In my last post, I mentioned that Oort Cloud is a piece of 'hard'(ish) science fiction. I have decided to answer a few questions that should clarify what I'm talking about when I use that term, and while I do, I can show you some more screens from models I have made while trying to develop a architectual flavor for bioshelters on Cydonia.

Q: What is 'soft' science fiction?
A: Well mysterious stranger, there are poles of science fiction, 'soft' and 'hard'. Soft science fiction shares a lot of characteristics with fantasy, most of the technology isn't explained, or violates the known laws of physics. Super advanced technology may just serve as a plot device to facilitate good immersive story telling. There is nothing wrong with soft science fiction, much of it is extremely enjoyable, Star Wars and Firefly are examples of soft science fiction.

Q: Then what is 'hard' science fiction?
A: Listen, I was getting to that, Christ. Anyway, firm science fiction is more meticulously planned, the technology involved is researched to ensure that it is viable. The story revolves around the science, and not the other way around. The Foundation series by Asimov, and Fountains of Paradise by Arthur C Clarke fall into this category.

Q: That sounds boring.
A: That's not even a question! Granted, since science fiction is well.. fiction, it would follow that the science should facilitate the story, and not vice versa. Then why write "hard" (or atleast "firm") science fiction? Simple, by writing a story that leaves the reader believing it could actually occur, it will inspire a sense of wonder towards science and the natural world. Carl Sagan wrote extensively about his desire to increase the public's interest in science. His legacy is continued by the likes of Michio Kaku, and Neil deGrasse Tyson. These people are called "science popularizers" I hope some day to be called the same.