You're the one who brought it up. In universe there are explanations for the questions you asked. If you don't care, why bring it up?

Someone is about to meet Steve and get the terraform staff

[deleted]

That's already been chewed up million of years ago.

Interstellar has a pretty awesome and realistic space explosion in it.

[removed]

Just a small correction, not every detail in the movie is scientifically accurate, such as the wormhole scene, which was only accurate on the exterior visuals and not on the inside traversal part. I agree about realism being important though. Interstellar is still one of the more scientifically accurate space movies out there and it's also my favourite movie.

[removed]

Your well informed protest is correct. But this one movie is an exeption. Every other sci.-fi. movie or show involving space travel uses some kind of made up bit of technology to work around laws of physics that (atm) makes long distant space travel impossible or at least unbarable.

It would have to be high explosive to work in a vacuum I think. I'm more concerned with if it can actually destroy anything without an atmosphere to create pressure with.

Eh, it can be distracting and disappointing the more you actually know about science (and I’m just a curious layman), but it’s a given that probably most pop culture science fiction movies and television series generally play very fast and loose with actual science. Last week I watched a particularly bad sci-fi movie called “Deus, The Black Sphere”; my Netflix deliveries have been out of whack for a few months now, so I stopped at a local library branch to get a couple movies, and while I’d never heard of this film before, it looked worth trying for free.

It was painfully derivative of a thousand SF movies that have come before it, and filled with so many standard SF bad science tropes, including suspended animation hibernation/“hyper-sleep” pods (these just for the trip to Mars from Earth, to boot), artificial gravity that isn’t at least visually explained by centrifugal force, instantaneous remote communications between Earth and a spacecraft in Mars orbit, people risking shooting solid projectile firearms inside a spacecraft, and undoubtedly a few more I don’t recall right now. The movie was so bad — writing, acting, plot, basic premise — I got probably 80% thru it but cared so little about the characters or story that I finally just turned it off.

A little over 26,000 light years away.

So the sphagettification has already started outside of the event horizon? Because no other object in the vicinity is undergoing such changes as compared to this.

I have no idea, but it seems weird for the elongation to be happening so far away from the black hole. Something must have caused this peculiar shape and path.

[removed]

[removed]

The sheer power that those vacuum pumps must have had to evacuate a resonable part of a big ass vessel of all the gas in a very small amount of time must be incredibly high even for times with space travel technology. Let alone the power neccessary to operate these things. But this never seems to be a problem due to some new fancy energy source.

On Reddit nobody knows what paraphrasing is, mostly.

Had the same view the other day, it looked beautiful

Location Tripoli

[removed]

[removed]

While it was in a still pressurized section, the long-since destroyed space station Mir also had a fire nearly twenty six years ago to the day!

[removed]

I disagree. Interstellar, as an example, is produced by Kip Thorne, a theoretical physicst who has also won the Nobel prize. Him and Nolan worked closely to make sure every detail of the movie is scientifically accurate. That Blackhole sequence took months to produce and the imaging was so accurate, that even science community started using it as a source to illustrate blackholes, since it was many years before we caprured the first ever image of a blackhole. If "entertainment" was the sole purpose, CGI and green rooms could have created visual effects that may have been more engaging but less realistic.

"2001 a Space Oddysey", one of the greatest films of history was shot: 1. Before we landed on the moon, 2. Before CGI and even computers were a thing (computers existed, but that's beside my point). Every detail in that movie is very realistic. There could have been ways to make either of those films more thrilling just for the sake of it. However, priority was given to realism, hence why after more than 50 years since its release, it is still relevant and even more entertaining than all new sci fi that's coming out every year.

There are many factors that can hinder "entertainment", but realism isn't one. And if a movie is realistic but not entertaining, it's not because of the realism of it, but a combination of other factors.

I painted a space battle scene for a school project. The professor wanted to take points off because on one of the space ships had a small trail of fire. My justification was that A) the space ship cabin is filled with air for the pilot and B) modern space ships use propellants that are flammable in space as they contain their own oxidizers as well as fuel.

[removed]