Bringing iron asteroids down to Earth?

[JaredJames]

But then how do they know how much of a substance there is in another solar system / galaxy? You can't count that. (Can you?)

Just because Earth has a lot of it, doesn't mean everywhere does.

 

[DaveC426913]

Still, yech. I would once again throw the story down on the basis of "come off it". Iron is one of the most common elements in the universe precisely because it is the most stable of all elements. Iron is more abundant in the universe than are nitrogen, silicon, sulfur, or calcium (some other elements that are essential for life as we know it).

You are being unfair and judgmental. You do not know the premise of the story. You cannot judge it as unrealistic without understanding the elements in place that make the story in the first place. The are countless reasons why the peoples might be motivated to have their iron mining on-planet. The 'why' is the premise of the story.

 

[JaredJames]

You are being unfair and judgmental. You do not know the premise of the story. You cannot judge it as unrealistic without understanding the elements in place that make the story in the first place. The are countless reasons why the peoples might be motivated to have their iron mining on-planet. The 'why' is the premise of the story.

Plus, the moment you realize it's about another planet and mining asteroids it should be blatant that it's fiction. So the writer can do what he likes and you shouldn't expect it to be completely factual (or even slightly for that matter).

Reminds me of the debate in the 'faux pas' thread regarding sci-fi.

 

[DaveC426913]

Plus, the moment you realize it's about another planet and mining asteroids it should be blatant that it's fiction. So the writer can do what he likes and you shouldn't expect it to be completely factual (or even slightly for that matter).

What? No!

There is no reason why science-fiction can't be far-future and still adhere to a plausible and possible storyline. In fact, arguably, that is a requirement of sci-fi. If it blatanly violates plausibility, it enters the realm of fantasy.

 

[JaredJames]

What? No!

There is no reason why science-fiction can't be far-future and still adhere to a plausible and possible storyline. In fact, arguably, that is a requirement of sci-fi. If it blatanly violates plausibility, it enters the realm of fantasy.

I used fiction here not science fiction. I used it because I find the idea of landing house sized asteroids with any accuracy to be rather implausible, even in the far future (at least without some form of space elevator). I'm not saying it's impossible, just not very realistic as I see it.

 

[D H]

You are being unfair and judgmental.

Well, yeah, but I do value my rather limited spare time. I am particularly unfair and judgmental when it comes to hard sci-fi. I am a bit more forgiving with soft sci-fi, where the science fiction is really just a plot device.

I used fiction here not science fiction. I used it because I find the idea of landing house sized asteroids with any accuracy to be rather implausible

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

 

[JaredJames]

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

And that swooshing sound is this one going right over my head...

EDIT: Thanks to Google, I now know where that is from and have learned a new word 'polyandry'.

 

[D H]

Google that phrase then.

 

[DaveC426913]

I used fiction here not science fiction.

OK, hm. Well, fiction simply means it isn't an actual recounting of real events - which, being in the future - sort of goes without saying.

Being fiction says nothing about how fantastical the story might be.

 

[JaredJames]

OK, hm. Well, fiction simply means it isn't an actual recounting of real events - which, being in the future - sort of goes without saying.

Being fiction says nothing about how fantastical the story might be.

I agree, which is why I believe the sci-fi channel has become sci-fy.