Now? maybe!

[RobertScorpio]

A friend of mine reads tons of Scifi books. When I was younger I could, but now my brain just cant get around a good scifi book, so I have him keep me up to day.

We were talking about some of the more 'mainstream' scifi ideas. You know, like warp speed and 'doorways' and all that and..well...what were these concepts like in their infancy? Now adays if you write 'and so the ship went into warp' and its no big deal, because all the main scifi stories do warp..

But what about in the 30s and 40s. Now adays they explain it as 'bubbles' or whatever is the current fad. How did they explain faster-than-light speed decades ago before it was so 'acceptable' to use it?

Rob

 

[Psion]

I'm not sure it was ever 'unacceptable' to use faster-than-light concepts. Not only is relativity counter-intuitive to everyday experience, but not all science fiction authors bother to stay up-to-date on scientific topics.

Most authors were more concerned with getting from Alpha Centauri to Beta Lyrae than with adhering to rigid science. So they ignored it entirely. Asimov, for example, a man usually pretty good about keeping the science in science fiction, didn't bother with the details of rocket science in his Foundation series. He didn't discuss hyperdrive or warp drive or jump drive. His rockets simply crossed interstellar voids by undisclosed means.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I'm not sure it was ever 'unacceptable' to use faster-than-light concepts. Not only is relativity counter-intuitive to everyday experience, but not all science fiction authors bother to stay up-to-date on scientific topics.

Most authors were more concerned with getting from Alpha Centauri to Beta Lyrae than with adhering to rigid science. So they ignored it entirely. Asimov, for example, a man usually pretty good about keeping the science in science fiction, didn't bother with the details of rocket science in his Foundation series. He didn't discuss hyperdrive or warp drive or jump drive. His rockets simply crossed interstellar voids by undisclosed means.

huh...interesting that even he didn't say 'how'. Who was the first author to actually try to 'explain' fast than light travel in what would be be considred an acceptable way?

Rob

 

[JustAFriend]

Go read the e.e. "Doc" Smith "Lensmen" series....

Lotta the 'modern' sci-fi stuff in that '30s-late 40s series.. its amazing that no big studio has made them yet.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Go read the e.e. "Doc" Smith "Lensmen" series....

Lotta the 'modern' sci-fi stuff in that '30s-late 40s series.. its amazing that no big studio has made them yet.

Thanks...I will

Rob

 

[Australis]

Or even earlier, Smith wrote the Skylark series, which are available at Project Gutenberg. Here's the first one:

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20869

These were among the first SF books I read as a teen. Loved them. He was pretty keen on finding ways to travel faster than light, at least in a fictional sense.

Someone was supposed to be making the Lensman books into films, but I haven't heard anything lately.

Besides, you've seen them heaps on TV and films. Lucas, Spielberg, JMS and Roddenberry were fans.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Or even earlier, Smith wrote the Skylark series, which are available at Project Gutenberg. Here's the first one:

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20869

These were among the first SF books I read as a teen. Loved them. He was pretty keen on finding ways to travel faster than light, at least in a fictional sense.

Someone was supposed to be making the Lensman books into films, but I haven't heard anything lately.

Besides, you've seen them heaps on TV and films. Lucas, Spielberg, JMS and Roddenberry were fans.

Thanks for this link, and the others who have replied. Great stuff!!!

Rob

 

[Brandonv]

Asimov, for example, a man usually pretty good about keeping the science in science fiction, didn't bother with the details of rocket science in his Foundation series. He didn't discuss hyperdrive or warp drive or jump drive. His rockets simply crossed interstellar voids by undisclosed means.

I remember him sort of explaining it in Foundations Edge. Something about the ship temporarily turning itself into tachyons. I would think that would lead to causality problems though, since tachyons are supposed to travel backwards through time.

 

[Talosian]

We really need more descriptive thread titles than this. I swear some of the people on here write as if they're sleazy internet marketers trying to get somebody, *anybody* to click on their pop-up ad.

 

[Colonel Midnight]

Asimov, for example, a man usually pretty good about keeping the science in science fiction, didn't bother with the details of rocket science in his Foundation series. He didn't discuss hyperdrive or warp drive or jump drive. His rockets simply crossed interstellar voids by undisclosed means.

I remember him sort of explaining it in Foundations Edge. Something about the ship temporarily turning itself into tachyons. I would think that would lead to causality problems though, since tachyons are supposed to travel backwards through time.

I don't recall him mentioning anything about tachyons, but I do remember Asimov saying that the gravitic drive of Trevize's ship basically manipulating local gravity fields as it went along in normal space, then "Jumping" through hyperspace for the major distances.

But, yes, in the first 'classic' Foundation stories/books, he doesn't go into any details, just that the ships "jumped".

Cheers,
-CM-