Hard SF discussion

I’m new to Goodreads and this forum, so I hope you’ll forgive me for jumping right in with an opinion on what some might consider to be a somewhat opinionated subject. But here it is: In my opinion Hard Science Fiction is hard science within the context of a fictional story. That is, the story is fictional, but the science is not. From a scientific standpoint Hard SF should follow the scientific method – it should be empirical, measurable, and provable through repeatable test results.

My debut novel, Margaritifer Basin, took six years to write. About one third of that time was writing and the rest was research. The story involves the first manned mission to Mars and it takes place in the present day, and I felt it imperative that my thesis was provable – from launch to splashdown. The problem I see with so many manned Mars mission plans is that they go something like this: We launch (here’s how), we spend seven months in space (here’s how), we spend a year and a half on the planet (here’s how), and then we go home (details to follow). It’s that last part that represents the fly in the ointment. Going to Mars is easy, it’s been done lots of times. Landing on Mars isn’t that hard, that too has been done plenty of times. But returning to Earth from Mars? That hasn’t been done because that’s the hard part. If someone is going to write about a trip to Mars – other than a one-way suicide mission – they better have a very good explanation for exactly how they’re going to get back.

I was pleased to see Ken’s topic on orbital mechanics. I believe that if one is to write about space travel they had best have a firm grasp of orbital mechanics. And when the subject of space flight arises, and topics such as Hohmann transfer orbits, Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, Newton’s law of universal gravitation, and the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation come up, the author had best not be standing there with a blank stare on their face and drool running down their chin. For if so, the “hard science” just becomes more “fiction.”

And it doesn’t end there. If an author’s crew member falls off a cliff on Mars and breaks their leg, the author should have a better explanation than, “and their doctor fixed it.” The author should in fact explain how a small crew, 200 million miles from Earth with very limited resources goes about reassembling a displaced intra-articular distal femur fracture. Because if the author doesn’t want to bother taking the time to research the matter, the only other solution is, “and their doctor amputated the leg.” And the author should also know that Diprivan is an anesthesia, not an analgesic.

And how long does it take a one millimeter puncture to depressurize a 250 cubic meter habitat located 1,650 meters below the MOLA? (No, it’s not three minutes as Hollywood would have us believe.)

And if one is going to utilize NERVA engines to propel a 22,000 ton space vehicle, one should stipulate how many tons of liquid hydrogen will be required to achieve escape velocity.

As a final example, if the author is going to present a couple participating in sex in a microgravity environment, he or she had best explain what is going to happen to said couple in the absence of real good ventilation, and why.

Anyway, please accept my apology for the rant and I will now step down off my soapbox.

I absolutely agree. Although hard sci fi novels don't necessarily have to spell out the physics behind everything that happens, the physics should be sound. I'm currently reading Seveneves, and while I'm no astrophysicist, I'm thoroughly enjoying the explanations of the orbital mechanics, for instance.

And as an example from the small screen, albeit one based on a series of novels that aren't strictly hard SF, in the TV series The Expanse there are a lot of small details that point to an understanding of physics that is rare in television: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html...

Your book reminded me that I haven't yet read KSR's Mars trilogy, for some reason. I'll put your book on my "to read" shelf, though. It looks interesting.

Tobias, I'm running a 10 signed copy Giveaway drawing of the book beginning next Saturday. Don't forget to sign up.

I agree getting physics right is paramount... if you're writing about a scientific expedition or some such.
There are other things SF writers often get wrong though. Both the TV show and trilogy mentionned above get some of the same things wrong w.r.t. economics. Crypto/infosec is also something that's likely to be imporotant in SF settings and which many writers overlook.

In my opinion, the main point of working out physics for fiction is to create a believable imaginary world that's different from what we're used to. Space fantasy doesn't care for physics because it's simply transposing stuff we're familiar with in space where it doesn't make sense. I like good hard SF because its constraints force writers to imagine something unfamiliar yet sensible.
But physics-driven stuff aren't the only things that would work differently in an SF setting. When people take stuff that happens in our lives or happend in our history and transpose in it a setting which has different constraints, lots of things stop making sense. I like writers who think it through and come up with new ideas. Even an easy way out of having to consider economics issues (such as setting a story in a post-scarcity utopia with very few economic constraints) is much closer to my taste than the incoherent economics found in books such as Red Mars (you've been warned, Tobias).

For instance, how does one justify the cost of a manned return-trip to Mars with near-future technology?
Beats me... which is not to say that it can't be done. But that's the first thing I'd look for in a book about such an expedition, not how many tons of fuels each rocket stage requires. I already know rockets work and that industrious people can come up with reasonable numbers for any use-case. Of course those numbers do affect the costs so I don't mean to say they're not important.

Outis, my favorite reason for going to Mars is the one George Mallory gave in a 1923 New York Times interview when asked why he wanted to climb Mt. Everest. "Because it's there."

Gregory wrote: "Hard Science Fiction is hard science within the context of a fictional story. That is, the story is fictional, but the science is not.."

I think you've defined a subset of Hard SF, but I think the line is a little blurrier than you've described. Some things can qualify as hard science fiction without being well-grounded in science.

For instance, most people would probably say that Asimov and Clarke wrote HARD SF, but they wrote speculatively, and some of their classic work involved characters defying the laws of physics (the Foundation Series, for instance).

Furthermore, it's difficult to write any speculative fiction that is completely scientifically accurate. If our present understanding of the physics is wrong, the science isn't going to be accurate.

I tend to define Hard SF as SF that only requires suspension of disbelief on one or two assumptions. Once we've agreed to those assumptions, good Hard SF doesn't continually require additional assumptions. In "Star Trek," for example, we had to suspend disbelief that a warp drive could make faster-than-light travel possible and that we could transform matter into energy and back. Beyond those assumptions, we weren't often asked to ignore the laws of physics.

I'm curious as to whether you'd agree or disagree that Asimov and Clarke wrote (primarily) hard SF. Do you consider "Star Trek"
Hard SF?

Tobias wrote: "I absolutely agree. Although hard sci fi novels don't necessarily have to spell out the physics behind everything that happens, the physics should be sound. I'm currently reading [book:Seveneves|22..."

The expanse isn't too bad when compared to other sci-fi on TV, but ultimately there are a LOT of science flaws in it.

Also when you get done with KSR's Mars books I highly recommend avoiding Aurora, unless you like technical manuals, in which case I still recommend some of the Haynes manuals over Aurora.

Just my $.02.

Gregory wrote: "I’m new to Goodreads and this forum, so I hope you’ll forgive me for jumping right in with an opinion on what some might consider to be a somewhat opinionated subject. But here it is: In my opinion..."

Generally speaking I agree with you. However, I want to go to other galaxies. How's that supposed to work AND be hard science?

Personally, I don’t think intergalactic space travel and hard sci-fi are compatible. The nearest galaxy is Andromeda at 2.5 million light-years. How do you propose to get there? One could of course write a story that involves another race of beings and takes place in another galaxy, but so far as we know even they would be constrained by the laws of physics. And if you come up with an altered set of physical laws you’re no longer in the realm of “hard” sci-fi. Just my opinion.

B.L. wrote: "If all of the science is in use at the time of writing and only the story is fictional, then it's no longer science fiction, but merely fiction."

That is a point. However, categorizing a fictional story that is heavily science fact-based as merely "fiction" seems an overly broad description. It does seem to be a matter of semantics. One might ask, what is the difference between "science fiction" and "hard science fiction?"

My work has often been called "technical fiction," as the science is 100% legitimate and only the story is fictional. But I'm not sure "tech fic" is an accurate description either.

Personally I believe that an author that goes the extra mile to insure that every last iota of "science" in his or her story - math, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, whatever - is completely in accordance with what we know today deserves some recognition for putting in the effort. Because, speaking as one who does it, it's a hell of a lot more work to "get it right" than to just make it up. Saying "Warp 5, Mr. Sulu," is a lot easier than providing the mathematical proof that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light.

So, within the fiction genre, how do we distinguish between fictional science and factual science?

Tetsu'Go'Ru Tsu'Te
As a Sci-Fi writer I conduct many hours of research and contemplation, and create a world that is plausible extrapolating scientific advances into the future given how far into the future the story is occurring. I soon learned that if I put half as much of the available science into the backstory, the work bogged down and “people” story was lost.
The sci-fi story is a dynamic collaboration between the writer and the reader. Striking a perfect technology/story balance is nearly impossible because the balance is different for each reader.
I make the conscious decision to error on the light side, thinking a good sci-fi story can survive without technical detail but cannot survive without a people story. I mention the basic principles behind the technology and leave it to the “hopefully” learned reader to extrapolate the rest. It is, after all science “fiction” if I were able to describe exactly how a future technology worked then it wouldn’t be fiction.
Then after the movie comes out, people will write books called “The Science of *_______” *fill in your title.
Tetsu author of Dadr'Ba

Tetsu'Go'Ru wrote: "Tetsu'Go'Ru Tsu'Te
I make the conscious decision to error on the light side, thinking a good sci-fi story can survive without technical detail but cannot survive without a people story."

I think it's all a matter of how one presents the scientific aspect. For example, you can say, "The astronaut on Mars climbed the long steep hill." Or you can say, "The astronaut on Mars climbed the three kilometer 25% grade." I don't think most readers will have a problem with either, but the second example is far more descriptive, particularly for anyone that has ever driven down a hill and seen a road sign that says, "6% Grade."

And how do I know it's a three kilometer 25% grade? Because I checked the Viking topographic image and did the math.

My only point is that I think there ought to be a fiction genre description that distinguishes between fictional science and non-fictional science.

Outis wrote: "In my opinion, the main point of working out physics for fiction is to create a believable imaginary world that's different from what we're used to. Space fantasy doesn't care for physics because it's simply transposing stuff we're familiar with in space where it doesn't make sense. I like good hard SF because its constraints force writers to imagine something unfamiliar yet sensible.
But physics-driven stuff aren't the only things that would work differently in an SF setting. When people take stuff that happens in our lives or happend in our history and transpose in it a setting which has different constraints, lots of things stop making sense. I like writers who think it through and come up with new ideas. "
This is good, and I wanted to say that this also applies just as much to fantasy fiction in my opinion - if you want to introduce sorcery, dimension-hopping, demons-are-real-metaphysics and then turn it into an exact replica of medieval Europe then I'm already bored. I'd rather read historical fiction set in medieval Europe. A story should fit its premises, whether those are that it takes place in the real world (physics and economics and all that) or in a contrived imaginary one (with faster than light travel or dragons, the latter being far more realistic). Sadly my impression is that most writers and most readers are governed by surface aesthetics ('the rule of cool') and would prefer things which are shiny with lots of spikes rather than intelligent and difficult to understand. Indeed, just from reading essays and articles on this subject I come to understand that most people are positively averse to consistency and realism in many cases.

Apology for incoming nitpick but there is such a thing as historical fantasy.
Back in medieval Europe, people wrote fiction featuring magic. And lots of people actually believed in demons and such. Some of them even believed in UFO abductions. :-) Magic did fit in their world.
The thing that's typically problematic in non-historical medieval fantasy is religion.