Hollywood Stupid

doug941 wrote:Can Pierce singing be any worse than Clint Eastwood AND Lee Marvin both singing in the same film?

Daryl wrote:Ultimate recent Star Wars stupidity was using gravity bombs to attack star ships in deep space.

Daryl wrote:Ultimate recent Star Wars stupidity was using gravity bombs to attack star ships in deep space.

Imaginos1892 wrote:If you took all the Hollywood Stupid out of that movie, you'd wind up with a trailer. A short one. There is only ONE way to arm the bombs, and it's a little remote-control dongle that's easy to drop, and lose? In the middle of a battle? The bombs can't be automatically armed when they're released, like every missile in the U.S. inventory?

Michael Everett wrote:Two words. Rian Johnson.

Dilandu wrote:

Mycall4me wrote: Why?

Because it is space. On Earth, fighter and battleship operated in different mediums: fighter in air (easy to move through, but required a lot of energy to stay in), battleship in water (hard to move through, but easy to stay in)

But in space, both fighter and battleship are in common medium. They are subjected to similar laws of dynamic. There are little to no practical reasons, why space battleship could not have similar dynamic characteristics as space fighter: acceleration, specific impulse, ect.

Also, there is no horizon in space. And no atmosphere to disperce the infrared radiation. The fighters approach would be visible by opponents right from the moment fighters ignited their engines. And long-range warfare in space is dominated by lasers and heavy missiles - the kind of weapons that fighters aren't suited to use due to their small size and limited mass.

Finally, the fighters in space are forced to compete with long-range missiles. Which are more effective by definition. The terror of rocket equation clearly states that we need propellant to accelerate a propellant. And fighter need to accelerate more then missile:

Let's just calculate, assuming that we need N ton of propellant to accelerate ton of mass to the desired speed:

A - Fighter accelerated to close with target - need N tons of propellant
B - Fighter deccelerated after attck run - need another N ton of propellant and 2N tons of propellant to accelerate this additional propellant at stage A. In total, 4N tons of propellant
C - Fighter need to accelerate back toward his home base - another N ton of propellant. So another 2N tons added on stage B and 4N tons on stage A. In total, 11N tons of propellant.
D - Fighter need to deccelerate near his home base - another N tons of propellant (another 2N tons of stage C, another 4N tons of stage B, and freaking 8N tons on A).

In total our fighter needed 24N tons of propellant to make his dashing raid and return.

Now lets look at missile of the same mass:

A - missile accelerated to close with target - need N tons of propellant.

That's all. The missile is 24 times more efficient than fighter.

Actually, with correct calculations - not those simplified - the missile would be even MORE efficient.

vovchara wrote:..snip..
yep, exactly this.
But there is something else. When you fire 100 missiles at a target and only 2 get through and kill it, this is worth the effort.
But if you fire 100 fighters at a target and 50 get through...

Joat42 wrote:Depending on the goal, losing 50 fighters may be an "acceptable" loss when you can't attack your target directly with missiles etc.

Dilandu wrote:

Joat42 wrote:Depending on the goal, losing 50 fighters may be an "acceptable" loss when you can't attack your target directly with missiles etc.

Problem is, that its gard to imagine such situation. Basically the only advantage fighter have over long-range missile is the human input. So, the situation must involve decision-making, that - due to some reason - could not be done remotely.

Problem is, that fighter by definition are short-endurance units. They could not get really far from their base, and could not stay long in space. So, its hard to imagine fighter in situation, when the remote decision-making would be impossible.

doug941 wrote:Hollywood stupid with spacecraft? Flying along with engines at full speed ahead yet going at the same speed.

Imaginos1892 wrote:

doug941 wrote:Can Pierce singing be any worse than Clint Eastwood AND Lee Marvin both singing in the same film?

Yes. He was. Much worse.

And don't forget Ray Walston! Yep, Uncle Martin the Martian himself.

I was surprised how well Clint Eastwood pulled that off, and Lee Marvin was just right in 'The First Thing Ya Know'. At least both of them were on key.

Paint Your Wagon was a hoot!

"His arm's broke."
"You a doctor?"
"Horse doctor, but bones is bones."

Daryl wrote:Ultimate recent Star Wars stupidity was using gravity bombs to attack star ships in deep space.

If you took all the Hollywood Stupid out of that movie, you'd wind up with a trailer. A short one. There is only ONE way to arm the bombs, and it's a little remote-control dongle that's easy to drop, and lose? In the middle of a battle? The bombs can't be automatically armed when they're released, like every missile in the U.S. inventory?
———————————
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom Of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts! Tell me, is there anyone along our borders with whom we are not at war?"

TFLYTSNBN wrote:The highlight was Lee Marvin ripping the clothes off Jill Ireland.