nec209 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 The TV shows star treck and star wars that show those big space ships or SSTO make me laugh. No propulsion system today allows SSTO like those scfi shows. May be in 20 years from now we may get a very very very small crude SSTO but will be nothing like the scfi shows.The big problem is propulsion and that is why we must use stages not a SSTO .There has been some work on very small crude SSTO but even than the propulsion does not allow it. Why will the scfi shows not get it right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Because "We've just received a distress signal from Alpha Centauri!" "Maximum power. Let's hope they can last twenty years..." doesn't make for a fun TV show. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JillSwift Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 The best example of this phenomenon is actually Mythbusters. Good science makes sucky TV, but explodey science makes great TV. Same thing for sci-fi. (Or SyFy... whatever.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nec209 Posted October 10, 2009 Author Share Posted October 10, 2009 Because "We've just received a distress signal from Alpha Centauri!" "Maximum power. Let's hope they can last twenty years..." doesn't make for a fun TV show. I would not hold your breath .Even if they did make one it would not be that much bigger than your car ,Not nice for scfi TV. The big problem is propulsion and why we have to use stages .Now some are working on plane that takes of using a jet and when get high to XY the rocket kicks in. The DC-X and the X-33 had major problems and that is why they scrap it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Scifi stands for science fiction. Fiction means: Fiction (Latin: fictum, "created") is a branch of literature which deals, in part or in whole, with temporally contrafactual events (events that are not true at the time of writing). In contrast to this is non-fiction, which deals exclusively in factual events (e.g.: biographies, histories). (source = wikipedia) So, by definition, science fiction is forced to use technology which does not exist. Science fiction writers write about science fiction, just like bus drivers drive a bus. If the writers would make it more realistic, it wouldn't be science fiction, but it would be "science non-fiction", or perhaps "science fact". Of course, writers can choose whatever they want to write. They could also stay a bit closer to reality. Perhaps you could read "Last and First Men", which starts off in 1930, and then moves on into the future. And if writers would only write about existing technology, it would just be a story in a different category. But why writers choose to write as they do is a question only they themselves can answer. So, I believe you ask the wrong question. Perhaps you should ask "why do writers write science fiction?". Edited October 13, 2009 by CaptainPanic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 The TV shows star treck and star wars that show those big space ships or SSTO make me laugh. No propulsion system today allows SSTO like those scfi shows. May be in 20 years from now we may get a very very very small crude SSTO but will be nothing like the scfi shows.The big problem is propulsion and that is why we must use stages not a SSTO .There has been some work on very small crude SSTO but even than the propulsion does not allow it. Why will the scfi shows not get it right? Well, Star Wars takes place in another galaxy and the canon history shows that the space-faring races have been developing their technology for at least several tens of thousands of years. Star Trek takes place several centuries from now (although admittedly the first crude warp flight was in 2063). So I don't think 20 years from now is a fair comparison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 So, by definition, science fiction is forced to use technology which does not exist. However, they usually go a step further, using technology that cannot exist, violates the laws of physics, etc. More like science fantasy, if you ask me. Hard science fiction, on the other hand, tries not to violate any laws of physics, and deals rather with new technology only. However, that also means that they are limited to traveling no faster than the speed of light, so no running around the galaxy, visiting star systems, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX-1138 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Come, come! The laws of physics as we now understand them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 That is the difference between hard SF and "soft SF," which some would argue is more like fantasy. Hard SF also uses technologies and situations that don't exist (by definition, pretty much), but which do not violate known science or even, sometimes, posit tech for which the basic principles are not already understood. One example would be the various Arthur C. Clarke stories wherein orbital mechanics played key roles in the plots. There hadn't been any space program then, let alone communication satellites, moon bases, space elevators, etc. But the physics was all well understood Newtonian mechanics. "Hard" vs. "soft" is a continuum, too. Oftentimes writers will "change the rules" in one or just a few very specific ways, and keep everything else within the realm of accepted science. Star Wars and Star Trek are, as you correctly observe, about as soft as you can possibly get. Star Wars is no more "sci fi" than Lord of the Rings, really, just in a different, equally fantastic setting that superficially more closely resembles science fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InigoMontoya Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Why will the scfi shows not get it right? Because they're more interested in story telling than in science education. As well they should be! It is, after all, the ENTERTAINMENT industry. If you simply MUST watch something that tries to get it right, go watch "2001: A Space Odyssey." "2010" wasn't bad either. (Although the alien tech for both of them still goes against the grain of established science....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Come, come! The laws of physics as we now understand them. However, far too many of them use self-contradictory laws of physics. Essentially, magic. For example, star trek has devices that allow the transfer of all the information contained in a person, even to locations that don't allow the transfer of far less information (such as voice). And that's just one example. How is that not magic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 However, far too many of them use self-contradictory laws of physics. Essentially, magic. For example, star trek has devices that allow the transfer of all the information contained in a person, even to locations that don't allow the transfer of far less information (such as voice). And that's just one example. How is that not magic? The problems I (nerdily, obviously) have with Star Trek are not the "magic" technology but the nonsensical and inconsistent use of it. If you're going to change the rules of how the world works, you need to think about what would actually happen if it worked that way. Star Trek has strong AI, artificial gravity, teleportation, time travel, machines that can materialize anything you want pretty much instantaneously, and dozens of other crazy technologies ex machina that show up for one episode and are never heard from again, even if they would obviously be useful in other situations. And yet they still solve most problems in pretty much the same way the crew of an 18th century sailing ship would, except nobody has pockets for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 However, far too many of them use self-contradictory laws of physics. Essentially, magic. For example, star trek has devices that allow the transfer of all the information contained in a person, even to locations that don't allow the transfer of far less information (such as voice). And that's just one example. How is that not magic? Again, the key phrase is, The laws of physics as we now understand them. It wasn't too long ago that many, many of the most respected scientists and engineers would have sworn that the speed of sound was unbreakable by any human navigated craft. They felt that nothing would be able to stand the stresses. The really simple truth is that we have only been studying these laws for a short, short time. And while it may seem everyday now, darn near every single convenience of modern life would have seemed like magic to all of human civilization not all that long ago. Not just the "mundane" things like telephones and calculators and television, but even things like the yields of modern crops would seem magical compared to farming methods not all that long ago. The common of today is the magic of yesteryear. It is not all that hard to suspend your disbelief a little bit and figure that what we would call magic today could at least be feasible in the future. I'll you the thing that always makes me question that suspension of disbelief is the amazing coincidences that always come together at just the last moment. Stargate I think was the worst about it, and I truly think that after a few seasons, they were doing it completely as a farce on themselves. Stargate would take a season or two to build up an arching storyline, and giant climax, in which through a series of amazing coincidences, the team would be able to destroy the until-then considered invincible enemy and save the planet. And then the next season, they would start all over again with an even bigger, badder, more undefeatable invincible enemy. Star Trek storylines -- and even most television shows really -- always rely on a fair amount of coincidence occuring, but Stargate went over the top in my opinion. They went so far, that they were like A-Team where bullets and explosions were everywhere and yet no one gets seriously hurt. I read in an interview where the producers of the A-Team knew how ridiculous it was and were always trying to make the situation as over-the-top as possible. Things like making tanks and even an episode where a helicopter crashed and yet everyone got up and walked away. I really think Stargate's producers were thinking along the same lines -- "OK, we just had them beat the 4th invincible enemy in a row. This season we're going to make the bad guy 50 times worse than last season's and make the team go on missions with one arm tied behind their back." The show was enjoyable from a silly point of view, like A-Team, but I found it hard to really get into it after the pattern repeated itself several times. And, I definitely agree with Sisyphus. Most characters on SciFi shows have a very, very short memory. "Yeah, that super gun we invented last week may come in handy this time, but I think that we should probably sneak over there in space suits and try to sneak a bomb onto their hull even though the risk is outlandishly high." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peron Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 The TV shows star treck and star wars that show those big space ships or SSTO make me laugh. No propulsion system today allows SSTO like those scfi shows. May be in 20 years from now we may get a very very very small crude SSTO but will be nothing like the scfi shows.The big problem is propulsion and that is why we must use stages not a SSTO .There has been some work on very small crude SSTO but even than the propulsion does not allow it. Why will the scfi shows not get it right? You rather have a crude boring story or something with spice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 The thing though, is that I'm talking about their laws of physics being contradictory with themselves, not with physics as we know it. Like the teleporter working where there's too much interference for voice communications. I suppose it could just be extreme stupidity on the part of the civilization; they could have designed the teleporter to work as a communication device as well. And don't get me started on reversing the polarity. I do agree that the major source of inconsistencies is stupid usage of technology. Shows that have a lot of new advanced technology can't really hope to keep everything consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now