Is Science Fiction Losing Its Charm Due to Unrealistic Space Travel?

[SHISHKABOB]

Moderation note: This thread has been split from another so as not to derail the former thread

I have a hard time enjoying Star Wars anymore because of how those spaceships fly around :(

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I have a hard time enjoying Star Wars anymore because of how those spaceships fly around :(

Not to mention the "pro-democracy" rebels lead by a Princess

 

[SHISHKABOB]

oh, wow, I never even thought about that. That is pretty weird.

 

[GTOM]

Very very OFFtopic, but princess was a formal title, like the Queen of England, otherwise she was a senator, later Mon Montha became the leader.

Otherwise yes, it is irritating how Hollywood filmmakers unaware about basic things.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Very very OFFtopic, but princess was a formal title, like the Queen of England

Very, very, very offtopic but the Queen is still the Queen. She is the head of state, head of the armed forces, can open and close parliament and has to ratify any decision made by parliament before it can become law. Admittedly she is the Queen with the least amount of power in the history of England but she isn't totally figurehead.

Lastly IIRC from the latest batch of Star Wars films George Lucas made a bizarre government for (I forget the name of the planet where the first one is based) wherein they have an elected Queen who sits out two terms maximum and abides by a constitution...

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Otherwise yes, it is irritating how Hollywood filmmakers unaware about basic things.

I don't think we can criticize movie makers here, it would be a bit of a problem if they could only make movies which adhered to known laws of physics, if its sci fi and it knows its sci fi and has no pretence of being anything else then i really don't mind.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't think we can criticize movie makers here, it would be a bit of a problem if they could only make movies which adhered to known laws of physics, if its sci fi and it knows its sci fi and has no pretence of being anything else then i really don't mind.

Except that Star Wars is not sci-fi. Never claimed to be. It's space fantasy.

(Anyone who thinks that's splitting hairs obviously doesn't care about the lack of science in fantasy stories).

 

[GTOM]

Well, anyway, I was glad to see that Space Battleship Yamato didnt lack entirely the world sci.
The dogfight in space was just a fly-by with some shooting. :)
The small craft's primary purpose was to determine the exact coordinates of the enemy ship, when they got close, so the battleship could hit it. Well, you can't really hide in space, but i guess it is not that easy to hit a far-away target that you can see well under one arcsecond.

 

[DaveC426913]

(Anyone who thinks that's splitting hairs obviously doesn't care about the lack of science in fantasy stories).

Upon rereading this, I realize this might have come across derisively. It was not intended to be. It was a knee-jerk reaction to arguments I've had elsewhere.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Except that Star Wars is not sci-fi. Never claimed to be. It's space fantasy.

(Anyone who thinks that's splitting hairs obviously doesn't care about the lack of science in fantasy stories).

Yes you are totally right. I am a big fan of fantasy and sci fi and space fantasy (of which there is a LOT in more recent years)

Sci fi in films and books is in decline as we increasingly realize how unlikely anything along them is.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

I've seen this site before and think it's excellent, especially this section
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/prelimnotes.php#johnslaw

Too many authors don't think through the ramifications of what they propose when they invent a plot device.

I am working through my first novel at the moment - about 9 months in, I wrote a number of short novellas and was happy with them. The problem I am having is how not to fly in the face of modern understanding while not limiting the scope of my story.

I am allowing the ability of FTL (using an avoidance mechanism) and one of my major plot points is causality which is a recurring theme throughout the novel.

Anyways I am not plugging/advertising just noting what Ryan says as important and very difficult for authors - sometimes scientific validity has to be thrown out of the window!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I am working through my first novel at the moment - about 9 months in, I wrote a number of short novellas and was happy with them. The problem I am having is how not to fly in the face of modern understanding while not limiting the scope of my story.

I am allowing the ability of FTL (using an avoidance mechanism) and one of my major plot points is causality which is a recurring theme throughout the novel.

Anyways I am not plugging/advertising just noting what Ryan says as important and very difficult for authors - sometimes scientific validity has to be thrown out of the window!

Best of luck with it I've always thought that in good SF it's not about what science and technology you allow but how well you deal with the ramifications (as well as good plot, characters etc). It's a real toe stub on my suspension of disbelief when I come across something akin to what was described in the link.

Overall I would say I prefer a score of 3-5 on the http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness

 

[GTOM]

If we talk about books, yes it is kinda hard to write epic storys with nukes, orbital bombardment, robotic armies... :(

Although I think, because of space fantasys, atomic rockets are maybe a little bit biased against fighters.
Maybe in deep space, humans arent needed, okay it is hard to argue, they arent meant for space, but on orbit, where valuable infrastructure and civilans can be found, decision making is needed, and you can't trust entirely remote control.

Also, in Yamato, the battle in the caverns of the enemy planet was beyond the ability of robots and drones i think.

If they can evolve to match human abilities, then with a rebellion scenario, a writer can rule them out.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If they can evolve to match human abilities, then with a rebellion scenario, a writer can rule them out.

That's only if you equate human capability in a specific area with human consciousness, emotion, sense of self/identity, sense of personal liberty, social interaction etc. I'm firmly in the camp of we don't design planes to fly like birds nor cars to travel like quadrupeds and neither do we design intelligent software with the rest of the attributes that the most intelligent thing (us so says us) possesses.

However one could write them off out a story through some relatively simple plot devices such as strongly intelligent software being non-trivial to program, a history of drones being hacked, a history of drones making the odd mistake: "Drone Air Strikes School Bus Thinking It's A Tank!" would be more of a show-stopping headline for drones than it would be for human pilots.

 

[GTOM]

Yes.
(I wondered about a situation, where a drone bombs down Washington, because it believes the fireworks is an enemy attack.)

In the new trilogy of SW, the neimods rebelled against the Republic with their drone armies, after such things, there are quite good reasons to enforce Asimov's laws of robotics.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

enforce Asimov's laws of robotics.

Au contraire, Asimov's writings exploring his three (or four if you count the zeroth) laws expressly highlight how and why they don't work. For example in The Naked Sun:

Spoiler

Robots with the three laws are put into spaceships (filled to the brim with weapons) and told that all spaceships are crewed by robots. The plan (which is foiled by the protagonist) is to have millions of robots manufacture fleets of warships, stock them with uneducated bots and send them out to attack others. As far as they know they are obeying the second law to obey any command without breaking the first of harming humans because they don't realize that they are.

Another good example is in Foundation and Earth:

Spoiler

The protagonists are harmed and captured by robots who refuse to recognise them as human as they have been educated to believe that only their masters are human.

Btw I don't mean to be argumentative, just interested in the discussion

 

[GTOM]

About the first one :

Spoiler

the enemy will sooner or later recognise that they use robotic armies against them, and expose it.
Then, it won't be a matter between two planets anymore, it will be a galactic matter, people will be overwhelmed by fear, that the robots can actually kill them, and they will demand immediate action against Solaria. They can't manufacture enough robots to handle every enemy.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

About the first one :

Spoiler

the enemy will sooner or later recognise that they use robotic armies against them, and expose it.
Then, it won't be a matter between two planets anymore, it will be a galactic matter, people will be overwhelmed by fear, that the robots can actually kill them, and they will demand immediate action against Solaria. They can't manufacture enough robots to handle every enemy.

True but the advantage Solaria has is ~20,000 robots per person. Their industrial capacity is massive and IIRC:

Spoiler

the plan was to launch a devastating surprise attack with huge fleets of ships assembled in secret by millions of robots working in secret. Solaria could easily accomplish it's goals by sending a ship stocked with factory supplies and robots to a unpopulated systems. The bots build a factory and then use it to build another, those two factories build another two, those four another four...until they have millions of factories each capable of building thousands of ships.

 

[Integral]

I have an old war game called Battlefleet Mars. It has as a strategic map a scaled model of the solar system, Earth to Jupiter, with the planets orbits marked off in a manner such that each turn you move each planet to the next mark, so the planets move in a realistic manner, put that is not of interest here. The tactical map consisted of 2 grid sheets one representing the x-y plane, the other the x-z plane. After your fleets arrived at a planet you moved the ships to the tactical map where they then engaged in combat on the 3d grid system, yes, you had to maintain markers on each of the 2 sheets. The point of this post is to comment on just how hard it was to actually engage the opposing fleet. If each player put their fleet in motion towards the enemy they would pass by each other quickly, attempts to slow down and reverse your direction would result in expending all of your fuel (in other words there was a limitation on how much fuel each ship could carry. They had different sized ships which accelerated at a rate determined by the mass of the ship. The fuel limitations make any amount of maneuver nearly impossible.

 

[GTOM]

Spoiler

Than the enemy will swarm them with nuclear missiles, if we playing dirty...

But yes, that's why people rather want to read about pilots and space marines who live by the old samurai codex, not robotic armies and nuclear missiles and politicans who order bombings from their nuke-proof bunkers...
Also, a captain who control drone battleships from behind (and mostly he accepts the strategist computer's plans) isn't such a good character.
Theoretically, you can robotize the battleships also.

 

[DaveC426913]

Spoiler

Than the enemy will swarm them with nuclear missiles, if we playing dirty...

But yes, that's why people rather want to read about pilots and space marines who live by the old samurai codex, not robotic armies and nuclear missiles and politicans who order bombings from their nuke-proof bunkers...
Also, a captain who control drone battleships from behind (and mostly he accepts the strategist computer's plans) isn't such a good character.
Theoretically, you can robotize the battleships also.

I dunno, Orson Scott Card did a good job. Ender's Game won a Hugo and Nebula.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

I dunno, Orson Scott Card did a good job. Ender's Game won a Hugo and Nebula.

Enders Game is a fantastic novel in my opinion. I don't feel like Card trivialises any major scientific hurdles (Even with the Ansible allowing FTL communications Card puts a lot down on implications.)

Actually I have read a lot of Card and Enders Game/Speaker for the dead are probably my two favourite novels - however much I liked Bean as a character!

 

[GTOM]

Well, I haven't read it, i would be curious, what made him such a brilliant strategist?
There isn't too much option for trickery in space... or maybe my fantasy isn't the best.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

At first I found myself enjoying Ender's Game but then I began to dislike it for the simplicity and the farcical nature of it. There is absolutely no situation in which Ender isn't shown as being the morally correct victim even when he massively over-retaliates to the point of killing other children. It bored me because there was nothing in it that wouldn't ooze worship for Ender's pure moral character and I found that as interesting and believable as listening to religious apologetics.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Well, I haven't read it, i would be curious, what made him such a brilliant strategist?
There isn't too much option for trickery in space... or maybe my fantasy isn't the best.

Strategy in its purest forms is best left to minds and not machines IMO. I just don't think machines will ever be able to make judgements like we can. You would need to read Enders game I think

At first I found myself enjoying Ender's Game but then I began to dislike it for the simplicity and the farcical nature of it. There is absolutely no situation in which Ender isn't shown as being the morally correct victim even when he massively over-retaliates to the point of killing other children. It bored me because there was nothing in it that wouldn't ooze worship for Ender's pure moral character and I found that as interesting and believable as listening to religious apologetics.

I can appreciate that and it was one of the few criticisms of the novel but there are some major ethical and moral bumps at the end of the novel that wash away much of the moral high ground. Speaker for the Dead is a lot more morally pragmatic and I think it shows as a more mature novel than Enders Game. I read Enders Game when I was around 13/14 so maybe a slightly biased view!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I can appreciate that and it was one of the few criticisms of the novel but there are some major ethical and moral bumps at the end of the novel that wash away much of the moral high ground. Speaker for the Dead is a lot more morally pragmatic and I think it shows as a more mature novel than Enders Game. I read Enders Game when I was around 13/14 so maybe a slightly biased view!

Lol yeah I reckon if I had read it when I was younger I could have just enjoyed it (and I did enjoy the lot of it but that enjoyment faded over time). I only read it a couple of years ago though and the moral aspect of the story wasn't to my taste. I would probably still recommend it though, it's good to read it just so one can judge for oneself.

 

[GTOM]

Ok, i think i 'll read it, maybe it will give me more ideas.

(I can imagine tricky, real smart strategists on ground, we could see eye-catching space battles, i have a hard time to imagine what makes somebody such a talented, unique captain in space.)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ok, i think i 'll read it, maybe it will give me more ideas.

(I can imagine tricky, real smart strategists on ground, we could see eye-catching space battles, i have a hard time to imagine what makes somebody such a talented, unique captain in space.)

Don't let my comments disparage you as for what tactics he used you have to read it really to understand, it's more about the strategic way of thinking. But to give you an example some of the tactics Ender was concerned with was fleet formation, when to sacrifice some ships so that others could achieve goals, what resources to expend and when (not specifically talked about IIRC but I took to mean "should this ship fire its last rockets at the pursing enemy ship or should it rely in evasive manoeuvres to keep it alive until it is in range of a more important enemy ship).

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Ender's Game was a fantastic read when I was 13 years old. I haven't read it in a few years, it was still enjoyable then, perhaps I've outgrown it now. The book leans way more to the character-driven kind of plot rather than space-battle driven plot. The story is about how he eventually becomes a good strategist, not necessarily what strategies he uses to defeat his enemies. Card does well to avoid the issues that arise due to the Conservation of Intelligence, I think.

 

[GTOM]

I see. :)

One more question, what do you think about the Yamato like role of fighters?
Their primary goal was to get close to the enemy to get exact coordinates, and send it to the battleship.
I guess, due to limited sensor accuracy it isn't that easy from far away.

 

[DaveC426913]

I see. :)

One more question, what do you think about the Yamato like role of fighters?
Their primary goal was to get close to the enemy to get exact coordinates, and send it to the battleship.
I guess, due to limited sensor accuracy it isn't that easy from far away.

I'd say that falls squarely into the 'plot device' bucket, with a fair bit of gap all around.

 

[GTOM]

Ok, I see, but could you explain a little bit?

You can have big sensor arrays on a battleship, but still they have a limited accuracy, resolution, the enemy will likely jam them.
Maybe you can get better coordinates from close range. Well without FTL communication device, they will be a bit obsolate, when they reach the battleship, but they can be still better, than those you can simply observe far away.
Simple probes can also get coordinates, but they are defenseless, and can't finish off a damaged enemy.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ok, I see, but could you explain a little bit?

You can have big sensor arrays on a battleship, but still they have a limited accuracy, resolution, the enemy will likely jam them.
Maybe you can get better coordinates from close range. Well without FTL communication device, they will be a bit obsolate, when they reach the battleship, but they can be still better, than those you can simply observe far away.
Simple probes can also get coordinates, but they are defenseless, and can't finish off a damaged enemy.

They can make up whatever technological constraints they want to get the story they want. There's no rationale to the technology except that which makes for better plot.

"This big ship is cool but we need fighter combat for awesome action scenes."
"Why? We've got this giant ship that can do everything!"
"Yeah well, we can only have so many shots of the battleship before we need some one-on-one heroics. Hm. Let's say the battleship has short range on its sensors, then they need to send fighters in."
"Sounds kinda lame."
"It is, but you think of a better reason for having dogfights in."
"All right. Poor sensors it is."

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You can have big sensor arrays on a battleship, but still they have a limited accuracy, resolution

The bigger they are, the better they are. Assuming for a moment that we are just talking about something like a telescope (that looks for visual and infrared) if the ship has interferometers along it's length then it is in essence a giant telescope (there's an equation for figuring out the resolution of a telescope based on its diameter but I don't remember it). If the ship needs better resolution then what it should do is spread out a bunch of probes in an ever expanding sphere so that they act like one giant telescope rather than loads of tiny ones.

If we're not just talking about telescopes though IIRC a larger ship benefits from being able to house neutrino detectors which would make any ship using a fission or fusion reactor/drive stand out like a flare in a dark field.

They can make up whatever technological constraints they want to get the story they want. There's no rationale to the technology except that which makes for better plot.

Exactly.

 

[GTOM]

Yes, we became pretty OFF.

Ok, I understand what you say.
I read atomic rockets, pretty much ruining even the books of Heinlein. :((

I guess this Ender is a fine character, but i would still like the read or write about different kind of battles and characters... now i don't see much options to do that without every kind if purely fictional hyperspace based device.
Or leave out entirely the war scenario.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I would still like the read or write about different kind of battles and characters... now i don't see much options to do that without every kind if purely fictional hyperspace based device.

I would recommend the Dread[/PLAIN] Empire Fall trilogy. It's not very well known and it's a bit soft-SF but it has some of the best and most realistic descriptions of space tactics I know of e.g.

• What kind of evasive manoeuvres ships should do to avoid getting hit whilst staying close enough to offer each other covering fire but not too close so as to take each other out if they are hit (as they use antimatter for propulsion ships go out with a bang when critically struck)
• How to fight over light hours of space
• How to use gravity wells and planets to your advantage
• Techniques for managing the crew under high-g

On top of that there it covers how to lead a resistance in a very centralised (all comms monitored, everyone on a biometric database) and totalitarian regime.

EDIT: Now that I think of it DEF does have a somewhat convincing use for a fighter-type craft. Basically when they are fighting over long distances (light minutes-hours) they send out small one man ships called pinnaces along with a swarm of missiles. The job of the pinnace pilot is to give last minute tactical orders to the missiles depending on the situation at the time.

 

[PrepperMike]

read Ian Douglas.

 

[GTOM]

In other threads, we had a consensus, that fighters and corvettes are "brown water navy", operating on orbit, and big shafts of moons and asteroids.

Otherwise, I 've also thought about beam empowered fighters and small missile control ships.

I see that trilogy ruled out AIs.

 

[PrepperMike]

Ian uses AIs for high speed stuff that human reaction times can't handle, but other stuff he feels is best done by humans. His biggest argument against AI is do you want control of high powered weapons with an AI or a human?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ian uses AIs for high speed stuff that human reaction times can't handle, but other stuff he feels is best done by humans. His biggest argument against AI is do you want control of high powered weapons with an AI or a human?

That's a meaningless question unless you provide a detailed description of the characteristics and capabilities of the proposed AI.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

a good way to force action sequences or whatever is to make up magical- er I mean fictional chemicals or elements that have some oddly specific behaviors. For example, in the anime series Legend of the Galactic Heroes, there was some funky gas stuff that exploded very violently if lasers or guns were shot through it. Sort of like the laser vs. shields thing in the Dune universe. This forced armies to duke it out in fancy armor, crossbows and giant battleaxes. The rest of the show was about giant space battles where the ships lined up like 18th century European line infantry and space politics.

But they got to add in some really cool face to face melee combat scenes because of some magical gas that they made up.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

a good way to force action sequences or whatever is to make up magical- er I mean fictional chemicals or elements that have some oddly specific behaviors.

That's the cool thing about speculative fiction. You propose some sort of technobabble and explore the societal and practical ramifications. For instance, if this gas explodes violently then can it not also be harvested as a powerful fuel? Simply store it in gas canisters and spray little bits at a time into a laser lit engine. Or store it at very high concentration and then light a laser inside the canister as a bomb.

 

[GTOM]

Yes I watched Legend of Galactic Heroes, i don't know if they used the Zephyr (I think) for propulsion purposes as well.
(Otherwise I disliked that series, Yang always knew what the enemy is planning, they launch a small attack, Send there our whole navy! Yeah why not, next time, they launch a very big attack, and of course it is only a decoy...)

Basically, in deep space, where arent civilans and neutral parties, AIs can't do much wrong...
In case of orbital patrol, human decision is needed, and i doubt that remote control is always enough, there can be spys for example, that can hack the system to create an international scandal or something like that.
Also you have more options to rescue pilots.



I had the idea, that aliens can deploy self-replicating nanobots to Earth, to infect computers, turn our own robots and infrastructure against us...
They want everything to be ready, by the time they arrive.

However, if their plan A fails, they can launch a relativistic torpedo against Earth...
Is it possible to counter, without hyperspace senses or thing like that?
(It is so magical, one could even bring the Force to the image)

Although... if humans can learn the whereabouts of the alien homeworld, they can also threat them with R-torpedos.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

However, if their plan A fails, they can launch a relativistic torpedo against Earth...Is it possible to counter, without hyperspace senses or thing like that?
(It is so magical, one could even bring the Force to the image)

Although... if humans can learn the whereabouts of the alien homeworld, they can also threat them with R-torpedos.

Without magic technobabble like a forcefield not really. The most you could do is fill your system with highly sophisticated gravity sensors to sense the RKV as it comes. You might not have much time at all because if it is traveling at 0.9c (which btw is roughly the velocity an object needs to reach for its kinetic energy to reach half its rest mass) and you detect it at one light day out this means it is only two light hours away. If you do have time you could try to divert its path with powerful lasers or try to through mass in the way to deflect it but I doubt you could really do any of that.

Charles Stross dealt with this issue in his novel Iron Sunrise. In it various factions have STL-deterrents hidden in their Oort cloud operating under a dead-man switch. If they don't receive a signal every X hours they launch towards a target planet (trying to find a tiny ship, possibly stealthed from across a system would be next to impossible). This largely stopped factions invading each other for fear of severe retaliation years later.

 

[GTOM]

If a RKV hits a one kilogram mass before the planet, what would happen to it?
The energy of the collision could turn it into a dissolving plasma cloud or dont?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If a RKV hits a one kilogram mass before the planet, what would happen to it?
The energy of the collision could turn it into a dissolving plasma cloud or dont?

At around 0.87c the kinetic energy of an object exceeds half it's rest mass. So a one kilogram RKV traveling at 0.87c relative to the planet will have the kinetic energy of e=0.5*c² = 4.5 petajoules = ~10 megatonnes of TNT (~600 Hiroshima bombs). At that speed it would get through the atmosphere in less than a millisecond and cause massive devastation to the area it hit (akin to a nuclear explosion plus an earthquake). Some quick googling tells me that the meteorite that killed the dinosaurs released ~0.5 Yottajoules of energy which would be the equivalent of a 5 kilotonne RKV traveling at 0.87 which works out to be roughly the mass of 50m x 10m x 10m of ice.

This is something that a lot of SF authors forget in their haste to write about relativistic ships the size of super-carriers and cities. The very ships you have littered in your setting as though they were sprinkles on a cake could all be converted to weapons thousands of times more powerful than the meteorite that caused the K-T mass extinction! (this is also known as http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/prelimnotes.php#johnslaw)

 

[GTOM]

I can see, but if you try to put a brick in the way of the RKV well before it hits the planet?
Would that mean, that only the brick disintegrates in the collision, or the RKV also?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I can see, but if you try to put a brick in the way of the RKV well before it hits the planet?
Would that mean, that only the brick disintegrates in the collision, or the RKV also?

Whatever you put in front of an object traveling that fast would just be disintegrated, like a wet tissue paper thrown in front of an artillery shell. It may slow the RKV down a negligible amount but what you really hope or is to divert its course ever so slightly so that it misses its target. More likely though is that it may cause the RKV to break up but even if it did it wouldn't change the amount of energy that is about to hit: whether it hits the planet in 1 piece or 1 million pieces the same horrendous amount of energy is about to be released.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

my problem with relativistic weapons is how the heck do you aim them properly

 

[Ryan_m_b]

my problem with relativistic weapons is how the heck do you aim them properly

What do you mean? Why would it be a problem to just aim, accelerate it up to a high fraction of C and watch the fire works? If long distance is a problem add some form of sensor and some thrusters to tweak the course. Even a small fraction of a degree course change could have big consequences after light hours-years