Space battles

[Hello moto]

After playing KSP for such a longtime, I watched some stargate footage of space battles and with my knowledge from this game I could not enjoy it one bit. Before I could watch it over and over but now it makes me cringe while saying 'they're too close' 'that wouldn't happen' 'that orbit wouldn't work' 'they should be crashing' and that sort of stuff. Has anyone else had the same thing happen?

[Accelerando]

I like Stargate and I play KSP all the time

[karolus10]

Most space battles i have seen in movies resemble 18 century naval combat with lot of fighters dogfighting in WWI style... spiced up with Si-Fi Sprinkles everywhere .

[0x7be]

Most space battles i have seen in movies resemble 18 century naval combat with lot of fighters dogfighting in WWI style... spiced up with Si-Fi Sprinkles everywhere .

Well, that is because common people know and understand naval battles and WW2-style dogfights

Edited August 6, 2013 by 0x7be

[Bigcheecho]

Well, that is because common people know and understand naval battles and WW2-style dogfights

And there are more common people (people who actually watch Honey Boo Boo) than people who know orbital mechanics (Us + People who work in space centers)

[karolus10]

And there are more common people (people who actually watch Honey Boo Boo) than people who know orbital mechanics (Us + People who work in space centers)

Well, It's not really elite knowledge, basic concepts of orbital mechanics an planetary motion are in High (and middle) school curriculum, just people don't care.

Also it wouldn't look cinematic/artistic (= boring for ~90% of people) If Sci-Fi spaceships would care about orbits and Newtonian physics.

Edited August 6, 2013 by karolus10

[littlebattler]

Most space battles i have seen in movies resemble 18 century naval combat with lot of fighters dogfighting in WWI style... spiced up with Si-Fi Sprinkles everywhere .

I think it's kerbal enough

[DocLangy]

I normally assume that if they have interplanetary space travel that they have the tech to bend/break physics. Also it makes for more dramatic action. Keep in mind that physics are what we currently understand. There is a possibility that some discovery in physics causes us to rethink how we understand of all the laws, even the laws we feel we have a solid understanding of.

[Lanfranc]

"Damn the orbital mechanics! Full speed ahead!"

[Monkeh]

It's an interesting point. I mean when in space you just hang there right? Not moving? So jetting off in any direction is easy, right? Right?

There's a lot of noted sci-fi authors who have forgotten the orbital mechanics and relative velocities when it comes to space battles, it would just add another level of explanation to a novel though, more lines about having to shed speed or change inclination. Most TV audiences want flashing lasers, explosions and lot's of sci-fi lingo, (tachyon fuel gravity breakers anyone?) and book readers want meaningful characters and exciting set pieces, not a description of a fighter passing a rival at thousands of meters per second and not being able to get a shot off...

Physics. Too hard for average Joe to be bothered to think about. lasers...now they're easy to enjoy. Zapp-Zapp-Boom!

[BostLabs]

I suspend belief when I watch anything that I want to enjoy as entertainment. I'm watching it to be entertained, why waste my time picking it to pieces. After all, in this case we are talking about a show that has these big rings that are tied to other rings out in the galaxy and you can walk through one and come out on a whole new planet from another ring. Just dial it up like and old time phone... I bought into that part, I'm not going to nit-pick on their spaceships.

Plus; EXPLOSIONS!

[maccollo]

Well, It's not really elite knowledge, basic concepts of orbital mechanics an planetary motion are in High (and middle) school curriculum, just people don't care.

Also it wouldn't look cinematic/artistic (= boring for ~90% of people) If Sci-Fi spaceships would care about orbits and Newtonian physics.

It's not about learning the basics of how an orbit works in school. It's about experiencing how they work, how orbits can be affected by accelerating the object in different directions and what these velocities look like on a human scale. It becomes clear very quickly when you are exposed to it on a regular basis.

Most people however are not, and they therefor can't read the intent of a spacecraft maneuver like they can read a plane or a ship.

If you can't read it, it's crazy gibberish, and I would assume that is the reason spacecraft tend to move the way they do in movies.

Edited August 6, 2013 by maccollo

[littlebattler]

I suspend belief when I watch anything that I want to enjoy as entertainment. I'm watching it to be entertained, why waste my time picking it to pieces. After all, in this case we are talking about a show that has these big rings that are tied to other rings out in the galaxy and you can walk through one and come out on a whole new planet from another ring. Just dial it up like and old time phone... I bought into that part, I'm not going to nit-pick on their spaceships.

Plus; EXPLOSIONS!

Some people do derive some entertainment value from picking things apart. Even better, some people derive entertainment value from picking things apart AND is capable of accepting that the inaccuracies included works with the theme of the work and enjoy that as well. Twice the enjoyment from one sitting!

[karolus10]

It's not about learning the basics of how an orbit works in school. It's about experiencing how they work, how orbits can be affected by accelerating the object in different directions and what these velocities look like on a human scale. It becomes clear very quickly when you are exposed to it on a regular basis.

Most people however are not, and they therefor can't read the intent of a spacecraft maneuver like they can read a plane or a ship.

If you can't read it, it's crazy gibberish, and I would assume that is the reason spacecraft tend to move the way they do in movies.

You had a point, some concepts are just an pure abstraction if You won't "see" them in action.

[ThirdHorseman]

You're just not enjoying the proper fiction:

While there is still a lot of eye-candy, there is plenty of attention to Newtonian physics. You'll notice ships spinning on their axis and firing opposite their direction of travel, spinning ship components to create gravity, mass drivers, rapid course corrections, etc.

If you want to read some good hard military scifi then Weber's Honorverse is a good start.

[Lanfranc]

It's not about learning the basics of how an orbit works in school. It's about experiencing how they work, how orbits can be affected by accelerating the object in different directions and what these velocities look like on a human scale. It becomes clear very quickly when you are exposed to it on a regular basis.

Most people however are not, and they therefor can't read the intent of a spacecraft maneuver like they can read a plane or a ship.

If you can't read it, it's crazy gibberish, and I would assume that is the reason spacecraft tend to move the way they do in movies.

I think the reason is that including things like real orbital mechanics usually wouldn't really add anything to the story, so it is left out, and rightly so. Would the battle scenes in Battlestar Galactica have been significantly better if they had taken orbital paths or delta-v into account? I doubt it – that's not really the point.

[Sma]

After playing KSP for such a longtime, I watched some stargate footage of space battles and with my knowledge from this game I could not enjoy it one bit. Before I could watch it over and over but now it makes me cringe while saying 'they're too close' 'that wouldn't happen' 'that orbit wouldn't work' 'they should be crashing' and that sort of stuff. Has anyone else had the same thing happen?

Can't say that it has. As others have said, they come up with ways that allow them to "break" physics, such as inertial dampeners, which allows them to change direction super fast without all the pilots organs turning to jelly. I don't really remember much explanation about the engines on the f-302's, worked in regard to space battles. Maybe they had some sort of special thrusters I guess. I wonder if there is a Stargate technical manual like there was for Star Trek.

Well, It's not really elite knowledge, basic concepts of orbital mechanics an planetary motion are in High (and middle) school curriculum, just people don't care.

Also it wouldn't look cinematic/artistic (= boring for ~90% of people) If Sci-Fi spaceships would care about orbits and Newtonian physics.

I don't remember learning about orbital mechanics, in public school (and I went to school on the space coast of FL, they - NASA or I put more blame on the government/school board dropped the ball on that they should have had more interactions with our learning, but I digress), could have been a little about planetary motion though. I didn't take any advance or AP science classes so maybe they covered it in that. It is something that, if it's not already in the curriculum, should be covered more in basic science I think. Then again...as far as I remember I didn't pay that much attention in school, although science was one of my better classes. I do agree though that it's not elite knowledge, especially in todays day and age when you can talk to your phone to get the info you want. It won't be too long before we can say "Computer, Lights".

[zekes]

as someone has told me, "Disregard physics, aquire flight"

[Khrissetti]

I only usually care if it's so bad that it becomes possible to ignore (Like the Enterprise falling to Earth instead of the Moon in Into Darkness.

Knowing some space physics makes watching some sci-fi brilliant, take the death star run in Star Wars, how great would it have been if Vader had destroyed Luke's wingmen and just got a lock on his X-Wing when:

Vader: "I have you now! Wait, what?"

Luke; "It's great that we don't need to be facing our direction of travel!" Spins around, shooting back at Vader whilst flying towards the vent

Vader: "The astrophysics is strong in this one..."

[Sma]

I only usually care if it's so bad that it becomes possible to ignore (Like the Enterprise falling to Earth instead of the Moon in Into Darkness.

I'm going to have to watch this again when it's out on blu-ray (well...obviously have to watch it again). I don't recall exactly everything that was going on at that time but I thought it was in orbit of Earth.....wait, it wasn't the Enterprise though that fell to Earth, or was it both ships? I dunno now I'm confused lol. I'm not a very good trekkie/trekker...I only saw it once.

One thing I did like about it though was the engine room/warp core. It looked more realistic, like something we'd actually come up with. Similar to an ICF reactor, or the one this Canadian group is coming up with for a fusion reactor (http://www.generalfusion.com/). Their proposed reactor looks quite a bit similar to a warp

Unrelated, but isn't it interesting the guy that played Marcus in Into Darkness also played the crazy Moon/Mars guy towards the end of the Enterprise series?

[karolus10]

Well, enterprise "falling" into the earth when being in mun SOI is at least questionable... most likely they would crash on moon.

EDIT_1:

Also, completely illogical to me was scene when artificial gravity goes off, I don't really know what really happened that causes nearly Titanic movie scenes when ships slowly rotated :|.

Edited August 6, 2013 by karolus10

[BostLabs]

Some people do derive some entertainment value from picking things apart. Even better, some people derive entertainment value from picking things apart AND is capable of accepting that the inaccuracies included works with the theme of the work and enjoy that as well. Twice the enjoyment from one sitting!

LOL! Remind me to not sit by you in the theater then. I'd be constantly telling you to shut up and let me enjoy the movie.

[aNewHope]

I only usually care if it's so bad that it becomes possible to ignore (Like the Enterprise falling to Earth instead of the Moon in Into Darkness.

Knowing some space physics makes watching some sci-fi brilliant, take the death star run in Star Wars, how great would it have been if Vader had destroyed Luke's wingmen and just got a lock on his X-Wing when:

Vader: "I have you now! Wait, what?"

Luke; "It's great that we don't need to be facing our direction of travel!" Spins around, shooting back at Vader whilst flying towards the vent

Vader: "The astrophysics is strong in this one..."

You have to think about it this way: The Death Star is so big, that Luke and Dath Vader need their thrust to counteract gravity.

And besides: They have ranged weapons of planetary destruction and still fight with what? Exactly! With Swords.

[astropapi1]

Now I can't watch any " loose sci-fi" movies without dying a little. Spacecraft with engines on all the time, "fighters" turning and changing their directions in a second. Artificial gravity that can be toggled with a switch.....

Damn you KSP!

[Sof]

I don't believe a realistic space battle would be boring. It is all down to how the film is produced. The right effects, music and actors can make anything interesting.

Also, anyone who claims Star Wars is sci-fi is wrong. It is a space opera. No part of the story actually involves science, and space is just a medium for the plot to exist in.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Sof