Fellow Sci-Fi dorks out there...
Calm your nerd rage. Oh no, the show is not realistic. At this point I would quote one of founders of the sci-fi genre, Arthur C. Clarke. Any sufficiently advanced technology appears as magic to those who don't possess it or understand it.
I literally just read a comment where in the same sentence, someone criticized this show based on a lack of time-delay in radio communications, but then went on to talk about traveling at the speed of light and time distortion.
If you want realism sci-fi Fans, then I hate it to break it to you, but all of our "classic" series and movies need to go to a trash can immediately.
Star Trek. Oh yeah. That was realistic. Watch an old episode with anyone who has any kind of science training and watch the look on their face during techno-babble sessions. You seem to accept transporters, warp drive, food replication, made-up minerals and real-time communication in that setting with ease, but not here.
The new BSG, which many people (including myself) love. Heck, they don't even bother with the explanations on this show on purpose (show creator Ron Moore has been quoted as demanding no Star Trek techno babble scenes on this one). You have some kind of "jump" system for traveling in space (ala Dune almost, traveling without moving), real-time communication over vast differences, an endless supply of alcohol and booze, etc. Not to mention the contradictions. (The 13th tribe leaves a probe with a virus, which makes the Cylons sick and die, except a season later we find out the 13th tribe was cylons. my head hurts just contemplating it) Star Wars. Don't think I need to explain the science holes here, anyone who paid attention in elementary school can figure these out. Fire and sound in space. Light speed. Lightsabers.
I could go on and on, but I think my point is made. ALMOST ALL science fiction is unrealistic. That's part of the point. Even movies/shows that were somewhat realistic (2001, 2010 for example, the science in them is fairly sound)have the element of unknown, of unrealistic (the monolith).
As for why the baseball doesn't move, and why the ship has rotating parts even though their suits have the nano-things, that comment from someone made me laugh. They criticize the show for a lack of realism and then criticize it for having a ship move.
Follow this logic with me, OK? For the "real science" lovers out here, I thought this part of the show would have made them happy.
The suits have nano-like fibers built in that pull to the deck, thus enabling the crew to be a lot more productive, moving around in a familiar 1g environment.
But biologically, their bodies would still react over the long-term as if in a zero-g environment. The suit is pulled to the floor, that is still not gravity, that just lets you function as if there is cause all your clothes are being pulled down to the floor. The only way to use these "nano fibers" to do that would be directly embedding them throughout each astronaut's body.
Right before one of the diaries, in fact a lot of them, they show clips of the spinny parts of the ship.
Logically, one way to help battle long-term zero-g environment problems in this situation could be : "let's have their sleeping quarters be in the spinny part; in theory then every astronaut has 6-8 hours per day of being in a "real" gravity environment, thus helping combat zero-g related problems over a long-term. Keeping your astronauts under actual gravity for a third of their time would help greatly. Really, I was surprised the science patrol missed that and instead criticized it.
Point is this show may be somewhat unrealistic (more realistic then a lot of other sci-fi shows they, the way they actually talked about launch windows, planet alignment, how it would be 6 years before another launch opportunity. When's the last time you saw that in a show? "sorry Captain Picard, but our launch window doesn't come up for another 5 hours..."), but I think it's holding it's own atm. Pretty interesting, a slight nod to science but more focus on what it would be like to be one of these astronauts.
And oh yeah, for those who argue, argue, and argue against the relations between astronauts. Couple of points.
A lot, and I mean a LOT (read MOST here, formerly all, Neil Armstrong was one of the only civilians in the Apollo program for example, almost all the rest were Navy/Air Force pilots), of astronauts are former military personnel, often test-pilots or other high-risk type jobs. Try to tell me with a straight face that a bunch of pilots from the Navy and Air Force don't try to get around, especially after being told your an astronaut, your one of the best, etc....
As for the crew not being the best or qualified, they actually bring that up in the show, it has to do with "beta", whatever the heck it is, they keep saying it chose people, they wanted to wash them out, etc...
Calm your nerd rage. Oh no, the show is not realistic. At this point I would quote one of founders of the sci-fi genre, Arthur C. Clarke. Any sufficiently advanced technology appears as magic to those who don't possess it or understand it.
I literally just read a comment where in the same sentence, someone criticized this show based on a lack of time-delay in radio communications, but then went on to talk about traveling at the speed of light and time distortion.
If you want realism sci-fi Fans, then I hate it to break it to you, but all of our "classic" series and movies need to go to a trash can immediately.
Star Trek. Oh yeah. That was realistic. Watch an old episode with anyone who has any kind of science training and watch the look on their face during techno-babble sessions. You seem to accept transporters, warp drive, food replication, made-up minerals and real-time communication in that setting with ease, but not here.
The new BSG, which many people (including myself) love. Heck, they don't even bother with the explanations on this show on purpose (show creator Ron Moore has been quoted as demanding no Star Trek techno babble scenes on this one). You have some kind of "jump" system for traveling in space (ala Dune almost, traveling without moving), real-time communication over vast differences, an endless supply of alcohol and booze, etc. Not to mention the contradictions. (The 13th tribe leaves a probe with a virus, which makes the Cylons sick and die, except a season later we find out the 13th tribe was cylons. my head hurts just contemplating it) Star Wars. Don't think I need to explain the science holes here, anyone who paid attention in elementary school can figure these out. Fire and sound in space. Light speed. Lightsabers.
I could go on and on, but I think my point is made. ALMOST ALL science fiction is unrealistic. That's part of the point. Even movies/shows that were somewhat realistic (2001, 2010 for example, the science in them is fairly sound)have the element of unknown, of unrealistic (the monolith).
As for why the baseball doesn't move, and why the ship has rotating parts even though their suits have the nano-things, that comment from someone made me laugh. They criticize the show for a lack of realism and then criticize it for having a ship move.
Follow this logic with me, OK? For the "real science" lovers out here, I thought this part of the show would have made them happy.
The suits have nano-like fibers built in that pull to the deck, thus enabling the crew to be a lot more productive, moving around in a familiar 1g environment.
But biologically, their bodies would still react over the long-term as if in a zero-g environment. The suit is pulled to the floor, that is still not gravity, that just lets you function as if there is cause all your clothes are being pulled down to the floor. The only way to use these "nano fibers" to do that would be directly embedding them throughout each astronaut's body.
Right before one of the diaries, in fact a lot of them, they show clips of the spinny parts of the ship.
Logically, one way to help battle long-term zero-g environment problems in this situation could be : "let's have their sleeping quarters be in the spinny part; in theory then every astronaut has 6-8 hours per day of being in a "real" gravity environment, thus helping combat zero-g related problems over a long-term. Keeping your astronauts under actual gravity for a third of their time would help greatly. Really, I was surprised the science patrol missed that and instead criticized it.
Point is this show may be somewhat unrealistic (more realistic then a lot of other sci-fi shows they, the way they actually talked about launch windows, planet alignment, how it would be 6 years before another launch opportunity. When's the last time you saw that in a show? "sorry Captain Picard, but our launch window doesn't come up for another 5 hours..."), but I think it's holding it's own atm. Pretty interesting, a slight nod to science but more focus on what it would be like to be one of these astronauts.
And oh yeah, for those who argue, argue, and argue against the relations between astronauts. Couple of points.
A lot, and I mean a LOT (read MOST here, formerly all, Neil Armstrong was one of the only civilians in the Apollo program for example, almost all the rest were Navy/Air Force pilots), of astronauts are former military personnel, often test-pilots or other high-risk type jobs. Try to tell me with a straight face that a bunch of pilots from the Navy and Air Force don't try to get around, especially after being told your an astronaut, your one of the best, etc....
As for the crew not being the best or qualified, they actually bring that up in the show, it has to do with "beta", whatever the heck it is, they keep saying it chose people, they wanted to wash them out, etc...