The Line Between Sci-Fi and Fantasy

[Anna]

Aaron wrote: "Rion wrote: "I notice that some people, even myself are very empathic. I think this is mostly done through careful observation of body language and voice inflection."

It's this, I struggle a lot ..."

That's what those goofy emoticons are for :-)

:-) - smiley face
:-P - raspberry face
:-( - unhappy face
3:-) - devil
:3 - cat

They help, but not completely. You can also further accentuate things by going...

[*sarcasm*]
#SMH - shake my head
WTF? - expression of disbelief

Or even...

[*jumps up and down with glee...*]

Still not the same as good in-person communications, but it helps your personality come across through the written word when you don't have time to write a Herman Melville-length chapter about Leviathan biology :-)

[Jonathan]

Zapjohnny wrote: "I was browsing the internet today when I saw two people debating over whether Star Wars is sci-fi or fantasy. That got me thinking; At what point does fantasy become sci-fi? Is it just the futurist..."

Was that discussion on io9?

To me if a book has magic in it, which I think the Force is, it is fantasy. The Force has nothing to do with some form of technological marvel, it's all about magical parasites in the body.

Although because of how fantasy and sci-fi has been sold through the years, it's hard to argue that anything filled with advanced technology is anything but sci-fi.

[Jonathan]

Zapjohnny wrote: "I mostly agree with you, but one thing that REALLY irks me about "soft sci-fi", particularly space opera, is that ships are unnecessarily aerodynamic and/or pretty. There is no need for floating a..."

That's funny, and I'm not trying to promote my book, but I have the same thinking. In mine all the ships are rectangle because right angles are cheaper to mass produce than other shapes.

When you think about it, that'll probably end up being true if the ship is built in space and is only used in space. If it's a terrestrial-space ship then the aerodynamics make sense.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the wealthiest people alive have crazy looking ships, because rich people always need flashy things to differentiate themselves.

[Anna]

Ahhh ... but people (taxpayers) pay the bills ... and people want ships that look pretty when they choose which design to fund.

[Packi]

Actually in Leviathan Wakes the big ships look like that.

(view spoiler)[„But the Donnager actually looked like an office building on its side. Square and blocky, with small bulbous projections in seemingly random places.“ (hide spoiler)]

[Felix]

Jonathan wrote: "Zapjohnny wrote: "I mostly agree with you, but one thing that REALLY irks me about "soft sci-fi", particularly space opera, is that ships are unnecessarily aerodynamic and/or pretty. There is no n..."

This irks me, too!

*cough* hello, my name is Felix, and I am a total pedant :)

I'm always thinking about economics when I read space opera. I think it's safe to assume that even in the future, people will do things as cost-effectively as possible. And WRT Borg Queen's comment, which I think was semi-tongue-in-cheek (sorry if I'm wrong), wouldn't it be depressing if in the future it was STILL the taxpayer funding everything?

Of course cost-efficiency doesn't mean design concerns have to go out of the window altogether.

The images we've seen of Blue Origin's rocket look like a good balance between a pleasing design and efficiency. (You KNOW Bezos is pinching the pennies!)

[Anna]

If it ain't pretty, it ain't getting my tax dollars. Sorry, guys... It's got nothing to do with engineering. It's simple evolution. The aesthetically pleasing item ALWAYS edges ahead of the purely functional one long-term.

That's not to say boxier designs won't, themselves, become more fashionable. But humanity likes swooping wing-things and curves and needle-nosed sharp thingys (why do you think the U.S.S. Enterprise has it's warp drives on what are essentially angel wings?). Any time two otherwise equal designs are put before a group, the more aesthetically pleasing one will win, even if it costs more.

[*unless, of course, my EE husband is doing the paying ... then the cheap design will win ... but me and his daughter buy his clothes before we'll go out in public with him*] :-)

[Steph]

I suspect that a ship travelling at a fair fraction of c may need to be streamlined to avoid being excessively damaged by cosmic dust and stray atoms that could cause a lot of damage at speed. And to impress the locals when arriving at an alien planet, of course. Besides, smooth cylinders and spheres are structurally stronger for a given weight than square boxes, so it's economic, too...

[Packi]

At such speeds things hitting you will continue on their trajectory no matter how streamlined you are. The good news is that space is so empty that you're very unlikely to hit anything.

[Brendan]

In Ringworld they had some pretty fancy materials but I think I remember that the aliens got to fly around in spaceships that looked like transparent eggs. We probably won't get to do that.

[sailor _stuck_at_sea]

Anna wrote: "If it ain't pretty, it ain't getting my tax dollars. Sorry, guys... It's got nothing to do with engineering. It's simple evolution. The aesthetically pleasing item ALWAYS edges ahead of the pure..."

I can't say I agree. The Enterprise looks like it does because it's a movie prop. Realistic design constraints has nothing to do with it, despite what hardcore trekkies will tell you.
If you look at ship design, we've consistently chosen the most utilitarian designs no matter how ugly they were considered at the time. I say at the time because we've then usually gone out and changed our views on what's pretty to suit the ships being built.

[Anna]

Aaron wrote: "...I notice that some people, even myself are very empathic. I think this is mostly done through careful observation of body language and voice inflection."
It's this, I struggle a lot ..."

And pheremones! Our sense of scent isn't as attenuated as a dog or cat, but we -do- subconsciously pick up on those biochemical markers in the air. I had to research how lizards taste the air for a book and learned that we rely on smell a lot as well, we just aren't conscious of it most of the time.

[Jonathan]

Anna wrote: "If it ain't pretty, it ain't getting my tax dollars. Sorry, guys... It's got nothing to do with engineering. It's simple evolution. The aesthetically pleasing item ALWAYS edges ahead of the pure..."

Cargo ships are built how they are built purely for function so are airplanes. Private airplanes are built for looks but the commercial ones are built for economy. If airlines could make box fly, they would do it, it doesn't matter to them what it looks like so long as it's cheaper to run than the last model. Even cruise ships look like they do, on the outside, because it's the most economical design to cut through water. When was the last time someone booked a cruise based off of what the outside of the ship looked like? It's all about the interior because you spend your time inside the ship not hovering next to the outside.

As for tax dollars, you gotta pay taxes no matter what whether there's a space program or not. I'm pretty sure in a future where lots of spaceships populate outer space, only the insanely wealthy will have cool looking ships. Every other one be it the military owned or commercially owned will be built for function like they are today.

[Jonathan]

Steph wrote: "I suspect that a ship travelling at a fair fraction of c may need to be streamlined to avoid being excessively damaged by cosmic dust and stray atoms that could cause a lot of damage at speed. And ..."

If they are structurally stronger then everything will be a long cylinder. It would be super cool if spaceships varied in looks like cars. Basically the same but enough variation that some look awesome (Ferrari) and some are hideous (Pontiac Aztec).