Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame

[benzman]

29 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

I was just assuming it was one of the rare cloth skinned spitfires.  

Early Spitfires had cloth covered ailerons, elevators and rudder.  The fuselage and wings were always metal. 

[tater]

As in most ww2 movies with fighters in them, I constantly want the pilots to pull more lead, and/or to unload the stick before shooting. I suppose their poor shooting is actually more realistic, as even the best pilots only ever fired their guns in anger rarely (vs flying 10 gajillion hours in combat flight sims (with no consequences for mistakes ) to the point you can hit someone at several hundred yards with a snapshot pretty routinely) )

[Jacke]

13 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Spitfires do not glide like that.    Nothing glides like that.    Maybe gliders do.... but not spitfires. 

Funny you should say that.

I know the Spitfires prior to getting the wingtips squared in the later Marks had for its time ridiculously good transonic performance (when the airflow at some point on the fuselage gets to the speed of sound and shock waves and serious wave drag starts building) with a high transonic onset Mach Number.  It had to came from a lower drag profile in the design.  So I did a bit of digging.

2017 Aug 05 Sat   usual Reddit discussion on the long glide from "Dunkirk" including unsupported comments that it had a good glide ratio, 13 to 15

'Course, being a low-drag high-speed design, that best glide ratio is going to be at a high speed, likely so high the pilot would have to have a bit of confidence and good knowledge to trust that it was the best glide speed.

2017 Aug 03 Thu   New Statesmen article with a bit of critique of "Dunkirk" both as a story and its physics and hopefully better supported info

2017 Aug 22 Tue   AVweb article talking about how the "Dunkirk" flying scenes were made also touching on other air combat films including 1969's amazing "The Battle of Britain"

2016   "The Aerodynamics of the Spitfire"  a paper with real numbers and formulae talking about the design and drag of the Hurricane and the Spitfire

I think that paper had the numbers to calculate the glide ratio, but in my skim of it seemed to never touch on it.  And I couldn't recall the formula nor wanted to look it up right now.  I leave it as an exercise for the reader.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Jacke

[StrandedonEarth]

I know TV procedurals are not known for accuracy, and this is more about the procedure than the science, but this was so freakin glaring that even my wife knew it was just wrong...

The latest episode of Chicago Fire had a five-ton truck with a cargo of that was smoldering. They knew it would burst into flames when the door was opened. Hoses were charged and ready to spray foam when the door was opened (minor nitpicking: maybe start spraying before opening the door? idk). At any rate, the hose teams had their helmets on, but no face shield, probably not needed for them. But the guy that opened the door, with his hands (another point: maybe use a stick or similar to open, to be able to stand to the side? still not the main headshaker) had the rest of his turnout gear on, but no face shield, and not even the helmet. A beanie toque, sure, but maybe a soaking wet towel over his head would have been good, but no.

Summary: Let's stand in front of a roll-up door known to have a smoldering cargo behind it, with no facial protection at all, and open it. Like, c'mon, seriously?

yeah, I know, CF (and other TV procedurals) is chock full of things done just plain wrong if not stupidly, for the sake of the story and/or to add drama, but in this case it added nothing. They really need to lay off the stuff where even a layman has to facepalm. An old elevator rescue scene in that show also comes to mind.

Mind you, I suppose there is a science to using the proper procedure, often learned the hard way..

 

[wumpus]

On 3/6/2021 at 11:47 AM, Gargamel said:

Spitfires do not glide like that.    Nothing glides like that.    Maybe gliders do.... but not spitfires.  

A U2 managed to glide from Tennessee to Arizona (or vice versa.  Call it 2500km if you aren't  familiar with American geography).  Of course you could claim that a U2 was a glider with a jet engine.

Then there's the Pelan/Perlan 2.  How does it soar?  How about higher than said U2.

U2 (I think the story involves a SR-71) to flight control: "request clearance for FL600" (60,000 ft, call it 18km)
Air Traffic Control: "(joking) it is yours if you can get that high"
U2: "descending to FL600"

Probably mythical, as I don't think 60,000 ft is controlled airspace (modulo notice to airmen around rocket launch sites).

Edited April 4, 2021 by wumpus

[mrfox]

 

 

Not saying it proves anything for what happened in the movie, but I do wonder how the spitfire compares with the shrike in terms of L/D ratio? A quick google shows the spit’s L/D max out around 13 at best glide... nothing found for the shrike.

[SunlitZelkova]

For All Mankind season 2.

The Director of JSC and the Pentagon liaison to NASA are talking. The Soviets, in this alternate timeline, have built a cosmodrome on Sakhalin. Buran will launch from there for its first flight.

The Pentagon liaison then shows stolen drawings of Buran to the JSC director. He asks if it can be armed (KAL 007 just happened and tensions are high, while the Americans are planning to put "missiles" on their own Shuttle II known as Pathfinder. More about that later).

The JSC director then remarks how Buran is an "identical copy" of the space shuttle, down to the SRBs. Here is where alarm bells begin to ring. But Wikipedia states that despite their reservations, the Soviets briefly considered using SRBs. So maybe its ok.

The real offense is this- the drawings are of the real life Energia-Buran with the LRBs.

Now for part 2-

Pathfinder apparently uses a nuclear thermal rocket engine instead of SSMEs. On a Space Shuttle.

Edited April 5, 2021 by SunlitZelkova

[kerbiloid]

For All Mankind: When Marvel Starts Writing The History.

[DDE]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

For All Mankind: When Marvel Starts Writing The History.

Now-now, they haven't broken out "fusion" and "quantum".

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The JSC director then remarks how Buran is an "identical copy" of the space shuttle, down to the SRBs.

There's this one self-gratifying NBC article by an ex-CIA type that gets reposted all over the place. I imagine they used it as the sole source.

[Gargamel]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

Now-now, they haven't broken out "fusion" and "quantum".

They will next season.   But with all the sci-fi errors, I'm still kind of enjoying the show.   The storylines are fun, if not a bit campy, and the actors are all pretty good.  Just don't expect to learn anything accurate from there.  

[Gargamel]

19 hours ago, wumpus said:

A U2 managed to glide from Tennessee to Arizona (or vice versa.  Call it 2500km if you aren't  familiar with American geography).  Of course you could claim that a U2 was a glider with a jet engine.

Yeah, but that's a glider with engines .  

This fighter was at low altitude and speed to start with, glided the length of a beach, made a hard turn, lined up on and shot an enemy, then glided back up the beach the way he came, for quite some distance.   In at least one of the directions the wind would not have been helping him.  

I'm not saying that a Spitfire didn't run out of fuel, down an enemy to to protect the troops while gliding, and then glide to a landing on the beach, just that how they showed it doesn't work in reality.  

 

Not even the shuttle flying upside down has that good of a glide ratio. 

[kerbiloid]

It looks like fat cessna for me. Maybe 12.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FАэродинамическое_качество%23Аэродинамическое_качество_некоторых_летательных_аппаратов_и_птиц

Spoiler

Aerodynamic quality of some aircraft and birds

The country	First flight	LA	k	Flight mode	A type
	1966	"Union"	0.25-0.3	flight in the atmosphere	Descent vehicle
	1968	"Apollo"	0.368 [2]	flight in the atmosphere	Descent vehicle
	1981	Space shuttle	one	on hypersound	Reusable spacecraft
	1988	"Buran"	1.3 [3]	on hypersound	Reusable spacecraft
	1952	Mi-4	1.55 [4]	on autorotation , 50 km / h	Multipurpose helicopter
	1997	Wingsuit	2.5 [5]		Fabric wing suit
	2010	HTV-2 ru en	2.6 [6]	on hypersound	Experimental hypersonic glider
		Sparrow	four		Passerine bird
	1981	Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk	4 [7]	Max.	Tactical stealth strike aircraft
	1964	MiG-25RB	4.2 [8]	supersonic flight, M = 1.5	Generation 3 Scout Bomber
	1969	Aerospatial-BAC Concorde	4.35	on landing	Supersonic passenger aircraft
	1981	Space shuttle	4.5	landing	Reusable spacecraft
	1952	Mi-4	5.0 [4]	on autorotation, 120 km / h	Multipurpose helicopter
	1988	"Buran"	5.6 [3]	subsonic	Reusable spacecraft
	1915	Fokker E.III (Eng.) Russian.	6.4 [9]	Max.	Fighter-monoplane PMV
	1902	Wright glider (Eng.) Russian.	6.5	planning	Early LA
	1915	De Hevilland DH.2	7.0 [9]	Max.	Fighter-biplane PMV with a pushing propeller
	1917	Junkers DI (English) Russian.	7.0 [9]	Max.	First all-metal monoplane fighter
	1969	Aerospatial-BAC Concorde	7.14	M = 2	Supersonic passenger aircraft
	1917	SPAD S.XIII С.1	7.4 [9]	Max.	Fighter-biplane PMV
	1917	Albatross D.III	7.5 [9]	Max.	Fighter-biplane PMV
	1964	MiG-25RB	7.6 [8]	max., M <0.82	Generation 3 Scout Bomber
	1916	Sopwith F.1 Camel	7.7 [9]	Max.	Fighter-biplane PMV
	1917	Hoth GV (Eng.) Russian.	7.7 [9]	Max.	Heavy biplane PMV
	1929	Dornier Do X	7.7 [9]	Max.	1930s heavy flying boat
	1916	Nieuport 17	7.9 [9]	Max.	Fighter-biplane PMV
	1917	Fokker Dr. I	8.0 [9]	Max.	Fighter-triplane PMV
	1918	Fokker D.VII	8.1 [9]	Max.	Fighter-biplane PMV
	1918	Fokker D.VIII (Eng.) Russian.	8.1 [9]	Max.	Fighter-monoplane-parasol PMV
	1916	Airco DH.4	8.1 [9]	Max.	Light biplane PMV
	1917	Capronis Ca.42 (Eng.) Russian.	8.2 [9]	Max.	Heavy bomber-triplane PMV
	1912	Royal Aircraft Factory BE2c	8.2 [9]	Max.	Biplane PMV
	1932	Boeing P-26 Writer	8.3 [9]	Max.	1930s fighter
	1958	McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II	8.58 [9]	Max.	Third generation carrier-based fighter
	1917	Sopwith 5F.1 Dolphin	9.2 [9]	Max.	Fighter-biplane PMV
	1954	Lockheed F-104G Starfighter	9.2 [9]	Max.	Second generation jet fighter
	1970	Su-24	9.5 [10]	max, M <1	Front-line variable sweep bomber
	1915	Handley Page O / 400 (Eng.) Russian.	9.7 [9]	Max.	PMV biplane bomber
		Herring gull	ten		Gull seabird
	1947	An-2	10 [11]	Max.	General purpose biplane
	1959	Northrop F-5E Tiger II	10 [9]	Max.	Light jet fighter
	1968	Aero L-39 Albatross	10 [12]	planning	Jet combat trainer
	1972	McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle	10 [13]	M = 0.9	4th generation multirole fighter
	1917	Junkers JI (English) Russian.	10.3 [9]	Max.	All-metal attack aircraft PMV
	1955	Republic F-105D Thunderchief	10.4 [9]	Max.	Jet fighter bomber
	1977	MiG-29	10.4 [14]	max, M = 0.75	Front-line fighter of the 4th generation
	1956	Conveyor B-58A Hustler	11.3 [9]	Max. (without suspension)	Long-range supersonic bomber
	1955	Cessna-172	11.6 [9]	Max.	The most massive general purpose aircraft
	1977	Su-27	11.6 [13]	Max.	4th generation heavy fighter
	1935	Seversky P-35	11.8 [9]	Max.	1930s fighter
	1983	Boeing 767-233 ( Glider Gimli )	~ 12	planning	Wide-body passenger aircraft
	1940	Martin B-26F Marauder	12.0 [9]	Max.	Medium bomber WWII
	1925	Supermarine S.4 (eng.) Russian.	12.1 [9]	Max.	Racing plane
	1956	Conveyor F-106A Delta Dart	12.1 [9]	Max.	Tailless supersonic fighter
	1967	MiG-23ML	12.1 [15]	max, M <1	Generation 3 fighter
	1942	Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat	12.2 [9]	Max.	WWII carrier-based fighter
	1940	Curtis SB2C-1 Helldiver	12.4 [9]	Max.	Deck dive bomber WWII
	1935	Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress	12.7 [9]	Max.	Long-range bomber WWII
	1955	Vout F-8H Crusader	12.8 [9]	Max.	Deck supersonic fighter
	1939	Consolidated B-24J Liberator	12.9 [9]	Max.	Long-range bomber WWII
	1939	Lockheed P-38L Lightning	13.5 [9]	Max.	WWII heavy fighter
	1953	North American F-100D Super Saber	13.9 [9]	Max.	The first supersonic fighter
	1952	Tu-16	~ 14 [16]	Max.	Long range jet bomber
	1949	Be-6	14.4 [17]	Max.	Patrol seaplane
	1963	IL-62M	14.5 [18]	Max.	Narrow-body passenger aircraft
	1940	North American P-51D Mustang	14.6 [9]	Max.	The main US fighter in WWII
	1935	Douglas DC-3	14.7 [9]	Max.	Most massive passenger / transport aircraft
	1936	Pe-8	14.8 [17]	Max.	Long-range bomber WWII
	1967	Boeing 737	15	Max.	Narrow-body passenger aircraft
	1975	Yak-42	15 [19]	Max. (for small M )	Regional passenger aircraft
	1953	Martin B-57B Canberra	15 [9]	Max.	Medium jet bomber
	1947	North American F-86E Saber	15.1 [9]	Max.	First generation jet fighter
	1960	Grumman A-6E Intruder	15.2 [9]	Max.	Deck jet bomber
	1957	An-12	15.3 [20]	Max.	Heavy military transport aircraft
	1971	IL-76T	15.5 [21]	Max.	Military transport aircraft
	1966	Yak-40	15.5 [22]	Max.	Regional passenger aircraft
	1964	General Dynamics F-111D	15.8 [9]	Max.	Variable Wing Tactical Bomber
	1943	Lockheed L.1049G Super Constellation	16.0 [9]	Max.	Long-range passenger aircraft
	1947	North American B-45C Tornado	16.3 [9]	Max.	Medium jet bomber
	1957	IL-18	16.3 [23]	Max.	Long-range passenger aircraft
	1968	Tu-154M	16.5 [24]	Max.	Narrow-body passenger aircraft
	2003	Aeros Combat L	16.7	Max.	Mastless hang glider
	1942	Boeing B-29 Superfortress	16.8 [9]	Max.	Long-range bomber WWII
	1969	Boeing 747	17	Max.	Wide-body passenger aircraft
	1952	Avro Volcano	17 [16]	Max.	Strategic bomber
	1959	An-24	17.2 [25]	Max.	Narrow-body passenger aircraft
	-	T-4MS	17.5	calculated	Strategic bomber project
	1976	IL-86	17.5 [26]	Max.	Wide-body passenger aircraft
	1944	Lockheed F-80A Shooting Star	17.7 [9]	Max.	The first production jet fighter of the United States
	1989	Tu-204	18 [27]	Max.	Narrow-body passenger aircraft
	1982	An-124 Ruslan	18	Max.	Heavy long-range transport aircraft
	1956	3M	18.5 [16]	Max.	Strategic bomber
	1963	Tu-134A	~ 18.5 [28]	Max. (for small M )	Short-haul passenger aircraft
	1974	Rockwell B-1 Lancer	> 19 [16]	Max.	Strategic variable wing bomber
	1988	An-225	19	Max.	Super-heavy long-range transport aircraft
	1981	Tu-160	> 19 [16]	Max.	Strategic variable wing bomber
		Albatross	twenty		Seabird of the order of petrels
	1947	Boeing B-47E Stratojet	20 [9][ clarify ]	Max.	Strategic subsonic bomber
	1952	Boeing B-52G Stratofortress	21.5 [9][ clarify ]	Max. calculation.	Strategic subsonic bomber
	1984	Rutan Aircraft Voyager	27 [29]	Max.	Experimental aircraft for record flights
	1935	Göppingen Gö 3	28	at 72 km / h	Glider
	1967	Lockheed U-2	~ 28	cruising.	Strategic subsonic reconnaissance
	1956	LET L-13 Blahnik	28.5	at 85 km / h	The most massive glider
	1982	M-17	~ 30 [30]	planning	High-altitude aircraft
	1988	M-55	~ 30 [31]	planning	High-altitude aircraft
	2005	Virgin Atlantic Global Flyer	37 [29]	Max.	Experimental aircraft for record flights
	1993	Schleicher ASH 26	fifty	Max. (at 85 km / h)	Serial glider.
	2005	Schleicher ASG 29-18m	52	Max.	Serial glider.
	1986	Schleicher ASH 25	57	Max.	Double serial glider.
The country	First flight	LA	k	Flight mode	A type

 

[SunlitZelkova]

10 hours ago, DDE said:

Now-now, they haven't broken out "fusion" and "quantum".

There's this one self-gratifying NBC article by an ex-CIA type that gets reposted all over the place. I imagine they used it as the sole source.

I'm not sure they did much research at all on the Soviet side of things. When the astronauts for Apollo-Soyuz arrive in Star City (which is happening in 1983) they are greeted by five soldiers with AKs, and then immediately subject to a pat down. Even during the Reagan-Andropov era I doubt they would receive such a cold welcome.

Also their point of divergence is fairly implausible. Just 30 minutes of scrolling through pages on astronautix will show anyone that even if Korolev survived his surgery, and even if the N1 worked, the Soviets were not going to beat the US to the Moon.

Edited April 5, 2021 by SunlitZelkova

[kerbiloid]

They would not "arrive and be met", they would be "delivered" by dedicated officers, no soldier would get harmed.

[DDE]

10 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

they are greeted by five soldiers with AKs, and then immediately subject to a pat down.

That's just how things always are in Hollywood Soviet Russia. Different kind of bad, just as widespread.

Spoiler

 

[kerbiloid]

For all man kind, s02e09.

It's pretty fun to

Spoiler

shoot from space AK at the windows of the command center (btw, why do they need so many windows there?) 

but

Spoiler

1) It's much better to first take away the antenna (like the insidious American spy Steve /Brewst-ner/ _{idk how should this be written in English} does in the Interception movie, 1986, or like the insidious American spies do in U-571 to the destroyer)

2) It's not need to break the windows standing in front of it because the debris can hit you, and because they immediately understand what happened. Any hole would unpressurize the module, it's not armored anywhere.

3) Why climb into the window when you can just shoot off the door?

4) Why stand the four of them in front of the door inside the station instead of ducking an hiding?

5) Why keep the helmet and rifle lights on in the dark interior? Couldn't they just use the helmet face highlight like others do, if they want to be more visible in the darkness?

I can't believe that a Russky Superspacetrooper can do that. It's clearly a provocation.

 

1) Why do the heavy boxes fly around, but the crew still keeps breathing and crawling? Heroic faces can give two minutes of emergency bonus and a spiderman skill?

2) Why are all internal doors opened? Didn't they watch any movie about submarines?
The fact that they don't have a persicope doesn't mean they are not in a submarine.

3) Why are the station windows not equipped with caps? Even Cupola has seven of them.

4) Nobody tries to close the first broken windows with something enough big. They are jumping around. Any emergency training before the flight?

5) Why are the windows so thin?

So few seconds, so many questions.

 

[SunlitZelkova]

Also the AK and M16 are air cooled. According to a scene in an earlier episode, apart from being painted to "prevent them from melting in their hands" nothing has been done to modify the rifles (except the scopes). I don't think they would do too well in a vacuum.

[kerbiloid]

A water-cooled Lunar Maxim Gun.

They can use lunar ice for it.

"Cool even on the Moon."

Spoiler

(Who cares about its 30 kg weight? On the Moon it's just 5. You can hold it in hands on the gunner deputy back.)

Edited April 17, 2021 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

18 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Also the AK and M16 are air cooled. According to a scene in an earlier episode, apart from being painted to "prevent them from melting in their hands" nothing has been done to modify the rifles (except the scopes). I don't think they would do too well in a vacuum.

A right and proper moonblaster?

Spoiler

I know that's for forced air cooling. Humor me.

 

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

A right and proper moonblaster?

As they were hiding in a jumbo fuel tank, it was also about a wet workshop.

Spoiler

 

Btw, a shovel and a kettle are very necessary in the lunar spacesuit, to save the captured colleague from a dust trap.

P.S.
And that's the movie which they watch before every Soyuz launch, btw.
It's about the Moon, see the regolith and the 3d-printed structures on the background.

Edited April 17, 2021 by kerbiloid

[Gargamel]

It atmosphere NERVAs..... sigh....  

[tater]

25 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

It atmosphere NERVAs..... sigh....  

The only NERVAs actually operated were in the atmosphere

 

[Gargamel]

1 hour ago, tater said:

The only NERVAs actually operated were in the atmosphere

 

Yes.... but they weren't spaceflight capable.... just.... ehhhhh.... I watch it for the story more than the science...

[kerbiloid]

Where has that fancy Sea Dragon gone?

I can't recall it since the end of s1.

[tater]

17 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Yes.... but they weren't spaceflight capable.... just.... ehhhhh.... I watch it for the story more than the science...

I saw the actual Space Shuttle in the season 2 trailer and decided from that alone not to watch season 2 at all, lol.