Talk:Space Cadet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Science fiction task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Orbiting Weapons 2 Model for Starfleet? 3 revised summary 4 Slang Section

[edit] Orbiting Weapons

I removed the following interesting criticism:

However, the laws of physics make this a dubious proposition, since a bomb in orbit cannot be "dropped" — it is already in free fall — and there is a tall angular momentum barrier that makes it impossible for it to reach the Earth's surface without the expenditure of a great deal of rocket thrust.

I don't see why this is an objection. The author specifically points out that an orbital bomb would have to be decelerated from orbit in order to follow a downward path.

There are legitimate scientific objections to some SF gimmicks, but an opinion we might have about details like the feasibility of the thrust required to de-orbit depends on our present knowledge of technology and is subject to change. Do you remember Willy Ley's famous article debunking "ray guns" because they would have to be hotter at the muzzle than at the target? They promptly disappeared from SF. Now we have "laser guns"; in other words, with a better understanding of technology we've found out how to make ray guns. In this case, it's no big leap to assume the bomb has the thrust capability to get down to the surface. Zaslav 21:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there are also other valid reasons for militaries to not use orbiting nuclear weapons. Orbital velocity is 17,000 mph. In order to re-enter the atmosphere, this has to be reduced. If it is reduced just a bit then the orbit will be slowly decaying and will take a long time for re-entry. So you need to apply substantial retro-firing, expending considerable amount of fuel, to achieve rapid de-orbiting. This fuel has to be lifted into orbit, making the orbiting bomb a more expensive operation than terrestrial or submarine based missiles. Maintenance is an issue too. Also, when you have a bomb in space, it has to be defended, otherwise somebody might physically steal it or might send it encrypted launch codes. Another problem with orbital bombs is that the de-orbit burn is highly visible and the trajectory is easy to compute, so the target would have a much larger lead time to prepare or retaliate than with ICBMs.

Thank you Zaslav for your edits on the Heinlein material. Hu 23:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your appreciation, Hu. I'm always glad to meet someone who takes Heinlein seriously. Your objections are sensible. Some can be answered, I think, but in the current state of technology they might be decisive. Obviously, Heinlein didn't think of all the aspects you mention, though maintenance itself is a plot element. I still would give him the benefit of the doubt on the technical situation around the year 2087 and, to a degree, on his oversights. It seems clear that he didn't have a thorough understanding of orbital mechanics and rocketry and all the relevant science, but he did a good job of faking it. Zaslav 05:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the list of Heinlein novels. That belongs with the Heinlein bio. Here it is not very relevant. Zaslav 04:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Model for Starfleet?

I read in one of the last interviews he gave, Gene Roddenberry said that the Patrol, as depicted in this novel, was his model for Starfleet. Anybody know where that could be tracked down? Daniel Case 17:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] revised summary

can we get a revised summary, that covers things in the order they appear in the book? as it is, the 'summary and discussion' section is more discussion than summary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.146.243.225 (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

There you go. Clarityfiend 01:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slang Section

I propose the slang section be removed. It has nothing to do with the novel, though it might merit it's own article to be shown on the disambiguation page... Thoughts? FusionKnight 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the wiktionary definition to the disambiguation page. If no-one objects, I will remove the slang section from this article after a few days unless there is an objection. FusionKnight 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's gone. FusionKnight 02:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)