Happy Christmas-y Stuff

So, I had various standard Christmas pinup-style things organised and it got to be today and I thought, ‘No, let’s do something different.’ Therefore, we get Fox and Kit doing ‘fantasy warrior defending the enslaved foxy-princess.’

And may you all have a good day tomorrow, whatever you’re celebrating.

fox-kit-pinup3

Advertisements

20 responses to “Happy Christmas-y Stuff

  1. Nice…can just picture those two like that at a party!

  2. Thanks. And I hope you had a good day. Happy New Year too!

  3. Since this is the only way I know to reach you, who needs the Xinti or Shadataga? Reactionless drive tech is real.

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/researchers-conduct-successful-new-tests-of-emdrive/

    • Seems they’ve got the thing working in a vacuum. Last time I read anything about this, the experimental evidence was distinctly dubious.
      More detail can be found here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/
      Apparently, if the computer model they have is correct, the problem with the thing is efficiency. The more power you put in, the less efficient it gets. The Xinti have cracked that one. 🙂
      Meanwhile, if the EM Drive really does work as advertised it really would revolutionise space travel (and probably invalidate most of the spaceflight tech in the Fox books), but it probably won’t be used for Earth-to-orbit ships because it can’t generate the thrust.

      • Oh no doubt it’s a far cry from what you’ve described in the Aneka books. I just think it’s very cool that scientists have developed a working, even if it’s extremely crude, reaction less drive. Even if it’s what amounts to “magic box”. I love that they admit that we know it works but don’t know why. 🙂

  4. A reactionless drive is one of those things science says cant exist, and over the years being a big sci fi reader where it appears quite often and a curious sort, Ive read up on it a few times over the years. The conclusion Ive come to is that scientists arent disputing the fact that there may be a way to generate thrust without measurable matter or energy being expelled thus mimicking the appearance of a reactionless drive without being truly reactionless… we just may not be able to measure what the drive is using for said thrust. Reactionless drive just strikes me as a bit of a cop out pseudoscience term for something we dont have the science to explain yet. So, rather than anyone saying it works according to known scientific principles but we just dont know how yet and working to see how it fits with known scientific theory, they call it something convenient and ignore that it violates scientific laws as we understand them and use the reasoning that we dont have the science to explain it to get around it violating scientific laws. Bit of a circular argument really.

    Not saying reactionless drives are a horrible and lazy plot device in writing though, just so long as the author doesnt try to pass it off as science magic rather than highly advanced tech because they cant be bothered to come up with a plausible explanation or simply state that it is a very advanced, difficult to understand tech. So really, science magic is the lazy authors crutch rather than the reactionless drive concept. Some rather good ideas have been put forward by authors as to what a reactionless drive is actually expelling. For example, at the newer and small author end of the spectrum you have Laurence Dahners in his Tiona and Disc novels (for those who read alot of indie authors off Amazon like me, you probably recognize the books) where he proposed a dark matter jet. At the other end of the spectrum Arthur C Clarke proposed in one of his books(cant recall which at the moment due to serious lack of sleep) that creatures in the Oort cloud using what at first appeared to be a natural reactionless drive were actually pushing against the mass of the galaxy itself.

    Anyway, I truly hope NASA, or anyone else for that matter, gets the emdrive concept or something that produces the same end result even if not in the same manner, fully functional in the near future. People who dont consider getting into space an important next step for the human race just strike me as short sighted idiots.

    • I’m confused… are you saying writers have to invent ‘reactionless’ drives before they can use them in their fiction? Nobody even knows if dark matter actually exists or can be measured, much less if you could somehow move it around to propel yourself.

      • What I mean is I find it to be just plain bad writing when authors try to explain an advanced science as the sci fi version of magic rather than give it some real theoretical basis, even if that theory is kind of out there. Even if the author doesnt want to have to come up with some type of background for the tech, there are ways to get the point across that its some very advanced and difficult to explain science without getting bogged down in pointless explanations of things that dont matter all that much and just muddle the story up. Simplest of all, dont try to explain any of the tech rather than point at one or two things and give them an unreasonable or fantastical basis, and thus bring the shaky foundations into focus. Sure there are stories that mix science and fantasy where a magical or mystical element to tech works within the framework of the universe (Thaumatology is a perfect example), just not so much in straight sci fi. When that happens, it tends to blow suspension of disbelief for me. Id prefer the author simply present tech and ask me to just accept that it exists rather than do a writers version of shouting “ITS MAGIC!” at me in some half thought out and murky background for whatever it may be.

        I guess the TL:DR version would be, dont include an explanation for advanced tech if you cant at least give a reasonable background based on actual science if you are writing a sci fi story. Better to just ask the reader to accept that it exists.

        Anyhow, just my opinion and probably still not perfectly clear what I mean without an actual conversation. Feel free to disagree. If everyone agreed with me life would be boring as hell.

      • I think I begin to grasp what you mean. Scientific details are great as long as they’re accurate but when they contradict existing knowledge it becomes problematical. I actually feel very similarly about computer usage in books/stories, one of my favorite authors has a character who is supposed to be quite skilled with the computers of the day but he merely states what she accomplishes, rather than how she does it, e.g. “She enters the computer system and obtains a list of all the soldiers in the regiment”, not bothering to create some kind of pseudoscience explanation involving randomly strung together computer terms.

  5. By the way Niall, have you ever read the Wiz Zumwalt books (by Rick Cook)?

  6. p.s. is it early February yet?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s