10 Myths About Space Travel That Make Science Fiction Better

"We all love to point out the ridiculous bad
physics in science fiction — it's like an
awesome sport that everybody wins. (Except
physics.) But the truth is, sometimes you
have to violate the laws of physics to create
science fiction stories that people want to
watch. We asked six great physicists to
name their favorite occasions when breaking
the laws of physics makes science fiction
better, and here's what they told us.

Here are 10 myths about space travel that
make science fiction more fun."

See:

http://io9.com/5936924/10-myths-abou...fiction-better

In article
,
wrote:

"We all love to point out the ridiculous bad
physics in science fiction ‹ it's like an
awesome sport that everybody wins. (Except
physics.) But the truth is, sometimes you
have to violate the laws of physics to create
science fiction stories that people want to
watch. We asked six great physicists to
name their favorite occasions when breaking
the laws of physics makes science fiction
better, and here's what they told us.

Here are 10 myths about space travel that
make science fiction more fun."

See:

http://io9.com/5936924/10-myths-abou...ence-fiction-b
etter

The easy solution here is that, in those future societies, numerous
breakthroughs in physics have occurred, such as zero point energy,
inertial dampers, etc. ;)

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:34:13 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

The easy solution here is that, in those future societies, numerous
breakthroughs in physics have occurred, such as zero point energy,
inertial dampers, etc. ;)

Star Trek did attempt to explain many of the problems listed in this
article, such as with the Universal Translater (which is scoffed at),
Inertial Dampeners, Warp Drive, and Subspace Communications (both
solving the FTL problem). Phasers have never really been explained
very well, but they don't seem to be "beams of light" (we saw Picard
and Riker dodge one in Next Generation's "Conspiracy", for example.)

The "ships shouldn't be bunched together" complaint is the weakest
argument. The seven seas on Earth are pretty expansive too, yet fleets
and convoys of ships still stick close together, for navigation,
defensive and security purposes. The "safety in numbers" point is
probably even more pronounced in space.

Brian

Interesting mention of 2001: A Space Odyssey as the lone exception.

I was fascinated by all those space scenes in the mid-part of the movie. And NONE required any violation of physics. The most
intriguing (to me) was the jogging scene with Frank Poole running along the spin-ward direction of the centrifuge and all those
bizarre camera angles Kubrick used to show the audience just how odd the locally normal scene actually was. (Yeah I know about the
unique "squirrel cage" set that was employed). If the special effect budget has been higher, it would have been cool watching Poole
BOUND across the centrifuge with 30ft leaps in the anti-spin-ward direction... Ha!

You don't need to screw with physics to make SF interesting.

Dave

David Spain used his keyboard to write :

You don't need to screw with physics to make SF interesting.

Depends on how tightly you want to limit yourself.

Other than _Orphans of the Sky_, the idea of travel to distant planets
using the physical principles we currently know about ... makes _Moby
Dick_ and _War and Peace_ seem like short stories.

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...

The "ships shouldn't be bunched together" complaint is the weakest
argument. The seven seas on Earth are pretty expansive too, yet fleets
and convoys of ships still stick close together, for navigation,
defensive and security purposes. The "safety in numbers" point is
probably even more pronounced in space.

Yes and no. Keep in mind, except during UNREP, even ships in a fleet may be
miles apart, even possibly over the horizon.

It depends a lot on the situation.

That said, I do think BSG actually did it well given how quick the Raiders
could pop in and out, you'd want the the other ships close by so it could
provide flak cover and fighter cover (the Vipers didn't have jump
capability) until the fleet could jump.



Brian



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On 8/25/2012 3:18 PM, Snidely wrote:
David Spain used his keyboard to write :

You don't need to screw with physics to make SF interesting.

Depends on how tightly you want to limit yourself.

Other than _Orphans of the Sky_, the idea of travel to distant planets using the physical principles we currently know about ...
makes _Moby Dick_ and _War and Peace_ seem like short stories.

/dps

Orphans of the Sky was one of my favorite SF stories, FWIW.

There is another way to the stars that also doesn't stretch physics even if it stretches engineering beyond today.
And that is ship the DNA and grow the people on-site. Could make for a very interesting 1st person SF story.
Maybe been done already? Anyone?

Dave

David Spain wrote:

Interesting mention of 2001: A Space Odyssey as the lone exception.

In the space arena, agreed. There are some others that approach. In
Bablyon 5 the Earth ships used rotating hulls and actual thrust for
everything but hyperspace travel, so there are partial examples.

You don't need to screw with physics to make SF interesting.

If anyone has not seen Gattaca I urge you to rent of buy it. A movie
about genetic engineering with no special effects and no violation of
physics. Proof that a good enough script in SF needs no special effects.

In article , Doug Freyburger
wrote:

David Spain wrote:

Interesting mention of 2001: A Space Odyssey as the lone exception.

In the space arena, agreed. There are some others that approach. In
Bablyon 5 the Earth ships used rotating hulls and actual thrust for
everything but hyperspace travel, so there are partial examples.

There was one episode where a starfury, attacking a ship, rotated 180
degrees after passing its target so it could keep firing at it while
continuing on its original path. One of the guys I was watching it
with jumped to his feet.
"Yes! That's how you do it!"

--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'

"Invid Fan" wrote in message ...

In article , Doug Freyburger
wrote:

David Spain wrote:

Interesting mention of 2001: A Space Odyssey as the lone exception.

In the space arena, agreed. There are some others that approach. In
Bablyon 5 the Earth ships used rotating hulls and actual thrust for
everything but hyperspace travel, so there are partial examples.

There was one episode where a starfury, attacking a ship, rotated 180
degrees after passing its target so it could keep firing at it while
continuing on its original path. One of the guys I was watching it
with jumped to his feet.
"Yes! That's how you do it!"


The remake of the BSG was often good in this way. There's a battle scene
where they're strafing the Resurrection ship and basically point the noise
at the target and then fly "sideways". Which totally works in space.

There's another scene where Starbuck is discussing tactics and how "flying"
in space is not the same as in the atmosphere and how you can do things like
flip over in .X seconds without changing your heading.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net