Genre nitpick

[Pete B6K]

I got a nitpick bugging me that every space sci-fi film I've seen has got wrong. Here's a couple of simple things; space is 3-dimensional and theres no gravity out there. So why when spaceships meet are they always the same way up, and often at the same level. The ships do have clear tops and bottoms, and theres no reason that two ships should be at the same angle. I also cant think of a time that the ships changed direction by 'climbing' or 'diving', they only ever turn to the left or right like they were on a water level. These faults are so common that they've become accepted and noones comments on them on nitpickers. I may be ranting so I'll stop now.

Pete

[Jay \'Connor]

I also cant think of a time that the ships changed direction by 'climbing' or 'diving', they only ever turn to the left or right like they were on a water level.



Kirk used this tendancy for tactical advantage against Khan in "Wrath Of Khan".  


Most space fights tend to play out like naval fights.  Naval tactics can be studied...space tactics have not been developed

[Jay O'Connor]

So why when spaceships meet are they always the same way up, and often at the same level.



You could say that there might be a general tendancy to fly along the plane of the elliptic from some source reference, either the Solar System or the Milky Way or some local star styem

[C. Hill]

Also you'll notice in many of these movies, the space ships, blasters, explosions etc. all make noise.  There is no sound in space.  Sound, unlike light, needs a medium to travel through and space is an empty vacuum.  Come to think of it, there shouldn't really be any giant fiery explosions in these movies either, considering there's no oxygen.  But then again without these things lots of sci fi movies would suck ass.

[John Morgan]

Why is it when in a scifi flick a person falls out into the vacuum of space, everyone says, "Oh we have a few seconds to get to him before it's too late."  In reality, the lack of external pressure on the body would cause the body to explode.  We live under 14.7 psi pressure in our atmosphere.  Take that away and our eyes would pop out of our heads, blood would blow out every orifice and any skin would streach under the force.  Also in space, the extreme tempuratures would add to the effect.  Any exposed skin facing the sun would burn  and the blood would boil.  Any exposed skin away from the sun would freeze instantly and crack appart.

So, here is what would happen in the first .3768 seconds of a person being thrown out into space.  The blood would boil and skin would burn on the hot side, the blood would freeze and skin crack and break off on the cold side.  While all this is going on, the ears, eyes, nose, mouth, and other holes in the body would blow the insides of the person out through them.  All the parts left would then either freeze or bake until solid.  All this should take place in a little less than 1 second.

[Jay O'Connor]

Didn't Outland or some other older movies show something along those lines? Instant explosion?

Then you have "Event Horizon", "Fortress 2", my dearly loved "Farscape" with people taking extended unprotected walks in outer space

[Frannie]

I'm no scientist here but don't the crews need oxygen to breathe.  Wouldn't that oxygen burn in an explosion?

[systemcr4sh]

THAT would be friggin cool to see happen in the movie if it was done right!

-Dan

[Jay O'Connor]

Just curious but does anyone actually know what an explosion in space really looks like?

That's something NASA could try...nah...they wouldn't do it.  The Russions would do it for enough cash, though.  Just blow something up in space to see what it look slike

[C. Hill]

You'd probably witness an implosion rather than explosion as massive de-compression occurs.  I guess the oxygen people are breatheing on a spaceship might cause an explosion, but it would probably be snuffed out very quickly.  Until someone builds a massive space ship and blows it up in space, we may never know.

[Flangepart]

I think i can give at least a rationalisation. As planet born creatures, we are defined by the horizon. Ever watch a video from a Pilots/cameras point of view? Ever find your self tilting your head to be level with the center line of the picture? You line your head up, with what ever doninate "Horizon" there is. As a pilot, you'll naturaly use your wings as the "Local Horizon", and the "True Horizon" as the seconddary "Level" . This is done to keep a check on where objects are in relation to one another. In video flying, i find i do this, and it helps me stabilise my "Situational awareness". Pilots do this, to keep from hitting the ground, and to plan thier moves in relation to other planes. In "Aces High", if i want my P-47 Thunderbolt to track a FW-190 for a deflection shot from directly above him and slightly left of him...as an example....I line up on my wings, and relate them to the true horizon, so i can pull lead ahead of him, fire my .50 cals, and time the indercaprion point where he and my rounds meet. His wings determin his angle of flight, and where he's likely to move. Therefor....as two space ships approach, the helm will subconciously prefer a level playing field, and so adjust accordingly...and if its an unfamilure ship, the next best guess will be used, based on what "Looks right". Remember...The Deck is "Down", as per a planitary surface, so all movement will be related to that. Pilots gain experiance with "Abnormal" angles, and will likely try to form a familure pattern, once they free them selves of trying to force a "Down" that is not predicated on the level crerated by the object they are "IN', not "ON". God, i hope that makes sense!

[Flangepart]

Quite true. In the Game "Starfleet Battles", the game is played out in a surface warfare movement . Up and Down are not used in the game, as its hard enought to visualise the moves in a 2d plan.

[John Morgan]

Fire on a space station is by far the greatest hazzard.  Fire in the weightlessness of space looks totally different from fire on earth.  Try to imagine the blobs of a lava lamp moving fast and burning a tad hotter.  

If you want to get an idea of how long a person would have if a major fire did break out on a space station, take a candle, light it and put it under a glass.  It wan't take long for it to use up ALL the oxygen under the glass and burn out.  Now imagine that you are in a sealed environment in scale with the fire and the glass.  Not good.  A raging fire on a spaceship or space station could use up ALL the oxygen in the area in just a few minutes.

As for a spaceship exploding, the fire would burn out fast due to the lack of oxygen so there won't be the huge fire ball that we see in Star Wars or other shows but there will be the initial flame.  If there is a fuel source, Like a slush hydrogen/oxygen mixture (Which has be proposed for future transatmoshperic space flight), it could burn for a while.  There would still be stuff floating around though, fire or not.  I am aways amazed that when a movie shows a ship blowing up in space, there is nothing left of it.  No pieces of any part are left.  (OK if it was an antimater/mater reaction that may, MAY< be the case.  but even the initial blast would breck something off.)

[Jay O'Connor]

A raging fire on a spaceship or space station could use up ALL the oxygen in the area in just a few minutes.

And I thought "Space Mutiny" was *so* accurate

[Albert]

In regards to a human body being exposed to a vaccuum, it seems like the real answer is that a person could survive half a minute or so of exposure to space without any lasting effects. According to the NASA link below, "exposure to vacuum causes no immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness."
 
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html