Spaceship Cameras?

Margrave86 · Jun 14, 2019

In my WIP, I find myself having to describe how somebody is using the cameras mounted on the hull of a spacecraft to check their surroundings. Problem is, describing them as "the cameras mounted on the hull of a spacecraft to check their surroundings" is hella clunky.

Does anybody know if there's a snappy, one or two word name for them in common usage?

Friendly Frog · Jun 14, 2019

Common usage, probably not. But things like 'hull cam' or 'port cam' or even 'front sensors' should work with a little bit of context.

Dennis E. Taylor · Jun 14, 2019

external cameras

Maryn · Jun 14, 2019

Since my kid designs the real thing which is currently in space, don't forget that your Hull Cams (or whatever you end up calling them) need covers that can protect them except when they're in use. You want to retract or open the lens covers.

Maryn, proud of her TESS baby

Bing Z · Jun 15, 2019

In my WIP, I have a space warship. It has no windshields as yours does. There are no glasses (or crystals) for looking out. There are just thick armors all over to protect from enemy fire and space radiation. But there are obviously cameras all over and I have described the exterior visuals many times. Most of the people in my writing group are non-scfi readers and none of them has challenged me where and what are the cameras. (ETA: I think watching Star Trek has ingrained the concept into most of them.)

I don't think you need to be specific (unless you intend to). Brief mention in common terms like external cams or something similar should suffice.

ironmikezero · Jun 15, 2019

I'd recommend sticking to the generic term scanner, and use a suitable adjective per circumstance as needed. That would give you a huge degree of discretion in subsequent scenes. For example:

"XO, give me a hull scan--full ship--visible light spectrum."

"Aye-aye, Captain--full ship hull scan, visible light spectrum. Do you want infrared as well, sir?"

"Good thinking, XO. Make it so."

"Captain, scan complete--no anomalies, sir."

"Hmm, indeed? Something's not right . . . Give me a vicinity scan--full spectrum--three hundred meters radius."

"Aye sir, full spectrum vicinity scan, three hundred meters radius."

"Something is here, XO--find it!"

"Aye-aye, sir!"

Kjbartolotta · Jun 15, 2019

I've used the term 'externals'.

Bing Z said:
In my WIP, I have a space warship. It has no windshields as yours does. There are no glasses (or crystals) for looking out. There are just thick armors all over to protect from enemy fire and space radiation. But there are obviously cameras all over and I have described the exterior visuals many times. Most of the people in my writing group are non-scfi readers and none of them has challenged me where and what are the cameras. (ETA: I think watching Star Trek has ingrained the concept into most of them.)

I don't think you need to be specific (unless you intend to). Brief mention in common terms like external cams or something similar should suffice.

Yes, much like submarines, spaceships should not have windows. They should also be oriented top-to-bottom like skyscapers instead of front-to-back like boats, but that's a whole other thread.

edant:

Margrave86 · Jun 15, 2019

Thanks for all the suggestions. I was hoping there was a vaguely industrial-sounding name for them in science fiction, but I guess not. Further research informed me the Mars rovers use "hazcam" and "navcam" to get around, so I might nick that.

ironmikezero said:
I'd recommend sticking to the generic term scanner, and use a suitable adjective per circumstance as needed. That would give you a huge degree of discretion in subsequent scenes. For example:

I'd rather not use "scanner". They're literally just closed-circuit TV cameras, so I think calling them scanners would obfuscate their meaning rather than clarify, since they don't scan anything except the visible light spectrum.

Yes, much like submarines, spaceships should not have windows. They should also be oriented top-to-bottom like skyscapers instead of front-to-back like boats, but that's a whole other thread.

All the ships I've introduced so far are small-to-midsized ships that often fly through atmosphere, so they're somewhat aerodynamic and have windshields in their cockpits. They're really mixed spaceships/airplanes. Though the cameras I'm speaking of are used by the crew to check the ship's surroundings while in spaceflight, another equally important function is to check the surrounding terrain when it's landing or parked, to ensure there aren't any nasty surprises waiting for them.

Laer Carroll · Jun 15, 2019

Kjbartolotta said:
...They should also be oriented top-to-bottom like skyscapers instead of front-to-back like boats, but that's a whole other thread. edant:

Great minds think alike! Here is my main spaceship from my current WIP, part three of my Space Orphan trilogy. Named Constellation after one of the early American Republic war ships, it's a hundred feet high, two wide, three long. In atmosphere it travels forward, fairly slowly until it rises to 35,000 feet, or about 7 miles, a standard height for jet airliners. There the atmosphere is 26% of sea level, and it needs much less streamlining.

Then it can travel at 1g effective acceleration anywhere in the solar system. Then the top is the direction of movement, not the front. This acceleration provides gravity to those inside it.

Bing Z · Jun 15, 2019

Laer Carroll said:
Great minds think alike! Here is my main spaceship from my current WIP, part three of my Space Orphan trilogy. Named Constellation after one of the early American Republic war ships, it's a hundred feet high, two wide, three long. In atmosphere it travels forward, fairly slowly until it rises to 35,000 feet, or about 7 miles, a standard height for jet airliners. There the atmosphere is 26% of sea level, and it needs much less streamlining.

Then it can travel at 1g effective acceleration anywhere in the solar system. Then the top is the direction of movement, not the front. This acceleration provides gravity to those inside it.

Tis the same as most of the ships in The Expanse--best space tv series in decades. There is a potential inconvenience: Up to half of the traveling time, the ship should be decelerating. Unless you have two sets of nozzles (and engines), the ship will be flying bottom first (vs top first) when decelerating. You'll need some mechanism to avoid having the crew and passengers standing on the ceiling during that phase. IIRC in the Expanse, they buckle up whenever they're not getting this acceleration gravity.

My ship is shaped like a typical fancy spaceship (ie shiplike). It spins around an imaginary axis (say) 300m above the top of the ship. Thus it moves along an imaginary 300m diameter ring while moving forward (or tail first when decelerating) and that's how it generates AG. But I never explicitly explained it beyond a brief 'spinning' and so far nobody has asked. I guess I've spent way too much time researching--but it was fun.

Laer Carroll · Jun 16, 2019

Bing Z said:
Tis the same as most of the ships in The Expanse--best space tv series in decades. There is a potential inconvenience: Up to half of the traveling time, the ship should be decelerating. Unless you have two sets of nozzles (and engines), the ship will be flying bottom first (vs top first) when decelerating. You'll need some mechanism to avoid having the crew and passengers standing on the ceiling during that phase. ...

Constant acceleration ships do a J-shaped or "fish-hook" maneuver at the midpoint so that no one in the ship feels a change in the apparent gravity of the craft.

Also the maneuver is done at the MIDpoint, not the halfway point. Different destinations in space are in different orbits and velocity vectors than the start point. They require a different fish-hook point.

I feel that technical details like this need to be handled with just a sentence or three rather than any detailed explanation. Tech sophisticated readers don't need an explanation, other readers don't want it because it slows the plot and is usually secondary to the story.

Kjbartolotta · Jun 16, 2019

Laer Carroll said:
I feel that technical details like this need to be handled with just a sentence or three rather than any detailed explanation. Tech sophisticated readers don't need an explanation, other readers don't want it because it slows the plot and is usually secondary to the story.

Agree whole-heartedly, though it can sometimes take weeks or even months of research to get those one-to-three sentences right!

D. E. Wyatt · Jun 17, 2019

Friendly Frog said:
Common usage, probably not. But things like 'hull cam' or 'port cam' or even 'front sensors' should work with a little bit of context.

"Cambot, give me Rocket Number Nine!"

Spaceship Cameras?

Margrave86

Friendly Frog

Snarkenfaugister

Dennis E. Taylor

Get it off! It burns!

Maryn

Baaa!

Bing Z

illiterate primate

ironmikezero

practical experience, FTW

Kjbartolotta

Potentially has/is dog

Margrave86

Laer Carroll

Aerospace engineer turned writer