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

Where did all the starships go?

datawrapper.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 369 posts

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#201

Post by alexitorg »

delichon wrote: post #7

The starships left with the optimism. In the 50s there was a greater demand for stories with an unconstrained vision of the future where growth and expansion amount to flourishing. Later generations that lived in the excesses of growth saw it as the source of an intensifying dystopia. They stood athwart history and demanded decelleration. Star Trek lost ground to Terminator, Foundation to Neuromancer. Escaping sidewa…

There are a heap of self published sci-fi and fantasy novels that fill the top selling lists on amazon in their respective niche. These are not included in the database that this analysis used. Space travel, multiple worlds and aliens are all really common tropes in those, even if the book is a pulpy progression fantasy or litrpg. The other top sellers are Romantasy which are published professionally. These have lots of dragons, were-wolves and vampires for sexy reasons. The professional fiction publishers are 70-80% women publishing for a majority female fiction reader fan base. Even old best selling men's action authors like Clive Custler and Tom Clancy would probably have to self publish if they were writing today.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#202

Post by direwolf20 »

wolvoleo wrote: post #133
Recurecur wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTL starships in an SF story don’t need a detailed explanation, just a new invention. It’s the exact same thing as a speculative story in the 1920s discussing supersonic flight, even though the jet engine hadn’t been invented yet. For instance “Tunnel in the Sky” bypassed the whole issue in the 50’s, later imitated by “Stargate”…

True but at that point objects travelling faster than sound had been demonstrated. It was just hard to engineer a manned plane that could do it. For example during WWII the V2 rockets travelled much faster than sound. They were just unmanned. Or more simple, bullets were supersonic for longer too. What I mean is, nobody thought the sound barrier was a hard limit we could never break.

Just specify an Alcubierre drive. Job done.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#203

Post by gpm »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #169
gpm wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alpha Centauri is only 4.2 light years away. 0.25c is definitely enough to reach it. You could even do a round trip in only your adult years.

A trip there to do… what? There likely won’t be any planet better than the very low bar of Mars for human habitation, in fact maybe even worse due to binary perturbations.

Why do people row across the ocean?

If humanity survives to a high enough tech level, someone will do it just because they can...

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#204

Post by direwolf20 »

jfengel wrote: post #49
echelon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our astrophysicists don't even know why the universe is expanding, don't know that Lambda CDM is correct, don't know if things are universally consistent, yet we're so damned sure this is it. We don't even know that this isn't a simulation. Not non-falsifiable, sure. But we're convinced we're bound to this solar system with our crude tools and limits of detection. One new instrument could upset our grand understandin…

We do know why the universe is expanding. That's due to general relativity. That's well attested to high confidence. We don't know why the expansion is accelerating. For that we have only speculation.

The universe is expanding due to general relativity... in the sense that Einstein literally wrote "... plus the expansion of the universe" into his equations.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#205

Post by threethirtytwo »

chasil wrote: post #15
delichon wrote: post #7

The starships left with the optimism. In the 50s there was a greater demand for stories with an unconstrained vision of the future where growth and expansion amount to flourishing. Later generations that lived in the excesses of growth saw it as the source of an intensifying dystopia. They stood athwart history and demanded decelleration. Star Trek lost ground to Terminator, Foundation to Neuromancer. Escaping sidewa…

Also, we've realized the scientific reality that traveling faster than light is likely impossible, and the vast distances to other habitable planets would mean tens of thousands of years of travel even with the most efficient technology. Interstellar space is also hostile to life, and any life present at the destination will not use the same DNA coding for protein (if gene expression even works that way). We also do…

>Also, we've realized the scientific reality that traveling faster than light is likely impossible, and the vast distances to other habitable planets would mean tens of thousands of years of travel even with the most efficient technology.

This makes for more epic story telling though. I've seen sci-fi stories span eons due to the vast distances limited by speed. Even at light speed it still takes a huge amount of time.

It rarely has to do with the possibility of the genre actually happening in reality. A story is good because it is riveting and the backdrop (whether sci-fi or fantasy) is just icing on the cake. Look at Harry potter and practically every fantasy story out there.... none of those stories have any chance of happening in our current reality... yet they are popular.

I think the answer for as to why there's less interest in sci-fi is pretty mundane. It's like genetic drift, but this one is cultural. For no reason at all our interests just shift because of luck. There happened to be more good stories written in the fantasy genre and that's the direction everything shifted.

Tbf though the MCU was more sci fi than anything and that every genre out of the water in every medium all the way up until endgame. Say what you want about it but the popularity of that universe dwarfed everything else in the last decade... which goes to show that it's likely mostly just drift.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#206

Post by direwolf20 »

antonvs wrote: post #148
Recurecur wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s well understood that the expansion of the universe is not “due to general relativity”. General relativity does explain some details of that expansion.

The equations of general relativity fully model the expansion of the universe, so you’d need to explain what you mean.

yeah, that extra bit that Einstein was very embarrassed about having to write, the bit that says "... plus the expansion of the universe"

It explains nothing. It's just tacked on the end there.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#207

Post by direwolf20 »

wat10000 wrote: post #113
chasil wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chinese built a much larger spherical telescope, so what was the point of rebuilding Arecibo? I visited Arecibo a decade before it collapsed. It was impressive and of great historical value, but could repair be cost-effective? Edit: It did have some unique features. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-hundred-meter_Aperture_Sp...

Rebuilding it would cost maybe half a billion dollars. Give ICE an unpaid week off and job done. Maybe not the absolute best way to spend that money on science, but I fear the actual outcome is “it’s not cost effective so we’re not going to spend it on any science.”

ICE isn't actually getting paid, and in fact owes the government money if they ever quit or get fired, so...

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#208

Post by direwolf20 »

WalterBright wrote: post #123
chasil wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, we've realized the scientific reality that traveling faster than light is likely impossible, and the vast distances to other habitable planets would mean tens of thousands of years of travel even with the most efficient technology. Interstellar space is also hostile to life, and any life present at the destination will not use the same DNA coding for protein (if gene expression even works that way). We also do…

And yet we still have a solar system, empty of life other than Earth, we can expand to. Why try to cross an ocean when everything we could want is across the river? Two things baffle me: 1. The idea that Terran life is toxic and must not be allowed on other planets in the solar system. 2. The one person who is advancing our space faring abilities by leaps and bounds is routinely vilified and excoriated on HackerNews.

1. It is, until proven otherwise

2. Which guy?

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#209

Post by direwolf20 »

WalterBright wrote: post #162
antonvs wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What a monster Musk is! Glad we’re on the same page. When I was using Zortech C++ in the ‘80s, I never imagined I’d be talking to the author nearly half a century later about his support for a fascist Nazi near-trillionaire. Wtf is wrong with you.

I wouldn't support Musk if he was a fascist nazi. My personal views are libertarian.

How would you define the terms "fascist nazi" and "libertarian"?

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#210

Post by direwolf20 »

WalterBright wrote: post #163
mmooss wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The one person who is advancing our space faring abilities by leaps and bounds The overwhelming amount of the work is done by NASA, ESA, CNSA (China, going to the Moon), and other space agencies. Musk has built orbital rockets. > routinely vilified and excoriated on HackerNews. That's disingenuous and you know it. Why make such claims?

> Musk has built orbital rockets. Musk has built lots of cheap orbital rockets. That changes everything. > That's disingenuous and you know it. Why make such claims? See the other responses in this thread.

It changes the price and speed of satellite internet. Apart from that...?
Post reply on HN