Best we can do is a social media app that spams you with despair and propaganda 24/7.I grew up with The Jetsons.
Where the hell is my flying car?
Warp vs Genesis (TNG 7 x 19) What counts as bad science in Trek? And why nitpick?
- Thread starter Is this Darjeeling
- Start date
For one thing, trying to "walk on the floor" in weightless space is the equivalent of trying to swim by strapping weights to your ankles and walking on the bottom of the pool. It's not even a good approximation of normal walking, and it's stupidly slow, limiting, and inefficient compared to the easy, graceful way astronauts actually move in space. If you want to hold still, you just grip a rail or hook your foot under it, because spaceships are designed to have hand- and footholds always in easy reach. (The anime series Planetes did a marvelous job showing this.) If you're on the outer hull and want to avoid drifting off, a tether is obviously better, because you don't lose your connection if you lift both feet at once.
For another thing, real spaceships tend to be made of lightweight materials that aren't even magnetic, so that makes it a nonstarter. Also, the magnetic fields could interfere with shipboard electronics. It's just an incredibly bad idea by any realistic standard. Its only possible benefit is to TV/film producers who can't afford to do a lot of wirework stunts to simulate free fall. But I'd rather see that handled through a conjectural future-science artificial-gravity field that we can't rule out than through a real-world method that's already been ruled out. It would be no worse a break from reality than The Expanse's conjectural super-efficient fusion drive.
The bad science, implausible science, and overall bunk is forgivable and easily overlooked if the story is good.
Similar threads
