# Most realistic depiction of spaceflight in film **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Tags:** movies\ **Created:** [September 1, 2026, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752 "2026-09-01T23:14:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2026, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/41 "2026-09-03T21:50:10Z")
One unrealistic thing about _2001_ is the fact that the ship had no radiatiors. These were apparently removed for aesthetic reasons. I am quite fond of the interstellar spaceships in _Avatar_, which are based on the so-called _Valkyrie_ design by Charles Pellegrino. These ships were accelerated on their exit from our Solar System by magnetic sails and particle beams, and decelerated arrival by fusion power. The design included shielding against the interstellar medium and radiators to reject heat. They also had suspended animation chambers for the colonists. > **[Avatar ISV Venture Star - Nearlight Starships - Atomic Rockets](https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/slowerlight3.php#id--Go_Fast--Nearlight_Starships--Avatar_ISV_Venture_Star)** > > Much as I hate to admit it, the Venture Star is arguably the most scientifically accurate spacecraft in the history of Hollywood. It is a beautiful piece of work, with all the major problems solved. And it has heat radiators! All very sensible. I’m not so impressed with the rest of the plot, however. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2026, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/42 "2026-09-03T22:21:51Z")
> [@Llama\_Llogophile](#): > > But Lovell found himself having to do it for real. I don’t remember him describing it as anything so dire as in the film. He was quite specific that the crew didn’t yell at each other or argue as depicted on screen, so I’m assuming that maneuver was performed professionally. That’s pretty much what I was getting at. I didn’t think Ron Howard would invent that course correction out of whole cloth. My impression of maneuvering in space is that things are done very slowly and carefully, like the scene where the command module docks with the lunar module (which was still probably faster than reality). During the course correction, as soon as they ignite the engine the ship starts wobbling all over the place. It seems almost miraculous that they could keep it pointed in the right direction at all. That’s what I meant about dialing up the drama. It also seemed terribly convenient that the correct orientation for the burn was to point the index marks on the window directly at Earth. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2026, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/43 "2026-09-04T01:32:33Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Why pitch and not yaw? Any three-dimensional object has three principle axes of inertia. Rotation about the axis with the smallest moment of inertia is slightly unstable. But rotation about the axis with the middle moment of inertia is completely unstable. And any human-made object like a ship is likely to have symmetries that make the axes obvious, and those obvious axes are the ones that are used to define roll, pitch, and yaw. The roll axis of the Discovery was definitely the lowest-moment one, but either one of pitch or yaw could be the largest, and apparently it happened to be pitch. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2026, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/44 "2026-09-04T01:41:37Z")
Demonstrating this mathematically is a classic physics problem, but it’s easy to demonstrate physically if you try tossing a rectangular object in the air. It’s easy to get a nice spin on two axes, but the third wobbles every time. ---
**Author:** ![mixdenny](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mixdenny/32/2962_2.png) [@mixdenny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mixdenny)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2026, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/45 "2026-09-04T01:45:18Z")
Don’t laugh but “Spaceballs” seemed to always have random things floating around. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2026, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/46 "2026-09-04T21:28:40Z")
> [@Llama\_Llogophile](#): > > There was a procedure for that already in their manuals because the incompatible CO2 cartridges were a known issue. I wonder why they didn’t initially standardize the cartridges. ---
**Author:** ![markn\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@markn\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markn_1)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2026, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/47 "2026-09-04T21:48:09Z")
My understanding is the cartridges were different shapes because they were designed by different companies. NASA did not specify that the cartridges should be interchangeable because no one ever envisioned a scenario when they would need to be swapped, as happened in the Apollo 13 mission. ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2026, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/48 "2026-09-05T00:03:03Z")
Well, they did understand and plan for the “LM Lifeboat” situation, which is why they had all those procedures in place. My guess would be the configuration of both spacecraft was already frozen by the time anyone noticed the cartridges weren’t compatible, hence the janky but effective solution of building the filter. And as you noted, they were built by different contractors (North American for the command module and Grumman for the LM) with very different requirments. Hell, the physical shape of the spacecraft may have driven the shape of the filters. The lesson to take from Apollo 13 is one of planning. They didn’t make all that stuff up in the moment, though they did end up in a few previously untried configurations - such as before re-entry when the command module remained mated to the LM for power reasons until very late in the process. Normally the LM would have been discarded quite a bit before. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2026, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/49 "2026-09-05T18:53:13Z")
> [@robby](#): > > _ **Apollo 13** _ was really good, especially the launch sequence. I can watch that over and over. The story I heard was that the studio had a screening for some former astronauts and some of them thought the launch scenes were using actual NASA footage. They were surprised to find out it was all special effects footage made for the movie. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2026, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/50 "2026-09-05T18:59:03Z")
People very familiar with a subject (like former astronauts) are good at identifying if something depicted on film is plausible or not. But not necessarily at identifying if something is actual footage or not. Which is a testament to the skill of the filmmakers. ---
**Author:** ![Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/son_of_a_rich/32/5439_2.png) [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Son_of_a_Rich)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2026, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/51 "2026-09-05T19:04:49Z")
There is a scene in, I believe, Space Cowboys where the four man crew, for some reason, decide to change seats. Bless their hearts, they tried for realism by moving around ponderously as if in zero Gs. They don’t quite pull it off. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2026, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/52 "2026-09-05T19:43:47Z")
Actually, the experts/purists pointed out that: > During the launch sequence, all nine swingarms on the launch tower are seen retracting, one by one, as Saturn V reaches full thrust. In fact, only five swingarms would still be attached to the rocket during this phase. These “in-flight” arms would swing away as the rocket lifted off and cleared the launcher. During the launch, the camera quickly pans over the [sound](https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/sound-suppression-system.html) suppression water system. The tower and distinctive pipes are clearly visible. This [system](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112384/goofs) was not added to the launch complex yet. From [here](https://www.ranker.com/list/inaccuracies-in-apollo-13/rob-chirico). ---
**Author:** ![markn\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@markn\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markn_1)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2026, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/53 "2026-09-05T20:14:12Z")
There’s at least one serious error on that Ranker page. Discussing the scene where Lovell covers the Earth with his thumb while near the Moon, it says > Since the Earth is the same distance from the moon as the moon is from the Earth, the Earth would have been enormous by contrast. He would have needed the thumb the size of a basketball to cover our planet with it. This is completely wrong. The Earth is 4 times the diameter of the Moon. The Moon subtends a half a degree as seen from Earth, and the Earth subtends 2 degrees as seen from the Moon. This would by no means appear “enormous”. More to the point, to cover 2 degrees even at a full outsstretched arm’s length of, say, 24 inches, would require a thumb a bit more than 3/4 inches wide, a perfectly reasonable thumb size and nowhere near the size of a basketball. ---
**Author:** ![ZonexandScout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zonexandscout/32/544_2.png) [@ZonexandScout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZonexandScout)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2026, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/54 "2026-09-05T20:55:37Z")
Kudos, **markn\_1**! I’m forever surprising people by pointing out that you can pretty much cover the moon by holding up a pen at nearly arm’s length. Most people seem to think it’s the size of a quarter or a half dollar. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2026, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/55 "2026-09-05T21:16:38Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > For my money, **2001: A Space Odyssey** is overall the best. I agree. So, so great. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2026, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/56 "2026-09-05T22:25:27Z")
I think most people only really look at the Moon when it’s close to the horizon, and it’s a well-known phenomenon that this makes people perceive it as much larger than it really is. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2026, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/57 "2026-09-06T01:31:19Z")
The most realistic _faking_ of spaceflight might be the now forgotten **Capricon One**. Legend has it that moon-landing deniers used (uncrediited) footage from that film to show how convincing a soundstage moon landing could be. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2026, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/58 "2026-09-06T01:42:03Z")
> [@Kent\_Clark](#): > > The most realistic _faking_ of spaceflight might be the now forgotten **Capricon One**. I haven’t forgotten it. Good 70s government paranoia film. Love the helicopter chase. But realistic? Puleeze. An Apollo capsule couldn’t make it to Mars, and the crew would kill each other cramped up in there for two years. And a lunar lander would be a ball of aluminum after it ran out of fuel at 150K feet. But even if it landed, it couldn’t take off anyway, because it doesn’t have enough fuel. We knew this at the time. I just rolled my eyes and moved on with the story. I pretended the ship was different and using an obviously incorrect ship was either low movie budget, or quite possibly a wink to the moon hoaxers. I think the movie fudged how long the trip took, too. ---
**Author:** ![Limmin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f04885/32.png) [@Limmin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Limmin)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2026, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/59 "2026-09-06T01:43:18Z")
Got to be 2001. I’m in agreement with the rotational dynamics discussions upthread. Even if the centrifuge was rotating about the long axis, over time, the entire spacecraft would find itself rotating (slowly) about its maximum moment of inertia axis. I think the speed was exaggerated for visual effect in the movie 2010. Its actual spin rate would be a lot slower. Gravity _looks_ and _feels_ good, but has so many issues, including the major orbit mechanics errors pointed out by others. To those I’d add the implausibility of two different “activities” happening simultaneously rather than in series: Clooney’s flying around, unsupervised, in the MMU while chatting with mission control, while the Sandra Bullock character works queasily on the Hubble repair (IIRC…going from memory). From a mission operation standpoint this is just rubbish. Very risky, so no point in doing it. Regarding the Saturn V CGI launch sequence in Apollo 13, it never looked quite right to me, and frankly, it has not aged so well. Looks blurry, hazy and clearly CGI. Real launch footage looks just so much better, they might as well have used it. OTOH the spaceflight looks quite good. I’d nominate From the Earth to the Moon for best spaceflight depiction in (an HBO series). The CGI looks very dated though, which kind of takes me out of it. But it is almost documentary level realism at times. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2026, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752/60 "2026-09-06T02:04:30Z")
I am not any kind of expert in this sort of thing, but the movie about Neil Armstrong, _First Man,_ filmed almost all of the space flight from inside the cockpit, which was remarkable in terms of how disorienting the experience felt. All you’re really getting are the actors and their instruments. I never saw a film about space flight that didn’t spend a lot of time with external shots of the rocket. Not a lot of room in that cockpit! Looking out the window doesn’t tell you much. It felt confusing as hell which really ramped up the tension. I left that film with an increased respect for the level of cool-headed you have to be to do that job. Overall I really liked the film. It’s a shame it was politicized into oblivion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-realistic-depiction-of-spaceflight-in-film/1032752.md?page=2)