Thanks for the reponses, that clears it up a lot. I suppose I would have to study acceleration more to really understand it.
Griffin wrote:Does the author of that site have to sound like a condescending prick all the time? They seem to forget a key half of the term Science-Fiction. Namely, the FICTION part. Hard Sci-fi can be fun too, but you don't have to act so condescendingly to people that create and consume soft sci-fi like they seem to be doing.
Lol, yes, I realized the same thing. But like I said, the site is still a great resource, if you want to build a hard sci-fi universe.
I think his irritation is like someone was saying, people that are ignorant tend to get defensive about their ignorance, and Star Trek doesn't help things either by constantly using "tech-tech" magic to get out of situations.
A better story would have a little more thought than just technobable.
It should be pointed out that I think Star Trek would have been more hard sci-fi, a lot of these cliches come from the budget constraints and lack of technology they had to work with back then. For instance, if I recall, shuttles were supposed to be used more often but it was too expensive, hence, the transporter.
Its far too expensive designing unique races, cultures and environments for each episode, hence ridge heads.
It would be interesting to see a more hard sci-fi version of Star Trek, with the knowledge we have now that warp may indeed be possible.