Artificial gravity - a brainbug?

[Luzifer's right hand]

So what, sci-fi writers should write for free now? Even if the person enjoys doing it, it doesn't mean he doesn't expect to get paid for it.

Someone who starts writing can't expect to ever get any money, especially if you write stuff like SF. I only know that stats for the germanspeaking market which is the third biggest market in the world, less than 100 writers can live from what they earn by writing.
It's rather likely that someone will never earn anything with writing or even lose money as you need to spend losts and lots of hours to write a book.
If someone wants to try to write stuff which is not dated in 500 years(although I think thats completely impossible when you write SF) why not.

[Admiral Valdemar]

If you're writing for money, you're doing it wrong.

[RedImperator]

Science fiction is literature just like any other. If a story is good and includes a brainbug like artificial gravity, why the fuck does it matter? The only time it really makes a big difference if they get the science wrong is if the story itself isn't any good, and in that case there are better things to bitch about then whether or not the character walked or floated.

I don't know about you, but when I'm reading a story and the writer gets some fact disastrously wrong, that it and of itself can ruin it by breaking suspension of disbelief. If I can't believe in the setting, then I can't believe in the characters or the plot, either.

Artificial gravity (and FTL) are usually treated as exceptions because people are used to them (and in the case of FTL, many allegorical SF stories aren't possible), but otherwise, I don't see why science fictions writers deserve a free pass. If you're too lazy to bother with your homework, why should I bother reading your story? Imagine the author of a piece of historical fiction where George Washington defeated the Mongols at the Alamo trying to defend his work by saying "Well, if the story is good, who cares if the facts are wrong?"

I think a dogmatic dedication to the concept of "hard sci-fi" is ridiculously narrow-minded.

Yeah, as opposed to a personal preference or something like that.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Imagine the author of a piece of historical fiction where George Washington defeated the Mongols at the Alamo trying to defend his work by saying "Well, if the story is good, who cares if the facts are wrong?"

Sir, this story intrigues me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Lord of the Abyss]

At the same time, the ship exerts a force on the generator toward it:
<snip>
The net effect here is merely a compressive force on the boom. The ship wouldn't accelerate.

Damn, and here I thought I'd come up with a really clever idea for a hard SF reactionless drive involving a relativistically accelerated mass in a circular accelerator mounted on a retracting boom in front of a ship. Guess that wouldn't work either (heck, even if it did it probably wouldn't have been practical to give it much better than ion drive levels of thrust).

So did David Weber. That's the drive used in The Path of the Fury, except it's a black hole rather then a gravity generator, and it magicly allows FTL.

It's also basically the FTL drive used in Alan Dean Foster's Humanx Commonwealth universe; thought of well before Weber, to give credit where it's due.

As per spinning sections, I don't see why one would bother to design any ship with one. This is a ship, not a stationary, well, station. Even if one shuts down the spin when the ship is accelerating, the drive shaft will experence thrust along its major axis, and the decks will be orented the wrong way.

Two ideas come to mind. First, you make the ring composed of large segments that can swivel, as seen in James P Hogan's Voyage From Yesteryear; under acceleration they tilt, so that "down" is always the same direction. The other solution it to simply orient acceleration stations so that the chairs or whatever are in the right direction, so that under acceleration you go from "facing forward" to "lying on your back".

[Paolo]

Two ideas come to mind. First, you make the ring composed of large segments that can swivel, as seen in James P Hogan's Voyage From Yesteryear; under acceleration they tilt, so that "down" is always the same direction. The other solution it to simply orient acceleration stations so that the chairs or whatever are in the right direction, so that under acceleration you go from "facing forward" to "lying on your back".

Then there's my favorite solution. Don't break your back shoehorning the convenience of rotational gravity under any number of accelerations into your design, nail the furniture to the floor, properly stow loose items, and get to your freefall stations before committing to combat evolutions. If your ship's expected going to pull any number of sharp turns in any direction, you've rendered moot the whole exercise of engineering a smooth gradiant of gravity with a constant downward orientation absent some magical gravity generators.

[Zixinus]

Someone who starts writing can't expect to ever get any money, especially if you write stuff like SF. I only know that stats for the germanspeaking market which is the third biggest market in the world, less than 100 writers can live from what they earn by writing.
It's rather likely that someone will never earn anything with writing or even lose money as you need to spend losts and lots of hours to write a book.

I am not talking about amateur writers, I am talking about professionals in the English-speaking market. Last time I've checked a bookstore or library there, there are plenty of writers, even in the sci-fi section.

Also don't just count books, but sci-fi magazines as well. It may have changed in the last decade, but for a long time sci-fi magazines were the most mayor source of income for many writers.

If you're writing for money, you're doing it wrong.

Even when you are doing it because its your job?

I like crappy and franchise based books as much as the next man, but that doesn't mean that writers should not get paid for their work.

[Paolo]

Anyone interested in some facts and figures about US careers in writing should probably check out the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2006. A overview of prospects and trends in employment is available on the web here, which links to detailed profiles of three identified subareas in writing (editing, technical writing, and writers and authors). I was unable to find any quick information regarding Canadian, UK or EU career writing statistics.

[Master of Cards]

Anyone interested in some facts and figures about US careers in writing should probably check out the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2006. A overview of prospects and trends in employment is available on the web here, which links to detailed profiles of three identified subareas in writing (editing, technical writing, and writers and authors). I was unable to find any quick information regarding Canadian, UK or EU career writing statistics.

Wait wait what? I assume you mean well, but why did you post this?

[Paolo]

Wait wait what? I assume you mean well, but why did you post this?

A response to the side chat on prospects in writing as a career after reading this post.

[Zixinus]

Hundred thousand USA authors and writers with unspecified specialization. Sci-fi authors need not write only sci-fi. Compared to how many people live there, that's actually small but its stil hundred thousand authors.

Either way, proffesional writers need not write completely for a living. Isaac Asimov himself was a biochemist (I think, I know its chemistry) that written his novels on the side.

[Uraniun235]

Imagine the author of a piece of historical fiction where George Washington defeated the Mongols at the Alamo trying to defend his work by saying "Well, if the story is good, who cares if the facts are wrong?"

I dunno, Harry Turtledove seems to turn a tidy profit on that sort of thing.

[JGregory32]

I think as long as a story is interally logical and cosistant then the reader can forgive a lot.
Take David Weber's 'Honor Harrington' series. There he sidesteps the problem of world cracking with both cultural and political measures. No one even dares think about doing it becasue the second they do the entire universe jumps down their throats and everbody knows this.

It depends on the skill of the writer but as long as they understand that artifical gravity does not cancel mass or inertia then I see no problem with it.
BTW Tried to read a E.E. 'Doc' Smith novel the other day. Two pages in and my bullshit detector had spiked through the roof.

[Nyrath]

BTW Tried to read a E.E. 'Doc' Smith novel the other day. Two pages in and my bullshit detector had spiked through the roof.

You've got to read Doc Smith the same way you'd read Jules Verne. Consider it a period piece, that set the stage for latter novels in the field. But of course it is going to appear ludicrous compared to current day novels.

[Zixinus]

BTW Tried to read a E.E. 'Doc' Smith novel the other day. Two pages in and my bullshit detector had spiked through the roof.

You've got to read Doc Smith the same way you'd read Jules Verne. Consider it a period piece, that set the stage for latter novels in the field. But of course it is going to appear ludicrous compared to current day novels.

Personally, I am quite confident that the author deliberately threw out all carefully-thought-out science trough the window along with a granade and a thermonuclear warhead for good measure. I'm only trough the Skylark series, but devious God, by over half of the second book, there is more pure wankage then I can hope for a schizophrenic on crack could do. I have trouble following just the sheer amount of new, completely fantastic inventions and equipment the protagonist has.

[Nyrath]

Personally, I am quite confident that the author deliberately threw out all carefully-thought-out science trough the window along with a granade and a thermonuclear warhead for good measure. I'm only trough the Skylark series, but devious God, by over half of the second book, there is more pure wankage then I can hope for a schizophrenic on crack could do. I have trouble following just the sheer amount of new, completely fantastic inventions and equipment the protagonist has.

Yes, but it isn't bad for a novel written in 1928

[Paolo]

Skylark isn't bad for a modern day space opera, either. Most of the fantastic elements are related to a single MacGuffin: compound X, Considering the truckloads of often ill thought out fictional science dumped in key sf franchises and oneshots, the Skylark series seems refreshingly uncomplicated. That really helps with suspension of disbelief. Ultimately, Skylark is still about resourceful people; it's just set against a jaw-droppingly stupendous backdrop.