Is hard sci-fi dead?

It's actually pretty neat.

species

>Knowing I will never leave earth and explore space, even if earth is flat.

Attached: feel.gif (418x500, 17K)

This. Or they're good for half of the movie and then they pull some bullshit third act out of their ass to wow the audience. Fucking hell, this is the one thing hollywood can literally never even get right.

Attached: 1557396272491.jpg (609x515, 33K)

this but also i don't enjoy it, it's kind of depressing. all the long travel times, distances, time dilation, acceleration, zero gravity and crap like that. it's just kind of existentially deflating, idk how to explain it. i guess because it shits all over your perception of more light hearted and cool sci-fi. i still read it though.

hard sci-fi = I got an engineering degree and that's my only defining trait so I have to have everything be scientifically accurate to jerk my weak ego off

The Martian despite all the cringe humor was actually one of the hardest sci-fi movies ever made.

Wanna know how I can tell you majored in liberal arts?

The Martian and Interstellar might interest you, OP

retard/NPC
wow this turnout is depressing

Isn't the Wandering Earth hard sf?
The autistic chink who wrote the book definitely writes hard sf.
shit genre btw

Hard sci-fi is gay desu.

Try again, brainlet.
Simply I am not a generic stereotype like you twats.

>long travel times, distances, time dilation, acceleration, zero gravity and crap like that. it's just kind of existentially deflating

I feel like you've been reading Alastair Reynolds. But I don't agree on it being depressing. I find the realism makes it easier to envision as a real possibility. If an author depicts a happy, fun universe, but that universe relies on FTL travel, it makes me sad that it'll never happen (assuming FTL is impossible), but if the author sticks to the rules, I can remain hopeful that something like that might truly happen one day.

no

Attached: 268f901ed1d17f00d027ebe907b6ce1854537f4f80f0b7b64b9d897c783499eb.webm (712x400, 2.88M)

Nobody likes your shitty show, boo hoo

Oh you never even went to college. That's not any better by the way.

Sauce?

it's not dead, but you're not going to find big-budget ones unless they're sequels and helmed by a hotshot proven director, i.e. BR2049

show adaptation when

Attached: 81BaX9M8SXL.jpg (1400x2100, 442K)

The Expanse

Holy fuck that blurb is cringy af
Literal I'VE SEEN LASERS AND SHIT tier

the expanse

Attached: d950d727c465262bcb3c420ae02fcfe46cdc940567dbae719594fb878e12fff9.webm (888x500, 1.65M)

this one's pretty hard, unfortunately it's also pretty shit

>read wikipedo summary
>1 paragraph
>vampires and zombies
>called hard sci fi in the 1st sentence

As if you'd take this over Blindsight

Unless it's in the near future I can't take hard sci-fi seriously. There's no place for humans in a space fearing civilization.

It sounds ridiculous but it is completely hard sci-fi, you have to drop the fantasy connotations of the terms.

Trying to remember what scene that was. Was that when they blew up the ships in orbit while the... was it Martian marines were fighting on the surface?
Man. There is a shit ton of stuff that went on in those seasons.

>watches sci fi
>calls others NPCs

Yeah I think that's it.

Moon was 10 years ago.

Wrong. They're waking to the hollow earth deception

USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST

>Simply I am not a generic stereotype like you twats.
Why do you write like this - you penning a school shooter manifesto or something?

it is, there's no vampires or zombies in the blindopraxia, these are just nicknames for things. languages do this all the time calling new stuff after old\fictional stuff. like 'spaceships' are not actually ships.

It's really good, the vampires are just autists.

Sci-fi and space especially is undergoing a big rebirth right now after like two decades of losing to fantasy.

Just look how many new space manga and anime are on the horizon.

The Expanse is pretty good and pretty much popularized the concept of artificial gravity through acceleration, but it's definitely not hard sci-fi.

you act like Terraformars doesbt exist

Attached: baswed.jpg (1100x550, 110K)

battle of ganymede , it's essentially a farming outpost (gravity,lots of surface,low radiation because magnetic field) hence the orbital mirrors directing light on the farms. it had martian and earth military presence and protogen sent protomolecule soldiers that both sides interpreted as the other side attacking them so they started shooting

Aren't there multiple adaptations of popular sci-fi books being made at Netflix and Amazon?

>Muh action in space
Boring. Get some class.

Attached: MOON.jpg (1200x675, 203K)

based and wokepilled af, I still cant believe people in this day and age STILL fall for NASA's lies

>depleted uranium shot across the bows of complacent, by-the-numbers SF
Absolute yikes

>He thinks this is hard sci-fi
fucking keep your syfy channel shit away

miniseries adaptation when (could also expand the story for multiple seasons)

Attached: saturn-run-1.jpg (1200x1200, 150K)

gravity is a great example of this

>That much damage from small round fire

Attached: 1519469900175.jpg (665x635, 49K)

>small round fire
???????????

You have no idea how much energy something moving at mach6 has.

i read and loved blindsight but i've been turned off by this apparently being pretty much unrelated, except for being set in the same universe. is it really that good?
>I feel like you've been reading Alastair Reynolds
i haven't, but what would you recommend i read from him? i've read the forge of god series, space odyssey, dread empire's fall, forever war, etc. others too, but these are off the top of my head. not all of them are really hard but they share the elements i mentioned.

about tree fiddy

gravity had 0 realism
why not, these round can usually go though a ship with little velocity loss at tens of kilometers , why would they not cause fucking mirrors to shatter ?

This series is amazing at one time and then it just falls flat the next. Like all the martian/earth drama is top tier and then the space mystery is okay too but the whole rebellion and the main character are absolute dog shit.

its slightly worse then blindsight , but if you loved blindsight and want a book that expands the universe and tells you more about how earth is like its the book for you.

foundation isn't even sci-fi. it's science politics at best

remember this?

Attached: Gravity.jpg (1022x574, 65K)

fire estigwisher

Attached: 1524594882049.png (600x547, 335K)

it started out okay

main character gets better over time as he stops giving a shit about morals and whatever

not really, next season is in illus 4\new terra which is pretty great in the books. the series generally just keeps getting better as more and more major shit goes down.
also what fucking rebellion you mean the shit on the behemoth ?

He's just a really bad actor, like his face during 90% of the scenes looks like he's constipated. I do agree he improves during season 3 and 4 but still, he never gets up to par.

The Expanse is pretty hard sci-fi.

Your post is based
But I gotta admit, I really don't like how when it's sexy time the main character in all animes is a beta faggot

If you're interested in reading Alastair Reynolds the obvious place to start is with Revelation Space. It's both the introductory novel into his most expansive universe, and it's also just an interesting novel. I heard it described as lovecraftian cyberpunk space opera, which I feel is an apt description. If you don't feel like jumping straight into the deep end like that, though, I've heard Beyond the Aquila Rift, which is a collection of short stories, is good. I've only read the first in the collection, the one that's its namesake, but it was quite interesting. Personally, I heavily enjoyed the Revelation Space universe (I underwent the laborious process of reading all of it), so I'd just jump in the deep end, but that's just me. It has this bittersweet quality to it, which appeals to me.

maybe. does it at least expand on the events of blindsight a bit?
okay, thanks, i'll start with revelation space then. i'm soon to be done with my current read anyway and i was wondering what to pick up next.

always wondered what the blonde girl was about to say

but the earth is flat

is that explosion hard sci fi?

Space fantasy is far more popular than sci-fi.

Attached: B5 Earth Centauri battle.webm (854x480, 1.23M)

Why would you judge a book by a moronic journalist's quote the publisher chose?

the expanse is nice even with the shitty acting
space politics without ayyy magic would have been nice too

>astra lost in space
what else

fucking visual diarrhea

yeah no shit nigger. most of the people itt are probably the ones posting in b5 and farscape and stargate threads too.

The quote is yikes. No idea what the book is about.

sort of,one of the character's is siri's dad and it shows some of the stuff the aliums have been doing in the solar system.
it expands on blindsight but you dont see the theseus crew or siri again.

based

no FTL, no energy shields and no bullshit antigrav magicks is hard by TV standards

There is no such thing as hard sci-fi. We can't even predict how our technology will look like in 20 years not to mention hundreds.

Look into "hard sci-fi" stuff from the 70's or 80's. They got literally everything wrong.

This is why nobody cares anymore and just goes with space magic. Even stuff like The Expanse is not hard sci-fi. Not even close.

Attached: 2B cosplay.webm (374x400, 1.52M)

yeah, that's fine. i might pick it up then.

Protomolecule alien tech has all of that though.

>Look into "hard sci-fi" stuff from the 70's or 80's. They got literally everything wrong.
hard referes to laws of physics and our understanding of science, not predicting the future

the magic drives a whole lot of politics and intrigue later on, even the latest book still mostly deals with human vs human stuff

Our understanding of science changes every 10 years. Look at astronomy before Hubble.

>planets filled with greek/roman/nazi cosplayers
>hard sci-fi

>reeeeeeee this term of convenience isn't 100% accurate
ok user we'll keep that in mind, thank you for the info.

it's true people in the 50s thought Venus might be inhabitable, but our understanding of astronomy isn't radically different, we just have a shitload more data

not really, protomolecule traveled on a timelike world line (as in no FTL shit) so the wormholes never went FTL and wormholes are solutions to known GR equations.

It's not accurate at all. Even Space Odyssey gets basic shit like rotating habitats wrong.

venus aint that bad. didnt soviets get some pics from the surface?

would have been good if they swapped out bullock

that's the fantastical parts of of science fiction
you look at Rendezvous with Rama and say LOL aliens don't exist, and get your gigantomania out of my face Clarke, too?

Scifi today is not about science. It's about lame relationships, crying and laughing shit, getting together and and breaking up. Then shooting some slimy insectoid with a piu piu gun.

>but our understanding of astronomy isn't radically different

It's completely different.

okay, it's not accurate at all.

No. Now shut up.

Attached: UNN Agatha King.png (1920x1080, 1.87M)

yeah boiling ammonia oceans aren't so bad

different how, stop reading pop science rags where every headline is "radically change the way we see X"

>Speculative fiction should not speculate
Don be dumb.

Attached: Scientific rigor of Hard SF.png (1603x957, 694K)

>yeah boiling ammonia oceans aren't so bad
imagine the smell

Yes. Sci-fi is space action adventure now.
Normies killed it harder than any other genre.

Attached: Outland.png (1530x639, 1.43M)

all the ships in the expanse are CUTE except the Behemoth

Go read Orion's Arm already.

Don't mean.

Attached: OPA poster.jpg (563x800, 212K)

>star trek
has FTL, has instantenous matter transport, has energy shields, ship designs are idiotic, no light lag, has time travel
I never even watched *anything* Trek, I just know it's softer than the fans' neckbeards from pop culture osmosis

Yeah and their landers fucking died instantly. They lasted like three minutes. I'm still mad that nobody's sent a blimp there, though.

dude I have never seen anyone talk about this film
it is so fucking amazing

MUH CANT

Attached: medium-clean.jpg (800x581, 485K)

>high noon in space
discovered it thanks to this song
youtube.com/watch?v=ZbKaJLtBrzE

None of that stops it from being hard SF you dummy.

Attached: the_cradle_world_by_julian_faylona-d6an1pl.jpg (1024x563, 169K)

holy shit this is so rad
i will literally watch this movie over the weekend because of this song

Literally go watch any documentary on Hubble discoveries. It completely changed astronomy.

Next gen telescopes that will start going online in few years will do the same.

As it is now we can't see or understand something that makes 90% of the universe.

Can't argue that

I made the cinegrid but I don't think it's amazing. Lower your expectations.

Did hard scifi even ever exist? Name one 'hard' scifi film.

2001

Attached: 1365659368823.gif (400x276, 1.33M)

hmmm okay i won't see it

Hard exists to distinguish from things like star wars which does not give one fuck about explaining tech or physics.

How much effort is spent explaining underlying logic roughly correlates to how "hard" it is.

you forgot to give me an example

>finally give in and watch endgame
>the scene with Tony "inventing time travel LUL"
>physics mumbo jumbo speech
>Deusch proposition, bro
>realize I've grown out of this type of "movie science" years ago
>wish for more hard sci-fi like Expanse without the protomolecule I guess?
>normies gobble up movie sci-fi so there is no need to "be realistic"

Gravity was okay I guess? But not really fiction and more like a contemporary drama.

Martian was a stretch (those winds on mars lul) but Interstellar was definite science-fantasy romcom

moon 2009

For me, Peter Watts is my favourite. Asimov is also good.

Tv/Film is tough because scifi needs big budgets to not look cheesy and it just doesn't have a following, I'd have to be The expanse/interstellar/martian

shit taste user. kill yourself

bump
pls don't die, i can't take the got, capeshit and pol/anti-pol spam anymore

I'm not sure this even counts as sci-fi, it's more like a drama set in NASA.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cape_(1996_TV_series)
youtube.com/watch?v=nDV8Vaz7ymI

Attached: the cape.jpg (480x360, 35K)

The only parts of it that are not hard sci-fi are the protomolecule, which is not intended to be and the way they ignite their fusion reactors, which is not described in detail. Other than that, it's pretty fucking hard.

That hurts! Don't run around slapping people.

fucking plebs

Attached: Annihilation_(film).png (220x343, 119K)

we got a shitload more data from hubble, but the fundamentals haven't changed, speed of light and theories of gravitational attraction are basically the same
yeah, the observable universe is even bigger and older than we estimated, when you're talking about the distance from the earth to the Kuiper belt you're already dealing with distances human mind isn't prepared to deal with, forget light years

>Black astronauts
lmao

hard sci-fi takes real science and runs with it
all of those things break the laws of physics one way or another

Attached: Scifi881.jpg (563x797, 105K)

good film, reasonably hard speculative fiction

>hard sci-fi takes our current understanding of science and runs with it
Yeah, but even when later proven wrong, it does not stop old works like Star Trek from being less hard SF. Especially if later entries try to retcon a reasonable fix into extreme concepts, like teleportation or warp.

Attached: armored_assault____closing_in___by_kajitetsushi-d2k1rth.jpg (1098x727, 165K)

as a rule of thumb, FTL is not hard sci-fi
explain to me time travel in scientific terms
instantenous matter transportation is one thing, living beings "beamed up" is just pure magic
and let's not forget the holodeck

>What is Iron Sky

a shit film

The inclusion of Soft SF elements to push a hard SF story forward does not shift the genera, especially of said elements are not the focus of the story.
It's all about degrees, how solid is your science, how consistent is it in your world and how relevant is that to the story.

Attached: speed_painting__armor_and_vtol_by_shimmering_sword-d38fpmi.jpg (772x1000, 205K)

there's no such thing as a hard SF story, it can be any story, but your science needs to be valid. How to spot a hard sci-fi work: the author probably has a PhD in a technical field, mathematics or astronomy.

Trek is pure space opera

Why is it bad?

>there's no such thing as a hard SF story, it can be any story, but your science needs to be valid.
That's a fair position to hold

Attached: PA-art33.jpg (995x803, 199K)

based

Attached: 1550804341293.jpg (1620x854, 54K)

It's a mediocre drama with annoying moe protagonist. Sci-fi in it is just a setting. And it's definitely not a hard sci-fi

>And it's definitely not a hard sci-fi
it's not? where does it fuck up in scientific terms? genuine question, would read the response with interest.

Hate to use the words, but these books are the definition of overrated trash.

Planetes is such a shit animu

an (cliché) episode of the animated show Love, Death & Robots was also named Beyond the Aquila Rift: was it an adaptation?

check this one out

Attached: dark-matter.jpg (726x408, 60K)

not hard sci-fi but fantastic fun and great characters. would heartily recommend.

Sorry user I've only seen a couple of episodes it 9 years ago and don't remember much. Maybe I'm wrong on this one. But I guess the whole idea of hand-picking garbage in space seems unrealistic to me.

>Hard sci-fi is dead
>Best hard sci-fi kino in decades was released last year

Attached: prospect.png (1203x897, 2.25M)

It never existed.

>doesn't know about kessler syndrome

hm yeah, they'd probably be using drones or remote controlled stuff. although garbage in space is definitely a problem we'll probably have to deal with in the future, but i assume you knew that

I just want plausible looking space ships is that too much to ask?

Attached: paul-pepera-cs-docking06-final.jpg (1920x960, 534K)

I'm talking about their solution to the problem

>fuck my dad he always chose work over his family I barely ever saw him fuck him and people like him fuck fuck fuck
>ok bye my pregnant wife, I'm gonna fuck off to space for a decade good luck with the kid

Attached: 1545034980880.png (500x465, 116K)

I'm confident the real solution would be a huge blob of some sort of expansive foam that is launched to unstable orbit to "wipe" junk and the fall into atmosphere.

this looks pretty decent. what are the good and the bad things about it?

Yea and that solution made more sense than yours. If they would be picking garbage from space using fucking drones or other machinery they would be risking making more space garbage if they got hit by debris. They had minial crew and a single spaceship, it was cheaper and faster this way.

Wasn't this a short? They made a whole movie of it?

holy shit learn how to read an imageboard you stupid nigger. he wasn't the one who posted that.

The Alien franchise is alive and well. Fun fact, Blade Runner is canon to that universe

>those retards who keep thinking its a good idea to harpoon satellites
THEY KEEP GETTING FUNDING AAAAAAA

The setting is very nice, equipment is very plausible, macguffin was alright with a nice danger to it.
You are only off world for a little bit but the planet is alien enough.
The worse bit is they didn't show more of the fuckboi son.

It's over 90 minutes

so I quoted the wrong person, why are you sperging out faggot?

Yeah there was no risk because human bodies are immune to high velocity space junk

no, because human bodies don't create more space garbage even if they get killed by debris

yes

>garbage in space is definitely a problem we'll probably have to deal with in the future
We're already dealing with it.
Have been for decades.
Everything launched into space only gets clearance to do so if it has a system in place to ensure atmospheric re-entry at the end of its life or at the very least enter into a graveyard orbit, which means an orbit that due to the sun and moon's presence is going to in a relatively short amount of time deteriorate into an atmospheric re-entry.

what about the stuff that's already up there, is there enough of it to be a problem?

Are there mechas in hard sci-fi?

Name one bad thing about interstellar.
Mars is a shitty movie, it's very boring and it would be better as an outright documentary about the possibilities of Mars farming.
Interstellar is a masterpiece whether you're an underage "new bad old good" redditor trying to fit in or not.

Well there definitely is a couple of things up there that shouldn't be. For example even with the regulations the ESA went and shot up a huge civilian satellite in 2002 that was supposed to be decomissioned (and as such returned into the atmosphere) in 2007, only for them to decide "yeah nah, why don't we extend the mission until 2014 even though the equipment was made to last only until 2007?" and managed to unsurprisingly lose contact with it in 2012, meaning there is no way to return it to the atmosphere.
If that thing gets hit by one of the other few things up that are either the results of failures or have been up since before regulations, it could cause an issue.
That being said, even if it does get hit, the orbit of the newly created debris won't be massively different than the original satellite's. More likely, it will instead just create a ring in a very specific orbit since some pieces will have a very slightly wider or thinner orbit as they speed up/slow down relative to the original collision's participants.
Additionally, all of these will eventually deteriorate their orbit to the point where they enter the atmosphere, because you need to have an extremely specific orbit in order to make it stable due to the fact that the gravity of 3 different moving bodies (Earth, Sun and Moon) affect everything in Earth Orbit.
In the case of the satellite I mentioned, if nothing hits it, it will enter the atmosphere in about 150 years, which is a lot, but given how small it is and how regulations keep these kinds of blunders to a minimum, it's unlikely that it will grow into too great of an issue.

I don't want to live in a world where it isn't

Depends.
Do you call the thing Ripley uses in Aliens Not saying Aliens is hard sci-fi. to kill the queen a mecha, or does it need to have a laser sword that cuts through black holes and also transforms into a samurai lord or a giant metal loli on command?

mecha is an implausible concept, it definitely is not hard sci-fi

Yes, if they're realistic mechs, and not the kind that can change size, or move like superheroes.

Attached: Robotics;Notes.jpg (872x640, 77K)

Remember when flying was an implausible concept?

Star trek is space opera.

I wouldn't say they are implausible, it's more an issue that it would take way too much effort to make one for it to be actually useful for anything other than entry into a world faire or something.

the avatar mechas were cool
also
>not wanting badass lolis

How is it not sci-fi? We don't have orbital civilization yet.
Fuck you I liked it.

Mechs were invented decades ago, they're called tanks and helicopters, there's absolutely no reason in Earth to mimic human body for giant pieces of metal, they cannot balance, they can't walk in anything that's not flat, etc.
Human like mechas are just fantasy, they will never exist, a robot will never need legs.
Also if you're doing a mecha show at least go full retard and make it cool, since the mere fact of getting mechs in means you're not being accurate any way.
R;N is a garbage show btw, underage.

Even so it's just about as hard as sci-fi can get. The only thing that's a bit out there was the tandem mirror fusion engine - which is a real proposed concept but probably wouldn't work.

Who said I didn't want them? The question was about whether or not they are hard sci-fi.

Attached: Lil monkey fella.png (680x820, 297K)

no, flying was always plausible, people had been speculating on how to go about it since the Rennaissance.

Mecha is different, it's rendered redundant by other more straightforward technologies, and the fantasy idea of giant robots walking around and fighting doesn't take into account the sheer weight such a thing would need to overcome in order to move.

There's a reason why no land animals are any bigger than elephants.

i'm refering to the james cameron movie btw
>tfw there were mechas in the avatar cartoon too

That's not very likely. A huge anything is unlikely. The real solution is probably lasers and drones with lasers.

Yes but fuck mechas in space. Why the ever loving fuck would you give a spaceship legs is beyond me.

What it's this nonsense? Of course they do.

neat.
so was the entire plot of planetes built on a false premise?

But that's why does it good. Because they aren't designing something that is going to replace a drone or a tank, they're designing a mech as a school project for a school club because they think it would be fun to try. All leading up to the one single, rather neatly produced mech battle at the very end.
Sure, R;N isn't as good as S;G (or probably the Chaos stuff either, but I never checked those out because horror isn't my thing), but those don't have mechs.

Absolutely.

Attached: C_strelizia.png (615x840, 190K)

>Human like mechas are just fantasy, they will never exist, a robot will never need legs.
Why not? The human form is extremely versatile, assuming all the technological hurdles were solved and you could make a giant robot that could move as well as a real human, it'd be objectively better than a tank.

Watering down and normalizing something doesn't make it good, just boring.

Yeah, but spaceship designs are rarely done right anyway. I mean, friggin wings on spaceships are almost as dumb, but even beyond that too many space ship designs put all the propulsion on the one side (the "back") like a jet, when that makes no sense unless you're doing the single shot from the ground to a space target like all our current space programs do. For maneuvering in space, it'd be retarded.

>giant robot that could move as well as a real human, it'd be objectively better than a tank.
of course it would, but if there will come a time when we theoretically could build a giant robot any other alternative will be much better

So you prefer soft sci-fi over hard because it is less boring?

>hard sci-fi
>soft sci-fi
>high fantasy
>low fantasy
the two genres should really have conferred before coming up with these terms

>any other alternative will be much better
Like what?

You mean the ymir earth deception

You'll need such a complex neuronal system just to imitate walking (which still takes around 10 years for our brain to do properly) that you'll need a giant computer attached to the robot, giving you both reach and durability problems, it's not that humans aren't versatile, robots are just better.
Why did we design cars with 4 wheels instead of 2 legs? Animals just cannot grow wheels and thus we use legs, which are pretty inefficient when compared to machine mechanisms.
Giving legs to a robot is just "hey it looks human now doesn't it" shit, nothing else, the most optimal movement would be tank wheels that can be made sticky on a moment's notice and a suspension system for small jumps.
The only reasons humans grew taller is the higher your head is above the ground the less chances you have to be hit in it.
Machines are not affected by natural selection, thus their form should be as compact and cubed/spherical as possible.

Whats this nonsense? Of course they don't. In what way is the human body in space as dangerous as a space debries? Unless you are taking what I said literally which is stupid

>friggin wings on spaceships are almost as dumb

Attached: 1538145661047.jpg (728x360, 35K)

I’m surprised we haven’t seen scifi war movies like it’s Planetside.

You are retarded because you think the wrong kind of things are retarded.

The reason you put propulsion on one sidecof the craft is that usually propulsion takes up most of the craft and, in any realistic space drive, emits a fuckload of ionizing radiation and heat.

The retarded thing about most sci fi spaceships is that they put the "floor" perpendicular to the axis of thrust.

Well, it's questionable, but it's only as false as all the post apocalyptic stories are.

Honestly, all sci-fi, even the absolutely most grounded like say Stanislaw Lem's "His Master's Voice" generally starts out with something a little bit unreasonable. In that case, that there is a repeating pattern in the white noise of space. Not impossible, but given what we know so far pretty unlikely.
What separates hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi for me is how few shortcuts they take when it comes to telling the story at the expense of establishing fundamental changes.

If that show doesn't cut corners, or keeps it to a minimum outside of the base premise, I'd say it's hard sci-fi.

I like good movies I'm not a virgin insecure retard so I don't handicap myself by not watching or liking certain genres.
Do you like fantasy? But GoT is shit and LotR is a masterpiece, so do you like fantasy or not?

>it'd be objectively better than a tank.
A tank is like a solid block of armour with people inside it, low and flat-bottomed, with wheels and treads, a straightforward means of locomotion. A humanoid mecha has appendages and weak points, is tall with a top-heavy weight distribution, and has complicated walking as its method of locomotion.

you might want to refresh your understanding of "objectively", a mecha is a quite clearly objectively inferior to a tank

Like a much much much more powerful tank? The thing with mecha is that you need a balance. You can't make an agile 30m robot without lowering its power output. Therefore a very slow (in comparison to the mecha) weapon that doesn't need to worry about its size can do much more damage from a much bigger distance.

Not a space ship, just an atmospheric shuttle.

>giant anime mechas
retarded, one of the things that I don't like about Gunbuster
sorry gunbuster, love you anyways
>smaller Avatar-like mechas
plausible and justifiable

>Why did we design cars with 4 wheels instead of 2 legs?
Because wheels are optimal at moving really fast in one direction on a flat surface. They suck for rough terrain and need a significant amount of free space to turn. Now you know why tanks don't use wheels.
>the most optimal movement would be tank wheels that can be made sticky on a moment's notice and a suspension system for small jumps
I assume you mean treads instead of wheels. Unless you give that tank a rocket to fly, it won't be able to clear obstacles taller than itself, which the human body can do. In fact you could clear any vertical surface no matter how tall with the right tools. You can't do that with a tank unless you plan to tell me it will be able to drive up a literal wall.

Explain why a mecha would need arms.

Humans wear space suits and have various tools when they go to space. If they are killed, there will be 100kg body on the orbit which could collide with stuff and fall apart just as well as any other garbage

There are also some holograms.

If you're gonna make mecha, at least give them a wheels and a decent weight distribution

Attached: STANDARD_05__03922.1508474018.jpg (1000x667, 66K)

If the tank has sticky treads it means it can climb up walls, i know it's not currently viable but that would be way more optimal.
Also cars could be made to rotate instantly and change direction without even moving at all, but there's no point to that.
Human body at the same speed of a car has a way worse time turning, retard.
A car can turn around 180° in 3 seconds at 70km/h if you know how to drift.

>what are nukes

Concave Earth deception.

Attached: koreshan.jpg (534x712, 88K)

If you're ship needs to change directions in space (say if your going to be doing a lot of space combat or something) it needs propulsion on at least four different sides to maneuver efficiently. It's not like a plane or a boat, where you can change direction by pulling on a flap.

They are hitting mirrors.

Someone actually tried to trick me into thinking this was good and watched 2 eps.
It's insane the amount of unfiltered shit you retards eat just to follow a genre.
God damn 30IQ at most.

Red Mars adaptation when

It's shit and I'm glad it was cancelled.

No, it just needs attitude control thrusters to point its massive and incredibly radioactive exhaust around. Nobody is going to maneuver a spaceship like a ww1 biplane in a dogfight, retard. The relative velocities and accelerations associated with them in any kind of space combat are orders of magnitude too great.

Kys

Hard sci fi is dead because women, being the gender too stupid to pirate everything, are now the primary consumer and they're brainlets who don't like science.
We won't get good hard sci fi until they figure out a way to make neets pay for content

What would happen if you landed a rocket on the sky-orb? Could you re-paint it to be the world's most important ad surface?

Attached: Snake(oil)Merchant.jpg (174x168, 6K)

Such a robot would be able to change its profile and center of gravity just like humans can, aka go chest to ground when under fire. Also it would be able to get to taller places than a tank could so it could just go mountain climbing and set a sniper nest or something.

>implausible concept
Does not prevent it from being hard SF.

Yes but thats still way less debris than a broken machine. The body itself would do no/close to none damage and the space suits are not entirely made from metalic parts. Few trained humans can do as much as multiple machines.

Versatility. Can carry/switch tools with minimal effort, pull itself up to climb surfaces, assemble thing with ease, etc.

you can't
is just space and is infinite because stuff

Yes. Hard sci-fi is a genre that appeals only to white males and a smattering of Asians.

Science Fantasy or Speculative Fiction.

Attached: tau_poster06.jpg (800x595, 138K)

>Hard science fiction is a category of science fiction characterized by concern for scientific accuracy and logic.

>If the tank has sticky treads it means it can climb up walls
Only perfectly flat vertical surfaces, it couldn't climb a mountain or such. And that limitation means you could build your walls to be impervious to that kind of thing.

But thats dumb. Why would you need a fucking mecha climbing a mountain when you could just send out a goddamn jet. The thing is that instead of a mecha we have other separate machines that are capable of doing what the mecha could potentionally do and they are better at doing it.

Hard sci-fi is unnecessary. Look at solaris, great novel with a "scientific" central theme but is about a psychic ocean. You only need to follow laws of physics and technological development as much as you need to to explore that facet of futuristic humanity, and if your story is about the massive distances and timespans of interstellar colonizing then you don't really need to have accurate descriptions of quantum effects or whatever, except to appeal to "ahchually"-type nerds

There are a few japanese nerds building mechas today! They are completely possible. The only thing stopping us from using them is lack of uncumbersome powerful linear actuators. The same way the only thing preventing us from going to outerspace is the lack of powerful propulsion and infrastructure.

So what, you park the jet atop a mountain and then have it pull a giant sniper rifle out its ass?

>Can carry/switch tools with minimal effort
In what fucking way using a giant arm to switch/carry tools takes minimal effort?

Attached: 1439853442625.jpg (429x410, 26K)

Hard sci fi just means they try to make it sound plausible. Isaac Asimov is one of the most renowned hard sci fi authors and he had shit like anti gravity engines and the three laws of robotics.

I misread your post I thought you wanted to kill a sniper. Still it doesn't make sense. If you want to kill something from a distance you wouldn't use a a fuckin gun, stop taking evangelion as your idea source.

To mount a tank with a different weapon you'd have to dismount the old weapon and then put the new one on, which would involve a separate machine and several workers to perform the whole process. A giant human-shaped mech just has to place its current weapon on the ground or wherever and pick up the new one, it's exponentially faster and less involved and could even be done in the middle of combat.

Walkers could exist, but they would probably be more like in half-life 2, basically combinations between big dog and a daddy longlegs and not some sort of giant massive knight robot.

>If you want to kill something from a distance you wouldn't use a a fuckin gun
Oh right sorry, I forgot snipers aren't a real thing that exists my bad

Attached: 1537977211800.jpg (288x402, 76K)

kys

I'd watch a prequel of The Expanse
>new tech's impact on humanity
>space race and politics
>our errors and how we learn from them

also a thing that sci-fi and fantasy is failing lately is the "inspiring" and "integrating" part
is not necessary a super autistic level of detail to tell compelling stories

Stop being retarded, we are talking about a fucking mecha with a giant gun not a regular sized one with a human. With the gun size of the fucking building there are better alternatives

I know all of you flat earth niggers are larping, and you believe it makes you look like contrarian edge lords, but actually it makes you like a bunch of schizo faggots.

Attached: 1554054814149.jpg (462x534, 26K)

>A giant human-shaped mech just has to place its current weapon on the ground or wherever and pick up the new one,
>just
>it's exponentially faster and less involved
You mean with its robotic arm and hand and fingers? With all SEVENTEEN joints involved? It'll be like surgeon simulator, you haven't thought this through.

Wouldn't the tanks just blasto right through your walls then? In what situation would a mecha actually achieve superior versatility where other tools couldn't resolve with just a different approach.

Might as well just slap an industrial arm to a tank, except nobody ever does so for good reason.

Fucking idiotic. Just make a goddamn machine with multiple weapons that doesn't need a goddamn arm to change them, it really wouldn't be that difficult if you already are in a technological positing to build a mecha. Ever heard of a swiss knife?

Solid counter arguments.
Stop swallowing shit just because it's the genre that you got hooked to.

Kys

>all this mechafags
drone swarms are the superior way of futuristic weaponry

kys

>Human like mechas are just fantasy, they will never exist, a robot will never need legs.
Hardcore shitpost.
Not everything exists because it needs to.
Nations, organisations and individuals with the resources will tank into random junk out of curiosity, brinkmanship, entertainment or simply because they can.
People don't share the same values.
Folks could build rubbish mecha just to flex on scrubs in a random backwater. Could be for military propaganda, thrills in a dumb new sport, construction in hostile environments and rich folks doing whatever it is the rich do.

Honestly, a movie about why folks would make mechs and the impacts they could have on society in the long term would be worth a watch.

Attached: OVER-ENGINEERED GUNDAM.gif (240x320, 1.09M)

U guys mad?

Agreed.

Just one of many cool things to think about.

Attached: 08thmsteam8.jpg (890x501, 210K)

You didn't make an argument you counter.

So kys.

those vessels aren't equipped to be in any kind of battle. they are science vessels.

>mach numbers
>in a vacuum

Attached: blacklet.png (1218x1015, 934K)

We have walls right now that could survive a nuclear blast. A wall just in and of itself is not hindered by anything but budget and free surface, so unless you have a planet-cracking gun on that tank it's not wall-proof.

>Just make a goddamn machine with multiple weapons that doesn't need a goddamn arm to change them
So it's better to have a bunch of weapons around using space and weighting you down instead of being able to pick just what you need at a given time?

Do you think this supposed mech with multiple guns to use will just... summon them out of the air?

yes ant it was shit for brainlets.

Watch Moon and not this garbage you stupid fuck.

Have them air dropped.

Those aren't vessels, they're mirrors. The colony on the ground is dedicated entirely to agriculture.

Literally what? None of what you're saying makes any sense. In what world are you living that has fucking weapons just laying around, a video game? You still have to fucking carry them around even if you are using a mech

Attached: 1334329164853.jpg (366x380, 19K)

those are literally just normal cannon shells, equivalent to something like 20-30mm. but they are hitting a bunch of mirror panels so it works.

>a ship flying around with weapons on board just to drop them from high altitude is a much better solution than a machine that already has them ready to use at any time
ok

what the fuck is 'hard sci fi'? It can't be hard science if it's fictional science.

based

Attached: beamup.webm (1280x720, 2.92M)

the martian

Are you retarded?

science fiction =/= fictional science

You gear up at base, just like human soldiers. And just like human soldiers you probably carry more than one gun on you, but not every fucking gun to ever exist for every kind of combat situation you might ever face. And you know, if shit hits the fan it's always nice to have the option of taking a gun off a fallen combatant instead of being dead on the water the second you run dry or your weapon gets fucked. Or you could have a support mech/truck/whatever in the squad to serve as a mobile weapon locker if you want.

youtu.be/QvTmdIhYnes
youtu.be/06-Xm3_Ze1o

the last quarter/ending was absolute trash

closer to realistic. Travel to a distant planet with a generation ship would be harder sci-fi than travel via FTL, because the first one could be hypothetically achieved with technology we understand how to build today, even if both are fictional stories.

Well yeah you can't spacewalk/jetpack from station to station and Clooney didn't have to let go of the cable but apart from that it was pretty grounded.

>I don't know what half of these stuff does, we're just glorified technician

I like this guy, honest as fuck

in 2001 I liked the two guys on the ship section. I know there has to be drama for a movie, HAL is an asshole, but the best part was him trying to chase down the guy in the craft and grabbing him with the robot hands. it's slow, like it would really be, it's not action packed
what movie is like that?

Mechas are humanoids because it makes the combat more dynamic to the viewer than watching a quadruped or hexapod tank just spam rounds at each other from long distances which is a more realistic form of mecha combat. I mean seriously why the fuck would you attempt any close combat with a quadruped or hexapod mecha tank?

Solaris.

I'm not sure how you came up to this conclusion. Anyway, I'm against drones either. I think there needs to be a smarter solution rather than hand-picking

Blindsight would be instant kino if executed right.

Please elaborate user

What do you guys think about The Forever War

Watch the Wandering Earth

Yes its dead.

Moon/Martian are all we got.

Planetes was kino also, but Anime has developed in a bad direction since then.

Space brothers has come out since then, so I'm not sure what you're talking about

Peter Watts I agree as being pretty hard sci-fi. Kim Robinson is another hard sci-fi author that comes to mind, though I've only read Red Mars & Green Mars.

Gonna disagree on Asimov, he's very hit and miss when it comes to how hard & believable the scifi is. Robots stories tend to be solid, but telepathy & intuitionism in the later Foundation books is pretty weakly explained, even if it is consistent with his other story arcs.

At least he isn't nearly as all-over-the-place as Heinlein.

Moon's premise was impractical.

This would make a really nice kind-of hard (there's longish term hibernation) scifi movie.
It's kind of like Armageddon.

Attached: pimeän pilven ritarit.jpg (300x490, 20K)

man, Planetes was a fantastic series.

yes it is dead. something I have observed over the years - science fiction and people in general is focused much more inwards. up till the end of the 90s, people looked more out the stars, there was an excitement, an atmosphere of departure. but since the advent and establishment of the internet, people became self-obsessed. social media and virtual reality makes them self-absorbed and egocentric.
example:
youtube.com/watch?v=yy7GOO7Y96Y

Interstellar is such a bloated bad film, but I was especially saddened, that they had to include a natural catastrophe in the story, to make people nowadays even care for it.
man I even feel nostalgic about the end of the 19th century. reading Jules Verne, Arthur Conan Doyle, later on Lovecraft - there was a sense of awe and a fascination of what's out there. it's all gone now.
this might sound silly to some, but it makes me incredibly sad, that I was born too early to never explore alien worlds

Attached: 060902_the_dig_art_11.jpg (640x400, 55K)

Literally who?