For some weeks now I’ve been reading articles and blog posts offered up by experienced Sci-Fi authors, learned men of science and even a naval designer concerning the idea that when mankind finally sheds the shackles of planetary dependence and travels seriously in the ether, space travel, and space battles in particular, will have little resemblance to what we see on the big screen today. Sci-Fi novels tend to be less fanciful, but some still draw fire for being too “unrealistic”.
The learned men in particular site the laws of physics holding up such ideas as bodies in motion, vectors of thrust and the lack of resistance in the vacuum of space. Others point out that aerial combat craft use air and wings to swoop, dive, roll and dodge during maneuvers. But in space there is no air, so swooping will be all but impossible. The designer also focuses on the vacuum and its terrible anti-pressure effects on structures that float through it. He claims that aircraft carrier sized ships traveling through space are highly unlikely just because of the structural logistics involved.
This frailty is also used as the reason that close-up broadside battles of huge war craft with fighters weaving in between them is highly unlikely: a single puncture of a hull can result in explosive decompression. And with visibility in space like it is, sneaking up on an enemy will be very hard indeed. The most effective war ship will be the one with the least visibility (small) and the best targeting system to fire upon an enemy from extreme (thus safer) distance.
Many of these discussions take on the issues of artificial gravity, the deadly radiation in space and the sheer bulk of fuel required to power a space craft of today. There are some workarounds, but by and large – they claim – space travel will not be anything like what most sci-fi of the day describes. Taking huge war vessels that float on an ocean and translating them to space just isn’t practical.
Being a hard-science sci-fi guy, I find myself mentally pumping a fist in the air and thinking, “preach it brother!” But then I’m stabbed with guilt for being so narrow minded.
How many times have we as a species done the impossible already? At one point it was established scientific fact that the world was flat and sailing too far from shore would prove disastrous. False! Then science ridiculed people like da Vinci for daring to dream that man could fly. This was absurd! But a few enlightened dreamers proved that false as well and now we routinely travel through our atmosphere and beyond. Flying faster than sound: impossible! We recently had a fellow fly faster than sound WITHOUT a ship!
Now, there are those who are seriously exploring ways to disprove such assumed absolutes as the linear flow of time, traveling faster than the speed of light, and creating and controlling antimatter.
And then there are the things we do know that we’re not supposed to. Just one example is that there is a fair amount of information detailing aircraft that look suspiciously like flying saucers that have been built and flown – by the Germans during World War II. Apparently these used a large gyroscope like device operating in a container filled with liquid metal – similar to mercury – to produce an anti-gravity field to support the ship without the need for propellers, jets or rockets. Imaginings of conspiracy theorists and crack-pots? Maybe. Maybe not. Do any of us really believe that our government tells us everything it knows? No, I didn’t think so.
Science fiction authors have often been chastised for their futuristic visions. But in so many cases, those visions came very close to real life a few decades later. At a time when state of the art computers filled a building and possessed the computational and data storage capacity of my current wrist watch, Sci-Fi authors were writing of hand-held devices that would allow the user to access vast stores of knowledge and communicate with people all over the world. It was considered ridiculous at the time – today iPads and other tablet computers are commonplace.
Compiling a list of sci-fi turned real life items would be a major undertaking. I’m sure every one of you could come up with a dozen that captured your fancy in fiction then became fact (unless you don’t read sci-fi). That the authors may not have understood exactly how these items worked doesn’t really diminish the astonishing predictions they made.
There are a great many things, I’m sure, that we don’t know yet. Science that we have yet to discover, things we think we know that we’ve got wrong. When the “ah-ha!” moments come, established science changes.
So, any discussion of “this is impossible” needs to be tempered with the knowledge that we do the impossible all the time. Write it the way you feel it. Who knows, you may be the next Isaac Asimov, A.C. Clarke or Ben Bova.
Others in this Series:
Science Fiction Fact & Fancy: Space Travel
Science Fiction Fact & Fancy: Propulsion-Engines
Science Fiction Fact & Fancy: Propulsion-Exotic
Space: A Really Dangerous Place to Live
Science Fiction Fact & Fancy: Navigation
All true, all true, Doug. To some extent ALL (space opera type) science fiction is fantasy. We just try to pretend it isn’t by making the gadgets sound like science (not magic). But what do the nay-sayers say about ‘generation ships’? They’d be the size of aircraft carriers, surely, and they were speculated about years ago.
You’re right. Science changes, as it must. Ships surrounded in a shield which protects then from the forces of anti-pressure? I dunno. Some physicists just have no imagination.
OHH… that hurts! But, alas I suppose you’re right: magic or warp drives, we’re still being asked to simply believe in something speculative. I guess my mind just accepts science fantasy better than it does magic.
I suppose better materials will help with spaceworthiness, after all: building an aircraft that could exceed the sound barrier out of canvas and wood probably wouldn’t work very well either. Thank you for your insights, Greta, I always enjoy your visits.
Allan, as a reader, I have never cared one whit for the plausibility of the science in novels. As a writer, I just try not to be TOO outlandish.
Recently, I read a book review which took the author to task for implying that a spaceship’s rail gun worked at .65c (Speed of light). The irony of it is that readers like me just gloss over such details the way one might gloss over the details of the character’s dinner menu.
I prefer to read (and write) the big ideas and let the imagination fill in the details as it sees fit.
Cheers,
Mitch
I’m not quite sure what the reviewers issue was. Is it similar to the old question of if I have a rifle that fires a bullet at 1000 feet per second and I’m riding on a train that is also traveling at 1000 feet per second (stay with me here, it’s theoretical) when I fire the rifle forward will the bullet be traveling at 2000 feet per second? If I fire the bullet out the back of the train car will it just drop to the ground (zero velocity)? Or is it some other issue?
I suppose a readers knowledge of hard science will greatly affect their ability to suspend belief systems and accept an author’s story. Those of us who don’t know much will enjoy the fiction more. Thanks for chiming in, Mitch.
From what I could make out, the reviewer considered that something that operated a 65% of the speed of light would require much more energy than the ship could provide. Plus, as soon as the missile fired, the ship would be propelled backwards! LOL
Whatever, right?
Cheers,
Mitch
Hmmm… I’m no brainiac on this but I’d have to agree with the power consumption issue: rail guns use superconductive magnets to “fire” their projectiles, not explosives,and those are power thirsty. But as long as the ship and cannon (rail gun) outweigh the projectile by a fair amount, “firing” the rail gun should not produce momentum stopping recoil. There would be recoil (stand in a wagon and toss a big rock) but…
{Raises hands in surrender} OMG. TMI. LOL.
Heh, you are hard-core, man! I never even knew about the magnets, so thanks for that learning moment. 🙂
Cheers,
Mitch
What — you never played around with a super-conductor slingshot as a kid? I’m shocked! 🙂
No, but I had an SSP (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NxQf-aeDWk)
Stupid thing didn’t work on carpet…
Cheers,
Mitch
LOL That’s pretty close. I’m officially blaming you for the upcoming series of Tuesday posts.
I have a slightly different take on this, and it comes from all those years of reading Discover Magazine.
Truth be told, the ships might or might not be as large as the Enterprise but they’d have to be fairly large. The reason would be that we’d be shooting for the survival of the race, which means the ships would have to be self sustaining and able to generate its own energy, since it couldn’t rely on solar, and that would take something fairly immense.
I’ve seen estimates that range from something as large as a 3-story building to something that’s close to half the size of the moon; yeah, I thought that one was a bit ridiculous. Still, it would be a ship that would have to be able to do two things; one, survive a very long time or two, be able to generate what amounts to a wormhole that could get it across the universe to different places much quicker. And the energy to do that would have to be substantial.
And let’s face it; without science fiction, just how many of the things we have today would exist at all? 🙂
I too am quite certain that the folks at DARPA are huge Sci-Fi fans! Thanks for adding your insights Mitch.