http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/31/PK28953.DTL

As for Planetes, the main issue seemed to be one of economics rather than science. The US DVD had
as an extra an interview with a pair of NASA scientists and they said the method of matching orbits with
debris, while accurate, would use too much energy (fuel) to be cost effective. Like Kubrick, the Planetes
production staff did a fair amount of research about the space environment…JAXA (Japan’s equivalent to
NASA) was a technical consultant to the series. One note…had the producers checked with NASA, they
could have found a different propulsion system that would be more economical than using propellants.
It is called an electrodynamic tether and uses the earth’s magnetic field and a conductive tether to
convert electrical energy to kinetic energy. In fact, a story could have been developed using the
mission of STS-75 (Space Shuttle) as a basis. In 1996, an experiment with an electrodynamic tether
was attempted. It failed due to a manufacturing defect with the tether and the electrical current
induced (3500 volts at 1 amp). A description may be found here:

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wtether.html

An excerpt from the article states:

“The deployment was almost complete when the unexpected happened: the tether suddenly broke and its end whipped away into space in great wavy wiggles.”

One could see a story showing the benefit of the tether (economical propulsion) and the dangers (a
discharging, whipping cable would be a danger to space walkers and space vessels alike), as well as
the issues surrounding the manufacture of a defective tether (was it done to save money…who gets the blame and pays the price) especially if someone is injured or killed.

On a different note…you may be interested in reading this book once it is released later this year:
“Robot Ghosts and Wired Dreams: Japanese Science Fiction from Origins to Anime”
I’ll probably check it out once the library gets a copy. Here is a brief description:

http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/B/bolton_robot.html

To me that’s a very tenuous definition, at best. Generally it’s just not workable in order to produce a piece of novel/tv show/anime/whatever without violating something somewhere. Star Trek TOS first season is full of these kinds of holes, same with 2001: ASO and PLANETES. Don’t get me wrong, they all do a good job of suspending your beliefs, and I think that’s what you’re getting at rather than what is “science fiction.”

As for sound in space…it is true there is a very tenuous medium to conduct sound, however, you would
need an eardrum the diameter of the solar system to hear anything. See the following:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_030922.html

My point here is that from a human perspective, you would not be able to hear, say an explosion. Note:
it is not a foreign concept to anime…look at Planetes…in US TV, look at the first season of Star Trek
(original series, not counting the open)…in movies, look at 2001: A Space Odyssey. It can be done.

Writing about the impact to society is great…but, to me (again, my opinion and not an all-encompassing
truth), it loses some of its impact when some scientific laws are ignored. For me, this says that, at
best, the laws are ignored for artistic license and at worst for ignorance. You mentioned:
“…you need to write around the idea, and not just the world where the idea comes about.”
While I agree, I also think it is important to get the foundation (in this case, the science) correct,
otherwise you run the risk of weakening the story.

As I mentioned, I think Planetes and Ghost in the Shell are good examples of science fiction. Neither
really delves into the science, but they do deal with the secondary impact of science (the ideas) and
the tertiary impact of science (its offspring, like technology) while not violating basic scientific laws
and prinicples.

I am not trying to dis your views. I respect them. I realize that I am in the minority…I just wanted to
express my views on the subject since the setting seemed to be proper.

Yes, it’s ok to have sound in space. When you remove it, it’s done for a reason, hopefully, beyond the fact that you can’t really hear the same way you do on earth.

But when you write a story around an idea, for example, the impact to society (specifically high school students) in a world where entrance exams are no longer the thing they live for because of advancement of technology and social structure/economic flexibility that makes freeters a viable (if desirable) livelihood, you need to write around the idea, and not just the world where the idea comes about. That’s the real essence between a science fiction story versus a science fiction setting.