Spaceships may not need to be boats, or planes. But the idea of a vehicle that doesn't fit with one of those standards is pretty alien to most. And aesthetics are a pretty big deal to people in general. And since space doesn't have any set limitations on what would have to be the shape of a vehicle, it seems like there will be a lot of freedom in the design and shape of those ships. This is assuming that they will one day be produced outside of the atmosphere. If you build i gigantic ship that weights millions of pounds on earth, not only are you going to not be able to get it off the ground, but it would have to be built in a way that allowed for it to support gravity. Another thing that occured to me just now is that building a large ship like that would require a lot of resources, and a lot of sheer matter. If a culture came up that started building large space faring objects from terrestrial materials, that could eventually have a pretty bug impact on the planet couldn't it? If we just started taking away millions of tons of the earths mass and sending it catapulting off into space... Anyway, just my thought on the psychology and mechanics of building large ships.
Space exploration is actually very simple IF you can get to low earth orbit. the first minute and half explains the problem well. You can indeed build any shape and size in space assuming it's the best way to build. Round is a good shape. Also remeber that since there is nothing to hold against anything you fire or rotate need to have something of equal force rotating the other way. My thought is that instead of building or mining for a inter planetary ship it would be simply hollow out and build on a asteroid. It won't look like a asteroid by the time it's done. It already has the fuel and metal needed. Some assembly required of course. Inflatable is a very good option as well. These are constructed out of almost a foot thick of insulation and Kevlar and when pressurized it becomes as stiff as concrete. as for combat. Read the Rocketpunk Manifesto on space warfare to get a idea. There is also a huge difference between Clarke's rule and a cop out. There are indeed physics that can give you the look and feel of magic. A black hole for instance, if small enough, can be a source of power and thrust using any kind of matter. The black hole might be the size of a atom and the engine could be made small as well.
Flawed logic. Photons are not atoms or molecules. They have an energy content, but they don't possess kinetic energy, because they have no mass. Heat and temperature are kinetic energy properties, not em energy properties. Photons aren't truly particles in a classical physics sense. They are the particle-like "face" of electromagnetic energy, the aspect that carries discrete quantities of energy, mostly in the process of transferring that energy (e.g. the photoelectric effect). The rest of the time, electromagnetic energy operates in its wave character, eg when it displays interference patterns when passing through slits. For this reason, photons and other "particles" on that scale are more often referred to as wavicles. Don't feel too bad, through. This duality confused the best scientists for many years, and led to the birth of the science of quantum mechanics. It still leaves many college students dizzy.
Many science fiction stories, including Star Trek, postulate that the science of the time includes artificial gravity generators, for which there are no present day theories as a basis. Neither is there strong evidence that such a technology couldn't exist. In any case, it makes it much easier to film science fiction on a planet where it's difficult and expensive to simulate the absence of a one-G gravity well, just as it's easier to have bilaterally symmetric aliens with two locomotor limbs and two manipulating limbs and a top=mounted sensory and cognitive cluster, approximately two meters high (i.e. actor-shaped/sized aliens). Simplifying assumptions are often made because a strict realism is unnecessary to the story, especially when there is no hard evidence that makes those simplifying assumptions implausible to the reader.
I didn't say that at all. Don't put words in my mouth. They may not be particles, but for the purpose of carrying energy, they are treated as such. They are a discreet quantum.
Farscape's translator microbes. Another bit of far-fetched 'science,' created to facilitate telling and filming a story. Apparently all beings in the known Farscape universe (with the exception of humans, because they are 'new') are injected with 'translator microbes' at birth, so they develop the ability to translate alien thoughts, as connected to speech. Ergo, alien species can communicate. In English, if need be. If the spoken 'thoughts' are of a concept the other species doesn't understand, then the remark remains unintelligible—or gets mis-translated, with consequences (hilarious or otherwise.) Well, at least Farscape dealt with the issue. Many sci-fi shows never bothered to do this, including many Star Trek episodes. Aliens just appeared—their top-mounted sensory and cognitive clusters waggling in the breeze—and started talking in English, no explanation given. Translator microbes are such a far-fetched idea the Farscape scripts even made fun of them from time to time. But because it was fun, and a creative solution to a story problem, it worked.
I must have a false memory, I thought it was some little fish critter they stuck in John's brain through his ear that gave him communication skills. Perhaps I'm mixing sci-fi movie memories. This was a nice synopsis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_translator
So much of the problem with implausibility stems from financial concerns. I'm not quite sure how I'll handle it in my story. Humans would be the main ones needing translation because the collective has their own universal tongue and it's not English. However, when conversing among themselves, I think it's fine for them to speak English and assume a translation for the reader. The real problem comes when humans other than the main character are in the mix. I think a computer UT is fine because it's advanced tech. It just seems unreasonable that a race would achieve intersystem capability and not have a computer that can translate language within a usable margin of error.
Not completely true. The resulting vector of force from adding up all the thrust vectors would need to be inline with the center of mass else you have to play with adjusting thrust outputs or spin in place. I looked up the Rocketpunk Manifesto. Whew! That's going to be a lot of reading. I'm debating how to handle intersystem travel in my story if I do any exposition at all. I may just work it in as a matter of course because it's nothing to those who've been doing it for years.
There has also been some speculation recently that even the low density of molecules in "empty" space could cause significant drag, not to mention a risk of compromised hull integrity, at high velocities that might be attained. So streamlining and flow deflectors might actually be necessary.
Are you not at all concerned that literally the only real life example that exists directly contradicts your main point?
Bogus argument. The space shuttle was not truly a space vessel. It was a ground to orbit transport, and most of its design was determined by the difficulties of ascending and descending through the atmosphere at high velocities.
It's expensive and it doesn't seem that we are any closer to seeing in person the other planets in our solar system.
Isn't it a bit futile to consider the possibilities or impossibilities of a future we know nothing or little about? (I'm talking about far-far-ahead now) There could come technologies or events that would allow/force us to bypass certain, currently, established truths. We must remember that most of science is theory, largely confirmed through practical tests, but there are some things you just can't replicate properly, yet. I think the main issue is the name of the genre "Science-fiction", most sci-fi stories have very little to do with science or blatantly break quiet a few laws of it. The problem is the appliance of the word "science" to "fiction", as both are rather contradictory towards each other. We should rename it: Futuriction, Scidiction or Imaginiction. Some who read the "science" word of the title might expect a certain degree of, well, science. They will become disappointed. My story will fall under this problematic genre, but I don't plan on explaining at all how things work, they will just "work". I'm just going to leave it at; in a simplistic term: "The engine's ignited and the large bulky 2 million ton passenger ship, with lot's of windows, went from the surface of the planet, up into space and beyond; into the reaches of the universe". If you try to explain things, lacking a thorough; 1000 years plus, physics degree, then you will just make a fool of yourself. There is always going to be details you overlooked or something to make your universe an impossibility. You can give some details, saying that the material of the above windows for example, can withstand objects slamming into them at near light speed, while certain weapons can penetrate them after a few hits. But never explain how that is possible! Maybe even rename the window, as most people will think of glass when they hear it? My point: science and fiction should never have been mixed together!
This was the reason I choose a near future rather than a distant future for my setting. Trying to imagine what would be invented in the next century was hard enough. I would guess a few of you are familiar with Philip K Dick's infamous flying cars landing to use pay phones in Blade Runner. (I still went with flying cars. ) Trying to imagine the world a 1,000 years from now is nigh on impossible. Which also means one has a lot of leeway when writing distant future fiction and readers shouldn't have much problem with most liberties taken. Hyperion, Contact, Star Wars, Star Trek and Battlefield Earth all take liberties with the means of FTL travel and few would question the credibility of interstellar travel. They all use some method like Star Trek's Warp Drive which is a means of traveling through bunched up space nonlinearly. Instead of traveling through space they essentially travel around space. That's not inconsistent with science even though we aren't sure wormholes are a valid hypothesis or if we'd ever be able to travel through them. Here we part opinions. Predicting science, whether one gets it right or wrong, differs significantly from magic. Much as I love a creative fantasy novel like the Harry Potter series, one thing that can sometimes bother me is the idea all one need do to solve a problem is use magic. That's too easy.
If nothing else, science fiction makes us think about where we're going, and the possible consequences of what we do now. As somebody once said ...I think it was a Sci-Fi writer ...the best science fiction is always about Earth. (Not necessarily 'on' Earth, but concerning it.) I think that's true. I love the speculation in 'hard' sci-fi, and the more realistic the speculation, the better I like it. Fantasy is an entirely different thing. Fantasy contains elements we know perfectly well aren't true (demons in high school basements, magic rings to rule the world)—and the writer imagines what life would be like if these elements were true. Sci-Fi, on the other hand, considers things that might be true now, in a 'galaxy far far away', or may well come true in the future nearer to home. While I like to read both, getting them mixed together annoys me.
No matter how outlandish sci-fi, fantasy, etc. may seem, those genres still ultimately deal with the human experience. So I would modify @jannert's comment to "the best science fiction is always about people."
Although, some things we've thought were scientific facts have turned out to be fiction I'd imagine most sci-fi readers are willing to eat some baloney in any case because, like @jannert and @thirdwind mentioned, the best sci-fi story is about people. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it as plausible as possible, but at least there will be improbabilities and things that maybe, possibly work in theory, but would never really work in practice because of reason X.
I guess that what I wanted to convey was the naming of the genre "science" fiction as being somewhat confusing, if not even erroneous. Science, as far as I've come to understand, means theories and explanations that can be tested. Predictions that has a solid basis in our current understanding of the universe. But sci-fi is such a greatly diverse and wide genre, you can have your rocket to the moon scientifically accurate story, or an intergalactic war with science so mushy that if you stepped in it, you would find yourself in a whole other dimension. (The 'science' of my story will probably end up in the mushy swamp.) Can speculation on possible futures based on what we know now really be called science fiction, since it has nothing or very little to do with actual science? Our predictions can't really be accurately verified. I love speculating on possible future/otherworldly scenarios and do it myself in my "sci-fi" work. I also try to follow some of the basic rules and always give every strength a weakness, while adhering to a somewhat realistic foundation, but I don't really speculate on actual science. I rather speculate on the possibilities of technologies, politics, etc, in a very advanced society. But I don't consider that, having anything at all to do with science, since it's rather hard to tell what might be possible or not in such an advanced setting. Spoiler: Just a thought Makes me think what Aristotle would say if one told him you could fly large metal airplanes right up into the sky in a couple of hundred(++) years? And that you could even reach the moon. I think it's part of human nature to bypass the limits around us, we've been doing it ever since we started walking. So far, we've always found a way. I think it's difficult for readers to know what to expect with such a wide genre as sci-fi. I did however see an interesting thing in my local library, they had put books like Asimov's "Foundation" series and such under the category; "Science-Fiction Fantasy". What do you think about that? Is that the new 'thing' to do? Put all hardcore science stories under "Science-fiction" while the rest gets slapped with the "Fantasy" tag beside it? Either way, maybe I'm making a moot point, or perhaps I'm just digging for trivial errors, just for the sake of digging. Like the above posters said; the stories are about the people anyway. I agree with that wholeheartedly, since my story wouldn't survive long if it only relied on it's mushy "science".
@Madman: There is a second word you are ignoring, 'fiction'. Yes, it is an oxymoron. But some oxymorons are not seen as such unless you are a comedian: "How is it possible to have a civil war?" - (George Carlin) Consider Isaac Asimov's predictions from an essay he wrote in 1964: The following are from a BBC summary of his predictions 50 years later: 1. "Communications will become sight-sound and you will see as well as hear the person you telephone." 2. It will be possible "for you to direct-dial any spot on earth, including the weather stations in Antarctica". 3. "Robots will neither be common nor very good in 2014, but they will be in existence." 4. "As for television, wall screens will have replaced the ordinary set; but transparent cubes will be making their appearance in which three-dimensional viewing will be possible." 5. "Conversations with the Moon will be a trifle uncomfortable." 6. "Kitchen units will be devised that will prepare 'automeals', heating water and converting it to coffee." 7. "An experimental fusion-power plant or two will already exist." 8. "Much effort will be put into the designing of vehicles with 'robot-brains.'" 9. "Not all the world's population will enjoy the gadgetry world of the future to the full. A larger portion than today will be deprived and although they may be better off, materially, than today, they will be further behind." Compare that to the unscientific approach to predictions of Edgar Cayce or the self appointed Christian prophet, William M. Branham. I need not list their predictions because they are either outright wrong, predictably too vague to be more than cold reading, or truly untestable as many religious claims are. Compare Asimov's fiction to Tolkien's. It should be apparent that despite the fictional elements of science fiction, there are still science aspects that distinguish the genre from magical fiction genres and the evidence based predictions from the non-evidence based predictions. So, given those issues, what word besides science would you use to differentiate the genre from fantasy fiction?
