Space battles recommendations

[Tim Murray]

Visually, I'd nominate Babylon 5 (the Earthforce ships) as hard SF in terms of combat, but for sheer out-and-out carnage try the end of Star Wreck: In The Pirkinning (get the original rather than 'Imperial' version).

In Space Opera you generally have artifical gravity, non-Newtonian movement (no momentum when you turn), and none of the nitty-gritty that gets 'in the way' of the storeyline. In hard SF you have to worry about connecting the catheter in your space suit for long missions. Apart from the AG then 'Alien' is hard-ish SF, whereas 'Space: Above And Beyond' is operetta.

Thanks, I generally explain the tech in a future chapter. I've read too many books that throws out new tech. and moves on without any explanation. Sometimes it leaves me scratching my head. Such as a future Earth that is barely out of twenty first century space travel, but time travels like you drive your car today??????

 

[PartialMitch]

Ok, I've read the term space opera many times on this forum. Please enlighten me on the difference between hard SF and space opera.

Hard sci-fi strives to be realistic. The Martian is a good example of contemporary hard sci-fi. Soft sci-fi cares less about scientific accuracy for the sake of the story (the majority of sci-fi is soft sci-fi, especially the more popular stuff, i.e. Star Trek). Soft sci-fi employs real science to varying degrees to explain things, but doesn't mind ignoring reality to tell their tale. Anything with FTL is not hard sci-fi, IMHO, though people's opinions vary regarding the specific details of the definitions. Space opera is a type of soft sci-fi that focuses on adventure and high dramatic stakes, and employees science and technology mostly as atmospheric elements (with the quintessential example being Star Wars).

 

[hitmouse]

with the quintessential example being Star Wars).

well... arguably, EE Smith's Lensman series really kicked it off.

 

[BAYLOR]

Honor Harrington

 

[SilentRoamer]

Hard SF is very much concerned with the science and technology of science fiction. A simple example:

Space Opera: A FTL drive is mentioned. Fin.
Hard SF: A FTL drive is mentioned, and the physics that allows this violation of relativistic principles are explained.

Anything with FTL is not hard sci-fi, IMHO, though people's opinions vary regarding the specific details of the definitions.

Hard SF by it's nature relies on known science or extrapolation from known science. As FTL is not in the realm of science then essentially there is a tonne of handwavium going on.

Even then some of the harder SF still stretches the boundaries for the sake of the story and often hard SF is proven factually incorrect further down the line (an example being Ringworld).

For good hard SF I don't think there's much beating Arthur C Clarkes Rama.

 

[Tim Murray]

Hard SF by it's nature relies on known science or extrapolation from known science. As FTL is not in the realm of science then essentially there is a tonne of handwavium going on.

Even then some of the harder SF still stretches the boundaries for the sake of the story and often hard SF is proven factually incorrect further down the line (an example being Ringworld).

For good hard SF I don't think there's much beating Arthur C Clarkes Rama.

Two thumbs up on that! I've read it twice.

 

[BAYLOR]

The Dragon Never Sleeps by Glen Cook.