Space Fiction in the Modern Age

With all the excitement about “Project Hail Mary” making a gazillion dollars at the box office I was thinking about how we get past the reality of the limitations on humans surviving space travel.  I mean what do we think about our interplanetary (not to mention interstellar) travelers bombarded with cosmic radiation and metabolically wasted away by microgravity?    Yikes!

First off, think of all the great old books and movies that have been rendered null and void by these realities.  Other than maybe the Moon, the old ideas of colonies are falsified by what we’ve learned.  No colonies on Mars and the Jovian moons.  No asteroid miners in the Belt.  All just flights of fantasy.  What’s an American boy from the baby boom to do?

Well, I guess the thing to remember is that one age’s wild guess is eventually replaced by a later age’s measured recalculation.  Jules Verne had men travel around the Moon by being shot out of a cannon.  Of course, when someone from the twentieth century crunched the numbers, they probably figured out that a cannon that could send a projectile around the Moon would reduce the occupants to a puddle of goo by virtue of the acceleration needed to reach escape velocity in just the few seconds that the “bullet” was inside the barrel of the “gun.”  And yet these twentieth century engineers didn’t just throw their hands in the air and say “Impossible.”  They invented chemical rockets.

And maybe that’s what will happen with space flight.  Even in “2001: A Space Odyssey,” Frank and Dave have a rotating ring with pseudo-gravity.  Maybe a practical way to protect humans from radiation will also be perfected.

Or maybe the science fiction of the future will involve robot missions to the planets and stars but with some kind of instantaneous communication to allow humans to experience the sights and sounds of the robotic mission as if in the first person.  Or maybe they’ll fall back on good old “psionics” to allow humans to explore space-time without leaving the confines of Mother Earth.

Or maybe we go back to the suspended animation idea.  And we add to that a nice heavy duty radiation shield around the cryo-unit.  We can have a robotic autopilot and only thaw the humans at the destination.

Or how about intelligent robots whose memories can then be downloaded for humans to view or even “experience” as transferrable memories.  Or maybe we can build a wormhole in high orbit around Earth and pop out close to other planets or even exo-planets.

And none of these things have to be proven science.  They just have to be figments of our imagination that give us the framework for a story or a future that entertain us.  In a decade or a century what we know to be impossible will change again.  And so will what we find to be possible.  We are very clever monkeys and what is impossible today becomes possible in a different way tomorrow.  There’s no reason to give up our stories or our dreams.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chemist
Chemist
2 months ago

No offence, Photog, but you need to look up Valeri Polyakov. He spent over 14 months on MIR and came back as fit as when he left – maybe better. He exercised for 2 hours per day and did not lose any muscle mass. Let’s face it, the amount of down time you would have on a trip to Mars would be huge. 2 Hours of exercise a day would be easy to do. Especially if it was part of your “Job” as an astronaut. BTW, you are aware of the legion of SF stories about a generational or cryogenic… Read more »

Chemist
Chemist
2 months ago
Reply to  photog

I have not heard anything about that. To be fair, I haven’t looked. But I think it would have come up in other things that I read.
I don’t claim to be an expert – just fairly well read.

Chemist
Chemist
2 months ago
Reply to  photog

Gotta start somewhere.

TomD
TomD
2 months ago

Not my field but for trips measuring into months, it seems some variation on a centrifuge, ah la 2001. It wouldn’t complicate things impossibly. You’d need a significant diameter to keep the coriolis effect down. That would imply an in orbit assembly,

Tregonsee314
Tregonsee314
2 months ago

What we need for interplanetary stuff is a decent engine .01 G (centiG)constant thrust (a brachistochrone trajectory) which is half accelerate, half decelerate takes 18-30 days. A .1 g (deciG) using a similar method takes 5-12 days on average. a .3 g (~mars gravity) would take 2-6 days, similar to current Moon trajectories. It can’t be a chemical engine, none of those known can do constant thrust for that long without a fuel supply that would fill a type 4 puppeteer hull. CentiG might be done with a thermal fission engine Maybe? I’m well out of my depth here. Direct… Read more »

Tregonsee314
Tregonsee314
2 months ago
Reply to  photog

I don’t know about writing off the currently unknown. Of late, things change rapidly. Even with early flight many of the features were known by folks like Otto Lillenthal and the Smithsonian’s Langley. The big issue was the main source of power was steam and steam engines had very poor weight to horesepower ratios, in short they were simply too heavy. The Wright Brothers did four important things They codified and studied lift (for the wings) and thrust (for propellers) studying them in a fairly scientific method They came up with a way to control direction (wing warping, and rudders)… Read more »

TomD
TomD
2 months ago
Reply to  Tregonsee314

Within the confines of current knowledge, it’s gotta be fusion, once we find how to make that work. But then you need reaction mass too. In order to keep that requirement low, the exhaust velocity would have to be measured in kilometers per second. Say we had a spaceship with total weight of 10,000 kg and ejected .5 kg/sec with a velocity of 3000 m/sec. That would generate a thrust 1500 newtons. Since 1 newton will accelerate 1 kg at 1 meter/second, thats .15 m/s or .015 G’s. Not close to workable because the reaction mass would be out of… Read more »

12
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x