Armageddon...

[unknown_orbiter]

Mkay I just saw the movie "Armageddon" again after about 5 years... and I now hate space movies. I think if I see one more movie where the space shuttles boost towards a space station... I may flip. There was so much astrophysical fail in that movie that I can not believe any producer would even approve it! A space station, without any ligit center of gravity rotating to produce artificial gravity? Then, something actually docking with a rotating space station? How about the dual launch? Two multi-billion dollar space ships launching withing 20 feet of eachother and performing ascent maneuvers at that distance? OH! I love how the ships are in Earth orbit... then literally an hour later in movie time they are in Lunar orbit without ever even performing a transfer burn. And the ships having to flip upside down to do a prograde burn? And since when does doing a prograde Lunar burn at 10 G's for more than a minute even keep you within a thousand m/s of Lunar excape velocity? They would be flying around the moon with enough velocity that they wouldn't even complete a 20th of an orbit before escaping. *sigh* Hollywood should never attempt space flicks without consulting at least someone with a GED -.-. I also like how the asteroid looks like a friggin koosh ball with axe hair gell. Did they get M. C. Escher to design the whole asteroid?... guess at least the movie was interesting.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Honestly, I only saw the movie to see Liv Tyler. Other than that, I wish that I'd brought hearing protection. The soundtrack was good.

 

[Quick_Nick]

Here's a review of a number of the inaccuracies.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/armpitageddon.html

 

[Turbinator]

I know what you mean, ever watched Space Cowboys with Clint Eastwood?
That movie made me rage.

Having real life events (they don't have to happen in real time) in space movies makes them far more interesting, than that made up fake excuse of a brainfart they go along with.

 

[Urwumpe]

I know what you mean, ever watched Space Cowboys with Clint Eastwood?
That movie made me rage.

That movie was at least good enough for filming in the Shuttle Simulator in JSC.

 

[Andy44]

Armageddon is my all-time most hated movie. Sure, there are worse movies out there, but none that were billed as accurate in the pages of Smithsonian Air & Space magazine like this garbage was.

And not only was the science all wrong, but the story was juvenile and contrived, the music was AWFUL (Sorry, Liv, your dad's band hasn't been cool since 1979), the contrived drama made me want to puke, and there were like 5 endings before it mercifully stopped.

The only thing keeping me from walking out was the company I was with, who, despite my best efforts, continue to spend money on really bad summer blockbuster flicks.

 

[francisdrake]

I think I read a post in this forum on "Mission to Mars" some time ago:

"When Hollywood producers spend multi-million dollar budgets on their SciFi-movies, why don't they pay 800 dollar to a high-school student to tell them how space physics really work?"

I may not remember the words correctly, but the message is clear. I guess the movies would not be less thrilling if they adhered to real physics, but the logic of moviemaking is obviously not easy to come by.

Movies with a bad science often start with a bad book. Fortunately there is already a website trying to help writing real science SF books and scripts, the 'Atomic rocket page'. Maybe we should send a link to hollywood.com?

 

[sunshine135]

Well, I'm gonna tell y'all the same thing I tell my kids...It's just a movie people!

199 out of every 200 people aren't going to care about the dv it takes to get a Space Shuttle or other spacecraft to make an ejection burn to the moon. Consequently, I guess no one in this forum ever flew the Delta Glider.

If you don't like sci-fi movies, don't watch 'em. No one is holding anyone's feet to the fire here.

:dynamite:

This message will self destruct in 5...4...3...2..

 

[tori]

That's the point, Armageddon is not a sci-fi movie, it's just -fi. Although it claims the opposite.

DG is scientifically plausible, whereas anything in that movie is just baloney. It's just as offensive as the moon hoax.

 

[T.Neo]

Yes. While the DG is fantasy, it at least works on real principles.

 

[sunshine135]

That's the point, Armageddon is not a sci-fi movie, it's just -fi. Although it claims the opposite.

DG is scientifically plausible, whereas anything in that movie is just baloney. It's just as offensive as the moon hoax.

Yes. While the DG is fantasy, it at least works on real principles.

I respectfully disagree. While, yes, the physics used in Orbiter are very accurate and the forces the DG uses to get into Orbit are also accurate, the DG is not scientifically plausible. The forces required to get a spacecraft that size into Orbit would destroy it. If that weren't enough, the engines would melt from the heat generated from all of that high octane fantasy fuel. :thumbup:

 

[RisingFury]

Actually, what bugs me in all the space movies is not the crappy Physics. You need something to make it exciting and watching the shuttle for 30 minutes between MECO and TLI just ain't it...

What bugs me in space movies is that usually only one or two people survive...

 

[Linguofreak]

A space station, without any ligit center of gravity rotating to produce artificial gravity?

Everything has a "legit center of gravity" and anything can be rotated for artificial gravity. Of course, the gravity would probably point in inconvenient directions if the station wasn't designed for it, and it probably couldn't spin too fast without being designed to do so without undergoing structural failure.

 

[Sky Captain]

I respectfully disagree. While, yes, the physics used in Orbiter are very accurate and the forces the DG uses to get into Orbit are also accurate, the DG is not scientifically plausible. The forces required to get a spacecraft that size into Orbit would destroy it. If that weren't enough, the engines would melt from the heat generated from all of that high octane fantasy fuel. :thumbup:

The engines could be cooled by cryogenic propellant to prevent meltdown and/or have some form of magnetic containment system to prevent the plasma from physically touching the engine parts. IMHO currently the biggest obstacle to building a real DG like SSTO craft is lack of suitable power source that don`t need tons of lead shielding. If aneutronic fusion lives up to the claims then it could provide required power in small compact package suitable for small SSTO spacecraft.

 

[Kyle]

If you want to be cured, watch From the Earth to the Moon and Apollo 13 then your hatred of Space movies will vanish.

 

[tori]

The forces required to get a spacecraft that size into Orbit would destroy it.

Could you clarify that please? We have orbited significantly larger objects in the past (e.g. Endeavour's up there in one piece right now) and much larger are soon to follow (e.g. the Skylon SSTO).

You're right about the engines though. As a side note - they're not that far from reality, the best contemporary chemical engines have ⅓ of XR2's "expert" mode Isp, and they are regeneratively cooled, so no melting there. We'll get there eventually.

My statement about DG's plausibility was on the physics involved (Isp or thermal issues with high exhaust velocities don't matter, especially if the difference from reality is lower than one order of magnitude). Compared to the DG both the hoax and the movie in the OP suffer badly.

@Kyle: Tom Hanks saves the day every day.

 

[Linguofreak]

The forces required to get a spacecraft that size into Orbit would destroy it.

That's all a question of materials. Considering that the DG is smaller than the shuttle stack and has a lower thrust to weight ratio, probably not.

If that weren't enough, the engines would melt from the heat generated from all of that high octane fantasy fuel. :thumbup:

This is the real concern, and probably true.

 

[Andy44]

And the power source needed to generate that heat would likely kill the crew with radiation and leave the launch runway glowing blue for a few thousand years.

---------- Post added at 08:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 PM ----------

Well, I'm gonna tell y'all the same thing I tell my kids...It's just a movie people!

Yes, but among movies, it's the worst of them.

199 out of every 200 people aren't going to care about the dv it takes to get a Space Shuttle or other spacecraft to make an ejection burn to the moon. Consequently, I guess no one in this forum ever flew the Delta Glider.

Well, the 200th person represents the average Orbiter user, so your point is lost.

As for the Delta Glider, aside from its magic engines, it still abides by real physics during flight, since it exists in the Orbiter sim. You could not use Orbiter to simulate, for instance, the fake gravity on the Russian station in the film, the docking sequence where the vehicle docks upward with its main engines burning, or the 10G turn around the Moon as depicted in the film.

If you don't like sci-fi movies, don't watch 'em. No one is holding anyone's feet to the fire here.

That is the point. Those of us who hate Armageddon love good sci fi movies.

And besides, the movie doesn't suck because it's bad sci fi, it sucks because it's an example of bad moviemaking. Bad music, bad casting, bad acting, bad script-writing, bad directing, all bad everything.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

I had the [dis]pleasure of watching Armageddon this evening (in background, dad put it on) and I wanted to launch my tv into a solar-sub-orbit! Yea, sure, if the setting was different, and 99.1701% of the plot were removed and thoroughly scrubbed, and it was recast, with a different soundtrack, it might make an ok-ish movie, but the inaccurate science...ARGH!
[/rant]

 

[sunshine135]

Could you clarify that please?

Mia Culpa. I agree. On further review this statement was not accurate. There are a lot of great composites that a DG type craft could be built out of that would make it light, flexible, and able to withstand very hot temperatures.

The engines and the fuel are still a big issue, and I do not hold out much hope for fusion reactions anytime soon that could produce the type of energy like the DG would need. in a "compact" fuel cell especially. Something much larger- maybe, and a better chance with a carrier-style craft.

Then again- ask me 20 years ago if I thought I would be blogging on a home computer over this thing called the Internet. Anything is possible.