Here's an interesting new element to throw out. I've taken the
time to call in some folks who know this stuff better than I do -- folks
involved in the space program, who've been willing to do a little free
work/research/thought -- and have asked them to *really* go over this
whole sound in space issue. What I've gotten back is interesting.

One of the questions I asked if, "If you're 100 feet away from a
large ship that explodes, will you hear anything?" The first answer I
got back was, "Depends on who the "you" is that we're talking about. If
by "you" you mean the tympanic membrane in your ear...no, because you'll
be dead, killed in the explosion at that kind of range."

But if we're talking about the microphone...things get different.

Ships contain atmosphere. The bigger the ship, the greater the
volume of atmosphere. Now...a ship explodes. Inside the ship, you can
definitely hear it. The hull ruptures. The atmosphere blows out in all
directions. Within the range of that atmosphere, before it dissipates
(which would be very fast), *you will hear sound in space*. For as long
as that atmosphere bubble extends. You'll also hear objects whizzing
past you within that curtain (provided that they're not moving past the
speed of sound). Then, very quickly, it'll fizzle out.

To the camera's POV, then, what you get is a sequence: flash, sound
within a VERY limited range depending on the volume of air in the ship,
quick whizz and quick fizz.

Then silence. Obviously, any ship beyond that range exploding will
be silent.

On the second question, "Could you hear a ship passing by?" there
were also interesting responses. In order for a ship to move through
space, it has to be pushing out some sort of medium to propel it
forward. If that medium is in any way gaseous, and you pass directly
in its wake, you have the same situation as the explosion: limited
sound. But you can't hear it from the side, or in front of the ship.
And again, it's *very* short range, only within the residual gases being
emitted. Though there might be a shockwave effect if a ship passes your
ship in VERY close proximity.

We're still getting some opinions on this from other experts, but
this seems to be kind of a growing consensus. All of which I find very
interesting. The sound-in-space issue has become something of a
shibboleth among SF fans...if it's there at all, it means someone's being
sloppy. But the way it's shaping up, this may not be an either/or issue,
dead silence or full sound. I'll post more on this later, but thought
y'all might like a preliminary report on this issue.

jms

Re: using ship's drives as weapons...we've kind of established that,
in one episode where a certain party wants off the station, and indicates
that unless his ship is cleared to leave, he'll use the ship's engines to
burn through the hull.

jms

By now, you've probably seen the note I sent regarding the ideas by
some who work in the space community that there *is* sound in space, in
a limited fashion (as when a ship, containing lots of atmosphere, blows
up in the seconds prior to the atmosphere vanishing, and within that
brief bubble). One person in the space program told me that when the
last satellite was fired from the space shuttle, they could feel the
vibrations of its thrust inside the shuttle. One poster here, at JPL,
commented that the space probes get a shock wave when they pass the sound
barrier in space (though I'm going to check this one out before I take it
as fact).

That SF fans have for years insisted that there is no sound in space
does not mean *de facto* that it's correct. I've asked more people in the
space community to look into this, and we'll see what they have to say. I
think the issue is greyer than you insist it is.

(And the attitude of, if there's sound in space, "we're being talked
down to, we're idiots," is one that I find personally offensive. If a
story is complex, challenging, innovative, fresh...to then toss all of that
out the window because it has some sound element in it seems to me rather
narrow.)

There's no soundtrack in space, either. Also no camera. Also no
actors. Also no space station (along the lines of B5).

But to take another tack...you just come out of watching a cop movie.
The characters were well rounded, the story interesting. Do you feel
they made you an idiot? That they talked down to you? You should.
Because to use your criteria, they did the same thing.

The sound of a gunshot you hear in the movie is *nothing* like the
real sound of a gun; it's been magnified and boosted and had the lower
range boosted up; it's probably been mixed with some other sounds to make
it louder, so you can hear it half a block away. The sound of a fist
hitting someone's jaw is nothing like the real thing; what you heard in
the film was likely a cross of various different sounds, from wood
breaking to meat being slammed to synth material. (There are some folks
who work in town who've formulated punch-sounds and carefully protect
the "ingredients" that went into it, each saying theirs is dramatically
better.) The sound of a knife entering someone's body is nothing like
the real thing.

The footsteps you hear have usually been added by foley artists.
Sometimes footsteps are removed because they're dramatically inconvenient.
That group of people standing in the background talking? You shouldn't
be able to hear them from here, for starters, and in addition, that isn't
THEM you're hearing; for filming purposes, the background extras say
nothing, with the voices added by walla groups after production.

Just a reality-check here. If you take the attitude that any time
fake sound is added, one should feel insulted, then one must end up
feeling insulted 100% of the time, in any movie or TV show ever made.
Which seems just a tad silly to me....

jms

Nowhere have I said, nor do I believe, the line, "who cares if the
science is stupid." We have, as you note, taken great pains to try and
get the science right. But if you've been watching this discussion, you
have seen people with equal qualifications -- physics folks, space types
-- arguing over the sound in space issue. Indicating that it's not an
absolute issue. Is there sound within the atmospheric bubble of a ship
as it explodes and moves outward for a certain period of time? Many say
yes. And there's some disagreement on other areas.

So the reality of this is that there isn't a concensus, where
everybody agrees. I have 5 email notes from people who work in the space
program explaining how it might work. And just as many from people who
tell me how it *won't* work.

So as long as there is not absolute, definitive proof one way or the
other...one has to take a position one way or another...why not this way?
To my knowledge, no one has yet conducted an experiment in space one the
sound issue. Until then, it's guesswork, extrapolation, educated debate.
We try to take a position somewhere in the middle.

If there were nothing here to debate, no one here would be debating
it...especially not in the clinical, expert way many have so debated the
issue. If it's not a closed issue, resolved once and for all...then we
will keep the issue open dramatically as well.

jms