SF don'ts

[Junghalli]

The reason why not, isn't plausibility (well, that too, but there is more to that) but practicality. There is simply no point. If you can rejuvenate a star, then you can move the planet you want to save in the first place.

It's like trying to put back the safety pin of a thrown hand granade instead of taking cover.

Also, no sane civilization stays anywhere near a planet that is about to go supernova. No story involving suns have ever as of yet even thought of the possibility that the lifespan of a star can be calculated, especially when in-system.

It works better if you stop thinking of a "conventional" planet-based civilization. For a very long-lived civilization that goes in for building large megastructures like Ringworlds or Alderson disks prolonging the lifespans of stars may look like a good way to maximize the return on their construction investments. Especially if they treat stars mainly as energy mines rather than lamps, in which case they'd naturally be drawn to the brightest stars, which are also the shortest lived; being able to get an extra couple of billion years out of a blue giant might look quite attractive to such a civilization. Alternately, a very powerful, long-lived, and decadent civilization may do it as a way to extend the habitable lifespan of the universe itself by keeping the stars shining longer.

[Darth Ruinus]

The reason why not, isn't plausibility (well, that too, but there is more to that) but practicality. There is simply no point. If you can rejuvenate a star, then you can move the planet you want to save in the first place.

It's like trying to put back the safety pin of a thrown hand granade instead of taking cover.

Also, no sane civilization stays anywhere near a planet that is about to go supernova. No story involving suns have ever as of yet even thought of the possibility that the lifespan of a star can be calculated, especially when in-system.

It works better if you stop thinking of a "conventional" planet-based civilization. For a very long-lived civilization that goes in for building large megastructures like Ringworlds or Alderson disks prolonging the lifespans of stars may look like a good way to maximize the return on their construction investments. Especially if they treat stars mainly as energy mines rather than lamps, in which case they'd naturally be drawn to the brightest stars, which are also the shortest lived; being able to get an extra couple of billion years out of a blue giant might look quite attractive to such a civilization. Alternately, a very powerful, long-lived, and decadent civilization may do it as a way to extend the habitable lifespan of the universe itself by keeping the stars shining longer.

I believe this was discussed in another thread, where a hypothetical civilization would keep stars alive for sentimental value or art.

"Please, give a small donation to Keep the Stars Alive, sure we could go to a new universe, but, think of the stars that nurtured us when we were young. Its our turn to do the nurturing."

[Johonebesus]

Oh come on, if we can imagine time travel and FTL, then why can't we imagine a means of rejuvenating stars.

The reason why not, isn't plausibility (well, that too, but there is more to that) but practicality. There is simply no point. If you can rejuvenate a star, then you can move the planet you want to save in the first place.


It's like trying to put back the safety pin of a thrown hand granade instead of taking cover.

Also, no sane civilization stays anywhere near a planet that is about to go supernova. No story involving suns have ever as of yet even thought of the possibility that the lifespan of a star can be calculated, especially when in-system.

Many authors I see don't bother to read introduction books written for CHILDREN to note these little things or have absolutely no sense of scale.

Furthermore, I have yet to even HEAR about a sci-fi where the sun DOESN'T die in a supernova.

In the scenario I described, it might be more economical and feasible to create machines to rejuvenate stars than to pick up and move the whole civilization to a new planet. We also shouldn't assume that aliens are going to always be coldly practical. They might have sentimental, aesthetic, or even religious reasons to keep their suns going.

And who said anything about stars going nova. Every star has a finite lifespan, and even Sol will render Earth uninhabitable when it gets big and hot enough.

[JGregory32]

How about this one?

Don't fall for the one race one religion/ethnic group/political style/type of music bullshit.

I'm still waiting for the Star Trek episode where we lean that the *Viking* Klingons are the equivalent of religious fanatics who have hijacked the government becasue of a wave of massive religious fundamentalism resulting from the explosion of Praxis way back in Kirk's day.

[Aaron]

How about this one?

Don't fall for the one race one religion/ethnic group/political style/type of music bullshit.

I'm still waiting for the Star Trek episode where we lean that the *Viking* Klingons are the equivalent of religious fanatics who have hijacked the government becasue of a wave of massive religious fundamentalism resulting from the explosion of Praxis way back in Kirk's day.

We got that in Enterprise when Archer was in Rura Penthe. Granted it's before the Praxis disaster but Archers "advocate" that was imprisoned with him states pretty much what you are.

[Darth Ruinus]

I guess this one goes here but, I hate it when there is one type of super advanced war unit that completely makes all other war machines obsolete, basically one-shot armies.

[Zixinus]

*cough* The second episode of the Ninth Doctor not only has the Sun being artificially rejuvenated and constrained, it has the Earth being destroyed as the Sun undergoes its natural expansion to a red giant. And it did it very well, I think.

Yes, however it was near to the end of its projected lifespan, which is partly why it was allowed to die (and I recall that it was the planet that was meddled for sentimental value, the sun less so). It wasn't 2632, but 4-5 billion years into the future, the projected end of the sun.

And who said anything about stars going nova. Every star has a finite lifespan, and even Sol will render Earth uninhabitable when it gets big and hot enough.

Again, I have yet to see a sci-fi where when a sun dies, it DOESN'T go nova.

Especially if they treat stars mainly as energy mines rather than lamps, in which case they'd naturally be drawn to the brightest stars, which are also the shortest lived; being able to get an extra couple of billion years out of a blue giant might look quite attractive to such a civilization.

Personally, I think picking something between the longest-lived and the brightest might be more practical. The brightest stars last about a couple millenniums. I doubt that you can even build a mega-structure like a Ringworld of Alderson Disk under that time and take use of them, or if you could, re-locate them at will to another solar system.

Also, there is another problem: the bigger the sun, the shorter its lifespan is. Again, how are you going to replenish the lifespan of the brightest stars? Adding matter makes it bigger. Removing matter makes it less bright, removing the original reason why you choose that sun.

And there is conservation of energy: would it take more energy to rejuvenate the short-lived sun then to move the whole damn Ringworld/Alderson disk to another, similar sun or even build the damn things in the first place? We are talking about solar masses here.

[Molyneux]

Sun undergoes its natural expansion to a red giant.

Not quite the Sun dying, but it is a depiction of the star entering its dying phase without any mention of a nova whatsoever.

[NecronLord]

Indeed. Doctor Who did 'the end of the world' quite well. There was, obviously, some lantern hanging 'sattellites holding the sun back' and 'the National Trust moved the continents back, that's a classic Earth.'

IIRC, Lexx did something similar with Brunnis (1), which was also long abandoned.

[Junghalli]

The brightest stars last about a couple millenniums.

Well, I was thinking more in the nature of blue giants or blue-white stars in the general, not the very biggest of the big.

Also, there is another problem: the bigger the sun, the shorter its lifespan is. Again, how are you going to replenish the lifespan of the brightest stars? Adding matter makes it bigger. Removing matter makes it less bright, removing the original reason why you choose that sun.

Couldn't you somehow recirculate the matter inside the star? After all, a red giant is still mostly hydrogen, it's the build-up of heavy elements in the center that kills a star. If you could stir up a star's interior enough to circulate some fresh hydrogen into the core and an equivalent amount of helium "ash" out of the core that would extend its lifespan (provided you could keep it up on a regular basis, otherwise the "ash" would sink back to the core quickly).

If you're treating the star as an energy mine you can probably deal with some fluctuations in luminousity. You don't need to keep a planet at a nice comfortable temperature, you just have to keep the star in the range where the solar collectors can get plenty of energy but don't melt.

[Zixinus]

Couldn't you somehow recirculate the matter inside the star? After all, a red giant is still mostly hydrogen, it's the build-up of heavy elements in the center that kills a star. If you could stir up a star's interior enough to circulate some fresh hydrogen into the core and an equivalent amount of helium "ash" out of the core that would extend its lifespan (provided you could keep it up on a regular basis, otherwise the "ash" would sink back to the core quickly).

You still need to replace the fuel that makes the fusion. Without that, the hydrogen will make only a small, faint star, if not just a gas giant or something. Then you again have to move solar masses, or at least significant fraction of that.

If you're treating the star as an energy mine you can probably deal with some fluctuations in luminousity. You don't need to keep a planet at a nice comfortable temperature, you just have to keep the star in the range where the solar collectors can get plenty of energy but don't melt.

I don't know about Alderson disks, but I am not sure that Ringoworlds are that dynamic to allow fluctuations of the star's mass it uses. For smaller scale space-megastructures, that might be a lesser problem.

[Junghalli]

You still need to replace the fuel that makes the fusion. Without that, the hydrogen will make only a small, faint star, if not just a gas giant or something. Then you again have to move solar masses, or at least significant fraction of that.

If you're continuously "stirring" the star you'd only have to recirculate as much material as the star generates in helium "ash", which would be something like one one-millionth the mass of the core per year for a blue giant star. You'd eventually have to recirculate the entire mass of the core, but you could do it over a large fraction of the star's lifespan (hundreds of thousands to millions of years). Of course, as more and more helium builds up the star is eventually going to evolve anyway, as its total mass gets converted to helium, and eventually you'll reach a point of diminishing returns because you have to stir the interior more and more vigorously to keep an acceptable hydrogen-helium ratio in it owing to the inflowing material from the outer layers having more and helium in it, but you should still be able to extend the star's lifespan significantly.

The thing I'm wondering about is how one would go about stirring the interior of a star. Use a powerful magnetic field to "pinch" material out of the core maybe?

I don't know about Alderson disks, but I am not sure that Ringoworlds are that dynamic to allow fluctuations of the star's mass it uses. For smaller scale space-megastructures, that might be a lesser problem.

Alderson disks and Ringworlds still treat the star in the middle as a lamp, although they also might justify a project like this. I was thinking more of the classic energy-gathering Dyson sphere concept.

[Balrog]

On a different note, what is it with characters who get bitten by the Strange Infectious Monster and not say anything about it, even going so far as to cover up the bite? What, because you think you're a named character that you're not going to succumb to whatever grisly fate awaited the other poor schmucks that got bitten? Because you know later on they're going to mutate/explode/etc and it just ends up looking stupid because the person acted like an ass for no reason. That's definitely a SciFi Don't.

Even if you don't know that the bite is infectious, it's generally a good idea to let someone know you've been bitten even if it's just a regular animal, never mind if it was from Walking Dead or Space Bugs From Beyond.

[Uraniun235]

Oh, here's one: Self-masturbating to just how hard your sci-fi story is. This is highlighted by a lot of character dialogue about how "yes, this is how it really is, unlike all that rubbish space opera that's so popular". Once, sure, it's believable. Multiple times and it's just the author being a pedantic prick preening over just how clever he is. Strangely enough, I didn't pick up a work of fiction for its criticism of the genre, and I doubt most other people do either.

[Zixinus]

The thing I'm wondering about is how one would go about stirring the interior of a star. Use a powerful magnetic field to "pinch" material out of the core maybe?

I recall a topic where this very idea was discussed before. The answer was nay.

Alderson disks and Ringworlds still treat the star in the middle as a lamp, although they also might justify a project like this.

I get that. The problem is, that once you build a Ringworld, you build it so that it is in the Goldlylocks zone of the preferred lifesform. Also, a Ringworld's structure and spin is in a more-or-less delicate gravity balance with the star it orbits. Change the mass of the star, and you suddenly have a Ringworld using a wrong star.

[Beowulf]

Neither the structure nor the spin of a ringworld are in delicate gravity balance with the star. The structure is largely determined by the forces acting upon it due to the spin, and the spin is determined by the size and the resultant required force to keep air inside the ring. The ring is generally under tension, not compression.

To deal with variations in star mass, you'd need to adjust the area of the shadow squares. More shadow squares, the cooler the ringworld is, and thus the hotter the star possible. Opposite with smaller squares. At some point, you'd need reflectors increase the starlight flux, to get a habitable ringworld at a sufficiently small star. Naturally, with this solution, you end up with unequal length days and nights.

[Junghalli]

Also, a Ringworld's structure and spin is in a more-or-less delicate gravity balance with the star it orbits. Change the mass of the star, and you suddenly have a Ringworld using a wrong star.

The method I suggested wouldn't involve changing the mass of the star. It would work by causing the core material to mix with material from the outer layers which is full of hydrogen the star would never burn if nature was allowed to take its course, not importing new material from outside the star.

[Coyote]

I have to throw in with the suggestion that one of the worst sci-fi brainbugs is the "alien species= monoloth" idea. All Klingons are Vikings, all Romulans are callous, sneaky and Machiavellian, etc. One thing I liked about the Minbari in Babylon 5 was the tension between the warrior & religious castes, although that too was (IMO) overly simplified so that instead of a culture being a single monoloths, you had a culture divided into two sub-monoliths...

...if that can be a word, anyway.

One thing I don't like is the overly-simplified armies. I intensely dislike the fighter-pilot-as-infantry thing, or where all the troops are essentially light infantry-- especially if they're light infantry all armed with big pistols.

I won't even get into the portrayal of troops not camouflaging, not maintaining noise & light discipline, not taking cover, not using combined armes, and "attacking" by just doing some massed bum-rush towards an objective, all World War One "last one to the trench is a rotten egg!" style.

And droids. Why is it that you either have an army made up entirely of droids, or with few if any droids? I'd use droid-organic combined armies for all sorts of things; shove the droids through the door first in a urban fight and follow up with human troops while the enemy is pinned/concentrating on the droids. Dealing with minefields and boobytrap disposal is a given, as well.

And in sci-fi universes with droids, why would any soldier be carrying a pack when a droid packmule can do it instead?

Basically, most military portrayal in science fiction is retarded.

[Zixinus]

Basically, most military portrayal in science fiction is retarded.

That's because very few sci-fi writers ever served in any kind of military (or on the field at least), thus have no idea what exactly being a military is, besides going out to shoot shit. And occasionally blow shit up. Some keyboard commandos have more idea of what a military is then from what I gathered in some sci-fi books I ran across.

Furthermore, some sci-fi writers seem to lose their sense of realism when it comes to warriors and want to bring back some romantic notion of a warrior they are particularly found of using immense amount of technobabble. Dune with sword and knife fighting comes to mind.

[Coyote]

Basically, most military portrayal in science fiction is retarded.

That's because very few sci-fi writers ever served in any kind of military (or on the field at least)...

That's why to this day my gold standard for military science fiction frequently involves David Drake and the Hammer's Slammers, based on his experience in Vietnam. He was an Army Intelligence officer assigned to a tank unit, and when they ran short of commanders he got pushed into the turret of a tank (I think it was an M-551 Sheridan). He rode that tank during a raid into Cambodia in which there was a great deal of combat action. His actual time in the flying pointy steel arena was short, a few days at most, but it left a impression.

Furthermore, some sci-fi writers seem to lose their sense of realism when it comes to warriors and want to bring back some romantic notion of a warrior they are particularly found of using immense amount of technobabble. Dune with sword and knife fighting comes to mind.

Yeah, there's a bizarre desire to return to some sort of Knights & Chivalry crap that doesn't make any damn sense.

[Adrian Laguna]

Furthermore, some sci-fi writers seem to lose their sense of realism when it comes to warriors and want to bring back some romantic notion of a warrior they are particularly found of using immense amount of technobabble. Dune with sword and knife fighting comes to mind.

The sword and knife fighting was less an issue of bringing a romantic notion of the warrior (the Sardaukar and Fremen are brutal uncompromising motherfuckers) and more with trying to set-up a specific political system that would serve as the background to the story.

Yeah, there's a bizarre desire to return to some sort of Knights & Chivalry crap that doesn't make any damn sense.

It makes plenty of sense, Chilvary has been romanticized in Western culture for nearly a thousand years. The idea of the warrior has been romanticized for far longer than that, the epic of Gilgamesh is almost as old as writing itself. We're talking about some pretty dammed strong cultural inertia.

[Coyote]

Yeah, there's a bizarre desire to return to some sort of Knights & Chivalry crap that doesn't make any damn sense.

It makes plenty of sense, Chilvary has been romanticized in Western culture for nearly a thousand years. The idea of the warrior has been romanticized for far longer than that, the epic of Gilgamesh is almost as old as writing itself. We're talking about some pretty dammed strong cultural inertia.

Oh, literarily it makes sense, sure, but in the quest for "literary" "coolness" they sacrifice realism-- and yet they aren't doing it to emphasis a Romantic plot arc, but to make the combatants look tough and all warrior-ly. It is, to me, a mix of styles that doesn't work.

Having Luke Skywalker fight with a lightsaber works, because he is in a tragedy epic revolving around ideals of Romance and Chivalry. Having all your Klingons drop their pistols and go charging with swords and daggers, to make them seem "tough" and "honorable", instead makes them just dumb.