What Sci-Fi clichés do you resent?

[GTOM]

I don't think this would ever happen. Just think, for example, how much mineral wealth is in, say, Antarctica or the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. With robots one could mine asteroids, but also dig far deeper in the Earth than human miners could go. Given the energy requirements of getting material in and out of Earth's gravity well, it should always be less energy-intensive and therefore cheaper to just exploit more resources on Earth. We are nowhere near running out of minerals on Earth currently and have not even touched many areas of the planet that are currently uneconomical to mine

Mining on Earth is damaging to environment. If one builds ships in asteroid belt, then get down the stuff to Earth is the easy part.

 

[Fig Neutron]

I find movies that say we are a young race to be annoying. We meet some powerful race that has the technology to do whatever it is that we need, but we're not ready for it. With the proposed number of civilizations I think it would be quite unlikely that we are always the newest.

I also think that the story line where an alien race invades Earth is over used. Why can't there be a friendly race of alien that comes to Earth? And, the attackers are always ten times stronger than us. Not every race can have laser guns (but we do seem to have an unlimited supply of bullets, until we really need them, of course).

 

[russ_watters]

I also think that the story line where an alien race invades Earth is over used. Why can't there be a friendly race of alien that comes to Earth?

Arrival:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrival_(film)

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why can't there be a friendly race of alien that comes to Earth?

Overlords, Childhood's End.
Vulcans, Star Trek
E.T, E.T. the Extraterrestrial
Unnamed aliens, Close Encounters of the Third Kind
The Giant, The Iron Giant
Thomas Jerone Newton, The Man Who Fell To Earth
Superman, Superman

And that's just a few that I could come up off the top of my head.

Oh, and to add to my previous post, even Klingons have plumbers, I would argue that with their fondness for prune juice, they better!

 

[gleem]

Why can't there be a friendly race of alien that comes to Earth?

Starman

and Paul wasn't unfriendly.

 

[Fig Neutron]

Ok, point taken, but there are a lot of unfriendly aliens.

@Vanadium 50 Sorry, I've only seen few of those, but Superman wasn't fighting friendly aliens.

I'll change it to this. Why can't more friendly alien visit Earth.

 

[Bystander]

Why can't more friendly alien visit Earth.

Makes for very dull fiction/stories/reading.

 

[Vanadium 50]

but Superman wasn't fighting friendly aliens.

Superman is a friendly alien.

 

[Fig Neutron]

Superman is a friendly alien.

I said the aliens that he was fighting such as Lobo, Darkseid, or Faora we’re not friendly. (I’m actually not that familiar with Superman. I just found these examples on Wikipedia.)

 

[russ_watters]

I said the aliens that he was fighting such as Lobo, Darkseid, or Faora we’re not friendly. (I’m actually not that familiar with Superman.

V50 is certainly aware that Superman's alien enemies were unfriendly. I'm not clear if you are aware that Superman, himself, was an alien.

[edit] Or perhaps this is an existential dilemma? Superman's unfriendly alien enemies were friendly to each other; maybe that makes him the unfriendly alien and them the friendly ones?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Superman is a "strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. Superman, who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in his bare hands. And who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never ending battle for truth, justice and the American way."

 

[Fig Neutron]

I just meant that the story line of bad aliens coming to Earth was use in Superman (even though Superman himself was friendly).

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Time travel irritates me.

 

[Khashishi]

Imbalance between weapon technology and propulsion technology. If you can travel at light speed, it makes no sense to use little pew pew guns.

 

[Ken Fabos]

Wrongly portrayed activities in zero gravity irritate me - like the Bullock character in Gravity being towed along "behind" by the Clooney character. Should have tried that, discovered they spin around each other out of control, then figure out they need to lash themselves together into a single mass to move effectively. It wouldn't even have been any harder to make to do it right - and even present an opportunity for a bit of sexual tension, with B&D overtones, as they tie themselves to each other face to face or even better (or worse), face to crotch. Might have helped if the EVA suits could calculate the right trajectory to get to that space station too; line of sight will be a tad unreliable under those circumstances.

Artificial gravity is, I suspect, an artifact of movie making rather than any kind of profound technological advancement; it just makes it easier to make movies that way. Written SF can do it a bit better, not having that constraint, but often doesn't.

There are plenty of other things that annoy me, from good guys are good shots but the bad guys can't hit the side of a spaceship - or if it's a Western, a barn - to post apocalyptic spectacles like warlords leading supercharged V8's in an oil depleted world or towns surviving in bleak deserts without any farms.

It also annoys me that near futures can be portrayed without any reference to the ongoing affects of climate change - or else extremely exaggerated and unrealistic effects.

 

[lekh2003]

I hate random big words. Especially in the more commercial sci-fi TV series like The Flash, DC Legends of Tomorrow, etc. I used to watch these TV series all the time from about 4 years ago. After taking some physics courses and really advancing my skills, I realized all of the nonsense the characters were spewing.

 

[EmileJ]

Once upon a time, many light years ago...

 

[Fig Neutron]

@lekh2003 Yeah, I've also noticed that. Occasionally enjoy pointing them out to my parents who have no idea what I'm talking about and really don't care. (Although, I have to admit sometimes I use random big words to confuse/impress my friends.)

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The standard sci-fi film representation of an "asteroid belt", with a dense field of huge boulders, really irritates me. Also, amazingly, such asteroid belts frequently create "obstacles" to travel, despite the fact that one could easily go around them. In the asteroid belt in our solar system, I think it would be difficult to see more than two or three of the largest from the same location, and then only as points of light apart from the closest one.

Another thing which annoys me is any view showing details of three or more moons or planets. Two is possible when one is in the foreground, but if three are visible it usually means they are too close together to be stable.

One thing which I no longer mind so much is a certain amount of noise in space; long ago I was surprised when I heard a noise (a hiss ending in a pop) which definitely seemed to be associated with the simultaneous sight of a Perseid meteor, which seemed physically impossible. I later read that meteors create electromagnetic disturbances which could possibly induce sounds in metal objects or in electronic equipment, and that seems like a plausible explanation. It therefore seems vaguely plausible to me for sci-fi purposes that electromagnetic weapons and propulsion systems could induce some sounds across the vacuum of space.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Time travel irritates me.

Hi Freyja:

I agree that most time travel stories are seriously flawed, but some are quite good:

The Time Traveler's Wife - novel - Audrey Niffenegger - 2003 (movie 2009)
By His Bootstraps - short story - Robert Heinlein - 1941
Outlander - 1st novel of a series - Diana Gabaldon - 1991 (Technically not actually a sci-fi genre, but a combination of time travel, romance, history, and adventure. Season 1 TV series 2009. The time travel component is only a mechanism for a 20th century character to be embedded in an 18th century culture.)​

Regards,
Buzz

 

[XZ923]

My biggest general sci-fi beef has always been the speed of shots fired. From Star Wars blasters to Star Trek phasers and everything in between, you always see slow-moving energy emissions that the target (especially if it's a "good guy") can easily duck away from. My assumption is that rounds fired from weapons in the future would have greater velocity than contemporary ammunition, not tiny fractions of that number.

Another one: the "critical weak point". It was interesting back in 1977 when Luke Skywalker fired a pair of proton torpedoes into the exhaust port, but since then it's in virtually everything. The bad guys always build some scary "ultimate weapon" and the good guys then spend all of 30 seconds figuring out some crucial design flaw that the ultimate weapon's designers somehow missed in their years of planning and construction. The "all hope is lost but then the hero fires the one perfect shot and saves the day" plotline needs to be taken out to pasture and shot. I actually broke out laughing in the theatre the first time I saw Star Wars VII and they were talking about how to take down Starkiller Base because the horrible acting coupled with the same tired, recycled plotline seemed more like satire than a real movie.

 

[Stephenk53]

My biggest general sci-fi beef has always been the speed of shots fired. From Star Wars blasters to Star Trek phasers and everything in between, you always see slow-moving energy emissions that the target (especially if it's a "good guy") can easily duck away from. My assumption is that rounds fired from weapons in the future would have greater velocity than contemporary ammunition, not tiny fractions of that number.

Another one: the "critical weak point". It was interesting back in 1977 when Luke Skywalker fired a pair of proton torpedoes into the exhaust port, but since then it's in virtually everything. The bad guys always build some scary "ultimate weapon" and the good guys then spend all of 30 seconds figuring out some crucial design flaw that the ultimate weapon's designers somehow missed in their years of planning and construction. The "all hope is lost but then the hero fires the one perfect shot and saves the day" plotline needs to be taken out to pasture and shot. I actually broke out laughing in the theatre the first time I saw Star Wars VII and they were talking about how to take down Starkiller Base because the horrible acting coupled with the same tired, recycled plotline seemed more like satire than a real movie.

I watched a video about the speed of shots in star wars and according to their speeds they were very inconsistent even in the same scenes

I also hate the reused plot

 

[AgentSmith]

Yes, you see a 'turret" with a rate of fire about like a WW2 anti-aircraft gun firing 40 mmm shells trying to hit a colonial starfighter.
But the whole idea of space battles needs to be rethought. If you are zipping along at 100 km/s, which we can't do now, no one is going to throw metal at you. Even EM guns won't attain a high enough velocity. So only light or some type of energy beam at near-light speed will work. But its going to hit your ship most of the time, with a velocity 3000 times that of your ship.

 

[AgentSmith]

And I hate The Force be with you and Beam me up Scotty. Fine at one time like a quarter century ago.

And please, deity ,no more depressing Alien-type movies, with all hope lost at the end, and the crews doomed to host face-huggers for all eternity. A movie can't be hopeless.

 

[rootone]

Why is alien life usually presented in movies so it looks like humans dressed in weird clothes!
and what's the fashion with the imperial Rome thing?

 

[Chris Miller]

Yes, you see a 'turret" with a rate of fire about like a WW2 anti-aircraft gun firing 40 mmm shells trying to hit a colonial starfighter.
But the whole idea of space battles needs to be rethought. If you are zipping along at 100 km/s, which we can't do now, no one is going to throw metal at you. Even EM guns won't attain a high enough velocity. So only light or some type of energy beam at near-light speed will work. But its going to hit your ship most of the time, with a velocity 3000 times that of your ship.

You got to read Cixin's Three Body Problem trilogy. Best space battle ever!

But I agree with you. I especially hate when our good old military takes on alien invaders from some distant star and holds their own.

 

[Stephenk53]

Why is alien life usually presented in movies so it looks like humans dressed in weird clothes!
and what's the fashion with the imperial Rome thing?

Yeah its always either basically just a green human (or literally green human like in Gaurdians of the galaxy) or they are horrifyingly ugly and parasitic

 

[Chris Miller]

Yeah its always either basically just a green human (or literally green human like in Gaurdians of the galaxy) or they are horrifyingly ugly and parasitic

Or like in Battlestar Galactica, where you have the Cylons who (happily for special effects) look exactly like us.

 

[Stephenk53]

Or like in Battlestar Galactica, where you have the Cylons who (happily for special effects) look exactly like us.

True

 

[cosmik debris]

Yes, you see a 'turret" with a rate of fire about like a WW2 anti-aircraft gun firing 40 mmm shells trying to hit a colonial starfighter.
But the whole idea of space battles needs to be rethought. If you are zipping along at 100 km/s, which we can't do now, no one is going to throw metal at you. Even EM guns won't attain a high enough velocity. So only light or some type of energy beam at near-light speed will work. But its going to hit your ship most of the time, with a velocity 3000 times that of your ship.

It seems to me what is needed is a guided device (missile etc). Space battles would probably be over much larger distances that are usually depicted in films and ballistic weapons allow too much manoeuvring time for the defender.

Cheers

 

[GTOM]

Yes, you see a 'turret" with a rate of fire about like a WW2 anti-aircraft gun firing 40 mmm shells trying to hit a colonial starfighter.
But the whole idea of space battles needs to be rethought. If you are zipping along at 100 km/s, which we can't do now, no one is going to throw metal at you. Even EM guns won't attain a high enough velocity. So only light or some type of energy beam at near-light speed will work. But its going to hit your ship most of the time, with a velocity 3000 times that of your ship.

If lasers have an effective range of a few thousand kilometers, but closing speed is high, one has to prepare for kinetics range. That also applies to orbital and asteroid mine combat.

 

[BWV]

Projectiles traveling at relativistic speeds could well be the most effective weapon, a 100g projectile traveling at 0.8C would have about a megaton of kinetic energy

 

[Khashishi]

It would be effective against an immobile target like a planet, but what good would it be against a starship?

 

[GTOM]

Projectiles traveling at relativistic speeds could well be the most effective weapon, a 100g projectile traveling at 0.8C would have about a megaton of kinetic energy

I think relativistic projectiles are overrated. Due to Doppler shift, they emit strong X-rays. Even if they are .99c defence will be able to detect them in time, and shatter them with debris. Boost them require insane amount of energy, shatter them dont.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Due to Doppler shift, they emit strong X-rays. Even if they are .99c defence will be able to detect them in time,

On your first point, a room-temperature projectile at .99c is just starting to glow in the visible.

On your second, a projectile shot from the moon at .99c gives us 10 milliseconds to detect, identify and destroy it.

 

[Janus]

Boost them require insane amount of energy, shatter them dont.

As Vandium 50 pointed out, you will have very little time to detect said projectile (at 0.99c it would be following close on the heels of its light signature). This means its going to be relatively close before you even detect it. Even if you allow zero time between detection and the firing of counter measures the projectile will have closed on you even more before your defense reaches it.
And even then, just shattering it will not do you much good, as you have now just turned a single projectile into a shotgun blast carrying the same total KE. Unless your shattering weapon itself has enough energy to deflect/disperse that debris field sufficiently enough, you really haven't helped yourself. (This actual reminds me of another gaff I remember from an SF movie. I believe its was "Deep impact". A large comet was going to hit the Earth. At the last minute it was blown up and the resulting small debris "just burned up harmlessly" in the atmosphere. No mention of the fact that even if none of the pieces survived to reach the ground intact, the total KE of that original comet was still contained in that debris and was being pumped into the atmosphere as heat. There's no telling what kind of a climatic and ecological disaster that would result from that.)

 

[GTOM]

On your first point, a room-temperature projectile at .99c is just starting to glow in the visible.

On your second, a projectile shot from the moon at .99c gives us 10 milliseconds to detect, identify and destroy it.

First, ok i overestimated Doppler shift.
I assumed the projectile was fired from interplanetary distance.
And shattered before it could get closer than the moon.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I assumed the projectile was fired from interplanetary distance.
And shattered before it could get closer than the moon.

This has the same problems Janus pointed out. You have very little time to detect, identify and destroy a hard-to-see object. If you blow it up at the moon, the fragments are moving apart at kilometers per second, but it has only a second before it reaches earth. A 100 kg projectile is 100,000 megatons. As Janus says, that energy has to go somewhere.

 

[GTOM]

This has the same problems Janus pointed out. You have very little time to detect, identify and destroy a hard-to-see object. If you blow it up at the moon, the fragments are moving apart at kilometers per second, but it has only a second before it reaches earth. A 100 kg projectile is 100,000 megatons. As Janus says, that energy has to go somewhere.

Only 1 km/s separation speed, if it hits a piece of debris, and the energy of a small nuke released?
Well luckily, probably we will sooner have generation ships able to achieve some percent of c, than relativistic projectiles

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Only 1 km/s separation speed, if it hits a piece of debris, and the energy of a small nuke released?
Well luckily, probably we will sooner have generation ships able to achieve some percent of c, than relativistic projectiles

Not sure that logic holds. A generation ship is essentially a small island ecosystem that has to carry with it a steady state industrial economy and population of sufficient size to supply a labour force to maintain that economy and maintain the health of the ecosystem. That's not going to be small, we're talking tens to hundreds of millions of tonnes if not billions. If you have the technology and energy to send such an island on a journey to another star at at even a tenth of a percentage of light speed then the same investment of energy could launch a significantly smaller mass at a significantly higher velocity.

 

[GTOM]

Not sure that logic holds. A generation ship is essentially a small island ecosystem that has to carry with it a steady state industrial economy and population of sufficient size to supply a labour force to maintain that economy and maintain the health of the ecosystem. That's not going to be small, we're talking tens to hundreds of millions of tonnes if not billions. If you have the technology and energy to send such an island on a journey to another star at at even a tenth of a percentage of light speed then the same investment of energy could launch a significantly smaller mass at a significantly higher velocity.

It isn't only overall energy that counts.
I did some calculations, if they are correct, at least they help someone intends to write a not so far future story i think.
How can a rocket achieve 1000 km/s? If it is mass is about 10 ton, and it has a GW reactor, it still leaves Pluto sooner than achieve that speed.
(Rocket equations with 1000 km/s exhaust could grant 0,2 m/s2 acceleration. But efficiency isn't 100%, fuel mass, cooling issues, so it is good to have 0,1 m/s2. Now calculate acceleration path.)
If they want to build a coilgun to boost it... with a million g acceleration, the length of the cannon should be still more than 50km.

A generation ship can have years to achieve such velocity.