Redifining Manned Spaceflight In Scifi

[Spacescifi]

 

Scifi is fun and all, but given how much even we know about what space travel really entails, I kind of am annoyed at how.... easy it is in scifi.

I mean I KNOW why. Money. Not a cartoon. Real actors. Blah, blah, blah.

 

So here I wish to discuss at least two things I would love to see in scifi. The simple truth is that there is little in scifi land that CANNOT be simulated using real technology.

 

And here we go for examples!

 

1. Artificial gravity: You do not need fantasy gravity manipulation. All you need is a vessel with a habitat area inside that is at least 30 meters wide, although 60 meters is preferable. Gravity by rotation of an inner cylinder habitat that is preferably 60 meters will do (30 if you wanna be a cheapskate).

You likely won't get 1g for fear of dizziness, but some gravity is better than none and keeps the doctor away.

 

2. Spaceships.... at least manned, SHOULD be big. Why? Because you need a lot of space for life support and artificial gravity via rotation. The less you have the worse off you are as a human. This does not necessarily mean they must be as heavy as possible either, unless you want some type of project orion SSTO that must be heavy to avoid killing the crew with excess acceleration.

 

3. Space warships would have tiny crews if any. Why? Humans take up a lot of space when it comes to life support and food. And if a space warship requires REGULAR maintenence by flesh and blood crew, then frankly that is a handicapped space warship. Space travel is a lot of drifting, more drifting than thrusting. Doing nothing is not hard. Doing something is harder on a spaceship, and that is all crew ever do inside one. I would go so far as to say that a big space battleship only needs a crew of I dunno... four? The less crew the more space for weapons after all. Also the less the crew consumes and the more likely they can survive a batte since they can be better protected too.

4. Seriously... optimize! I saw a scifi short from DUST (The Beacon) wgere a large space freighter only a had a single pilot. And I thought that quite right. Why pay for more when it is a glorified 18 wheeler in space? Makes sense no?

 

 

Thoughts are welcome. Space travel is it's own enemy. You hardly even need space war on top of that to show how dangerous it truly is.

 

[Spacescifi]

 

5. Refueling depots are very much part of any rocket based space propulsion. How it is done matters most.

I favor propellant farms on airless moons, that fill up tanks and spin launch them to orbit for the spaceship in orbit that needs it. Meanwhile the orbiting spaceship drops it's empty tank and deorbits it for moon shuttle retrival to refill it later for the next ship.

Reusable interchangeable tanks for spaceships.... not a bad idea if they use the same propellant farms.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Spacescifi

[CFYL]

Well... I'm interested in protective layers against radiation and solar wind

Also, if you fire a gun on the surface of the moon, the bullet could reach orbit if your gun is powerful enough. Of course it may hit a mountain and won't actually go to orbit. In this point of view, a war of the surface of the moon is hazardous. You can fire a cannon from this side of the moon and hit your enemy on the other side of the moon.

War in space, however, can be vastly different from war on the land. What do you fight for? There's no point in fighting for vacuum. So war will possibly take place near planets or other potential targets. Orbital "destroyers" "cruisers" "spacecraft carriers" "battleships" can seem fun, but still requires a lot of maintenance, I guess. A decent amount of crew is still needed. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by CFYL

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

1. Artificial gravity: You do not need fantasy gravity manipulation. All you need is a vessel with a habitat area inside that is at least 30 meters wide, although 60 meters is preferable. Gravity by rotation of an inner cylinder habitat that is preferably 60 meters will do (30 if you wanna be a cheapskate).

You likely won't get 1g for fear of dizziness, but some gravity is better than none and keeps the doctor away.

Because cyclopically huge rotating things look good.

Vestibular and cardiovascular systems need 100..200 m radius permanently.
The angular speed plays role, too. Because ine can't be being overturned several times per minute minute.

Or the ship should be enough fast to need no AG due to short travel time.

3 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

2. Spaceships.... at least manned, SHOULD be big.

Because a small spaceship is for sitcoms, not for epics.

Because they must carry something, and that's expensive, while the nuclear plants are large.

3 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

3. Space warships would have tiny crews if any. Why?

Because actors take too much money.

Because a small ship allows just run from the school, not to feel like a semi-god.

Because they can't repair everything in flight by hands, so the ship must be reliable and need as few people as possible.
Like the airplanes. Where are all those numerous flight engineers and radiooperators?

4 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

4. Seriously... optimize! I saw a scifi short from DUST (The Beacon) wgere a large space freighter only a had a single pilot.

Low budget.

If it needs a single pilot, it doesn't need a pilot at all. Because it should be enough aautonomous if the pilot dies/when the pilot sleeps. It's not a fighter which is in flight for an hour/

1 hour ago, CFYL said:

lso, if you fire a gun on the surface of the moon, the bullet could reach orbit if your gun is powerful enough.

2 km/s of delta-V is a rather hypersonic rifle.

[Spacescifi]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Because cyclopically huge rotating things look good.

Vestibular and cardiovascular systems need 100..200 m radius permanently.
The angular speed plays role, too. Because ine can't be being overturned several times per minute minute.

Or the ship should be enough fast to need no AG due to short travel time.

Because a small spaceship is for sitcoms, not for epics.

Because they must carry something, and that's expensive, while the nuclear plants are large.

Because actors take too much money.

Because a small ship allows just run from the school, not to feel like a semi-god.

Because they can't repair everything in flight by hands, so the ship must be reliable and need as few people as possible.
Like the airplanes. Where are all those numerous flight engineers and radiooperators?

Low budget.

If it needs a single pilot, it doesn't need a pilot at all. Because it should be enough aautonomous if the pilot dies/when the pilot sleeps. It's not a fighter which is in flight for an hour/

2 km/s of delta-V is a rather hypersonic rifle.

 

Fast enough not to need gravity is standard fare in scifi.... but given how that opens up a can of worms (RKV=any spaceship capable of that) I find it makes space travel even less interesting from a fictional point of view.

 

And I see about the gravity. 100 area meter inner habitats it is.

 

One of the bonuses is even if ypu land a spaceship with it on the moon you can still enjoy stronger gravity thanks to inner habitat rotation.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Spacescifi

[SunlitZelkova]

I think this is a matter more intended for worldbuilding and non-narrative SF rather than standard science fiction.

I would much rather have a neat story about a lone space freighter pilot’s endeavors than a garbage forced drama about four crew members.

8 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

You likely won't get 1g for fear of dizziness, but some gravity is better than none and keeps the doctor away. [Emphasis added]

Is this actually true though?

I find it funny that a lot of times it seems to be engineers saying this, not medical doctors.

I guess the truth depends on just exactly what you mean by “keeps the doctors away”.

[Spacescifi]

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I think this is a matter more intended for worldbuilding and non-narrative SF rather than standard science fiction.

I would much rather have a neat story about a lone space freighter pilot’s endeavors than a garbage forced drama about four crew members.

Is this actually true though?

I find it funny that a lot of times it seems to be engineers saying this, not medical doctors.

I guess the truth depends on just exactly what you mean by “keeps the doctors away”.

 

A single pilot of a big spaceship is ideal since it minimizes life support while maximizing cargo payload.

The second thing it does is that it.... kind of provides insurance if something goes wrong.... since human pilots are usually a bit more reasonable than stupid and stubborn AI.

It is rightly assumed that human pilots have a sense of self preservation and want to complete the mission and go home.

[wumpus]

12 hours ago, CFYL said:

Well... I'm interested in protective layers against radiation and solar wind

Also, if you fire a gun on the surface of the moon, the bullet could reach orbit if your gun is powerful enough. Of course it may hit a mountain and won't actually go to orbit. In this point of view, a war of the surface of the moon is hazardous. You can fire a cannon from this side of the moon and hit your enemy on the other side of the moon.

If you fire a gun and the bullet goes into orbit (not escape velocity), the "perilun" will be no higher than the altitude you fired it from (unless it gets high enough to be pulled by the Earth or something).  Expect the bullet to come back extremely close to your current position due to the Moon's slow rotation.  Lunar firefights would involve not only ducking incoming bullets, but "second chances" where the bullet comes back around and indangers both sides.

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

A single pilot of a big spaceship is ideal since it minimizes life support while maximizing cargo payload.

A single pilot is an waste of resources.

Either two, or none.

Because he needs to sleep, and he can be damaged.

So, either the ship can do all on its own (then the pilot is excessive), or there is a deputy pilot to replace him.

[Spacescifi]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

A single pilot is an waste of resources.

Either two, or none.

Because he needs to sleep, and he can be damaged.

So, either the ship can do all on its own (then the pilot is excessive), or there is a deputy pilot to replace him.

Not necessarily.... humans are there to make judgement calls or a the very least someone to cast blame upon in case something goes wrong. Imagine if the pilot's  home city is at a risk of getting fined or bought out if he does something illegal while piloting the spaceship?

 

Even if the pilot dies in flames aboard the vessel, now the company that owns the vessel can shift blame to the pilot's home town and cover some of the cost of the lost vessel by fining or buying parts of his hometown outright?

 

Yes this is not exactly.... something some countries governments would be OK with, but in space fiction, any kind of policy you want can actually be a reality.

 

As it is, real life is brimming with policies terrifyingly brutal by civilizations otherwise considered the epitome of a civilized society. For example, I tend to wonder if one of the reasons the British have such polite manners is because back in the day the opposite end of polite was what happened to William Wallace.

Braveheart may as well be rated g, since if they really showed what actually happened, it probably could not be shown in  a movie theater.

 

By comparison fining or buying out parts of or an entire town or city in recompense for a pilot's recklessness leading up to possible if not complete destruction of a company spaceship is rather tame.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Spacescifi

[Gargamel]

12 hours ago, wumpus said:

If you fire a gun and the bullet goes into orbit (not escape velocity), the "perilun" will be no higher than the altitude you fired it from (unless it gets high enough to be pulled by the Earth or something).  Expect the bullet to come back extremely close to your current position due to the Moon's slow rotation.  Lunar firefights would involve not only ducking incoming bullets, but "second chances" where the bullet comes back around and indangers both sides.

I created a “Munar Archery” challenge years ago that did just that, launch a projectile on the Mun and see how close you can get to hitting the launching craft on the way back around. 

[tomf]

6 hours ago, Gargamel said:

I created a “Munar Archery” challenge years ago that did just that, launch a projectile on the Mun and see how close you can get to hitting the launching craft on the way back around. 

Sounds fun, do you have a link for the thread?

[Gargamel]

2 minutes ago, tomf said:

Sounds fun, do you have a link for the thread?

Ahhhhhh geez...... *starts digging through the filled up garage of KSP links*.

... dig....     dig...... oh hey, I've forgot I had _that_ link....... dig dig....

Oh heh!   Found it!