Movie Space ships compared to the real deal

[Blackstar]

Everything having magical gravity plating is more of a practical concession though. As much as some movies/shows would like to be accurate, it's not really feasible within budgets for every single scene to be an effects shot in order to simulate zero/micro gravity. Plus if they did it cheaply with wires, then people would just complain that the actors' hair was clearly still being affected by gravity.

[nyrath]

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.

Another goodie was Independence War from Particle Systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-War_(1997_video_game)

Full Newtonian physics. None of this silly spaceships-acting-like-fighter-planes nonsense. You learned Newton's Third Law the hard way. The ship would respond to your controls much like an over loaded 18-wheeler at high speed on a road covered with black ice.

Karolus10: Multiple posting, rest of post has been removed and merged bellow - please using "Edit Post option", thank You.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

POST_2:

Don't forget that the trench run was ripped straight from The Dam Busters, including the dialogue.

Absolutely!

But my point is that we have George Lucas to thank for the misconception that combat spacecraft will act like atmospheric fighter planes. Since Mr. Lucas thought it would be cinematically dramatic to use WWI and WWII fighter plane footage as a model for the actions of the X-wings and TIE fighters, this was seared into the minds of SF fans. And latter productions like Battlestar Galactica and Buck Rogers followed suit.

This is similar to the other Hollywood misconception that handguns have magazines containing an infinite number of bullets.

POST_3:

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.

Heinlein rulz, man. My website is full of his quotes.

Frau im Mond is also a classic, for reasons you mentioned. And if I remember correctly, it was the first occurrence of the now standard "count down to zero". Not bad for a 1929 silent movie.

POST_4:

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

Yes, _The Reality Dysfunction_ is good.

But for scientifically realistic combat I recommend _Through Struggle, the Stars_ and _The Desert of Stars_ by John Lumpkin.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/atomicnovel.php#id--John_Lumpkin

And not just because I gave him technical advice.

POST_5:

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

Wow! A Kerbal Starfury!

Once again, KSP astonishes me with its physics engine. You used KSP to recreate a starfury, and experimentally discovered their control issues. Cool!

This means when B5 fans scoff at your assertion, you can say you speak from experience.

POST_6:

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.

Well, yes, it is a nice retcon, but it is still a retcon. The point is that there is no need, unless your ship plans on doing belly landings. And the fact it introduces a problem: if the power to the grav plates fails, suddenly the rear wall is the floor, and the control panels are on a pillar halfway up the walls. Why not have the grav plates on the thrustward side of the habitat module, so if the power fails to the grav plates you won't notice?

Again, the problem appeared when Matt Jeffries designed the Starship Enterprise, and couldn't shake the "spaceships are boats" fallacy.

Edited May 2, 2013 by karolus10

[engraverwilliam]

"Science Fiction spacecraft in movies not only ignore Newtonian physics, they don't even allow for apple-scented air freshener in the cockpits." Quoted to my timeline on FB.

[nyrath]

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

It can work.

http://www.toponeraegunbuster.com/gunbuster-episode-three41.jpg

In the anime _GunBuster_, you see the fleet emit a laser broadside at the enemy. You see the lasers trailing off into the distance, where they vanish. Then you see lots of faint fireworks exploding.

Then suddenly the enemy's broadside appears, there are laser bolts and exploding starships everywhere.

[sal_vager]

The trouble with lasers is that they also get hot and the firing craft needs to radiate that heat to space, so laser equipped craft would have big heatsinks and a heat signature, making them easy to detect and a target for heat seeking ordinance.

It'd take time for a laser to burn through a hull, enough time for a retaliatory shot maybe?

And while lasers are cool, there'd be a place for conventional projectile guns in space, with no gravity or atmosphere to deal with their effective range would be limited only to your targeting and tracking ability.

They wouldn't lose potential energy like they do on Earth, and also wouldn't generate enough heat to worry about while being able to do damage as soon as they hit, unlike a laser.

Oh and if you are really good, you could shoot someone on the other side of the planet if they didn't change orbit

[Vanamonde]

Why on earth do you think an uncompromisingly realistic story would be tedious?

"Day 28 of 47. Only about halfway to Duna. Woke up at 6am, ran on the treadmill to prevent bone mass loss for half an hour. Showered. Ate breakfast. Spent an hour taking astrogation readings to confirm that we are on course... Day 29 of 47. Only about halfway to Duna. Woke up at 6am, ran on the treadmill to prevent bone mass loss for half an hour. Showered. Ate breakfast. Spent 2 hours making sure the scientiific experiments are recording data properly... Day 30 of 47. Only about halfway to Duna. Woke up at 6am, ran on the treadmill to prevent bone mass loss for half an hour. Showered. Ate breakfast. Spent 2 hours making sure the waste recycling system is losing water at a non-critical rate... "

[Nikolai]

Day 28 of 47.

Let me change the question. Why do you think an uncompromisingly realistic story would have to include every detail?

[SecondGuessing]

Let me change the question. Why do you think an uncompromisingly realistic story would have to include every detail?

Well if you're not going to extensively write about or show the main action of the journey it wouldn't be a very realistic representation of space-flight

Edited May 2, 2013 by SecondGuessing

[Nikolai]

Well if you'r not going to extensively write about or show the main action of the journey it wouldn't be a very realistic representation of space-flight

What makes you think that waking up, running on a treadmill, showering, eating breakfast, etc., are the main action of the journey?

It's possible to make an uncompromisingly realistic depiction of history on film without going into detail about how often Napoleon had to relieve his bladder or what the Duke of Wellington had for breakfast or what von Blucher's exercise regimen looked like or every conversation Louis XVIII entertained, every day, for a month. Why is a realistic representation of spaceflight different? Why does it require this level of detail, while other fictional genres do not?

[Specialist290]

"Day 28 of 47. Only about halfway to Duna. Woke up at 6am, ran on the treadmill to prevent bone mass loss for half an hour. Showered. Ate breakfast. Spent an hour taking astrogation readings to confirm that we are on course... Day 29 of 47. Only about halfway to Duna. Woke up at 6am, ran on the treadmill to prevent bone mass loss for half an hour. Showered. Ate breakfast. Spent 2 hours making sure the scientiific experiments are recording data properly... Day 30 of 47. Only about halfway to Duna. Woke up at 6am, ran on the treadmill to prevent bone mass loss for half an hour. Showered. Ate breakfast. Spent 2 hours making sure the waste recycling system is losing water at a non-critical rate... "

The problem is that you're confusing "realism" with "banality." You can write realistic fiction without including every single day or explaining every single detail.

Seriously, go read Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, or Isaac Asimov some day. They're all authors who made realistic and entertaining stories.

EDIT: Also, seconding everything Nikolai just said. There's a difference between "writing that's informed by your research" and "bludgeoning your readers over the head with inane details."

EDIT2: And now I'm half-tempted to actually turn that little summary into a full-fledged story itself, just to prove to you how wrong you are. I'm not promising anything, but it I do write it, it'll show up in the Fan Works section.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Specialist290

[SecondGuessing]

What makes you think that waking up, running on a treadmill, showering, eating breakfast, etc., are the main action of the journey?

It's possible to make an uncompromisingly realistic depiction of history on film without going into detail about how often Napoleon had to relieve his bladder or what the Duke of Wellington had for breakfast or what von Blucher's exercise regimen looked like or every conversation Louis XVIII entertained, every day, for a month. Why is a realistic representation of spaceflight different? Why does it require this level of detail, while other fictional genres do not?

Because space-flight almost entirely consists of waking up, running of a treadmill, showering, eating breakfast, etc. Historical fiction claims to be true to events and occasions, not mechanics and actions, which is what people complaining about spacecraft not properly making use of a Hohmann transfer orbit are referring to.

Science-fiction is not about science, or at least it does not need to be. In almost all cases sci-fi is far more influenced by Romance than it is by actual scientific literature. It's an extension of our desire to write about that which lies over the next hill; the only reason it's in space is because we feel seen the other side of all Earthly hills.

[Specialist290]

Because space-flight almost entirely consists of waking up, running of a treadmill, showering, eating breakfast, etc. Historical fiction claims to be true to events and occasions, not mechanics and actions, which is what people complaining about spacecraft not properly making use of a Hohmann transfer orbit are referring to.

You say that as if you don't realize that people don't get worked up over inauthentic mechanics and actions in historical fiction as well: For instance, using weapons in a movie that are too old or too new for the setting, or having your "professional" army break out of a perfectly good formation to engage the barbarian warriors in single combat, then getting their fannies handed back to them for exactly the reason that the real army in history chose to use formation fighting in the first place. (I'm looking at you, Gladiator.)

Again, it's possible to write both realistically and entertainingly -- I've even given recommendations.

[Nikolai]

Because space-flight almost entirely consists of waking up, running of a treadmill, showering, eating breakfast, etc.

And human existence consists much more of mundane events -- one might even say, almost entirely of them -- than of the sort of thing people watching an uncompromisingly realistic historical fiction movie expect to see.

That doesn't mean that an uncompromisingly realistic historical fiction movie must contain these events.

It seems, then, like you're dodging the question: Why do fictional realistic spaceflight movies have to have these details, whereas other kinds of realistic fiction do not?

Historical fiction claims to be true to events and occasions, not mechanics and actions, which is what people complaining about spacecraft not properly making use of a Hohmann transfer orbit are referring to.

I'm guessing that you've never watched historical fiction with an historian. A former roommate of mine who intended to go into teaching(*) majored in history, and found almost every American Civil War movie unwatchable because they'd inevitably get the mechanical details wrong -- creating plot points to drive the plot that, given the technology of the day, would have been flat-out impossible.

(*) He ended up going into some kind of medical billing and coding instead. But teaching was his intent, and drove his college studies.

Science-fiction is not about science, or at least it does not need to be.

Of course not. But it can incorporate realistic science without being about science.

In almost all cases sci-fi is far more influenced by Romance than it is by actual scientific literature.

Are you arguing, then, that science fiction doesn't have to be about science, but it does have to be about Romance?

And even if that's your point, why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

[Vanamonde]

Guys, guys, guys, I was exaggerating for comical effect. But consider this: Apollo 17 spent about 3 days getting to the moon, spent 3 days there, and spent another 3 days getting back. During the 3 days they were on the moon, some of that time was spent eating and sleeping. Most of the rest of it was spent putting tab A into slot B on some piece of scientific equipment it was their job to assemble. Would I kill to trade places with one of the crewman? YES! Are the sextant readings they took along the way exciting fodder for a fiction story? Not really.

What makes you think that waking up, running on a treadmill, showering, eating breakfast, etc., are the main action of the journey?

Because that is the fact of the matter.

[Nikolai]

Because that is the fact of the matter.

I think you're confusing "Stuff they spent most of their time doing" with "Stuff that constitutes the main action of the journey".

Put another way: There is no other fill-in-the-blank-fiction genre that fills its time with stuff people actually spend most of their time doing; they merely focus on the actions that most influence plot or character development.

Why does realistic spaceflight in fiction have to be different?

[Specialist290]

Are the sextant readings they took along the way exciting fodder for a fiction story? Not really.

As with all stories, it depends on how you spin it.

Is the sextant-reading itself exciting? Not necessarily.

But from a storytelling perspective, let's consider a few things:

-- How does the character taking the readings go about it? Does he do it by-the-book, or does he ignore protocol and do it his own way? If he's challenged by someone else who thinks differently, how does he respond?

-- Our minds tend to wander when we're doing mundane, routine tasks. What is he thinking about while he's taking the readings? What does that say about him as a character?

-- Why is he specifically, and not some other character, taking the reading? Is he the most qualified to do it? If not, why him, and not someone else?

-- What if he notices something that's different from what he's expecting? How does he react? What's the first thought that crosses his mind, given what he knows about his job? If he tells someone else, how do they react, both to the information and to the character for revealing it?

-- What does everything the characters do say about who they are as people?

Answering those questions, in any genre, is the bread-and-butter of storytelling. Attention to detail is ultimately in service to the plot itself, but ideally you want a good plot and well-researched details. You seem to be implying, if I'm interpreting your argument correctly, that it's impossible to have both at the same time.

EDIT: Just to add one last point: I am in the course of reading stories taken from the nonfictional personal accounts of actual astronauts. There's plenty of stuff in that that makes for good stories -- John Glenn's account of his first space flight, the Soviets' first spacewalk, the Apollo 1 and Soyuz 1 disasters, Apollo 13 (I heard they made a movie about that one...), the Mir fire, and so on. Real life is about as "realistic" as you can get -- and it can get exciting at points, too.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Specialist290

[Torham234]

LOL. True, Awaras. Wouldn't be much to show. Books are usually better at describing space battles - but not by much in too many cases, i'm afraid.

One I can think of is Larry Niven's Protector. The missile skirmish between 2 ships took several months.

[Sleipnir]

The trouble with lasers is that they also get hot and the firing craft needs to radiate that heat to space, so laser equipped craft would have big heatsinks and a heat signature, making them easy to detect and a target for heat seeking ordinance.

It'd take time for a laser to burn through a hull, enough time for a retaliatory shot maybe?

And while lasers are cool, there'd be a place for conventional projectile guns in space, with no gravity or atmosphere to deal with their effective range would be limited only to your targeting and tracking ability.

They wouldn't lose potential energy like they do on Earth, and also wouldn't generate enough heat to worry about while being able to do damage as soon as they hit, unlike a laser.

Oh and if you are really good, you could shoot someone on the other side of the planet if they didn't change orbit

Will since we already have technology to convert heat into usable energy (electricity), wouldnt it be possible in the future when this method has been perfected to use the heat and reconvert it into energy? That way no radiators are needed and you save on power too. I am sure this is duable. Or maybe design the lasers in a way that they dont create excess heat that is wasted

[nyrath]

Will since we already have technology to convert heat into usable energy (electricity), wouldnt it be possible in the future when this method has been perfected to use the heat and reconvert it into energy? That way no radiators are needed and you save on power too. I am sure this is duable. Or maybe design the lasers in a way that they dont create excess heat that is wasted

Sleipnir, unfortunately that turns out not to be the case. It is a common misconception.

There exists no technology that can convert heat into usable energy. That is forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics.

What does exist is technology to convert a heat gradient into usable energy. The point being that after it does its work, you have electricity but the heat is still there.

It's like a hydroelectric dam. It takes water at a different gravity gradient and converts it into usable energy. But after it has done its work, the water is still there. It is just that the water is downhill from where it started.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/thermodynamics.php

[nyrath]

The trouble with lasers is that they also get hot and the firing craft needs to radiate that heat to space, so laser equipped craft would have big heatsinks and a heat signature, making them easy to detect and a target for heat seeking ordinance.

It'd take time for a laser to burn through a hull, enough time for a retaliatory shot maybe?

Absolutely. Free-electron lasers have a theoretical maximum efficiency of 65%, while others are lucky to get a third of that. This means if your beam power is 5,000 megawatts (five gigawatts), and your cannon has an efficiency of 20%, the cannon is producing 25,000 megawatts, of which 5,000 is laser beam (hitting your target) and 20,000 is waste heat! (hitting you)

Ken Burnside describes weapon lasers as blast furnaces that produce coherent light as a byproduct. Rick Robinson describes them as an observatory telescope with a jet engine at the eyepiece. Laser cannons are going to need seriously huge heat radiators. And don't forget that heat radiators really cannot be armored.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php#id--Laser_Cannon--Efficiency

But in compensation, if the laser has enough energy, it can burn through the hull in no time at all.

A single pulse with a total energy of 100 megajoules would have the effect of the detonation of 25 kg of TNT. Everyone in the compartment who is not shredded by the shrapnel will have their lungs pulverized by the blast.

That same 100 MJ delivered as 1,000,000 pulses of 100 J each could very well drill a hole. The crew see a dazzling flash and flying sparks. Some may be blinded by the beam-flash. Anyone in the path of the beam has a hole through them (and the shock from the drilling of that personal hole could scatter the rest of them around the crew compartment). Everyone else would still be alive and would now be worrying about patching the hole.

Although it occurs to me that the jet of supersonic plasma escaping from the hole being drilled could have the combined effect of a blowtorch and grenade on anyone standing too close to the point of incidence, even if they are not directly in the beam. The effect would probably be similar to the arc flash you can get in high power, high voltage electrical systems, where jets of superheated plasma can cause severe burns from contact with the plasma, blast damage from the shock waves, blindness from the intense light produced, and flash burns from the radiated heat.

A continuous beam could have enough scattered and radiant heat to cause flash burns to those near the point of incidence, along with blinding those who are looking at the point of incidence when the beam burns through. If it burns a wide hole, people die quickly when the compartment explosively decompresses, throwing everyone into deep space. If it burns a narrow hole, the survivors who can see can just slap a patch over the hole to prevent the escape of their air.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php#id--Laser_Cannon

[Sleipnir]

Sleipnir, unfortunately that turns out not to be the case. It is a common misconception.

There exists no technology that can convert heat into usable energy. That is forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics.

What does exist is technology to convert a heat gradient into usable energy. The point being that after it does its work, you have electricity but the heat is still there.

It's like a hydroelectric dam. It takes water at a different gravity gradient and converts it into usable energy. But after it has done its work, the water is still there. It is just that the water is downhill from where it started.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/thermodynamics.php

Ahh i see. Well then I guess there is still the option left of reducing the heat emitted by lasers and redirecting any leftover heat....well maybe to coffee makers or other parts of the ship that need heat. Maybe even "store" it somehow and releasing it somehow through the engines when they are firing to reduce the heat signature.

Nonetheless what we know is a Drop compared to what we don't know which is an entire ocean. I believe that anything is possible in the future, we just need to invent it. Think about all the stuff we thought off as impossible a few years ago that we use everyday today and take it for granted.....MP3 players and "superfast" computers anyone?

[hugix]

What you guys are forgetting is that these spacey warships are not moving trough the universe, but rather move the universe around the ship. Also the speed of light got increased in the year 2208

[Sleipnir]

Oh boy oh boy, seems like i started a Sh*t storm here. Such a seemingly innocent question that has been answered within the first 3 posts turned into a full scale conversation in every direction. What have I done?

[Specialist290]

It's just the nature of the Beast. No matter what subject you discuss, you'll always have those on one side saying "More realism means less fun!" and those on the other saying "More realism is fun!"

I tend to fall towards the latter camp, but I'm willing to acknowledge that in some cases you can have something that's fun without being realistic, and in others you can have "Acceptable Breaks from Reality" for the sake of a good story. I just think the ideal situation is to be both fun and realistic.

There are plenty of things in this world that are both realistic and not fun at all, which is why we have media in the first place.

[lobsterbark]

"Day 28 of 47. Only about halfway to Duna. Woke up at 6am, ran on the treadmill to prevent bone mass loss for half an hour. Showered. Ate breakfast. Spent an hour taking astrogation readings to confirm that we are on course... Day 29 of 47. Only about halfway to Duna. Woke up at 6am, ran on the treadmill to prevent bone mass loss for half an hour. Showered. Ate breakfast. Spent 2 hours making sure the scientiific experiments are recording data properly... Day 30 of 47. Only about halfway to Duna. Woke up at 6am, ran on the treadmill to prevent bone mass loss for half an hour. Showered. Ate breakfast. Spent 2 hours making sure the waste recycling system is losing water at a non-critical rate... "

Thats actually pretty good, to express the tedium of waiting wile on your way to a planet.