*.

That tiny little missile must have had some seriously sci-fi propulsion...Not to mention how did he aim the dang thing...technology such as this being in the hand of the poor and downtrodden, kinda throws the whole plot into question, if the rich live in space...but the poor demonstrably have weapons capable of reaching them...the rich would be safer on the ground (easier to build a large fortress-city than a vulnerable space station) and the poor could use some of their amazing technology to increase their quality of life.

I admit its been a long time since I saw it so might not be remembering it with complete accuracy, but there was *something* iffy about that rocket launcher...

The 'poor and downtrodden' didn't have access to that tech. Agent Kruger was working for and supplied by Delacourt. (He shoots the missiles at the very end of the clip.)
But you're right about the small missile. No missile that small, launched from the surface, should be able to reach a target that far out in space.

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by Tex_NL

[razark]

25 minutes ago, DestinyPlayer said:

Just make a submarine movie and move it to space.

Star Trek: TOS, Balance of Terror?

[p1t1o]

47 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

The 'poor and downtrodden' didn't have access to that tech. Agent Kruger was working for and supplied by Delacourt. (He shoots the missiles at the very end of the clip.)
But you're right about the small missile. No missile that small, launched from the surface, should be able to reach a target that far out in space.

Ah, you're right.

Think Imma re-watch that tonight, was a pretty good flick

33 minutes ago, razark said:

Star Trek: TOS, Balance of Terror?

I think Wrath of Khan had a pretty submariney bit too, and bonus - they make a bit of a deal about fighting in 3 dimensions (although it shouldnt have been a big deal at all, should have been obvious - in fact, it should be rare that 2 ships would meet oriented the same way up!)

Speaking of Wrath of Khan, amongst many others - nebula in space are not dense gas clouds, I doubt you would be able to *see* a nebula if you were actually in it.

Edited November 25, 2016 by p1t1o

[DDE]

@Tex_NL @p1t1o Here's something to get your blood boiling: each missile packs 518 km/s dV and a megaton-class non-nuclear warhead.

Source dead, quoted here: http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Elysium_(2013)#4Sure_Ballistics_Missile_Launcher

Hard sci-fi much?

[cantab]

8 hours ago, Tex_NL said:

You've got a great point there. Pretty much everything about submarine battles would apply to an orbital battle.
Radar/laser (sonar) pings to locate and target enemies.
Going to 'silent running' to limit emissions in order to avoid detection.
Mines (depth charges) to flush out a hiding ship.
Slow cumbersome ships trying to outmanoeuvre fast running torpedo's.
Combine all that with the claustrophobia of too many men packed together in too small a space in a very hostile environment.

CoaDE shut down some of this. Stealth is a huge aspect in submarine warfare but impractical in space warfare (absent handwavium shields). Active sensing isn't really required either. But some things do transfer, like the relevance of missiles and the ability for their target to try and evade, and the crew quarters are likely to be pretty similar too.

[Tex_NL]

12 minutes ago, cantab said:

CoaDE shut down some of this. Stealth is a huge aspect in submarine warfare but impractical in space warfare (absent handwavium shields). Active sensing isn't really required either. But some things do transfer, like the relevance of missiles and the ability for their target to try and evade, and the crew quarters are likely to be pretty similar too.

A (nearly) non-reflective object covered in radar absorbent material that does not emit a power signature or heat pattern will be VERY hard to detect. We already have those materials. No unobtainium required.
But sooner or later you will have to 'vent' waste heat or you will cook your crew alive. And even the smallest thrust from RCS will light you up like an X-mas tree.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Tex_NL

[kunok]

1 hour ago, cantab said:

CoaDE shut down some of this. Stealth is a huge aspect in submarine warfare but impractical in space warfare (absent handwavium shields). Active sensing isn't really required either. But some things do transfer, like the relevance of missiles and the ability for their target to try and evade, and the crew quarters are likely to be pretty similar too.

Is hard science that we currently can look every meter of the surface from the space, so obviously there is no stealth in earth, no?

That's a problem of resolution and field of view, you can't really look everywhere unless you have a very huge infrastructure, that would be pretty vulnerable.

There is no stealth in space but you can't look everywhere anyway

[tater]

2 hours ago, Tex_NL said:

A (nearly) non-reflective object covered in radar absorbent material that does not emit a power signature or heat pattern will be VERY hard to detect. We already have those materials. No unobtainium required.
But sooner or later you will have to 'vent' waste heat or you will cook your crew alive. And even the smallest thrust from RCS will light you up like an X-mas tree.

Stealth in space is not a thing. The IR alone from having a crew compartment where the people inside are, you know, alive, means that the spacecraft is pretty much a naked eye object in the IR.

Space battles are nothing like submarine battles except for:

1. people living in small tubes.

2. getting hit by a weapon tends to result in everyone being dead.

 

[Bill Phil]

10 minutes ago, tater said:

Stealth in space is not a thing. The IR alone from having a crew compartment where the people inside are, you know, alive, means that the spacecraft is pretty much a naked eye object in the IR.

Space battles are nothing like submarine battles except for:

1. people living in small tubes.

2. getting hit by a weapon tends to result in everyone being dead.

 

That's assuming there isn't some future space magic, though. Something could force line of sight contact... IE Minovsky Particles from MS Gundam.

And he did mention not emitting a heat pattern...

Although you are right. Space battles really won't be like submarine battles.

And there may not be any people in the ships.

[cantab]

Oh joy, I've set off the most eternal debate in sci-fi again. Oops.

Monitoring the whole solar system (except for small regions directly blocked by celestial bodies) 24/7 isn't all that hard, not in a future where humanity spans that system. About 400 space telescopes like Kepler would cover the whole sky, duplicate that setup in a few locations for triangulation.

Basically anything useful needs to emit heat. More critically if a spacecraft makes an engine burn it immediately gives away its position, and if the burn is long enough relative to the resolution of the sensors the spacecraft also gives away its mass and trajectory. Such a relationship, that doesn't apply to terrestrial vehicles, allows an observer to infer quite a bit about the spacecraft even if it's only a single pixel on the telescope. Maybe there are drives that can get round this, but they're likely to suffer from other issues.

There are things that can be done. A silo buried in a low-gravity world, its thermal emissions masked by those of that world's cities, makes a nice hiding place for defensive warships which can launch and surprise an attacking enemy. And ruses, false flags, Q-ships, and so on should all work, although needing to match the performance of a civilian ship limits what can be done.

[todofwar]

Back to the topic at hand, I have no idea if silicon Valley is accurate code wise, but I've always appreciated the fact that they emphasize how much work goes into making something, and how business interests play into it. And it's always a team effort, the main character is clearly a genius but he can't do it all and doesn't just code a whole product by himself in a montage. I swear you could make a similar show in a lab and have it work. And now I want a show starring Steve Carell as a professor with TJ Miller as a post doc, or maybe TJ as a new professor and Carell plays the older more established guy trying to help out. 

[Guest]

Ooh, another thing:

Something that I've noticed is that the more a movie/series/games is futuristic, the worse the microphone/camera technology is in its plot.

Take a gander at the (gasp!) COD Infinite Warfare trailer, for instance, in the beginning there's a lot of visual artifacts and signal losses in the "camera view". It also happens when there's something like a "robot view" in other movies/games. The microphone example that I remember right now is Doom 4 transmissions.

Honestly, it just Censorship™ me off, since how come in the thingy's plot there's autonomous robots, massive spaceflight, or extremely compact supercomputers, yet cameras and microphones are worse than 20th century tech?

Edited November 26, 2016 by Guest

[kerbiloid]

On 25.11.2016 at 3:22 PM, DestinyPlayer said:

Just make a submarine movie and move it to space.

Due to no sound in vacuum, such movie would lack an important component of submarine suspense... That charming "beep... beep... " through the hull.

On 25.11.2016 at 3:37 PM, Tex_NL said:

No missile that small, launched from the surface, should be able to reach a target that far out in space.

Comparing to the red taxi where the True Main Character Evil Programmer was going to visit the station, these missiles don't look such small. They are proportional.

On 25.11.2016 at 3:51 PM, razark said:

Star Trek

Especially when they are lifting from the ocean in the episode with red trees and barbarians in yellow clothes.

Also Pandorum is about space submarines too.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Comparing to the red taxi where the True Main Character Evil Programmer was going to visit the station, these missiles don't look such small. They are proportional.

 

True, however we are taken off since the taxi is obvious sci-fi with an very sci-fi engine while the missile looks like current handheld surface to air missiles. 
Except you would never use multiple tubes for handheld weapons, it might be designed to mostly be mounted on an truck or ship however. 

More of an issue with that scene is that the missile uses minutes to reach high orbit and is intercepting the taxi at visible range of the station, 
And yes the station forgot an roof. In short don't try to make sense of all the movies enjoy the explosions. 

[kerbiloid]

3 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Except you would never use multiple tubes for handheld weapons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202_FLASH

[SR]

At the end of the Martian it shows the Ares 5 crew launching to the Hermes, in a Delta 4 heavy.

[cubinator]

6 hours ago, SR said:

At the end of the Martian it shows the Ares 5 crew launching to the Hermes, in a Delta 4 heavy.

(correct me if I'm wrong) The Hermes would've been in LEO and fueled prior to crew launch, so all that's necessary is to get the crew to orbit and docked. A Delta 4 Heavy would be plenty for the job.

[todofwar]

1 hour ago, cubinator said:

(correct me if I'm wrong) The Hermes would've been in LEO and fueled prior to crew launch, so all that's necessary is to get the crew to orbit and docked. A Delta 4 Heavy would be plenty for the job.

But kind of overkill I think. Unless it's a crew and supply launch I guess, but can't Soyuz get 6 astronauts to LEO?

[cubinator]

20 minutes ago, todofwar said:

But kind of overkill I think. Unless it's a crew and supply launch I guess, but can't Soyuz get 6 astronauts to LEO?

There'd probably be some supplies on the ship, but maybe the Hermes is kept in a higher orbit because of its very low thrust and the Oberth effect making it hard to get into a circular low orbit. That combination would justify a larger rocket.

[cantab]

IIRC is that after its initial launch and departure, the Hermes stays on a cycler trajectory, which means it flies by Earth and Mars alternately never entering a closed orbit around either. That means that to catch it, the crew ship needs to escape Earth itself and in fact spend as much if not more delta-V as if it transferred to Mars directly. In fact the Delta IV Heavy is not enough to push the Orion capsule that far, but we could assume The Martian has a more efficient DIVH, a lightened capsule, or/and an extra upper stage.

In any case, I think it's a bit mean to bash the filmmakers for this. They could have just done what every other sci-fi movie would do and use CGI, and then throw realistic rockets out the window and do whatever they think looks cool. But instead they used actual, honest-to-goodness footage of a real rocket. And for their trouble they get the continuity nitpickers complaining.