Stupendous Stupidity in Science Fiction (open spoilers)

[Declan]

@True Blue Jack

Sorry about that, but here’s something with a better outcome:

Wasn’t there some general releae movie that involved a submarine and an iceberg? (Maybe someone can cite the movie, because I’ve never seen it, and can’t recall anything else this one reviewer said about it.)!

Maybe icestation zebra ?

Declan

[Declan]

@RikWriter

I’m sorry, but you don’t think this has ever happened IRL? An inexperienced, unprepared officer getting in over his head?

Yeah , maybe that was the problem, putting a sterotyped leader in place.

Declan

[BrainGlutton]

@Sailboat

To be fair, Signs was not a science-fiction movie proper. It was a parable. Complaining about realism in a parable is like pointing out that a camel is too large to fit through the eye of a needle; it means you didn’t get it.

Of course it was an incredibly anvalicious parable – which is no defense, because it made an incredibly false and stupid point.

[carnivorousplant]

@Declan

Maybe icestation zebra ?

Declan

I vaguely remember it, but I don’t think it was Zebra. MacLean surely had nothing that stupid-and he put headlights on a formula V-in the novel.

[dropzone]

@carnivorousplant

…and he put headlights on a formula V-in the novel.

But wouldn’t it be cool tooling around all night in a raspy little FV?

[carnivorousplant]

@dropzone

But wouldn’t it be cool tooling around all night in a raspy little FV?

Oh, Hell yes. Particularly under the direction of Alistair MacLean, drinking Scotch in prodigious quantity, smoking cigarettes, romancing young women and shooting bad guys with Lilliputs and Colt .45s.

[Manduck]

@carnivorousplant

I vaguely remember it, but I don’t think it was Zebra. MacLean surely had nothing that stupid-and he put headlights on a formula V-in the novel.

I think it was Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea (the movie, not the TV show).

[TBG]

@pedescribe

Alien frat initiation!

Band name!

[Der_Trihs]

Googling on the subject of “Ice floats!” and movies, I’ve discovered that the recent movie G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra had a scene where ice falls on an underwater submarine base.

The Joes proceed to destroy the underwater submarine base by detonating charges inside the polar ice cap and SINKING HUGE PIECES OF ICE to crush the facility. Alright, are you kidding me?

Did the screenwriters honestly not understand that basic law of science, taught to most children and some primates in the first grade? Guys, ice is less dense than water. It floats. It floating is the reason the polar ice caps were above the Cobra base in the first place. It floating is the reason life exists on this planet, and maybe others, by allowing aquatic life to flourish beneath the surface despite subzero temperatures above. Guys, pour yourself a tall, cool glass of water. Hell, go ahead and take a sip. Now, drop in a few ice cubes. Report back to me your findings.

[Chronos]

Wouldn’t the act of blowing up the asteroid actually dissapate some of the forward kinetic energy? It doesn’t seem right that all the fragments would continue on with the same combined force as the original object. Blowing it apart has to cause some of the energy to be lost, even though there are more particles.

I’m not saying it would be a good idea, but energy must be lost, and maybe the combined result of the smaller pieces after would be preferable to the one large object.

No, the energy must not be lost. That’s the Law of Conservation of Energy, and in this house, we obey the laws of physics. Setting off a nuke on an asteroid might mean that some of the debris (and therefore some of the Earth) misses the Earth entirely. But if all of the debris hits, then it will hit with a total energy equal to the original energy of the asteroid, plus the energy of the nuke. Energy is a scalar, not a vector, so it can’t just counteract other energy: The result of energy plus energy is always more energy.

[Raguleader]

@Chronos

No, the energy must not be lost. That’s the Law of Conservation of Energy, and in this house, we obey the laws of physics. Setting off a nuke on an asteroid might mean that some of the debris (and therefore some of the Earth) misses the Earth entirely. But if all of the debris hits, then it will hit with a total energy equal to the original energy of the asteroid, plus the energy of the nuke. Energy is a scalar, not a vector, so it can’t just counteract other energy: The result of energy plus energy is always more energy.

Right, but what if we hit THAT energy with even MORE energy? Could we snuff it out then?

[Hadrian_s_Wall]

@Chronos

No, the energy must not be lost. That’s the Law of Conservation of Energy, and in this house, we obey the laws of physics. Setting off a nuke on an asteroid might mean that some of the debris (and therefore some of the Earth) misses the Earth entirely. But if all of the debris hits, then it will hit with a total energy equal to the original energy of the asteroid, plus the energy of the nuke. Energy is a scalar, not a vector, so it can’t just counteract other energy: The result of energy plus energy is always more energy.

A bit off topic, but what is scalar, and how come the asteroid isn’t a vector system?
I’ve always assumed that all vectors are scalar in nature, but not the other way around. But in the asteroid system, wouldn’t the net force of the asteroid be affected by the nuke in a localized point?

[carnivorousplant]

This would be a whole lot more simple if a nuclear weapon were used to change the path of the asteroid rather than blow it up.

[Chronos]

A scalar is just a single number, whereas a vector has a magnitude and direction. You can’t really say that an asteroid is a scalar or a vector, but you can say that the energy of an asteroid is a scalar, and the momentum of an asteroid is a vector.

I don’t know what you mean about “all vectors are scalar in nature”.

[Hadrian_s_Wall]

@Chronos

A scalar is just a single number, whereas a vector has a magnitude and direction. You can’t really say that an asteroid is a scalar or a vector, but you can say that the energy of an asteroid is a scalar, and the momentum of an asteroid is a vector.

I don’t know what you mean about “all vectors are scalar in nature”.

I kinda don’t know what i meant either in retrospect
Oh wait! … nevermind. Maybe vectors are a scalar quantity with directional component. But the reverse cannot be true.
Like, If I am in Baton Rouge, then I am in Louisiana, but if I’m in Louisiana, I am not necessarily in Baton Rouge.
You know, this made more sense in my head… Here, I’ll try again
All chickens have feathers, Hawks are not chickens, therefore hawks do not have feathers.
No… I should just go to bed

[Askance]

@Chronos

No, the energy must not be lost. That’s the Law of Conservation of Energy, and in this house, we obey the laws of physics. Setting off a nuke on an asteroid might mean that some of the debris (and therefore some of the Earth) misses the Earth entirely. But if all of the debris hits, then it will hit with a total energy equal to the original energy of the asteroid, plus the energy of the nuke. Energy is a scalar, not a vector, so it can’t just counteract other energy: The result of energy plus energy is always more energy.

So that explains why, when I expend energy to push down the brake pedal, and the engine spends more energy to power assist those brakes, my car speeds up! Oh, wait …

IOW “yes”, but that “more energy” can be converted into an energy form that’s more convenient at the time.

[santiago42]

@Declan

Im trying to make a case that Aliens should be included.

Send out a squad of Marines to investigate a planet and yet have no starside back up, as in the spaceship is completely automated it seems.

I agree this is dumb, but this is probably economics. Every extra person on board ship is more weight(themselves), more food, more air needed, which means more fuel needed, with more fuel more weight needing more fuel, etc etc. Since Colonial Marines are probably given a budget by bean counters on Earth, they would send the bare minimum of personnel.

Every team has its weakest link, meet the lieutenant, hello weakest link.

Sadly, this is true in most militaries. Most lieutenants are recently out of officer school and are put in charge of a platoon of troops, many of whom have years of actual experince in doing the things the lieutenant has only studied in textbooks.

Instead of being somewhere useful like actually with the combat team, this guy is in the rear inside an armored APC watching everything from camera feeds to Bio-metrics. Way to inspire the troops, when you have to tell em to hold off using the real firepower.

One , sending out a wet behind the ears LT seemed kinda stupid. I get that as far as the Marines knew it was just a colony that had dropped off the net and someone had to go knock knock. Sounds like a reasonable mission for a first time LT, but this guy did not seem , um mentally agile enough to go with a fluid situation.

That’s an officers job. An officer is supposed to manage his troops, not fight with them.

No one informs the drop ship to button up or provide some sort of security for it. Again, boring duty and usually ends up hunting some native fauna but they seemed way to complacent for a Marine gunship crew, on a planet that has dropped off the comm nets and the population has mysteriously vanished

OK, this is just plain stupidity on the dropship crews part. Vehicle security is just plain common dog.

Now we have a big reactor that when you remove the cooling , goes off with the fireball of a forty megaton fusion bomb, has no sort of failsafes. (Actually I would have perfered if they removed the safeties and so forth) , what did that reactor contain that would generate that explosion.

Hard to say. I’m not a nuclear engineer, but I remember reading once about what would happen to a nuclear power plant if humans were removed(it may have been in case of zombie apocalypse or rapture or some such, I’ve seen a few articles and TV shows on similar subjects.) A nuclera plant could run for up to 2 years with no humans around, depending on when the fuel rods had last been replaced, but without humans to do the basic maintenance that a nuclear plant requires, there’s no telling what would happen. If system A fails, how does this affect system B, then system C, etc etc. Between the damage down by the Marines weapons and the dropship crash there’s a host of sytems that could have been going down and affecting others,

Weapons loadout.

10 mm armor piercing , along with those crew servo’d heavys and flame throwers, (the book says automated manjacks too). Just what the average marine fire team needs for visiting a colony of humans thats dropped off the net, the fact that the above mentioned reactor must be in the specs and no one thought of it. It takes a merchant marine officer to notice and ask the big question.

Loadout is probably Standard Operating Procedure for Colonial Marines. The manual says take it, so they take it. As to the reactor, Marines normally would have very little to do with nuclear reactors beyond guarding them, whereas Ripley as a flight officer on a nuclear reactor powered spaceship, would have a great deal of knowledge of such.

Loved the movie , but somethings …
Declan

Somethings…

[armedmonkey]

@santiago42

Somethings…

OK, I’ll take over for Declan. Aliens is great, and far better than most, but…

We see the outside of the armored personnel carrier[sup]1[/sup], and we see the inside. The inside is much, much bigger. Especially taller. But no one notices that.

The marines have flame throwers. How much fuel can possibly be in those tiny little cartridges they use?

I’m also a bit annoyed that their motion sensors don’t see in three dimensions, but I’ll bow to the rule of cool and admit that the the “they’re inside of the door, man!” scene needed them to be 2D. That’s all I got about Aliens.

But…
Star Trek.

Good God, has mankind forgotten how to make a simple freaking circuit breaker? How many panels have we seen blow up in a shower of sparks?
[sup]1 the APC is a converted towing vehicle used at airports to pull jets around. It’s a real vehicle, just with some sci fi prop coolness put on it. It’s also way too low to the ground[/sup]

[Der_Trihs]

@A Monkey With a Gun

Star Trek.

Good God, has mankind forgotten how to make a simple freaking circuit breaker? How many panels have we seen blow up in a shower of sparks?

Well, could it be that there’s just too much energy being pumped into the system and what we see is what happens after the circuit breakers do their best? Those Trek ships are being hit by a huge amount of funky energy that disintegrates stuff, after all.

I mention this because ( quite possibly in reference to people complaining about Star Trek’s exploding consoles ) the Honor Harrington series by David Weber includes both exploding consoles and exploding circuit breakers. So this explanation rather comes to my mind.

[Uzi]

@Sundrop

The Star Trek series with the Quantum Leap guy.

That’s all you needed to say.