Inconsistencies or plot holes in films

[Mad Doug Biker]

Watching Star Wreck Star Trek Into Darkness last night and noticed that the Enterprise (I think, I only started watching it half arsedly quite near to the end) lost power whilst in space, but then started to fall through the atmosphere of the planet it was above (and then crash), as if there was gravity in space. Why would it fall in the first place?

 

[Profpointy]

They existed, although certainly not as common as nowadays.

She was in Dr Who from 1971-73. We were not well off, but my parents were still able to afford to get me contact lenses for my 18th birthday present in 1977, by which time both hard and soft lenses were available (soft being more than twice the price though). If they were available from high street opticians for people like me by 1977, somebody like her could have got some in 1971 I'm sure.



But that wasn't available then The first laser surgery for eyes wasn't performed until 1987.

Could you get contact lenses to replace really thick coke bottle specs though? Can you get them now for that matter?

 

[Dogtrousers]

Watching Star Wreck Star Trek Into Darkness last night and noticed that the Enterprise (I think, I only started watching it half arsedly quite near to the end) lost power whilst in space, but then started to fall through the atmosphere of the planet it was above (and then crash), as if there was gravity in space. Why would it fall in the first place?

If it fell through the atmosphere of a planet then it would have been falling due to the planet's gravity. There's gravity in space, there's gravity everywhere.

Of all the implausibilities in a Star Trek film you seem to have picked something reasonable.

 

[figbat]

Watching Star Wreck Star Trek Into Darkness last night and noticed that the Enterprise (I think, I only started watching it half arsedly quite near to the end) lost power whilst in space, but then started to fall through the atmosphere of the planet it was above (and then crash), as if there was gravity in space. Why would it fall in the first place?

The planet it was above was Earth and Earth, like all planets, has quite a noticeable gravity field.

 

[Profpointy]

If it fell through the atmosphere of a planet then it would have been falling due to the planet's gravity. There's gravity in space, there's gravity everywhere.

Of all the implausibilities in a Star Trek film you seem to have picked something reasonable.

Whilst that is true, and you beat me to it, if it was in orbit, it would continue in orbit with or without engines. Being in orbit is the same as "freely falling"

 

[Dogtrousers]

Whilst that is true, and you beat me to it, if it was in orbit, it would continue in orbit with or without engines. Being in orbit is the same as "freely falling"

Yeah, I'd assumed that it was just bimbling around there, and hence losing power caused it to fall. But I didn't see the film. If it was in orbit, yes, it wouldn't be using any power.

 

[Profpointy]

Yeah, I'd assumed that it was just bimbling around there, and hence losing power caused it to fall. But I didn't see the film. If it was in orbit, yes, it wouldn't be using any power.

I can't remember if they were in orbit or "hovering" but in most the TOS they often started "in orbit round planet <whatever>"

 

[captain nemo1701]

Watching Star Wreck Star Trek Into Darkness last night and noticed that the Enterprise (I think, I only started watching it half arsedly quite near to the end) lost power whilst in space, but then started to fall through the atmosphere of the planet it was above (and then crash), as if there was gravity in space. Why would it fall in the first place?

The ISS is subject to about 90% of Earths gravity, the Moon is captured by it and so orbits us, that's how far out our gravity well extends. Since astronauts float about in it, its often a misconception that this is 'zero G' when it actually is 'permanent free fall'.

I'm reminded of a quote from Douglas Adams on the fine art of flying which sums it up:

'Flying is the art of throwing yourself at the ground and missing'

The Enterprise was in close orbit, so was the other ship that crashed into San Francisco. Both are subject to the gravity of the planet so would drift then fall towards it. Think of it as rather like rolling into a valley, shallow slope to start, then steep....

 

[Dadam]

If your ship is stationary relative to any planetary or star, the pull of those bodies will start to move it closer to and eventually collide with one. Unless you’re at one of the Lagrange points where the pulls cancel out of course.

The ship could have been in an unstable orbit requiring constant correction. Without power it could end up in a decaying orbit and eventually crash

 

[Profpointy]

The ISS is subject to about 90% of Earths gravity, the Moon is captured by it and so orbits us, that's how far out our gravity well extends. Since astronauts float about in it, its often a misconception that this is 'zero G' when it actually is 'permanent free fall'.

I'm reminded of a quote from Douglas Adams on the fine art of flying which sums it up:

'Flying is the art of throwing yourself at the ground and missing'

The Enterprise was in close orbit, so was the other ship that crashed into San Francisco. Both are subject to the gravity of the planet so would drift then fall towards it. Think of it as rather like rolling into a valley, shallow slope to start, then steep....

In a shallow orbit you only spiral in due to air resistance. In the near vacuum of even a low Earth orbit the air resistance is very low so spiralling in would take years.

Now a close orbit of a relativistic mass object like a black hole or neutron star would result in spiralling in due the gravitational effects alone, but not for a planet

 

[Alex321]

Could you get contact lenses to replace really thick coke bottle specs though? Can you get them now for that matter?

You certainly can now, not sure about then.

You can get contact lenses for up to -20D nowadays, which is very high level short sightedness indeed.

 

[captain nemo1701]

In a shallow orbit you only spiral in due to air resistance. In the near vacuum of even a low Earth orbit the air resistance is very low so spiralling in would take years.

Now a close orbit of a relativistic mass object like a black hole or neutron star would result in spiralling in due the gravitational effects alone, but not for a planet

Poetic licence, would have been a really long movie otherwise..... As in The Martian, the sandstorm wouldn't have blown him off his feet, the martian atmosphere being about 100 times less sense than ours. In fact, it probably would have felt like a summer breeze.

 

[figbat]

Poetic licence, would have been a really long movie otherwise..... As in The Martian, the sandstorm wouldn't have blown him off his feet, the martian atmosphere being about 100 times less sense than ours. In fact, it probably would have felt like a summer breeze.

I think we've covered this one before too - they are internally inconsistent with The Martian. On the one hand the storm is strong enough to tip the MAV and wreck the hab, but on the other hand the atmosphere is so thin that the other MAV can launch with no nose cone and only a tarp for protection.

 

[lazybloke]

The ISS is subject to about 90% of Earths gravity, the Moon is captured by it and so orbits us, that's how far out our gravity well extends. Since astronauts float about in it, its often a misconception that this is 'zero G' when it actually is 'permanent free fall'.

As i understand it, the moon and earth orbit their combined centre of mass, which happens to lie within "Earth" (but not at Earth's centre)

 

[wiggydiggy]

I think we've covered this one before too - they are internally inconsistent with The Martian. On the one hand the storm is strong enough to tip the MAV and wreck the hab, but on the other hand the atmosphere is so thin that the other MAV can launch with no nose cone and only a tarp for protection.

We have. In fact it was probably me that posted, the filmakers acknowledge the wind/storm is overegerated for plot reasons - they needed a way for the astronauts to be put in peril and that was it.