This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
"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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
'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)
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)
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)