In Memoriam: Arthur C. Clarke

[WJRFlyBoy]

http://tinyurl.com/2vwes4


by Harry Dacre, 1892

There is a flower
Within my heart,
Daisy, Daisy!
Planted one day
By a glancing dart,
Planted by Daisy Bell!
Whether she loves me
Or loves me not,
Sometimes it's hard to tell;
Yet I am longing to share the lot -
Of beautiful Daisy Bell!

Daisy, Daisy,
Give me your answer do!
I'm half crazy,
All for the love of you!
It won't be a stylish marriage,
I can't afford a carriage
But you'll look sweet upon the seat
Of a bicycle made for two.

We will go 'tandem'
As man and wife,
Daisy, Daisy!
'Peddling' away
Down the road of life,
I and my Daisy Bell!
When the road's dark
We can both despise
P'licemen and 'lamps' as well;
There are 'bright lights¢
In the dazzling eyes
Of beautiful Daisy Bell!

Daisy, Daisy,
Give me your answer do!
I'm half crazy,
All for the love of you!
It won't be a stylish marriage,
I can't afford a carriage
But you'll look sweet upon the seat
Of a bicycle made for two.

I will stand by you
In 'weal' or woe,
["weal" means prosperity] Daisy, Daisy!
You'll be the bell(e)
Which I'll ring you know!
Sweet little Daisy Bell!
You'll take the 'lead'
In each 'trip' we take,
Then if I don't do well,
I will permit you to
Use the brake,
My beautiful Daisy Bell!
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

[stol]

On Mar 20, 4:46*am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/2vwes4
>
> by Harry Dacre, 1892
>
> There is a flower
> Within my heart,
> Daisy, Daisy!
> Planted one day
> By a glancing dart,
> Planted by Daisy Bell!
> Whether she loves me
> Or loves me not,
> Sometimes it's hard to tell;
> Yet I am longing to share the lot -
> Of beautiful Daisy Bell!
>
> Daisy, Daisy,
> Give me your answer do!
> I'm half crazy,
> All for the love of you!
> It won't be a stylish marriage,
> I can't afford a carriage
> But you'll look sweet upon the seat
> Of a bicycle made for two.
>
> We will go 'tandem'
> As man and wife,
> Daisy, Daisy!
> 'Peddling' away
> Down the road of life,
> I and my Daisy Bell!
> When the road's dark
> We can both despise
> P'licemen and 'lamps' as well;
> There are 'bright lights¢
> In the dazzling eyes
> Of beautiful Daisy Bell!
>
> Daisy, Daisy,
> Give me your answer do!
> I'm half crazy,
> All for the love of you!
> It won't be a stylish marriage,
> I can't afford a carriage
> But you'll look sweet upon the seat
> Of a bicycle made for two.
>
> I will stand by you
> In 'weal' or woe,
> ["weal" means prosperity] Daisy, Daisy!
> You'll be the bell(e)
> Which I'll ring you know!
> Sweet little Daisy Bell!
> You'll take the 'lead'
> In each 'trip' we take,
> Then if I don't do well,
> I will permit you to
> Use the brake,
> My beautiful Daisy Bell!
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
> I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
> just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
> might kill someone.

I was involved in the C-Band satellite revolution back in the late
70's/ early 80's during its start. If it were not for Mr Clark that
would not have happened. In fact if you analyze life, alotof where
mankind is today if a result of his visions. He was a great man....

Godspeed to him.

Ben Haas
www.haaspowerair.com
N801BH

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:04:16 -0700 (PDT), stol wrote:

> I was involved in the C-Band satellite revolution back in the late
> 70's/ early 80's during its start. If it were not for Mr Clark that
> would not have happened. In fact if you analyze life, alotof where
> mankind is today if a result of his visions. He was a great man....
>
> Godspeed to him.
>
> Ben Haas
> www.haaspowerair.com
> N801BH

He died in Sri Lanka and, as always, it was the 18th most places, the
19th where he was. Always ahead of us :)
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

[Bob Fry]

I read a lot of sci-fi as a kid and he was the best. Better writer
than Heinlin but not as prolific. He influenced many, many people I'm
sure.
--
We must be willing to let go of the life we have planned, so as to
have the life that is waiting for us.
~ Joseph Campbell

[Lawrence]

It's unfair to compare. I have an extensive collection of Sci-Fi, and I
often re-read the big three Heinlien was my first, Asimov was great but
published some real crap when he got to believe his own hype, Clarke was the
master of continuity and detail, both of the physical and spiritual. His
worlds are the truest and best and he had the largest impact on the real
world, far larger than Asimov. A great mind, and a great author.

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>I read a lot of sci-fi as a kid and he was the best. Better writer
> than Heinlin but not as prolific. He influenced many, many people I'm
> sure.
> --
> We must be willing to let go of the life we have planned, so as to
> have the life that is waiting for us.
> ~ Joseph Campbell

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:34:24 -0300, Lawrence wrote:

> It's unfair to compare. I have an extensive collection of Sci-Fi, and I
> often re-read the big three Heinlien was my first, Asimov was great but
> published some real crap when he got to believe his own hype, Clarke was the
> master of continuity and detail, both of the physical and spiritual. His
> worlds are the truest and best and he had the largest impact on the real
> world, far larger than Asimov. A great mind, and a great author.

I was told that to best see Clarke's brilliance, read Heinlien. I never
did. Got talked into Tolkein. Mistake, ymmv.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

[Lawrence]

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I was told that to best see Clarke's brilliance, read Heinlien. I never
> did. Got talked into Tolkein. Mistake, ymmv.
> --

That's interesting, I'd never heard that before. I'm not sure that any of
them is a true window into the others although it is likely that they were
aware of each others work. Indeed each of Asimov and Clarke would insist
that the other was a better writer. (Clarke-Asimov treaty). I reagrd them
each as best generation SF writers. The next iteration of authors is good,
but they seem somehow to lack the spark of true invention. The stuff today
is uninspiring for the most part to me, strange when we have not truly
discovered much, it seems they'd have more to work with as mankind discovers
so many more questions. But I have no room to talk, I can't write at all.

[Jim Logajan]

"Lawrence" > wrote:
> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> I was told that to best see Clarke's brilliance, read Heinlien. I
>> never did. Got talked into Tolkein. Mistake, ymmv.
>> --
>
> That's interesting, I'd never heard that before.

News to me too. I've read Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, and a host of others.

Heinlein did as good a job at the science as Clarke, IMHO - particularly in
his "juveniles". For example, Heinlein's explanation of space suit
requirements in "Have Space Suit, will Travel" was instructive to me when I
read it in my early teens. (The idea of a used rocket dealership in
"Rolling Stones" caught my fancy too. Man, where does one go to buy a good
used nuclear powered VTOL rocket when you want to go to Mars to picnic on
the edge of Valles Marineris?)

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Lawrence" > wrote:

> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > I was told that to best see Clarke's brilliance, read Heinlien. I never
> > did. Got talked into Tolkein. Mistake, ymmv.
> > --
>
> That's interesting, I'd never heard that before. I'm not sure that any of
> them is a true window into the others although it is likely that they were
> aware of each others work. Indeed each of Asimov and Clarke would insist
> that the other was a better writer. (Clarke-Asimov treaty). I reagrd them
> each as best generation SF writers. The next iteration of authors is good,
> but they seem somehow to lack the spark of true invention. The stuff today
> is uninspiring for the most part to me, strange when we have not truly
> discovered much, it seems they'd have more to work with as mankind discovers
> so many more questions.

Having grown up during the 50s and 60s, and reading SF since I was 11 or
so, I'd have to say that "uninspiring for the most part" describes SF
(or any type of fiction, for that matter) during the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s,
and so on to the present. Sturgeon's Law wasn't (and isn't) a joke.

What happens is that most of the dreck gets forgotten, certainly rarely
reprinted, and we eventually forget about it, remembering only the
better remainder. The same thing happens with antique furniture,
machines, etc etc etc. Once the cheap junk crumbles away, the best
remains, along with an unwarranted impression that "they did things
better back then, none of this cheap modern stuff, by jingo!"

Which gives us memories of a Golden Age that wasn't all that shiny when
it was happening. Our grandkids will likely say the same things about
right now, happily able to ignore the fluff and dross.

To pull things, kicking and screaming, into the aviation realm again;
there have been a lot of homebuilt designs over the years, but the ones
that stand out are the best, with the indifferent to poor being
abandoned and forgotten.

Well, except for some of the *really* bad stuff, mostly for their
entertainment, or frightening the kids, value.

[Lawrence]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> What happens is that most of the dreck gets forgotten, certainly rarely
> reprinted, and we eventually forget about it, remembering only the
> better remainder. The same thing happens with antique furniture,
> machines, etc etc etc. Once the cheap junk crumbles away, the best
> remains, along with an unwarranted impression that "they did things
> better back then, none of this cheap modern stuff, by jingo!"
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Hix" >
Newsgroups:
rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student,rec.avi ation.owning,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: In Memoriam: Arthur C. Clarke

> What happens is that most of the dreck gets forgotten, certainly rarely
> reprinted, and we eventually forget about it, remembering only the
> better remainder. The same thing happens with antique furniture,
> machines, etc etc etc. Once the cheap junk crumbles away, the best
> remains, along with an unwarranted impression that "they did things
> better back then, none of this cheap modern stuff, by jingo!"
>
No doubt that's true, but I had in mind many of the modern prolific authors.
Current "big" names. There are only two I can think of that create true
worlds of the imagination, and I think often not as well. It seems like they
all think they are writing for another medium. But as you point out, this
is not a book club.

Goodbye Mr Clarke. I hope I knew the best part of you, through your books.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:58:33 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Heinlein did as good a job at the science as Clarke,

I think Heinlein was the best at depicting creative social dynamics
(Time Enough For Love, Stranger In A Strange Land) and politics
(Farnum's Freehold, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress).

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Lawrence" > wrote:

> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What happens is that most of the dreck gets forgotten, certainly rarely
> > reprinted, and we eventually forget about it, remembering only the
> > better remainder. The same thing happens with antique furniture,
> > machines, etc etc etc. Once the cheap junk crumbles away, the best
> > remains, along with an unwarranted impression that "they did things
> > better back then, none of this cheap modern stuff, by jingo!"
> >
> No doubt that's true, but I had in mind many of the modern prolific authors.
> Current "big" names. There are only two I can think of that create true
> worlds of the imagination, and I think often not as well.

That's no different at all from the early years.

There were big names back then who were quite popular, with lots of
output who just didn't turn out to have any staying power. Can't recall
offhand any particularly sterling examples, and with my books stored
right now, I'm not about to go digging for them...

Once in a while you'll come across some of their work and wonder why in
the world they ever got a sale, what with turgid prose, leaden
characters, and all the other things you don't want to read.

Then you get some writers who seem to keep working for decades, like
Jack Vance, for example, who manage to not keep writing the same things
over and over. (Mind, I've never been all that enamored with his work,
but he seems to have made a living at it, and garnered enough prizes and
critical acclaim to indicate that someone liked him over a long period.
Maybe just critics, but I suppose they need some diversion, too.)

You see similar effects in music, art, and just about anything else one
might spend money for.

> It seems like they all think they are writing for another medium. But as
> you point out, this is not a book club.
>
> Goodbye Mr Clarke. I hope I knew the best part of you, through your books.

[Lawrence]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message news:sehix-

> That's no different at all from the early years.
>
> There were big names back then who were quite popular, with lots of
> output who just didn't turn out to have any staying power. Can't recall
> offhand any particularly sterling examples, and with my books stored
> right now, I'm not about to go digging for them...
>

Well, that's fineI wouldn't expect you to. I disagree for many reasons,
that's the thing about opinions, isn't it.

[Thomas Borchert]

Lawrence,

> There are only two I can think of that create true
> worlds of the imagination, and I think often not as well.
>

Hmm. I am an avid Clarke fan and even had the extreme pleasure to meet
him 8 years ago (we did an interview with him on "the real 2001"
compared to his - and did an elaborate photo production in the process,
the wonderful work of Peter Menzel,
http://menzelphoto.peripix.com/groupsearch/?searchtxt=clarke&order=inse
rt_date&date_how=+%3D+). He was a remarkable person - and quite a
character, too.

But several current authors come to mind with respect to what you
mention:

Tad Williams
Orson Scott Card
Neil Stephenson
William Gibson

for example.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:58:33 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

> "Lawrence" > wrote:
>> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>
>>> I was told that to best see Clarke's brilliance, read Heinlien. I
>>> never did. Got talked into Tolkein. Mistake, ymmv.
>>> --
>>
>> That's interesting, I'd never heard that before.
>
> News to me too. I've read Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, and a host of others.
>
> Heinlein did as good a job at the science as Clarke, IMHO - particularly in
> his "juveniles". For example, Heinlein's explanation of space suit
> requirements in "Have Space Suit, will Travel" was instructive to me when I
> read it in my early teens. (The idea of a used rocket dealership in
> "Rolling Stones" caught my fancy too. Man, where does one go to buy a good
> used nuclear powered VTOL rocket when you want to go to Mars to picnic on
> the edge of Valles Marineris?)

Ran across this a day or two ago. Look at the bottom re: Good-Bad
Science. Not that I agree or disagree, I didn't want to go 90 degrees
with my neck to read it :).

http://depletedcranium.com/index.php?cat=3
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:08:29 -0300, Lawrence wrote:

> But I have no room to talk, I can't write at all.

I ghost wrote for a guy in the slammer about a dozen war and mercenary
experiences, and a few conspiracy type things. People bought them. They
were awful, the stories carried the writing. I refused to submit the
last one except to Japan. Writing is no fun, like golf, if you aren't
accomplished, it's too painful to do it.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:36:41 +0100, Thomas Borchert wrote:

> http://menzelphoto.peripix.com/groupsearch/?searchtxt=clarke&order=inse
> rt_date&date_how=+%3D+

http://tinyurl.com/22b3r2

Nice, thx.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:05:20 -0300, Lawrence wrote:

> No doubt that's true, but I had in mind many of the modern prolific authors.
> Current "big" names. There are only two I can think of that create true
> worlds of the imagination,

King and ??
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:05:20 -0300, Lawrence wrote:

> Goodbye Mr Clarke. I hope I knew the best part of you, through your books.

And 2001:Space Odyssey Wow I lived in a podunk college town that had a
three screen whatever the cinematography was, multi-projector,
semi-wraparound. It was a transforming experience. I doubt it had
anything to do with the chemical pre-show either :)
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Lawrence" > wrote:

> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message news:sehix-
>
> > That's no different at all from the early years.
> >
> > There were big names back then who were quite popular, with lots of
> > output who just didn't turn out to have any staying power. Can't recall
> > offhand any particularly sterling examples, and with my books stored
> > right now, I'm not about to go digging for them...
>
> Well, that's fineI wouldn't expect you to.

?

> I disagree for many reasons,

What, that there were very popular published writers decades ago that
nobody much reads any more, and if you do get to read some of their
work, you can't understand why they were popular?

There are tides in fashion in all sorts of things. And some items seem
to ignore fashion quite happily.

> that's the thing about opinions, isn't it.

The thing is that I wasn't disagreeing with you, just pointing out that
a state where most of the writers active at any given time weren't all
that interesting is nothing new. It's pretty much the way things have
always been, and likely always will be.

The problem is that we don't remember the bottom strata from that time,
and it seems that it was a Golden Age(tm).

OK, I found one that wasn't packed. "The Golden Age of Science Fiction",
edited by Groff Conklin. Just under 800 pages of stuff published before
1946, when it was originally published as "The Best of Science Fiction".

Along with the Heinlein, Asimov, Boucher, Leinster, Sturgeon, and Simak
you've got the other greats: Frank Stockton, Cleve Cartmill, Ray Gallun,
Dave Keller, Ralph Milne Farley, Calvin Peregoy, Malcolm Jameson, Art
Zagot, Warner van Lorne, Nelson Bond, Cecil White, C.W. Diffin, Ross
Rocklynne, ...

Mind, it's also got contributions from Poe, Arthur Conan Doyle, H.G.
Wells and Julian Huxley.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:34:24 -0300, "Lawrence" > wrote:

> "Bob Fry" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I read a lot of sci-fi as a kid and he was the best. Better writer
> > than Heinlin but not as prolific. He influenced many, many people I'm
> > sure.
>
> It's unfair to compare. I have an extensive collection of Sci-Fi, and I
> often re-read the big three Heinlien was my first, Asimov was great but
> published some real crap when he got to believe his own hype, Clarke was the
> master of continuity and detail, both of the physical and spiritual. His
> worlds are the truest and best and he had the largest impact on the real
> world, far larger than Asimov. A great mind, and a great author.

My personal opinion is that Clarke fall excelled in the extrapolation of
technology and predicting what the scientific/human impacts would be. However,
the *people* in his novels always seemed pretty stiff. Heinlein was better with
characterization; inventing interesting people to interact with the technology.

The earliest Clarke novel I remember reading is "A Fall of Moondust," as a
Reader's Digest Condensed book back in the '50s or '60s. Though I read it many
times and remember the plot real well, I remember little about the characters.
But I can see a Heinlein title and say, "That's the one with the guy who...."

Ron Wanttaja

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:34:31 -0700, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> My personal opinion is that Clarke fall excelled in the extrapolation of
> technology and predicting what the scientific/human impacts would be. However,
> the *people* in his novels always seemed pretty stiff. Heinlein was better with
> characterization; inventing interesting people to interact with the technology.

Reading Clarke, in the early 60s I thought that was the way the
advanced, scientific community, ultimately the populace, was to be.
Focused, time concerned, mission oriented. When I watched 2001 (1970?),
the characters were wooden, almost unreal. The emotional star was a
computer, I took from these characterizations that this was the world I
would grow old and accustomed. Analytical and godless.

> The earliest Clarke novel I remember reading is "A Fall of Moondust," as a
> Reader's Digest Condensed book back in the '50s or '60s. Though I read it many
> times and remember the plot real well, I remember little about the characters.
> But I can see a Heinlein title and say, "That's the one with the guy who...."
>
> Ron Wanttaja

My first Clarke was a RD and it set RD apart from all other subscription
magazines at the time.

From then to here, RD jokes and articles to email, globalization of
communication. I know for a fact that my own fascination with the
future, and interest in technologies, spawned directly from the works of
Clarke and those like him.
--

[[email protected]]

On Mar 21, 9:34 pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
> My personal opinion is that Clarke fall excelled in the extrapolation of
> technology and predicting what the scientific/human impacts would be. However,
> the *people* in his novels always seemed pretty stiff. Heinlein was better with
> characterization; inventing interesting people to interact with the technology.

That's an interesting observation because my feeling about Heinein was
that he had about four characters altogether. He'd insert them in
every story in the ways that they needed to be used to keep the tale
moving. That's what made them so much fun to read when I was 12 or
so, I suppose.

> The earliest Clarke novel I remember reading is "A Fall of Moondust," as a
> Reader's Digest Condensed book back in the '50s or '60s. Though I read it many
> times and remember the plot real well, I remember little about the characters.
> But I can see a Heinlein title and say, "That's the one with the guy who...."

My first was the probably "Island in the Sky," but I read "A Fall of
Moondust" and would love to have that RDCB version because of the
illustrations. It would make a good movie.

And I remember clearly NONE of the "Moondust" characters, but the
characters in "Island" I will never forget. I felt like I knew the
crew of "Rocket Ship Galileo," but all I remember of other Heinlein
characters is the Martian flatcat.

Neither of them wrote about aviation, did they? Sci-fi was always
space.


Mike

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 07:05:00 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>"A Fall of
>Moondust" and would love to have that RDCB version because of the
>illustrations.

Is this the one?

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qtit=Readers%20Digest%20Condensed&qauth=Cronin%20Oconnor&qsort=p

[Jim Stewart]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Lawrence" > wrote:
>> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> I was told that to best see Clarke's brilliance, read Heinlien. I
>>> never did. Got talked into Tolkein. Mistake, ymmv.
>>> --
>> That's interesting, I'd never heard that before.
>
> News to me too. I've read Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, and a host of others.
>
> Heinlein did as good a job at the science as Clarke, IMHO - particularly in
> his "juveniles". For example, Heinlein's explanation of space suit
> requirements in "Have Space Suit, will Travel" was instructive to me when I
> read it in my early teens. (The idea of a used rocket dealership in
> "Rolling Stones" caught my fancy too. Man, where does one go to buy a good
> used nuclear powered VTOL rocket when you want to go to Mars to picnic on
> the edge of Valles Marineris?)

If you'd like to relive a little of the old
Heinlein "kids and science fiction" stuff,
try Jerry Pournelle's new book "Starswarm".

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 07:05:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> Neither of them wrote about aviation, did they? Sci-fi was always
> space.

There was that cool scene in 2001 on the Pan Am spaceplane flight where
the food went weightless, does that count?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

[Jim Logajan]

Stumbled across the complete text to Clarke's short story "The Star" while
looking for something else:

http://lucis.net/stuff/clarke/star_clarke.html

I hadn't read that in over three decades. Great writing. Do they still make
writers like that anymore?

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
> wrote:
>
>Neither of them wrote about aviation, did they? Sci-fi was always
>space.
>


Not always 'space'. Some were set strictly on the surface of other planets.
or even on Earth (in the distant -- or not-so-distant -- future).

Also, there is one of the 'Robots' stories that involves aviation as a primary
plot theme.

Can't remember the name right now, but the plot-line involves a 'survey'
visit to the surface of a gas giant. descent by glider wing, with return-
to-orbit via gas-bag lift to moderate altitude, then JATO to build speed to
the point ramjets function, then at peak ramjet altitude, cut in the ion
drive.

The glider has an implanted 'brain' running everything in addition to the
one-man 'crew', and a malfunction develops in the JATO/ramjet controls -- loss
of control functions detected after landing, but before the return attempt.
'Cure' involves dumping methane(?) ice into in-wing access panel. doesn't
last long enough to get to launch altitude -- crewman has to wing-walk to
replenish the cooling in flight before ramjets can be used.

[Steve Hix]

In article <mbGdnfJl5sivJ5bVnZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@nuvoxcommunicatio ns>,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
> In article
> >,
> > wrote:
> >
> >Neither of them wrote about aviation, did they? Sci-fi was always
> >space.

Clarke wrote "Glidepath", about the early development of Ground
Controlled Approach systems, with which early development he was
involved. It wasn't wholly fiction, though, much less science fiction.

> Not always 'space'. Some were set strictly on the surface of other planets.
> or even on Earth (in the distant -- or not-so-distant -- future).
>
> Also, there is one of the 'Robots' stories that involves aviation as a
> primary plot theme.
>
> Can't remember the name right now, but the plot-line involves a 'survey'
> visit to the surface of a gas giant. descent by glider wing, with return-
> to-orbit via gas-bag lift to moderate altitude, then JATO to build speed to
> the point ramjets function, then at peak ramjet altitude, cut in the ion
> drive.
>
> The glider has an implanted 'brain' running everything in addition to the
> one-man 'crew', and a malfunction develops in the JATO/ramjet controls --
> loss of control functions detected after landing, but before the return attempt.
> 'Cure' involves dumping methane(?) ice into in-wing access panel. doesn't
> last long enough to get to launch altitude -- crewman has to wing-walk to
> replenish the cooling in flight before ramjets can be used.

That sounds very much like one of Larry Niven's early stories; "Becalmed
in Hell".