this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
415 points (100.0% liked)

196

17538 readers
603 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] juliebean@lemm.ee 83 points 1 year ago (8 children)

there's still goofy magic sci-fi designs now, and there have always been more 'realistic' designs based on (to varying degrees) real scientific and engineering knowhow. the only way one could come to this conclusion would be by cherry-picking your examples. if you compare 'the jetsons' to 'mass effect', sure, it supports your conclusion, but on the other hand, contrasting 'rick and morty' against '2001: a space odyssey' would give a rather different conclusion.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I finished reading Dragon's Egg (1980) recently and at the back of the book was schematics, drawings, and layouts describing the various things in the novel.

There, indeed, have always been varying levels of "hardness" in sci-fi.

[–] lurker2718 5 points 1 year ago

I just want to say, i loved Dragon's Egg for this level of detail to the physics. I even did some quick calculations why you want 6 compensator masses not less to reduce the effect of tidal forces. Or the black holes inside the sun, at first i thougt, this is impossible. Then i read some more on it an noticed its well researched.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)