Hard SF

[Specfiction]

I'm not differentiating between fantasy and SF. Although fantasy is not my personal preference, I'm talking about an author having a particular vision, and if professionally presented, having a forum to promote that vision.

As to "hard" SF, it is my preference probably because I've been a scientist all my professional life and see the significance of hard SF as the context of a good story. As for movies--most that I've seen that might be considered by some to be "hard" SF I've thought were pretty bad. For example, most of the stuff on the SF Channel is "unwatchable."

As an aside, I saw Blade Runner the other day for the first time in a long time--better than I remembered it. How could you not like: "Moments in time, lost, like tears in the rain." Not too bad.

I think the lack of relevant "hard" SF is due to the fact that our society no longer appreciates nor understands the scientific "culture" that has, in reality, brought us to the edge of greatness as a species.

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Specfiction

I think the lack of relevant "hard" SF is due to the fact that our society no longer appreciates nor understands the scientific "culture" that has, in reality, brought us to the edge of greatness as a species.

Summed up by the fact it's now thirty-four years since the last moon landing.

[j. d. worthington]

That particular line is a very succinct statement of something I've said in many, many posts here, and in arguments/discussions out in the real world. Glad to know I'm not alone in realizing this....

[pyan]

You're not alone, jd - it's just a sad fact that the human race seems to have lost its desire to advance. NASA's budget request for this year was 16.8 billion dollars, which sounds a lot until you compare it with the 55 bilion dollars it will cost you to prosecute the situation in Iraq, or the one hundred billion dollars the US will spend on bottled water in the same period.

[Specfiction]

I'm going to revisit something that JD said somewhere in the beginning of this thread that I found fascinating. And because I'm lazy, I'm going to paraphrase rather than finding the quote. It went something like this: "people in the middle ages (or dark ages) were comforted by their beliefs and myths that made the world make sense--science has taken that away, and so for some this is a "less good" age than were the dark ages."

I believe in some part this may be right. I've heard it said before and have never understood it personally. Why would anyone be comforted by a lie or a fairytale?--especially if it meant that believing in such things would limit the scope and breath of the very small time a sentient being has of being something other than an inanimate fixture on the landscape of creation? I must admit, I just don't get it.

This sentiment was reflected in the play Galileo. When one of Galileo’s students comes to him and wants to quit his studies, Galileo asks why. The student admits that although he loves and believes in what Galileo is doing, his parents, who are very religious, and have a life without happiness, suffer from their son's lack of belief in an afterlife--which is, for his parents, their only joy.

This is a sad, disappointing, and pathetic scenario.

[that old guy]

Originally Posted by Dave

HG Wells never had this problem.

Nor does Kurt Vonnegut, though I guess only his very early stuff would be considered SF by a purist. But even he complained about having difficulty with shedding the label.

[Parson]

Originally Posted by Specfiction

I believe in some part this may be right. I've heard it said before and have never understood it personally. Why would anyone be comforted by a lie or a fairytale?--especially if it meant that believing in such things would limit the scope and breath of the very small time a sentient being has of being something other than an inanimate fixture on the landscape of creation? I must admit, I just don't get it.

I think what is going on here is that we long for comfort. A purely scientific rationalistic point of view for many is not "comfortable" for many people. They long for something that "feels" right. So they rebel at the sharp hard edges on most of science. They rebel at something that takes so much work to understand. They long for a time and a place where you can "wish" things into being.

But I believe there is more as well. We all know that science does not provide all of the answers that people need, nor is all what passed for science in the past and probably some things that pass for science in our day as well will prove to be false. --- So a common but faulty response is "I will just escape into a world where things are more like I believe they should be."

This creates the realm of pulp fiction, soap operas, and pop religion.

This is a great thread! I would like to commend all of the great thinking that went into this. J.D. especially, way to go!

[Specfiction]

We all know that science does not provide all of the answers that people need, nor is all what passed for science in the past and probably some things that pass for science in our day as well will prove to be false.

I don't want to beat this thing to death, but I couldn't help responding. First, the short answer to all of this is: "sometimes I don't know" is the best answer to a deep, complicated question. Second, there are some things men and women will probably never know--get used to it. It's a big, complicated universe and we are small, not very bright creatures living on a little speck of it--that okay, it's a beautiful speck to us and we can find subjective fulfillment. Making stuff up is always problematic. Think about needing medical assistance, or having to make political decisions on the basis of make-believe answers to important questions. Many of us in the US have lived through that nightmare these past few years.

Finally, about science. We used to have a tee shirt at LBL--it read, in Latin: "We give you the truth to two standard deviations."

They once asked Richard Feynman, a certified genius, "do you believe in God?" He answered, "not in the God of any organized religion." They asked why. Feynman answered: "Everyone calls me a genius. I've won the Noble Prize. All my life I've tried to answer at most two simple questions--and in that I've failed. Then, some religious guy comes into the room and says--I know everything--the answers not to simple questions, but to the most difficult. I don't believe him. I think the problem with a guy like that is that he doesn't understand what it means to understand something."---QED

[Parson]

Originally Posted by Specfiction

Feynman answered: "Everyone calls me a genius. I've won the Noble Prize. All my life I've tried to answer at most two simple questions--and in that I've failed. Then, some religious guy comes into the room and says--I know everything--the answers not to simple questions, but to the most difficult. I don't believe him. I think the problem with a guy like that is that he doesn't understand what it means to understand something."---QED

And that is the difference between "pop religion" and the real kind. The real kind knows that we don't know, but believes into the darkness and finds light.

[littlemissattitude]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

That particular line is a very succinct statement of something I've said in many, many posts here, and in arguments/discussions out in the real world. Glad to know I'm not alone in realizing this....

Re: the fact that people don't seem to realize that it has been so long since the last moon landing...

What amazes me is that people don't, in general, seem to realize either that the International Space Station has been continuously occupied since July 2000, around six and a half years, or that before that Mir was almost continuously occupied (I think there were a couple of short periods when it was not) for nearly 10 years.

So, while there aren't many of them, there are people living in space and have been for quite awhile. It's a start.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

So, while there aren't many of them, there are people living in space and have been for quite awhile. It's a start.

And in a way, that is harder. The Moon landings were only something like 3 or 4 days there, 3 days on the surface, and 3 or 4 days back. Living in Space for a year with the effect of zero-G on muscles and bones is a different thing entirely. Longer missions will be necessary in the future, and while NASA put it's efforts into meeting Kennedy's goal, the USSR instead built space stations and unmanned probes.

But the point being made was the amount of money being spent now.

Originally Posted by pyanfaruk

NASA's budget request for this year was 16.8 billion dollars, which sounds a lot until you compare it with the 55 bilion dollars it will cost you to prosecute the situation in Iraq, or the one hundred billion dollars the US will spend on bottled water in the same period.

People who resent money being spent on space research should note that.

[j. d. worthington]

I wish I could remember the senator's name, or where to find the information on this.... A few years ago, there was a discussion of what was being spent on the space program, and how much better it would be to spend it "at home". This senator had his staff look up all the things that we've gained from the space program.... it made a manuscript roughly the size of the Houston phone directory. And those are things that are used frequently, many every day. Any investment in the space program pays big dividends in our daily lives; it might help if people were made more aware of that somehow... Anyone know of any sites that list such benefits?

[Dave]

Just off the top of my head I know Teflon and WD-40 both came from the Apollo Progam.

I know my life would have been much harder without those. All those mornings trying to start a car with a damp distributer, and all those minutes cleaning frying pans!!

[Specfiction]

This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but: IC's were made small by NASA--that's a big one. And rad-hard IC's are almost solely the province of NASA. When I was with the SSC we had 4800 contracts in 33 states for hi-tech development including:

3D processors

optical computing

low temp physics and liquid helium compressors

super conducting metals and manufacturing of super conducting wire (whose price fell by a factor of 10 in three years due to that research)

advanced parallel computing networks

hybrid semiconductors--very fast

advanced simulation software--Boing is designing the new 787 totally by simulation, hypersonic flow design of reentry vechicles is now done by simulation.

I could go on, but you get the picture....

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Dave

Just off the top of my head I know Teflon and WD-40 both came from the Apollo Progam.

it appears that the top of my head might be wrong on those.

I was listening to the Robert Elms show on BBC London. Someone (I can't remember who) was promoting their new book called 'A Century of Technology'. He said Teflon was invented by Tefal in the 1950's. He said it is a popular urban myth that it came from the Space Program, and that the military always overplay the effect of war on developing technology; that due to the lead times of development, most technology used in warfare was invented prior to the war beginning.

That is not what I always believed. I thought that 'Necessity was the Mother of Invention' and the times of war not only bring great need and unlimited money, but a more focused approach. I'm pretty sure Radar was not around before WWII.

It was an interesting discussion. The other thing he said was how most inventions fail, often failing in a big way. He cited Atomic Aeroplanes as an example. In the 1950's everything was going to be Atomic. What they forgot was that all that Lead shielding weighs too much for an aeroplane to carry.

I guess that is very off-topic. Sorry about that!