I’m now
reflecting on the criticisms I gave to my beloved science fiction shows. I
stand by them. It would be easy to berate myself for taking it too
seriously—it’s all fiction, after all, right?—but the thing is, that in doing
my research, I’ve discovered something important. I’ve entertained a lot of
weird ideas for my own sci fi. Some of which had to be shot down because it
simply wasn’t feasible. But almost always when that was the case, I would learn
about something else that was more feasible, and had more story potential along
the way.
Instead of
ignoring the science and forging ahead (which I have also done) the new
understanding of the science opened up exciting possibilities for me to use
that makes the voyages of my fictitious crew more plausible, not less.
Sure I’ve (mostly) tossed out the
idea of using anit-matter in reactors because it’s completely impractical, but
that’s okay because my ship can stop off at at Jupiter-like planet and skim
some of its hydrogen for fuel.
And water? Water’s not a problem
when you can scoop up some icy objects in a Kuiper field. From there it’s just
filtration and flush the other stuff right back into space.
I think understanding how to get
those details right allow my readers to plausibly suspend their disbelief when
I trot out the artificial gravity and faster-than-light travel. That’s why I
stand by my criticism of these sci fi shows. If the writers, directors, and
producers spent a little more time on the science (go hire Neil DeGrasse Tyson
to consult), the shows would be better overall.