Why are planets in multi-world universes so SMALL?

[Sid]

Something that always bugs me at the back of my mind is how the immensity of planets is often overlooked in favor of creating conflicts by having people geographically in the same area on a planet - whether a new one or an already colonized, thriving planet. This is a problem in a lot of cinematic Sci Fi, but even some books, like Cibola Burn or Foundation.

Does anyone else feel this way too? Or is there an explanation for this?

[Trike]

Dramatic license.

Same reason two starships in Star Trek end up face-to-face with the exact same up/down orientation.

Some SF avoids this problem but authors do it because it's easier. Sometimes they set up their worlds in such a way that conflict becomes inevitable in specific locations because that's where the easily-accessible resources are, or there's a narrow habitable zone, or the one big city is the only game on the planet, so naturally most people end up there.

[Silvio]

Sid wrote: "Something that always bugs me at the back of my mind is how the immensity of planets is often overlooked in favor of creating conflicts by having people geographically in the same area on a planet ..."

Could you elaborate on the implausibility in Foundation? I missed it.

[Mary]

It's hard to keep track of the size of planets. Especially when you have several of them to work with.

[Lindsay]

Silvio wrote: "Could you elaborate on the implausibility in Foundation? I missed it. "

I'm not precisely sure what Sid was getting at, but the impracticality of Trantor is widely talked about. The waste-heat of a planet sized city would make that planet basically uninhabitable for human life.

[John]

Just a comment from a writer's viewpoint, it is really difficult to create a story on a planet-wide scale without becoming bogged down in the details. David Weber is trying to that now with his "Safehold" series, and frankly there are just too many things going on in too many different places (and with too many significant characters). Many writers (including myself) get around the problem by creating "undeveloped" planets -- worlds where civilization, such as it is, is concentrated in a small area. If you are going to do that you must provide some rationale for it that the reader can accept -- like a planet that is mostly water-covered with only a few small land masses, or one that is too cold for intelligent life anywhere outside the equatorial belt.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

I think a lot of it can come from overreaching. Andre Norton didn't try to populate her entire planet when she created the Witch World series. She worked on individual continents. In situations where the geography caused roadblocks, she did not force interaction between those peoples.

Andre Norton used her geography almost as a character and I feel it worked beautifully.

[V.W.]

John wrote: "Just a comment from a writer's viewpoint, it is really difficult to create a story on a planet-wide scale without becoming bogged down in the details. David Weber is trying to that now with his "Sa..."

I rather enjoy the scale and scope of the Safehold series.

[Pete]

Another reason why we don't go for big planets is gravity. Humans need something in the range of 0.5-3G to live in reasonable comfort (3G is pushing the limits but survivable). So anything the size of Jupiter is impractical. Our specific density means we wouldn't even be able to reach the surface - our ship would float in the upper atmosphere. But if we did make it, we would just be a plasma blob.

[Micah]

Sid wrote: "Something that always bugs me at the back of my mind is how the immensity of planets is often overlooked in favor of creating conflicts by having people geographically in the same area on a planet ..."

But...that's also largely true of non-genre fiction, isn't it? How many stories get set in NYC or Paris or London or Anytown USA and just stay there?

To Kill a Mockingbird, for example, is restricted to one county in Alabama. Why doesn't it take into consideration the immensity of all of Alabama, or the United States, or North America?

The story has to justify the setting and plenty of SF doesn't need to take place across an entire planet.

[Mary]

though of course in mundane ficiton you don't get "It was raining on Mongo that morning."

(Mongo being the planet, not the spaceport)

[Cheryl]

Mary wrote: "though of course in mundane ficiton you don't get "It was raining on Mongo that morning."

(Mongo being the planet, not the spaceport)"

Exactly. Never mind Jupiter-size. Everywhere on an Earth-size planet doesn't have the same weather at the same time. Or even on a Pluto-size planetoidal object....

[J.]

Oh, this concept was subverted in this episode of Stargate I remember. Two of the characters are transported to an unknown location because of some random disaster.

Then the episode runs on two lines: the transported people trapped on an 'ice planet' and the rest of the cast trying to find where they went.

And it was Earth. They'd ended up in Antarctica.

It didn't stop the rest of the series using that 1 planet= 1 location, Star Trek premise.

[John]

V.W. wrote: "I rather enjoy the scale and scope of the Safehold series.
"

Actually, I enjoy it too -- Weber has a really interesting basic premise for the series, and he doesn't lose sight of it.

It just kind of bothers me when the scene changes, he mentions a character, and I have to think... wait a minute! Who is this person, which side is he on, and where on the planet am I? Hmmm... better go back to the front of the book and look at the maps again.

[J.J.]

J. wrote: "Oh, this concept was subverted in this episode of Stargate I remember. Two of the characters are transported to an unknown location because of some random disaster.

Then the episode runs on two l..."
Except in Stargate, most of the populations were placed on those worlds around the stargate, and remaining primitive they didn't spread out that far from the gate. There were a couple episodes where the civilizations were a great deal from the gate, but for the sake of TV, the distance was mentioned early, then glossed over for time.

But the habit of two ships approaching at the same angle, they made the effort a lot of times to upend that convention.

[Lara Amber]

Mary wrote: "though of course in mundane ficiton you don't get "It was raining on Mongo that morning."

(Mongo being the planet, not the spaceport)"

Mongo did need a bath after all those beans.

[BR]

I always love it when a starship travels between multiple planets and they always seem to land on the various planets in summer ...

[Trike]

B.R. wrote: "I always love it when a starship travels between multiple planets and they always seem to land on the various planets in summer ..."

I actually haven't encountered that very often. They do frequently come across like single-habitat worlds, but there's usually a variety of weather.

Thinking of the last couple "visiting various planets" SF I've read, the planets had a nice variety of ecosystems and seasons. The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet and The Icarus Hunt both had a variety. I don't recall any planet-hopping in Ancillary Sword, but there was in the first volume. I don't think we see any planets other than Earth in The End of All Things.

[J.J.]

seeing the Star Wars ads on TV now, I realized we didn't see a lot of weather in the first six movies. Tatooine was always sunny. The ice planet the rebel base was on in part 5 didn't seem to have snow falling (though I might be misremembering). But with the new movie, I see one scene where the new villain is standing in front of his posse at night in the rain. There's another scene where the heroes are in falling snow.