Top 10 Fails in Science Fiction! - General

[QUOTE=sp00ks;34496640]what are you talking about?[/QUOTE] 2 posts after the post I quoted you commented on it having no Science

*facepalm* its called Science [B][U]Fiction[/U][/B] for a reason :P

[QUOTE=TheGuy101;34540308]*facepalm* its called Science [B][U]Fiction[/U][/B] for a reason :P[/QUOTE] I can't pay attention to this because HALO IS THE BOMB AND IT IS THE AWESOMES!! YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH AND YOU SHUT IT NOW!!!

[QUOTE=megafat;34540424]I can't pay attention to this because HALO IS THE BOMB AND IT IS THE AWESOMES!! YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH AND YOU SHUT IT NOW!!![/QUOTE] I agree Halo is a brilliant games franchise but it's not real :)

So anything that has anything to do with science fiction is shit, except when it's Halo? Get out, kid.

[QUOTE=certified;34452719]Are you trying to suggest that all those NATO guns designed during the Cold War never actually happened? Because the Halo AR is based off of Cold War era bullpup designs, specifically the FN2000 IIRC See? This (Real Life): [IMG]http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as41/fn_f2000_1.jpg[/IMG] To this (Halo): [IMG]http://media.moddb.com/images/downloads/1/10/9991/rifle.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Actually I was talking about the version in the picture I showed. You know, the worse one? The FN2000 is sleek and compact, yes. The Halo Reach AR is not.

[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;34540785]So anything that has anything to do with science fiction is shit, except when it's Halo? Get out, kid.[/QUOTE] I didn't say that, I personally think that science fiction is great, whatever it be. All I said was that it isn't real :|

I think humanoid extraterrestrials are pretty fucking bogus.

10. Gravity! Gravity depends on the mass of an object and the distance between two objects. We're usually not told HOW big an extraterrestrial planet is, but if were able to see that it's much larger than earth, there's always a chance it rotates on its axis faster. 9. English! This is because a lot of science fiction shows/movies want to appeal to an English speaking audience. I'm sure you wouldn't want to watch a German film without subtitles. Also, subtitles block up the screen, something unsatisfactory in Sci-Fi films. Finally, have you noticed that there are massive amounts of humans in Sci-Fi shows? English is pretty much required in today's world, so how come in the future when we are a massive empire (or just a large minority) we can't influence other races to start speaking our language? Granted, some races have different methods of speaking than us, so English is impossible for them to learn, but if you've noticed, those races usually understand/have a translator for them. 8. Guns! While I have never watched Stargate, just because projectile weapons kill a highly advanced race does not mean they will be protected by their armor. It's never said they have "super armor that protects against everything." One can just think that since they are highly advanced, they have armor to protect against plasma/energy weapons, not ballistic. 7. Vipers! Never watched the show. No comment. 6. Getting Shot! Read the above thing about guns. Also, don't bitch at Sci-Fi because people survive getting shot without going to the hospital. Science Fiction is not the only genre to do that. Many video games and TV shows have super duper rambo people who take thousands of shots and don't even care (including your precious Halo.) 5. Warp/FTL Drive! You said it for yourself before your rant: [b]Based on current technology.[/b] 4. Star Wars Vehicles! The Star Wars vehicles/walking weapons are WEAPONS and usually very powerful. They are also extremely heavy and hard to tip over. I'm sure if one of these came walking down your street, you wouldn't be bitching about them. 3. Science! When you only have a limited time slot, you have to do things quickly. That's why she's able to write a program for everything in 10 minutes. They need the time for other things. Also, don't start bitching about science when that's what this whole "article" is about. 2. Ships Getting Damaged! You don't know where the projectile hit. It could have hit a major power storage area, or even worse; their engines. Different points of impact will have different effects on the ship. 1. Ship Designs! A lot of the ships in Sci-Fi are never shown where they are made. If gravity has a major effect on ships, then they're made in space, and kept in space. And as to the rest.. just no. Don't go say Sci-Fi sucks then start praising Halo. Just don't.

halo fanboyism at it's finest

[QUOTE=Instant Mix;34545559]halo fanboyism at it's finest[/QUOTE] Lol :D (not me though)

One complaint you made was that alot of fictional space ships would be unable to take off because gravity would tear them apart. Here is a picture of the very real International Space Station: [img]http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/spacecraft/iss.jpg[/img] Now how the fuck did this thing take off without the thrust required to reach escape velocity tearing it apart? Simple, like Most future space ships, they are built in space, with components being sent up and connected together. Im pretty sure in a star wars movie there is a scene of a Star Destroyer being constructed in space

Wow OP's direction took a complete U-turn in terms of quality.

[QUOTE=LDTInsomniac;34440320]You can set C4 on fire and it will burn slowly, like any organic fuel such as wood. It takes a bit more than a "spark" to set off the explosive chemicals on the inside.[/QUOTE] Mythbusters already proved you can even cook with it. also Who cares about realism, all we need is good storyline and good ideas to fill these things.

[QUOTE=calebc789;34569154]Mythbusters already proved you can even cook with it. also Who cares about realism, all we need is good storyline and good ideas to fill these things.[/QUOTE] Wanted to share this with you [video=youtube;5E_2tmSOCsk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E_2tmSOCsk[/video]

[QUOTE=X6ZioN6X;34545514] 4. Star Wars Vehicles! The Star Wars vehicles/walking weapons are WEAPONS and usually very powerful. They are also extremely heavy and hard to tip over. I'm sure if one of these came walking down your street, you wouldn't be bitching about them.[/QUOTE] I actually have to agree with the OP about most Star Wars vehicles being poorly designed from a realistic standpoint. However, it's not like Star Wars is hard Sci-Fi.

If Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate, Halo, and Battlestar Galactica is the extent of your Sci-Fi consumption you really need to branch out and watch, mainly read, more. Because all of those movies/shows/games were basically ripped off to an extent from one book or another. But seriously, no mention of Blade Runner? Space Odyssey 2001? Moon? Watch those and Metropolis, The Fifth Element, A Clockwork Orange, Dark City, Twelve Monkeys, Dune, Especially Dune, District 9, Children of Men, Brazil, Akira, etc. I mean there are some really great Sci-Fi movies out there that you, and anyone else for that matter, should go watch right now. If you have the appetite for literature then you're in for a treat because there are some amazing Sci-Fi works to be read.

My personal pet peeve with spaceships in sci-fi is how they always explode when they reach some arbitrary amount of damage. In real life, ships don't usually blow up. When the Bismarck was sunk, it took hours of continuous attack to cause enough damage to silence the guns, and even though it was low in the water, it still had propulsion. When a ship explodes, it's usually due to an ammunition magazine undergoing sympathetic detonation, and that's extremely rare. In space, there is no water, no waves to slowly sink beneath. A ship will only truly be destroyed when every system is taken offline. That might be as simple as destroying a powerplant, but any decent warship should have backups. Or it could be killing the crew, but presumably they're very well protected against decompression. When it comes down to it, a spaceship should be 'destroyed' when it is so shot full of holes it can no longer affect the battle, is scuttled, or is abandoned by the crew. For a ship to be fully functional, perfectly capable of movement and combat until the specific instant it takes that last thousandth tiny cut, upon which it explodes in an inexplicable incandescent fireball, is just silly.

So I watched a little show called "Planetes" the other day. How scientifically accurate would you guys rate that? It was pretty spot-on in regards to EVA's, but besides that it's really out of my area of knowledge :v: [editline]9th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;34615686]My personal pet peeve with spaceships in sci-fi is how they always explode when they reach some arbitrary amount of damage. In real life, ships don't usually blow up. When the Bismarck was sunk, it took hours of continuous attack to cause enough damage to silence the guns, and even though it was low in the water, it still had propulsion. When a ship explodes, it's usually due to an ammunition magazine undergoing sympathetic detonation, and that's extremely rare. In space, there is no water, no waves to slowly sink beneath. A ship will only truly be destroyed when every system is taken offline. That might be as simple as destroying a powerplant, but any decent warship should have backups. Or it could be killing the crew, but presumably they're very well protected against decompression. When it comes down to it, a spaceship should be 'destroyed' when it is so shot full of holes it can no longer affect the battle, is scuttled, or is abandoned by the crew. For a ship to be fully functional, perfectly capable of movement and combat until the specific instant it takes that last thousandth tiny cut, upon which it explodes in an inexplicable incandescent fireball, is just silly.[/QUOTE] The Space Shuttle had all kinds of back-up systems, and the same goes for the Space Station. [editline]9th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Skellyhell;34558918]One complaint you made was that alot of fictional space ships would be unable to take off because gravity would tear them apart. Here is a picture of the very real International Space Station: [img]http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/spacecraft/iss.jpg[/img] Now how the fuck did this thing take off without the thrust required to reach escape velocity tearing it apart? Simple, like Most future space ships, they are built in space, with components being sent up and connected together. Im pretty sure in a star wars movie there is a scene of a Star Destroyer being constructed in space[/QUOTE] I'm decently sure all of the extra bits and pieces sticking off of the "Millennium Falcon" would be ripped to shreds on takeoff v:v:v

you say the halo AR is the most believable gun, yet it fires a 7.62x51 round in full automatic. DAMN SON THERE GOES YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT GET ON MY LEVEL

[QUOTE=catbarf;34615686]My personal pet peeve with spaceships in sci-fi is how they always explode when they reach some arbitrary amount of damage. In real life, ships don't usually blow up. When the Bismarck was sunk, it took hours of continuous attack to cause enough damage to silence the guns, and even though it was low in the water, it still had propulsion. When a ship explodes, it's usually due to an ammunition magazine undergoing sympathetic detonation, and that's extremely rare. In space, there is no water, no waves to slowly sink beneath. A ship will only truly be destroyed when every system is taken offline. That might be as simple as destroying a powerplant, but any decent warship should have backups. Or it could be killing the crew, but presumably they're very well protected against decompression. When it comes down to it, a spaceship should be 'destroyed' when it is so shot full of holes it can no longer affect the battle, is scuttled, or is abandoned by the crew. For a ship to be fully functional, perfectly capable of movement and combat until the specific instant it takes that last thousandth tiny cut, upon which it explodes in an inexplicable incandescent fireball, is just silly.[/QUOTE] If it has antimatter weapons, propulsion, or power, it'll go boom the instant they take any form of damage. :v:

[QUOTE=Saber15;34628336]If it has antimatter weapons, propulsion, or power, it'll go boom the instant they take any form of damage. :v:[/QUOTE] The thing about antimatter is that when containment is lost, it's not even that violent, because the tiniest annihilation will provide enough energy to propel the remainder of the mass away. You'd see the thinnest part of the ship between antimatter and space blow up, and the antimatter would be ejected from the remainder of the ship. Yet in lots of sci-fi we have frequent reference to reactors and fusion yet they go all kablooey when they get shot enough.

[QUOTE=Mxpklx;34439980] [release]7. Vipers![/release] This ship fails so hard it deserves its own spot in the list. Sure, I think it is one of the coolest looking ships ever imagined, but it is so frackin impractical I could frackin frack it for all frackin day. The reason it fails: it can not stand still, not even in space. What the frack. I mean really? just take a look at it landing and taking off. Why does it need to be shot out of a tube? It has and engine and the ship has two pointless runways for frack sake. And who was the genius that put metal skid instead of wheels for landing? Why does it even have to land like that? Why can't it just come to a stop and hover down like all the other ships?[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lim1W7BkcB8[/media] How dare you insult one of my favorite ships in one of my favorite science fiction shows.

The international space station did not "take off" The parts were sent up in rockets and assembled in orbit.

[QUOTE=catbarf;34615686]My personal pet peeve with spaceships in sci-fi is how they always explode when they reach some arbitrary amount of damage. In real life, ships don't usually blow up. When the Bismarck was sunk, it took hours of continuous attack to cause enough damage to silence the guns, and even though it was low in the water, it still had propulsion. When a ship explodes, it's usually due to an ammunition magazine undergoing sympathetic detonation, and that's extremely rare. In space, there is no water, no waves to slowly sink beneath. A ship will only truly be destroyed when every system is taken offline. That might be as simple as destroying a powerplant, but any decent warship should have backups. Or it could be killing the crew, but presumably they're very well protected against decompression. When it comes down to it, a spaceship should be 'destroyed' when it is so shot full of holes it can no longer affect the battle, is scuttled, or is abandoned by the crew. For a ship to be fully functional, perfectly capable of movement and combat until the specific instant it takes that last thousandth tiny cut, upon which it explodes in an inexplicable incandescent fireball, is just silly.[/QUOTE] Did you not see the Challenger 2 disaster? a fairly tiny fault caused fuel tanks to completely obliterate the rocket/shuttle. Im gonna go ahead and guess that fictional space ships will need fuel of some sort which may be fairly volatile, and a well placed weapon round to that could cause similar obliteration. [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ewitwins;34616693]So I watched a little show called "Planetes" the other day. How scientifically accurate would you guys rate that? It was pretty spot-on in regards to EVA's, but besides that it's really out of my area of knowledge :v: [editline]9th February 2012[/editline] The Space Shuttle had all kinds of back-up systems, and the same goes for the Space Station. [editline]9th February 2012[/editline] I'm decently sure all of the extra bits and pieces sticking off of the "Millennium Falcon" would be ripped to shreds on takeoff v:v:v[/QUOTE] All what extra bits? 2 very stubby prongs at the front and a stubby cockpit too? Theres not enough length to cause the mass of the protrusion to make it snap. think see saws. Also the falcon fairly slowly takes off vertically before accelerating forwards, which would minimize stress on the small stubs you think are likely to fall off. [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=salmonmarine;34630677]The international space station did not "take off" The parts were sent up in rockets and assembled in orbit.[/QUOTE] Implied sarcasm when i said "how the fuck did this thing take off" me laughing at you when the next line says it was simply built in space.

Sorry buddy, but this article is very horribly written. You make very bad points in it.

This guy clearly thinks he is one of those cracked.com article writers.

[QUOTE=johnkane46;34443192]I think halo had some of the most fucked up science of all the fiction games! phantoms and wraths would be useless against an apache helicopter or F/a 22 Raptor. A humvee is far superior to a warthog. Not to mention guns that fire plasma are slow as shit and dressing in bright purple, blue and yellow may make you look baller as shit, you're going to get a face full of .50 Cal. Plus a pelican was all right but then again not fantastic![/QUOTE] The game makes them not work so well for the sake of gameplay. The standard Wraith round in the books apparently evaporates everything in a 20-meter radius of the impact point. The guns are shiny because Covenant likes shiny things. [QUOTE=nightlord;34445655]It's science fiction, it's for entertainment - it's not meant to make sense otherwise it would be boring. No science fiction universe would be as good if it was fully grounded in reality. For example, something like an Emperor-Class Battleship from W40K would not be as cool if it made sense: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/C5zut.jpg[/IMG] The whole point of it is that it looks good.[/QUOTE] I personally find hard scifi more interesting. Obviously most scifi has scientific inaccuracies or is based on only theoretical science, but as long as it's limited it's all cool. In the Revelation Space books they cannot travel FTL. There is a method they tried which resulted in a person being wiped from history, leaving no records of his existence. [QUOTE=RagerTrader;34446675]This article is terribly written in places. Also, the assault rifle from halo is a terrible weapon. Any military in it's right mind would never have fielded it as a main battle weapon. It is inaccurate, lacks stopping power, eats ammunition at insane rate. A much better "good future-weapon" example would have been Battle Rifle from Halo 2/3, or the covenant Beam Rifle.0[/QUOTE] I believe it's much more accurate etc in the books, once again gameplay. I'll admit though, 300 meters is a pretty shitty effective range. They could have modelled pop-up iron sights on it too, what happens when the helmet HUDs break?

[QUOTE=Skellyhell;34631807] All what extra bits? 2 very stubby prongs at the front and a stubby cockpit too? Theres not enough length to cause the mass of the protrusion to make it snap. think see saws. Also the falcon fairly slowly takes off vertically before accelerating forwards, which would minimize stress on the small stubs you think are likely to fall off. [/QUOTE] I think he means all the antennas and radar dishes on the Millennium Falcon. Unless they fold inwards, they'd snap off under acceleration in an atmosphere.

[QUOTE=Skellyhell;34631807]Did you not see the Challenger 2 disaster? a fairly tiny fault caused fuel tanks to completely obliterate the rocket/shuttle. Im gonna go ahead and guess that fictional space ships will need fuel of some sort which may be fairly volatile, and a well placed weapon round to that could cause similar obliteration.[/QUOTE] Actually, no. In fact, future space ships will need to be upwards of 50% composed of reaction mass in order to have enough delta-v to get anywhere. The thing is, in space travel, reaction mass and fuel are two totally separate things. People don't realize this, because the Space Shuttle's engine uses fuel as reaction mass, but the reaction mass can be composed of anything. Essentially, any reaction drive works by dumping energy into reaction mass, then propelling it out the back of the ship. So it doesn't matter what you're using, as long as it can be properly stored and then propelled. Water is a good candidate. Fuel, on the other hand, is just whatever is being used to power the drive itself- a solar-powered drive would have no fuel, for example. Since many sci-fi concepts use nuclear powerplants or fusion reactors as power sources for the ship, there's no reason they can't also be used as the drive system. A nuclear drive like a nuclear saltwater rocket or gaseous-core nuclear thermal rocket can provide enormous amounts of power, which translates into high thrust as well as high specific impulse. Combine it with big tanks full of water and you have a viable propulsion system. But the fuel in this case is nuclear fuel rods for the reactor. There's nothing as volatile as liquid rocket fuel. And of course, contrary to Hollywood, nuclear reactors don't undergo sympathetic detonation. Meaning, they don't go boom because you bump them too hard. They make leak or lose containment like Fukushima or Chernobyl, but that's an entirely different effect.