posted
This is something I had written a while ago. I still want to do the story, but I need to decide if I should use this, or do a complete re-write. This section has been shortened (notice the elipses) to fit the 13 line rule (it's still longer than that, even at the shortened length, but only one or two lines). Basically I want to know if this section is crap, or if something can be salvaged from it. If you want to read the complete version of this section, just post your e-mail.
Jonathan R. Thatcher was a pilot. He wasn’t a stereotypical, cocky, arrogant pilot. He was a patriot who believed that one should defend one’s own land, and if need be, one should die for it. And that’s what he was doing. He joined the IAF in 3055 and was sent to Mars in 3058. It was the first time he left Earth’s orbit, and a three-month voyage took its toll. He spent most of his time on the transport’s flight simulator. Each pilot is required to have 48 hours of sim time to fly the F-234. This craft was known as a “sky skipper.” It skimmed between atmospheres at extremely high altitudes, and served as a surveillance and light-bombing craft....
...His commander told him that he was to pilot an F-234 on Mars a day before he left. “But sir, only commanders can fly skippers,” he said. “I know.” “Well, sir, I’m only a sub-commander.” “Really?” “Has the rank requirement been changed?” “No, John.” “Sir?” “Central has just notified me that you have been promoted to the rank of Commander, 2nd class.” Needless to say, John was very excited. Not only because of the honor, but also the raise in pay.
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited January 08, 2005).]
posted
I think you are probably fine to use this section. I have two points that I'd like to bring up.
quote:He wasn’t a stereotypical, cocky, arrogant pilot.
I haven't met a pilot yet who meets the stereotype. Besides that, it is a little strange to start the story telling us what he's not. It kind of turns me off, to tell the truth.
quote:Needless to say, John was very excited. Not only because of the honor, but also the raise in pay.
This is funny. It's hard to define why; I think it has something to do with the sentence structure, and the "needless to say" .
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
quote: He wasn’t a stereotypical, cocky, arrogant pilot. He was a patriot who believed that one should defend one’s own land, and if need be, one should die for it.
A hero that would die for his land if needed sounds pretty stereotypical to me. I don't really know if that's completely opposite to the way pilots are, because I happen to know not one. But the truth is the "stereotypical" thing doesn't sound good to me.
posted
I concur about the date roll back. If we can't get to Mars in less than three months, after 1000 years of progress, then we don't deserve to. But aside from that, it sounds interesting.
Oh, and about the stereotype, there's a reason why most fighter pilots are cocky. You have to be to fly something that fast and not flake out. It's a matter of confidence. I knew a couple when I was in the Navy, and we chatted. We were all getting out at the time, which is why LT's were talking to a E-5
[This message has been edited by Netstorm2k (edited January 10, 2005).]
quote:This is funny. It's hard to define why; I think it has something to do with the sentence structure, and the "needless to say" .
Funny good, or funny bad?
quote:I concur about the date roll back. If we can't get to Mars in less than three months, after 1000 years of progress, then we don't deserve to.
If anything I should either roll the date forward, or not mention a date at all. But I think the fact that I didn't say AD is something to think about.
The fact remains that no matter how far technology advances, there is still the great possibility that we won't find some revolutionary way to propel a vehicle through space. It is easy to assume that 1000 years in the future when fossil fuels have been used up (used up about 1000 years ago) that any sort of nuclear propulsion would would be more efficient at a lower speed.
All that aside, there's still the matter of the subject of the story (which I haven't revealed yet) needing much more time than I've given (thus the lack of an AD after the date).
quote:Oh, and about the stereotype, there's a reason why most fighter pilots are cocky. You have to be to fly something that fast and not flake out. It's a matter of confidence.
Yes, there is a big difference between a fighter pilot and a comercial pilot. Fighter pilots have to fight, and they do it with jet fighters. It's nowhere near the same thing as flying a 747. Not that flying a 747 is easy, it's just nowhere near as complicated as outflying a mig in a dogfight, for instance.
posted
Well it isn't really revolutionary to assume that they will figure out how to at least create functioning AM (anti-matter) drives in the next 20-30 years. An AM ship could reach Mars in around 8 days under a constant 1g of acceleration.
If you jump more than 2-300 years ahead I would have zero point energy drives in place which would allow for theoretical travel at near light speeds. Or even wormhole or "warp" drives (not the star trek kind).
I did not notice you left out AD, and unless you draw specific attention to it, I don't think most readers would consider it's absence significant.
If they are using a different dating system possibly use it, so that the reader doesn't automatically associate the dating method with the roman calendar.
posted
Well, you always have to consider the effect of accelleration on the human. In order for a person to withstand those speeds, you would have to accelerate quite slowly, compared to the desired speed, and the distance to the objective.
Yes, you could get there in 8 days, but the energy used to slow the ship down would be counter-productive, and dangerous. Also there could be unforseen side-effects or some unknown controversy that could outlaw the research (granted, there aren't the obvious moral issues seen in genetic research).
And if you think the line would be funny if intentionally funny, it's a good funny. I wasn't really going out of my way for a laugh, but I wasn't trying to be too serious either...
posted
one gee wouldn't be dangerous at all. That's what you're enduring right now. But I think you know that.
But assume six to eight gees acceleration from Earth, also assuming that either they are genetically able to handle that amount, or they have suits to reinforce or whatever, and then you accelerate for a certain amount of time, you will have to decelerate for the same amount of time once you get to where you're going. But, again, I state the obvious. Where was I going with this..?
posted
The question is not if the drive is possible, or if it would make the trip easier. The question is would it be efficient. Is the cost of accelerating at a safe speed then deccelerating at a safe speed less than the cost of the extra food that would be used by a trip using more traditional methods (such as an ion engine)? I'm sure it would be for longer trips, but this is just Earth to Mars. I can't answer that, and I'm not sure if anyone can.
So for this particular story, we assume that it is much more efficient to transport the person with a regular engine than it is to use what could be the equivilent of flying from New York to New Jersey on a 747.
I wasn't saying that the g's (that would be g's not gees ) would be too much to handle, I'm just saying it would be a very slow aceleration to make it safe. After all, most people can't stand over 12 g's, and astronauts pull around 8 (I think) at takeoff. And they're traveling in atmosphere...
posted
Well I can guarantee that an AM engine would be more efficient. It may not however be more cost effective in your universe. It's also relatively compact compared to carrying any type of conventional fuel.
As to the build up...I'm not really sure if we are talking about the same thing.
You funnel the AM material from it's magnetic containment field into the reaction mass, then it shoots out the back, there would be a gradual ramping up of G-force as the ship began moving and then once you had reached 1 g of acceleration it would be constant. You could increase the AM flow to push it beyond that. After going halfway, you have a moment of zero g as the ship flips over and then continues a 1g burn to slow itself down. I believe that puts the trip to Mars at 8 days.
The AM drive being proposed by NASA only produces about a .20 of a G in acceleration because we can't currently produce large supplies of AM, which is why they give a 30 day trip time.
posted
But there ya go. Creating AM is expensive. It's still just like my 747 analogy. Why take a 747 from New York to New Jersey, when a helicopter ride would be much more efficient?
But please, let's not get into a big debate over this. It's really not an important aspect of the story.
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited January 13, 2005).]
Oh one little thing, given the naval feel of the ranks you might wanna change the name of the spacecraft to something other than "skipper" since that is the naval term for a ship captain.
The only reason I harped on it is that in a sci-fi story consistent and plausible technology are really important to the setting and world.
Technologies existing in a vacuum or technologies not being exploited consistently are often big points of contention for some readers. A great example of this is "transporter" technology in Star Trek, it's a nifty idea, but it has been exploited in so many different ways that it's application should be FAR more widespread in the ST universe. It is implemented far more consistently in ST Enterprise than ST, STNG, STDS9, STV.
I just don't want to see you fall into the same pitfall I have in some of my stories where a tech is introduced solely as a plot device or some such without understanding the ramifications of introducing that tech, or in this case not introducing that tech.
Consistency and plausibility are, in my opinion, more critical in Sci-Fi than in Fantasy. In Sci-Fi you are dealing with an extrapolated world that we can understand, as opposed to a Fantasy world which can have radical departures from the world we know and can get over inconsistencies with the inclusion of "magic".
[This message has been edited by HuntGod (edited January 13, 2005).]
posted
I don't think I'm introducing a very new technology. It's a specialized craft, and there's not much outstanding technology in it. But I know what you're saying, and I hate it too.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted
I agree with the majority that perhaps you should roll back the date and if this is a post-apocolyptic Earth, where past technology was lost or destroyed, then that would account for the slow travel to Mars a thousand years from now, and this should be revealed to the reader.
Leaving out AD or CE, whichever one prefers to use, doesn't necessarily mean the reader will catch it, I didn't and naturally assumed AD, afterall it is the future. You could indicate something like this: "He joined the IAF in year 3055, though he can't be certain of the exact year, for all he knew it could be 2555..."
This suggests to the reader that Thatcher's world screwed-up their dating system. How is up to you. Mav.
posted
Well, for spoiler reasons, I can't go into why the date given can't be wrong. But the fact remains that you can't assume the future holds magical surprises. This is, I think, a great flaw in sci-fi today. There probably isn't going to be any kind of warp drive.
The AM engine is interesting, but I wouldn't presume it to be any more than theory at this point. Ion engines are proven, and it fits the story to have that time gap between travels.
Putting a date on any story is dangerous, and I try to make it a habit to never put the date on a futuristic story. 3055 may seem too far off now, but weren't there supposed to be flying cars everywhere in the year 2000?
posted
This may be a rather unimportant point, but there have been flying cars "everywhere" for quite a long time now. The practical technology is into the fourth or fifth generation.
It's just one of my pet peeves, when people use questions like "where are the flying cars?" as an argument. As a question, on the other hand, I have no problem with it. But it can't actually be a question in this case, because it is only asked by implication.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with your story, so feel free to ignore it.
posted
The reason for the lack of personal flight craft is not a lack of technology but a lack of confidence in an individuals ability to maintain and control the craft.
The reason science fiction generally presents steady and predictable advances in technology is that historically that is how it has worked, with the exception of the last 80-100 years where technological advancement has moved at a MUCH higher rate.
Even assuming the worst, if the period is 1000 years, then look at the last 1000 years. We've gone from horses and wagons, to hypersonic aircraft and rocket powered space craft. Though in fairness, we've actually done that in the last 150 years.
posted
You're missing my point. Things can go wrong with technology. People can find out that what they once thought was impossible is in reality possible, and vice versa.
I didn't ask, "Where are the flying cars." There are a few prototypes. It's a matter of finalization of the product, and getting the massive ammounts of software and computer power into the car.
But the fact is that that all takes a long time. We're still working on getting regular cars to drive themselves.
Does anyone remember what happended after Challenger? I wasn't even a year old when it happened, but I do know that it took a VERY long time to get another shuttle in the air.
Now imagine we build an anti-matter ship 300 years from now. We send that ship off, and everything seems fine, so we build 100 more. But all it takes is one ship to malfunction. One glitch that sends way too much anti-matter and not enough matter, forcing the anti-matter out to combine with some part of the rest of the ship, the magnetic shield fails and lets out the entire supply of anti-matter. It would one of the most powerful explosions humans will ever witness.
And then every single one of those ships is grounded as quickly as possible and an investigation is launched. Let's say they find the cause in a few years, and there's no way to fix it in any reasonable ammount of time. So we instead invest in much more reliable types of engines, and while the bugs are worked out of anti-matter drives, the entire economy is centered around these other types of ships. AM ships would only be trusted by a few at first, and only on very long voyages. Perhaps some piece of legislature is passed making that the law.
Maybe.
Who knows?
That's my point. It doesn't matter what scientists say we'll be able to do, because we don;t know what can go wrong. So why don't we just assume for the sake of this story that a trip to Mars is 3 months. Is that really that hard to do?
quote:That's my point. It doesn't matter what scientists say we'll be able to do, because we don;t know what can go wrong. So why don't we just assume for the sake of this story that a trip to Mars is 3 months. Is that really that hard to do?
With the year given and no indication of why that situation exists...the answer for me is yes.
I know alot of hard sci-fi/futurist fans that would be in the same boat.
Now if you have specific reasons for why it takes 3 months to go to Mars 1000 years from now, then great. But you need to have a reason and relate that reason to the reader or alot of sci-fi junkies will dismiss the story out of hand.
The exception to this is if the story is supposed to be space opera (like Star Wars or the EE Doc Smith Lensmen and Skylark novels).
posted
If audiences have truly forgotten how to be patient and wait for explanations when they come, I don't want them to read it.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted
I don't want an explanation in the first 13 lines.
I do want to know that there is an explanation at some point in the book.
Since this forum is here so that we can express possible issues that may arise from our reading of those lines, providing that information to the critiquer would be nice.
Were that information provided and explained up front then this thread would have 10-12 fewer replies :-)
posted
I’m a sucker for space opera and that seems to be were you’re going with this, so I say you should go with it and just tweak some of the narrative. I think you can keep the word stereotypical just incorporate some of the suggestions you’ve heard. (incidentally I’ve never met a pilot, but I’ve heard the same stereotype...)
Let me show you what I’m talking about. I’m not trying to change your words just give you an example of the top of my head...
Jonathan R. Thatcher wasn’t the stereotypical, arrogant, asshole fighter-pilot. He understood why others were that way. The job was high-risk and a puffed up ego helped not to focus on it’s dangers. John didn’t need to psyche himself out, though. His motivation was much simpler. He was a patriot who believed that one should defend one’s own land, and if need be, one should die for it.
Ps: I’ve always liked sci-fi heroes with old world names, and in this case it’s an artisan name (no one knows what a thatcher is now, so it would be totally forgotten in the future...) and it seems cooler.
Also, the story being extremely far in the future doesn't bother me either. And if there's a later explanation for it, even better...
I think I'll word it a lot like that. I might even make the dedication, "To John, who put the asshole in the first sentence."
quote:Ps: I’ve always liked sci-fi heroes with old world names, and in this case it’s an artisan name (no one knows what a thatcher is now, so it would be totally forgotten in the future...) and it seems cooler.
I can't remember why I picked Thatcher, but I think it might have had something to do with having seen A Knights Tale shortly before writing it. I doubt many people know what you call a roof builder/repairer (heck, I doubt many people know what a cobbler is. They probably think they build roads), but I don't think it will be completely lost. I'm not as pessimistic as Asimov, because there will always be geeks, especially in word history.
I amended Netstorm's attempt to revive the Word Play topic to one for discussing surnames entitled "Surname Play" in the Open Discussions on Writing area.
posted
Was a name game all that was left of this thread, or did we just get off track? Anymore feedback? Anyone want to read the paragraph in its entirety?
Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted
For one thing, there is an explanation of this in the parts I took out for 13 line reasons.
For another, there is the problem of having a remotely operated craft on a planet that has severe sandstorms, etc. This story takes place before the teraformation of Mars is complete, and therefore not all of the water has returned to the surface.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
) would be too much to handle, I'm just saying it would be a very slow aceleration to make it safe. After all, most people can't stand over 12 g's, and astronauts pull around 8 (I think) at takeoff. And they're traveling in atmosphere...
