Movie Space ships compared to the real deal

[Sleipnir]

The Hollywood misconception that really annoys me is that most spacecraft are laid out like a passenger aircraft, that is, with the direction of "down" at ninety degrees to the direction of thrust. In reality, the crew quarters of a spacecraft will be arranged more like a skyscraper than like an aircraft. You will feel like the direction of "down" is in the same direction the exhaust is going.

I disagree with your statement. Look at the spaceshuttle for example, certainly not laid out like a "skyscraper", it may seem that way on launch but the interiors are all laid out like an airplane. This is needed since it comes back like one. Spacecraft can be laid out however they are needed, since when the engines are thrusting everyone should be strapped into seats anyway. In fact this "airplane" layout would make the most sense for a spacecraft that will land on a planet, since its much easier to attach wings and or VTOL engines than if it was designed with the "skyscraper" layout

[Spanier]

The sole and only somehow "realistic" Sci-Fi movie I know is "2001: A Space Odyssee"

Having a giant, ion-powered monstership with artificial gravity and hibernation chambers sounds realistic to me.

[Nexustrimean]

If i remember correctly the Starfury's from babylon 5 were fairly accurate physics wise. Using 16 engines to control flight in all dimensions in space, and having to burn retro to arrest relative motion. but in general movies are for fun, and physics should be ignored till after the show, when you can ask, "Could they really do that?"

[nyrath]

The sole and only somehow "realistic" Sci-Fi movie I know is "2001: A Space Odyssee"

Having a giant, ion-powered monstership with artificial gravity and hibernation chambers sounds realistic to me.

That was good. But the ship from Avatar was pretty good as well. It even had heat radiators.

[nyrath]

If i remember correctly the Starfury's from babylon 5 were fairly accurate physics wise. Using 16 engines to control flight in all dimensions in space, and having to burn retro to arrest relative motion.

Yes, plus the engines were at the end of long wings. This increased the lever arm that the thrust acts over.

They also are the only ships I recall that demonstrated that the rocket does not necessarily have to travel in the direction the nose is pointing. In an early episode, raiders are chasing Garabaldi, and he flips his starfury over and fires right into the raider's face, all the while with the ship's vector unchanged.

[hoojiwana]

That was good. But the ship from Avatar was pretty good as well. It even had heat radiators.

What about the one from Destination Moon? I've not yet watched it myself, but the film has your Seal of Approval for an accurate portrayal of an atomic rocket.

[nyrath]

What about the one from Destination Moon? I've not yet watched it myself, but the film has your Seal of Approval for an accurate portrayal of an atomic rocket.

Oh, yes, how could I forget the Luna ? Good catch.

[Specialist290]

Destination Moon's a good one (although one I have yet to actually see). Helps that Robert A. Heinlein was a technical advisor; he never would have let the producers get away with cutting corners if he could help it.

There's also Fritz Lang's Frau im Mond, which had Hermann Oberth's guidance and had one of the first multi-stage rockets in film. It's also the one that supposedly inspired von Braun to put those black and white checkers or stripes on every rocket he ever launched, including the Saturn V.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Specialist290

[lobsterbark]

There actually was a game with realistic flight physics and craft with engines that could pull 2G's or more, and so efficient you didn't need to worry much about fuel.

That game was Frontier Elite 2, and after that Frontier First Encounters, both by Gametek's David Braben who is remaking Elite with Elite Dangerous.

You had fighters spinning about in space, they'd travel from planet to planet with their engines on the whole time, accelerating till about half way there before activating the retro's to slow down for the second half of the flight.

Combat was bad though, it really showed how badly space combat might be, craft couldn't actually stop on a dime like they do in the movies and instead they would fly around each other.

Relative to the other craft your ship was pretty manoeuvrable, but relative to a planet you would both be in your orbits still, slowing down a bit, speeding up a bit, changing your angle slightly.

The game handled craft pretty much like KSP does even though you couldn't see your own orbit, but when you were in a fight, it was like the movies in a way, but more like two rocket powered hovercraft on ice!

You should try Pioneer. Basically a fan-made, opensource unofficial sequel to the Frontier games. Its actually pretty cool.

[karolus10]

Movies like star-wars and such aren't really Sci-fi title, it's pure fantasy (soft Sci-Fi/space opera) but with light sabers and spaceships instead knights and elves.

In majority (or at least large part) of science fiction movies and games I've seen doesn't really apply to laws of physics, especially in space "battles" and how spacecrafts are moving (for example look on ships in beloved EVE online or any space shooter).

Other issue is that movies are just for entertainment and in most of them don't ever care about plausibility, so taking them as example is a bad idea.

Preferably I like fiction that stick to some basics and laws when comes to space.

KSP is one of very few games about space witch show (more/less ) how space travel actually works without imaginary technology with fancy name written on it.

About "Lucas Vacuum" in KSP, sounds can fade in external view with atmosphere getting thinner, but it can be gradually replaced with soundtrack (ever now music is starting after we clear atmosphere).

Also inside spacecraft (IVA) is still noisy, no matter we are in space or not, because all vibrations and noises are spreading trough ship hull.

Edited May 2, 2013 by karolus10

[drakesdoom]

If you want to read some good hard sci-fi with space battles try "The Reality Dysfunction" by Peter F. Hamilton

[Sir Nahme]

I was watching Wall-E earlier and all I can say is... most inefficient oversized skycrane EVER but EVA makes a hell of a rover lol

[Kerbface]

I was watching Wall-E earlier and all I can say is... most inefficient oversized skycrane EVER but EVA makes a hell of a rover lol

Yeah, also, the rings of planets are made of small pieces of glowing dust that swirl about when touched and a ship's gravity tilts as the ship does (as if it were in the ocean). Wall-E is certainly not hard scifi but a great movie.

And Wall-E's design is fantastic and mostly could probably be built, fully functionally, with today's tech. It's actually quite an excellent example, I think, or more realistic scifi in this instance. I mean unlike most of the other robots, you can basically see every mechanic he uses, from how he folds his arms in to create a square, how they extend, how he gets power, how he lifts himself up with his wheels, how he compacts trash, how he compacts himself into a cube, etc.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Kerbface

[firegeek83]

Yes, plus the engines were at the end of long wings. This increased the lever arm that the thrust acts over.

They also are the only ships I recall that demonstrated that the rocket does not necessarily have to travel in the direction the nose is pointing. In an early episode, raiders are chasing Garabaldi, and he flips his starfury over and fires right into the raider's face, all the while with the ship's vector unchanged.

They're actually pretty tough to control...trust me

[HGGundamReviews]

One thing to note in most of these cases of Sci Fi vs reality in terms of ship design. In most cases, Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica and others, they have "Grav Plating" in their decks. Which generate an artificial gravitational field inside the ship, and Inertial dampeners which "Cancel out the force of inertia within the space of the ships interior" Again all made up technologies but in the sphere of the reality where these fictional event occur they allow for the Cruise Ship design factor be be viable.

Examples like Babylon 5 where their warships and space stations had large rotating parts for artificial gravity were closer to reality. Though in the case of B5 there were more advanced races like the Mimbari who had "Grav Plating Tech" which we saw on their ships as well as in the later WhiteStar Fleet.

So given the existence of the Grav plating, Inertial dampeners and such fictional tech. Those ship layouts aren't unrealistic, they are what I would expect to see in that technological sphere of thinking.

[SecondGuessing]

I gather you were not a big fan of Saving Private Ryan? That one was so close to reality that it induced flash-backs in veterans.

Fine, let me restate my point: I can't imagine how tedious a non-historically-based film or novel would be if it actually adhered perfectly to reality.

The point is that if you're reading a novel or watching a film and thinking 'I somewhat doubt that Captain Hunt would have been able to change orbital direction quite that easily after discovering that Lord Nassdn had set the space-city Orphantopia to self-destruct' then it's rather likely that you have missed the point of fiction entirely.

[Sleipnir]

One thing to note in most of these cases of Sci Fi vs reality in terms of ship design. In most cases, Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica and others, they have "Grav Plating" in their decks. Which generate an artificial gravitational field inside the ship, and Inertial dampeners which "Cancel out the force of inertia within the space of the ships interior" Again all made up technologies but in the sphere of the reality where these fictional event occur they allow for the Cruise Ship design factor be be viable.

Examples like Babylon 5 where their warships and space stations had large rotating parts for artificial gravity were closer to reality. Though in the case of B5 there were more advanced races like the Mimbari who had "Grav Plating Tech" which we saw on their ships as well as in the later WhiteStar Fleet.

So given the existence of the Grav plating, Inertial dampeners and such fictional tech. Those ship layouts aren't unrealistic, they are what I would expect to see in that technological sphere of thinking.

Even if you look at some designs today such as the space shuttle it is not designed like a "skyscraper", but rather an aeroplane or a "starship" from the movies since it is needed once the Shuttle glides back to earth. So seems like that the movie ship designers got it right as long as they implement that "magic" technology

[Sir Nahme]

Actually Andromeda is one of the better explained. Of course it only applies IF you accept the principle of the GFG XD the ship's acceleration/deceleration capabilities were actually underpowered for their principle

[RRoan]

Fine, let me restate my point: I can't imagine how tedious a non-historically-based film or novel would be if it actually adhered perfectly to reality.

Why on earth do you think an uncompromisingly realistic story would be tedious? Tedious to write, maybe (although you are unlikely to write such a story unless you find the process interesting!), but there's no reason why such a story should be tedious to the reader.

[BossSquirrelz]

I like the X-71 space shuttle from Armageddon. Just sayin'.

~Explosivefox109

[magnemoe]

Even if you look at some designs today such as the space shuttle it is not designed like a "skyscraper", but rather an aeroplane or a "starship" from the movies since it is needed once the Shuttle glides back to earth. So seems like that the movie ship designers got it right as long as they implement that "magic" technology

The space shuttle is only in back is down setting during launch, circulating orbit and deorbit burn. rest of the time it's in microgravity. During landing its an plane.

as you can not move around during launch but might need to get out fast after an landing the plane configuration makes sense.

For an spaceship under trust for days to weeks you would want the skyscraper design even then having anti gravity as any unstable in the trust or gravity would throw you sideway not make you lighter or heavier. In star trek where technology regularly fails this would be dangerous.

[Technical Ben]

Even 2001: A Space Odyssey made some mistakes. The Discovery had no radiators (which apparently was actually an intentional choice to go against logic so audiences wouldn't think they were "wings") and by most estimates, the centrifuge on the Discovery would have been a pretty terrible habitat. It had a 5m radius and went at 5rpm, look what that gets you on spincalc. www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/ There would be a huge pressure distance from your head to your feet, the coriolis effect would have been terrible, you only get moon level gravity and if you walk the wrong direction you would get almost nothing because you'd be eliminating too much rotation.

Still really cool though.

Yeah, the rotation thing is true, and annoying. I've got a ship design I did with rotating capsules, and I think their radius is something like 5m max. Ooops.

PS, the best "space story" I've seen on TV is probably Appolo 13. Then count back everything from most realistic to least and you can give it my score. I hate obvious and trollish errors on TV. :/

[P.Funk]

Well, seeing tiny poins of light exchanging invisible laser beam shots over distances of several thousand kilometers wouldn't be terribly exciting...

I disagree. Everybody loves Game of Thrones and they mostly do the whole "And now we ride into battle!" *Fade to black and back in* "So that was a helluva battle eh Robb?" thing. Its a show which whets appetites based on character development and the subtle political machinations of fascinating personas.

Imagine how exciting it would be to experience a battle in space where you see the commanders trying to figure out whats happening without being able to see it. Frankly, most war involves commanders not seeing the battle these days. The ironic thing is that most war movies and space movies try and make you able to fully understand the big picture at all times, when in actual fact no single person ever knows what happens.

Frankly I think the reason I like actual personal war memoires more than big action war movies is because they're genuine in their details. Small details, little understanding of the big picture. To me thats compelling. Imagine trying to understand a space battle from a single ship's perspective. Imagine a battle involving ships fighting at distances greater than the width of a solar system, every shot fired delayed against the time it took to travel and then making multiple shots to try and box in an opponents options for maneuvering out of the fire. Imagine a battle taking weeks to fight.

I would be a fascinating and utterly alien experience for a movie goer wouldn't it.

[The Error]

I think Firefly does it fairly well. As far as I can tell, they do the accelerate-halfway-there-turn-around-slow-down thing. they do have handwavium-powered grav-plating, but hey, you need to leave some leeway. It's science FICTION.

(Note the above term is the commonly used phrase describing anything set in the far-future with fancy technology and implausible Whiz-Bang devices. Don't get all pedantic on me and start complaining. If you want actual physics in a TV show, go play more KSP, you'll be happier.)

EDIT: I could also say the realistic space combat is attaching engines to asteroids and crashing them into your enemy's planets. I don't care if you're got missiles, try to stop a 1,000-ton rock falling from the sky. I dare you.

Space fighters don't have any purpose. You just need a tug with a bunch of fuel and engines. Because it's unmanned, produce hundreds and start dropping rocks.

Edited May 2, 2013 by The Error

[SecondGuessing]

Why on earth do you think an uncompromisingly realistic story would be tedious? Tedious to write, maybe (although you are unlikely to write such a story unless you find the process interesting!), but there's no reason why such a story should be tedious to the reader.

Because one of the key functions of literature is escapism.

And as I writer I have to say it's actually quite interesting to do hyperreal pieces. The issue with them, though, is that narratively they are tedious. Thus, you have to make sure use language exquisitely to keep the audience intrigued. Tedium comes with the domain, but in the majority of strictly real texts that's the point: you want the story to give a sense of tedium because reality is tedious.