I'm in the process of world-building for a relatively near-future, hard sci-fi creative project*. I've been reading a lot of space news and threads here and there, and I've absorbed a lot. But if I wanted to pick up as much remedial space science (and math, though I prefer calculators for that sort of thing) for sci-fi writers as possible in single place, where should I look? Basic block and tackle stuff like "hey dummy, yes it's cold in space but without an atmosphere or a cold object to touch the human body loses heat very slowly; the insulation is to protect against overheating in solar radiation." Or the basics of how lasers work, or an overview of hypersonic space plane concepts, etc.
Obviously no one source will cover everything. If you think five books will do the job, recommend five books. Or websites, or whatever. Just looking for suggestions so I don't have to come running to you guys to explain stuff to me constantly.
I would just go with a web search, but I'm afraid I'll get too many "for dummies" answers. I'm looking for something more "for smarties without STEM backgrounds."
* 21st/22nd century:
Yes: real tech wherever possible (e.g., propulsion), replicants, genetic engineering, advanced biotech, life extension, artificial intelligence, uploading, interplanetary and interstellar travel and colonization, weak terraforming, giant rotating space habitats
No: FTL, transporters, artificial gravity (a la TV SF), galaxy crowded with humanoids of extraterrestrial origin
Maybe: ray guns (alongside traditional firearms), mature fusion, advanced nanotech, godlike AI
Edit: and technology. Not just science. I would really like to become at least passingly familiar with as much plausible "future" tech as I can.
I did find this yesterday, linked in a thread, which seems exactly what I want:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/index.htmWelcome to Rocket and Space Technology. This Web page can trace its roots to the author's project to write a computer program simulating the launch of a rocket to orbit. As I performed my research it became apparent that most information on the subject tended toward one of two extremes: it was either too simplistic to be very helpful, or it was advanced texts written for engineers. I could find little information suitable for the space enthusiast who wanted to progress beyond the beginner level but who lacked the advanced math and science skills needed to understand the more complex texts.
THIS. Pretend for a moment I don't know anything about metallurgy, engineering, or physics, but explain everything to me anyway.
Depending on 'stuff' - fusion may be only twenty years away, and considerably better than ITER.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/torchships.php - then becomes relevant - issues around nuclear propulsion, and ready-reckoner graphs for various performances.
- this is an excellent talk on the problems with various fusion approaches, how to assess difficulties, which may inform a much more advanced predicate.
ITER design was locked-in at a time when superconductors were lots less advanced than what's available off the shelf, and can now not be changed.
Ignition - on the development of rocket propulsion, and the more exotic and problematic aspects, by John Clarke.
https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdfhttps://beyondnerva.wordpress.com/2017/12/15/leu-ntp-nasas-new-nuclear-rocket-part-1-where-weve-been-before/Is a truly excellent resource on NERVA - nuclear fission rocketry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission-fragment_rocket - If fusion doesn't work, fission can lead to high performance drives too.
http://www.rbsp.info/rbs/PDF/aiaa05.pdf - fission of electrostatcially confined dust particles, where the emitted radiation is directly used after magnetic steering to produce thrust.
Also, for general physics help -
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Take a look at some of Isaac Arthur's YouTube videos. Lots of interesting ideas and he usually tries to keep the discussion within current physics. Although, he will go to the extreme that would be too far future for your stories, you'll still get a lot of ideas out of the videos.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g/videos
Depending on 'stuff' - fusion may be only twenty years away...
Fusion has been 20 years away as long as I can remember. The first time I was told 20 years away was by a nuclear scientist was in 1971 during a tour of the Gulf General Atomic facility in Torry Pines. It's been true ever since. Don't give up on the alternatives.
Depending on 'stuff' - fusion may be only twenty years away...
Fusion has been 20 years away as long as I can remember. The first time I was told 20 years away was by a nuclear scientist was in 1971 during a tour of the Gulf General Atomic facility in Torry Pines. It's been true ever since. Don't give up on the alternatives.
Yes.
However, there are reasons why it may now actually be plausible.
The physics is basically understood to a reasonable degree - breakeven has been achieved.
It's just that it's stalled for the last 20 years because it's become intractably expensive due to scaling issues imposed by the physics and the properties of superconductors.
However, since ITER was designed - which is planned to lead to a path to put power onto the grid sometime in the 2040s, very expensively - superconductor technology has come a long way. Off-the-shelf superconductors have gotten a _lot_ better, which means that the fusion reactor can be disproportionately shrunk, to something plausibly weighing only a few thousand tons or so for a gigawatt, not most of a million tons as for ITER.
The above video goes into the issues. I do agree that it is quite possible another bottleneck may hit.
Thanks for all the replies, folks. Anyone got anything on hypersonic spaceplanes? I've got the bug bad. They're just so sexy-lookin'.
Depending on 'stuff' - fusion may be only twenty years away, and considerably better than ITER.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/torchships.php - then becomes relevant - issues around nuclear propulsion, and ready-reckoner graphs for various performances.
- this is an excellent talk on the problems with various fusion approaches, how to assess difficulties, which may inform a much more advanced predicate.
ITER design was locked-in at a time when superconductors were lots less advanced than what's available off the shelf, and can now not be changed.
Ignition - on the development of rocket propulsion, and the more exotic and problematic aspects, by John Clarke.
https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf
https://beyondnerva.wordpress.com/2017/12/15/leu-ntp-nasas-new-nuclear-rocket-part-1-where-weve-been-before/
Is a truly excellent resource on NERVA - nuclear fission rocketry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission-fragment_rocket - If fusion doesn't work, fission can lead to high performance drives too.
http://www.rbsp.info/rbs/PDF/aiaa05.pdf - fission of electrostatcially confined dust particles, where the emitted radiation is directly used after magnetic steering to produce thrust.
Also, for general physics help - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Thanks. Yeah I read up on fusion last night. I've already moved it from "maybe" to "yes." I was letting what I read about ITER recently color my judgment.
Thanks for all the replies, folks. Anyone got anything on hypersonic spaceplanes? I've got the bug bad. They're just so sexy-lookin'.
Skylon is a must-have, really.
https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/vehicles/ There are also Skylon derivatives, LAPCAT and a Strathclyde concept
University of strathclyde Skylon derived design...
LAPCAT, a mach 5 Skylon for passenger transportation
Skylon itself!
Thanks for all the replies, folks. Anyone got anything on hypersonic spaceplanes? I've got the bug bad. They're just so sexy-lookin'.
Um... why? The obsession with hypersonic spaceplace has dominated SF writing for the last few decades. But if you look at what *really* could open up the solar system (see what SpaceX and Blue Origin are working on), hypersonic spaceplanes are nowhere near it. Reusable and affordable space launch will happen through VTVL, not hypersonic spaceplanes.
My advice: If you want your SF to stand out, be relevant to what is happening in AeroSpace *today* and in the near decades. Stay away from hypersonic spaceplanes.
(If you want a good example of books that stay away from tired old SF cliches - space planes and laser guns - and embrace modern view of space access and travel, see the Expanse books)
In practical terms, the only thing I can come up with for spaceplanes near-term is g-forces. People would rather be able to drink a martini on the way up, than not.
Further-future, I could see fighters being an angle; aerodynamic fighters with hybrid propulsion systems would transition from space to atmo and back far better than "pure" space fighters would.
But the real reason for me is aesthetics: visual media.
Edit: It's like the difference between a degree in programming with a focus in economics, vs. a degree in economics with a focus in programming, or whatever. Or maybe my priorities are a bit more complicated than that. In order:
1st Laws of nature
Tied for 2nd: coolness; technological plausibility.
Not that it's actually a rule, or anything. Point is, being very plausible with tech doesn't handily trump the cool factor in my decision-making.
Edit2: all of that said, I agree with you that rockets handily whup spaceplanes economically in the relatively near term, and probably long term, too.
Edit3: I still haven't nailed down which time period I'm shooting for. I am leaning towards doing two: one on the middle of the colonization of the solar system, and one in the middle of colonization out to 50/100/150 light years around the solar system.
It is possible to build a manned Mars expedition even with Skylon 17 mt to Earth orbit. See project Troy
Have a random collection of links and ideas that show the possibilities of hard sf to surprise and break assumptions.
AI and human integration -
Neuralink and the Brain’s Magical FutureImplications of life extension and relativistic space travel (ok it has antigravity, statis, and other nonsense but the some of basic premise is sound, I like the idea that to explore space at relativistic speeds effectively means that you have to time travel to the future)
House of SunsOnly current realistic interstellar probe
Breakthough Starshot and a fictional treatment of this set within the context of a technological singularity
Accelarando. I'd steer clear of a singularity unless you want tell stories about that instead.
Police drama set in space, no technobabble or monster of the week -
Star CopsOh and if you want an easy introduction to in space combat and orbital mechanics the game
Children of a Dead Earth is worth playing. Watch Scott Manleys video on the game first for a quick overview.
Oh and how could I forget,
Kerbal Space Program. The way to learn about orbital mechanics and things that go boom.
Have an intro video too,
