Science Science Fiction Hardness

[Izack]

Okay, I've written and rewritten this post a zillion times now. There is no good way to write it. Argh.
Now that that's aside, my main points (abridged version):
-I am writing a science fiction story (and I'm serious about it...I'm not just some guy who wants to write a story over the summer, I have a background in this)
-It is actually one of the main reasons I got started in Orbiter (I wanted to get a more intuitive grasp on astrodynamics without getting a degree in it...well, that, and I'm one of those space kids who brought a book about Jupiter to my kindergarten show n' tell, if you get me :thumbup
-I want to keep it as 'hard' and realistic as I can, so...my main questions:
1. What would you guys say is a reasonable outlook for 2095, taking an optimistic approach? It is an alternate timeline which historically placed a slightly greater amount of importance on technology than we do now in this one, to be as simple and direct as possible (though I hesitate to describe so simply).
2. Essentially, how much science can I get away with without completely losing my audience? I already have a rough idea, but external opinions are [almost] never harmful.

Pardon me if I sound like a fool.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

There are plenty of writers who have good "hard" science in their fiction. You are wanting to step 80+ years into the future and can probably get away with some future-tech stuff, but the basics of physics are still in effect.
Harlan Ellison is one of my all-time favorite writers (some people hate him, but, meh), who's known for "hard" science fiction. As is Heinlein "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Ben Bova's Grand Tour series is a must-read for any science fiction reader and is chock full of good, and not too unreasonable science. The nano-tech is a bit fantasy, but not too far off what could be possible in 100 years or so.
All those dudes are well established with a strong fan base, Ellison has written stories on a dinner napkin on a bet before, he can pretty much get away with anything he wants. Bova is another acknowledged master.
My thoughts on the matter are, write what you want dude. With todays "publish on demand" capabilities, the sky really is the limit, if you've got the chops someone will probably pick you up. You just may have to take some lumps first. such as, an editor may want you to dumb-down a little. What some of us may see as the science and physics of navigation in free space, an editor may see as techno-babble.
Best of luck to you, writing is hard business, even Stephen King had a hard time getting published for the first time.

 

[T.Neo]

Depends on the plot.

Realistically, I don't see anything remarkable for the year 2095 in terms of spaceflight. Optimistically, that depends.

Tech wise, I think we can see things like nanotechnology making an inroads. I think the general systems will remain the same, however. There will likely be several "revolutionary technologies" present that do not exist yet.

Computer technology would likely be greatly advanced, but I see it used primarily in real world uses, as opposed to speaking clocks. Imagine the simulations you could do on such machines. And renderings... CG effects would be very, very realistic.

Problem with predicting the future, you either go way over the top or way under the bottom, and most people go over the top. And things you don't usually think about (fashion, for example, or archetecture) are often way beyond what is imagined (the "future" of the 1950s had guages and dials, for example).

I however wish you the best of luck.

 

[Izack]

Ah yes, I've read the Grand Tour. These people you mentioned are idols of mine (Ellison is a bit of a jerk, but if that makes you hate his writing, you sir are an idiot [not you personally, obviously...just a general statement]). I piked up an old Arthur Clarke book ten years ago at a garage sale, and well, here I am.
I am willing to take artistic freedoms, but that insofar has stayed away from technology.
Most of the 'technobabble' in the thing has so far remained in the first segment (the thing takes a, let's just say 'dramatic' shift partway through, a la Space Oddysey) and is restricted to conversations involving delta-v budgets, which are at least adequately explained. I believe the most complex term so far has been 'specific impulse.'
My surrogate editor (a friend who's been writing a little longer than I have) is fairly lenient, but I'm not taking that as an example of how most editors are.
Thanks for the luck!

 

[Donamy]

Anything is possible, you just try to accomplish what is plausible.

 

[RisingFury]

Optimistically? We're just starting to send out relativistic probes to the nearest stars.

 

[Izack]

Depends on the plot.

Realistically, I don't see anything remarkable for the year 2095 in terms of spaceflight. Optimistically, that depends.

Tech wise, I think we can see things like nanotechnology making an inroads. I think the general systems will remain the same, however. There will likely be several "revolutionary technologies" present that do not exist yet.

Computer technology would likely be greatly advanced, but I see it used primarily in real world uses, as opposed to speaking clocks. Imagine the simulations you could do on such machines. And renderings... CG effects would be very, very realistic.

Problem with predicting the future, you either go way over the top or way under the bottom, and most people go over the top. And things you don't usually think about (fashion, for example, or archetecture) are often way beyond what is imagined (the "future" of the 1950s had guages and dials, for example).

I however wish you the best of luck.

Aside from spaceflight, computer technology is a focus here. I've already got that part pretty much finished, though (of course, it also turned out a bit unrealistic in that it presented mostly functional AI). There's nothing stopping me from bumping it ahead a hundred years itf it really gets out of hand, though.
I haven't given fashion much thought (I never really found much interest in it), but I've done a huge amount of research and speculation on how archetecture, mannerisms and culture in general would turn out. It's been very interesting so far thinking up a potential separate society in lunar colonies.

My main points of concern are:
Is it reasonable to say that there are established independent colonies on the Moon (no further than that, though), and...
Is it reasonable to present captured asteroids (500-100m diameter) in the Moon's L4 and L5 positions?

 

[insanity]

Largely, the answer is dependent upon your ability as a writer to create plausibility. Physics obviously still apply, but there are intriguing avenues that experimental and theoretical physics that can serve as good plot devices without detaching yourself completely from reality. Going from that you can add backstory, create conflict, and have a principled discussion about 'real' science. Good luck with your story.

---------- Post added at 04:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

My main points of concern are:
Is it reasonable to say that there are established independent colonies on the Moon (no further than that, though), and...
Is it reasonable to present captured asteroids (500-100m diameter) in the Moon's L4 and L5 positions?

I don't know about the second, but I think you could convince most audiences that, in a setting that valued spaceflight and technology, independent lunar colonies are not outrageous.

 

[Izack]

As for the asteroids, they are mainly for mining. I played around with the idea of having a space agency capture Apophis as it passed using a mass catcher, but it's on a poor trajectory for that. Rather, I'll just have fictional asteroids that were on optimal trajectories. Also, I meant 500-1000m, not 100m. Nothing big enough to interfere with the tides or anything.

The mode of storytelling bears some similarity to 2001 (IE an exposition of all this cool stuff, not all of which is directly related to the central plot but rather serves to add to the atmosphere and give more immersion into the world in which it takes place), so I think I can get away with a few things.

---------- Post added 03-28-10 at 01:24 AM ---------- Previous post was 03-27-10 at 11:47 PM ----------

On a semi-unrelated note, how would a Deltaglider cameo go with you? :lol:

 

[ar81]

In the future anything is possible, but the most likely is that reality remains about the same. In the 1950s people imagined 1999 like a superfuturistic world. But basically it remained about the same. Same bond crisis since 16th century, same stock market crashes since 18th century, same financial crisis as in 19th century, and since money makes things possible, and sometimes impossible, we may see gadgets but I am not sure if humanity will be stuck on Earth for quite a while. It's been about 30 years since the last time a man stepped on the moon and we are back to LEO, the fastest plane was invented in the 1970s, and Concorde is no longer active. ISS will be operational until 2016 and then what?

There are many poor people living on Earth like they lived centuries ago. 1 billion humans starved, while we make biofuel to fed cars instead of feeding people.

I think humans have many challenges ahead, before we could think of going anywhere massively. I am not very optimistic about the future. Perhaps a few people will make a symbolic trip somewhere, and gadgets will be invented as usual, but the vast majority of humans may not see a huge improvement in 80 years.

 

[cymrych]

Yep, almost hate to admit it, but I more or less agree with ar81; there are huge endemic problems and issues here and now which will largely keep us earth-bound for a significant time into the future. Kinda of ironic in a way: with the communication revolutions of the past 30 years, the world has become palpably smaller; and yet, people in general remain remarkably insular and unconcerned with events beyond their immediate region.

My suggestion is take whatever you see as possible for circa 2095, and chop it in half. For example, I can completely imagine a full-fledged, permanent lunar colony of, say, 100 people within a hundred years, given the right set of circumstances/influences/motivation and our current technology. But what I expect to see (well, that is if I somehow manage to reach 120 years of age) is perhaps a semi-permanently occupied, mediocre landing base with a small hab hut or two for extended visits.

The current state of the manned spaceflight in the US is another good example of how ability and actuality tend to diverge sharply. The Constellation plan originally had us on the moon in mid-2010's, then it got pushed back to at least 2020. Some analysts say closer to 2030. And that is IF the project doesn't get scrapped, leaving NASA to come up with some other plan.

Out of curiosity, I'm really curious about your alternative timeline. Is it cut-and-dry a totally unique culture, or has it diverged from our real history at some point? Obviously, I don't want you to give away your story! Just curious if it's a Western-esque culture, or is there an America and a Britain for whom, say, Challenger didn't explode in 1986 and Regan's Star Wars became reality.

 

[Izack]

That's why I explicitly mentioned optimism. Quite simply, it's impossible to write a good hard sci-fi without overlooking these obvious problems.
There was some lame excuse already somewhere in the introduction, but I'm going to have to seriously rethink some things. I've just been putting it off.

 

[cymrych]

There was some lame excuse already somewhere in the introduction, but I'm going to have to seriously rethink some things. I've just been putting it off.

As long as your reader can see the motivation that led to, let's call it, a more optimal technological state by the end of this century, we'll put our pessimism aside and get drawn in to the story! That's always the hardest thing for Sci-Fi authors to accomplish, IMO, getting the reader to relate with the environment the story takes place. This I think is even more true with story that explicitly attempt a "hard-science" line.

Thinking optimistically, see my above conceived lunar colony. As for the asteroid, I think 500-1000M is a HUGE quantity of rock to redirect in a hundred years, barring some radically new thrusting technology which would make a stop at a lunar colony about as necassary as a rocket-trip from New York to Phily. But, I think a smaller scale, say, 5-50k in size, would be doable. But that's assuming you'd go get 'em; I'd say they could be quite a bit bigger if they happened to be on the billion-to-one orbit that allowed a super-massive capture with relatively low-thrust!

Good luck!

 

[Izack]

As long as your reader can see the motivation that led to, let's call it, a more optimal technological state by the end of this century, we'll put our pessimism aside and get drawn in to the story! That's always the hardest thing for Sci-Fi authors to accomplish, IMO, getting the reader to relate with the environment the story takes place. This I think is even more true with story that explicitly attempt a "hard-science" line.

Thinking optimistically, see my above conceived lunar colony. As for the asteroid, I think 500-1000M is a HUGE quantity of rock to redirect in a hundred years, barring some radically new thrusting technology which would make a stop at a lunar colony about as necassary as a rocket-trip from New York to Phily. But, I think a smaller scale, say, 5-50k in size, would be doable. But that's assuming you'd go get 'em; I'd say they could be quite a bit bigger if they happened to be on the billion-to-one orbit that allowed a super-massive capture with relatively low-thrust!

Good luck!

People have a tendency to -when they see any small amount of realism- to want EVERYTHING to be real, which defeats the very purpose offiction. As long as I can keep the focus off of those things I should be fine with an at-least half-reasonable reason (in this case first-world depopulation as they moved into space, and a smaller population to begin with in this spinoff world.)
As for the asteroids, I didn't mean 500 kilometres, just 500 metres.
5-50km is much larger than I suggested. I would hesitate to use something larger than 1500 metres.

 

[francisdrake]

"It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.“ (Mark Twain)

2095 is 85 years into the future. If we look back the same amount of time, we are in 1925. And while we had then a fair level of technology in some parts of the 'civilized' world, people in large areas in Africa or China lived the same way as they did for hundreds or thousands of years before.

I try to put myself in 1925 and look ahead to our time:
Things that changed:
- Globalization, both through travel and information access. While our ancestors usually lived and died within a radius of 30 km, we can travel anywhere on Earth for an affordable amount of money. And information has become much more easier to retrieve and much more current, with radio, TV and internet coverage reaching even the remotest parts of Earth.

--> Trying to extrapolate: Wealthy individuals will be able to go anywhere, as far as technology allows. And information access will be imediate (through built-in receivers or gadgets worn directly in or on your body, as natural as a wrist-watch today.

- Computerization and miniaturization: The idea to use calculation machines based on electricity, have them store all possible informations (not only numbers, but also text, pictures, voices, etc.), and have their size change from several cubic meters for a kByte in 1950 to the memory chip you plug into your mobile phone could probably not have been foreseen.
--> It will your decision if you include technology not predictable today into your story. I do not mean computers still becoming smaller and faster (which is a plausible extrapolation). Nano machines are often used (I somehow doubt this will a easy as some authors imply), it could be new ways of human-machine-interfaces, somebody could invent cold fusion, the mid-ocean currents could shift, changing the habitable zones on our planet, etc.

- Growth of population and usage of energy ressources:
My personal opinion is that population growth will continue but not in the 'old countries' in Europe and North America, but shift to Asia. And Africa may stay poor, with Asian exploiters replacing the western ones.

The decline of natural ressources will make traditional energy sources like oil become very expensive (but they will still be there). Alternative energy production methods will supply a major part of our everyday energy requirements, but the price will be high and energy conservation through clever designs, insulation and reducing transport will be a matter of course.

Things that did not / will not change:
- The laws of physics (at least those of everyday physics). Aeroplanes fly on the same principles today, although their once flimsy design has been optimized using modern materials, engines and design methods. This will continue and extend into spacecraft design.

- The basic motivation of people, including greed and fear, their instinct of self-preservation and their curiosity will remain. And society will not necessary become better or more evolved. The gap between rich and poor may very well widen.
_____

Sorry, that became a lengthy post! I thought good SF should focus not only on technology but also on the boundary conditions. Writing a story by replacing King Arthurs sword with a laser sword, or Hornblowers frigate with space frigate can probably be excelled! :thumbup:

 

[Sky Captain]

IMHO the biggest obstacle preventing us to do something serious in space is lack of motivation. When there is motivation a huge advances can be made in short time, for example US went in ~10 years from barely reaching LEO to Moon landing. Lack of money is only an excuse to not do something because if there is a need money can always be found. For example for money flushed down the Iraq toilet or used to bail out greedy corporations a large permanent moon base could be built within 10 - 20 year timeframe.

If there is motivation to properly fund a long term large scale space program nearly anything is possible at the end of this century from permanent moon bases to large manned expeditions to outer solar system and first interstellar probes. If there is no serious motivation then it could be that at the end of this century there is only few LEO space stations mainly for orbital tourism, maybe some Moon landings and manned Mars mission still 30 years in the future.

 

[Marcel]

I think that the most significant development that is likely to occur by that time is the merging of humans with computers. We're learning how to alter our genome, place microchips inside of human cells, naobots inside our bloodstream, read human thoughts via non-intrusive interfaces and have used parts of a rat's brain to control a robot that navigates a maze. By 2095 we'll probably have computer processing and memory storage built into us, or at least the rich people will. I doubt that keyboards, viewscreens, joysticks and communicators will be necessary. It boggles the mind.
Also, I thought it was Yogi Berra who said that predictions are difficult, especially about the future. Perhaps he was quoting Twain. Oh well, when you come to a fork in the road, take it. I heard another one on the radio yesterday. Someone told him he looked cool. He replied, "You don't look so hot yourself."

 

[T.Neo]

Oh boy, not the merging with computers nonsense again.

 

[Jarvitä]

Just try not to fall into the Baxter phenomenon - 300 pages of absolutely probable hard sci-fi, and then BAM! Time travel billions of years into the future, sentient aliens, reversing entropy, generating antimatter with a net positive energy balance, etc ... it's like he got tired of writing science fiction and switched to fantasy fiction in the middle of the story for no apparent reason.

 

[Izack]

Just try not to fall into the Baxter phenomenon - 300 pages of absolutely probable hard sci-fi, and then BAM! Time travel billions of years into the future, sentient aliens, reversing entropy, generating antimatter with a net positive energy balance, etc ... it's like he got tired of writing science fiction and switched to fantasy fiction in the middle of the story for no apparent reason.

The only time travel I'm willing to believe is the uniform forward motion of everything.
As for departure from reality, that's only inevitable, though I'm not planning anything as crazy or annoying as what you mentioned. I don't want to disclose too much here, but towards the ending there's a bit of a mind.
"The gap between rich and poor may very well widen"
Yep. Not going to deny that. I'm not trying to fix the world's problems, I'm just writing a novel. In that novel poverty and human suffering survived well into the 21st Century, just like it will in real life. I'm going to use what I like to call 'artistic censorship.' Every author has to do it somehow, or else they end up writing a long pointless description of a parallel universe where pretty much everything is the same as ours instead of a novel. Just keep the reader's focus on what you want them to see in your world.

As for nanotech, I think I'll stay away from that, as the concepts detracts from the main message. I won't ignore the concept or deny its plausibility (it does indeed seem likely, as scary as that may seem), but I'll just sort of won't mention it at all. It has no relation to the plot or any events within it anyway, so that won't be difficult.

One budding technology I have included is the quantum computer. It doesn't work yet, but it looks like it will come to fruition within the next decade or so, certainly by 2095. I'm not sure if I want AI or not (I left a space where I could place an AI in the plot in case I wanted one), that really depends on what else makes it in over the next few months...
On the whole I'm really liking this feedback. I'm already rethinking some things I felt sure would fit, and am considering some things that hadn't occurred to me at all. Thanks, and cheers!