Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Project Hail Mary – Stellar Navigation Chart

valhovey.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 255 posts

Re: Project Hail Mary – Stellar Navigation Chart

#81

Post by grey-area »

manmal wrote: post #58
the_af wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I saw the series adaptation of The Expanse, it was really obvious they played a lot of artistic license to make it exciting. A real space battle would be dots firing invisible dots at each other. "Close quarter battle" would be within something like 2000 kilometers, maybe more. That is close. This is noteworthy because The Expanse tried to get this better than other scifi, say Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica,…

The Expanse also was (for me) the first to introduce the concept of a braking burn. Star Wars ships just stop without turning around - can’t unsee it. I think the way X-wing fighters “fly” also wouldn’t work at all, I don’t see any reaction mass coming out the sides.

Biggest thing they all still get wrong for reasons of drama is showing humans wrestling with controls and flying like a fighter pilot. Real spaceships do not and will not have humans in the control loop except to specify a destination or target.

Re: Project Hail Mary – Stellar Navigation Chart

#82

Post by api »

loeg wrote: post #69
api wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even sci-fi writers that try to get this right have a hard time wrapping their heads around it. "It's called space for a reason." When I saw the series adaptation of The Expanse, it was really obvious they played a lot of artistic license to make it exciting. A real space battle would be dots firing invisible dots at each other. "Close quarter battle" would be within something like 2000 kilometers, maybe more. That i…

I don't think the Expanse authors were going for "hard sci-fi." There's, you know, fiction elements -- gates, aliens, magic. And the TV series is itself an adaptation of the books for a visual medium. Showing almost nothing would make for kind of boring TV combat.

Agreed. It's not "rock-hard sci-fi." It's "medium-hard sci-fi."

The background world building was pretty good from a hard SF point of view. Fusion rockets are possible and the high performance ones in the series are at the edge of physical plausibility but possible. Some of the details, like spinning up asteroids, don't work, but the basic physics of humanity's solar system build-out is mostly sound.

The rest of it gets increasingly soft and fantastic. Which is fine, it's fun space opera.

Re: Project Hail Mary – Stellar Navigation Chart

#83

Post by api »

the_af wrote: post #48
api wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even sci-fi writers that try to get this right have a hard time wrapping their heads around it. "It's called space for a reason." When I saw the series adaptation of The Expanse, it was really obvious they played a lot of artistic license to make it exciting. A real space battle would be dots firing invisible dots at each other. "Close quarter battle" would be within something like 2000 kilometers, maybe more. That i…

> When I saw the series adaptation of The Expanse, it was really obvious they played a lot of artistic license to make it exciting. A real space battle would be dots firing invisible dots at each other. "Close quarter battle" would be within something like 2000 kilometers, maybe more. That is close. This is noteworthy because The Expanse tried to get this better than other scifi, say Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica,…

The books are more realistic than the show. The show takes liberties to look cool, I think, which is okay. Not only does it mess with scale a lot but it also adds a lot of sound and visual effects that would not be there.

Re: Project Hail Mary – Stellar Navigation Chart

#84

Post by shagie »

waynecochran wrote: post #7

Very cool. On Voyager 2 we placed a map on the side of the probe that places the position of our sun based on an array of Pulsar stars (the map was designed by Carl Sagan). I noted in the PHM movie Rocky and Dr Grace made similar 3D maps (I think they were pulsars(?)). I guess pulsars form natural beacons that can be detected at large distances.

Cosmos : The Shores of the Cosmic Ocean - https://youtu.be/x-bJLG9_sUg?si=1K96fMX2T9iXu0zA&t=783

For the "how far?" https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2011/04/aa16141-...

We can get timing (rather than imaging) parallax...

> We find that with the first method a parallax with an accuracy of 20% or less can be measured up to a maximum distance of 13 kpc, which would include 9000 pulsars. By timing pulsars with the most stable arrival times for the radio emission, parallaxes can be measured for about 3600 ms pulsars up to a distance of 9 kpc with an accuracy of 20%.

(one kpc is 3261 light years)

Not only can they be detected at large distances, but measurements of how far can be done at greater distances than can be done with imaging ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFMaT9oRbs4&t=608s ).

Re: Project Hail Mary – Stellar Navigation Chart

#85

Post by the_af »

QuercusMax wrote: post #63
manmal wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Expanse also was (for me) the first to introduce the concept of a braking burn. Star Wars ships just stop without turning around - can’t unsee it. I think the way X-wing fighters “fly” also wouldn’t work at all, I don’t see any reaction mass coming out the sides.

Babylon 5 was the only show in the 90s that actually had any sort of physics based space combat (as opposed to Star Wars-style "they're really just airplanes but we're pretending it's space").

I really missed on watching Babylon 5 (it was during my time, but I unfortunately dismissed it as just another Star Trek wannabe, and only learned later this was unfair). I wish I had given it a chance. I cannot watch it now because of several reasons, and I'm not sure it would stand the test of time anyway, after having watched The Expanse.

Re: Project Hail Mary – Stellar Navigation Chart

#86

Post by krger »

grey-area wrote: post #81
manmal wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Expanse also was (for me) the first to introduce the concept of a braking burn. Star Wars ships just stop without turning around - can’t unsee it. I think the way X-wing fighters “fly” also wouldn’t work at all, I don’t see any reaction mass coming out the sides.

Biggest thing they all still get wrong for reasons of drama is showing humans wrestling with controls and flying like a fighter pilot. Real spaceships do not and will not have humans in the control loop except to specify a destination or target.

>Real spaceships do not and will not have humans in the control loop except to specify a destination or target.

Jim Lovell would like a word.

Re: Project Hail Mary – Stellar Navigation Chart

#88

Post by hbarka »

grey-area wrote: post #81
manmal wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Expanse also was (for me) the first to introduce the concept of a braking burn. Star Wars ships just stop without turning around - can’t unsee it. I think the way X-wing fighters “fly” also wouldn’t work at all, I don’t see any reaction mass coming out the sides.

Biggest thing they all still get wrong for reasons of drama is showing humans wrestling with controls and flying like a fighter pilot. Real spaceships do not and will not have humans in the control loop except to specify a destination or target.

Would dead-reckoning work or using some galactic sextant?

Re: Project Hail Mary – Stellar Navigation Chart

#89

Post by the_af »

grey-area wrote: post #81
manmal wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Expanse also was (for me) the first to introduce the concept of a braking burn. Star Wars ships just stop without turning around - can’t unsee it. I think the way X-wing fighters “fly” also wouldn’t work at all, I don’t see any reaction mass coming out the sides.

Biggest thing they all still get wrong for reasons of drama is showing humans wrestling with controls and flying like a fighter pilot. Real spaceships do not and will not have humans in the control loop except to specify a destination or target.

Yeah. Though they do have some nods towards realism, like how most combat systems are fully automated. PDCs fire automatically (at most they need a designated target, and for point defense they just fire), and even torpedos are assigned to targets using some touch screen and that's it, they are not fired using a joystick or similar nonsense.

Re: Project Hail Mary – Stellar Navigation Chart

#90

Post by MadnessASAP »

ggreer wrote: post #9

Just FYI the sizes of the planets, stars, and their orbits are not to scale at all. To get an idea of how empty space is, there are 63,360 inches in a mile, and 63,239 astronomical units in a light-year. So if you scaled everything down such that Earth was 1 inch from the Sun, Neptune would be 30 inches away and Alpha Centauri would be 4 miles away. If you were using a 4k display and had the Sun and Alpha Centauri vi…

You are technically correct, the best kind of correct. However! That would be a terrible UX/UI experience. While showing distances on a linear scale is accurate, it fails to capture all the information a person in an interstellar ship may wish to see.

Something like logarithmic distances would better capture information like "Am I about to crash into the star or enter a nice orbit" while still showing the full picture of where you are in relation to where you're going and where you came from.

No idea of that's what happened here, just a thought, I'm not an expert in starship computer interface design.

Post reply on HN