Let's crash a spaceship together! (A call to Sci-Fi enthusiasts)

[Akjosch]

The planet the ship is approaching has a ring system made of a really dirty kind of ice that isn't so easy to detect. Upon approaching the planet's equator the ship gets bombarded with ice fragments, rupturing the propulsion systems and necessitating a hasty landing.

The most awkward thing about this is that ringed planets tend to be gas giants. If this is the case you could make the ship land on one of the planet's moons. The gas giant's magnetic field could cause additional problems.

Plot twist: The "ice fragments" turn out to be the remains of an old civilisation's satellite system, minced to bits and spread around the planet's orbit via the Kessler syndrome. Which would also explain why a terrestrial planet even has a ring system.

 

[Dizchu]

Plot twist: The "ice fragments" turn out to be the remains of an old civilisation's satellite system, minced to bits and spread around the planet's orbit via the Kessler syndrome. Which would also explain why a terrestrial planet even has a ring system.

Oooh, that's a pretty good idea. It'd also explain why the pilots didn't expect to find a ring system, as they are typically associated with gas giants so having one around a terrestrial planet would catch them off-guard, which would be convenient for the plot (but not contrived). And of course you could tie the satellite's destruction with other plot points introduced after the landing.

 

[Thaluikhain]

- Space Pirates (you know, Pirates...but in Space!)

Though, no easy task getting a bunch of trained astronauts and a facility that can service spaceships without being seen. For that matter, everyone can see everyone else coming. Now, this makes piracy awkward, but would be more interesting if these issues were addressed.

- Heating system goes down, people with exposed limbs freeze and break off.

Usually it's the opposite problem. Space is, more or less, a giant thermos flask the size of the entire universe, with some impurities like stars and spaceships in there. Getting rid of excess heat is a problem.

 

[Akjosch]

Plot twist: The "ice fragments" turn out to be the remains of an old civilisation's satellite system, minced to bits and spread around the planet's orbit via the Kessler syndrome. Which would also explain why a terrestrial planet even has a ring system.

Oooh, that's a pretty good idea. It'd also explain why the pilots didn't expect to find a ring system, as they are typically associated with gas giants so having one around a terrestrial planet would catch them off-guard, which would be convenient for the plot (but not contrived). And of course you could tie the satellite's destruction with other plot points introduced after the landing.

Oh, I was already planning to do something similar (to my tabletop gaming group), thus you just reminded me.

Only in my case, it's not "ice fragments", but a centuries-old, 30-odd tons mass TR-A-1 Toro BattleMech with bits and pieces of supporting structure still hanging on to it.

And it's not so much "getting hit" with it (that would punch right through their DropShip and result in a TPK), but "whizzing past at a minimum distance of about 200 km".

Should get them a small shock and present a few questions regardless.

 

[happyninja42]

Hi, Escapists! I need a little bit of your help.

I'm working on a narrative project that tells a story of distant future and space exploration (think Star Trek, but with more guns and gruesome deaths). Now, I can do many things - create memorable characters, build tension, twist the plot, - but, unfortunately, my scientific knowledge is not as deep as I would like it to be, and that means working in a Sci-Fi setting is going to be a struggle.

*snerks* Sorry, but I couldn't help but laugh at the statement combining Star Trek and "scientific knowledge" in the same phrase. XD Seriously, sci fi writers have never let a pesky thing like "facts" stop them from telling a sci fi story, so you shouldn't let it hold you back either. Just keep your universal rules consistent and you will be fine.

I need to give these poor guys a couple of interesting problems. These don't have to be something unique or original - I'm cool if you suggest an idea taken from a book. I just don't want to fill my story with tired cliches.

Lastly, just to clarify: you can crash-land the ship if you want, just don't turn it into scrap metal. All problems must be solvable - I need my characters to be able to live another day.

OK, fire away!

Ok, random list of possible problems during their travel.

1. A key component of the propulsion system fails mid travel, forcing the ship out of hypertravel in an emergency speed drop, stranding them in the middle of nowhere. Investigation determines that the damage was likely to be sabotage. So now the crew has to A) Fix the problem B) Determine if it is sabotage or not and C) Find the culprit before more damage can be done.
You can add extra layers of threat to this, by having some outside threats show up as well. Possibly aliens, or maybe environmental, giving them a time limit. "We've got to get that engine fixed in 2 days or we will fall into the star and blow up!" etc.

2. The ship is traveling on what is supposed to be a "safe" route, only to find themselves caught in some kind of trap. Possibly space pirates, or an unforseen astronomical object that has kicked them out of hypertravel.

3. The ship is traveling on a "safe" route, but instead of ending up where they should, they are in some random point in space, with no idea why. The instruments say they should be at Point B, but they are instead at Point WTFWHEREAREWE?!? They have to fix the navigation system and get back on course before they A) Die to some outside threat or B) Miss an important deadline at Point B that they must make.

4. The ship picks up a random distress call, asking for aid, but they've got a schedule to keep. If they veer off course to help, can they make it back to their destination in time? What if the distress is a trap?

5. The ship is traveling to investigate some ancient ruins, upon arriving they uncover something powerful and dangerous. It's threatening the ship, but they don't know how to deal with it, as it's in a language they don't understand. Now they have to crack the cipher and stop the thing from blowing them up, while making sure this new power doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Seriously though, don't sweat having your stuff be scientifically accurate, there is a sliding scale of sci fi realism, and plenty of fan loved stories (Star Trek especially) are on the "Very Loose" side of it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hi, Escapists! I need a little bit of your help.

I'm working on a narrative project that tells a story of distant future and space exploration (think Star Trek, but with more guns and gruesome deaths). Now, I can do many things - create memorable characters, build tension, twist the plot, - but, unfortunately, my scientific knowledge is not as deep as I would like it to be, and that means working in a Sci-Fi setting is going to be a struggle.

*snerks* Sorry, but I couldn't help but laugh at the statement combining Star Trek and "scientific knowledge" in the same phrase. XD Seriously, sci fi writers have never let a pesky thing like "facts" stop them from telling a sci fi story, so you shouldn't let it hold you back either. Just keep your universal rules consistent and you will be fine.

While that tends to be true, there's no reason why science fiction has to completely fail on the science part. There's good hard sci-fi around, and keeping the science correct tends to enhance the story.

I'm not sure why there's such an aversion to getting the facts straight in sci-fi, compared to other genres. Now, sure, you can have aliens and robots in your Western movie, but if you choose not to because it's unrealistic nobody will get too upset. Deciding against them in your sci-fi story for the same reasons, and the reaction would likely be different.

 

[Muspelheim]

Hi, Escapists! I need a little bit of your help.

I'm working on a narrative project that tells a story of distant future and space exploration (think Star Trek, but with more guns and gruesome deaths). Now, I can do many things - create memorable characters, build tension, twist the plot, - but, unfortunately, my scientific knowledge is not as deep as I would like it to be, and that means working in a Sci-Fi setting is going to be a struggle.

*snerks* Sorry, but I couldn't help but laugh at the statement combining Star Trek and "scientific knowledge" in the same phrase. XD Seriously, sci fi writers have never let a pesky thing like "facts" stop them from telling a sci fi story, so you shouldn't let it hold you back either. Just keep your universal rules consistent and you will be fine.

While that tends to be true, there's no reason why science fiction has to completely fail on the science part. There's good hard sci-fi around, and keeping the science correct tends to enhance the story.

I'm not sure why there's such an aversion to getting the facts straight in sci-fi, compared to other genres. Now, sure, you can have aliens and robots in your Western movie, but if you choose not to because it's unrealistic nobody will get too upset. Deciding against them in your sci-fi story for the same reasons, and the reaction would likely be different.

Well, that does depend on what sort of story it is. A reasonably grounded story would certainly benefit from a close adherence to actual science, but not all stories need to be.

Personally, I'm looking for a term that is as descriptive as sci-fi but that absolves me of the accurate science bit. Short of writing "Exceptionally Soft Science" on the sleeve, that's the best solution I can think of to avoid raising expectations on the science department the story doesn't meet.

 

[happyninja42]

Hi, Escapists! I need a little bit of your help.

I'm working on a narrative project that tells a story of distant future and space exploration (think Star Trek, but with more guns and gruesome deaths). Now, I can do many things - create memorable characters, build tension, twist the plot, - but, unfortunately, my scientific knowledge is not as deep as I would like it to be, and that means working in a Sci-Fi setting is going to be a struggle.

*snerks* Sorry, but I couldn't help but laugh at the statement combining Star Trek and "scientific knowledge" in the same phrase. XD Seriously, sci fi writers have never let a pesky thing like "facts" stop them from telling a sci fi story, so you shouldn't let it hold you back either. Just keep your universal rules consistent and you will be fine.

While that tends to be true, there's no reason why science fiction has to completely fail on the science part. There's good hard sci-fi around, and keeping the science correct tends to enhance the story.

I'm not sure why there's such an aversion to getting the facts straight in sci-fi, compared to other genres. Now, sure, you can have aliens and robots in your Western movie, but if you choose not to because it's unrealistic nobody will get too upset. Deciding against them in your sci-fi story for the same reasons, and the reaction would likely be different.

Because a large percentage of the baseline stuff that all sci fi stories have, are fundamentally fiction. FTL travel, teleportation, FTL communication, stasis chambers for long duration voyages, the list goes on and on. All of these things, are at their core, unfounded in scientific reality. So yeah, I don't care if your story isn't scientifically valid based on actual science. What I care about, is that your "science" however real it is, is internally consistent with itself.

I'll use John Scalzi as an example. He would be what I would call a mostly "hard scifi" writer. He spends a lot of his book time, explaining the methodology of how his science works. This includes stuff like making fully grown clones of soldiers, mixed with human DNA, to conciousness transferrence. None of it is real, but he explains it so it makes sense, and this is the important part... he maintains the rules of these elements throughout the book I don't care that what he made up is likely never to actually happen, but his stories exist in a world where it does, and the rules of how it works, function in a way that is understandable to the reader, and are consistent from beginning to end. He doesn't suddenly handwave away fundamental aspects of his science, to justify a plot direction. So I'm fine with this.

That's why I say that having your sci fi be scientifically accurate isn't important as being internally consistent. I can accept and believe just about any fictional "law of the universe" that a writer can come up with, but if they don't stick to that law, then I get pissed.

 

[skywolfblue]

1) Something sweeps all the local stars out of place. Their starmaps and predictions for galactic drift are all messed up, they're lost, and need years (on a planet/base) to map out the new star positions.

Er...something is throwing stats around? That's no small thing. Also, mapping them out would be impossible if you are sitting down looking at them, as you'd be seeing light from before they were moved.

No small thing indeed. But black holes and galactic collisions do it on a regular basis (if a bit slowly).

A ship can only visit one star at a time. Even if you could tell from the interstellar wind or a gravimetric path tracer where the star had gone by visiting its last known position. While a large base with a supercomputer and lots and lots of wormhole generators could map out large swaths much faster.

 

[silver wolf009]

They get trapped by a group of alien ships with really advanced tractor beams, and have to react fast with their own tractor beam to fend off surgical tractor beam strikes that rip pieces of metal off of the hull to use as scrap. A sort of hand to hand fight between starships.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Because a large percentage of the baseline stuff that all sci fi stories have, are fundamentally fiction. FTL travel, teleportation, FTL communication, stasis chambers for long duration voyages, the list goes on and on.

IMHO, that's the root of it, the equation with science fiction, not with science, but with that list. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with it, but the term "science fiction" isn't really appropriate anymore.

 

[Sampler]

Space itself can be an enemy, nothingness for a very long time, a few people crammed together in a confined space can all lead to multiple psychological problems.

Does your ship have artificial gravity? Without it your crew have the problem of fluid build up behind the eyes, prolonged space travel will make them blind.

There needn't be a bump in the road, external factors need not play a part, simply traversing great distances will play a part on the people and the fall out from that - if you're wanting to go for a hard sci-fi examination of people in space.

Good Sci-Fi isn't an excuse to have people flying around in starships shooting lazers. The people flying around in starships shooting lazers are an excuse fot good allegory for the human condition - they can take elements out of the emotional bias they would have if you set them in reality and allow you to explore an idea in a base context. So I guess, what do you want your novel to be about? What story are you trying to convey?

This is why good sci-fi stands the test of time and pew pew lasors! get forgotten about.

Captcha: follow me

erm, it's just advice, from my perspective, you're free to do what you will...

 

[happyninja42]

Because a large percentage of the baseline stuff that all sci fi stories have, are fundamentally fiction. FTL travel, teleportation, FTL communication, stasis chambers for long duration voyages, the list goes on and on.

IMHO, that's the root of it, the equation with science fiction, not with science, but with that list. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with it, but the term "science fiction" isn't really appropriate anymore.

In what way is the term not appropriate anymore?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Because a large percentage of the baseline stuff that all sci fi stories have, are fundamentally fiction. FTL travel, teleportation, FTL communication, stasis chambers for long duration voyages, the list goes on and on.

IMHO, that's the root of it, the equation with science fiction, not with science, but with that list. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with it, but the term "science fiction" isn't really appropriate anymore.

In what way is the term not appropriate anymore?

If the fiction isn't about science, it's not science fiction, surely. Star Wars, for example, could be said to be a fantasy story about princesses, wizards, fights with magic swords and so on. Just set in space. Nothing wrong with it (well, not the original three), but it's not really science fiction.

 

[Sampler]

That's why Star Wars is referred to as Science Fantasy, not Science Fiction - it's the fundamental difference between 'Wars fans and Trekkies..

 

[Thaluikhain]

That's why Star Wars is referred to as Science Fantasy, not Science Fiction - it's the fundamental difference between 'Wars fans and Trekkies..

That they acknowledge there's no science?

More seriously, yeah, though that term isn't that widespread.

 

[SweetShark]

In an old TV Cartoon [I don't remember the name], a Robot-Slime Alien race invade the Ship of the Protagonists with the attempt to copy them. What I mean: The Aliens had for heads huge Cameras which could take a photo of a person, then the slime become an trulful copy of this person.
I really love this moment. I really need to remember the name of the cartoon.