[Sci-fi] Scientific accuracy (and a request for feedback)

[vWrath]

I like including scientific facts in my stories, and building off of real theories when I make up a universe. I use real scientific terms to describe things when possible and when I make something up I make sure it has a plausible explanation and a proper name.

So my question is: do you feel that scientific accuracy affects the way you rate works in science fiction?

Also, here's the first chapter of something I'm working on, I'd like to know what you think:

http://www.literotica.com/s/jakes-fortune-ch-01

It's called Jake's Fortune and is in Sci-fi/Fantasy.

Chapters 2, 3, and 4 are finished and uploaded but are still pending approval. I'm still working on chapter 5.

Please note that this is my first attempt at writing in general, and that English is not my native tongue.

I think that the first chapter was awful. But there appears to be a learning curve here and I like climbing those. I'm hoping there will be an improvement in the future.

 

[Iceprincess12]

I am not a scientist so I wouldn't know any of the tech speak that you might put in a story, but yes, I think if you are going to use it, make it accurate. For the stuff you make up, as long as it's believable and is useful in the story, it should be fine.

A friend and I were critiquing your story and this is what I wrote to him

The story might be interesting but the sex at the beginning was filled with too many adjectives, the first few paragraphs were. It made it hard to read. The dialogue was better after that, simple, what you would expect from space, people don't seem overly chatty. Towards the end it seemed a bit rushed and not believable, the way he responded to the unknown. For someone who just said he was stubborn, he seemed to give in too fast, also what was he struggling against? Pressure in his body, feeling his mind being taken over? There should have been more detail here.

I hope this was helpful and that you post the link for the next chapter if you want feedback.

 

[vWrath]

Thank you for your input and for reading my story.

I completely agree, I think I broke the first chapter badly. I don't know what I was thinking then.

The rest of it is different though, I proof-read them and enlisted a friend for help. I can't wait for them to be approved so that I can post the links here.

If you'd like to read them I can send them privately. I don't know the rules of this forum and I don't want to step on any toes.

 

[AMoveableBeast]

Honestly, I often find that authors who focus too much on the realism of sci-fi tend to lose the point a bit, which is to tell an entertaining and griping story. As long as that scientific information is important and entertaining, by all means, include it. But don't bog down your story by explaining the intricacies of starship engines or the mathematic explanations for far-off technological advances.

This is the equivalent of writing "Jaws" and spending two chapters talking about The Orca, its exact cargo, the workings of the sub-pump and bilge system. It's a story about a killer shark. That's why we are reading. The ship is just a vessel to take us to the plot. No one cares about the damn boat; all we need to know is that they are going to need a bigger one.

 

[Iceprincess12]

Thank you for your input and for reading my story.

I completely agree, I think I broke the first chapter badly. I don't know what I was thinking then.

The rest of it is different though, I proof-read them and enlisted a friend for help. I can't wait for them to be approved so that I can post the links here.

If you'd like to read them I can send them privately. I don't know the rules of this forum and I don't want to step on any toes.

I don't know the rules either, I am not a writer, just a reader . What category is this going in? I think authors usually list that as well. You can send me a link if you find out it's ok and I will give my feedback.

 

[vWrath]

Honestly, I often find that authors who focus too much on the realism of sci-fi tend to lose the point a bit, which is to tell an entertaining and griping story. As long as that scientific information is important and entertaining, by all means, include it. But don't bog down your story by explaining the intricacies of starship engines or the mathematic explanations for far-off technological advances.

This is the equivalent of writing "Jaws" and spending two chapters talking about The Orca, its exact cargo, the workings of the sub-pump and bilge system. It's a story about a killer shark. That's why we are reading. The ship is just a vessel to take us to the plot. No one cares about the damn boat; all we need to know is that they are going to need a bigger one.

Dear lord, thanks for saving me from that pitfall. I wrote this in chapter five (work in progress):

It took them 2 weeks to reach cruising speed as they slowly accelerated to 0.1 of the speed of light, or roughly 30,000,000 kilometres per second. The reactor flared as it powered the mass drive.

Cruise speed was much different from using the manoeuvring thrusters to close small distances. The reactor poured energy into the mass drive which emitted a field that reduced the ship's mass greatly, making for an enormous mass-to-thrust ratio that could propel ships well past conventional speeds at the slightest push from conventional thrusters. It also stopped small objects from colliding with the ship with its inverse-gravity well.

At any real fraction of the speed of light, a collision with a single hydrogen atom is enough to punch a hole as big as the moon through any object. The amount of energy liberated is an order of magnitude stronger than any nuclear detonation. With enough power to crack planets, humanity had tried to weaponise this phenomenon before, with disastrous results.

They crossed half the distance from the asteroid belt to the earth, a total of 2.3 AU (450,000,000 kilometres) in exactly 7.5 seconds. Then they started the long braking manoeuvre which took two more weeks.

All of this was controlled by computers that managed the process with precision that humans couldn't fathom to surpass.

Travel in space was a strange thing.

Should I simplify this? Does it read well or like a spreadsheet?

I don't know the rules either, I am not a writer, just a reader . What category is this going in? I think people authors usually list that as well. You can send me a link if you find out it's ok and I will give my feedback.

I think it's okay if I send the link in a private message. Not sure about posting it publicly before the submission is processed on Literotica itself.

When in doubt, take the easy route. I'll send you a copy in a PM.

 

[AMoveableBeast]

Dear lord, thanks for saving me from that pitfall. I wrote this in chapter five (work in progress):



Should I simplify this? Does it read well or like a spreadsheet?

Ask yourself, is it important? Why does the reader need to know? If you think it is necessary, include it.

I try to think of it in this way. Very few people actually understand photosynthesis, insofar as reaction centers and chloroplasts are concerned. And most have never heard of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate or adenosine triphosphate, though both compounds are integral to the process. And that process is integral for life.

Still, I don't tell about it. I say, "The flowers that Mary and her father planted that sinful Sunday after Easter grew strong in the plentiful glow of the May sunshine, even as the two of them struggled not to wilt under the heat-lamp of their own unspeakable desires." Because the story is about Mary and her father, their troubles, their love. The flower is just a prop, like a cardboard cut-out during a high school play. It sets a scene.

We don't need to know all of the ways it is vital to existence, only how it is vital to the existence of the main characters.

 

[vWrath]

Ask yourself, is it important? Why does the reader need to know? If you think it is necessary, include it.

I try to think of it in this way. Very few people actually understand photosynthesis, insofar as reaction centers and chloroplasts are concerned. And most have never heard of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate or adenosine triphosphate, though both compounds are integral to the process. And that process is integral for life.

Still, I don't tell about it. I say, "The flowers that Mary and her father planted that sinful Sunday after Easter grew strong in the plentiful glow of the May sunshine, even as the two of them struggled not to wilt under the heat-lamp of their own unspeakable desires." Because the story is about Mary and her father, their troubles, their love. The flower is just a prop, like a cardboard cut-out during a high school play. It sets a scene.

We don't need to know all of the ways it is vital to existence, only how it is vital to the existence of the main characters.

I honestly don't know. I was always of the mind that you need to explain every aspect to the story in detail only once. No repetition, just detailed information exactly once. I'll often tie that information to a future event in the story's progression in a clever way.

In this particular situation, I think it's important that the readers know the method of travel, as well as the distances involved in space. Summarising it in two lines would be unfair to some readers who really do care about this kind of detail. I know I do.

 

[AMoveableBeast]

I honestly don't know. I was always of the mind that you need to explain every aspect to the story in detail only once. No repetition, just detailed information exactly once. I'll often tie that information to a future event in the story's progression in a clever way.

In this particular situation, I think it's important that the readers know the method of travel, as well as the distances involved in space. Summarising it in two lines would be unfair to some readers who really do care about this kind of detail. I know I do.

I don't think the passage you shared was bad. I found it interesting. I just wouldn't go on about it too much and I, especially, would avoid large numbers grouped together when possible. I know a number of very smart readers who just turn off when they see a list of large digits coming at them.

(I'm looking at you, PL)

 

[vWrath]

I don't think the passage you shared was bad. I found it interesting. I just wouldn't go on about it too much and I, especially, would avoid large numbers grouped together when possible. I know a number of very smart readers who just turn off when they see a list of large digits coming at them.

(I'm looking at you, PL)

That's fair. I can just use words instead of the large numbers.. So "30,000,000 kilometres" becomes "thirty million kilometres". I think that's also cleaner and easier on the eyes.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It depends on the sub-genre of SF. If you're writing space opera, then you can get away with "it's powered by handwavium". But I've also read some very interesting stories that worked with aspects of real-world science: e.g. what does a space-faring society look like if the speed of light really IS a limit and there's no teleportation?

Either way, it's important to give readers an expectation of what is and isn't possible. If they think they're reading a realistic "hard SF" story and suddenly Our Heroes are walking around on the Moon without space suits, they're going to feel cheated.

 

[stlgoddessfreya]

Gives new meaning to hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi...

Eh? Eh? Hard sci-fi?

Anybody want to defend Arthur C. Clark's honor against my terrible puns?

I think the constraints of any kind of genre fiction are valuable as the catalyst for further creativity or emphasis of an emotional point. If you just write whatever comes to mind without some rules in place, you're not pushing because you're not giving yourself anything to push against. The passage you just posted is a setup for a killer payoff line which makes an emotional point that's important for your story: OMFG, we are specks in an indifferent maelstrom. If it were mine, I might write:



It took two weeks to reach cruising speed as they slowly accelerated to 0.1 of the speed of light, roughly 30,000,000 kilometres per second. The reactor flared as it poured energy into the mass drive, so called because it emitted a field that greatly reduced the ship's mass. With the resulting mass-to-thrust ratio, the slightest push of the basic thrusters could propel the ship well past conventional speeds. The field also stopped small objects from colliding with the ship.

At any real fraction of the speed of light, a collision with a single hydrogen atom would be enough to punch a hole as big as the moon through any object. The amount of energy liberated would be stronger than any nuclear detonation, enough power to crack planets. Humanity had naturally tried to weaponize the phenomenon before, with disastrous results.

They crossed half the distance from the asteroid belt to the earth, 450,000,000 kilometres, in exactly 7.5 seconds. All of it was controlled by computers with precision that humans couldn't fathom to surpass. Cruising speed was much different from using the thrusters to close small distances; the long braking manoeuvre alone took two more weeks.

Travel in space was a strange thing.



I didn't change much about yours, other than cutting and rearranging. I added as little as possible, but I think the payoff for the last line is better.

 

[vWrath]

It depends on the sub-genre of SF. If you're writing space opera, then you can get away with "it's powered by handwavium". But I've also read some very interesting stories that worked with aspects of real-world science: e.g. what does a space-faring society look like if the speed of light really IS a limit and there's no teleportation?

Either way, it's important to give readers an expectation of what is and isn't possible. If they think they're reading a realistic "hard SF" story and suddenly Our Heroes are walking around on the Moon without space suits, they're going to feel cheated.

I actually laughed out loud at that expression. I hate "handwavium" with a passion.

I love serious science fiction. The works of authors like Jack Campbell and Jay Allan simply captivate me, which influences my writing greatly.

I know I lack the experience, but I'm hoping I can deliver in coherence and realism.

Edit:

Eh? Eh? Hard sci-fi?

Anybody want to defend Arthur C. Clark's honor against my terrible puns?

I think the constraints of any kind of genre fiction are valuable as the catalyst for further creativity or emphasis of an emotional point. If you just write whatever comes to mind without some rules in place, you're not pushing because you're not giving yourself anything to push against. The passage you just posted is a setup for a killer payoff line which makes an emotional point that's important for your story: OMFG, we are specks in an indifferent maelstrom. If it were mine, I might write:



It took two weeks to reach cruising speed as they slowly accelerated to 0.1 of the speed of light, roughly 30,000,000 kilometres per second. The reactor flared as it poured energy into the mass drive, so called because it emitted a field that greatly reduced the ship's mass. With the resulting mass-to-thrust ratio, the slightest push of the basic thrusters could propel the ship well past conventional speeds. The field also stopped small objects from colliding with the ship.

At any real fraction of the speed of light, a collision with a single hydrogen atom would be enough to punch a hole as big as the moon through any object. The amount of energy liberated would be stronger than any nuclear detonation, enough power to crack planets. Humanity had naturally tried to weaponize the phenomenon before, with disastrous results.

They crossed half the distance from the asteroid belt to the earth, 450,000,000 kilometres, in exactly 7.5 seconds. All of it was controlled by computers with precision that humans couldn't fathom to surpass. Cruising speed was much different from using the thrusters to close small distances; the long braking manoeuvre alone took two more weeks.

Travel in space was a strange thing.



I didn't change much about yours, other than cutting and rearranging. I added as little as possible, but I think the payoff for the last line is better.

Thank you! You have no idea what it means to me, to be taught by example is my favourite way to learn.

 

[robertreams]

If you are going to post it as Sci-Fi, you had better at least have your physics right. The only way around the science of Sci-fi is to create your own (alternate) universe, then you need only be careful not to violate your own rules. See The One Tree, etc.

I won't add to the critique, except to say I agree.

 

[Hypoxia]

As technical exposition, this is... confusing. As narrative, it is deadly. Better to simplify this drastically. I'm busy and can't spend the time to rewrite it just now. I'll give it a try in a few hours.

 

[vWrath]

If you are going to post it as Sci-Fi, you had better at least have your physics right. The only way around the science of Sci-fi is to create your own (alternate) universe, then you need only be careful not to violate your own rules. See The One Tree, etc.

I won't add to the critique, except to say I agree.

I find alternate realities to be a bit overused. The real challenge is to take ours and really dig in for answers. Much in our universe is undiscovered or completely unknown.

Rules can be bended, that's how I see it. If you can bend a rule and get away with it. That's where the fun is. Like the propulsion system above. It circumvents the laws of physics by reducing mass instead of increasing thrust. Which would otherwise be a real dilemma and a chicken or the egg situation.

As technical exposition, this is... confusing. As narrative, it is deadly. Better to simplify this drastically. I'm busy and can't spend the time to rewrite it just now. I'll give it a try in a few hours.

Thanks for the input. I look forward to reading your version.

 

[Hypoxia]

Thanks for the input. I look forward to reading your version.

The version is cooking. So is dinner. My excuse: It's our anniversary, there's no place around our remote locale to "go out to" to celebrate, so I'm cooking. Mushroom and prosciutto and artichoke omelet, with trimmings. Buon gusto!

 

[Hypoxia]

rewrite

First, the numbers. A body reaching 0.1c (1/10th light speed) in two weeks must accelerate at around 2.6g (gravities). Does the spaceship have a handwavium inertial-damping system to keep the crew from squishing? If so, why not accelerate faster? At Earth-normal 1g, reaching 0.1c would take about five weeks. At 5g, it takes about one week, unless my math is way off, which is possible.

Oh yeah, reaching 0.1c in a week would move the accelerated body beyond the solar system. Are we journeying to and from the Oort Cloud?

Next, cruising speed. No such thing in space! We need not burn energy to maintain a constant velocity. Once a body (the spaceship) reaches a given 'coasting' speed, we can cut the drive -- but then we're coasting in free-fall, not cruising. Does the spaceship have a handwavium artificial gravity system to keep the crew from puking or losing bone mass during extended coasting?

Next, collision avoidance. If the ship doesn't use a Bussard ramjet with intense magnetic fields to gather particles to feed the mass drive, then it needs a handwavium force field for protection. No drive is specified, so I'll go with the force field.

Next, the "asteroid belt" is a myth. There is indeed a zone of widely-scattered asteroids and a very few planetoids like Ceres and Vesta. Calling this scattering of debris a 'belt' is misleading.

I'll throw in some handwavium components, and rewrite. This is just a first draft. Needs work yet!

We followed the standard astrogation plots. We reached turnover point in just a week of constant five-gravities acceleration. Only the powerful inertial damping system kept us from being crushed by the immense force. At turnover, our velocity relative to Earth was around one-tenth the speed of light, almost thirty thousand kilometres (eighteen thousand miles) per second. Zowie!

The reactor flared as it powered the mass drive. We shut the drive down for turnover. We all took our anti-nausea pills and floated in free-fall for nearly an hour while the lateral thrusters slowly rotated the hull. Once the drive was aligned for deceleration, we fired it up again and returned to our duties. Only a few of us were green around the gills.

"So Mick, did you forget your compazine again? Bet you upchucked your soylent, har har har!!"

"Oh, sod off, Sheila! I'm just naturally fucking sensitive. Compazine don't help me a bit."

"You better spend an hour in the sanitizer if you expect any action tonight. I don't fuck barfies."

Space travel is hideously hazardous. The greatest danger, other than system failure or human fuckup, comes from hitting ANYTHING at high velocity. At any real fraction of the speed of light, a collision with a single hydrogen atom is enough to seriously ruin your day. The energy liberated is an order of magnitude greater than any nuclear fission reaction. With enough power to crack planets, humanity had tried to weaponize this effect. The results were disastrous. Who can forget the accidental destruction of Ganymede?

Whether or not the drive was hot, our hyperfusion reactor powered the intense magnetic fields that protected us from high-speed debris. Even with such protection, a prudent astrogator always warped a course high over the solar ecliptic, the zone of orbiting planets, planetoids, asteroids, and various cosmic debris.

Turnover found us safely to the galactic north of the ecliptic. During the turnover hour, we traveled around one hundred eight million kilometers (sixty-seven million miles), about the distance of Venus from the Sun. We were a bit further out, of course.

Turnover was complete. We fired the drive again, and started the week-long braking manoeuvre. All this was controlled by computers that managed the process with precision that humans could not begin to surpass. This left the crew with plenty of time for recreation, i.e. fornication.

Travel in space was strange and exciting, when we survived it.

I think I've trimmed many non-necessities and added a bit of accuracy and fun here. Reactions?

 

[vWrath]

I think I've trimmed many non-necessities and added a bit of accuracy and fun here. Reactions?

Thank you for bringing up so many points I overlooked or failed to address.

Lesson learned, and from an artist, no less.

I'll post a new draft when I'm done with my changes.

 

[vWrath]

I decided to go to sub-light speed. Since the distance is not that big.

So I calculated it this way, with a total distance of 450,000,000 km to cover:

1. Acceleration for 2 weeks up to a velocity of 200,000 m/s (720,000 km/h), in which case the distance crossed while accelerating is 120,960,000 km.
2. Travel for 208,080,000 km. (travel time is 289 hours / 12 days)
1. Deceleration for 2 weeks for the rest of the way (120,960,000 km).

The resulting g-force is calculated to be 0.017g (0.165 m/s), which doesn't require inertial dampeners.

I hope I got it right.

And, my amended (and much shorter) excerpt that takes this into account:

It took them two weeks of acceleration to reach a speed of 720,000 kilometres per hour. The reactor flared as it powered the mass drive. At an acceleration below one gravity, the inertial dampeners were not required.

Long distance travel was different from using the manoeuvring thrusters to close small distances. The reactor poured energy into the mass drive which emitted a field that reduced the ship's mass greatly, making for an enormous mass-to-thrust ratio that could propel ships well past conventional speeds at the slightest push from basic thrusters. It stopped small objects from colliding with the ship with its inverse-gravity well.

When they reached the turnover point, the thrusters went offline, and they crossed half the distance from the asteroid belt to the earth, a total of four hundred and fifty million kilometres in exactly 12 days. Then they started the long braking manoeuvre which took two more weeks. All of this was controlled by computers that managed the process with precision that humans couldn't fathom to surpass.

Travel in space was a strange thing.

Which doesn't lend the last statement the gravity it once did. Oh well.

I'm keeping the reference to the asteroid belt because it doesn't matter, they were at an unspecific point near it and at the aforementioned distance from earth.

 

[Hypoxia]

Still somewhat stiff as narrative, but a bit less intimidating.

I try to avoid raw numbers without human context. In the classic SF I have read, the reader always feels their place in the cosmos, because the authors emphasize the human context -- even if that leaves us feeling like tiny motes of dust. That's the craft of storytelling, to evoke feelings, human responses. A reader might not care exactly how long a voyage lasted at a specific thrust level. They may care more about how travelers experienced that time and its events, especially in an erotic story. "In the twelve days they took to cross the asteroid belt, Sheila shagged Mick forty-five times, a new record." Something like that.

 

[vWrath]

Still somewhat stiff as narrative, but a bit less intimidating.

I try to avoid raw numbers without human context. In the classic SF I have read, the reader always feels their place in the cosmos, because the authors emphasize the human context -- even if that leaves us feeling like tiny motes of dust. That's the craft of storytelling, to evoke feelings, human responses. A reader might not care exactly how long a voyage lasted at a specific thrust level. They may care more about how travelers experienced that time and its events, especially in an erotic story. "In the twelve days they took to cross the asteroid belt, Sheila shagged Mick forty-five times, a new record." Something like that.

Yes, it's supposed to be stiff and not very engaging, space travel is monotonous and boring. I'm trying to emphasise the point through the narrative. I'll try to bring up that fact as well.

Also, things are happening on board as they're travelling in space, with a parallel context in the subsequent time slices, which begin with "Three weeks into the voyage Jake was..." or "It was the third day on their trek when..."

 

[vWrath]

Chapter 2 is up: http://www.literotica.com/s/jakes-fortune-ch-02

Any input is welcome.

 

[vWrath]

Chapter 3 is approved.

I'm worried about the sex scene and would love to see some critique. I have more coming up and I'd like to have some guidance writing them. If you're experienced with sex scenes then please help me get this right.

 

[vWrath]

Chapter 4 is uploaded.