"No doubt of it, man wasn't built to sit in a metal shell and hurry from star to star. It wasn't strange that so many had dropped out of Nomad life." (p. 5)
I have commented on this twice before but let's make more of a point of it this time. There is a major contradiction in American science fiction in my opinion. On the one hand, interstellar travel is the ultimate symbol of freedom (I think). I heard a woman at a Con, probably a Trekkie, proclaim through the mike, "We are going to the stars!" Are we? Not in this generation. On the other hand, a spaceship is "a metal shell." The starfarer is enclosed, almost as if in a tomb.
However, people embarking on interstellar voyages ought to be able to take more spacious environments with them. James Blish argued that antigravity would be able to move cities, even planets. Poul Anderson's asterites, in Tales Of The Flying Mountains, use gravity control to set off for Alpha Centauri within and on the surface of a mobile planetoid. So let's abolish all these metal shells.
The Nomads and the Kith are good but, like Martians, they are old sf.
10 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But until/unless mankind gets control of antigravity those metal shells are going to be necessary. Also, even with antigravity I have doubts that will make possible to move entire planets. Lastly, assuming FTL, spaceships will seem to me more convenient and practical for traveling than dragging along asteroids and planets.
It's my belief that FTL interstellar Nomadism, as seen in the Psychotechnic stories, doesn't really make sense. With FTL smaller crews for ships makes more sense than large ones. Large crews, as seen in the Kith stories and STARFARERS, is far more practical with STL interstellar travel taking months or years (ship time) getting to planets where decades had passed.
Ad astra! Sean
Some way of moving O'Neill cylinder habitats seems like the best way of getting to the stars, or at least the planets. See "Aldrin Cycler".
A rotating habitat km in radius is far from being cramped. Figuring out how to make an ecology that would keep such a habitat pleasant to live in long term would be a necessary precursor to terraforming a planet.
And lets redo the Biosphere 2 idea in many variations on the surface of the earth before trying it in orbit.
Yes. We don't need antigravity to build spacious mobile environments.
Kaor, Jim!
And I like these ideas. I have absolutely no objection at all to O'Neill habitats being built. I only wish some had been made decades ago soon after THE HIGH FRONTIER had been published.
Add astra! Sean
Sean: it needs to-orbit costs to come down for that to happen. Luckily, that's happening even as we speak.
Being a Nomad would be like living your life in a submarine.
A big submarine with a park and a library and views on the universe, though.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I love how those Earth to Orbit costs are coming down so rapidly! Soon, soon, soon I hope to soon see things being really done off Earth.
Both: Reginald Bretnor's "Gilpin's space" stories has the first FTL star ships made from modified submarines.
Love his hilarious Papa Schimmelhorn stories!
Ad astra! Sean
There's growing speculation among reputable physicists that FTL is possible.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That makes me rejoice!!!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment