RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 149,545
Posts: 5,944,943
Members: 26,481
Currently online: 350
Newest member: Rofflcopter

TrekToday headlines

Greenwood To Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Shatner In Hallmark Christmas Movie
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Abrams On Star Trek Into Darkness Flaws
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek Beyond In IMAX
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Red Shirt Diaries: The Return of The Archons
By: T'Bonz on Nov 23

Abrams Loves His Lens Flares
By: T'Bonz on Nov 23

Elba Star Trek Beyond Character Speculation
By: T'Bonz on Nov 23

Retro Review: Meld
By: Michelle Erica Green on Nov 20

Borg Cube Paper Lantern
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Takei Responds To Internment Comments
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy

Science Fiction & Fantasy All your nerd stuff goes here.

Thread Tools
Old February 5 2013, 11:45 PM   #1
hbquikcomjamesl's Avatar
Location: Orange County, CA
Has anybody else here read Gillebaard's "Moon Hoax"? (spoilers)

Having just referred to the book in my comments on DRG's latest ST:TOS novel, I find myself morbidly curious:

Has anybody else here read Paul Gillebaard's Moon Hoax?

Does anybody else here have as low an opinion of it as I do?

Aside from the book being a spectacular example of how not to write a novel, it's also a prime example of how not to market one: while a weaponized industrial laser programmed to shoot down spacecraft is arguably a science fiction concept, the book is really an international intrigue thriller being marketed as science fiction.
hbquikcomjamesl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2013, 04:39 AM   #2
Fleet Captain
hyzmarca's Avatar
Re: Has anybody else here read Gillebaard's "Moon Hoax"? (spoilers)

hbquikcomjamesl wrote: View Post
The advanced crew escape suit and it's predecessors, designed to be worn during takeoff and landing, are not EVA suits. They're high-altitude pressure suits and are not vacuum rated. They will not protect you from depressurization in outer space and are not meant to do so. They're only useful if something goes wrong while you're in the upper atmosphere.
hyzmarca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2013, 06:52 PM   #3
hbquikcomjamesl's Avatar
Location: Orange County, CA
Re: Has anybody else here read Gillebaard's "Moon Hoax"? (spoilers)

The primary differences between an intravehicular suit and an extravehicular suit have to do with (1) how well the pressure bladder is constrained against ballooning (so that the wearer can actually do useful work), (2) whether the insulation and heat-management systems are good enough to keep the wearer from broiling in the sun and freezing in the shade, and (3) the amount of radiation and micrometeoroid shielding provided in the outer layers. None of these things are relevant to mere survival in a depressurized spacecraft.

A Mercury (i.e., modified Navy Mark IV) suit is designed to hold 3.7 PSI. The same is true of the Gemini G3C through G5C suits, and the Apollo A7L and A7LB suits. The Soviet Vostok (SK-1) suit was designed to hold 3.9 to 4.4 PSI, the ACES 3.5 PSI, and the EMU 4.3 PSI. Of these, only the Apollo suits and the EMU are extravehicular suits.

A Russian Sokol suit, though strictly an intravehicular suit in terms of ballooning management, thermal management, and shielding, is designed to hold 5.8 PSI.

But what difference does any of this quibbling over how long a human being in a Sokol suit survive total cabin depressurization make, if the reader's first impression of the protagonist is so bad as to encourage complete apathy as to whether he lives or dies, and the antagonists are portrayed as stereotypical caricatures with no motivation beyond pure sadistic malice?

Going back to my first complaint about the book, I freely admit that I've been guilty in my own writings of making a protagonist totally unsympathetic, by bungling "protagonist kisses baby" passages so badly that the average reader see them as "protagonist kicks dog." But Gillebaard doesn't even appear to have been trying to make his protagonist sympathetic.
hbquikcomjamesl is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.