Science fiction pet hate

[ProwlAlpha]

What I hate most about the villians, is that they are complete assholes and they are not at personable, but they have minions who would give their lives at a drop of a hat. Yet, in the real world, generally when you hear people talk about the bad guys, like their neighbors, you hear a string of niceties and other compliments mixed in with surprise that they would even do something. That's because real bad guys are charming, friendly, caring, and would do anything to show you that they are not bad, but their enemies are the bad ones.

In Trek wise, Nero comes close. Shinzon has the makings of it but then he does a 180 out of no where. Khan, no, because he is an arrogant prick who thinks he is better than everyone else. His minions were probably genetic bred to follow him and the younger minions needed someone who will get them off of Ceti Alpha V.

Senator and then Chancellor Palpatine is a good charismatic villain. The Simpsons did it the best with that one evil genius, Hal, who gave Homer a job and then later the Denver Broncos.

 

[stj]

You find space elevators and planetary rings plausible, but not a missile defense system?

It seems very much like the detection problems in missile defense have information difficulties that run up against basic physical laws, like the inverse square dissipation of energy/information. And the tracking problem looks to be computationally intractable. Those are a different kind of problem from the engineering problems of space elevators and planetary rings.

I think that logic is flawed. Just look at sea faring from the late 15th to early 19th century.

If sailboats had to carry oxygen to breath and the wind to saild with, as well as food and water, there wouldn't have been any sailing ships to speak of, and even less trade. In fact, sailors could have a reasonable chance to build a whole new vessel if needed! The logistical load on sailing ships is negligible by spacecraft standards, no matter how important as it was to sailors running out of water. And the costs of sea travel also negligible in comparison to space craft.

There will never be a cheap form of star travel. Barring some entirely unexpected end runs around special relativity, star travel is a practical impossibility. If somehow a technology developed the resources to make star travel as cheap as sea travel (something primitive societies like seventeenth century England could afford!) then there would be no need to import resources. Ergo, no space war.

Or at least not as we understand it. The Vorlon/Shadow "war" on B5 was basically an ideologically driven hobby. Which is why when it actually started costing Vorlon and Shadow lives, and threatened even more, they decided to give it up. Whether this is plausible, who knows? It's not the way human societies work. Those wars are about material benefits for the rulers of the aggressive party. I know of no wars that are ideologically driven in the sense of being disinterested.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Here you can list your absolute worst mistake in a science fiction film. I know some of you could write books on it but just choose the one that niggles the most.

For me, for some reason I can't fathom, it's Chronicles of Riddick. When they're on the planet Crematoria, the jailers 'pop the lid' to let some fresh air in. Air? AIR? On a barren planet whose surface goes up to a thousand degrees when facing the sun? Then they all go out and run about on the surface. It makes me cross just typing this.

Over to you.

The entirety of nuStar Trek, or if a specific example is needed: Black Holes. And why no one seems to be concerned about them.

There is now a black hole in the Vulcan system, yet no one appears concerned. Even worse theres a new black hole five minutes away from Earth thanks to the Narada blowing up. That should kinda be a big issue. You would think Starfleet would delay the victory celebrations until they figured out what the hell they are going to do about the gaping void that will devour the solar system in the not too distant future.

Why assume the entirety of Starfleet is celebrating? It not like everyone in the fleet could fit into the Academy auditorium. If the black holes are a problem its safer to assume people are working on it. Not that we would actually see that work, unless it impacted on a story being told or that will be told. Red Matter black holes don't seem to be perminate anyway.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

The main problem with Avatar is that it's such cheap, manipulative propaganda. It flatters the audience by letting them believe they are on the side of the innocent natives whose resources are being stolen. But would anyone in the audience walk out of the theater resolving do anything concrete, such as using less gasoline, in their everyday lives? The number of people who got that message from the movie is vanishingly small. They bought an unearned glow of smugness for their ten or twelve bucks. If that's how Cameron wants to make a buck, good for him, but I at least choose not to participate in a collective delusion. All I wanted from that movie was the cool SFX.

LOL, whatever. I think you take things way too seriously. And I'm not entirely sure if you now criticized Cameron for allegedly doing propaganda, or if you criticized the stupid masses.
I didn't see cheap, manipulative propaganda, I saw an eye candy scifi/fantasy movie that was actually worthwhile. And I'm sure that's what most of the audience saw.

I'm curious... did you see the "stop wasting your life and join the military" propaganda in Star Trek?

Actually I've been rewatching some DS9 and TNG, which is the first time in years and years that I've revisited some of this material - and there is a very definite Be Useful to Your Society message, though it's not as specific as "join the military" because Starfleet is constantly portrayed as more about exploration than the way we think of military work today. I mention this because I remember one episode made me think specifically that I haven't seen anything with that earnest, gung ho nerdiness to it since Trek stopped producing good tv. I was marveling that such a thing was ever once popular in American culture, which tends to glorify either laziness or extremist reactions above all else.

Painfully obvious explanations for the audience, Trek being a major culprit with the standard, "Oh, you mean it's like [insert random lie-to-children explanation]".

The show where that's really excessive is CSI, since the characters are always explaining their techniques to each other, even though they're all trained forensic scientists who don't need it explained.

Also: the Broken Arrow effect. Somebody steals nuclear warheads, and the Pentagon has a meeting, and of course there needs to be some dumb idiot who has to ask "What is a Broken Arrow?" just so someone can explain it to him (or to the audience). I mean how the hell did this guy make it in there?

Funny - that's by far my biggest complaint about Avatar. Jake Sully was that "What is a Broken Arrow?" idiot throughout the entire movie. I never could suspend my disbelief that this ignorant moron was just plopped into an incredibly expensive one-of-a-kind genetically engineered body with no training and then made point person for a sensitive operation.

 

[DWF]

Well this is a strange one then, iin 2001 the ship's interior clearly rotates to make gravity, however the model doesn't move at all.

 

[Brikar99]

CSI's a lot like Mission: Impossible in that regard. Both shows revolve heavily around extended non-dialogue sequences of characters doing tedious, detailed technical work accompanied by music. And it's the music that makes it work, though the musical styles of the two shows are profoundly different.

No one does a techno-science-montage quite like CSI.

And NO ONE can take off their sunglasses with half as much gravitas as David Caruso.

 

[sojourner]

Well this is a strange one then, iin 2001 the ship's interior clearly rotates to make gravity, however the model doesn't move at all.

Your kidding, right?

Reading between the rather sparse lines, this device "worked" when the launch time was known, so that the airborne laser was actually airborne. It was fired on a trajectory within range. Also, there was no interference of any kind, neither snow, rain, radar jamming, chaff nor decoys. Nor multiple targets either. As I said, we do not have antimissile defenses. We do have things like the Patriot which are claimed to be antimissile defenses, but aren't, by politicians and businessmen with vested interests in such claims.

So, because it was a successful test under test conditions means it will never work under actual combat conditions?

Space elevators and planetary rings radically decrease the effective length of defense logistics, making the resources of an entire planet available for defense. Spacecraft are limited to what they can carry with them. Any reasonable technology would be defeated. Any blue sky tech like impenetrable force fields and perfect indifference to gravity would not need to concern itself with "targets." Blowing stuff up is not conquest, as events in Iraq and Afghanistan have reminded us.

Tell that to Japan. So, the "reasonable technology" is good enough for defense, but not offense? You seem unable to grasp that offensive weaponry always keeps pace with defensive between neighboring states of equal size.

Travel to and from other stars is a practical impossibility for the foreseeable future. Carrying significant resources other than information is currently inconceivable, rendering space war both impossible and pointless. Supposing there was some sort of remarkable technical advancement that made the resources for cargo carrying star travel, that same astronomical increase in resources means there is no need to go elsewhere for resources. With a wave of the hands, space war is possible but even more pointless.

And to turn that right around what if a race is already using the full resources of it's solar system? How do they expand? Oh yeah, they go to another solar system. Eventually they run into yours.With a wave of the hands, we are all dead.

A civilization that can travel to other stars on a scale sufficient to carry resources back has no need for said resources. Therefore there are no worthwhile targets. Therefore space war cannot exist. You might as well suggest that space aliens are coming to seize the men to dig the coal and rape the women.

See previous reply. Eventually resources run out.

Quarrels are not wars. I don't share your personal revelation that the social phenomenon of war is the inevitable expression of fallen human nature.

Beings with different beliefs will have quarrels. If those quarrels don't lead to understanding they will lead to conflict. Sometimes even understanding leads to conflict.

There will never be a cheap form of star travel. Barring some entirely unexpected end runs around special relativity, star travel is a practical impossibility. If somehow a technology developed the resources to make star travel as cheap as sea travel (something primitive societies like seventeenth century England could afford!) then there would be no need to import resources. Ergo, no space war.

I really don't understand why you think cheap star travel denigrates the need to import resources? Does the only form of star travel you think is possible have a by product of limitless energy and resources? Cheap star travel (as with all forms of cheap transportation) makes importing resources that much more viable.

 

[Silent_Bob]

Here you can list your absolute worst mistake in a science fiction film. I know some of you could write books on it but just choose the one that niggles the most.

For me, for some reason I can't fathom, it's Chronicles of Riddick. When they're on the planet Crematoria, the jailers 'pop the lid' to let some fresh air in. Air? AIR? On a barren planet whose surface goes up to a thousand degrees when facing the sun? Then they all go out and run about on the surface. It makes me cross just typing this.

Over to you.

The entirety of nuStar Trek, or if a specific example is needed: Black Holes. And why no one seems to be concerned about them.

There is now a black hole in the Vulcan system, yet no one appears concerned. Even worse theres a new black hole five minutes away from Earth thanks to the Narada blowing up. That should kinda be a big issue. You would think Starfleet would delay the victory celebrations until they figured out what the hell they are going to do about the gaping void that will devour the solar system in the not too distant future.

Why assume the entirety of Starfleet is celebrating? It not like everyone in the fleet could fit into the Academy auditorium. If the black holes are a problem its safer to assume people are working on it. Not that we would actually see that work, unless it impacted on a story being told or that will be told. Red Matter black holes don't seem to be perminate anyway.

See if this were the real Starfleet i would assume that. However the nuStarfleet puts teenagers in charge of flagships and gathers their entire fleet in one place so that there is no one but teenagers to respond to a crisis. So it's hard to assume they are even remotely competent.

As for Red Matter black holes not being permanent, there is nothing in the film to imply this. Then again they arent even internally consistent with the effects of Red Matter Black Holes in the film, so they can wave it off as an answer next film. If they even bother to mention it, which i doubt they will.

 

[Deckerd]

That brings me to another pet hate: people who think interstellar travel will ever be possible within a human lifespan. Also with stasis or whatever you want to call it - who wants to be fossilised for centuries? What possible attraction could that hold?

 

[Silent_Bob]

That brings me to another pet hate: people who think interstellar travel will ever be possible within a human lifespan. Also with stasis or whatever you want to call it - who wants to be fossilised for centuries? What possible attraction could that hold?

The warm feeling you get when you realise that everything you have ever known or loved is now dust?

 

[Deckerd]

Well prezackly Silent Bob. You've encapsulated what I was trying to say in a succinct and elegant way.

 

[DarylCarpenter]

Well this is a strange one then, iin 2001 the ship's interior clearly rotates to make gravity, however the model doesn't move at all.

The rotating part of the Discovery is actually inside the ship. What would make the ship "move" as a result?

 

[stj]

So, because it was a successful test under test conditions means it will never work under actual combat conditions?

We certainly don't have an antimissile defense now, which was the issue after all. But it is still possible that this test tells us nothing about the ability of airborne lasers to destroy missiles in a real combat situation. They could have put an absorptive covering on the missile to maximize the "effectiveness" of the laser. Whereas any real missile would have reflective coating if lasers are a significant threat. Anytime anyone talks about the use of lasers for weapons you have to suspect fraud. (Except for antipersonnel use, since no one can put a mirror finish on the human retina.)

Tell that to Japan. So, the "reasonable technology" is good enough for defense, but not offense? You seem unable to grasp that offensive weaponry always keeps pace with defensive between neighboring states of equal size.

Mechanically, there is no distinction between offensive and defensive weapons. There is defensive technology, like armor or fortifications, and there are weapons, and that's mostly it right there.

It certainly isn't true that both weapons and defense technology keep in balance. It's not even true that tactical defense and tactical offense always keep in balance.

The issue is logistics. All space craft are at the end of an extremely long logistical line, usually so long that they are limited to what they can carry. Whereas defenders are at the end of an extremely short logistical line. The idea that invading space fleets are going to stand and duke it out with defenders ignores that the defenders will be more numerous and resupplied. Such a scenario is absurd, unless you postulate kamikaze invaders.

Unfortunately, defenses against space fleets, with cumbersome supplies and life support and so on is not the same as blocking all the tiny weapons, which unfortunately can have big results. But threatening to mass slaughter still doesn't give you control on the ground. Carrying out threats of mass destruction would destroy the resources you were supposed to be after. That might be self-defeat, but it's still defeat.

Japan did not surrender just because it was bombed. It had been militarily defeated on many fronts, both naval and land, losing large numbers of forces in China and the islands that were taken to support an invasion. Being an island nation, Japan was more vulnerable to siege tactics than a landlocked nation. But since you mention Japan, recall that planners dreaded an invasion of the main islands because the defenders had a short logistical line and the invaders did not. Balance in technology had nothing to do with it, even if such a thing did somehow prevail.

The US spent years conquering dinky little islands to shorten the operational supply line enough just to make an invasion feasible. It took years because even with relatively cheap sea transport it still took a great deal of time to accumulate materiel. Space war as generally presented on TV and movies, it's like flying some planes from Honolulu and not just dropping a few bombs, but duking it out with the entire Japanese military.

And to turn that right around what if a race is already using the full resources of it's solar system? How do they expand? Oh yeah, they go to another solar system. Eventually they run into yours.With a wave of the hands, we are all dead.See previous reply. Eventually resources run out.

What would they run out of? You can synthesize elements if you care to expend the energy, and use less than any theoretical form of star travel imaginable. Recycling has got to be cheaper than going to another star system.

Beings with different beliefs will have quarrels. If those quarrels don't lead to understanding they will lead to conflict. Sometimes even understanding leads to conflict.

Whatever is the point here? People quarreling are not a war. Wars are government actions. Individual psychology is not relevant to government, editorial cartoons representing nations as individuals notwithstanding.

I really don't understand why you think cheap star travel denigrates the need to import resources? Does the only form of star travel you think is possible have a by product of limitless energy and resources? Cheap star travel (as with all forms of cheap transportation) makes importing resources that much more viable.

Answer to first question: I don't think there will be a really cheap form of star travel, cheap meaning doesn't require a lot of resources. That's for moronic, low grade scifi like Lost in Space and BattleStar Galactica. But if resources become so abundant, i.e., cheap, that even something as extravagant of resources like star travel becomes cheap, then, naturally, with such abundant resources, there's no need to go get more.

Answer to second question (I think, there's a typo in there.): Yes, as a matter of fact, I do think that any conceivable form of star travel is going to be astronomically proligate of energy. Either it must involve monkeying around with space time or it follows special relativity. In the first case, we know how much energy it takes to warp space. The Earth only warps space enough to produce a 9.8 meter per second squared acceleration! The energy equivalent is given by the famous equation E equals m c squared. The c squared is equal to 9X10E16 kilogram-meters squared per seconds squared. times the mass of the Earth. People often don't know there are currently theoretical "ways" to have a star ship, but these are all practical impossibilities.

Special relativity of course tells us that as a mass is accelerated, it's mass increases, meaning it takes more and more fuel. To actually reach the speed of light means an infinite amount of fuel. Given that most of the fuel goes to accelerating the fuel tanks, the payload is going to be somewhat light. That takes a lot of gas.

I always assume that the spaceships, however they're supposed to be traveling from place to place in warp or hyperdrive or whatever the double talk is, are going more or less low speeds. Indeed I don't think of them as being accelerated at all. When it's suggested otherwise, like the "breaking the back" of the Galactica, I just laugh at the stupidity.

There are two problems at the root of all this nonsense. One is not grasping the difficulty of star travel (which will probably never happen.) I can't really give an entire education in basic science on the internet.

The other is the unfounded certainty that war is inevitable, just because. The relative lack of war in South American history, or the long periods of peace in Europe, alone show that this is not a reasoned position. It's just stupid, evil apologetics.

 

[JarodRussell]

What exactly do you mean by resources? They didn't need the breadfruit and potatoes to build sailing ships, but back at home those "resources" helped feeding a starving population.
The resources you need for space travel don't need to have anything to do with the resources you can gain from that.

Plans to harvest the moon for tritium anyone? Resources that are very rare or don't even exist on Earth but could be of use?


And if alien species exist in large numbers and could reach each other in reasonable time, there would be trade routes, and territorial disputes would ensue, just like on Earth. One species would try to colonize and harvest resources from a couple of planets, another species wouldn't like that because it's their territory and they need these resources, too, and - tada - there is your space war.

 

[sojourner]

^I give up. Your preconception that star travel and war (conflict, quarrels, finger pointing, whatever you want to call beings trying to kill each other) is impossible is just as ingrained as my beliefs that star travel and conflict are possible and even probable.

I am just glad most science fiction writers don't have as limited a vision as you.

And you know, I really hate people that limit tomorrow's possibilities based on today's technology. This point of view has repeatedly been proven wrong throughout history.

 

[stj]

What exactly do you mean by resources? They didn't need the breadfruit and potatoes to build sailing ships, but back at home those "resources" helped feeding a starving population.
The resources you need for space travel don't need to have anything to do with the resources you can gain from that.

Plans to harvest the moon for tritium anyone? Resources that are very rare or don't even exist on Earth but could be of use?


And if alien species exist in large numbers and could reach each other in reasonable time, there would be trade routes, and territorial disputes would ensue, just like on Earth. One species would try to colonize and harvest resources from a couple of planets, another species wouldn't like that because it's their territory and they need these resources, too, and - tada - there is your space war.

It was not necessary to conquer anybody to get breadfruit and potatoes.

It would take vastly more energy to travel to another star system than you'd get from the tritium you could get there. In fact, there's probably not enough tritium in this system to provide enough energy to go to another star system, which is what I mean by practical impossibility. If you did go to another star system to mine tritium, why not mine it at the uninhabited places? As for rare elements, as I said, the energy to synthesize them would be less than the energy for star travel. There is a school of thought that holds ultimately all resources are reducible to energy. This may be exaggerated but there's a lot of sense to it.

With some ideas for star travel, involving wormholes and such, it is not even certain there is a trajectory. But even if there were, there are no significant obstacles in space, most of it is vacuum. Essentially, a ship would go from point A to point B. Another vessel would go from point C to point B. Lines AB and CB would intersect only at their destination and ships on either "trade route" would never near each other, because space isn't just big, it's astronomically big.

The notion of territory consisting of interstellar vacuum is absurd. It's not even like claiming ocean as territory, because there's fish and maybe sea floor resources in the ocean.

As for colonization, it is unlikely in the extreme that star travel will ever be cheap enough to bring back even a single breadfruit or potato for planting. Also, the difficulty of settling a planet with an alien ecology is staggering.

It would make far more sense to build artificial space habitats around the sun. If necessary you could dismantle some of the more useless planets. But if supplies ran short you could tear up Jupiter.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

stj

I agree that resources (as in mineral resources and the like) are abundant throughout the cosmos. Interstellar wars won't be fought over them.
However, these are not the only reasons one can start wars over.
Wars can be fought over ideological or religious reasons.
For example, an alien species might attack another, less advanced one, in order to eliminate a potential adversary before it becomes a threat, while it's still weak.


As for the difficulty of interstellar travel, as of today, we only know the general principles of building a relativistic ship travelling at about 10% speed of light.
But our knowledge of the physical laws is far from complete or accurate.

And even now we could speculate on exotic interstellar travel methods:

For example, by using Heisenberg's uncertainty:
By measuring exactly the impuse (of a quantum particle - a ship) on an axis, its position becomes indeterminate on that axis - beyond normal light-speed limits (aka it's superluminal travel). Of course, in order for this to work, you would need to put the whole ship in a single quantum state and then choose the position the wave function will collapse to (hey, if it was easy, anyone could do it).

My point is - "There are more things in heaven and earth, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Or mine.
We just are not in a position to tell what will be possible/feasible in those matters. Maybe, when we will figure out quantum gravity we'll be able to make an educated guess of some substance. Before - not so much.

 

[sojourner]

STJ - Go to this sight and start reading from that point down, then feel free to read the rest of the sight. It may help:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3aa.html#killingstar

 

[Nerys Myk]

The entirety of nuStar Trek, or if a specific example is needed: Black Holes. And why no one seems to be concerned about them.

There is now a black hole in the Vulcan system, yet no one appears concerned. Even worse theres a new black hole five minutes away from Earth thanks to the Narada blowing up. That should kinda be a big issue. You would think Starfleet would delay the victory celebrations until they figured out what the hell they are going to do about the gaping void that will devour the solar system in the not too distant future.

Why assume the entirety of Starfleet is celebrating? It not like everyone in the fleet could fit into the Academy auditorium. If the black holes are a problem its safer to assume people are working on it. Not that we would actually see that work, unless it impacted on a story being told or that will be told. Red Matter black holes don't seem to be perminate anyway.

See if this were the real Starfleet i would assume that. However the nuStarfleet puts teenagers in charge of flagships and gathers their entire fleet in one place so that there is no one but teenagers to respond to a crisis. So it's hard to assume they are even remotely competent.

As for Red Matter black holes not being permanent, there is nothing in the film to imply this. Then again they arent even internally consistent with the effects of Red Matter Black Holes in the film, so they can wave it off as an answer next film. If they even bother to mention it, which i doubt they will.

The only teenager on board was Chekov and as a fully trained Officer in the Fleet I think he might be able to stand a watch at conn. I was under the impression that the cadets being assigned to the various ship in Earth orbit were Academy seniors. (average age 21?) I would further assume that the ships were staffed by experienced officers like Pike, Spock, Olsen and Dr. Puri in addition to the cadets.

IIRC, the Red Matter creates a spacial anomoly that can "suck in" any planets or Stars (or other body) the red matter is in injected into. On one occasion that resulted in a hole in time/space enabling the Narada and the Jellyfish to travel from the 24th Century to the 23rd.(time travel using a wormhole has been theorised) So Hobus Star, Vulcan and the Narada all sucked into a "blackhole" created by Red Matter. Thats consistant, yes? Does it always open a "tunnel" to another time? Dont know.

 

[Christopher]

^Whatever the flaws with the Red Matter concept, it's still nowhere near as dumb as Project Genesis. That was just plain magic. Plus the Trek movies have also given us, let's see, flying jet boots, a Galactic center that's less than half an hour away, supernovae whose effects propagate far faster than light, the Nexus, the youthifying radiation of the Ba'ku planet, thalaron radiation... Credibility has rarely been a priority in ST motion pictures.