Talk:Orphans of the Sky

Fate of the Vanguard

"The final fate of the Vanguard, and of the descendents of the survivors who landed on the moon, are mentioned in passing in the novel Time Enough for Love." - Would anyone who has the novel please give a further detail on what this fate is? It seems mostly useless to include it otherwise

This seems to have been done. --GwydionM (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Expanding the stub

I've added more plot summary information in an attempt to evolve this article out the the stub-stage. I am not finished and will be returning soon to complete it. :: Jim Dunning 21:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis

It seems to me that, logically speaking, references to "inner" and "outer" are reversed in the plot synopsis. But, I haven't read the original in many years, so I can't verify that. Anyone agree/disagree? gnfnrf 00:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I do believe you're right. For example, it says, "Hugh is captured and taken to the low-weight, outer, Mutie-controlled levels." However, the outer levels would be high-weight due to the centrifugal effect, and the Muties actually live in the "upper" levels, which would be toward the center axis of the cylinder (and therefore low-weight). I'll try a rewrite. Thanks for the heads-up!
Jim Dunning | talk 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Take-over

The article had "Joe-Jim as Vice-Captain, Bill as Chief Engineer, and Hugh himself as astrogator." after "Narby as captain". I don't think that's right: Bill was already Chief Engineer and Joe-Jim stays just a chief. Also Narby is out to disarm the Muties, not kill all though he does kill Joe-Jim's gang. --GwydionM (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the Vanguard mentioned in Methuselah's Children?

I've a hazy memory that it is, with the genius engineer Libby mentioning he was not involved in its design. I've not got the book so I may be wrong. --GwydionM (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In Methuselah's Children the "Vanguard" is mentioned in passing as an earlier ship of similar type to the "New Frontiers". Whether it is the same Vanguard as the one in Orphans of the Sky or another ship with that name is debatable. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But Heinlein had a single Future History worked out, so it is almost certainly the same ship he described in the earlier story. --GwydionM (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

One last landing...

I've a strong memory of the narrator saying that Hugh wanted to land on the gas giant and would have lived just long enough to open the door. Not being aware that there is no solid surface on a gas giant. Correct?

Heinlein also seemed unaware of any problems with an Earth-sized moon of a gas giant at Earth-type temperatures. Of course they have now turned up, at least the Warm Jupiters are real. --GwydionM (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Heinlein wrote Orphans of the Sky in the 1940's at that time almost nothing was known about gas giant planets and their moons. Over 99% of what we now know about the solar system has been learned since the 1960's. His premise is not inconsistent with what was known and theorized at that time, and a habitable moon of a gas giant is unlikely but is still not outside the realm of possibility. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor nitpick over wording...

The article at current says it's "one of the earliest fictional depictions of a generation ship". Given that to date there aren't even any plans to build a generation ship, isn't that a bit superfluous to say "fictional depictions"? I mean, there aren't any real generation ships yet, so can we even begin to say there are any other kinds of depictions? 47.221.87.136 (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the concept was being discussed in non-fiction prior to this book: Generation ship. Eric ^talk 18:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding the science

Mentioned that Generation Ships were an older idea, giving a source. Explained that two-headed humans and habitable moons are possible.--GwydionM (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Differences between the original novellas and the book?

"Talkin’ ‘Bout My G-G-Generation" (Ships) by James Davis Nicoll (Tor.com, Mar 13, 2018) refers to the book as a "fix-up" of the decades-earlier Astounding novellas. The article does not currently indicate what was updated for the book, or indeed even hint that anything was updated. —Undomelin (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

A novel, not just a book

'Book' can be anything - non-fiction, reference, cookery etc.

And the two parts fit together without a hitch. Were probably conceived as one, since the first leaves things hanging.--GwydionM (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Twins

I profoundly dislike the Daily Mail's politics, but I don't know of any cases where they publicise a blatantly false fact.

If anyone has one, please let me know and I will publicise it.

But the real-life twins are authentic, and even on the Wiki, Abby and Brittany Hensel.

For completeness, I added another source.--GwydionM (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Seemingly "orphaned" material in section "Links to other Heinlein stories"

Hello all- I just deleted a couple sentences that seem to refer to or rely on missing material, and therefore appeared to me to have no context. There may be something I'm missing, so please explain if you think that is the case. (diff of my edit) The sentences in question: That was apparently the only star – (What star?); The conversation takes place in 4291 – (What conversation?). It has been (gulp) over 40 years since I read the book, so I can no longer place these sentences in context from my memory. Eric ^talk 04:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

no, an accurate summary of what's said in Time Enough For Love. --GwydionM (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read my comments above and indicate where "the star" and "the conversation" are introduced. Eric ^talk 12:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

What talk? You have a silly determination to suppress a valid fact. But having in the past found the referees silly, I will let your wasteful actions stand.

Or you could try wading through the tedious Late-Heinlein book, which would reveal how silly you are.

I have better things to be doing with my time.--GwydionM (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Well articulated, thank you for your input. And it's good news to learn that you have better things to do. Eric ^talk 14:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)