Sir Isaac Newton, and the Science in Heinlein's Juveniles...
Jim Burns
I was one of the many who first fell in love with Henlen's writings, via
the juveniles, so don't misunderstand me!
;-)
In fact, I was a second generation Heinlein fan, with my father having
grown up as a boy, when the shorts were first appearing in ASTOUNDING.
And a few of you here, have known me for years!
But I was recently stunned to see that there are some library systems in
New York that have ALMOST NONE of the Heinlein juveniles.
I've been meaning to do one of my editorials/essays on it, for one of
the the New York papers...
And basically roughed one out, yesterday.
Now, the only possible reason I could think for a library not including
these books would be that the science would no longer be accurate--
Which, of course, in most cases, is just stupid.
When having a conversation with a childrens librarian whose intelligence
I otherwise trust, I tried explaning not just the fun of these novels,
but their historical importance in the United States--
The number of scientists and engineers Heoinlein had inspired.
I don't think even some of the planet details are hard to explain. Most
kids are smart enough to tell themselves that the the Venus of BETWEEN
PLANETS, for example, was an idea of what the planet COULD be...
Anyone who couldn't grasp that concept, probaly wouldn't be intrigued by
the novel, anyway.
When I tried explaning to this libraian acquantance of mine the
marvelous tool these books could be--aside from their immense fn!--that
if some kid came up to her, who was interested in STAR WARS, or whaever
this year's hit sci-fantasy movie may be, she could help gain a reader
for life, by introducng him or her to the Heinlein juveniles...
She just looked at me kind of glassy-eyed, and said, "Uh, Robert
Heinlein...?"
So, I suppose there's a second issue, here: How someone could pass a
college libraian's course in the past decade, but have no idea whom
Heinlein is...
But my main question is, aside from BETWEEN PLANETS, or ROCKETSHIP
GALILEO...
Are there any Heinlein juveniles that contan GLARING scientific
inaccuracies--or difficult to explain=now historical anomalies, that I'm
just not remembering?
Jim Burns (James H. Burns)
Michael Black
> Are there any Heinlein juveniles that contan GLARING scientific
> inaccuracies--or difficult to explain=now historical anomalies, that I'm
> just not remembering?
>
I don't think that matters for this purpose.
You don't read science fiction to learn science, you either read it
because it's fiction about the science you're already interested in, or
as a hook to real science.
Most of the Heinlein books do have science, not as a passive experience
("I turned on the radio") but as something to pursue. That's what's
important to the young.
"Star Wars" and the like doesn't have science, it has the results of
science, lots of fancy weaponry and such. It puts the reader in a very
passive position, sit back and read. Meanwhile, in "Have Spacesuit Will
Travel", Kip has science hobbies, and he uses those to rebuild the
spacesuit, which then sends him on the adventure. The adventure is as
much way out there as "Star Wars", but it's grounded in something people
can do, it's grounded in the here and now.
A lot of the juveniles I could put myself in when I read them starting
around 8 years old, because I already had an interest in science. I
didn't imagine myself saving the planet, but I did imagine (and soon
after did) playing with electronics and such.
The other juveniles that I read at the time have that same aspect. The
Raymond F. Jones books in the Winston series, the one about a comet
killing all motors and such, amateur radio fits into that. His book
about a teenager who finds an alien and helps him recover, hot rods and
I think amateur radio were in that book too. The hot rod wasn't merely a
vehicle, it was something the teenager worked on himself.
I also read a number of Andre Norton books at the time, and she didn't
have that hobby type interest in science. And as an adult, I don't find
them as appealing as when I read them as a kid. I can't help but wonder
if there's a connection.
The movie "Explorers" took a bad turn (I think) later on, but it had
what the Heinlein juveniles had, main characters interested in science
who build a spaceship. That was a better movie than "The Last
Starfighter" where the main character is a videogame player, and that
skill causes aliens to recruit him for a big battle. The first movie
is akin to "Rocket Ship Galileo" in terms of the hobby getting them into
space, the latter has a similar theme to "Spacesuit" but completely lacks
the science interest that Kip had.
Michael
Jim Burns
Let's not lose track of the main queston, as so often happens with these
threads!
;-)
Are there any other specific examples of scientific inaccuracies--in
these otherwise mostly terrific novels--other than those mentioned?
Thanks!
jeanette
children's librarian. "If the science isn't right and it is not in the
non-fiction section then they don't care--they haven't pulled 1984 from
the shelves for inaccuracies."
She thinks things are pulled because they don't circulate. I think
Heinlein is more appropriate to what she calls young adult. She says
kids are somewhat prejudice against old books. They need awesome
covers.
She says that research shows that the biggest influence on what kids
read is their teachers.
I may have more to say later.
Jeanette
lal_truckee
> ...
> But my main question is, aside from BETWEEN PLANETS, or ROCKETSHIP
> GALILEO...
>
> Are there any Heinlein juveniles that contan GLARING scientific
> inaccuracies--or difficult to explain=now historical anomalies, that I'm
> just not remembering?
I'm intrigued - what are the glaring scientific inaccuracies in
Rocketship Galileo to which you refer?
If it's the rocket, an experiment fission-thermal rocket engine was
actually built a few years later, much along the lines described in the
novel. Here's a photo <http://www.f104g.demon.co.uk/space/nerva1.htm>
David M. Silver
james...@webtv.net (Jim Burns) wrote:
> But my main question is, aside from BETWEEN PLANETS, or ROCKETSHIP
> GALILEO...
>
> Are there any Heinlein juveniles that contan GLARING scientific
> inaccuracies--or difficult to explain=now historical anomalies, that I'm
> just not remembering?
Aside from wrong guesses about the habitability of Venus and, to a
lesser extent, Mars, I know of no glaring scientific inaccuracies. Over
the years a couple of computational errors have been ferreted out -- I
don't remember where exactly; but I think one was in _The Rolling
Stones_ and another in _Have Spacesuit--Will Travel_; but the citation
of basic principals has always been correct.
Additionally, there were a couple wrong guesses about the direction
technology would take, e.g., the analog (rather than digital) computers
used for star navigation in _Starman Jones_ and, by inference,
ballistics used to protect the trader ship in _Citizen of the Galaxy_;
but that's not a glaring scientific inaccuracy, merely a non-prescient
extrapolation of what shape the future might bring. The second wrong
guess concerned the continued use of slide rules. I had a log-log duplex
at the time he wrote and I read about them. A few years later, pocket
calculators displaced them.
I'm like Lal, however, in being mystified about what glaring scientific
inaccuracy you see in RSG, which doesn't deal with either Venus or Mars.
There's even a Heinlein-admitted practical inability to accomplish the
amount of work the three boys and one adult accomplish in the time
specified--it would take a lot longer; but that's not a scientific
inaccuracy. That scientific inaccuracy you see would be ... ?
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
Michael Black
> I'm like Lal, however, in being mystified about what glaring scientific
> inaccuracy you see in RSG, which doesn't deal with either Venus or Mars.
> There's even a Heinlein-admitted practical inability to accomplish the
> amount of work the three boys and one adult accomplish in the time
> specified--it would take a lot longer; but that's not a scientific
> inaccuracy. That scientific inaccuracy you see would be ... ?
>
It's scientifically impossible for nazis to get to the moon?
Michael
Chris Zakes
caused james...@webtv.net (Jim Burns) to write:
(snip)
>But my main question is, aside from BETWEEN PLANETS, or ROCKETSHIP
>GALILEO...
>
>Are there any Heinlein juveniles that contan GLARING scientific
>inaccuracies--or difficult to explain=now historical anomalies, that I'm
>just not remembering?
>
>Jim Burns (James H. Burns)
Breathable air and canals with water (or ice) in them, plant and
animal life (including sentient folks) on Mars, in "The Rolling
Stones" and "Red Planet."
Breathable air, swamps and sentient critters on Venus in "Space
Cadet."
But remember that these elements *were* based on the best scientific
data available when the books were written.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
"We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they're elected. Don't you?"
"Why?"
"It saves time."
-Terry Pratchett, "The Last Continent"
David Wright Sr.
@storefull-3112.bay.webtv.net:
(snip)
> Are there any Heinlein juveniles that contan GLARING scientific
> inaccuracies--or difficult to explain=now historical anomalies, that I'm
> just not remembering?
>
>
Starman Jones has a big scientific inaccuracy. As I understand it, there is
no way of 'reaching' the speed of light, and it totally ignores the time
dilation effects of traveling at near light-speed velocities.
Heinlein correctly handled these in 'Time For the Stars'.
I suspect that the Starman Jones treatment was done strictly to keep the
plot simple.
A correction: The computers in Starman Jones were digital, not analog.
Recall that the navigation books contained tables to translate binary to
digital and vice-versa. These would have been unnecessary for an analog
computer. To be fair to Heinlein, this was written before assemblers or
compilers to facilitate computer operation existed or were well known. Most
of the control was done by toggling switches to set on or off representing
the binary digits. Even in 1968 when I had my first hands-on use of a
computer, it, (a PDP-8i), required manual toggling of switches to load a
bootstrap loader into the computer to get it started.
The weapons control computers in Citizen of the Galaxy were analog.
Will in New Haven
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 09:03:26 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused jameshbu...@webtv.net (Jim Burns) to write:
>
> (snip)
>
> >But my main question is, aside from BETWEEN PLANETS, or ROCKETSHIP
> >GALILEO...
>
> >Are there any Heinlein juveniles that contan GLARING scientific
> >inaccuracies--or difficult to explain=now historical anomalies, that I'm
> >just not remembering?
>
> >Jim Burns (James H. Burns)
>
> Breathable air and canals with water (or ice) in them, plant and
> animal life (including sentient folks) on Mars, in "The Rolling
> Stones" and "Red Planet."
>
> Breathable air, swamps and sentient critters on Venus in "Space
> Cadet."
>
> But remember that these elements *were* based on the best scientific
> data available when the books were written.
I don't think so. They were based mostly on still-barely-possible
wishful thinking. They made for a much better Solar System for writing
SF adventure fiction but they were very unlikely to be accurate even
then. Of course, "then" is the key. When he started writing stories
set in that Solar System, with Venusburg and The Grand Canal, it was
plausible. But he was still writing stories in it, and I'm glad he
did, when it was pretty thoroughly impossible.
--
Will in New Haven
Mike Dworetsky
news:1819-4AF...@storefull-3112.bay.webtv.net...
In Rocket Ship Galileo they use a thorium fission reactor to heat zinc to
vapor for jet power. You can't actually do that because you need
fissionable materials like U-235, U-233 or Pu-239. Th-232 can be used to
breed U-233 which can be refined for weapons manufacture or to run a hot
rocket (in principle). But a Th rocket power source would be very difficult
to construct compared with U or Pu reactors.
If you can get enough U-233 from Th-232 breeder reactors you can build a
simple bomb very easily without all the expensive refinement processes. A
bit scary, really.
I suppose that's a scientific inaccuracy but not anything that made me throw
the book down in disgust.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
djinn
Starman Jones pretty much ignored Relativity and was a better story
for it.
Bruce C. Baker
"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote in message
news:kr4hf5d12lcsdiob6...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> Speaking of that... At least one of my kids (a nine-year-old) has
> expressed interest in "tinkering with electronic stuff". My older ones
> have had a couple of those "put together blocks" electronic building
> sets, but that's not really tinkering. What would the local gurus
> advise? Preferably something that can be put together on the cheap -
> maybe a breadboard and a bunch of parts (which?), plus some ideas on
> what to do with all that.
http://scientificsonline.com/product.asp_Q_pn_E_3052333
And when your child is ready to solder:
http://www.xtalman.com/kits.html
http://scientificsonline.com/product.asp_Q_pn_E_3127048
Chris Zakes
laser caused Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> to
write:
Really? "Space Cadet" was published in 1948. "Red Planet in 1949 and
"Rolling Stones" in 1952.
The first probe to Venus was Mariner 2 in 1962. How much was known
about surface conditions on Venus before that?
The first successful probe to Mars was Mariner 4, in 1964. Prior to
that, there was widespread belief in Martian canals.
http://www.umich.edu/~lowbrows/reflections/2001/dsnyder.7.html says
that the Martian atmosphere was first subjected to spectroscopic
analysis in 1952, finding mostly carbon dioxide.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.
-G.K. Chesterton
Will in New Haven
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 06:20:59 -0800 (PST), an orbital mind-control
It is true that the Livable Solar System was more believable in the
earlier books.
> The first probe to Venus was Mariner 2 in 1962. How much was known
> about surface conditions on Venus before that?
I have seen papers linked to from earlier that made the Libable Solar
System seem very unlikely to astronomers much earlier. However, they
came after Heinlein's earliest works in that version of the Solar
System.
> The first successful probe to Mars was Mariner 4, in 1964. Prior to
> that, there was widespread belief in Martian canals.http://www.umich.edu/~lowbrows/reflections/2001/dsnyder.7.htmlsays
> that the Martian atmosphere was first subjected to spectroscopic
> analysis in 1952, finding mostly carbon dioxide.
I think the Livable Solar system was plausible when he was writing the
early books you mentioned (and many short stories too) and was a
better setting for the stories he wanted to tell. I'm sure he knew by
the mid-Fifties that it was not plausible but I don't say he should
have changed anything about his later books.
--
Will in New Haven
>
> It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.
>
> -G.K. Chesterton- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jim Burns
Michael Black hit it on the head!
Basically, I'm just trying to quickly suss out whatever POSSIBLE
onbjections a librarian could have for stacking these books.
In my experience, there has never been another series of books for
getting young people, and others, excited about science.
(Although, in a much different way, I loved tghe DANNY DUNN series, as a
kid...)
Many of us--including an astronaut I know--read these books in the '70s,
when some of the examples cited were alrerady known about...
But they didn't affect our enjoyment of the books. Somehow, I knew that
one could overlook those one or two elements...
I've wondered if some librarians' hesitancy to stock the Heinlein
juveniles results from the still lingering controversy over FARNHAM'S
FREEHOLD, and STARSHIP TROOPERS.
The BEST school teacher I ever had was in Sixth Grade, but he refused to
listen to how good a writer Heinlein was, becuase what he had heard
about TROOPERS, made him think Heinlein was a fascist. (No, I'm not
looking to relaunch that arguement; I'm just stating how an otherwise
terrifc educator, had let one book--and, unbeievably for a smart man,
probably the REVIEWS of one book, rather than reading it for
himself--color his opinion.)
My own Dad, a Heinlein fan from the beginning (and, ultimately, a
professor of mechanical engineering), who had saved his Science Fiction
Book Club editions from the '50s, and the digest swerializations of
GLORY ROAD, and others, gave up on Heinlein, after FARNHAM'S FREEHOLD...
It's just a shocking shame to me, that in the Long Island library
system, Heinlein has become a rarity, for kids...
Jim Burns
jeanette
because they don't circulate. Several years ago someone posting here
said she occasionally check out RAH books just to keep them circulating.
Libraries don't track who checks books out over time.
Request that the library order books they don't have. There are some
new paperbacks so they are in print. It can't hurt to suggest the
books--especially if the librarian is unfamiliar with Heinlein.
Encourage familiarity.
Jeanette
Chris Zakes
laser caused Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> to
write:
And it's probably worth noting that after "The Rolling Stones" in
1952, Heinlein's juveniles deal with things outside our solar system.
I think it's likely he saw that new knowledge *would* make those
earlier stories less plausible. "Stranger" and "Podkayne" in 1961 and
1963 respectively are his last ventures into livable versions of Venus
and Mars.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
James Nicoll
David M. Silver <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>I'm like Lal, however, in being mystified about what glaring scientific
>inaccuracy you see in RSG, which doesn't deal with either Venus or Mars.
>There's even a Heinlein-admitted practical inability to accomplish the
>amount of work the three boys and one adult accomplish in the time
>specified--it would take a lot longer; but that's not a scientific
>inaccuracy. That scientific inaccuracy you see would be ... ?
I am going to assume this is only interesting if the inaccuracy
is inacurate by the standards of the day.
In RSG the speculation that the Moon once had an atmosphere
(that was blown off by a nuclear war) was obviously incorrect at the
time but I think it's one of the kids who suggests it.
In FitS, the engineer's reaction to the question about goosing
the drive once the ship once it gets close to C shows the engineer
knows SFA about relativity.
As a calubration point, this is not too bad an overview of
what was known about the solar system when RAH was gettign started:
http://jolomo.net/solarsystem/index.html
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
James Nicoll
jeanette <wo...@webtv.net> wrote:
>As I said in my earlier post, one of the reasons books are removed is
>because they don't circulate. Several years ago someone posting here
>said she occasionally check out RAH books just to keep them circulating.
>Libraries don't track who checks books out over time.
>
RAHs, somewhat worn, from a school board selling off the books that
didn'tget checked out. IIRC, some of them had not been checked out in
the better part of a decade.
James Nicoll
He used the wrong chemical for reaction mass, though. You want
lower atomic mass to maximize exhaust velocity so stuff like H2, CH4,
H2O and so on. Ideally you want H2 but it's a PITA to work with so
some designs accept the exhaust velocity hit to avoid using H2:
Some numbers from Project Rho's Atomic Rockets:
NTR-SOLID (H2) 8,093 m/s
NTR-SOLID (CH4) 6,318 m/s
NTR-SOLID (NH3) 5,101 m/s
NTR-SOLID (H2O) 4,042 m/s
NTR-SOLID (CO2) 3,306 m/s
NTR-SOLID (CO or N2) 2,649 m/s
By comparison a chemical rocket burning H2 + LOX will get
at best 4,500 m.s.
Later NTRs in Heinlein's fiction use H2 or H (and maybe water in
Double Star?).
James Nicoll
Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 09:03:26 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused james...@webtv.net (Jim Burns) to write:
>
>
>(snip)
>
>>But my main question is, aside from BETWEEN PLANETS, or ROCKETSHIP
>>GALILEO...
>>
>>Are there any Heinlein juveniles that contan GLARING scientific
>>inaccuracies--or difficult to explain=now historical anomalies, that I'm
>>just not remembering?
>>
>>Jim Burns (James H. Burns)
>
>Breathable air and canals with water (or ice) in them, plant and
>animal life (including sentient folks) on Mars, in "The Rolling
>Stones" and "Red Planet."
>
>Breathable air, swamps and sentient critters on Venus in "Space
>Cadet."
>
>But remember that these elements *were* based on the best scientific
>data available when the books were written.
Unfortunately the best scientific evidence of the day pointed
away from habitability for Mars or Venus. Menzell predicted less than
66 millibars on Mars by the mid-1920s, Adams ruled out liquid water
in the 1920s, Coblentz and Lampland found evidence of a thin or absent
atmosphere in '27 and '31, late 40s spectroscopy found evidence of CO2
on Mars but not much else.
It was strongly suspected that Venus had a long, long day early on
and Ross suggested that the explanation for his results photographing
Venus in UV involved a dense atmosphere. That was in the 1920s.
James Nicoll
Jim Burns <james...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>Are there any Heinlein juveniles that contan GLARING scientific
>inaccuracies--or difficult to explain=now historical anomalies, that I'm
>just not remembering?
>
January and March 1963, then published in hardcover in 1963. This means it
came out after the 1956 microwave measures of Venus' temperatures strongly
suggested the place was a kiln. Mariner 2 flew by Venus in December 1962
and confirmed Venus is Hell, at least down on the surface. This means
two of the installments and the hardcover came out after it was known
for sure Venus could not possibly be the way it was shown in PoM.
Chris Zakes
"Rolling Stones" in 1952.
about surface conditions on Venus before that?
that, there was widespread belief in Martian canals.
http://www.umich.edu/~lowbrows/reflections/2001/dsnyder.7.html says
that the Martian atmosphere was first subjected to spectroscopic
analysis in 1952, finding mostly carbon dioxide.
Texas
--
What do you mean that eating pizza, drinking beer and watching football isn't
"multitasking?"
Simon Jester UK
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 06:20:59 -0800 (PST), an orbital mind-control
> laser caused Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> to
> write:
3+ years - is this a record on afh?
Chris Zakes
caused "Simon Jester UK" <simonje...@pantaloons.yahoo.co.uk> to
write:
for something else, and apparently hit "send" rather than "next" on
this one.