May3-06, 10:26 AM
More than once I've found myself critiquing stories involving space travel. (Don't take my word for it, this forum is rife with my queries. )
I am wondering how a writer might go about getting the physics of his story "vetted" for plausibility. eg.
- "passive" orbital mechanics - can this object have those orbital components? how will they interact? etc. (I know there are software simulators for this.)
- "active" orbital mechanics - can this spacecraft achieve that trajectory? can it carry enough fuel to reach this point? etc.
Actually, it wouldn't be a lsit of questions from writer to tuotr, it would be more a matter of "this is where I start and this is where I want to end up, can you compute the paths and give them to me?" This wouldn't have to be rigorous, plausibility is what we're looking for. (Though I'd do as much as possible using a simulator.)
Is this the kind of thing that a PF member or college student might be open to? Would it be small enough to volunteer, say, in exchange for credit in the publication?
Would money be more appropriate? How much? Clearly that would depend on time, effort and complexity of the problem.
What is *your* take on how much time and effort that might take for a given story?
Any ideas how other ways of getting a story vetted?
|Register to reply|
|Difference between "Identical", "Equal", "Equivalent"||Calculus & Beyond Homework||9|
|typo in "Kapusta" or "Ashok Das"? Formula for thermal propagator||Quantum Physics||0|
|"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" vs "Blade Runner"||General Discussion||0|