Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzybody
Too bad the writers didn't try harder on the worst episode of the original Battlestar Galactica "Fire in Space".
|
If they had gotten the fire science right, it would have been disruptive, as it would have been the ONLY real science on that show! Why change a working formula!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by crich70
Thanks. I didn't realize it was so long ago already. Of course NASA made changes to Apollo after the Apollo 1 disaster as well.
|
By contrast, I distinctly recall reading in some reliable news source that the ISS could NOT be changed even with lessons learned in the MIR fire (e.g., the way cables were run) because the design process was too far along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzybody
I saw that Mythbusters episode when it was first on.
|
Ah, Mythbusters. The show that wants you to believe that if two mid-budget special effects guys can't do it in the time it takes to make a cable TV episode, then NO ONE CAN!!! Bwahaha!
Quote:
Originally Posted by little and large
I guess that for me, I can be pretty much fooled by a good writer.
|
And that's OK. Story has to come first in fiction.
Internal continuity comes next, else you get taken out of the story and can't suspend disbelief.
Actual factual technical accuracy needs to come below those things in terms of priority, but as a science and SF buff, I do enjoy it, and I'd seek out writers who manage it.
As for the OP, I agree with most of the respondents: Suck is just as correct as blow depending on your point of view.
I found it unworthy of Commander Data to correct Riker on the same matter on that one episode of ST:TNG, as well:
But, what can we do. After all,
most writers are writers, not scientists, or space cowboys.
ApK