Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame

[Dman979]

Congratulations on being September's Thread of the Month!

[Gargamel]

1 hour ago, Dman979 said:

Congratulations on being September's Thread of the Month!

Which is quite odd, as I was just coming here to stop this audiophile nonsense and try to get us back on topic!  LOL

 

[KG3]

8 hours ago, Gargamel said:

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.    While this may be true, only rigorous scientific studies can prove it.   Observer's Bias is strong in this area, especially when the outcome is very subjective. 

Ok, right, I should have looked this up before I said anything, but anyway, this is what I was talking about.  I was a bit wrong as to the why.  They reduced the amplitude of the low frequencies to save physical space on the vinyl records.  When they first digitized the music for CDs from these original masters it just didn't sound right.  Science.     

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_(audio)#Uses

"...in the production of vinyl records, a filter is used to reduce the amplitude of low frequencies which otherwise produce large amplitudes on the tracks of a record. Then the groove can take up less physical space, fitting more music on the record. The preamp attached to the phono cartridge has a complementary filter boosting those low frequencies following the standard RIAA equalization curve."

 

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

I imagine some of these might have been mentioned before, but I think my favorite bad-science-in-science-fiction moments were.

1. In the movie version of The Martian when Whatney fixes the missing airlock hole with what I recall was literally a tarp and some tape. Did anyone seriously think that was going to stay on there when the hab got refilled with any significant atmosphere?  I know the whole premise for both book and movie with the dust storm causing havoc and thus a mission abort was a bit sketchy, but it's way better than the Hollywood idea of fixing a gaping hole in a pressure vessel with a tarp and tape.

2. In Interstellar when the Ranger shuttle clips a cirrus cloud, it chips off a piece as if it was actually a monolithic floating piece of ice. Was that supposed to be a joke? I don't have to be a meteorologist to know that's not how clouds work!

3: In Gravity, how Sandra Bullock and Co. went from the HST to the ISS on a jetpack... It was like something straight out of KSP

Anyways, those are my favorite Bad Sci Fi moments

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

the Hollywood idea of fixing a gaping hole in a pressure vessel with a tarp and tape.

+1
IRL they use tape and epoxy.

2 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

In Interstellar when the Ranger shuttle clips a cirrus cloud, it chips off a piece as if it was actually a monolithic floating piece of ice. Was that supposed to be a joke? I don't have to be a meteorologist to know that's not how clouds work!

In early XX one of hypothesis explaining what is Great Red Spot on Jupiter was an ice continent floating in ascending gas flows.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

20 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

+1
IRL they use tape and epoxy.

In early XX one of hypothesis explaining what is Great Red Spot on Jupiter was an ice continent floating in ascending gas flows.

That likely works because the total force on a 2mm hole is a few grams, while the force on an airlock sized hole would easily be several tons.*

I know in the book he did fix it with epoxy and such, but it was a much more involved process and resulted in something far more substantial than taping a tarp over the hole.

I do seem to recall reading about that Red Spot hypothesis somewhere. Seemed bizarre. One would need the airflow to be very cold, powerful, and gentle all at the same time to make it work.

*Yah I know grams and tons are units of mass. Multiply them by 9.8 if you want the actual forces lol

Edited September 2, 2018 by EpicSpaceTroll139

[Gargamel]

3 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

1. In the movie version of The Martian when Whatney fixes the missing airlock hole with what I recall was literally a tarp and some tape. Did anyone seriously think that was going to stay on there when the hab got refilled with any significant atmosphere?  I know the whole premise for both book and movie with the dust storm causing havoc and thus a mission abort was a bit sketchy, but it's way better than the Hollywood idea of fixing a gaping hole in a pressure vessel with a tarp and tape.

The book contains a lot more technical details (on everything) about how this process works, but like most of that story, they had to make it presentable on screen.  IIRC, the movie does not deviate that much from the book in this aspect, just skips over a lot of the details that make it work. 

3 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

3: In Gravity, how Sandra Bullock and Co. went from the HST to the ISS on a jetpack... It was like something straight out of KSP 

To be honest, I'm not even sure that's doable in KSP, given the plane changes and all. 

3 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

2. In Interstellar when the Ranger shuttle clips a cirrus cloud, it chips off a piece as if it was actually a monolithic floating piece of ice. Was that supposed to be a joke? I don't have to be a meteorologist to know that's not how clouds work!

Well.... if it's got a lot of trapped helium.....

[TeslaPenguin1]

Well, in Grav-- Oh wait, someone just said that...  

Well, the chinese space station, the ISS, and hubble are all in different orbits, like @EpicSpaceTroll139 said...

But also, kessler syndrome wouldn't be that fast. I mean, they would at least have 5 min until the debris reached them. Also, how was the ISS still (mostly) intact when they reached it, when the space shuttle was nearly destroyed?

[peadar1987]

On 9/2/2018 at 6:59 AM, Gargamel said:

The book contains a lot more technical details (on everything) about how this process works, but like most of that story, they had to make it presentable on screen.  IIRC, the movie does not deviate that much from the book in this aspect, just skips over a lot of the details that make it work. 

Yeah, I guess the way I'd do it would be:

-High strength tarp.

-Epoxy to hab canvas to form a seal.

-Sew through the overlapped area to take the load.

-Epoxy a set of skinny patches over the sewed areas to seal off the needle holes.

With the right materials, adhesive and contact area, the epoxy could maybe do the job all on its own (it's pretty powerful stuff, coming from someone who has accidentally epoxied his shoe to the floor :S )

[Gargamel]

10 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

-Epoxy a set of skinny patches over the sewed areas to seal off the needle holes.

That's called seam taping, and is common in higher end tents and outdoor gear. 

[peadar1987]

12 hours ago, Gargamel said:

That's called seam taping, and is common in higher end tents and outdoor gear. 

I've seen it on my drysuit before, I didn't know it had a name, thanks!

[Ruedii]

The most annoying repetitive issue for me is the complete ignorance of orbital mechanics in space flight.

[Gargamel]

2 hours ago, Ruedii said:

The most annoying repetitive issue for me is the complete ignorance of orbital mechanics in space flight.

True, true, but waiting for Hohmann windows just doesn't make for good a dramatic moment....

[kerbiloid]

Marooned (1969)

I am not- sure if Vostok/Voskhod could approach to Apollo without a cruise engine.

Or its ballistics crew was so tough that could use R-7 like an anti-sat.

[Ruedii]

5 hours ago, Gargamel said:

True, true, but waiting for Hohmann windows just doesn't make for good a dramatic moment.... 

I'm more talking about things like burning towards a planet to reenter the atmosphere.

[kerbiloid]

Waiting for a launch window could be a plot idea itself.

Season 1, Waiting for Hohmann.
Season 2, Hohmann arrived.
Season 3, We're almost there.
Season 4, Deceleration.

Edited September 5, 2018 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

7 hours ago, Ruedii said:

I'm more talking about things like burning towards a planet to reenter the atmosphere.

yes, with an good engine like fusion you would brake before the planet. In this cases you are moving far faster than solar escape speed and far to fast to try to aerobrake. 
Even if you had magic shields the deceleration would kill you. 
Yes it might require two lines of explanation but unlike lots of orbital mechanics its pretty easy to understand, you have to slow down an plane to land after all. 
 

 

[K^2]

On 9/5/2018 at 2:13 AM, kerbiloid said:

Season 1, Waiting for Hohmann.
Season 2, Hohmann arrived.
Season 3, We're almost there.
Season 4, Deceleration.

The response to the first season was great. We're ret-conning it to a bi-elliptic transfer.

[DAL59]

On 9/4/2018 at 11:14 PM, Gargamel said:

True, true, but waiting for Hohmann windows just doesn't make for good a dramatic moment....

You don't need Hohmann windows if you have nuclear gas cores, so it wouldn't necessarily ruin plots to have some orbital mechanics.

Also, this new series has a unique non FTL method of interstellar travel, where gates accelerate crafts to near-relativistic speeds(not a problem, because the stars are in a cluster, so they are fairly close together).  However, what makes no sense is how the craft slow down before the destination gate is in place.  

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

2 hours ago, DAL59 said:

You don't need Hohmann windows if you have nuclear gas cores, so it wouldn't necessarily ruin plots to have some orbital mechanics.

"A reaction drive's efficiency as a weapon is in direct proportion to its efficiency as a drive." -Larry Niven

And as a corollary, a reaction drive's efficiency as a drive is in direct proportion to its "interestingness."

Nuclear gas cores aren't quite interesting enough, but the quicker you can get from planet to planet in sci-fi universes, the more unlikely it would be that the drive system would not be very tightly controlled piece of technology.

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

"A reaction drive's efficiency as a weapon is in direct proportion to its efficiency as a drive." -Larry Niven

And as a corollary, a reaction drive's efficiency as a drive is in direct proportion to its "interestingness."

Nuclear gas cores aren't quite interesting enough, but the quicker you can get from planet to planet in sci-fi universes, the more unlikely it would be that the drive system would not be very tightly controlled piece of technology.

An rocket engine is not an very effective weapon. Niven was wrong here. 
The problem is that the flame from the engie disperse pretty quickly so any artillery will out range it.
Space combat will be long range fighting even more so than naval warfare has become.
Now the engine will be an very good close in weapon system, hitting missiles or shells with the flame will take them out fast and having high spread is nice in this setting, simply burning away from them will generate an kill zone far wider than the ship. 

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

Rolling enough big rocket engine down from a hill, you can break through a fortress gate.

You can throw small RCS engines with a catapult like shells.
Also you can do this with small hypergolic fuel tanks, they are flammable and toxic.

You can hide inside a large rocket engine nozzle, and it will protect you from stones and arrows. ( See: Pavise)
30 of them (see Falcon Heavy) can protect a whole assault team.

 

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

An rocket engine is not an very effective weapon. Niven was wrong here. 
The problem is that the flame from the engie disperse pretty quickly so any artillery will out range it.
Space combat will be long range fighting even more so than naval warfare has become.
Now the engine will be an very good close in weapon system, hitting missiles or shells with the flame will take them out fast and having high spread is nice in this setting, simply burning away from them will generate an kill zone far wider than the ship. 

A chemical engine? Yeah. 

A gamma ray laser photon rocket? Not so much.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

A chemical engine? Yeah. 

A gamma ray laser photon rocket? Not so much.

Its that an realistic design? Yes Niven used an photon laser engine on the starship but the ships in the man- kziin war used fusion engines.
Something like that would generate very hot plasma but again it would disperse before weapon range. 

[DAL59]

12 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

"A reaction drive's efficiency as a weapon is in direct proportion to its efficiency as a drive." -Larry Niven

And as a corollary, a reaction drive's efficiency as a drive is in direct proportion to its "interestingness."

Nuclear gas cores aren't quite interesting enough, but the quicker you can get from planet to planet in sci-fi universes, the more unlikely it would be that the drive system would not be very tightly controlled piece of technology.

 

8 hours ago, magnemoe said:

An rocket engine is not an very effective weapon. Niven was wrong here. 
The problem is that the flame from the engie disperse pretty quickly so any artillery will out range it.
Space combat will be long range fighting even more so than naval warfare has become.
Now the engine will be an very good close in weapon system, hitting missiles or shells with the flame will take them out fast and having high spread is nice in this setting, simply burning away from them will generate an kill zone far wider than the ship. 

You could use your rocket engine as a morse code signaler if all your radios broke.