# The First Hard Science Fiction Convention



## J-Sun (Oct 6, 2011)

As Greg Benford describes it.

Not sure exactly where to post this or what there is to say about it but I thought it was neat and that others might, too.

Actually, in terms of what to say about it, I suppose we could have a big argument over "nuclear is the obvious next step.... I believe the public isn’t so concerned. The 1990s protest against the Cassini mission... was funded by a publicity-seeking self promoter, Michio Kaku, who made preposterous claims about the dangers." And there's always the dismaying picture of NASA, which has to "swing for the bleachers, or die" despite "fears of failure dominat[ing] Agency thinking".

But I prefer to note the positive: Steven[sic] Baxter, Geoffrey Landis, Allen Steele, Joe Haldeman, Gerald Nordley, Vernor Vinge... wow. And all talking about "_creat[ing] a culture_ centered on human expansion into the solar system, and onward to the stars." Would have been cool to witness that.

(I don't know why he choose that Microsoft font that renders as nearly widthless on my system but, if it's a problem for you, too, you can always twiddle your browser.)


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 7, 2011)

Interesting report although it is very focused on the nuclear rocket aspect.

A little worrying that, on researching it a little more, I see that the main sponsers of the event are DARPA and:



> The event was convened with the intent that the knowledge gained would be directly relevant to the Department of Defense (DoD).​


 
It somehow seems a little depressing that our possible future exploration of space seems likely to be driven by the military (as of course most major exploration in the past has always been).​ 
One interesting bit from a paper about some preparatory study workshops, held in January I think, was their decisions on what the primary motivations for interstallar exploration would be. They did state that many others were brought up but they considered them to be subsidary to these main motivators:



> The group identified five key factors as high-level motivations for the exploration of distant space:
> • *Human survival*: ideas related to creating a legacy for the human species, backing up the Earth’s biosphere, and enabling long-term survival in the face of catastrophic disasters on Earth.
> • *Contact with other life*: finding answers to whether there is other life in the universe, whether "intelligent" life exists elsewhere in the galaxy, and at a basic level, whether we are alone in the universe.
> • *Evolution of the human species*: exploration as a human imperative, expansion of human understanding and consciousness through space exploration.
> ...


 
I think it is particularly interesting that they identified religion as one of the major motivators. Not sure I'd agree with that but interesting all the same.


Edit: just thought I'd add this "timetable" from the same preparatory workshops (can't find any similar reports onthe proceedings themselves - probably be a while before they get them written up).



> Milestones Brainstorming & Initial Discussion:
> - *In less than five years*:
> o Prove other Earths exist
> o Social involvement to create a world view of hope
> ...


 
I thought the most interesting bit of that was in the less than *ten* years timeframe they are predicting "Communication via quantum entanglement" FTL comms. Not sure if this bit was produced by the SF authors or the scientists (seems more like SF to me ). Note that JSun's original post does not make it clear that this was not just an SF authors' conference but a combination of scientists and SF authors.

PS: didn't have a problem with the font on my IE8 browser, just seemed to be a fairly normal serifed font (wouldn't like to say which).


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 7, 2011)

Sorry about the double post but I meant to mention that I also think Greg Benford is doing himself the Symposium a bit of an injustice titling his blog "The First Hard Science Fiction Symposium". Reading about it it seems to me it was far far more about the science than the fiction. Although it may be the title is meant to be a small joke.


----------



## J-Sun (Oct 8, 2011)

Vertigo said:


> It somehow seems a little depressing that our possible future exploration of space seems likely to be driven by the military (as of course most major exploration in the past has always been).


Indeed - we're talking to each other right now basically thanks to DARPA. But I would like to see general, broader-based drivers. There's a similar depressing aspect to it being "an effort seeded by DARPA to develop a viable and sustainable model for persistent, long-term, _private-sector_ investment" because I guess governments are too broke and broken and too many taxpayers are too unwilling to fund such things.



Vertigo said:


> One interesting bit from a paper about some preparatory study workshops, held in January I think, was their decisions on what the primary motivations for interstallar exploration would be. They did state that many others were brought up but they considered them to be subsidary to these main motivators:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for pointing that out - I missed the document: Starship News Release. And, yes, I react the same as you to the last one. First and foremost, though, is number 1, followed closely by 3 and 4. There can definitely be a generalized yearning of some kind and we may indeed meet ET (which could be bad or good) but the main thing is to not have all our eggs in one basket.



Vertigo said:


> I thought the most interesting bit of that was in the less than *ten* years timeframe they are predicting "Communication via quantum entanglement" FTL comms. Not sure if this bit was produced by the SF authors or the scientists (seems more like SF to me ).



Could also be driven by some excitement over the recent "FTL neutrinos", too. 



Vertigo said:


> Note that JSun's original post does not make it clear that this was not just an SF authors' conference but a combination of scientists and SF authors.



Thanks for pointing that out. I definitely should have made that clearer.



Vertigo said:


> ...I also think Greg Benford is doing himself the Symposium a bit of an injustice titling his blog "The First Hard Science Fiction Symposium". Reading about it it seems to me it was far far more about the science than the fiction. Although it may be the title is meant to be a small joke.



Yep - I think that's how he meant it but someone makes the same point as you (unless that *is* you) in the recent comments and he replied, "I did tilt it in the sf direction. But the science was devoted to what we hard sf writers do — envisioning futures with real constraints."


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 8, 2011)

Thanks for that J-Sun  I'd completely forgotten to go check for a reply ((Yes that was me) Might make an interesting book.

I'm actually half way through his Galctic centre series at the moment


----------



## J-Sun (Oct 10, 2011)

Vertigo said:


> Thanks for that J-Sun



Welcome. 

Some additional links have been collected here, though mostly not all that interesting, unfortunately. One that _was_ especially interesting is about propulsion methods, which follows up on Benford's main point.


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 11, 2011)

Interesting article JS. I must say I still favour the ramjet approach but we don't really know yet whether the thrust will be greater than the drag with ramjets.


----------



## J-Sun (Oct 13, 2011)

I'm in favor of whatever works best.  I'm definitely in favor of public buzz encouraging finding out. But what's described involves magnetic fields and nuclear fusion, so hopefully some of that research would be generally applicable.


----------



## J-Sun (Mar 31, 2012)

Vertigo said:


> Might make an interesting book.



Apparently that book will be happening. Looking forward to it.

Centauri Dreams
Benford's own announcement

The Centauri Dreams article raises an interesting topic that might be worthy of its own thread: combined SF/Science books. There are lots of non-fiction/fiction combos but fewer with strictly science mixed into the SF. Gilster seems to be thinking more in terms of anthologies but I know Baen was big on this for collections - I've read a Sheffield collection and recently picked up a Forward collection (yay!) which combine stories and articles. I know there are more I can't think of at the moment. Not really the same, but Asimov's Opus books include excerpts from all his books which means mixing stories and science popularizations.

(Incidentally, being interested in the historical angle of things, I'd love to read the historical anthology Gilster talks about, too.)


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 31, 2012)

Hmm I'll have to look for that when it comes out. Do you know any definite release dates?

Also don't forget our very own Ian Sales' collecion - Rocket Science - out this month.


----------



## J-Sun (Mar 31, 2012)

Vertigo said:


> Hmm I'll have to look for that when it comes out. Do you know any definite release dates?



Nope - nothing more definite than "end of the year". Strange, too, come to think of it, that I didn't see a publisher, either. Usually when you announce this sort of thing, you announce that, too.


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 31, 2012)

I shall just have to try and remember to keep an eye on his site. I'm sure he'll post up more later.


----------

