I’ve somewhat re-worked the Introduction (previously touched on HERE). Here I blather forth on what the purpose of the book is, how it’s supposed to work and be used, and what the general “philosophy” of the book is. Keep in mind, this is still in the Draft stage. I tend to blather on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on for an excessive length until I do a few editting passes.
I’m not going to post the whole book online (I gots ta get paid), but a few bits here and there to get the idea across. Feel free to tell yer friends, forums, groups, whoever you think might be interested. If’n you’re very interested in seeing this book get published… buy my stuff or donate. I’m in the “starving artist” phase of authorship here.
——————————-
Introduction: Why is it important to “design” spaceships for science fiction?
It is generally not necessary for an author to design the spacecraft in their fiction to any great level of detail. In non-science-fiction fiction, when someone gets into a car, truck, boat or airplane, rarely does the author spend more than a fraction of a sentence describing the vehicle or how it is used. Only when the design, use or maneuvering of the vehicle is an important plot element does the author spend any time on it. This is a perfectly valid approach for spacecraft in science fiction – if the design isn’t really important, you don’t need to describe it in any detail. There are, however, three good reasons to design your Spaceship to a certain level of detail, even if you don’t reveal that detail in the book.
Reason 1: Pragmatism
There is a trap that authors and especially makers of TV/movie science fiction can fall into: how things work on a spaceship. Very few authors of conventional fiction would describe a Volkswagen Jetta as having a thousand horsepower, or casually mention that the Boeing 747 is currently cruising at one hundred thousand feet and traveling at ten thousand miles per hour. These are simply wrong, and the readers will know it… and will know that the author should have known it. It indicates that the author is either lazy or crazy; either does not know the basics of the subject, or does and is ignoring it. Such examples as these rarely occur in conventional fiction; but yet they occur with unnerving regularity in science fiction. For those readers or viewers who catch the errors, it is jolting, and can ruin an otherwise worthy tale.
The trap is that many things that many of the things that occur in science fiction have never been done before, or at least have not been done often, and thus the author may think that that their imagination can run riot and any description will do fine. The problem is that the universe runs by a set of rules, and, for the most part we know what those rules are. Most science fiction readers are reasonably well versed in the rules of physics, and will spot the most glaring errors. Some things are impossible, and we have a good idea what those things are.
A number of books, TV shows and movies will be referenced in this book, as examples of both what to do and what not to do. However, one source that should be utilized and kept in mind at all times is the TV show “Mystery Science Theater 3000.” This show, originally on public television, later on Comedy Central, and finally on the Sci Fi channel, was based on the simple yet largely effective premise that exceedingly bad and unwatchable movies could be made entertaining by making fun of them. Over the course of nearly 200 two-hour episodes, Joel and the bots, and later Mike and the bots (“who was better, Joel or Mike” is an argument precisely as relevant to this book as the argument “who was better, Kirk or Picard”) managed to heckle and berate movies and old serials. While these dubious masterpieces tended to make easy targets for derision by having bad acting, bad dialogue, bad plots and bad special effects, bad science was also properly berated (while, of course, the whole notion of a dogbone-shaped space station built by a mad scientist and his idiot assistant and crewed by a goofball and a few homemade robots seems to have been glossed over). On college campuses across America, science and engineering students watched taped episodes and heckled right along with Crow and Tom Servo, and then did the same thing when they see a new movie in the theaters or on TV.
Nobody likes to be heckled. When some needless gaff or blatant oversight comes along, rest assured that there will be someone in the audience who will point it out and laugh loudly. A work that is ridiculed is less likely to sell, and is less likely to be followed up. It can damage reputations, and can lead to a shorter, less lucrative career than otherwise might have been the case. It’s not just the author or screenwriter who will catch hell for unnecessary screwups… it’s also the editor, the publisher, the director, the producer, the film studio. If you cause someone else embarrassment, or even harassment from the angry fanboys, they will remember that and may punish you for it the next time you go to them for a payday.
Reason 2: Craftsmanship
Take pride in what you do! Know that you didn’t just slap something together, but spent the little extra time that was required to do it right. Just as members of the public generally don’t want to have much of anything to do with something that was just slapped together (except to point and laugh), you won’t want to have much to do with it either. When it comes to spacecraft, even terribly advanced spacecraft, you don’t have to just make things up… the knowledge of how to do just about anything physically possible exists, and plausible shortcuts are possible for those not known to be physically possible.
Reason 3: Consistency
If you have designed your spacecraft to the point where you have nailed down what its capabilities and characteristics are, then you can write your tale with little fear that your spaceship will be a fundamentally different beast at the end than it was at the beginning.
——
What This Book Can Do For You
This book will show how to design and use your Spaceship to a level of detail adequate to avoid the usual pitfalls of most science fiction. To do this, the technology levels are divided into the following types:
1) Now
2) Real Soon
3) On the Horizon
4) Beyond The Horizon
5) Magic
The “Now” class of spaceship is what can actually be built today, with equipment more or less off the shelf, or new designs that make no noticeable advancements on existing equipment. This would include such things as conventional staged, expendable launch vehicles (from small to very large), to space capsules, small spaceplanes, Shuttle-type vehicles, basic inter-orbit tugs, lunar landers and the like. All would be powered by such propulsion systems as chemically fueled rockets – liquid, solid and hybrid; some use of low thrust systems like ion engines and resistojets. These technologies, used wisely, allow for the early commercialization of near-Earth space and the limited manned exploration of the Moon, Mars and some nearby asteroids. Most importantly, these are the technologies that will be well understood by a sizable fraction of the audience, and they will notice errors. There is no good excuse for getting these wrong.
The “Real Soon” class of spaceship would include the use of technologies that have received considerable ground testing, but have not been used. These are devices and technologies that the engineers behind them are virtually certain will work, but will require development. Such spaceships would include fully reusable two stage to orbit launchers, early single stage to orbit vehicles, solar sails, Mars landers, and nuclear thermal rockets such as the NERVA. There are a few materials of note in the “Real Soon” category that would be of interest, such as high temperature ceramics and aerogels. The “Real Soon” designs would, somewhat arbitrarily, encompass those available beginning around 2020-2040, and are the sort of technologies that would allow for true commercialization of near-Earth space (including the Moon and, possibly, near-Earth asteroids) and the manned reconnaissance of the inner solar system. These technologies, like the “Now” level technologies, will be well understood by much of the audience.
The “On The Horizon” designs would include the use of technologies that have received only very preliminary testing, and are largely “vaporware.” This class would include such things as airbreathing single stage to orbit vehicles, nuclear pulse vehicles, gas-core nuclear vehicles, laser-propelled launchers, early fusion and antimatter drives. These technologies, which may become available around 2040-2070, would allow for the low-cost commercialization of near-Earth space (including the Moon), tourism to Mars, and the manned exploration and exploitation of the entire solar system, with early missions to the Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt.
The “Beyond The Horizon” vehicles would be where things start to get really interesting. These would include the use of technologies that scientists have only the barest preliminary theories of, and engineers are currently very uncertain as to how to even contemplate their use. However, it is in this area where the first interstellar propulsion systems become available. Pure antimatter “photon” drives, Bussard ramjets, advanced pure fusion drives and the like. “Beyond the horizon” technologies have the potential of making the entire solar system accessible as the steam engine made the world accessible. These technologies may become available in the second half of the 21st Century and beyond.
“Magic” technologies are those for which even a theoretical basis is almost totally lacking, or which current theory does not support. Warp drive, hyperdrive, jump drives, wormholes, time travel, gravity generators, zero-point energy generators all fall into this category. They have the potential of making the entire universe accessible. However, with the highly hypothetical nature of these technologies, putting even a vague handwavy date on them is not reasonable. They may be impossible; they may equally be demonstrated within a few years.
The many technologies in this book will be given their own separate sections. In each section there will be a general description, which will include all data and equations required for a basic understanding of the technology. Additionally, there will be a description of how the technology can be used and what it can do; a description of what the thing – and its effects – would look like; and examples from both the real world and fiction, if any. If the existing fictional treatment got it wrong (yes, I’m looking at you, Orion propulsion system from Deep Impact), that will be discussed so that you don’t get it wrong in the same way.
Plausible BS-Ability
Many of the “Beyond The Horizon” and “Magic” technologies are understood today only vaguely, and thus can only be described vaguely, if the author wants to stay within the bounds of the currently known and understood. However, if the author is positing a world of technology vastly beyond the current state of the art, the people who live within that fictional world will accept it, and presumably somebody there will understand it. Thus, it won’t be magic to the scientists and technicians who live with it. But just as a plasma screen TV today is a common household item manufactured in the tens of millions, for most people who actually live with and use them the technology might just as well be magic. Even so, in daily life you’ll find few people actually yammering on about plasma screen TV’s actually being magic. People simply accept that the technology works, and don’t bother with understanding it. And this is an important thing to keep in mind when describing Magic-level future spacecraft: the technology won’t be described in detail by those using it. They’ll generally just use it. When describing some fantastic warp drive, consider not describing it in any detail. Unless it’s vital to the story, just use it. Used properly, the audience will also accept it via willing suspension of disbelief. Han Solo never explained the Millenium Falcon’s hyperdrive. Captain Kirk never explained the artificial gravity on the Enterprise. Commander Sheridan never explained the details of jump point construction. This was because these details were not needed to tell the story.
Sometimes, however, the technology is the story. In a case where a Magic-level society encounters a far lower tech-level society and there is an exchange of technology (think, for example, of the mythology surrounding “crashed UFO’s on Air Force bases”), a detailed description of the technology, physics and operation of a machine may be attempted. If the description is from the point of view of the low-tech-level, there will be a lot of shrugging and guesswork. If the technology is being described by the high-tech level users, then the description, if it goes into any detail, may quickly pass beyond what the current understanding of such technologies is. At that point, it is up to the author to create the plausible out of thin air. The most important things to keep in mind here:
1) Keep it self-consistent. It is an irritating commonplace in science fiction, especially in the “space opera” sub-genre, for technologies to constantly morph in capabilities. Something that in Chapter One served as an anti-gravity system is now in Chapter Seventeen a machine to manufacture cookies.
2) While you’re describing the unknown, minimize describing it as the impossible. Faster than light travel may or may not be possible… but it won’t be achieved by, say, thrusting ahead real hard to 99% lightspeed and then yelling real loud. The known laws of physics may be circumvented, but outright bashing them over the head with a sledge hammer is simply lazy. Learn the relevant physics… and respect it.
3) Technobabble may be required. New words may need to be invented, and that’s perfectly fine. A sci-fi story written in the 1960’s that had 21st century people babbling on about dot-coms, Googling, plasmas, DVDs, Segways, iPods, hybrids, Facebook, blogs and so on would perhaps have sounded odd, but it would have been remarkably prescient. People twenty years from now will use words and phrases that would mean nothing to us today… and they’ll hardly ever stop to explain what the words mean. Still, don’t go overboard, and for Bog’s sake, try to avoid stale, overused technobabble. One can only hear of the need to employ an inverse tachyon beam to reverse the polarity of the detrion particle field generator to overload the electro-quantum structure of the secondary gyrodyne relays in the propulsion field matrix just so many times before the urge to bash the TV with a Lousiville Slugger becomes overpowering.
28 Responses to ““S-F Spaceship Design”: Introduction”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Oh how I want this book…
That would be a really usefull book.
What exactly makes it appealing? I’m curious. Think of it as “market analysis.”
very nice Introduction
i have a point 4.
make you own Univers with her law of laws of physics
best exsampel is german sci-fi pulp serie “Perry Rhodan”
who play in seperate parallel Universe inside the Muliverse.
there 5 dimensional physics give them Magic-level:
FTL drives, Antigravity, Energyshields, Transporters/Teleoportaion…
> make you own Univers with her law of laws of physics
That takes the work dangerously close to “fantasy,” not “science fiction.” When you can jsut make crap up at will, then the established rules of *this* universe need not apply.
I prefer *this* universe, just as I prefer science fiction to fantasy. Good scince fiction will always be better and stronger than good fantasy, for the simple fact that the author cannot just pull a new magical rabbit out of his hat… he will have to work within the rules. And that takes more imagination, creativity and intelligence.
“What exactly makes it appealing?”
It lucidly explains things, so it gets the job done. And what’s the job?
From my website:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3av.html
I have a confession to make. My motives in creating this website were not totally altruistic. Surprise, surprise.
I suppose that as an SF novel reader, I was spoiled in my youth by reading Heinlein, and later Pournelle and Niven. For whatever reason, I have been quite disappointed in the SF novels that have come out in the last couple of decades. In particular, the scientific accuracy was abysmal.
So this website is part of my master plan, to give a resource to SF authors that will assist them in getting the science correct. The end result is that I will have more more SF novels to read that are to my liking.
And just to underline things, from my website
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3a.html
“DISCLAIMER: I am not a rocket scientist, merely an amateur that has read a lot of books. Any and all of the information on these pages may be incorrect or inaccurate.
But since I have yet to find a website like this written by a real live rocket scientist, I had to write it myself, as unqualified as I am. ”
The point being that you are far more qualified than I to write a book like this. Go for it.
> you are far more qualified than I…
Qualifications don’t matter doodly-squat. All that really matters for a book like this is:
1) Did you get all the facts, and minimize the unfacts
2) Did you make it accessible
For example: A bit over a decade ago a book was written about how to colonize Mars. The book was a hit, all kinds of popular, helped spur the creation of a “society,” and it was written by what I consider to be one of the *worst* engineers of his generation.
“What exactly makes it appealing?”
All the different concepts… in one book. Plus, I enjoy very much the work you’ve done with APR. You’re a good source/author.
I may of missed it, but when is this book going to be published? Please put me down a pre-order.
> when is this book going to be published?
The original plan was somewhere around 2005-2006. A little behind schedule, it seems. Since I’ve just recently ressurected it, it’ll probably take a year or so to finish writing it (assuming, of course, no Big Publisher comes along with a big fat juicy advance), and who knows how long to deal with the illustrations. I’ll almost certainly wind up doing most of them myself, largely for cost reasons (and because I know what I want), and that won’t be done overnight.
Right now my primary task with the book is getting the outline organized, and organizing my existing files. The Propulsion section is the largest extant Word document at 71 pages (10-point font, single column, .5 inch margins all around, 50,500 words); I’m currently in the process of chopping it up into all of its constituent sections and sub-sections.
>> make you own Univers with her law of laws of physics
>That takes the work dangerously close to “fantasy,” not “science fiction.” When >you can jsut make crap up at will, then the established rules of *this* universe >need not apply.
they don’t make crap up at will, there Universe has it his law of physics
the writers have to respect it.
although the serie reach at 45 year, the technolgy reach “fantasy” level
the current makers made a downgrade in this Universe to lower tech level
i have some links to that, but there all in German language
Wat make them useless
>I prefer *this* universe, just as I prefer science fiction to fantasy.
me too !
but most time Sci-fi writers “has to bend the law of physics” for Story sake…
> they don’t make crap up at will, there Universe has it his law of physics
But apparently a whole universe of different laws, written to bypass problems with storytelling in *this* universe. Feh.
Sounds kinda like John Norman’s “Gor’ series of increasingly dull, pointless, bizarre and offensive books, where the rules were all different Just Cuz.
The other thing that SF authors of my acquaintance are desperate for information is “what is it like to live in a spaceship?” This is often glossed over in NASA publications, but is of primary interest to authors who want to know what their characters will be encountering in their day to day life.
So of interest will be what will the habitat module contain, suggested floor plans, what does the interior look like (mesh floors? color-coded walls? cables and plumbing along the walls?), are corners rounded to avoid barking your shin in free fall, hot-bunking, life support systems, food, etc.
> “what is it like to live in a spaceship?”
Short form: it stinks and it’s loud.
This sort of thing will be covered in the “environment & ecology” section. It’s one of the areas that would be likely to see the most change over time, as right now we are basically still stuck in the 1960’s in that regard… tiny, cramped, and mass-optimized. As propulsion systems improve, and especially when they improve to the point where payload mass restrictions fade and vehicle sizes increase greatly, then the interiors of spacecraft will become less horrid and more Martha Stewart.
Of course, “gravity vs no gravity” will also be terribly important. If your spacecraft is essentially a freefall environment the vast majority of the time, or with at most accelerations measured in milligees, a lot of normal options become difficult. Such as *pets.* Humans will want to take our critters along for company, and barring genetic engineering or the discovery of Martian Flatcats, we’re stuck with what we currently have… and not too many crittes would make good zero-g pets. Dogs would probably suck on ice. Cats may or may not… the few videos I’ve seen of cats in zero-g (parabolic flights) spent their time freaking out. If they can get over that and accept freefall, then a spaceship with walls covered in burlap (for cat-claws to grab) or velco (for kitten-mittens to grab) woudl work. I even worked out an idea for a zero-g litterbox.
Monkeys would probably make decent zero-g critters… but monkeys are nightmare pets *now,* and would be worse when their inquisitive little hands to open panels and cause the reactor to melt down. Plus they’d probably need to wear diapers all the time. Bleah.
Birds, maybe. Fish, probably, but fish are not especially fulfilling pets. Critters evolved to fly, float or jump from tree limb to tree limb would probably be the best options.
“environment & ecology” section? Sounds like you have the project well in hand.
(Birds as space pets? Heh. reminds me of Sir Arthur C. Clarke’s “Feathered Friend” short story.)
> Sounds like you have the project well in hand.
I’ve only outlined it, and noodled it around in my head so far. Unlike “Propulsion” and “Combat” and a few others, I haven’t done much with this section as yet.
The outline (cut-and-pasted from Excel):
Shipboard Environment
Noise
Fans
Propulsion system
Power system
Radiation shielding
Storm Shelters
Water/food/crap walls
Air reprocessing
Stink
Humidity
Airflow
Thermal Control
Sources of heat
Body heat
Computers
Other mechanisms
Food
Requirements
Stored
Grown
Gardens
Hydroponics
Airponics
Critter ranching
Fish
Land critters
Why cannibalism is bad for you
“Replicated”
Algae & scum
Carniculture
True replication
Water
Requirements
Storage
Processing
Waste processing
Solids
Sewage
Paper
Plastic
Metals
Liquids
Gasses
The Dead
Lighting
Ergonomics
USAF standard humans
Work station configurations
Microgravity accomodations
Padding
Hand-holds
Foot holds
Magnetics
Detrimental effects
Muscle atrophy
Bone loss
Countermeasures
Artificial gravity
Need for
Convenience
Muscle atrophy
Bone loss
Means of creating
Rotation
Internal centrifuge
External centrifuge
Centrifuge configurations
Disk
Torus
Dogbone
Ship rotation
Around long axis
End-over-End
Tethered
Thrust/Acceleration
Superdense mass
Plate of “neutronium”
Small black hole
“Graviton plating”
Inertial control
Spacetime manipulation
Crew Psychological requirements
Space/privacy
Diversion/Entertainment
Real
Virtual
Windows
Pets
Exercise
G
Zero-G
Sex
Jeffries Tubing
Air ducts
Water piping
Electricity
Optical fibers
Waveguides
Sewage
Hmmm. It pasted in with all the proper formatting, but it posted without it. Oh, well, you get the idea…
Pets? I talked a veterinarian about this, when he was doing stuff for my cat. We decided that turtles would make good pets in space. They can’t get into anywhere, they’re not aggressive or desperate, and they’re quiet. Also, they don’;t eat a lot and they don’t poo much. We expected that the turtle would be kept in a cage most of the time. Problem is, as the secretary pointed out, is that they’re not cuddly.
I’d like to hear about the zero-g litterbox. I’d love to see it patented.
> I’d like to hear about the zero-g litterbox.
The two approaches:
1) Litterbox in a centrifuge. obvious, but the cat will probably have some issues with it.
2) Littlebox in a box. Think of a cardboard cube, one yard on a side. On one side there is a cat-sized entry hole, preferaly witha bit of an “airlock” to it. The opposite side of the box is a fine mesh screen. Behind the screen is a fan and ductwork, leading to the air repprocessing system. Inside the box is the little, which would have to be fairl low-density stuff. With the fan going, the little will be sucked to the fine screen, but won’tt go through it. The air will come through the “airlock,” through the litter, through the screen, past the fan, and into the nuclear reactor which will burn the stank right out of it. With a setup like this, the litter, poop, piss and stank will be pretty well contained. If the fan is designed to maintain a low flow level when the box is not in use, but spools up substantially when the box is in service, it should do a good job of maintaining order… the airflow should help suck the cat “down” to the litter. Cleaning the box can be automated.
The biggest problem would probably be training the cat to use the box. Assuming that the cat learns to live with zero-g in the first place.
I will buy this book.
Scott:
The Perry Rhodan series is set in a “parellel-universe” the same way the last “Star Trek” film was: Different History, not laws of physics per se. (You see, Perry Rhodan and his crew where the FIRST men on the Moon, not that Armstrong guy… While there they found a wrecked alien space ship with still living crewmembers on board {the aliens are humanoid and neigh-on-immortal but they were a “long-way-from-home” and such} whom they managed to cooperate with and in the long run Perry becomes immortal, ends up running the Earth {and saving it from various calamities, invasions, etc} building a human lead galactic empire…)
If I recall correctly the first book was written in the mid-to-late 60s and the series itself has maintained a huge following mostly in Europe and specifically in Germany. To avoid conflict the series is “officially” an “alternate-time-line” of THIS Earth and THIS universe even though the earlist materials are REALLY showing their age. For the most part they DO stick to your guidlines, they especially try to keep the technology and effects of such straight and have an extensive “tech-social-universe Bible” that anyone who writes for them has to follow and they evalute any “new” tech that writers use in story to keep any “uber-tech” god-mode from cropping up.
For the most part at any rate, the series IS “space-opera” in premise, and with 1000km diameter “Space-Battleships” by the hundreds engaging in battle with similar sized “bad-guy” ships in epic space combat with “ravening-energy-beams-that-tear-at-the-very-fabric-of-the-universe” being hurled about SOME “laws” of physics are probably going to at least FEEL violated :o)
But it had/has some really good writing and some really good plot arcs and will probably continue being written for the forseable future.
Randy
Correctin suggestion Scott:
Under “Reason 1 Pragmatism” second paragraph you do a repeat sentence:
“The trap is that many things that {many of the things} that occur in science fiction have never been done before,…”
Randy
Comment:
Scott wrote:
“This sort of thing will be covered in the “environment & ecology” section. It’s one of the areas that would be likely to see the most change over time, as right now we are basically still stuck in the 1960’s in that regard… tiny, cramped, and mass-optimized. As propulsion systems improve, and especially when they improve to the point where payload mass restrictions fade and vehicle sizes increase greatly, then the interiors of spacecraft will become less horrid and more Martha Stewart.”
Eeeppp! “Martha Stewart” is LESS horrid??!!??
Randy
Comment:
Pets=
There have been a lot of videos showing dogs as well as cats in micro-gravity… Unfortunatly for us Cat-folks, dogs seem to handle it better but their claws aren’t designed to actually ‘grasp’ so they can only ‘swim’ around. Though like the cats is you managed to get some type of aerodynamic shroud around the tail they could probably make a decent propeller :o)
Randy
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3k.html#spacelitterbox
Umm, I seriously doubt that sort of “litter box” would be made to work….
Me too, but it is not totally out of the question. There are some rare cats that people have trained to use the toilet instead of the litterbox.
Your space litterbox design is far more practical, of course.