Armageddon...

[tblaxland]

As for the Delta Glider, aside from its magic engines, it still abides by real physics during flight, since it exists in the Orbiter sim. You could not use Orbiter to simulate, for instance, the fake gravity on the Russian station in the film, the docking sequence where the vehicle docks upward with its main engines burning, or the 10G turn around the Moon as depicted in the film.

While I wholly agree with your the rest of your post, I have to take issue here. The Orbiter API is so flexible (and bless it that it is so) that you can make it behave almost any way you wish. There are any number of addons that violate known physics in outrageous ways (Star Wars physics, jump/warp/FTL drives) so saying "its in Orbiter, therefore it abides by real physics" just doesn't wash.

And, for what its worth, I think the current API could be made to simulate the gravity inside the Russian station by the use of the GetMass function, the AddForce function, a vector field of some sort describing the way gravity varies inside the station (it could even be a random vector field to really get the effect shown in the movie ) and some matrices to transform that vector field from the station's reference frame to the reference frame of the UMMU (or whatever) that is inside the station. I can't imagine that it would be worth the trouble though...

FWIW, I tend to use the more "realistic" of the Orbiter addons since the above mentioned addons are generally more fantasy than my role playing is prepared to tolerate.

 

[unknown_orbiter]

I fully agree. The most unrealistic thing I ever use in Orbiter is the DGIV. I always have all the realism options on, including non-spherical gravity sources. The more realistic you make the sim, the more you get out of it. I can't stand these "warp drive" add-ons that turn this into a bit of a game. This however doesn't apply to people who are genuinely interested in the scientific effects of warp-drive-esque physics. The whole point here, people, is the Hollywood + space = clusterfail. I still to this day can not get over the pure absurdity of that movie, it is just truly mind-boggling. I never saw a shuttle without its engines burning full power unless it was landed. I assume that in the movie we had the "chicken" mode turned on? I think even someone with a basic GED would know that none of this is possible, barely even plausible.

 

[kevinvr]

I always fly the dgiv and now I mostly fly the Arrow. I love sci-fi movies and Armageddon.. there are always so many buttons and lights that the Astronauts have to press and switch and click and specially I liked JasonX when the nanobots recuperated him..very realistic and soon to be true!!:rofl:.
I also like the probe!

 

[T.Neo]

The DG is fantasy (as I have already mentioned) but it works within real physics- no docking with rotating stations off axis, flying around the Moon at ten Gs or manuvering like a fighter jet in deep space

So, yes. It isn't a plausible craft, but it works on real principles.

 

[unknown_orbiter]

The DG is fantasy (as I have already mentioned) but it works within real physics- no docking with rotating stations off axis, flying around the Moon at ten Gs or manuvering like a fighter jet in deep space

So, yes. It isn't a plausible craft, but it works on real principles.

The only thing needed to make it a reality is a revolutionary fuel type... maybe some advancements in O2 containment (for long trips)... it's absolutely possible, we just need to give it some time. Remember that technology advances exponentially, so the DG should be a reality in the next 50 years, depending on how much Congress bends NASA over the table. Heck, maybe some private space corporations will actually be great for technological advancement... we'll just have to let it play out.

 

[T.Neo]

I think if we ever do develop DG-type tech, we won't use DG sized spacecraft for interplanetary voyages. Heck, I don't know if we'd use craft similar to the DG at all.

Sitting for 8 months (or even 2 months) in a space the size of a DG cockpit... no thanks.

 

[george7378]

I've never seen it - and don't want to now. Does anyone remember Deep Impact? I watched it before I was a space nut, and I can remember some strange ideas from there too.

 

[Sky Captain]

The only thing needed to make it a reality is a revolutionary fuel type... maybe some advancements in O2 containment (for long trips)... it's absolutely possible, we just need to give it some time. Remember that technology advances exponentially, so the DG should be a reality in the next 50 years, depending on how much Congress bends NASA over the table. Heck, maybe some private space corporations will actually be great for technological advancement... we'll just have to let it play out.

IMHO Deltaglider would be possible only with nuclear power source (or maybe with beamed power by enormously powerful laser). No plausible chemical fuel has required energy density to allow for engines with 40000 m/s ISP. Aneutronic fusion would be my best bet if it turns to be viable since it eliminates the need for massive radiation shield.

 

[tori]

IMHO Deltaglider would be possible only with nuclear power source (or maybe with beamed power by enormously powerful laser). No plausible chemical fuel has required energy density to allow for engines with 40000 m/s ISP. Aneutronic fusion would be my best bet if it turns to be viable since it eliminates the need for massive radiation shield.

The default DG is pretty far out, but there are other variants, more believable ones. The XR2 reaches orbit with "just" ~12 km/s ISP. That's three times our current chemical maximum. Less than an order of magnitude )

 

[Sky Captain]

The default DG is pretty far out, but there are other variants, more believable ones. The XR2 reaches orbit with "just" ~12 km/s ISP. That's three times our current chemical maximum. Less than an order of magnitude )

Well yea XR series can be tuned to lower numbers, but still no SSTO if you set ISP to realistic 4500 - 5000 m/s. XR2 require carrier craft to boost it to scram speed if ISP is set those values. 12 km/s ISP is still out of reach with chemical fuels. Nuclear thermal could reach ISP of 12 km/s, but crewed craft would recquire heavy radiation shield which would tend to kill the ISP advantage especially for small craft like DG or XR2. And nuclear craft with mostly unshielded fission reactors would be a maintenance and ground handling nightmare. Hence why aneutronic fusion would be best possible choice since (hopefully) gives lot`s of power in compact and lightweight package and eliminates the need for massive radiation shields.

 

[tori]

True. Unfortunately ) I always wanted to have an engine that runs on daisies and puppies that does two SSTO flights to the gallon.

How would the fusion thruster do with regard to heat dissipation? Convection in atmosphere, but what about the region where convection is no longer feasible but the dynamic pressure is still too high for radiators to operate safely?

 

[Sky Captain]

I think fusion rocket designs that are operated inside atmosphere are meant to be cooled by circulating cryogenic propellant through the reactor components similarly like chemical rocket engines are cooled. Since you need lot`s of thrust for Earth liftoff propellant mass flow even for fusion powered rockets must be quite high to generate large amount of thrust while still keeping reactor at manageable power levels.

 

[Andy44]

True. Unfortunately ) I always wanted to have an engine that runs on daisies and puppies that does two SSTO flights to the gallon.

How would the fusion thruster do with regard to heat dissipation? Convection in atmosphere, but what about the region where convection is no longer feasible but the dynamic pressure is still too high for radiators to operate safely?

The problem with burning puppies is that they aren't very storable as propellants. If you stick them in your propellant tank they lose their Isp after a few days.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

What about Cats? Not the domestic type, but those in the broadway musical? I think they should keep their ISP longer than puppies...

 

[unknown_orbiter]

This has gone down a sadistic hill fast...
*lulz at the thought of charred puppies raining on Cape Canaveral after STS-2421

 

[Andy44]

If your puppies are burning efficiently, there won't be anything but a fine, slightly radioactive ash.

 

[ThatGuy]

What about Cats? Not the domestic type, but those in the broadway musical? I think they should keep their ISP longer than puppies...

, please make it so...

 

[tori]

It wouldn't exactly come to me as a shock if there already was a movie that featured some sort of a "biological" propellant that regenerates itself. Because that's what puppies/plants/germs do, they grow, right? And that conservation of mass/energy is just a load of...

 

[Ghostrider]

The Enterprise-D has a hamster wheel in the engine room according to the ST:TNG tech manual. Antimatter, yeah...

 

[Moach]

armageddon is the utmost towering pinnacle of space movie FAIL....

oh! the humanity... i cringe just remembering the 10g's around the moon scene -
shame on you, Jerry Bruckheimer! you and Michael Bay! shame shame shame....:suicide: :leaving: :goodnight:


ahh.... i needed to vent about that... :spam:

in the other hand, did you know the Apollo 13 movie was actually filmed in real zero-gravity...
no tricks there, they stuck the whole movie set in a KC-130 and took a vomit-comet ride where they could shoot 20-30 secs of scene at each parabola... now - that, my friend - is space movie WIN!