Ships & Stones FAQs
- What were the design and technology constraints you placed upon yourself when writing Ships & Stones?
- I am most interested in exploring a science fiction that has technology that one can at least see from here. For me, that means no faster-than-light drive, transporters, anti-grav, hand-helf energy weapons, and the like. These things certainly have their place in sci-fi, but I wanted the challenge of being limited by Newtonian physics.
- What's the single biggest technological leap assumed in Ships & Stones?
- That would be He3 to He3 fusion, which is certainly many decades away from being a reality.
I chose this flavor of fusion because
- Logistically, with only one input (other types of fusion require two or more different elements), it simplified ship design as well as the underlying economy behind the story.
- It has very little secondary radiation. Additionaly, the resulting He4 can be used for maneuvering, and of course the protons are used for the rocket exhaust.
- Why hab rings? Isn't that kind of cliche?
- Well, they are cliche, but that's because they're effective. Hab ring rotation can be varied to provide different strengths of gravity, and that gravity would be independent from the acceleration of the ship. The only other solution (besides something 'out there' like anti-gravity capabilities) is to provide the ship's gravity via the ship's accelleration itself. This would use tons and tons more He3 than the hab ring solution, and ships couldn't vary their acceleration without disturbing their passengers.
For some Ships & Stones technical drawings, click here.