MovieChat Forums > Ascension (2014) Discussion > Suspend disbelief

Suspend disbelief

posted 9 years ago by starbugreddwarf
29 replies | jump to latest

So I just started watching this on netflix. I'll keep doing so as it is good enough to hold my interest.

My issue is, while any science fiction requires a suspension of disbelief, this show asks a bit too much. Namely with regards to technology. Perhaps some of this will be addressed, but as it is a human drama rather than hard sci fi, I doubt it.

First: the construction of the habitat portion of the ship is now and was in the 60s possible, no doubt. But that's where the plausible part of the technology ends.

Given the historical tapes, this ship is taller than the Empire State building.

Just launching a small capsule to the moon required the largest booster rocket ever built by man, the huge Saturn V. Purely as a question of physics, with enough money you surely COULD build a rocket to get a ship that large into space... but the booster rockets would be miles long. Nor would any sane government condone such a project; one misfire and not only is a trillion dollar investment (and I think it would be more) down the drain, but hundreds of lives ended. And the early space program had lots of misfires.

Even accepting the risk and cost, it took a decade to put a capsule on the moon. There is no way this monster could be built in 10 years or even 50 even with a full out effort.

Even then, accepting that with enough money you could put a monster like this into space, it has to have some sort of continuous 1g drive on board. We can't build that now, much less in the 60s. We have some IDEAS of what might work, but that's all. The other possibility is that they have magic artificial gravity, and the less said on that using 60s tech the better. Even if they had 1g acceleration engines, the trip would take about 5 years from their perspective, but a lot longer would pass on earth.

Much like BSG, the tech on board is a mix of primitive and futuristic nonsense.

Like I say, only 2 episodes in, and it is an entertaining show, but it just asks a bit much.

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

Regarding the constant 1G, as I mentioned to someone on another thread who was just getting started, There Are Reasons for that.

For most of the rest, look up Project Orion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

"This article is about the 1950s nuclear propulsion project."

[–] blust2 9 years ago

Empire State building was complete in 1931. A lot of tall building were constructed in early 20th century. The technology to build tall building was mature one hundred years ago.

[–] starbugreddwarf 9 years ago

You're missing my point. Building the ship itself is doable, as I said, as you said. But picture the teeny, tiny little capsule/module/limb assembly on top of the monster saturn V for the apollo landings. Making up perhaps 5-10% of the mass.

No picture a rocket assembly under the Ascension to the same proportion... 95 times bigger than the ship itself. Like I said- miles of rocket.

Not possible.

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

Orion doesn't need that much "rocket," that's the point.

But now you understand The Reason(s) behind the "1G acceleration."

[–] tb-sch 9 years ago

But wouldn't the problem just be to make the people inside the capsule believe that that rocket exists rather than it existing? Keep in mind that the information is much more scarce. We are at an age of unlimited belief into science. People still thought that nuclear power would solve all problems within decades. As long as that works, it really does not matter whether the machine would function.

[–] alveolate 7 years ago

for someone nitpicking the science behind the rocketry, you can't do math for nuts.

if the capsule takes up 5-10% the total mass of the entire launch vehicle, the rocket would be 95/5 to 90/10 times the mass of it, which is 9 to 19 times, NOT 95 times.

i don't remember seeing any launch footage in the series itself, but couldn't they have built the rocket in orbit, then used an ion engine for constant acceleration? all they needed was to figure out a way to fake launch the '63/70 scientists and their kids into the orbiting ship, then blast off towards proxima from there.

didn't read about the orion project, but i think nuclear warhead propulsion would be even more difficult to control given such a large ship. if the blast happens just a few metres too close, the entire ship could be crushed by the shockwaves or knocked off course. if they HAD to use explosive propulsion, they should've built the ship flat (like a saucer) instead of tall.

either way, the series really doesn't score that well in the hard science department. there are TONS of physical problems with simulating space on such a scale. the starfield hologram already raises so many questions. gravity is another giant question. what about lipstick and alcohol? why would a crew on a 100yr voyage waste resources producing non-necessities?

it's a fun watch, but hardly meant to be a realistic portrayal.

[–] starbugreddwarf 9 years ago

....ok got to the end of episode 2. Now that's a twist... kind of makes me lose interest now.

[–] tb-sch 9 years ago

Oh, okay.... you got there yourself. Well, that was the good twist. From that point on the show gets really crappy and betrays everything a science fiction geek can invest in by adding fantasy elements beyond the initial premise.

[–] MerovingianGoddess 9 years ago

You are missing the point, this is where Plato's Analogy of a Cave begins to take flight, so to speak! If you do not feel the great heavier meaning of this project then you've missed the meaning, and I am not being rude. I've been fascinated about this concept since I was very young, as I wanted to turn my elementary school into this rocket and with limited information, these people would never know that they were in an "affected" structure.

Merovingian Goddess
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

If at least some of those people were supposed to be capable of operating/piloting an interstellar spaceship, they would have to know enough about physics to be able to tell that it wasn't real.

Even including such seemingly unimportant details as "point of no return."

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

No need for that with Orion. Although perhaps later ships could be done that way, using asteroids etc for raw materials. But to start with, HUGE ships/stations could in effect be bombed into orbit right from the Earth's surface.

[–] BlackJAC 9 years ago

It would still render the launch site a mix of Hiroshima and Chernobyl given how much nuke they'd need just to get it out of the gravity well. Building a spacedock at either L4 or L5 upon which to build the ship itself would be a far better choice.

Your replies will be graded and possibly used as material in future projects.

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

Regular atomic bombs are INTENDED to produce the most destruction possible, including the spread of radiation, because they're BOMBS. But it's possible to bring that way down, by various tactics such as including boron within the bomb to absorb radiation. Much of this is discussed in the various online publications dealing with Orion, including the Wikipedia article(s).

And as I indicated earlier, once well established in space, it becomes possible - perhaps actually simpler - to use materials from asteroids etc to build more ships that are already in space. But to CREATE THOSE L4/L5 colonies/shipyards/etc in the first place, requires getting a LOT of usable materials and equipment into space to begin with. And in effect bombing them up into orbit, is by far the easiest and fastest method we have available.

[–] BlackJAC 9 years ago

They launched Skylab using a bunch of Saturn Vs and the ISS with Space Shuttles. Methinks the parts for a Lagrange spacedock can be taken offworld without "bombing them up."

Your replies will be graded and possibly used as material in future projects.

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

Any serious L4/L4 type setup would have to be large enough to require at least a few THOUSAND Saturn V launches. With all the air pollution that would entail. And since the Saturn V no longer exists/can no longer be made, that's another problem.

The space shuttle also no longer exists, and couldn't get anything to outside of Earth orbit anyway.

If something like the Shuttle were to take parts up to orbit to build something that would then move ITSELF to the L4/L5 position, then the great majority of that lifting to Earth orbit would have to be FUEL.

No matter how you look at it, it would make a lot more sense to use something like Orion, especially to get started on something that could then be used to build more things - including more ships - already in space/orbit using asteroids etc as raw materials.

[–] BlackJAC 9 years ago

And yet you want nuclear fallout instead.

Your replies will be graded and possibly used as material in future projects.

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

You missed or ignored my earlier post. Current atomic bombs are INTENDED to produce maximum radiation release, because they are INTENDED to cause damage in that way and others. Common "fallout" is actually radioactive dirt and other debris caused by an atomic explosion at surface level. If the explosion takes place higher up, common "fallout" is reduced or eliminated because the explosion doesn't encounter dirt to irradiate and spread. And the release of radiation can be similarly dealt with by adding materials such as boron which absorb atomic particles from the explosion.

Meanwhile, if you think launching thousands of Saturn V rockets - or space shuttles, or whatever you like - would have no environmental impact, I suggest you check with something like Greenpeace.

[–] BlackJAC 9 years ago

The Saturn V's Rocketdyne J-2s were fueled with liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Burning that gives you water vapor. Greenpeace would cream their jeans over the notion.

Now how many nuclear detonations of what yield apiece would it take to lift a ship the size and weight of Sears Tower out of the gravity well? https://youtu.be/6vwHPTYZ1NM

Your replies will be graded and possibly used as material in future projects.

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

The J-2 engines were used in the second and third stages of the Saturn V. The first stage was fueled by what amounts to kerosene. Lots and lots of kerosene. (I suppose I should say "paraffin" for any Brits reading this.)

And the Saturn V could still only take about 130 tons of payload into Low Earth Orbit. Which is actually the standing record. To get any significant amount of equipment and material to L4 or L5 to set up any kind of station or colony, would again require at least several THOUSAND such launches. Compared to just over a DOZEN of them ACTUALLY launched.

[–] BlackJAC 9 years ago

And the carbon dioxide created by burning a hydrocarbon like kerosene is scrubbed out of the atmosphere with Mark 1 Mod 0 trees. Do I have to discuss what a half-life is?

Your replies will be graded and possibly used as material in future projects.

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

They knew how to add boron to the nuclear fuel even back in the 1950s, when the Orion research was first done, which is why it was mentioned back then. Orion launches were also planned to be made from the poles, for various reasons including that any radiation that WAS released would have nothing nearby to affect.

Meanwhile, electric power plants, fueled by coal, natural gas, etc, also release radiation that was naturally present within the fuels THEY use. Which would include kerosene for the first stage of the Saturn V. At lower levels generally, but over a much longer time. And much closer to populated areas.

Fossil fuels also contain radioactive materials, mainly uranium and thorium, which are released into the atmosphere. In 2000, about 12,000 tonnes of thorium and 5,000 tonnes of uranium were released worldwide from burning coal.[27] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island accident.[28]

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel

It's also worth noting that in the course of atomic weapon development, over 500 atmospheric tests have already been conducted. (Plus more than 1000 underground.) And those would all have been much closer to the ground than the Orion's would be once it got up a little ways.

And those 500+ previous atmospheric blasts were NOT done at the poles.

So, what's another 100 if it gets a space colony up there? Not to mention all that fossil fuel being used to generate electricity.

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

Now how many nuclear detonations of what yield apiece would it take to lift a ship the size and weight of Sears Tower out of the gravity well?

As I recall, it was something less than 100 detonations to achieve Earth orbit. And again, only the very first COULD cause any "fallout" IF it was right at ground level. If elevated even slightly so as to not blow irradiated dirt into the atmosphere: no "fallout." Since that's what "fallout" IS. you don't get "fallout" simply from ANY atomic detonation. Only from a detonation close enough to the ground to distribute irradiated dirt. That's even where the term comes from: irradiated dirt FALLing back OUT of the atmosphere.

Treating the atomic material with something like boron, as mentioned earlier, might very well deal with the "fallout" issue too. But for sure, once above ground, it basically eliminates the concern of radiation into the larger environment. And too, once again, the higher it gets, the less it matters.

[–] BlackJAC 9 years ago

I would just love to see where these magical negative effect-free propulsion nukes you speak of exist 'cause 100 nuclear detonations is going to be supremely problematic especially with early 1960s' nuke design.

Your replies will be graded and possibly used as material in future projects.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rjl023 8 years ago

So let me get this straight: In order to evolve a "star child" you need the DNA of the most stupid people you can find?
Stupid because if over 50 years, no one out of several hundred people can't figure out that they are not really travelling through space, the people in this particular group had to have been the biggest idiots ever to live in a cave!
I love science fiction but it was hard to suspend my disbelief over this one ...

[–] parkpunk 8 years ago

What I was asking myself was: Did the "original" crew know they weren't in space and simply lied to their children? How would the government possibly have convinced them they were launched into space under dozens of nuclear explosions? Something like the M. Night Shyamalan movie "The Village".
Did the star field at the top of the ship constantly change over 50 years? With 1960's projection technology? Definitely a lot of suspension of disbelief. But, I still enjoyed the show. Will they be making any more episodes?
🇺🇸🚀🗼

[–] kerryedavis 8 years ago

They were only going a few light years, so the view wouldn't really change all that much. And it was going to take 100 years, so it SURE wouldn't change QUICKLY.

If it were real, that is.

[–] MovieSnobsNeedNotApply2 8 years ago

That's entertainment!? 😲

"We couldn't do this today, let alone in 1962, which is why this is science fiction and not a documentary," David Brin, an astrophysicist and Hugo Award-winning author who consulted on "Ascension," told NBC News.

Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/ascension-could-mankind-really-survive-100-years-space-n264596

MovieSnobsNeedNotApply:Bad movies don't exist, they're just unintentionally riff-worthy films.

[–] raz-campbell 7 years ago

Actually, the gravity thing isn't that much of a problem.
Let's ignore rotation for the moment, because that doesn't work (at least, it doesn't work the way you think it does, if you believe the way it is portrayed in movies would work).
Instead, if you build the decks perpendicular to the axis of propulsion, then all you'd need to do is to maintain a steady 10 m/s/s acceleration to simulate 1g.
Furthermore, as the most quickest way to get somewhere (assuming fuel isn't a huge problem) is to accelerate constantly towards the target, then at 50% of the distance to that target, the ship rotates 180 degrees, then constantly accelerates (decelerating in effect) in the opposite direction.

Thus, for the whole flight duration, the occupants of any ship would feel a constant 1g gravitational effect, with the only disruption being the time it takes to turn 180 degrees, and any other points where they might want to coast to conserve fuel (another pet hate of mine is how movie always seem to assume that in space, if the engines are not active, then the ship will not move. Someone needs to tattoo Newton's 2nd Law of Motion across their foreheads before they are allowed to make any space based movies ever again...).

But getting back on point, accelerating to 10 m/s/s/ isn't that hard. We can do that now, and we could do that back in the 50's. Doing it in an atmosphere is hard, but with no wind resistance? Easy as... something that's very easy, I guess...

Peace

Raz