Why Every Movie Space Battle Is Wrong! (Because Science w/ Kyle Hill)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 май 2017
- SURPRISE BECAUSE SCIENCE CHANNEL! Subscribe now and click the shiny notifications bell so you don’t miss out on all things science and pop culture.
bit.ly/BecSciSub
We’ve seen plenty of epic space battles from Star Wars to Star Trek and a ton of others, but have we been lied to all this time? Kyle shows you the truth on this week’s Because Science!
Subscribe for more Because Science: nerdi.st/subscribe
More science: nerdist.com/topic/science-tech/
Watch more Because Science: nerdi.st/BecSci
Watch the last episode at: nerdi.st/2nJ1tiN
Follow Kyle Hill: / sci_phile
Follow Us: / nerdist
Because Science every Thursday.
Artist: Andrew Bowser 
Развлечения
Someone CAN hear you scream in space if you do it in a sciencey way. New mini-episode over on my Insta (instagram.com/sci_Phile/). Thanks for watching! -- KH
Nerdist so the Ship would look like a Borg Cube, 🤔 Okay .
To fix the communication issue, wouldn't teleportation of data be the answer? I've read somewhere that we as of now can teleport very very very small amounts of it. I would assume that in the time between now and these space battles it would get more effective. Just curious, not sure if this is true or not. Awesome video :)
yeah through vibrations. Also watch the expanse. In space i can hear you scream just, come here.
+Nerdist Have you played Children of a Dead Earth?
It's a space combat game about this very topic, of realistic as possible space combat.
Junior
As of now, our "teleportation" is the same as any other data transfer - disintegrate an object and *send* it to another plays where it will be reconstructed. Wich has pretty much the same problem, as we can't send anything with the speed superior to the speed of light. We don't have wormholes yet.
Unrealistic space battles: *exist*
The Expanse: "I'm gonna pretend I didn't see that"
"If you draw it poorly, Disney can't sue. I think..."
Still checking with legal on this. -- KH
Michael Skinner Their mascot is a mouse.
Why wouldn't they sue? They sue everyone.
"There hasn't been a space battle"... That we KNOW of!
Also, Tie Fighters and X-Wings do a lot of planetary operations, so there are times those wings come in handy. Just when they are in space, not so much.
LyfeHack Solutions Actually, the “wings on a T.I.E Fighter are solar panels, so they always need them no matter what condition they’re in.
The wings are not shaped to produce lift in an atmosphere though.
A more practical explanation would be that the wings are cooling fins. In space the only way to remove waste heat is via radiation, so all the electronics, hot engines, weapons etc. would need a way to cool down, the bigger the surface area you can present to the vacuum, the greater the rate of cooling. This would also make sense for X wings opening up when firing weapons and speeding up to higher velocities, more energy = more heat = more required cooling.
The inverse square law makes 'solar panels' useless in deep space.
It just goes to show how little Star Wars writers know about science.
The "TIE" in TIE figher supposedly stand for "Twin Ion Engine".
Now there's a little detail about real life Ion Engines, or Ion Thrusters as they are more commonly called: they don't really function to keep any craft in flight inside of an atmosphere. They only work in space.
Well given that it is fiction it is possible that a powerful Ion Thruster would work in an atmosphere.
You see the physics for Ion Thrusters obey Newtonian Physics, which would work in an atmosphere. The issue with current Ion Thrusters is that they don't produce a lot of thrust, which is fine in space, but if you devised a powerful thruster with a lot of fuel, it would work in an atmosphere. But then again there is no space on a Tie Fighter for all that fuel required for atmospheric operation!
So maybe Tie Fighters are not feasible because there isn't the space onboard for the fuel.
Expanse is really accurate, Babylon 5 and Gallactica are trying as well.
They do in a lot of sci-fi shows. Just not StarWars, which he seems to focus on.
Exactly but it was hard for Babylon 5 and gallactica to do it but they could of done it a lot better the expanse was the sci fi show that took it as close as the they could get it and the expanse was built around the hard extreme sci fi accuracy is near absolute perfection because it's litterly the closest thing to physics as they could get it and it's to me very much 100 perfect for how the physics work in the series because they had an actual scientist and physics guy to help out and the firing of the railgun in the series where we see the purple plasma is actually very accurate to how it would look in real physics is amazing and awesome but it's the most and the closest thing ever beyond Babylon and gallatica
Accurat-ish, rather than accurate.
That's why in Mass Effect 1 you can hear a Military Guy telling some other Guys "If you fire that bad boy, it will ruin somones day, even when you miss, maybe tomorrow, maybe in 20Years, but it wil definatly ruin somonse day :D
"That means sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a bitch in space" it was ME2 btw :)
Yea you're right :)
I'm pretty sure that that particular scene is from Mass Effect 2.
ToabyToastbrot ii
It also explains the joke Shepard makes with the Salarian at that store if you choose the paragon route to a store discount. "You wouldn't believe how many times I hear "We're only half way there, why are we turning around?""
The answer if course is if you spend half the journey accelerating then you must spend the other half decelerating unless you don't mind overshooting. If the ship only has rear-facing engines then it has to turn around and point those engines in the direction of travel to slow down.
Rocinante spotted! Nice nod to The Expanse :D
Purrs like a kitten at twelve gs
Remember the Cant
1:14
The "wings" of the Tie Fighters are solar panels, and given their vertical fixed position they wouldn't provide much lift.
Thank you, this is BASIC Star-Wars lore that nobody seems to understand.
Yes, the "wings" of many Star Wars craft can act as heat diffusers, mounting points for energy collectors, and play a role in shield projection. All the planet-side lift is produced by those mysterious repulsor lift generators.
The Expanse does a pretty good job!
They do a fantastic job, which is why I filmed a special edition of this episode with one of the actors! facebook.com/Nerdist/videos/1691796130838188/ -- KH
Reaverman
The books are even better at portraying it than the show.
Reaverman history my words
I loved the 8 minutes the Canterbury had to contemplate their fate while the torpedoes closed.
I like the episode with the hull breach, and the guys in prison. Where they end up blocking the breach with the corpse :D
You've clearly forgotten Kyle, that there is a common frame of reference in space! The enemy's gate is down.
Nice -- KH
Nerdist do u research all this or do u just know the science behind all of it?
"What about The Expa.."
"Remember the Cant."
"Oh, I see."
0:34 All those that don't watch "The Expanse" won't get this.
LOL
Yeah cause the Expanse is the first and only semi-realistic show. Have you heard of Babylon 5 ? No ? Think again !
Babylon 5 isn't realistic. I have just watched a clip (after many years since I last watched the show) and the ships manoeuvre in an unrealistic manner. I saw large ships magically slow down to a stop without any visible propulsion to do so and the smaller craft flying around like aircraft.
I saw one speeding ship in a battle, miraculously turn 90 degrees on a dime, which is physically impossible.
The other thing is gravity (and the lack of it) isn't dealt with in any of the craft, other than the space station.
The reason The Expanse is more realistic is that it assumes humanity hasn't developed a great deal and Newtonian physics apply.
For it's day, Babylon 5 was fun and in the escapist vein of entertainment, The Expanse doesn't try to be like that, you don't come away from The Expanse thinking that you just watched something 'out of this world'. You come away thinking, 'Oh my, we could end up like that in the not to distant future!'
They can't.
uh... the reimageing of Battlestar Galactica does a pretty solid job at balancing physics accuracy with its space opera roots
Babylon 5 got the physics down pretty good.
I was just about to post the same.
This needs more thumbs up.
L00NGB00W its a movie?
Yeah, they did.
They had TV movies, but in the video he states movies and TV shows never got it right.
I saw this video years ago and still comeback to it.
I just love how it manages to simultaneously ruin and improve every space battle we see.
Ships would be at HUGE distance apart, far longer then human eye cound see, battling with stealth, detection and countermeasures capabilities, since one hit would be a kill anyway. Basically similar to modern naval or tank warfare.
it really depend on the type of movement it has, if it has rockets or something similar, they may leave a trail of light behind, that might make them easier to see.
There is no stealth in space!
Sure there is. Radar works the same in space. Also, heat-masking offers infrared stealth. Signals could be tight-beamed. Stealth isn't invisibility, it's being very hard to find.
And how exactly do you mask heat? It's possible on earth because you can cool things like exhaust plumes by mixing it with cool ambient air. You can't do that in space. In fact, cooling spacecraft is really a big problem. And you have to do it against the background of cold space, not balmy earth weather. And while you can use the same principles as stealth aircraft here on earth to shrink radiowave signiture, the same cannot be said evading detection in optical range. We can detect planets in distant systems using optical means, the same apply to detecting spacecraft. Like I said, there is no such thing as stealth in space!
You would make your electronics to give off minimal heat, and the heat that remains you would radiate away from earth. As far as optical detection, when looking at LEO, there's a lot of territory there. It would be like looking for a needle in a needlestack.
I will cease discussing this subject because you have locked into your opinion and refuse to hear anything contradicting said opinion. Therefore, good day to you, sir.
Technically, sci-fi is adapted nautical fiction. Thats why large ship battles tend to be the way they are, and also why so many capital starship's brigde is so obvious and easy to attack.
Same reason why alien species tend to only have one culture per planet.
Still, the briges of War Ships is not on top. Its DEEP within the ship. And that is not a problem because cameras and sensors are always useable.
Well in history it has shown that a,dead captan or admiral is ahm ... Bad.
In the battle of tzushima, the russian admiral dont wanted to stay in the combat brige because he could not see a thing, so he went up. And died after one hit. Russia lost, end of story.
ok but in star trek the bridges are all at the top of the ship and the ships have shields that protect it mostly the warp engines and the bridge are the strongest
I disagree with part of that.. The reason that alien species tend to only have one culture is because in fantasy, that is how it works.. Elves, dwarves, Klingon, Asari, Turian.. whatever.. Humans stand apart in fantasy games because of our diversity. IDK why that is a common trope in fantasy but it is.
echo, kinda, depending on how well developed the lore is, you will find diferent cultures for similar races, not every elven city is the same, not every dwarven fortress is underground, and so on.
normally they attach a racial diference for those races, like for example, dark elves or mountain orcs, and so on.
it really depend on how much detail that world has. also, because we are human, we take for granted our own diferences, but for something like a dwarf, or an elf, we may not notice their nuances between themselves.
Right but you are talking about different subraces of a race.. Similar to saying a husky is different than a wolf. A wood elf is different than a high elf. A mountain dwarf is different than a grey dwarf. But individuals within a group are all pretty much the same mindset. The same can definitely not be said for humans.
For everyone saying how shows like The Expanse get these right...I know! That's why *I have a very special edition of this episode on Nerdist's Facebook*. It features one of the actors in The Expanse! Here it is: facebook.com/Nerdist/videos/1691796130838188/ -- KH
Nerdist woo hoooooo
Nerdist please tell them to kill the sound in space though :p
Nerdist I suspected you knew about The Expanse. I love the actual physics they display in the show and your video portrayed it perfectly!! plus... you sneak sly dog had the main ship buzzing around the epi!! thought I recognized it!!
Why -- KH
I get the idea of doing a Facebook exclusive video, but doing two versions of the same episode is kind of weird, especially when you get a great guest like Cas and focus on how much The Expanse gets right, but then never mention the show by name in this version of the video, even though it features the Rocinante. I love that you did the Facebook version, but think a lot of non-Facebook watchers are going to miss out since that video will be harder to share across other social media platforms.
Tie fighters have Wings because they are space and atmospheric ships, so they only have to poroduce one ship for two tasks.
Edit:
I also just noticed, the Wings on tie fighters are solar panels, that are the stripes. :)
The1Ultimate [t1u] and f-302s are space and atmospheric fighters(stargate)
The descriptions of space war in the Mass Effect Codex is absolutely amazing.
The Expanse does a very good job of space battle.
Yes.... In my opinion, The Expanse Literally dethroned Anime Shows like Gundam and Gunbuster for tile of "Most Realistic Space Warfare in a TV Show."
LotusEater14 I love that he just kept dropping hints all over the place with The Expanse. Ship designs/drawings, how weaponry would work, the way a ship's acceleration would give you gravity. The Expanse is probably the closest realistic sci fi setting you're going to have until we start going out into space.
the expanse kicks ass! Even Astronauts said it was nearly accurate to how space fairing ships would operate.
0:35 Remember the Can't
LotusEater14 that show is so physically in accurate stfu
Wouldn't the projectiles dissipate eventually? If say, a plasma based projectile, were to miss its target and continue travelling uninterrupted, wouldn't it eventually radiate away all its energy. Because Entropy?
Philip Fahy more because of blooming, and quite fast for plasma.
Lasers would be diffraction limited.
Philip Fahy railguns
Philip Fahy shut up nerd
Since plasma is basically heat and matter combined, it has to emit IR radiations, so yeah they will eventually dissipate
except he was talking about actual, physical projectiles. as in bullets and shells.
Remember the Cant
Space Ninja Hello my Expanse brother.
anywhere i can watch it? i have seen clips but im in the US so it isn't on netflix......... plz help
is it legal?..... im against pirating
Theb don't watch.
im just checking
so is it?
The Expanse shows these pretty well. Their ships are built with the decks perpendicular to the thrusters, like you said. When they get near their targets they flip around and use the thrusters to slow down and partially block sensors with the heat. They use 3 types of weapons: missiles for long range, rail guns for mid range and machine guns / cannons for close range, all of which do a good job of shredding ships.
It has a pretty good representation of what space combat would look like.
So a space battle with a box like ship, shooting in all directions.....
The Borg are scientifically accurate then? :)
Yay for Borg Cubes!
Yah. I always thought that the borg sphere was the perfect ship design. Best surface area to volume ratio etc.
Spheres definitely would be better than Cubes. Cubes just house more drones. 50,000 if I remember correctly.
Qrazy Quarian Borg have spheres too. Cubes are the main ship type as the house the most drones for easier assimilation.
Cubes definitely look more menacing, I think that if they made a sphere using the same number of materials as a cube, a sphere would be more efficient.
Star wars starship wings make sense tho since they do go to the surface alot
Erik Sigge and TIE wings are solar panels :/
but why the f would you make a winged ship perform a powered vertical takeoff and landing like most ships do?
And why do X-Wings have their wings so far back? They would constantly try to flip.
I give the artists credit, the smaller ships look (mostly) pretty cool, and the star destroyers, admiral ackbar's ship and the death star look sensible!
i think the wings have a purpose that is not for flight seeing as despite only h aveing rear thrusters they take off like they have thrusters in all directions.. im sure this is explained with some scifi explanation.
Erik Sigge to increase cool factor to sell toys
I know, it's just a well-known ship. -- KH
A few errors: at 3:00, the G-forces in a spacecraft are too small to cause any problems, and at 6:00, the recoil from space weapons are too small to cause any problems. If the G-forces in fighter jets don’t stop them from throttling, or the recoil doesn’t stop them from flying, it won’t affect spaceships, certainly!
I think he's referring to the fact that even though the effects of firing a space weapon may be small, it will gradually rob you of velocity. This is because most space craft are not constantly firing their rockets, as seen in the movies (or w/ jet engines). For example, in the case of the Juno mission to Jupiter, the craft was pre-programmed w/ two ignition sequences. One to get the craft up to the velocity in which it continuously coasted, until it reached it's destination. The second ignition was fired in the reverse direction, in order to slow the satellite down and insert itself into a 53 day orbit around Jupiter.
As for the discussion of G-Forces, if you're referring to the G-Forces you'd experience in space, at a complete standstill or at a consistent velocity, you're completely correct, since G-Force is the measurement of inertial stress on a body of mass as it is subjected to acceleration. However, if you were to take part in a deep space dog fight, you're likely to be be increasing and decreasing velocity at such a high frequency, that the G-Forces would be hell. Especially if we throw in the potential of light-speed, etc.
Most people are usually referring to the advancement of velocity, when discussing acceleration. However, as far as physics is concerned, acceleration refers to any change in velocity (an increase or decrease). Therefore, G-Forces are going to be relatively the same whether you're on the Earth or in deep space.
Anyways, I hope this helps!
“Sound” in space would be a useful way to relay information to utilise the senses we have. Basically when the ship sensors detect incoming fire they can synthesise sound within the ship just to relay information to the pilot efficiently. I don’t have a problem with sounds coz of this - I just imagine that it is one of the ways for the ship to communicate the data feed to the human
If you draw it poorly, Disney can't sue..I think. (bruh, had me laughing)
If you think about drawing it,they can sue you.
If anyone is interested in Sci-fi work with great and plausible space fights, I can recommend the "Honor Harrington" Series. Not a TV Show or Video Game though, "only" a book series. The ships aren't boxes, but reverse double-cones (thickest part in the middle) due to the drive that is used. They fire (mainly missiles, because ballistic is too easy to evade over vast distances) sideways and therefor the ships usually go into a "wall" formation for maximum efficiency. The Author took the vast distances into account very well, including that the crew/bord-computer has to calculate their flight paths and in which direction to shoot to actually hit something and that communication from "High Command" can take minutes to hours to issue new orders.
Yes this^.
that indeed sounds like a propper and logical space battle. mainly also like the idea (for as far as i understand from this comment) that the writer assumed that it would probably be a lot more like a big naval battle of 2 huge cruisers firing at each others from immense distances.
David Weber (the writer) did base the battles in the books on real navel battles.
Eis Geflüster You mean Missile Porn: The Series?
Christ Stuart Exactly ^^
Actually, I can't remember who, but someone pointed out that the deathstar contains... air... so those gases impacting your spaceship after the explosion would make some sound.
Fun to see that you guys like the expanse! It's an awesome show when it comes to realistic sci-fi.
5:00 And that is why sir Isaac newton is the deadliest son of a bitch in space! (Please someone get that reference).
Ulrican414 mass effect 2. What do I Win?
Ulrican414 You *do not* eye-ball it!
Hopefully a better game in a few years. -- KH
Nerdist Andromeda is really underappreciated ihmo
It's not the first time this reference was made ;)
Wheres the "suprise lightsaber !!"?? :O
Too busy working on the t-shirt for all you nerds. -- KH
We watched Because Science and all we got was this (NOT) lousy t-shirt! :D
Nerdist but but but :O it's a star wars episode :O you can't not add the "SUPRISE LIGHTSABER !!" :O
Wouldn't be a surprise if you know it'll come, would it?
Francis Magnan It's *surprise. =)
"Why are we turning around? We're only halfway there!"
XD
The show "The expanse" would satisfy your concerns. Which is why it is one of my favorite. It would be great watching Mr. Hill debunking a scene from expanse.
He showed the roci like 5 times lol.
Remember the can’t ;)
This is where the FUN begins.
AgeTemplar this is where the fun begins
AgeTemplar This is where the fun begins.
AgeTemplar where the FUN begins this is.
*NOW THIS IS POD-RACING!*
Not yet.
NOW THATS POD RACING!
4:46 This reminds me of one of the random anomalies in Stellaris; in one of them, while your science vessel is investigating the potential anomaly, they get scratched by mass driver (relatively small railgun) rounds. Calculating their point of origin using the rounds' direction and velocity, it appears they are approximately million years old, fired off from a nearby galaxy (In Stellaris, the different FTL methods available are not fast enough (or alternatively lack the range) that intergalactic travel isn't possible within a reasonable timeframe).
Firefly did a great job representing the silence of space and their ships were fairly portrayed as well.
Did he say flying cubes???? Hello 7 of 9!!!
B5 was the 1st to try to get it right, they even had different color explosions for different atmospheres!
Yeah and they had directional thrusters to turn the ship on it's axis whilst still travelling in the same direction.
the Space:1999 Eagle transports also had multi-directional thrusters and flew in a more life like way
Kinda surprised B5 wasn't mentioned at all.
recon3113 weren't the fighters from B5 being looked at by NASA as possible ship designs?
also Michio Kaku did a show about "how to do Sci Fi properly" and his star fighter design looled very much like a Star Fury.
C'mon Kyle, call yourself a nerd?
All these facts you mentioned are why most modern SciFi Aerospace fighters have maneuvering thrusters as well as atmospheric control surfaces. A common tactic used by both Viper pilots in Ronald D. Moore' 2004 Battlestar Galactica as well as Star Fury/Thunderbolt pilots in Babylon 5 to maneuver 180° on horizontal axis to fire on a target in pursuit.
Star wars "wings" are either solar panels or radiators, A wings and Y wings doesn't have actual wings, and S foils on x wings work as coolers for the weapons, tie fighter "wings" are solar panels, viper and raptor wings are small and those ships work quite often in atmospheric ops
Most sci-fi ships create artificial gravity with weird methods like atmospheric pressure
Most sci-fi ships use inertial dampeners to maneuver in space, that's why they only have backward engines
Fusion nukes are quite effective in space, they blow up in a plasma sphere, like the damn freakin sun
Subspace comms, you know?
Demoblade and some scifi ships can enter atmosphere like death gliders and f-302s which make since to have wings. Weren't the Russians making a fighter that could work in space to couldn't we use that as a baseline?
if russians say they are doing something supernew, superspectacular and superadvanced, believe me, it is fake news, they don't have enough military budget to develop that kind of tech
Demoblade if the mig 41 can actually do what they say it does and works it would be cool but isn't there a whole treaty about not putting weapons in space? Not sure if Russia signed but still.
yup, there is a treaty, aaand, since basically every aircraft manufacturer sees 6th gen fighters as tail-less flying wings, not some fantasy space fighter which somehow is suposed to fly in space without any oxidizer, the MiG 41 is probably a hoax
Demoblade eh honestly wasn't expecting it to work and wasn't expecting Russia to be the first ones to try to make one ether. Its a cool concept but there isn't really a practicality to it.
Come on Kyle! You are a science nerd, you are supposed to know T.l.E stands for Twin lon Engine. Those are not wings, those are essential parts of the engine!
rasnac I would say he definitely knows what TIE Fighters are. He's done an episode on them lol
They're essential parts of the everything that needs power, as in they're solar panels to supply power for the electrics, including the ion drives.
TIE fighters are probably the least guilty Starfighters of the "Looks like a jet plane" syndrome that plagues most sci fi.
I dug through the comments to see is anyone would call him out on the TIE fighter thing. Glad to not be disappointed.
I agree and hate it that your comment is buried this far down BUT the TIEs are still an effective demonstration tool (and a way more effective tool at that than they are of space-air fightering :P )
The engines are actually on the back of the cockpit of a tie fighter, the wings do have solar panels as an extra power source though
The amount of Expanse references is overwhelming lol.
angry try hard he also tried to step away from BSG there with the cross-referencing of g-force on fighter pilots in space. Tbh, g-force still is considerable even in an atmospheric fighter
Ikr, almost every comment he made I was thinking "like in the expanse". Such a good show, and proof that you can make realism in sci-fi entertaining.
Remember the cant 😂
I just finished the lost fleet series by Jack Campbell and the space battles in the books are like what is described here. There are battles where the fleets are on opposite sides of a solar system and it takes days for them to meet and several hours just to see if the other guy has changed direction or sent you a message. I loved the way the space travel and battles were presented with a little more reality then in other Sci Fi universes.
Awesome video! But I think there is one thing you missed! In “real” space battles the ship would pump out all the air and have the crew have individual suits like they do in The Expanse. Since a hull breach is almost inevitable, it’s a lot less messy compared to a pressurized vessel.
Battlestar galactica was pretty close
So Borg ships right?
Zionn VII
Same thing I thought XD .
yeah. the Enterprise is such a stupid ship if you think about it lol. get the center ripped off and half of the ship is gone
Well, in the Enterprise's case, it's kinda justifiable. You see, the ship itself IS the center part, the things with the engines *COULD* be there only to keep the ship (containing civilians, you see the Enterprise was never a warship) and the engines (very explosion-prone, and if they do explode, everything in a certain radius is obliterated) apart. Not a perfect design by a long shot, but kinda justifiable if one is a Trek-apologist.
Actually the enterprise is quite well designed.
HydroGlobus gets it a bit.
The disc bit is the main body where most of the stuff and people stay and live. Engineering is down the the body bit at the bottom. The nacelles (the two bits that stick up at the back) are intentionally kept far from the habitat disc bit because they're the bits most likely to explode if they fail. The problematic bits can be ejected, and if the ejection fails, then as a second fail safe they can detach and leave behind the entire nacelles.
Also, keeping in mind that the Enterprise is an exploration ship. So it's built for comfort, life, science, and combat. Combat is not it's primary purpose. However keeping all the non combat stuff to that disc was clever, because if they're in a situation where the risk is really high and there's potential safe harbour nearby the entire disc can detach with all of the non-combat people in it. It has small engines of it's own (no warp though I believe) and basic phaser banks. The rest of the enterprise then is free to fight (there is a back up bridge near engineering called the "battle bridge") and it has the torpedo tubes and all the power which it can focus entirely on the battle with minimal life-support.
Cody's Lab proved that an explosion in space would produce high energy gasses that would impact your space ship and produce a sound.
and a rain of debris hitting your hull
depending on the average size of the debris and the distance from the explosion, it might not. but you're pretty much bound to get a nice wave of gasses and vaporized material flying at you.
Box shaped ships - the Borg? LOL!
The Expanse, Firefly, and BSG would have issue with this video.
BSG and Firefly both have artificial magic gravity. Expanse doesn't (in the lore) but you can tell there's some inconsistencies with that here and there.
Its helpful when the Expanse show runner has a Ph.D in physics
I've met him a few times! Huge nerd, very, very committed to getting the science right. That's why I love the show so much. His first job was science advisor on TNG. -- KH
That's what he's saying. They would hold issue with this video because they do the things mentioned in it.
Serenity's floors are still lined up parallel to the direction the ship is travelling. Sure they have gravity technology, but it's pretty wasteful to use all that miraculous tech to stop everyone on the ship from suddenly flying towards the cargo bay doors whenever Wash takes off..
remember the cant, belters ✊🏻
Finally someone gets it -- KH
Like everything else humans built for space travel, it was designed to be efficient, not pretty. :D
Mi Sa-sa
I know the reference immediately, but I was a little too late to come to the party...
Nerdist you got me to watch the expanse my dude. I love the premise and enjoy every episode
I offer for your consideration the space flight and battles present in Firefly and the film Serenity. A bit of the usual dogfight-style maneuvering, but no sound, realistic weaponry selections and reactions, and the Serenity's design is a very functional layout for fancy flying in a vacuum.
This is the video I always wanted to see!
In Serenity, they kept the in-space fights quiet.
In the Wrath of Khan the climactic space battle hinges on Khan's outdated two dimensional strategy.
I like that you started with "Remember the Cant" Yup!
Unmanned spaceships sniping each other with ultraviolet pulsed lasers from light-seconds away.
Babylon 5 got space combat (mostly) right while Andromeda (in the beginning) got long distance communication and data telemetry correct showing a time delay with both.
You would see the borg!
I remember reading an article that said the perfect shape for a starfighter or even on a spaceborne warship was a sphere, a box. And that you would have to have engines of equal mass and size pointing in every direction to gain the kind of maneuverability that you see in movies.
Very interesting episode. Couple of thoughts:
1st: You don't need to constantly accelerate in space battle. It is a space. You gained a speed and then you fly until your next maneuver. A pilot will know his limits and will accelerate as much as he can tolerate it and stay in control of his ship.
2nd: what is wrong with constantly changing heading? Yes, it is highly uncomfortable but with proper training he can pull it off. By the way astronauts in these days undergo some excruciating training. So I don't think that it is impossible.
3rd: projectiles can alter your speed, true, but flight computer can compensate changes in velocity.
One other problem with space battles, is that everyone thinks in ups and downs. In space, their is no up and down. It's a truly three dimensional battleground. You would have to invent a three directional compass that keeps a universal constant of a single direction without magnetism, just to tell your co-pilot which direction your opponents are.
so the Borg got it right
Allen Huang. yep. and since they have just one big ship usually comunication wouldnt be a problem even without subspace
I always assumed in my head cannon that space communication in the future would be through some type of alternate subspace dimension like a wormhole making it instant virtually
speaking in video game terms there is one game series that i feel did a good job of space combat. That's the Escape Velocity series of games. The sound part might not have been right in them, but the physics of the fights were, including movement. One of my favorite maneuvers was to accelerate to full speed, then turn around and fire behind me at the pursuing vessels, pelting them with railguns and/or laser beams. with the railguns i would have to control my fire due to the recoil veering my ship in various directions, but it did allow for very nice stunts. (my friends and I called it the "inertia drift") That sort of movement was also fun for banking around hot areas. let that stew for a bit.
Well, on Babylon 5 the Starfurys have two sets of engines: One to the front, one to the back, and that does not include other thrusters. I the cockpit, the pilos is, basicly, down on his/her back (or standing up with his/her back to the back pannel, dependeing on your perspective) with his/her arms on the contros.
Is a good reference of how a starfighter might actually be.
5:00
Gunnery Chief: This, recruits, is a 20-kilo ferrous slug. Feel the weight. Every five seconds, the main gun of an Everest-class dreadnought accelerates one to 1.3 percent of light speed. It impacts with the force of a 38-kilotomb bomb. That is three times the yield of the city buster dropped on Hiroshima back on Earth. That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space. Now! Serviceman Burnside! What is Newton's First Law?
First Recruit: Sir! A object in motion stays in motion, sir!
Gunnery Chief: No credit for partial answers, maggot!
First Recruit: Sir! Unless acted on by an outside force, sir!
Gunnery Chief: Damn straight! I dare to assume you ignorant jackasses know that space is empty. Once you fire this husk of metal, it keeps going till it hits something. That can be a ship, or the planet behind that ship. It might go off into deep space and hit somebody else in ten thousand years. If you pull the trigger on this, you're ruining someone's day, somewhere and sometime. That is why you check your damn targets! That is why you wait for the computer to give you a damn firing solution! That is why, Serviceman Chung, we do not "eyeball it!" This is a weapon of mass destruction. You are not a cowboy shooting from the hip!
Second Recruit: Sir, yes sir!
Just another reason why Mass Effect is so great.
Hmm... now where did I hear that reference before....
1 and 2 were good
Wish we could go back
About half or more of 3 was as well. But then... *sigh*
Fuck EA.
Try play mass effect 1 for an hour, then go on andromeda for an hour, then tell me in which you had more gameplay problems and in which you got the most stuff done ... Even the nomade is more maneuverable than shepard in the first one.
Though to be fair considering how empty space is, it actually would be incredibly unlikely for a stray projectile to hit just *something* before leaving our galaxy.
The communications thing it may be resolved. I heard that scientist had two quantum enlaced (or some like that) particles, which change instantly when the other does too. And the speed of that change is independently of the distance, so the "change order" travels faster than light
No ones yet developed that.
However if they did that would have some pretty serious implications for that universe.
Distant planets, distant fleets, etc could communicate instantly.
The snag is that whichever two units are communicating would have to be manufactured in the same place.
However, relaying from one group to another could easily solve that problem.
It always bothered me how all ships have their thrusters on constantly, it’s not necessary as a small boost would give constant velocity.
i have to say that spaceships being boxes wouldnt be the case... because cosmetic appeal.
also one of these eposodes needs a "surprise SPANISH INQUISITION!"
A sphere would be a better design. You could put thrusters and weapon ports facing all directions.
It's also very efficient in ways too. It maximizes ship capacity while minimizing surface area. This helps make life support (ie. heating the inside so us meat bags don't die) less costly.
The borg. Nuff said.
A cube cannot look better than The Borg, it just can't. Sorry, I meant NO SPACESHIP/SPACE STATION/RUBIK CUBE CAN LOOK BETTER THAN THE BORG.
darcraven01 I also don't think fighter ships would be cube shaped. that would be an easy target to get hit. Although aerodynamics don't mean anything in space, it would make you a smaller target. a pyramid or cone shape is better for deflecting enemy fire.
Couple points: 1. A lot of the ships (At least in Star Wars) do enter the Atmosphere of a planet, so wings would be needed. 2. In things like Mass Effect and Star Wars, they have FTL equipment that would allow instantaneous communication.
Christian Ross Well, the most iconic ship on Star Was is wingless. It flies due to magic!
Christian Ross yeah he said we would be talking about scientifically accurate things, meaning no FTL communication
But if you had FTL you could also travel in time and thus making battles unnecessary, since there will never be a loser, since the loser will travel back to stop the battle before it begun
Jonas Kr. That's not how time travel works. If you travel through time, you would make an entirely new timeline. You can't go back and rewrite time.
The Alphajaggi you can't diffinitively say how time travel works because it's not possible
I was thinking: The Expanse. It actually went so far that it (afaik) didn't have sound in battles at the beginning. They used torpedoes from 80.000 kilometers ONWARDS. Railguns at I think 20.000 km's. Oh, and they actually used touchscreens. And pressure suites. And had issues with shifting gravity during a battle. And recoil. And it's *beautiful*. So, yeah.
Question is... How do tie fighters and other non winged vehicles fly in atmosphere?
Jonny Wendigo Possibly with enough thrust. Something similar to the VTOL capable Harrier aircraft which has engines pointing downward to provide an upward force to keep it in the air while stationary. Also, it is possible to keep a wingless vehicle in the air if it was moving fast enough and with the engine pointed in a certain way. Every object has a center of mass (the point where an object rotates by itself). If an engine was pointed at an angle under the COM and forward in the direction of travel, then it would be able to stay in the air without wings. I hope that this answered your question my friend.
Kenton Compton indeed. But i was thinking more along the lines of say, the mellinium falcon. The thrust is from the back and shows pretty fair maneuverability without destroying its surroundings. Firefly at least had the dual vtol on its appendages.
In the case of Star Wars ships that are intended to operate near planets, they all have "repulsorlifts"--effectively, anti-gravity technology. I don't know if TIE fighters have those, but then, I don't think we've ever seen a TIE fighter operate in a planetary atmosphere, have we?
at least in Star Wars, many ships have Repulsorlifts, essentially sort of a reverse tractor beam which repels the ship from any nearby mass. This is why in several scenes you can see ships and fighters hovering in the air at low speeds. At high speeds, it's simply a matter of the engines being powerful enough to keep it going forward instead of plummeting to the ground.
d2factotum i see. Now i am informed. Thanks, and in force awakens i believe tie fighters where in atmosphere during the falcon chase.
inertial dampeners for the win
Also faster than light communications. Also reverse thrusters. Also you wouldn't be a box in one spot because you'd be a sitting duck. Probably the best rendition of an actual space fight would be... Outlaw Star.
I've love to see Because Science explain how inertial dampeners would work, according to current understanding of physics.
wrong, the expanse is the best rendition of a space battle
this totally reminds me of that scene in the expanse where they used a MAC to correct a decaying orbit
And in the show when the railgun is fired you can see the main drive firing to compensate
Great video. Reminds me of David Weber's Honor verse.
B5's space battles were somewhat accurate--to the point where they even point out what species piloted which ships based on the way the atmosphere ignited when the ships exploded. Granted, the Mimbari had some BS form of artificial gravity and they utilized cheesy phased-plasma weaponry. But aside from that, B5 kinda went for realism.
Also, Star Wars explains in certain books that the onboard computers approximate sounds for the pilot, so flying in space becomes less disorienting. Granted, that probably wouldn't help in real life, but whatever. An explanation is an explanation. lol
Babylon 5 explained away the whole there is no explosions or fire in space thing pretty well. Of course there is an explosion as oxygen and what have you ignites. It just won't be a lasting flame as it'll be smothered pretty quick.
I thought of this too. Almost every battle we get to see star furies spin around and fire in whatever direction they want without changing direction.
Qrazy Quarian: Some explanations are more obvious attempts at retconning than others though. :P
The borg Cube and Sphere would be appropriate
Blader. sphere would be greatnsince itnwpuld have minimal surface area and begood at deflecting projectiles. assuming they hit near the side
One thing not quite right regarding guns in the video.
Recoil of the gun in space can be compensated for if the gun fires an additional charge in the opposite direction of the projectile at the same time as the projectiles charge is ignited, this does make each round more complicated but as long as the mass and velocity of the gases being ejected in the opposite direction of the projectile is the same as the mass and velocity of the projectile, then the momentums of each will cancel out.
So the gun will have no effect on the ships velocity.
BTW in the video without the described recoil system I mention here, shooting the gun sideways would change the orientation of the ship and if the main engine were burning then the direction and velocity vectors of the ship would change, contrary to the presenters (Kyle) description.
Electric Futures why does everyone argue about the guns? Airplanes shoot into the direction the fly. Yes they get slowed down by that, but does anyone care? You are changing directions and speeding up and slowing down way to much during a battle anyway. And its not like in an atmosphere where speed is speed and by having wings you can convert vertical speed to horizontal speed without any energy input. In space you need energy to change your velocityvektor in every case. So those few kilogrammes of bullets can easily be compensated by the huge amount of the engines thrust that is required anyway to move the spacecraft in a way that makes it suitable for fighting.
the problem isnt the same as planes, its that in some cases, those weapons are incredibly powerfull,
That doubles the mass of your ammunition. Your main drive would probably be a more efficient propulsion source so better off carrying extra fuel to compensate for the recoil.
LOL. True.
Depends what direction the weapon is facing.
If you have a gun lined up with the main motor you have to turn the craft to point the weapon, it would be quicker and easier to just turn the weapon to point at the target. I don't think a gimbled motor bell would be satisfactory, difficult to aim the weapon because you wouldn't be cancelling out the original momentum as you slewed the craft around to aim the weapon. While you are carrying on in your original direction, to lock on the target you would have to continually turn to track it (whilst you still move at some velocity along the original trajectory), more so the closer the target is. Very difficult to track the target using the main motor like this.
While you are struggling to line up your weapon with the main motor. I'll just turn my weapon in a few seconds in your direction and fire off a few hundred shots. I'll happily take the extra weight of the ammunition.
Electric Futures I don't think it's necessarily contrary, what I think he probably means is that perhaps a loss of velocity could be more detrimental than the need to perform a course correction, by his reasoning anyway
Remember the can"t. LOL!
the "wings" of the tie fighter arent wings , they are exagonal solar panels
ya because solar power is significant compared to the amounts of power used by a tie fighter.
They spend most of the time in space right? So i mean they must be necessary to get off planet.
woolfoma
They are not contemporary solar panels.
Doesn't matter, contemporary solar panels get 20% of sun power, even if it was 100% you'd still get tiny amounts of energy compared to what a tie fighter needs to fly and fire weapons and shields. Also I'm pretty sure these wings don't help aerodynamically. They just increase the rotational inertia making the fighter less maneuverable (also less acceleration too).
Star Wars is for kids anyway, they are full of lame stuff and plot holes and unrealistic shit so this is no surprise.
^Oh, it seems we have a Treky present^
Hey Kyle,
Can you analyze the high G maneuvers and the movements of the CQB in the series The Expanse? The first episode in season 2 seems to try and use most of your points about the reality of space battle. It would be interesting to have your take on it and clarify any points within the battle that are either close or far from the reality of it.
Thanks
2:43 there was actually a thunder here the exact moment you did this. I don't think it would sound like that lol.
The last question on the "where is down?" I believe the it may be possible that the planet on their starcharts would be "down" in orientation and positioning. But even this doesn't fully answer that question, but i believe it would be a good start.
Not box-shaped ships, although the rest seems right. A cube ("box") has a good deal more SA to volume than a sphere-- meaning that you have quite a lot more armor/shielding to lug around relative to your fuel/crew/cargo etc. that you can hold.
Alternate title: Why "The Expanse is the best show ever"
But expanse has explosion sound effects in space :(
But! I'm not saying it's a bad thing. In some places I believe the effects needed to be added to make the scenes more clear. Where it was clear as anything, sounds were not used.
Also even though space does not carry sound as pressure changes. It does carry particles. So particle cloud from explosion would make sound when it hits your craft. So space is not soundless.
Oh and space combat in terms of maneuvering and torps and rail guns. Oh boy were they perfect.
If I remember right they excuse that away by saying its "Simulated Sound" ie. the ship detects things going on outside and adds sound inside the ship to simulate it.. which actually makes some sense since simulating sound could help situational awareness like if there were explosions or things happening behind you.. how would you ever know?
far worse than Babylon 5
PureAwesomeness001 Real title we ignore any and all design philosphy , piolt and crew saftey and we piss on facts to make our shit theory work.
I'm pretty sure that if you fire anything from any angle in a space ship, it will still impart the same amount of force - firing sideways will just mean you have to correct for drift, etc. It's be easier to simply fire along the primary propulsive axis as it's the easiest to correct, although the idea of pirate ships in space sounds cool.
Tbf those vertical TIE fighter wings would have the aerodynamics of a knife being dropped blade first, so for those it fits and I did always like that.
If using keyboard commands / touchscreen interface while under high G maneuvers was so hot, why don't we see that in jet fighters?
Riffley02 most likely due to the fact that you can't pull insane g's in atmosphere because of aerodynamics and the risk of damaging structural intergrety of planes. If it's not required, it's best not to use counter-intuitive or hard to handle controls for flying your supersonic warmachine.
and since the late 80's they have been using multi function didplay touch screens in jet fighters.
We can make planes that handle high G's. The problem is the human component can only survive so many G's and remain conscious. That limitation isn't going to go away in space.
I don't think space battle would even need high G maneuvering.
Bill Kerman of course it would. G's are basically momentum working against the direction that you want to go. If you will change direction at high velocity, for example to get out of the way of a projectile, you will experience high G's. Regardless if it's in space or atmosphere.
In the tv remake of battle star Galactica don't they do "Asteroids" style manoeuvres?
They do, that's why I'm upset that the only clip from BSG shows some of the unrealistic manoeuvrers, but there's not a single clip showing what they did right, like Newtonian flight model of Vipers, and capital ships firing from side mounted guns (well, Battlestars also had some front facing guns, but come on, who would leave front of such a big ship completely unarmed? It would be a huge blind spot) and the designs of the ships. Raptors, Battlestars, and Basestars were pretty much completely wingless, Vipers only had short wings which were, most of the time, used just as weapon mounts, not as real wings.
And Vipers used RCS to turn the ship around instead of magic.
I feel like a videogame-controller-like control interface would be the most practical and intuitive design
8:15 the Kyle dance!
You probably would enjoy Babylon 5's starfury fighters then. Very realistic star fighter & fighting style depiction.
Dreammirror Brony the earth destroyers without gravity would also be a + to realisem
An argument can even be made for some form of sound given that all manned ships contain some sort of atmosphere and the force of that expanding after a ship's destruction would create some sort of wave front.
thought of that too, think they are a great design, babylon had some great ideas, sorry but the ww2 fetish star wars dog fighters are lame, outdated and silly concepts compared
Dreammirror Brony hell yeah babylon 5 star fighters show great agility that would be fairly accurate from the forces that a 4 wings ship can exert in space
He obviously has never seen Bab 5. They actually spent time and researched this.
So.... Quantum Entanglement Communications? Kyle?
Quantum entanglement cannot be used for communication. no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, period.
Well then.... We'll just have to wait until the next Einstein finds a new physics law that will KO our current laws.
That's why you cheat and not technically send the transmission faster, but send it though a wormhole, pulsed warp bubble......etc
Josua070 I thought the same :D
Luke Schoen unfortunately it's not possible
@Nerdist not sure if this was already answered somewhere in the previous comments, but about the question on why most space battles seem to be conducted relative to a fixed plane (even though every direction can be "down") -- I assume it's because they are aligned to either the orbital or galactic plane.
“Instant communication like we see would be impossible”
=that one point in an essay you don’t have much backing for so you stretch the hypotheticals to fit your point
FTL communication is still physically impossible as far as we know.
the tie fighters "wings" were built in solar panels for energy generation because the tie fighter was so fast it consumed a lot of energy
LOL, if that really was their justification it's pure nonsense. The absolutely tiny amount of energy you'd get from solar panels of that size would barely be a drop in the bucket compared to what it would consume for maneuvering, firing and just generally operating the aircraft.
really? I thought they were used to go in and out of atmospheres because you do see them do that a lot.
antred11 In Star Wars they have faster than light travel, forcefields, Death Stars and Laser weapons that show no signs of a power source, is it so hard to believe that they could do solar panels that are many times more powerful than ours?
Eragonyoung, yes you moron, because the max solar panels could produce would be 100% (today it's around 20%) and even that is pitiful amount of energy for the amounts of thrust needed.
The inverse square law makes all 'solar panels' useless in deep space. Even SciFi panels.
Basically 100% of practically nothing is still practically nothing.
If the inverse square law were not true then there would be no life anywhere.