lcc.todd@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Todd Johnson) (03/09/86)
Bad Seals, cold weather, stupid officials, maybe even Presidential pressure. Okay? Is that everything? Good, let's get on with it. I am personally very much in favor of HOTOL in the form of a turbo/ram/scramjet with a rocket final assist as the primary method of attaining LEO (Low-Earth Orbit). It will be a while in coming unless the British beat us to it. In the meantime I am very much for the construction of another shuttle to replace Challenger (and seven more to honor the astronauts). I was personally in favor of calling the new craft Phoenix but have since aceded to the notion of Challenger II. I have written congress critters and NASA (at Washington) to tell them so. I have ONLY received a reply from NASA (and by God, I hope they wave MY letter at Congress). I urge anyone on this net who supports manned space flight to write their congress critters if they haven't already and tell them so. We cannot be the greatest nation on this planet if we don't work for it. Personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Europe surpasses us. I would be very upset, however. There's been a lot of trashing of science fiction on this net. I don't like it. Arthur Clarke is a VIP at NASA. So is Robert A. Heinlein, Larry Niven , Isaac Asimov and who knows else. Why? Because among other things they explored the possible outcomes of numerous (including some as yet unplanned) space missions. That's why Heinlein was required reading for the Apollo astronauts. The majority of people who write science fiction KNOW what they're talking about or have contact with people who are more than willing to supply them with copious detail. For people on this net who haven't even tried science fiction is suggest "RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA" by Arthur C. Clarke. "It is scientifically impossible for a heavier than air craft to maintain horizontal flight" - Smithsonian Institute (paraphrased) sometime before 1903
gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (03/14/86)
In article <8603092000.AA25082@s1-b.arpa> lcc.todd@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Todd Johnson) writes: > There's been a lot of trashing of science fiction on this net. I >don't like it. Arthur Clarke is a VIP at NASA. So is Robert A. Heinlein, >Larry Niven , Isaac Asimov and who knows else. Why? Because among other >things they explored the possible outcomes of numerous (including some >as yet unplanned) space missions. That's why Heinlein was required reading >for the Apollo astronauts. The majority of people who write science fiction >KNOW what they're talking about or have contact with people who are more than >willing to supply them with copious detail. For people on this net who >haven't even tried science fiction is suggest "RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA" by >Arthur C. Clarke. Speaking as one who has been reading sci-fi since starting on Lucky Starr at a very tender age, I have to say that the vast majority of sci-fi authors *do not* know what they are talking about. The four authors quoted are better than most (and Clarke sometimes even writes well) but Heinlein & Niven have plenty of BS, and most sci-fi authors much more. I *like* sci-fi a lot, but I refuse to fool myself into thinking that it is much good either as science or as literature. Sometimes the science is pretty good (Rama or Black Cloud) sometimes the literature is good but the science awful (C.S. Lewis). Often both are bad; sometimes the literary merit is less than nil but the science purports to be good, and isn't (R.L. Forward: read my review in net.sf-lovers/ net.math). ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "There are no differences but differences of degree between degrees of difference and no difference"