Post created by: Samuel
Star Wars has long been considered one of the most famous sci-fi franchises ever. It has shaped and captured the imagination of generations. From its mystical adventures, beautiful landscapes, to daring combat, the series is a spectacle to behold. Everyone is familiar with the destruction of the Death Star as massive ships and fighter pilots rocket by dog fighting with space lasers. With the last installment of the newest trilogy and Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order’s release this Friday, it leads me to wonder, what are the scientific limitations of space battles? Do they coincide with pop culture’s understanding? The channels Nerdist, Because Science, and It’s Okay To Be Smart tackle this same question in their videos analyzing how space battles in popular culture are, according to modern physics, scientifically inaccurate.
From the start, we already encounter problems with Star Wars’ interpretation of spacecraft design. Spacecraft are usually presented as speedy, maneuverable fighters or, alternatively, behemoths which shoot lasers and can travel at velocities near the speed of light. The operations and challenges of these spacecrafts, however, are far from what cinema would have you believe.
Firstly, throttles or center sticks characterizing the interior design of spacecrafts is unlikely. One of the major advantages with space flight is that it is easy to achieve extreme accelerations with proper propulsion. These increases in acceleration lead to changes in weight which, according to Newton’s second law, equals mass multiplied by acceleration. It is very difficult to control anything under high g’s, much less any complex systems which are designed for minute adjustments. Instead, the interior of a fighter craft would probably have a console of buttons so as to minimize required movements.
Secondly, the exterior design of ships, small and large, would most likely lack wings. Drawing a free body diagram, there are a few fundamental forces that dictate the motion of an aircraft in an atmosphere: drag and thrust, weight and lift. Drag and lift are non-existent due to the density of space (one atom per cm^3), nor is weight. The only thing a spacecraft is concerned with is thrust. According to these principles, spacecraft are much more likely to appear as boxes with guns and thrusters. This would also have a profound effect on maneuverability. The banking turns seen in Star Wars and regular aircraft would be impossible in space because there is no air to redirect the momentum of a vessel. The only way for a spacecraft to turn is to reorient its propulsion systems opposite the desired direction, but it would also have to fight its original velocity. Newton’s first law encapsulates this problem well by affirming that an object’s velocity remains constant unless the net force of the object is zero. Combat between fighter pilots would look like a game of asteroids with jerky movements more than World War II dog fighting. Guns would also be oriented perpendicular to the acceleration vector of a craft to conserve momentum. Firing in opposition to the craft’s acceleration would only lead to waste of precious fuel and momentum (anything with mass and velocity has momentum).
The incongruities of popular culture’s interpretation of war in space and reality do not end here. The first fundamental difference between land and space engagements is distance. There are no obstacles to line of sight, no drag or forces to impede weapons, and likely no significant gravity wells (in empty space). The range of a bullet and laser, as explained by Newton’s first law, goes from but a few km on Earth maximum to theoretically infinite in space. Considering the velocity of lasers, close space combat between ships like in Star Wars would be inane. It would be impossible to maneuver quickly enough to evade lasers traveling at the speed of light. As a result, this range extension would likely force adversaries exceedingly far apart. Communication then becomes an issue as it takes time for signals to travel. Another factor which is often neglected is heat. One could effectively subdue a ship by simply applying heat or energy to the system of the craft. It is exceptionally difficult to expel heat in space. All the heat producing activities of a spaceship like engine maneuvers, keeping the crew warm and computers running, along with every shot colliding with the ship imparting energy in varies ways, including heat, would only serve to accentuate this issue (Because Science). This issue could effectively debilitate a ship and its crew without proper precautions.
In conclusion, modern physics presents new, eccentric challenges for deep space conflict that popular culture has yet to tackle. The basics of space combat would look fundamentally different from what we see in Star Wars and other sci-fi media. For now, it seems that spectacle has won out over science. Either way, I’m excited to see that the sci-fi genre has room to grow in its story telling. Applying a more scientific lens to its space warfare might just be the final frontier.
Picture taken from: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/l0W6G; by Stephan Deutsch
Comments