Scifi Accuracy Versus Showing How Scifi Tech Affects Your World

[Bamax]

Jules Verne is said to have criticized HG Wells' story about an antigravity spaceship flying to the moon because it was not scientifically possible.

Jules Verne is the guy who wrote about a cannon shooting a ship to the moon.

He know doubt would have been thrilled to see Project HARP, which launched several staged satellites into orbit.

HG Wells is said to have cared more about the effect of technology on society in his work than the scientific accuracy.

Ultimately I think scifi's job is two-fold if it is to be considered scifi. At least to me anyway.

1. Show or display known scientific truth. The more you can do this the better. Note that Star Wars hardly ever does this. I mean space is a vacuum... but that's about it

2. Show or display how the tech effects the society and or the environment using it. After all, since the advent of smart phones and fast internet we do not live like we used to in the early 90's do we? So the onus is on the writer to show how any technology effects the lives of characters.


What do you think?

I honestly think with few exceptions scifi is poor at predicting the future. Jules Verne getting it right is exceptional, but that was mainly since he rightly viewed HG Wells anitigravity screens as preposterous and preferred known science in any case.

[Keklas Rekobah]

I think that the only mandate for science-fiction is that it should be entertaining, whether Asimovian, Gernsbackian, or something in-between.

[Tamri]

Bamax, you are some kind of post-spam machine...

[Demarquis]

That's ironic, in terms of how many things H.G. Wells got right (gas warfare, lasers, tanks, etc.). That's why people make a distinction between "Hard Sci-Fi" vs. "Soft Sci-Fi", or rather the spectrum between them. Authors have different interests and skillsets, and only a limited amount of time and energy to invest in different aspects of a work (there being no perfect stories), and so will tend to emphasize either characterization and theme or setting and plot.

[Arioch]

If science fiction were limited to gizmos that we know are realistically possible, we'd have to eliminate about 90% of the literature (including Outsider). FTL travel and psionic powers are in no way even remotely realistic.

The test for me is not so much whether a gizmo is realistically possible, but whether the author has thought through how the technology will affect society... even magic can seem plausible if the system is internally consistent. That's what makes fantastic technologies interesting in a story, in my opinion. Star Trek is a repeat offender in this regard (especially in the newer movies), introducing world-changing technologies that are forgotten as soon as the episode or movie is over.

[Keklas Rekobah]

... The test for me is not so much whether a gizmo is realistically possible, but whether the author has thought through how the technology will affect society...

↑ This is apparent in Alex's initial briefing and his inner monologues, especially when he is trying out Loroi rations.

Asimov seemed to follow this precept.  The gimmicks of FTL and positronic brains were the raison d'être for most of his science-fiction works.  I can re-read Asimov over and over again and never tire of it.

Gernsback, on the other hand, seemed to drop gimmicks ad hoc as if he had to constantly remind the reader that his works were science-fiction.  Reading his "Ralph 124C 41+: A Romance of the Year 2660" even once left me mentally fatigued from trying to keep track of all the different gadgets and their functions.

"What if...", not "What now?", should be the basis for all speculative fiction, imho.

[Arioch]

Clarke and Heinlein also observed this principle; the signature technolog(ies) were usually the whole underpinning of the plot of the story. Though in Clarke's case, the doodickey of the story often overshadows the often-forgettable characters, whereas I think Heinlein's stories are much more driven by character.

[Keklas Rekobah]

Clarke often seemed to make his gimmicks the most important aspect of his stories, and because most of his characters were ordinary people, they did seem to be overshadowed by things like Rama and the Monolith.

Heinlein also used ordinary characters, but his gimmicks were less colossal, although still significant.

By the way ... Have you ever read "The Return of William Proxmire" by Larry Niven?  It really paid homage to one of the greatest speculative geniuses of the genre (Heinlein, not Proxmire).

[CrimsonFALKE]

Well, we can always try to explain something scientifically remember that when writing guys!

[Bamax]

Well, we can always try to explain something scientifically remember that when writing guys!

How do you explain the impossible?

Making it up that's how!

That is exactly why Outsider does not bother getting bogged down with explaning how inertial dampeners work.

Even if such were possible we would no doubt not understand the mechanisms required to make one work.

Example? I read that in greco-roman times that some Roman or Greek writer wrote about a fictional vehicle that flew by the power of a flock of eagles pulling it, likely by tethers.

In other words, to them flight was so impossible that they dreamed of equally impossible ways to make it so.



I do not know the future, but I reckon the gap in knowledge of what we know versus what we need to know for scifi spaceships is vast.


In general, if you had a way of doing one of the following:

1. Turning matter into antimatter quickly.

2: A neutral mass that won't react with antimatter.


Then you would be almost well on your way to scifi spaceships.


The only show stopper is mass.


You see, antimatter creates a lot of heat, and the only way to mitigate that is via mass. Which brings us to either:


1. A vesssel that must be big or else it will burn up from the engine heat. Incidentally this extra mass wiill lower thrust so two staging to orbit will be necessary.

2. Alternately your mass can be radiator wings. That said, a vessel with sufficient radiator fins with torchship feats would be so heavy from the wings as to make it a paradox concept that cannot exist anyway.

Alternately project orion works quite well with pure fusion bombs triggered by a tiny antimatter catalyst.


But in scifi It is far easier to just make up inertial dampeners than worry about two staging or waste heat.


Sciencee is good where it is understood... and where it is not.... that's a job for real scientists, not scifi writers.

[Keklas Rekobah]

↑ "Once you start trying to explain how it works, it will stop working."

I do not remember which SF author said this first, or even what "it" referred to; but the saying seems to apply to FTL, grav control, beam weapons, and other SF gimmicks.

[Arioch]

I think it's very important that the author knows how the phlebotinum works, but trying to explain why it works is where you can get into trouble.

[Zorg56]

It should be understandable in concept how it works, but without exact details on how, and have clear in universe reasoning behind it, otherwise you can end up with space B-17 that is slower then real life B-17 dropping bombs on unarmed 7KM pizza slice.

[Bamax]

I think it's very important that the author knows how the phlebotinum works, but trying to explain why it works is where you can get into trouble.

I assume the reasoning is because characters on a space faring vessel should know how their vessels work so as to maintain them, or you can do battle damage or other damage in a logical way


The 'how' being' inertial dampeners and electromagnet screens (unlike inertial dampeners these are real).


Damage either and a Loroi vessel becomes crippled, but more so if the inertial dampejers are damaged on a crewed vessel. I presume the inertial dampeners are placed deep inside the vessel to protect them from damage.


Explaining the "why' would be trying to explain how the current laws of physics are overcome by the scifi tech.


A little disclaimer: I am aware that you can do anything you want with enough mass/energy, but to do scifi feats over time the energy/mass levels become absurd.


A known scifi blogger IRL known as matterbeam has theorized many ways to solve this, but they often involve space infrastructure that does not exist currently.


Such as:


1. Seeding orbital paths between planets with fusion material, which can be sucked into a ramscoop for fuel and propulsion. One pulse at a time. Like a pac-man vessel literally powered by eating fuel pellets. The cool thing is in vacuum space cannon become very practical with no atmosphere to fight against, so you can launch fuel pellets all over the system right from your homeworld orbit.


Launching manned vessels is also possible, albeit at lower velocities.


2. Orbital tethers.... rotating orbital tethers that is. They are good for momentum transfer... basically like catapults in space. Meaning in theory you could catch a spacecraft in orbit and sling it back across the solar system in a new direction WITHOUT using propellant at all. Beyond spinning up the tether on occasion. Which is easy if given plenty of time.... whuch they would have hanging out in orbit around planets.

3. Lasers bouncing off mirror webs to focus on a vessel to either push a laser sail or heat it's propellant... has diminishing returns at range though so I don't like it as much as the previous ones.


My own idea: I envision a system involving space cannon and fusion fuel pellets and space tethers could work. Basically launch pellets with cannon to waiting tethers in orbit of where you wanna go. Have tether spacecraft align to catch the pellets and relaunch them by rotational force toward spacecraft traveling to the destination.

In hindsight I think it is a bad idea since you need large distances of tether to keep a spacecraft from avouding thoussnds of gees... which can damage delicate spacecraft parts.


I actually think a space spider web would be ideal here. Hit it, and it stretches and throws the vessel back with the same force. May be fictional today but who knows in the future. Would even help it keep it's orbital position by immediately countering the momentum by flinging it back.

Basically we just made the solar system a fuel pellet shooting gallery... but space is big, so if you align to hit the pellets stream it's because you have a ramscoop.

[Bamax]

Edit: The web rings would need spacecraft to adjust their momentum after every 'catch and release' or else gavd engines themselves, since both the catch and release would create momentum.

[Bamax]

Actually tethers are not bad, they have limits but also have uses too... though the Loroi do not need them much.

[Keklas Rekobah]

I think it's very important that the author knows how the phlebotinum works, but trying to explain why it works is where you can get into trouble.

When running my Traveller RPGSs, I made up a few dozen words to describe certain principles in the far future, without describing exactly what those words meant (yes … technobabble). For example, the jump manifold on a Type-S Scout-Courier was also called the parsevinator because it sevinated the energy from the jump capacitors to the jump grid.

(It is the most temperamental component of a jump system, requiring at least an hour’s maintenance and recalibration between jumps, otherwise a drive failure or misjump would likely occur.)

”What is ‘sevination’, you ask? Do you have a Master’s degree in transubstantiative calculus and about six months of free time? No? Then pass me that test set and recalibrate the exponentiator, please. The Vargr are sniffing our behinds and we have deliveries to make…”

[Demarquis]

"A known scifi blogger IRL known as matterbeam has theorized many ways to solve this, but they often involve space infrastructure that does not exist currently."

A link to Matterbeam's log, Tough SF. Highly recommended.

I like your idea for using cannon to fire fusion pellets that very lightweight pulsed fusion drive spacecraft could use. Interplanetary only, probably, but practical on that scale.

[icekatze]

hi hi

The test for me is not so much whether a gizmo is realistically possible, but whether the author has thought through how the technology will affect society...

I feel like this is good advice for any world building.

I remember there was a fantasy comic where the the main character discovered they could put a water magic stone and a fire magic stone together and get hot water, and they became exited because it meant they could make tea or have a hot bath. What about making a perpetual steam engine and revolutionizing the world? Why has no one else in the world thought to do something so blatantly obvious and simple?

Perhaps every time an author thinks of something to make the protagonist look cool and smart, they would do well to think about how everyone else would use this knowledge.

[Arioch]

Well, there's a lot more to a steam engine than making water boil. You need to have the knowledge of physics and mechanics to design a machine to convert the steam into useful mechanical energy, as well as the materials and manufacturing technology to construct it. I can easily imagine that a magic-using culture may have poor physical sciences, since they probably rely on magic rather than machines.

But I agree that it's silly to have a character be the first to discover a basic application like boiling water, if the magic involved is not itself new. This trope is especially common in depicting "unexpected" military tactics.