Sounds in space, how do you feel about it?

[ctg]

Sound waves doesn't travel in vacuum, but it's not unheard of hearing noises in the space. Famous Apollo 13 did had some odd noises when the access panel did blew in the space. Mir space-station had the same thing, and last year - if I remember correctly - ISS had some banging noises.

If you would hit by a micrometeorite storm, then you definitely would hear raining, just before hissing noises as your precious air would be running out. Don't say there aren't because there are, scientifically proved.

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

Example:

"I thought sound didn't travel in space..."
"... That's before you factored in the 4th Quantanomitic Principle, which states that sounds may indeed travel in space, so long as they are close to a massive endothermic discharge, like one created by a Plasmoforium Discharge."

The sun itself, of course, and I have actually heard a recording of our star, taken from a spacecraft on its way to Venus, with a microphone open to space.

I think we have discussed sounds in space on Chrons before. And explosion involves an expanding cloud of gas. I think, if you were close enough you'd hear it - of course it might kill you.

Sound waves doesn't travel in vacuum, but it's not unheard of hearing noises in the space. Famous Apollo 13 did had some odd noises when the access panel did blew in the space. Mir space-station had the same thing, and last year - if I remember correctly - ISS had some banging noises.

Welcome to my side of the fence people. Get yourself a drink, light the barbie pull up a deck chair, this is going to be a long one.

 

[ctg]

Welcome to my side of the fence people. Get yourself a drink, light the barbie pull up a deck chair, this is going to be a long one.

I don't have any Barbie's, so can I burn a Ken instead?

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

Stick another Ken on the fire ctg, the natives are quiet tonight. I don't like it.

 

[chopper]

Stick another Ken on the fire ctg, the natives are quiet tonight. I don't like it.

in space no-one can hear you burn plastic dolls.....

 

[Xwing Mom]

Well, to open a whole 'nother can of worms, toss in the sub genre of space opera (which is what Star Wars is technically) and you can have sounds in space.

And I like my barbie medium rare....

 

[iansales]

Just because it's space opera, it doesn't mean you can have sound in a vacuum. In fact, I can't think of a single written space opera which features sound in space. Someone will prove me wrong now...

 

[Anthony G Williams]

There would, of course, be plenty of sound in a space battle - on board the ships which had been hit. Explosions within the hull would be just as audible as on Earth (until they lost their air, after which explosions would be sensed as vibrations felt through the structure). Similarly, laser strikes would cause damage to the structure and may cause explosive decompression, which would be very much audible in the air-filled remainder of the ship. Crewman in space-suits outside the battle might also hear the explosions inside the ship via their radios.

IMO it is essential not to make basic mistakes in science, it destroys the necessary 'suspension of disbelief' of the reader. I recall immediately stopping reading a promising story about the discovery of a huge, wrecked alien spaceship drifting in the Solar System, when the writer described the beams of light from torches crossing a huge hall - which was open to space and in hard vacuum. No, no no!!! Have some respect for the intelligence of your readers!

 

[Urlik]

I feel that Arthur C Clarke did this best and anyone unsure of how to handle this should read The Other Side Of The Sky for a few pointers

 

[ctg]

There would, of course, be plenty of sound in a space battle - on board the ships which had been hit. Explosions within the hull would be just as audible as on Earth (until they lost their air, after which explosions would be sensed as vibrations felt through the structure). Similarly, laser strikes would cause damage to the structure and may cause explosive decompression, which would be very much audible in the air-filled remainder of the ship. Crewman in space-suits outside the battle might also hear the explosions inside the ship via their radios.

IMO it is essential not to make basic mistakes in science, it destroys the necessary 'suspension of disbelief' of the reader. I recall immediately stopping reading a promising story about the discovery of a huge, wrecked alien spaceship drifting in the Solar System, when the writer described the beams of light from torches crossing a huge hall - which was open to space and in hard vacuum. No, no no!!! Have some respect for the intelligence of your readers!

Very good points, but can you please quote on that torch. I want to see. Pretty please with cherries on top.

 

[Ursa major]

It's the samll things (like the torch beams and sound propagating through a vacuum, that destroys the necessary suspension of disbelief.

We may accept all sorts of grand things (the warping of space, etc.), with or without the use of the suffiX: -itic. We can accept that there is physics that is beyond us and that the universe is a very odd place.

The little things, though, we know about. And we know (well, most of us do) that sounds don't travel through vacuums and that a beam of light is invisible unless it's directed at you or where some of it is scattered by something along its path.


If we know, however, that the little things aren't described believably, we won't believe the rest of it. (Not in a book, anyway.)

 

[Anthony G Williams]

Very good points, but can you please quote on that torch. I want to see. Pretty please with cherries on top.

Do you mean, which book was it? Sorry, it was years ago and I didn't get past the first few pages.

 

[Anthony G Williams]

It's the samll things (like the torch beams and sound propagating through a vacuum, that destroys the necessary suspension of disbelief.

We may accept all sorts of grand things (the warping of space, etc.), with or without the use of the suffiX: -itic. We can accept that there is physics that is beyond us and that the universe is a very odd place.

The little things, though, we know about. And we know (well, most of us do) that sounds don't travel through vacuums and that a beam of light is invisible unless it's directed at you or where some of it is scattered by something along its path.

If we know, however, that the little things aren't described believably, we won't believe the rest of it. (Not in a book, anyway.)

Exactly so. There is a kind of unwritten contract between the reader and writer that it's OK to include things which are beyond the capabilities of, or even contrary to the rules of, known science, provided these elements are introduced deliberately for the purpose of the story (e.g. FTL, time travel and psi powers - although the last may be heading more towards fantasy). We know how much progress our own science has made and can accept (for the sake of the story) that a more advanced science will be able to do things we regard as impossible.

But getting the well-known little things wrong shows either carelessness or ignorance and destroys the credibility of the story, and of the author.

 

[Keeper]

Exactly so. There is a kind of unwritten contract between the reader and writer that it's OK to include things which are beyond the capabilities of, or even contrary to the rules of, known science, provided these elements are introduced deliberately for the purpose of the story (e.g. FTL, time travel and psi powers - although the last may be heading more towards fantasy). We know how much progress our own science has made and can accept (for the sake of the story) that a more advanced science will be able to do things we regard as impossible.

But getting the well-known little things wrong shows either carelessness or ignorance and destroys the credibility of the story, and of the author.

But is there not a time and place for you (not you exactly, just the word to cover everyone) to just sit down and enjoy a story without having to worry about all of the rules or lack of in a story? Or does everything have top match up to how things are to the letter and then they can be made up? Frankly, if many of you are against how Star Wars does things with being able to see the lasers in space in the movies, how in the world would they get past that in a novel setting?

I thought that one of the main points of fictional writing is to give the reader a place to kind of get lost from the real world and just have fun? Yes, as writers, we don't need to go and destroy every natural law we can along the way, but isn't it extreme to set down a book because one tiny thing like fire in space? Of course, that is to each his own, but it just seems to not even give the story a chance to work itself out if we as readers are too critical on the storyteller.

 

[Ursa major]

It isn't that we're looking out for errors, Keeper, more that when we notice them, they jar; worse, they break the spell.

Imagine, say, a Friends episode where the characters walk from their apartment building to Grauman's Chinese Theatre. Does it really matter? Not if we take on board that it's a TV show filmed in LA**. Would we be distracted by it? I'm sure we would.




** - Not being a Friends fan, I'm having to assume that it was filmed in LA.

 

[j d worthington]

But is there not a time and place for you (not you exactly, just the word to cover everyone) to just sit down and enjoy a story without having to worry about all of the rules or lack of in a story? Or does everything have top match up to how things are to the letter and then they can be made up? Frankly, if many of you are against how Star Wars does things with being able to see the lasers in space in the movies, how in the world would they get past that in a novel setting?

I thought that one of the main points of fictional writing is to give the reader a place to kind of get lost from the real world and just have fun? Yes, as writers, we don't need to go and destroy every natural law we can along the way, but isn't it extreme to set down a book because one tiny thing like fire in space? Of course, that is to each his own, but it just seems to not even give the story a chance to work itself out if we as readers are too critical on the storyteller.

Only within a certain narrow sense. If a writer deliberately (or even ignorantly) violates a well-known fact, as the others have said, it tends to destroy the writer's credibility. The only real exceptions to this are where the writer does so for a particular reason that they want to draw attention to -- in other words, where they are going to expand on why this well-known fact isn't a fact, in this case. Anything less is, frankly, insulting the reader's intelligence. It doesn't matter if a particular reader is willing to accept such a violation (there will be some readers who will simply accept anything that is thrown at them, no matter how improbable, poorly conceived, or badly written, so that argument doesn't really apply); the fact is that the writer is ignoring (or ignorant of) something which could easily be checked, something that is well-known, and that puts too much of a strain on the concept of verisimilitude... which is an absolute must if a writer is to hold the attention of the average literate reader, let alone if they want to be taken seriously as someone who knows their craft....

And, as Ursa Major points out, it isn't that we go looking for such things; but when they are glaringly obvious, it has the effect of someone punching you on the nose and then grinning about it....

 

[Urlik]

It isn't that we're looking out for errors, Keeper, more that when we notice them, they jar; worse, they break the spell.

Imagine, say, a Friends episode where the characters walk from their apartment building to Grauman's Chinese Theatre. Does it really matter? Not if we take on board that it's a TV show filmed in LA**. Would we be distracted by it? I'm sure we would.




** - Not being a Friends fan, I'm having to assume that it was filmed in LA.

that would jar with me, even though I am not American, because Friends is set in NY (hence the coffee bar they go to is called Central Perk)
if they walked from their apartment and ended up in LA looking like they have walked a block or two, that would totally break the spell

 

[Zubi-Ondo]

Well, The original question was about sounds in space, and we expanded to the general theme of "suspence of disbelief" or plausibility, and/or the lack thereof. I agree that you must not "jar" the reader from the "dream". You create a world where all of the rules of that world agree with each other. If you have already established that teleportation is possible, then its quite plausible for Ross and Rachel to go to a theatre in LA, and Ross to say "We were on a break!" If your laser blew up a ship that was more than 1 KM away you would probably not hear it, but you might feel a slight rumble from the shock wave. (Assuming there was air in the ship, and explosions - as we know them - need oxygen to ignite and propogate) If something hits your ship, you will hear it - if you have a propagation medium inside the ship (like air).

I've posted this before, and it seems appropriate that I post it again here:

Grading Science Fiction for Realism

- Z.

 

[Dave]

I haven't had anything to add to this thread because I agreed with it all.

But is there not a time and place for you to just sit down and enjoy a story without having to worry about all of the rules or lack of in a story? Or does everything have top match up to how things are to the letter and then they can be made up?

But getting the well-known little things wrong shows either carelessness or ignorance and destroys the credibility of the story, and of the author.

You have been talking about space opera, but can I add that if you are reading some Hard Science Fiction, and the author is describing some engineering feat such as a Dyson Sphere, Ringworld, Space Elevator - that kind of thing - it would not give you confidence if he lacks an understanding of even basic Physics.

If it is a Time Travel story, then you would similarly expect them to avoid historical anachronisms.

Ditto for the biological implausibility of creatures with giant exoskeletons, reversed aging, adult clones with identical memories and personalities, and James T Kirk having sexual relations with the females of every species he meets.

However, the engine noises in Star Wars were specifically mentioned. I see no reason why the recording microphone could not have been in the cockpit of the X-Wing or Tie-fighter.

 

[Ursa major]

However, the engine noises in Star Wars were specifically mentioned. I see no reason why the recording microphone could not have been in the cockpit of the X-Wing or Tie-fighter.

Neither do I, especially as we are encouraged to write (books, that is, not scripts) in a limited 3rd person (or 1st person) POV, rather than 3rd person omniscient. The character can, or cannot, hear what is in their immediate environment.