My current #SF movie bugbear: Non-rotating #spacecraft with a large rotating section for the human habitat. Bonus points if the habitable part spans both the rotating and non-rotating portions and the crew can move freely between them.
It's an absurdly complex #engineering challenge to build it this way, it introduces an open set of failure modes that would not otherwise exist and there's no good reason for any of it that I can think of.
Instead, rotate the whole ship, and if there are a few things which for some reason must not be rotated (scopes, antennae and cameras, perhaps?) place them in the smallest and simplest possible unpressurised nonrotating segment at the axis.
I have one better for you - spacecraft with rotating sections for artificial gravity with windows for occupants to look out of. The problem appears when you see them through the window and their feet are pointed at the center of the spinning mass instead of the opposite direction.
Caught that one on "The Ark" on the SyFy cable station, which was awful for a whole host of other additional reasons.
@chris Eek. Yes. What killed me about the 2009 Star Trek film was seeing the Enterprise being built on the surface of the Earth. That'd be absurd, it's meant to spend its life in space, why build it down here and only to hoick it up there? Somehow I don't think the original ST developers would have made that mistake. (Though having everybody's feet pointing in the same direction still seems like a pointless requirement, even if you have artificial gravity.
@pieist
I'm sure that planet-side construction was intended to so that they'd be sure it would be robust enough to also function as a submersible.
That's my head-canon at least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvQBlk50UMA