Supposed we decided to make a space-war movie – using good physics. That means no “black-box” technologies – nothing for which our present understanding of physics and chemistry does not provide at least a conceptual approach. And certainly nothing that, in light of our present understanding of physics, would be impossible – e.g., transporter beams; faster-than-light travel; spaceships that move without expelling any reaction mass; intertial-dampening fields; artificial-gravity and anti-gravity fields; visible laser beams; deflector shields (except possibly in purely magnetic form); etc. And certainly no sound propagation through vacuum.
A space battle would be what aerospace engineers and really, really hard SF writers would envision it to be, using theoretically-possible technologies. And given the no-FTL rule, the battle – the whole war and all its combatants – would have to be limited to within our Solar System.
Within those strictures, would it be possible to write/direct/produce a space-war movie or TV show that anybody would want to watch?
I think so, but the cinematographer would have a difficult task on his hands to keep the movie interesting. Example: Instead of part of a ship’s exterior visibly and audibly exploding from a gun blast, you (the viewer) would be inside the ship hearing the loud bang of ordinance hitting your ship. Pretty creepy.
If they film The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, it should work, with the exception of lasers. Replace them with standard, vacuum-compatible flechette guns and you’d be fine. The linear accelerator lobbing rocks at the Earth is certainly doable.
Not a war movie, but 2001 had workable physics in it. Didn’t make for much in the way of exciting visuals…
I think the big problem wuold be that, given our current level of technology, getting a warship into orbit would be a ridiculously inefficient thing to do. Particularly if you want it to be armored…
But, note, for this purpose we’re not limited to our current level of technology, only to technology that might be theoretically possible given our current knowledge of physics. E.g., an Earth-to-orbit beanstalk or space elevator – possibly a whole series of them, spaced around the Equator – would be allowable. So would antimatter-based technology, and a lot of other exotic things discussed in Robert L. Forward’s Indistinguishable from Magichttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671876864/qid=1135796249/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5138487-7904936?n=507846&s=books&v=glance which have not, as yet, received any big-screen treatment. And there might even be room for nanotechnology, computer-brain interface technology, genetic engineering, and strong artificial intelligence.
Actually, I’ve only seen the movie, and I thought it was mediocre at best… specifically because of the Whacked-out Zombies (whatever they were called) being so unbelievable that it ruined the show for me. The whole plot turned on a group of people who were absolutely rabidly insane, and yet were capable of operating (and maintaining!) spacecraft. Yeah, right…
You’d have to disqualify time travel and FTL or warp or jump travel as well. That leaves essentially no opportunity for humans to interact with anyone but each other, as is (regrettably) the case IRL. To still have a space battle, then, you have to posit a war between human factions on a scale large enough to extend into space, and that effectively means positing a war of independence by a planet colony against an oppressive Earth government, and that means a planet that can survive without Earth, and the premise’s credibility is about gone by then anyway, even before the war breaks out.
But having spaceships bank into turns, with WW2-style gun turrets, and even propeller noises (ever see an old Flash Gordon short?) pretty much disappeared with the original Star Wars trilogy. “Battlestar Galactica”, for instance, seems to obey the laws of physics in every major respect except for jump travel.
Artificial gravity still fits in the not-impossible category, and it would be hard not to have it, so we can let that one alone.
The new Battlestar Galactica comes closer. The only major leaps from real science are the FTL drives and artificial gravity. They use projectile weapons and the effect of nukes is very realistic.
“Okay, but aside from the space elevator, antimatter reactors, nanotechnology, computer-brain interface, genetic engineering and artificial intelligence, what have the science fiction writers ever done for us?”
Babylon 5 was also fairly close. If you only look at the human technology, and ignore the FTL travel (which, actually, humans never devopled on their own) then it is pretty darn good physics. The Earth ships don’t bank, have inertia, need spinning sections to simulate gravity, etc…
Of course, the alien species used essentially “black box” technology. They use “confined singularities” as engines, which in effect makes gravity where ever they want it, at very large levels. Want to go forward? Just simulate a large “hunk” of gravity right in front of the ship, it will keep getting pulled towards it, and therefore keep accelerating.
Although I do seem to recall some scientist or science fiction writier postulizing that there would be three levels of space faring civilization. Level 1 we are at now, we have harnessed the power of the atom. Level two was a civilization that can harness the power of a star. So maybe that is just an extrapolation of that. Level 3 was one that can harness the power of a solar system…or maybe it was galaxy, I can’t recall. Anyone have any idea what I am tlaking about?
Really? I’ve never been entirely clear on what propels their spaceships. It’s obvious they’re not rockets (no way they could carry enough fuel on-board to do what they do), so what are they? How do they move around without expelling reaction mass?
Why? (Remember, I’m talking about real artificial gravity, not a poor simulation of it achieved by spinning a cylindrical ship.)
That’s the Kardashev scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale On which our present civilization is not yet even close to Type I (harnessing all the energy of a single planet).
i believe the fuel used in BSG '03 is “Tylium”, specifically “Tylium Ore”, my gut instinct says it’s either superdense fuel matter (like the Dark Matter the Planet Express ship burns in Futurama…), or perhaps a fission/fusionable radioactive element
An economically-independent space colony is not flatly incredible.
A space colony that rebelled against its home government, if dependent on commerce with Earth, could still hope to trade with other Earth-based nations, or with their space colonies.
A space war within the Solar System need not be colony-vs.-Earth. It might be a colonial extension of an Earth-based war – as in WWI and WWII, when the colonies of combatant nations found themselves, willy-nilly, at war with their neighbors. Or, completely independent space colonies might still find things to fight each other about, Earth not being involved at all. Heck, it might not even be governments fighting. Rival corporations with outer-space mining interests, etc., might maintain their own armies and fleets (you know, like the British East India Company and the Dutch East India Company), and occasionally use them on each other when turf is disputed.
You don’t need BEMs for space war. Wherever you find people, you’ll find conflict.
The 1987 British series Star Cops, not to be confused with the comedic 1994 American series Space Precinct, made a good try at it. It’s set in 2027 and ‘Star Cops’ is the rather derisive nickname of the International Space Police Force, a small and somewhat unrespected cadre of law-enforcement officers who have to navigate the diplomatic hassles of settling deadly-serious disputes among the various American, British, Japanese, Chinese, European and Soviet (heh) space stations and small-scale lunar bases.
The sets were cleverly designed, often upside-down, to increase the illusion of zero-gravity. The primary American station, the Ronald Reagan, had artificial gravity in the living quarters because of centrifugal spin. I noticed great care was taken to keep the science and tech plausible (though speculative) at all times. It’s more a cop show than a space show, though. One particularly clever episode spoiled:
A vessel in deep space reports an onboard explosion, making them lose most of their air supply. No-one can reach them in time and the crew’s only hope is a highly experimental suspended animation technique that might keep them alive long enough to complete a solar orbit and be picked up eight years later. Spring and his team investigate the ship’s history and eventually discover that it was sabotage, by a scientist who desperately wanted to prove his suspended animation technique would work (up to this point, his potentially lifesaving research has been thought a lucky coincidence). Spring would like to charge him with murder, but they’ll have no way of knowing if it is murder… for eight years. Star Cops was notable for messy but logical endings, avoiding the forced neatness of more formulaic cop shows, including discontent and distrust within their own ranks.
I highly recommend it for fans of serious science-fiction and police shows.
Why is there anything incredible about that?