ok, my math is probably off, I might be removing an extra zero or two (please if you notice post so I can correct).
To me it sounds like "Gigametres" is the way to go for long distance space travel (travel between planets). Megametres is still to long to say and terametres is too short.
Also, I don't like how Megametres would sound to the reader ("One Million Five Hundred Thousand Megametres" vs "Fifteen hundred gigametres")
The problem I'm having is using this in writing. Does the average reader know what a gigametre is? I feel the need to slip the definition of a gigametre into the story so the reader is not confused. However I don't feel like going 50's sci-fi (Well Jimmy, radiation is the byproduct of nuclear energy...) on the reader.
Thoughts?
[This message has been edited by halogen (edited April 26, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by halogen (edited April 26, 2008).]
posted
The Parsec is a pretty standard measure. For more local distances, you could go down to milliparsecs.
Posts: 171 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is always the au, or astronomical unit (I believe that's what it's called). It represents the distance between the earth and the sun. It is a good bit of distance, and for inter system distances it make for smaller numbers.
I tend to avoid distances in my scifi unless I have to have it. It really has little relevance to most readers. When I get into my car to go somewhere, I think in terms of time it will take to get there over the actual mileage it is. If you are leaving planet one and going to planet two, does it add to the story to say "54 gigameters"? Or would, "about two days", be quicker to understand?
Still, it's nice to know the bigger increments apply to more than computer parts.
quote:The Parsec is a pretty standard measure. For more local distances, you could go down to milliparsecs.
Hrm...
1 Parsec = 31,000 terameters...
that means...
1 Milliparsecs = 31 terameters
That means the distance from Earth to Saturn is
0.000042 Parsecs or 0.042 Milliparsecs
That seems like a hard number to operate with. When you say the Parsec is standard do you think it was used for something like the Huygens mission (referencing how far away the Huygens is, how much farther to reach the next target, etc)?
posted
To answer your question, yes, I think SF audiences will understand giga- and tera- because this is a well-informed audience. General readers also will understand mega- and giga- because they buy computer memories specified in MBytes and GBytes.
But, as River says in an episode of Firefly (or was it Serenity?), "She understands. She doesn't comprehend." Whether "fifteen hundred gigametres" would be meaningful to readers is another question. While I know intellectually what it means, it really means little to me: I can't visualise it in familiar terms.
If you measure in AUs, I know we're talking solar system distances. If you use parsecs or lightyears, I know we're interstellar. "Fifteen hundred gigametres" tells me I need a conversion table: despite knowing what "giga" means, I can't visualise it against a solar or interstellar framework.
Maybe, instead of fifteen hundred gigametres, use fifteen hundred mega-kilometres, or mega-klicks, thus retaining a relationship with the familiar "km" measure of large distances.
I don't think I'm alone in being unable to visualise distances. This is why newspapers tend to measure things in terms of football pitches, or here in England, London buses. ("The bridge soars over the river in one span. It's the length of a hundred London buses and wide enough to take six abreast.")
As Lord Darkstorm says, we often measure large distances in terms of travel time. When people who are unfamiliar with England's geography ask where I live, I tell them Derby, some three hours drive north of London. I imagine it may be the same in your stories--we won't know the local geography.
So although I believe SF audiences will know what giga- and tera- mean, I'm not sure such measures will convey the sense of distance to the reader.
posted
Nothing is more irritating than opening a science section of the local newspaper and seeing an astronomical distance given in 'billion billion billion kilometers'. I would gladly rip the heads off of those who wrote that.
In my view, it is not wise to use big numbers in literature. That is when your readers get confused. If you try to express a vast distance, use a comparison. For instance: if the distance from the Earth to the Sun is the diameter of a human finger, then the distance from the Sun (or the Earth) to the nearest star is 3.5 kilometers (2.2 miles for all you Yanks).
posted
I would use light years, months, days, hours, minutes seconds for distance.
Earth is eight light minutes away from the sun. Pluto is like a light hour from the sun. There are several seconds to the moon. for space travel, light speed is thought of as a constant.
Consider a ship that can travel a hundred light years in a month. It suddenly runs into problems and now travels a light hour in a month. just knowing the time to travel gives a lot of information to the crews and the reader.
In traveling across country, how long it took to travel a distance was more important than the actual distance. Going over the pass, rather than following the river, might be ten times shorter, but if it took equal amounts of time to go to the same destination, one knows how difficult the pass is to cross.
quote: That seems like a hard number to operate with. When you say the Parsec is standard do you think it was used for something like the Huygens mission (referencing how far away the Huygens is, how much farther to reach the next target, etc)?
By standard, I meant a commonly used astronomical term--so maybe better adapted to distances in space than terrestrial units. I've no idea what NASA uses. I'd be interested to find out if anyone happens to know; feet and inches would be my guess!
I've seen parsec used a bit in sci-fi, probably because its a single word that rolls off the tongue quite well.
For stellar rather than interstellar distances, the au would work well and avoid the need to mess with milli / micro parsecs.
My understanding is that both au and parsec are based upon the earth's orbit. This might not be baggage you want to carry into an alien culture. In that case, the light-year would be another way to go.
Yet another option would be to make up a word--then it can mean whatever you need it to. You can bet that a society where it's a common thing to worry about the distance to the nearest space station will have coined a word that's easy to say and well-adapted to the purpose
posted
A parsec is defined in a following manner...
basic geometry: length of arc = radius * angle
If you wish for the length of the arc to be one au (astronomical unit) and for the angle to be one angular second (meaning 1/3600 part of a degree - a whole circle has 360 degrees so 1/1296000 part of a whole circle), then the radius should be one parsec.
Turn the equation: radius = length of arc / angle
Input the angle in radians, meaning 2*pi/1296000, input 1 au = 146 000 000 000 meters and you get 1 parsec = 30114661712076067 meters. Divide this number by 365, then by 24 and 3600, then by the speed of light 300000000 and you get roughly 3.18 light years for a parsec.
I'm sure the Wikipedia has something similar but this is what I got.
posted
Parsec means how far an object has to be from Earth to show the parallex, motion against the starry backdrop, of one second of arc as seen from opposite points of Earth's orbit around the sun. How widely respected it is, I can't say...remember how it was misused in Star Wars?
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |