Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Hollywood Stupid

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
Re: Hollywood Stupid
Post by BillT52   » Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:51 pm

BillT52
Midshipman

Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:07 pm
Location: New York City area

My pet stupid was mentioned once in passing here. Wings on spacecraft which make wide swooping turns like airfoil atmosphere craft. As far as I know, the only movie/TV I've seen to get it right was Babylon 5, where the craft would rotate then fire engines to change vector. Instead, almost every battle between fighter like craft looks like a dogfight out of WWII.
Top
Re: Hollywood Stupid
Post by Dilandu   » Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:53 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2135
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

BillT52 wrote:My pet stupid was mentioned once in passing here. Wings on spacecraft which make wide swooping turns like airfoil atmosphere craft. As far as I know, the only movie/TV I've seen to get it right was Babylon 5, where the craft would rotate then fire engines to change vector. Instead, almost every battle between fighter like craft looks like a dogfight out of WWII.


Well, "The Expanse" also avoided such things. There are no fighter-crafts here at all (because frankly, space fighters are useless).
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: Hollywood Stupid
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Tue Jul 23, 2019 4:12 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

Dilandu wrote:
BillT52 wrote:My pet stupid was mentioned once in passing here. Wings on spacecraft which make wide swooping turns like airfoil atmosphere craft. As far as I know, the only movie/TV I've seen to get it right was Babylon 5, where the craft would rotate then fire engines to change vector. Instead, almost every battle between fighter like craft looks like a dogfight out of WWII.


Well, "The Expanse" also avoided such things. There are no fighter-crafts here at all (because frankly, space fighters are useless).



Fighter craft are not useless if the available technology imposes a trade off between hight thrust to mass ration and low specific impulse verses low thrust to mass ration and high specific impulse. An intersteller drive that does not scale lineraly with mass also makes fighters useful.
Top
Re: Hollywood Stupid
Post by vovchara   » Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:44 am

vovchara
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:15 am
Location: Germany

there is a use for a fighter, but in very specific, narrow set of circumstances. Problem is, most authors who do have space fighters in their books, do not care to provide us with those, and scenarios the fighter exists in fiction are rarely those the fighter would be any good.
Top
Re: Hollywood Stupid
Post by TheMadPenguin   » Sat Sep 07, 2019 1:44 am

TheMadPenguin
Ensign

Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:16 pm
Location: Emerald Coast, Panhandle, Florida.

Outrunning explosions is a common "why am I watching this" trigger.
"Bad guys never hit, good guys never miss" gunfights, likewise.
"45 caliber handgun" apparently means 45 rounds in this 6-shooter before reloading is required.
Recoil never breaks anybody's wrist, but bullet impacts throw people across the room. (breaking the wrist is one way recoil manifests, arm raising is another, torso twist also, but there's no recoil to match the villain-tossing bullets)
Car chase scenes... I just stopped watching.
======================================
Nimitz has a bleek sense of humor.
Top
Re: Hollywood Stupid
Post by Mycall4me   » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:06 pm

Mycall4me
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:07 pm

TheMadPenguin wrote:Outrunning explosions is a common "why am I watching this" trigger.
"Bad guys never hit, good guys never miss" gunfights, likewise.
"45 caliber handgun" apparently means 45 rounds in this 6-shooter before reloading is required.
Recoil never breaks anybody's wrist, but bullet impacts throw people across the room. (breaking the wrist is one way recoil manifests, arm raising is another, torso twist also, but there's no recoil to match the villain-tossing bullets)
Car chase scenes..[img]

IDK[/img]. I just stopped watching.
Top
Re: Hollywood Stupid
Post by Mycall4me   » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:09 pm

Mycall4me
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:07 pm

vovchara wrote:there is a use for a fighter, but in very specific, narrow set of circumstances. Problem is, most authors who do have space fighters in their books, do not care to provide us with those, and scenarios the fighter exists in fiction are rarely those the fighter would be any good.


Why?
Top
Re: Hollywood Stupid
Post by doug941   » Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:34 am

doug941
Commander

Posts: 176
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 5:21 pm

ldwechsler wrote:
dscott8 wrote:One big Hollywood Stupid: Mamma Mia 2.

The first movie was a painful attempt to build a convoluted, unlikely paternity plot just to hang ABBA songs on it. It was painful to watch, even for my wife (a huge ABBA fan). Because so many ABBA fans paid real money to see it, they're going back to the well. I expect it to be so bad that it will even spoil the first movie for those who liked it.

Plus, Pierce Brosnan will once again mumble and growl his way though a song. Yeesh.


Ironically, the second one is better than the first. Brosnan only gets a few singing lines. One problem with the first movie was that they wanted stars and didn't care how well they sang.

In the sequel, the new singers all could sing. Lily James as the young Donna was great and the others at least could carry a tune.

Now it was still pretty dumb as far as plots went but most critics lost it as Waterloo.


Can Pierce singing be any worse than Clint Eastwood AND Lee Marvin both singing in the same film?
Top
Re: Hollywood Stupid
Post by Dilandu   » Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:17 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2135
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

Mycall4me wrote: Why?


Because it is space. On Earth, fighter and battleship operated in different mediums: fighter in air (easy to move through, but required a lot of energy to stay in), battleship in water (hard to move through, but easy to stay in)

But in space, both fighter and battleship are in common medium. They are subjected to similar laws of dynamic. There are little to no practical reasons, why space battleship could not have similar dynamic characteristics as space fighter: acceleration, specific impulse, ect.

Also, there is no horizon in space. And no atmosphere to disperce the infrared radiation. The fighters approach would be visible by opponents right from the moment fighters ignited their engines. And long-range warfare in space is dominated by lasers and heavy missiles - the kind of weapons that fighters aren't suited to use due to their small size and limited mass.

Finally, the fighters in space are forced to compete with long-range missiles. Which are more effective by definition. The terror of rocket equation clearly states that we need propellant to accelerate a propellant. And fighter need to accelerate more then missile:

Let's just calculate, assuming that we need N ton of propellant to accelerate ton of mass to the desired speed:

A - Fighter accelerated to close with target - need N tons of propellant
B - Fighter deccelerated after attck run - need another N ton of propellant and 2N tons of propellant to accelerate this additional propellant at stage A. In total, 4N tons of propellant
C - Fighter need to accelerate back toward his home base - another N ton of propellant. So another 2N tons added on stage B and 4N tons on stage A. In total, 11N tons of propellant.
D - Fighter need to deccelerate near his home base - another N tons of propellant (another 2N tons of stage C, another 4N tons of stage B, and freaking 8N tons on A).

In total our fighter needed 24N tons of propellant to make his dashing raid and return.

Now lets look at missile of the same mass:

A - missile accelerated to close with target - need N tons of propellant.

That's all. The missile is 24 times more efficient than fighter.

Actually, with correct calculations - not those simplified - the missile would be even MORE efficient.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: Hollywood Stupid
Post by Daryl   » Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:59 am

Daryl
Admiral

Posts: 2914
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Ultimate recent Star Wars stupidity was using gravity bombs to attack star ships in deep space.
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...