Question
In science fiction film and television, why do the spacecraft move around in battle scenes as if they were subject to the rules of gravity, even though weightlessness means that the physics of movement are entirely different?
Answer
Because the damn studios are too cheap to hire aerospace engineers to create realistic AND interesting scenarios. Yes, it would be surreal, but we get used to all sorts of surreal things. As Colin Jensen notes, the filming techniques are still based on WWII dogfights, which were surreal at one time, when people only understood 2d combat. But with CGI capabilities available, this is sheer laziness today.
Underwater movement has SOME of the characteristics of movement in space, which is why astronauts train for spacewalks in a big pool (I've seen it, fun place). It is also why well-made submarine movies like The Hunt for Red October have a surreal feel, but are nevertheless extremely gripping.
Could you create realistic and interesting space-combat scenes? I think you could. If you've ever played that (surprisingly good, despite being primitive) old video game, asteroids, you'll get the basic idea:
http://www.play.vg/games/4-Aster...
Compared to Asteroids, many later (and much glossier) first-person vertical shooters set in space are idiotic.
In atmospheric combat, gravity matters not because it is a big force (it is by definition just 1g), but because it is "always on." The best human pilots can tolerate between -3 and 9g, and the same limit will hold for space. So merge/separation dynamics will be about the same. The "always on" characteristic means that pilots can gain PE slowly and efficiently, but dive very fast to use it up when needed, as KE. This is why altitude is an advantage. In space, this won't be true, so it will be like a 3d version of 2d combat, with no preferred positions in a potential field. It'll be more like submarines.
Fluid dynamics matter because they give you powerful, but entropy-increasing forces for control in constrained ways. Below about Mach 1, you can change direction basically arbitrarily using only passive (control surfaces). So the basic approach to dog fighting is to earn PE and then cash it out as KE, letting the control surfaces do most of the maneuvering. Only recently, with thrust vectoring on modern fighters, has this changed.
So that's another data reference for you: thrust-vectored combat at low velocities in the atmosphere (where airspeeds are too low to provide much control authority) is ALSO like space, and unlike underwater, where the drag is very high, turn rates can be much faster relative to human response time constants. The result? The JSF scene towards the end of the last Die Hard movie.
So to answer your question in a constructive way: retain the g-limits for atmospheric combat (since humans are still the pilots), replace potential-field dynamics with more submarine like dynamics, and replace control-surface maneuvering with thrust-vectored maneuvering. You've got the raw material for some kick-ass realistic space combat.
There are other details to be worked out realistically (including weapons: lasers are jazzy, but I think ballistic (both explosive and kinetic-kill) and continuous-thrust missile type weapons would create more realistic and interesting scenarios). I can think of fascinating fragmentation type weapons that use things like gravity slingshots in asteroid fields to suddenly mess up an opponent.
Basically realism can be done, and entertainingly, if only Hollywood had a space opera script worthy of the new CGI technology and the investment in realism. Ultimately, in movies, it is the story that matters, and what we are missing today is really good space scripts that capture the imagination.
Underwater movement has SOME of the characteristics of movement in space, which is why astronauts train for spacewalks in a big pool (I've seen it, fun place). It is also why well-made submarine movies like The Hunt for Red October have a surreal feel, but are nevertheless extremely gripping.
Could you create realistic and interesting space-combat scenes? I think you could. If you've ever played that (surprisingly good, despite being primitive) old video game, asteroids, you'll get the basic idea:
http://www.play.vg/games/4-Aster...
Compared to Asteroids, many later (and much glossier) first-person vertical shooters set in space are idiotic.
In atmospheric combat, gravity matters not because it is a big force (it is by definition just 1g), but because it is "always on." The best human pilots can tolerate between -3 and 9g, and the same limit will hold for space. So merge/separation dynamics will be about the same. The "always on" characteristic means that pilots can gain PE slowly and efficiently, but dive very fast to use it up when needed, as KE. This is why altitude is an advantage. In space, this won't be true, so it will be like a 3d version of 2d combat, with no preferred positions in a potential field. It'll be more like submarines.
Fluid dynamics matter because they give you powerful, but entropy-increasing forces for control in constrained ways. Below about Mach 1, you can change direction basically arbitrarily using only passive (control surfaces). So the basic approach to dog fighting is to earn PE and then cash it out as KE, letting the control surfaces do most of the maneuvering. Only recently, with thrust vectoring on modern fighters, has this changed.
So that's another data reference for you: thrust-vectored combat at low velocities in the atmosphere (where airspeeds are too low to provide much control authority) is ALSO like space, and unlike underwater, where the drag is very high, turn rates can be much faster relative to human response time constants. The result? The JSF scene towards the end of the last Die Hard movie.
So to answer your question in a constructive way: retain the g-limits for atmospheric combat (since humans are still the pilots), replace potential-field dynamics with more submarine like dynamics, and replace control-surface maneuvering with thrust-vectored maneuvering. You've got the raw material for some kick-ass realistic space combat.
There are other details to be worked out realistically (including weapons: lasers are jazzy, but I think ballistic (both explosive and kinetic-kill) and continuous-thrust missile type weapons would create more realistic and interesting scenarios). I can think of fascinating fragmentation type weapons that use things like gravity slingshots in asteroid fields to suddenly mess up an opponent.
Basically realism can be done, and entertainingly, if only Hollywood had a space opera script worthy of the new CGI technology and the investment in realism. Ultimately, in movies, it is the story that matters, and what we are missing today is really good space scripts that capture the imagination.