Science Fact From Fiction

Embedded Geek writes "The European Space Agency maintains an ongoing project called Innovative Technologies from Science Fiction for Space Applications (ITSF) (Cliquetez ici pour la version française). Its goal is "to review past and present SF literature, artwork and films in order to identify and assess innovative technologies and concepts described which could be possibly developed further for space applications." While I had known about Clarke first envisioning the geostationary satellite, the site also lists some other interesting ideas first pitched in SF: planetary landers, rocket fins, and space stations assembled in orbit. Visitors to the site are encouraged to submit technologies from SF works, although they should look at the master keyword list to avoid duplication first. Also of interest is a spiffy little brochure and a writing contest. Even if it never results in any new technology actually being developed, the site is a nice resource for science educators and science fiction fans."

Comments

What about other fields?

[GothChip]

This is a great idea. I always thought that other fields should pay more attention to turning science fiction ideas into reality.

The two inventions I'm looking forward to are credsticks to replace cash (like in Shadowrun) and reactalight contact lenses to reduce glare from the sun.

Re:What about other fields?

[IncarnationTwo]

Credit cards.
Cash (debit?) cards.

Both of these are widely aivailable in europe, though it is fairly hard to pay with EC("electronic cash"), as not so many shops have needed readers for EC cards.

Why is that?
Because there is no market for "credstics" or EC
in consumer markets. People like to see how much money they have.

Maybe when you can get visa electron 2.0 that has lcd-on-creditcard that shows your current balance... or maybe not even then.

And you should remember that whern you use EC, all you transactions are _tracable_.

And what about Scifi view of EC-on-skin... I find that a horrible idea. An electronic tracing instrument planted on your skin.

Arthur C. Clarkes Geostationary satellites

[91degrees]

Has anyone actually read this report? While the concept was quite clever, it was clearly written long before anyone had got into space.

His proposal was to build no more than 3 comsats. These were huge beasts that would be constructed in space, and manned permanently. Each comsat would deal with communication over 120 degrees across the earth.

This is a far cry from dozens of highly specialised and semi disposable comsats that we actually use. I don;t mean to be too hard on Arthur C. Clarke, but people really ought to remember how wrong he was with a few gems of being right.

Re:Arthur C. Clarkes Geostationary satellites

[anonymous cupboard]

I read his original report, he was showing how a minimum system could be built for full earth coverage. He wrote this at a time when space flight was still very much fiction (about ten years before Sputnik) and there were vacuum tubes rather than semiconductors. Tubes need regular replacement, hence the need for a manned presence.

Re:Arthur C. Clarkes Geostationary satellites

[alistair]

For people who wish to read the report itself, the London Science Museum has images of the entire Wireless World article available here.

Personally, I think he got the most important points correct in anticipating the advantages of a Geostationary orbit. I suspect he suggested only three of them due to the huge cost of building them and he does show (correctly) that these three satellites would cover the major regions of "Africa and Europe", "China and Oceana" and "The Americas" (page three) while allowing point to point communication between the three satellites.

True, he did predict huge manned stations powered by valves with people to replace the valves but it seems harsh to critisise him for not inventing Moores Law 20 years early. Much of the rest of the text is both valid and visionary. For some other examples of his work the site has a short information page here.

While browsing the site you may also want to look at the Quicktime VR movie of the inside of Apollo 10. The Science Museums Space Gallery has always been one of my favourites and this is a nice attept to put some of it online (plus I helped in the making of this a few years back :-) ).

Death Star

[rde]

Under normal circumstances, I'd suggest a Death Star. In these heady days when we're considering technologies that might, in our lifetimes, get us to other star systems, it's important to have something that'll enable us to blow the shit out of anything that looks at us funny.

Of course, there would be problems. Remember the arguments about the status of Pluto? That'd be nothing compared to something like the death star.

"That's no moon."
"Yes it bloody is"
etc

Re:Bluetooth?

[Longjmp]

You don't need UFOs. This is even more scary.

Translation of screen display:

New hardware detected.
(spoiler omitted)
Start auto-configuration now?
[Start] [Cancel]

IP.

[DaBj]

The site is also a nice resource for finding prior art.

Hope that doesn't make companies avoid inventing the stuff, since they can't really patent it, and we all know that it's the patent that creates a profit, not the invention...

post hoc ergo propter hoc

[The Fun Guy]

Disclaimer: I love science fiction, always have, always will, however...

Science fiction did indeed predict (in some form, anyway) communications satellites, cell phones, rocket fins, particle weapons, the floppy drive, etc. However, it also predicted antigravity, rolling roads, matter converters, mind control rays, time machines and stasis fields. The trouble with looking back at science fiction and picking out the accurate predictions is that you ignore the 99.9% that was inaccurate, and distort the perceived value of the source material. It's like finding one potato out of a thousand that's shaped kind of like Elvis... you would not seriously conclude that potato fields are a good place to look for new sculptures, would you?