Stuff wrong with space movies

[mythic_fci]

Since I started playing KSP, I have been noticing a ton of errors in space movies. Thank god we have something called "reality distortion", pioneered by Steve Jobs (read the book).

Below, post the fails you have found in space movies!

Mine:

GRAVITY

-Comsats(communication satellites) are in geostationary orbit thousands of kilometers above the Earth. The Shuttle, Hubble, ISS and Tiangong are all below at least 300km/LEO.

-It's impossible to jet from a ~267km orbit (usual orbit of Hubble/Shuttle on repair missions) to a lower and differently inclined ISS orbit, and then again to a different Tiangong orbit.

-It's one coincidence for all 3 stations to be within visual range of each other AT THE SAME TIME. Normally the orbits are 10+km apart!

[PlonioFludrasco]

Laser guns making noise in space.

Screaming ion engines.

[TheSaint]

Anything making noise in space.

Artificial gravity as an excuse to go cheap on the special effects.

Spacecraft behaving like aircraft.

Everything in space pointing "down".

People and objects in a ship sliding from one side to the other when the ship lists off of "down".

Etc, etc, ad infinitum.

Hollywood knows as much about physics as my dog. Strike that, I think my dog has a better grasp. And don't get me started on Hollywood's knowledge of police procedure, firearms, computers, or medicine. The only thing the folks in Hollywood know is how to make movies and TV shows, and there are a growing number of them who don't even know how to do that.

[John Crichton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKkJ4y9IKnk‎

:sticktongue:

[KvickFlygarn87]

Falling out of orbit when engines turn off.

[Legendary Emu]

Obscene amount of thrust for ion engines.

Constant thrusting for no reason.

Asteroid belts have all the asteroids really close together.

[vger]

Everything wrong with space movies? KSP forums is going to need its DB-server space doubled.

[KvickFlygarn87]

Aliens talking English.

[draeath]

Falling out of orbit when engines turn off.

This is my #1 peeve, and it applies to games as well.

#2 is having a 'top speed' that an engine is able to maintain.

[vger]

So yeah, first contribution... Armageddon. Shuttles docking with the Russian station, WHILE IT'S SPINNING. *headdesk*

[SuperBigD60]

So yeah, first contribution... Armageddon. Shuttles docking with the Russian station, WHILE IT'S SPINNING. *headdesk*

I mean, that's not impossible, just ill-advised.

[Fingal]

GRAVITY

-Comsats(communication satellites) are in geostationary orbit thousands of kilometers above the Earth. The Shuttle, Hubble, ISS and Tiangong are all below at least 300km/LEO.

-It's impossible to jet from a ~267km orbit (usual orbit of Hubble/Shuttle on repair missions) to a lower and differently inclined ISS orbit, and then again to a different Tiangong orbit.

-It's one coincidence for all 3 stations to be within visual range of each other AT THE SAME TIME. Normally the orbits are 10+km apart!

Although as it was set in an alternative reality where NASA kept the space shuttle and built a new one called Explorer, it's not inconceivable they would have moved Hubble closer to the ISS so they could continue to service it within range of the ISS post-Columbia. They did consider moving Hubble apparently.

[NovaSilisko]

Personally, I find it a waste of energy to get worked up about this stuff. Films gon' be films, majority of audiences gon' continue to be entertained by them regardless of how accurate they are. I prefer to instead simply shrug at inaccuracies and praise that which gets the science right.

For its flaws, Gravity did get a lot of stuff right, for which I applaud it. The inaccuracies I believe were acknowledged by the writer and were deliberate compromises, to help the story work better.

Artificial gravity as an excuse to go cheap on the special effects.

Well, sometimes an indie film crew for instance doesn't really have the money for a full up zero-g simulating rig. The L5 miniseries (wherever it may be, now...) is a good example. Personally, I'd rather have a well-written film with a few compromises than a potentially great film shelved due to something like that.

Edited May 7, 2014 by NovaSilisko

[The Destroyer]

Mysterious forces in Gravity that causes Sandra to let go of Clooney because a MAGIC BLACK HOLE is somehow sucking him in...

[Nuke]

movies where ships approach planets directly rather than on an orbital trajectory.

[NovaSilisko]

Mysterious forces in Gravity that causes Sandra to let go of Clooney because a MAGIC BLACK HOLE is somehow sucking him in...

Would've been quite easy to explain had they just given the station a bit of a tumble - the centrifugal force would indeed have him thrown outward.

movies where ships approach planets directly rather than on an orbital trajectory.

No reason that's not feasible, if you have an efficient enough propulsion system. Indeed, you wouldn't really need any thermal protection if you could simply decelerate and gently descend into the atmosphere.

[Boomerang]

Well, sometimes an indie film crew for instance doesn't really have the money for a full up zero-g simulating rig. The L5 miniseries (wherever it may be, now...) is a good example. Personally, I'd rather have a well-written film with a few compromises than a potentially great film shelved due to something like that.

Yeah, I've got no problem with this. Special effects aren't all there is to space films. Europa Report, say what you will about the ending, used this to great effect. It's stated explicitly in the film that the crew needs to spend most of their time in the centrifugal habitation module to avoid the negative health effects of microgravity. This is true, a decent point of education *and* saved a relatively low-budget film a lot of money on special effects.

[sp1989]

Although as it was set in an alternative reality where NASA kept the space shuttle and built a new one called Explorer, it's not inconceivable they would have moved Hubble closer to the ISS so they could continue to service it within range of the ISS post-Columbia. They did consider moving Hubble apparently.

Actaully it takes place a little bit in the future The Hubbles orbit might have degraded to there by then. However if the space shuttle still exits why they let hubbles orbit degrade.

[EuSouONumero345]

Lack of scientific accuracy just so the plot can work. black holes that suck people randomly so that the main character will have to learn the basis of survival on his own might be an example

[KandoKris]

Faster then light video phone links,

I mean if it takes like 26min to send intructions to couriosity on mars how can they expect us to believe that a starship on the other side of the galaxy/universe depending on movie can simply dial earth and have a 2 way convo with perfect reception

I cant even call do that when calling locally

[mythic_fci]

And for Armageddon:

-Engines always on WHILE LANDING.

-Shuttle flies like a fighter jet. Out of atmosphere. When in real life it's a cargo plane when it comes to handling...

-Physics lesson: Nuking an asteroid is not gonna work. Go back to kindergarten.

[Nikolai]

Would've been quite easy to explain had they just given the station a bit of a tumble - the centrifugal force would indeed have him thrown outward.

Careful review of the footage shows that they did. Or something functionally identical, anyway -- the astronauts were rotating at the end of a parachute lanyard.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/28361-Gravity-%28Movie%29?p=995863&viewfull=1#post995863

Unfortunately, a lot of high-profile science folks have weighed in before reviewing this carefully. If you watch the scene, and even check out the close-ups of the actors during the "I have to leave!"/"No, don't leave!" conversation, you can see stars moving in the background as they rotate.

[vger]

Personally, I find it a waste of energy to get worked up about this stuff. Films gon' be films, majority of audiences gon' continue to be entertained by them regardless of how accurate they are. I prefer to instead simply shrug at inaccuracies and praise that which gets the science right.

For its flaws, Gravity did get a lot of stuff right, for which I applaud it. The inaccuracies I believe were acknowledged by the writer and were deliberate compromises, to help the story work better.

Sometimes things are just so blatantly off though that somebody deserves to get backhanded for it. It doesn't take a scientist to grasp centripetal force. All you need is to get on one of those little kid-powered carousels for a few seconds to know that when something spins, you're going to get pushed away from the center of rotation (especially if you're one of the unlucky people who's hand slipped off the rail and got sent flying).

[air805ronin]

-Shuttle flies like a fighter jet. Out of atmosphere. When in real life it's a cargo plane when it comes to handling...

From what I understand you're being generous. It flies like a brick in atmosphere. Out of atmosphere, it obviously has a fuel limit so it can be burning willy nilly.

[EdFred]

Sometimes things are just so blatantly off though that somebody deserves to get backhanded for it. It doesn't take a scientist to grasp centripetal force. All you need is to get on one of those little kid-powered carousels for a few seconds to know that when something spins, you're going to get pushed away from the center of rotation (especially if you're one of the unlucky people who's hand slipped off the rail and got sent flying).

Not to be ticky tacky, but that's not centripetal force. Centripetal force is the force acting inwards to keep you from flying off. (Swinging something at the end of a rope for example) All you are experiencing is inertia when you go flying off a carousel.