Space Opera Licence Committee

[Tw1]

My fellow kerbalists:
Facing a long history of dodgy spaceflight in fiction, and a quite annoying example in yesterday's Doctor Who episode, I have decided it is high time we established a qualification system, which offers simple training to make sure these travesties never make it to publication again.
[SIZE=1][color=lightgrey]Because I totally have the power to do that..
And I'm announcing it here, in this very important corner of the internet.[/color][/SIZE]

So far, the requirements are as follows:

[SIZE=3]To obtain the Space Opera writers licence, a candidate must:

1. Have had a minimum of 8 hours spaceflight time in KSP.

2. Demonstrate that they at least understand the principles of:

[INDENT]A. Achieving orbit, deorbiting, and vacuum landing.
B. An interplanetary transfer, OR an orbital rendezvous.
(C Maybe also understanging[/INDENT]

3. Have a minimum 3 hours in space engine.

4. Be able to recognise and describe key features of common space objects.
4a. Have seen realistic renderings of phenomena, (such as the wormhole and blackholes from interstella.)

5. Have some sense of the huge scale of space environments. [SIZE=2](Training in KSP RSS or Orbiter may be useful here.)[/SIZE]

6. Understand how space is not "Cold",

7. Understand the effects of vacuum, on humans, liquids, and other things that might end up in it.

Updated based on discussion so far:

8.
Understand the principle of "like reality unless otherwise informed".


9.
Understand the difference between good technobable (which is based on how things work in universe, or is sufficiently informed, yet vague enough to avoid being pulled apart) and bad technobable (which is sciencey sounding words mashed into a sentence without understanding what the words mean.)
ETC..
[/SIZE]

This is what I've got so far. But

[url=http://imgur.com/A9IW67Y][img]http://i.imgur.com/A9IW67Ym.png[/img][/url]

To help complete it!
Then we shall impose it on the world.
[color=lightgrey](Yep. Totally for real, really.)[/color]

[SIZE=1]*Keep in mind that many who want to write may not really be 'sceincy/mathsy' type people, so any intense courses in astrophysics or solar system geology is probably out.

Also, to clarify, I don't mean to impose restrictions on what can be published. Just that writers should ne trained so they don't write rubbish in the first place. [/SIZE] Edited November 20, 2015 by Tw1

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

I suggest that the experience in games be removed. It is possible to have a good grasp of these concepts without KSP or space engine. You could add this though:
Understand the basic of delta-v, and why "every gram counts."

[Flymetothemun]

[quote name='Mad Rocket Scientist']I suggest that the experience in games be removed. It is possible to have a good grasp of these concepts without KSP or space engine. You could add this though:
Understand the basic of delta-v, and why "every gram counts."[/QUOTE]

I suggest that the idea of a space opera license be tossed into the bin. Why should somebody need a license to create art? And if you're taking a science-fiction show necessary, I think you have a problem, not the writers.

[r4pt0r]

Those starwars laser weapon things on the tie fighters (i've never watched the movies, forgive me).

They make noise in vaccum. I know they shouldnt.

The movie is better because they do. the "pew pew pew" of the lasers is iconic. I propose that some lapses in realism are just fine.

[LordFerret]

I propose that you must prove yourself able to brew a [I]superb[/I] pot of coffee ... because (in real life) if you can't, the engineers will beat the life outta you with their slide-rules and wrenches.

[Tw1]

[quote name='Mad Rocket Scientist']I suggest that the experience in games be removed. It is possible to have a good grasp of these concepts without KSP or space engine. You could add this though:
Understand the basic of delta-v, and why "every gram counts."[/QUOTE]

But
[url]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/orbital_mechanics.png[/url]

My thinking is more that these games help you understand gravity and orbits in a much more intuitive way than most most other ways of seeing learning about it. Which would be better for writers who are less sciencey people. Remembering a fact you've read is not as easy as having your own experience come back to you. [SIZE=1]Then again, the times listed here may not be long enough to have that much effect. [/SIZE]

Delta-v is pretty important. Idk though, most of the time, fuel requirements are made a non-issue by the existence of super efficient engines, so atm, I'm thinking it's a slightly too technical.
Knowing things like when they need to fire the engines, and the way things move in orbits when not under power, etc, are more likely to have an outcome on the way an author writes a story, IMHO.

[quote name='Flymetothemun']I suggest that the idea of a space opera license be tossed into the bin. Why should somebody need a license to create art? [/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1](I'm joking when I suggest that you should need one to write. Though tbh, it some simple training as policy for bodies which published sci-fi could improve the quality of the fiction.
It could reduce the amount of stories which could have been enjoyable had the writers made one or two changes to make things make sense. Doctor Who often tries to make things reasonably accurate when they do historic settings, give or take. It would be nice to see space get the same effort put in.[/SIZE]

[quote name='r4pt0r']
They make noise in vaccum. I know they shouldnt.

The movie is better because they do. the "pew pew pew" of the lasers is iconic. I propose that some lapses in realism are just fine.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. I'm not proposing* a restriction on what can be published, though I think a well meaning writer who is better informed about the setting of their stories will write better.

(Plus, pedants like me can think of that as non diegetic sound, or smart authors can show it as sounds heard within the spaceship, or sensor responses, or something.)

It's about knowing the rules, and breaking them well. (Or writing a silly story where anything goes.) I'd like those who write sci fi professionally to know them.

[SIZE=1]*Just to make sure, I'm not really proposing anything here, just wanting to collect ideas and discuss,, but tone isn't always clear on the internet. [/SIZE]

[justidutch]

What I am interested in is which author will reference KSP in a 'serious' novel first!

[wumpus]

Just out of curiousity, how familiar is the OP with E.E."doc" Smith? Did the "doc" qualify? Can OP write better space opera than "doc"?

Then there is the simple existence issue with space opera. How can it exist in a world where relativity holds (bonus points for allowing both faster than C travel and causality violations which means Trek passes...)? How does a ship limited by current means and the rocket equation have a prayer of interstellar (pretty much a requirement of space opera) travel.

Not "space opera", but questionable licensing:
Gravity: Fail. Haven't seen it, but the failures should be obvious before loading KSP.
Interstellar: Passes basic KSP knowledge, but anyone familiar with the gravity needed for that type of time dilation (presumably including Scott Manley, but not me) can point out that the delta-V approaches infinity.
The Martian: Pass? Need to see it, but haven't heard any failures.

[1101]

I think the problem lies in the medium being used, more than any other issue. Most 'Space Opera' or Sci-fi in general in TV/Film doesn't seem to be overly concerned with the impracticality of what it portrays or how unrealistic it is - the strange way the main character of Gravity gradually deorbits being a good example.

The problem really being how you explain how something happens in the setting - no one wants to really have it shown to them how something actually flies in space - such as the space shuttle depiction in Armageddon, to take a terrible example. Of course some shows might state they are in orbit but they never really expand on it, any Star Trek episode would be a good example of that, or Star Wars' "Orbiting the planet at maximum velocity" of the Death Star - because somehow they picked the exact opposite side of a gas giant to drop out of hyperspace on.

Compare such things to Literature Space Opera such as 'Ringworld', where the protagonists ship gouges out an enormous chasm as it decelerates from orbital speed by crashing into it, or 'Revelation Space' where ships with near infinite Delta-v take months to reach .99c cruises. Even more unrealistic settings such as that of the 'Culture' still seem to understand how utterly huge space is.

Also, while I am yet to catch up on all of this seasons Doctor Who, I am amused by the fact that the OP is nitpicking about Spaceflight in a setting where the main character teleports around in a time travelling, sentient spaceship that is disguised as a 1960's Police Box. That can also be used to rewrite causality.

[problemecium]

Haha, good luck with this! It's a great idea in principle but I don't envy you the task of getting people to adhere to it.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

[quote name='Tw1']But
[URL]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/orbital_mechanics.png[/URL]

My thinking is more that these games help you understand gravity and orbits in a much more intuitive way than most most other ways of seeing learning about it. Which would be better for writers who are less sciencey people. Remembering a fact you've read is not as easy as having your own experience come back to you. [SIZE=1]Then again, the times listed here may not be long enough to have that much effect. [/SIZE]

Delta-v is pretty important. Idk though, most of the time, fuel requirements are made a non-issue by the existence of super efficient engines, so atm, I'm thinking it's a slightly too technical.
Knowing things like when they need to fire the engines, and the way things move in orbits when not under power, etc, are more likely to have an outcome on the way an author writes a story, IMHO.
[SIZE=1][...][/SIZE][/QUOTE]
Maybe it shouldn't be a requirement, but an optional alternative to... something?

Yes, but remember pt. 1 of John's law: any [I]interesting[/I] space drive is a weapon of mass destruction. It only matters how long you want to wait for maximum damage. Although, it's true that it could be worked around.

[Norpo]

<serious even though the OP isn't>

I don't have a problem with lapses in realism in sci-fi, fancy lasers making fancy sounds in space is fine, probably because it's [B][I]fancy,[/I][/B] but I do have a problem with [URL="http://shinytoylabs.com/jargon/"]technobabble[/URL] that comes from stringing together [I]real[/I] concepts but with no real link. Sure, 90% of viewers might not know what an orbit is, but if you're one of the 10% that does, then whenever a show uses "orbit" wrong then a little voice inside your head is going [I]"No! That's not how orbits work! How can you prograde the curvature to radial the orbit? And what the heck is an [URL="http://rockyjones.wikia.com/wiki/Atmosphere_Chain"]atmosphere chain!?[/URL]"[/I]

Maybe I could just start using [I]regular[/I] words wrong... Nah, that goose never work.

And yeah, I was bugged by that scene in Doctor Who too.

[SPOILER=spoilers]The part where the anti-gravity thing fails and the station starts [I]falling out of it's orbit?[/I][/SPOILER] Edited November 20, 2015 by Norpo

[Tourist]

Hmm not sure. Space Operas a ubiquitous for being about action and adventure over science. Everybody here knows the X-wing vs Tie fight dogfights in Star Wars are unrealistic.... but I'd contend they would not be as much fun in their genre if realistic orbital mechanics were involved. Don't get me wrong, I think realistic orbital mechanics could be a very tense, and exciting way of depicting an fight in an updated version of something like "The Enemy Below" or "Das Boot" (somebody please do this).

Star Wars and to a degree Star Trek are the children of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, and being adventure stories set in space, rather than Science Fiction per see.

But I realize I've treated a tongue-in-cheek OP far too seriously.

So I would add

8. Able to solve logic problems without making up techno-babble. You should never have to reverse the polarity of anything to get your characters out of a jam.

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='Norpo']<serious even though the OP isn't>

I don't have a problem with lapses in realism in sci-fi, fancy lasers making fancy sounds in space is fine, probably because it's [B][I]fancy,[/I][/B] but I do have a problem with [URL="http://shinytoylabs.com/jargon/"]technobabble[/URL] that comes from stringing together [I]real[/I] concepts but with no real link. Sure, 90% of viewers might not know what an orbit is, but if you're one of the 10% that does, then whenever a show uses "orbit" wrong then a little voice inside your head is going [I]"No! That's not how orbits work! How can you prograde the curvature to radial the orbit? And what the heck is an [URL="http://rockyjones.wikia.com/wiki/Atmosphere_Chain"]atmosphere chain!?[/URL]"[/I]

Maybe I could just start using [I]regular[/I] words wrong... Nah, that goose never work.

And yeah, I was bugged by that scene in Doctor Who too.

[SPOILER=spoilers]The part where the anti-gravity thing fails and the station starts [I]falling out of it's orbit?[/I][/SPOILER][/QUOTE]

Its off topic, but the same rule should apply to anybody writing about using computers in TV Shows.

Senior Cop: "We need to find the hacker who has been using his hacker abilities to make bombs from objects which are in no way computers, or connected to the internet in any way."
Techie Cop: "Sure boss, I'll just login to a Terabyte Avatar, use the RAM GRU to track is location to the nearest BIOS" Edited November 20, 2015 by Tourist