Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, 5thHorseman said:

So star wars is more realistic than the expense?

In part of illumination? Why not?

[ARS]

If a micrometeoroids is essentially a high speed projectile in space that posed a hazard for any astronaut and space stations, and both EVA suit and space station construction is already designed to withstand micrometeoroid impacts, does it mean EVA suit is essentially bulletproof? If that so, shooting a handgun on astronaut shouldn't injure the person inside the suit right? Since quite a lot of movies has a scene where shooting an astronaut makes the suit depressurized or punctured

[Bill Phil]

20 minutes ago, ARS said:

If a micrometeoroids is essentially a high speed projectile in space that posed a hazard for any astronaut and space stations, and both EVA suit and space station construction is already designed to withstand micrometeoroid impacts, does it mean EVA suit is essentially bulletproof? If that so, shooting a handgun on astronaut shouldn't injure the person inside the suit right? Since quite a lot of movies has a scene where shooting an astronaut makes the suit depressurized or punctured

The micrometioroid impacts are more akin to sandblasting than large projectiles. The protection of a spacesuit is more oriented towards abrasion. Well, at least as far as I know.

Also, bullets have more inertia than your average micrometioroid, and are harder to stop. Even "bulletproof" vests aren't bulletproof, but bullet resistant. 

[StrandedonEarth]

29 minutes ago, ARS said:

essentially bulletproof?

There is no such thing as "bulletproof." The correct term, as pointed out by Bill Phil above, is "bullet resistant." For instance, the spec for vehicular armored glass is the ability to stop three closely-spaced bullets (don't know what the specific kinetic energy spec is) without failing. After that, hopefully you've driven out of range.

Body armor prevents penetration, but not injury. Quite often catching a bullet on the kevlar vest means a severe bruise or a broken rib The same would presumably apply to an EVA astronaut, depending on the impact energy. I would imagine the resistance all depends on the kinetic energy and the size of the projectile. The larger the area that the energy is spread out over, the more likely it is that the suit can prevent a puncture.

Also, spacesuits need to be flexible. I don't think that body armor is all that flexible, and usually has pockets for ceramic inserts over the vitals for extra protection. I suppose a spacesuit could stop a .22 short round, but that's just a guess.

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, KG3 said:

Scott Manly did a video a while ago about "flying" a fighter in space.  What I got out of the video is that wings in an atmosphere provide a whole lot of thrust when making a turn.  He points out that while the engine pushing the craft forward at a fraction of a G the wings can pull something like 9 Gs!  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYPxJtra1ws

Flying in an atmosphere without any gravity would be interesting.  I think you can try it in KSP if you turn off the gravity?

If you have atmosphere but no gravity you only need trust and fins, make me think of the smoke ring from Niven who was an setting like this. 

[Gargamel]

13 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Body armor prevents penetration, but not injury. Quite often catching a bullet on the kevlar vest means a severe bruise or a broken rib

I was a medic for a long time, and I've treated my fair share of bullet wounds.   I've also seen quite a few (cops and 'bad guys') that were wearing armor.  Some walked it off with no more than a bruise or soreness, one had several broken ribs that punctured a lung (I believe that was a shotgun slug at close range).  But they all lived.  

14 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

I suppose a spacesuit could stop a .22 short round, but that's just a guess.

I've seen heavy jackets stop .22's if the angle is right.  I'd go up against a .22 wearing a space suit, if I wasn't in a vacuum. 

13 hours ago, magnemoe said:

If you have atmosphere but no gravity you only need trust and fins, make me think of the smoke ring from Niven who was an setting like this. 

Anything with fins in this scenario would be at a disadvantage to anything without.   You need fins to help correct your angle of attack so you maintain lift over the wings.  In a zero G environment, you'd only want multiple sources of vectored thrust, on all sides.    You wouldn't want anything that would drag the nose of the vehicle around as you were side slipping, strafing your target. 

I'm guessing, ideally, a sphere with 4 highly gimballed propellers or jets would be the best vehicle. 

[DAL59]

On 4/22/2018 at 10:49 AM, 5thHorseman said:

So star wars is more realistic than the expense?

The ship with lights was a luxury ship, its supposed to look cool, not be practical.

This is the donnager.  

Note that unlike most sci-fi ships, it actually has decks like a skyscraper, not like a boat.

[DDE]

On 4/22/2018 at 5:49 PM, 5thHorseman said:

So star wars is more realistic than the expense?

You can’t have unrealistic spacesuits if you don’t have spacesuits.

On 4/22/2018 at 6:35 PM, ARS said:

If a micrometeoroids is essentially a high speed projectile in space that posed a hazard for any astronaut and space stations, and both EVA suit and space station construction is already designed to withstand micrometeoroid impacts, does it mean EVA suit is essentially bulletproof? If that so, shooting a handgun on astronaut shouldn't injure the person inside the suit right? Since quite a lot of movies has a scene where shooting an astronaut makes the suit depressurized or punctured

Let me put it this way: most bulletproof vests are easily stabbed through by knives.

Similarily, counter-hypervelocity Whipple shielding is worthless against low supersonic projectiles loke bullets. Basically, anti-meteoroid armour is built to handle an entirely different velocity range, where projectiles are reduced to plasma on *any* inpact and homogenous armour makes no sense - while the opposite is true for bullets.

[magnemoe]

15 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Anything with fins in this scenario would be at a disadvantage to anything without.   You need fins to help correct your angle of attack so you maintain lift over the wings.  In a zero G environment, you'd only want multiple sources of vectored thrust, on all sides.    You wouldn't want anything that would drag the nose of the vehicle around as you were side slipping, strafing your target. 

I'm guessing, ideally, a sphere with 4 highly gimballed propellers or jets would be the best vehicle. 

Except that radial mounted jet engines increases drag and complexity a lot, Promise here was atmospheric flight in an low g environment. 
Air to air missiles are mostly fin aided as they stay in the air. Exception is the long range ones who go ballistic.

 

[wumpus]

On 4/22/2018 at 12:15 PM, StrandedonEarth said:

There is no such thing as "bulletproof."

The word literally means "tested at close range with a gun, and typically still has the dent to prove it" [ok, so this is probably now definition #3 or #4, but it is where the word comes from].  Of course, that pretty much died out with the renaissance and more powerful muskets.  It is hardly "no such thing", more like "bulletproof armor won't help you at all against modern firearms".

This concludes today's etymology lesson.

[YNM]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

The word literally means "tested at close range with a gun, and typically still has the dent to prove it".

... aka "useless".

 

[Gargamel]

10 hours ago, DDE said:

Let me put it this way: most bulletproof vests are easily stabbed through by knives.

And most stab vest don't do diddly vs high speed projectiles.    So police officers choose to wear the appropriate armor for their environment.  US cops prefer to wear bulletproof vests, while UK cops (to my best knowledge) usually wear stab vests.  Same with corrections officers, most wear stab vests.

8 hours ago, wumpus said:

The word literally means "tested at close range with a gun, and typically still has the dent to prove it" [ok, so this is probably now definition #3 or #4, but it is where the word comes from].  Of course, that pretty much died out with the renaissance and more powerful muskets.  It is hardly "no such thing", more like "bulletproof armor won't help you at all against modern firearms".

A .50 would go right through that, it's designed to.  Not bullet proof.   Or maybe I missed the point of your post. 

9 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Except that radial mounted jet engines increases drag and complexity a lot, Promise here was atmospheric flight in an low g environment. 
Air to air missiles are mostly fin aided as they stay in the air. Exception is the long range ones who go ballistic.

But if you put highly gimballed prop motors on it, like in a quad copter config, not only can the props be angled to provide thrust in the direction desired for quick direction changes, but the torque of each can be adjusted for additional thrust, that's how quadcopters (et al) steer now anyways.   Remember we're talking zero G atmospheric dog fighting, not 'flight'.  You want nimble, not necessarily fast or stable.  You want to be able to tumble and twist and juke to the side as quick as you can. 

[p1t1o]

What the visual effects supervisor had to say on the dark elf spaceships from Thor:The Dark World, brace yourself:

According to Visual Effects Supervisor Jake Morrison, the Harrows, the spaceships used by the Dark Elves, are powered by black holes: "A black hole pulls in all directions. You stick a box around it, but if you poke a hole in one side of the box it would pull in that direction. So effectively, if you strap a craft around that, you have a propulsion drive, which is kind of an impulsion drive."

[ARS]

13 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

What the visual effects supervisor had to say on the dark elf spaceships from Thor:The Dark World, brace yourself:

According to Visual Effects Supervisor Jake Morrison, the Harrows, the spaceships used by the Dark Elves, are powered by black holes: "A black hole pulls in all directions. You stick a box around it, but if you poke a hole in one side of the box it would pull in that direction. So effectively, if you strap a craft around that, you have a propulsion drive, which is kind of an impulsion drive."

LMAO, you're making me laugh. That's a bona fide A-grade bad science 

[DAL59]

On 4/22/2018 at 12:15 PM, StrandedonEarth said:

There is no such thing as "bulletproof." The correct term, as pointed out by Bill Phil above, is "bullet resistant." For instance, the spec for vehicular armored glass is the ability to stop three closely-spaced bullets (don't know what the specific kinetic energy spec is) without failing. After that, hopefully you've driven out of range.

Body armor prevents penetration, but not injury. Quite often catching a bullet on the kevlar vest means a severe bruise or a broken rib The

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7rxBifd0cY

 

Electromagnetic Reactive Armor is possible, but you need electricity to turn the bullets into plasma.

[Just Jim]

2 hours ago, p1t1o said:

What the visual effects supervisor had to say on the dark elf spaceships from Thor:The Dark World, brace yourself:

According to Visual Effects Supervisor Jake Morrison, the Harrows, the spaceships used by the Dark Elves, are powered by black holes: "A black hole pulls in all directions. You stick a box around it, but if you poke a hole in one side of the box it would pull in that direction. So effectively, if you strap a craft around that, you have a propulsion drive, which is kind of an impulsion drive."

Wow... just... wow!!!  

Agreed... this is such bad science! I love it!  

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, p1t1o said:

What the visual effects supervisor had to say on the dark elf spaceships from Thor:The Dark World, brace yourself:

According to Visual Effects Supervisor Jake Morrison, the Harrows, the spaceships used by the Dark Elves, are powered by black holes: "A black hole pulls in all directions. You stick a box around it, but if you poke a hole in one side of the box it would pull in that direction. So effectively, if you strap a craft around that, you have a propulsion drive, which is kind of an impulsion drive."

While his explanation isn't correct, you can use a black hole for propulsion by reflecting the hawking radiation it gives off. 

[wumpus]

6 hours ago, Gargamel said:

A .50 would go right through that, it's designed to.  Not bullet proof.   Or maybe I missed the point of your post.

It was tested against the bullets of the day (and possibly a weak one at that, but at close range).  The point was that the meaning of the word changed and the original meaning was forgotten.  The "proof" in the word literally meant the proof of the dent that it could stop a bullet, not that it could stop all possible (and later) bullets.

[p1t1o]

Anybody watching The Expanse season 3?

Its not really "bad scifi" but there is a scene where a person is taken out of some kind of cryo-suspension pod.

Its got some bells and whistles on it like a window and some other junk, but when they close it, it's super, super obviously just one of those rooftop luggage containers for your car.

HA! Look at this, someone else spotted it and got a good screenie (I love the internet!):

 

Spoiler

In case the below reddit/imgur link doesnt display:

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by p1t1o

[DDE]

6 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Electromagnetic Reactive Armor is possible, but you need electricity to turn the bullets into plasma.

It’s a bit of a stretch. The best we have is two publications by The Telegraph, a decade apart, claiming it’s “in early development”.

[DAL59]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

The best we have is two publications by The Telegraph, a decade apart, claiming it’s “in early development”.

There are videos of it in use on tanks.

[DAL59]

Ultron should have shut down the power grid, disabled all of the suits, disable the jet, and do a lot more than just building a bunch of robots.  Also, if he is in the internet, how is killing the robot helping at all?  

What is the purpose of halving a guy with a wingsuit on your alien fighting team?  Why not just a predator drone?  Or one of the iron man suits?

Heck, why have anyone on the avengers, and just have 1000 iron man suits.  

Especially since he defeated the hulk, there is no point in anyone else.

[kerbiloid]

Not sure if The Walking Dead can be called sci-fi, (maybe in part of behavior studies and survival) but it season by season disproves Darwin's theories.

A group of hysterical morons under leadership of hallucinating psychopath Rick makes everything to extinct, tries all ways to die, brings devastation to every prosperous place they visit — and all but them get gone.

What do you say now, Darwin?

[Gargamel]

14 hours ago, p1t1o said:

rooftop luggage containers for your car

A lot of niche items are used for props all over the place.   Starship troopers uses Therm a rest sleeping pads to line the walls of the training grounds.   Lukes lightsaber in A New Hope was made from a camera flash bulb. Daleks have a friggin plunger on them.  I remember an episode of Star Trek TNG that used a black and dekc cordless drill as a phaser. 

 

19 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Electromagnetic Reactive Armor is possible, but you need electricity to turn the bullets into plasma.

And what about the guy wearing it? 

[lugge]

5 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Ultron should have shut down the power grid, disabled all of the suits, disable the jet, and do a lot more than just building a bunch of robots.  Also, if he is in the internet, how is killing the robot helping at all?  

What is the purpose of halving a guy with a wingsuit on your alien fighting team?  Why not just a predator drone?  Or one of the iron man suits?

Heck, why have anyone on the avengers, and just have 1000 iron man suits.   

Especially since he defeated the hulk, there is no point in anyone else.

Again, rule of cool (and rule of funny).

A movie about an unmaned suit army would be boring.

It's a comic movie, after all.

10 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

A lot of niche items are used for props all over the place.   ..

My favourite is still the NES gamepad controlling the Statue Of Liberty in Ghostbusters 2 :-)