Fictional (But Realistic) Spacecraft

[Justo Miranda]

Post-5

 

[Justo Miranda]

Post-6

 

[Justo Miranda]

Post-7

 

[Rhinocrates]

There's a kind of paradox here regarding TRL and realism. The TRL scale exists entirely within absolute realism as a one-dimensional vertical axis. A concept climbs the scale from a yell of 'Eureka!' in the bathtub as far as it can according to its inherent possibilities within the criteria of each level, which become more restrictive the higher you get.

The problem is that lower on the scale might be just a doodle, a diagram and an equation that can't be described or depicted in concrete terms which fiction, especially film, requires. Usually, that's something in appearance like our present reality of embedded in extensive worldbuilding, like the Star Trek universe, but all that detailing, however 'real' it looks, is still fantastic.

For example, something like the Nostromo is so dramatically convincing that you can be sure the coffee tastes terrible and Jonesy has vomited up hairballs in your bed. However, it is technically implausible because as far as we know, FTL is impossible, or at least it's not explained in a way that is plausible and detailed. On the other hand, the best NASA design reference mission plans for Mars missions are technically convincing (though obviously not at the top of the scale because they haven't been launched. Because they aren't real and are generally not realistically illustrated - simple CGI, and the subcontractors haven't yet come up with a finished user interface for the computers - but if you want to make a film of it, you have to see the actors or read about the characters using the controls (and spitting out the coffee and yelling at the cat).

Thus, something dramatically convincing has to be something you could believe you'd be able to be touched, licked, whatever. The further we project into the future, the further down the scale a spacecraft slips and the more schematic it becomes. To be convincing on both technical and dramatic grounds, we're limited to 'twenty minutes into the future' (Max Headroom reference, there).

Going back to the TRL scale as a one-dimensional axis, I'm going to take Martin Bayer's quip about imaginary numbers seriously. These numbers aren't on the axis, they're at right angles to it. There's an explanation of how they might work here:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SlidingScale/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness

So if we have an axis and a radius, we have a three-dimensional conceptual space. All fictional spacecraft will look as if they're at or near ultimate TRL but radially removed. Entirely, rigorously, absolutely realistic designs can only hope to be dramatically convincing on the top few levels. If you like, a cone of possibilities rises from each step on the axis. So, how wide or narrow do we want to make the cone and how far down the axis does its point descend?

Er, that turned into a pompous academic essay. Sorry. Is that my coat?

 

[martinbayer]

There's a kind of paradox here regarding TRL and realism. The TRL scale exists entirely within absolute realism as a one-dimensional vertical axis. A concept climbs the scale from a yell of 'Eureka!' in the bathtub as far as it can according to its inherent possibilities within the criteria of each level, which become more restrictive the higher you get.

The problem is that lower on the scale might be just a doodle, a diagram and an equation that can't be described or depicted in concrete terms which fiction, especially film, requires. Usually, that's something in appearance like our present reality of embedded in extensive worldbuilding, like the Star Trek universe, but all that detailing, however 'real' it looks, is still fantastic.

For example, something like the Nostromo is so dramatically convincing that you can be sure the coffee tastes terrible and Jonesy has vomited up hairballs in your bed. However, it is technically implausible because as far as we know, FTL is impossible, or at least it's not explained in a way that is plausible and detailed. On the other hand, the best NASA design reference mission plans for Mars missions are technically convincing (though obviously not at the top of the scale because they haven't been launched. Because they aren't real and are generally not realistically illustrated - simple CGI, and the subcontractors haven't yet come up with a finished user interface for the computers - but if you want to make a film of it, you have to see the actors or read about the characters using the controls (and spitting out the coffee and yelling at the cat).

Thus, something dramatically convincing has to be something you could believe you'd be able to be touched, licked, whatever. The further we project into the future, the further down the scale a spacecraft slips and the more schematic it becomes. To be convincing on both technical and dramatic grounds, we're limited to 'twenty minutes into the future' (Max Headroom reference, there).

Going back to the TRL scale as a one-dimensional axis, I'm going to take Martin Bayer's quip about imaginary numbers seriously. These numbers aren't on the axis, they're at right angles to it. There's an explanation of how they might work here:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SlidingScale/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness

So if we have an axis and a radius, we have a three-dimensional conceptual space. All fictional spacecraft will look as if they're at or near ultimate TRL but radially removed. Entirely, rigorously, absolutely realistic designs can only hope to be dramatically convincing on the top few levels. If you like, a cone of possibilities rises from each step on the axis. So, how wide or narrow do we want to make the cone and how far down the axis does its point descend?

Er, that turned into a pompous academic essay. Sorry. Is that my coat?

Whoa there - I'm not sure which alternative universe I just accidentally bumped into where someone actually takes any of my musings seriously? But trying to explain my line of thought, yes, I expect science fiction to be firmly science based, even if only speculatively, just as long as there is even a fringe scientific theory that might justify any of the ongoings, as opposed to mere fairy dust "magic happens". That's where I draw the line.

 

[martinbayer]

There's a kind of paradox here regarding TRL and realism. The TRL scale exists entirely within absolute realism as a one-dimensional vertical axis. A concept climbs the scale from a yell of 'Eureka!' in the bathtub as far as it can according to its inherent possibilities within the criteria of each level, which become more restrictive the higher you get.

The problem is that lower on the scale might be just a doodle, a diagram and an equation that can't be described or depicted in concrete terms which fiction, especially film, requires. Usually, that's something in appearance like our present reality of embedded in extensive worldbuilding, like the Star Trek universe, but all that detailing, however 'real' it looks, is still fantastic.

For example, something like the Nostromo is so dramatically convincing that you can be sure the coffee tastes terrible and Jonesy has vomited up hairballs in your bed. However, it is technically implausible because as far as we know, FTL is impossible, or at least it's not explained in a way that is plausible and detailed. On the other hand, the best NASA design reference mission plans for Mars missions are technically convincing (though obviously not at the top of the scale because they haven't been launched. Because they aren't real and are generally not realistically illustrated - simple CGI, and the subcontractors haven't yet come up with a finished user interface for the computers - but if you want to make a film of it, you have to see the actors or read about the characters using the controls (and spitting out the coffee and yelling at the cat).

Thus, something dramatically convincing has to be something you could believe you'd be able to be touched, licked, whatever. The further we project into the future, the further down the scale a spacecraft slips and the more schematic it becomes. To be convincing on both technical and dramatic grounds, we're limited to 'twenty minutes into the future' (Max Headroom reference, there).

Going back to the TRL scale as a one-dimensional axis, I'm going to take Martin Bayer's quip about imaginary numbers seriously. These numbers aren't on the axis, they're at right angles to it. There's an explanation of how they might work here:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SlidingScale/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness

So if we have an axis and a radius, we have a three-dimensional conceptual space. All fictional spacecraft will look as if they're at or near ultimate TRL but radially removed. Entirely, rigorously, absolutely realistic designs can only hope to be dramatically convincing on the top few levels. If you like, a cone of possibilities rises from each step on the axis. So, how wide or narrow do we want to make the cone and how far down the axis does its point descend?

Er, that turned into a pompous academic essay. Sorry. Is that my coat?

Hello Rhinocrates, I honestly want to understand your point of view, but I truly, completely fail to comprehend your apparent argument of "an equation that can't be described or depicted in concrete terms." BY DEFINITION, THE VERY NATURE of a diagram or an equation IS to be able to be described or depicted in abstract objective concrete terms, so please, help an aging German Aerospace Engineer out here, willya???.

 

[Rhinocrates]

BY DEFINITION, THE VERY NATURE of a diagram or an equation IS to be able to be described or depicted in abstract objective concrete terms, so please, help an aging German Aerospace Engineer out here, willya???.

Well I mean an equation is certainly firm and real but what I meant was that it's 'concrete' or 'plausible' in sensual terms. A chair can absolutely certain mass and dimensions and those criteria are necessary for shipping... but what's it like to sit in? Is it comfortable? Can I picture it in my living room? Is it plausible that Sherlock Holmes would sit on a bean bag? Technically he could, but for a set designer, it wouldn't be plausible in 19th century London and would lead to the viewer of a TV show ceasing to believe that they were receiving transmissions from 19th-century London.

That's deliberately a silly example because I mean to illustrate that believing in a dramatic presentation is different from understanding equations and necessarily involves willing self-deception and ignoring certain things. If it's well done, the artifice and simplification that appears in most visual drama is sort of an inversion of traditional Japanese dezukai puppetry, where the puppeteers are visible on stage and the audience politely ignores them. If you were to stand up and complain, the rest of the audience would say, オブビアス船長、ありがとう。('Thank you Captain Obvious').

If it's badly done, you get Star Trek's notorious technobabble.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Whoa there - I'm not sure which alternative universe I just accidentally bumped into where someone actually takes any of my musings seriously? But trying to explain my line of thought, yes, I expect science fiction to be firmly science based, even if only speculatively, just as long as there is even a fringe scientific theory that might justify any of the ongoings, as opposed to mere fairy dust "magic happens". That's where I draw the line.

'Many a true word is spoken in jest' as the proverb has it.

My own background is in industrial design and architecture, though I took an academic rather than professional route (the prospect of a career designing parking buildings or kitchen and bathroom alterations didn't appeal to me). I therefore know how you feel then as I watch film and television design with anachronistic designs and ruins where a 'ruined' arch has a gap around two o'clock while being intact from one around to nine. What's holding it together, glue? What about Minas Tirith in The Lord of the Rings films having no roads for trade or farms to support its population? And those beacons - just piles of firewood exposed to the elements on mountaintops? Really?! Okay, there are elves and dragons, but there must also be economics and logistics. Don't even get me started on the architectural abominations in video games...

My dentist has warned me about grinding my teeth too much, so I'm willing to ignore issues that are peripheral to the central thesis. If it looks cool and supports the dramatic presentation of a serious idea, i'll let it pass. It's as if, using my analogy above, the central axis of realism is clear and firm, then a bit of fuzziness around it is tolerable if it doesn't undermine it.

Yes, if everything is realistic and stands up to technical scrutiny, then all's groovy.

Anyway, I really appreciate your honest discussion, thanks.

 

[Rhinocrates]

After all that, I really like sf in which relativity is acknowledged and Stanislaw Lem's savage deconstructions of the anthropomorphic wishful thinking of SETI. There's not that much of it around though, so I'll accept, if not a low bar, one that's fuzzy and rubbery.

 

[Arjen]

Out the window goes plausibility ...

 

[martinbayer]

After all that, I really like sf in which relativity is acknowledged and Stanislaw Lem's savage deconstructions of the anthropomorphic wishful thinking of SETI. There's not that much of it around though, so I'll accept, if not a low bar, one that's fuzzy and rubbery.

The rooting in actual science, or at least the basic principles thereof, is what distinguishes actual science fiction from princess unicorn fantasy.

 

[martinbayer]

The excellent Spaceship Handbook from ARA press is probably the 'bible' to this thread

Well, I'd say it's one of the gospels for sure, but the actual good book itself that I have sitting on my shelf right next to it is "The Dream Machines - A Pictorial History Of The Spaceship In Art, Science and Literature" by Ron Miller with a Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke. It covers the period from approximately 360 B.C. through 1992, sometimes by the actual publication date to the day, on a total of 714 pages. To quote the Amazon blurb, "Unique in the literature of spaceflight, this book is an encyclopedic history of the spaceship from the earliest yearnings for space travel to plans for the distant future. Covering in unprecedented detail over 2,000 years of spaceship design, the text chronologically documents thousands of events, with illustrations and photos graphically demonstrating the centuries-long evolution of an idea that has changed our world forever. Included are rare photos and illustrations from science fiction films, books, and magazines; unique drawings of Soviet spacecraft; NASA photos never before reproduced; and artwork specially commissioned for this book. The illustrations are reproduced in two colors throughout, with a sixteen-page full-color section, appendixes, bibliography, and index. Winner of the Booklist Editor's Choice 1994 Technology Award."

Martin

 

[Rhinocrates]

To go with the Far Side Rocket, the Lead Balloon.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZSkM-QEeUg

 

[Rhinocrates]

Many sf spacecraft are a blend of the eminently plausible with impossible (or infinitely improbable) bits. Peter Watts' novel Blindsight has a pretty impressive one with a very low TRL drive. It's not so much propelled by unicorn farts as a bathtub bolted to the rear in which a philosopher shouts 'Eureka!' to propel it forward. The principle is quantum teleportation. Rather than carrying a store of antimatter on board, an antimatter factory is in orbit close to the Sun and the qualities of the particles produced in the factory and those on Theseus are exchanged.

Quantum teleportation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The rest of the spacecraft is more familiar technologically and the main focus of the book is on consciousness. In fact, it's pretty much cosmic horror - the horror being a principle rather than mere squiggly creatures that can hurt you. In this case it's the contention that intelligence does not require consciousness and that consciousness may in fact be evolutionarily disadvantageous.

The book's found it way onto reading lists for numerous philosophy and neurology courses and It's probably going to me even more relevant now with the recent boom in AI. The entity 'Rorschach' in the book can be thought of as the ultimate iteration of ChatGPT.

Watts provides extensive notes and reference in an appendix, explaining his sources, including the 'telematter' drive.

Full text of the book here:

Blindsight by Peter Watts

 

[martinbayer]

Paging Doctor Who...

 

[martinbayer]

Many sf spacecraft are a blend of the eminently plausible with impossible (or infinitely improbable) bits. Peter Watts' novel Blindsight has a pretty impressive one with a very low TRL drive. It's not so much propelled by unicorn farts as a bathtub bolted to the rear in which a philosopher shouts 'Eureka!' to propel it forward. The principle is quantum teleportation. Rather than carrying a store of antimatter on board, an antimatter factory is in orbit close to the Sun and the qualities of the particles produced in the factory and those on Theseus are exchanged.

Quantum teleportation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The rest of the spacecraft is more familiar technologically and the main focus of the book is on consciousness. In fact, it's pretty much cosmic horror - the horror being a principle rather than mere squiggly creatures that can hurt you. In this case it's the contention that intelligence does not require consciousness and that consciousness may in fact be evolutionarily disadvantageous.

The book's found it way onto reading lists for numerous philosophy and neurology courses and It's probably going to me even more relevant now with the recent boom in AI. The entity 'Rorschach' in the book can be thought of as the ultimate iteration of ChatGPT.

Watts provides extensive notes and reference in an appendix, explaining his sources, including the 'telematter' drive.

Full text of the book here:

Blindsight by Peter Watts

You lost me at "horror"... I strongly advise to reponder and meditate on the very title of this thread rather than post pics of fictional fangs - utterly gross and completely unwarranted thread drift, much?

 

[Rhinocrates]

You lost me at "horror"... I strongly advise to reponder and meditate on the very title of this thread rather than post pics of fictional fangs - utterly gross and completely unwarranted thread drift, much?

Edited by a moderator, which I accept. My apologies.

If you go to the link above for the full text, you can click on the Notes and References and scroll down to 'Are We There Yet?' without having to dive into the novel itself, and then follow links to relevant papers.

 

[publiusr]

Maybe a list of fictional spacecraft in terms of believability is in order.

Apart from GRAVITY which depicted CGI of actual craft in unbelievable circumstances...I would nominate the stretch LEM in MOON ZERO TWO as most believable...followed by a certain orange lifting body....

The Moonraker shuttles seem a bit too sturdy...but I would shove Discovery from 2001 down a great deal in that it seems too thin...at least to this layman.

Mission to Mars has a craft that--had it cast off additional tankage off-screen---would seem more realistic.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Discovery could be thin because the engines were high ISP but low thrust. The main priority was keeping the hot bits as far away as possible from the crewed bits. One deliberately unrealistic aspect was its lack of radiator panels. A number of configurations were tried in the concept design stage but ultimately dropped because they might be mistaken for wings. The novel does mention them as forming a narrow 'V'.

In the novel, Discovery goes to Saturn, not Jupiter, but Kubrick was dissatisfied with the effects. Doug Trumbull later used Saturn as a backdrop for Silent Running.

These are images from the concept and modelling stages.

 

[Rhinocrates]

The blue image is from the making of the film, showing Discovery's interior layout. The black backgrounded images are later reconstructions.

 

[Rhinocrates]

An Orion-type version of Discovery was considered, but discarded because it might recall Dr Strangelove and not be taken seriously. The line drawings are from preproduction art. I'm using a variety of sources, but Piers Bizony's 2001: Filming the Future is the primary for the line art. The second CGI is by 'Rhys'.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Discovery at Saturn by David Hardy, based on the novel. I think he got the direction of the radiators wrong. I gather from my reading they were narrow nearest the engines, as in the concept art above. Nonetheless, it's beautiful art. He reused the basic design for a starship in another painting.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Cover art by Don Dixon for Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars. The spacecraft is made of reused space shuttle external tanks to carry 100 passengers to set up the first permanent colony.

 

[Rhinocrates]

David Hardy again. A blimp described in Red Mars.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Robert Forward deserves a mention! He's well-known for his work on designs such as Starwisp and tethers but he also wrote sf and he worked out some good, realistic designs for extraordinary situations - such as enduring the tidal extremes near a neutron star.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389212025047/pdf?md5=c3b168878e444a9fe5dd0dd21b9ab29d&pid=1-s2.0-S1875389212025047-main.pdf

 

[Scott Kenny]

Discovery at Saturn by David Hardy, based on the novel. I think he got the direction of the radiators wrong. I gather from my reading they were narrow nearest the engines, as in the concept art above. Nonetheless, it's beautiful art. He reused the basic design for a starship in another painting.

Yes, you usually want to keep the radiators in the shadow of your radiation shield.

To make it obvious that they were radiators for mister Kubrick, I would have made them glow red hot. 1600K color temp.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Yes, you usually want to keep the radiators in the shadow of your radiation shield.

To make it obvious that they were radiators for mister Kubrick, I would have made them glow red hot. 1600K color temp.

Yes, indeed. I read somewhere that Mr K wanted the engine exhausts to glow and suggested incandescent electrical coils but was told that once you shine a light on them, if it is brighter and has a hotter colour temperature, they're only going to look grey. From what I recall, George Lucas' SFX crew came up with a different solution for Star Wars involving shining lights directly on to reflective paint to get a glow. In retrospect, they might have done something similar for 2001, shining masked blue-white lights onto the engine venturi and cherry-red onto the radiators.

All the 'video' screens in 2001 were back-projections of film that was thousands of hours of animation work by film students. EVERY. SINGLE. SCREEN.

The famous centrifuge set was a masterpiece of engineering in its own right. It was built by Vickers, which is more or less an earlier incarnation of BAE Systems. It wasn't one single piece but two matched 'pie dishes' so a camera could be inserted between the halves to track Gary Lockwood/Frank Poole as he jogged around its circumference while Keir Dullea/David Bowman was strapped into a chair as it rotated - he was hanging upside down at certain points. The rubber floor panels parted for the camera and flopped back into position before they came into view.

The electrical hazard and the heat from the lighting must have been incredible.

Nowadays, it would all be greenscreen, CGI... bah, humbug!

 

[Rhinocrates]

Just how all that ended up on screen:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4uOZnao7JM

 

[publiusr]

And then junked to keep low-budget filmakers away from it.

 

[martinbayer]

They quite literally - and figuratively - don't make movies like that anymore... I'm grateful that seeing it in my childhood, together with watching the first landing of humans on the Moon in real time, was one of the formative experiences in my life.

 

[martinbayer]

Many sf spacecraft are a blend of the eminently plausible with impossible (or infinitely improbable) bits. Peter Watts' novel Blindsight has a pretty impressive one with a very low TRL drive. It's not so much propelled by unicorn farts as a bathtub bolted to the rear in which a philosopher shouts 'Eureka!' to propel it forward. The principle is quantum teleportation. Rather than carrying a store of antimatter on board, an antimatter factory is in orbit close to the Sun and the qualities of the particles produced in the factory and those on Theseus are exchanged.

Quantum teleportation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The rest of the spacecraft is more familiar technologically and the main focus of the book is on consciousness. In fact, it's pretty much cosmic horror - the horror being a principle rather than mere squiggly creatures that can hurt you. In this case it's the contention that intelligence does not require consciousness and that consciousness may in fact be evolutionarily disadvantageous.

The book's found it way onto reading lists for numerous philosophy and neurology courses and It's probably going to me even more relevant now with the recent boom in AI. The entity 'Rorschach' in the book can be thought of as the ultimate iteration of ChatGPT.

Watts provides extensive notes and reference in an appendix, explaining his sources, including the 'telematter' drive.

Full text of the book here:

Blindsight by Peter Watts

I just read the book summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight_(Watts_novel), and YIKES!!! A "crew of five cutting-edge transhuman hyper-specialists, of whom one is a genetically reincarnated vampire who acts as the nominal mission commander"??? I don't know what Watts was on while penning that masterpiece (of something or other...), but I am absolutely certain that as opposed to the claim made on Wikipedia, it is definitely NOT "hard science fiction". The book may well be on reading lists for numerous philosophy and neurology courses, but I'm pretty sure that it is NOT on any reading list for aerospace engineering, which is the actual topic under discussion right here. Once again, TRLs rule.

 

[Michel Van]

There two way to do it:

Realistic
were you hire Aerospace companies to figure out your Spaceship,
KUBRICK manage that with Discovery One in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Or you ask the Engineer who Design it
Like Wernher von Braun who was technical advisor to Movie Conquest of Space,
that use his 1952 book The Mars Project hardware.

Make so good, that People believe its real
Ridley Scott had chance to get right guys for ALIEN, who build Nostromo and its Interieur.
It feel and look of old Freighter build from Aircrafts parts and everything useful.
Gave the Audience a believable Realistic spaceship, who isn't working with current tech !
James Cameron manage this magic too !

 

[Justo Miranda]

There two way to do it:

Realistic
were you hire Aerospace companies to figure out your Spaceship,
KUBRICK manage that with Discovery One in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Or you ask the Engineer who Design it
Like Wernher von Braun who was technical advisor to Movie Conquest of Space,
that use his 1952 book The Mars Project hardware.

Make so good, that People believe its real
Ridley Scott had chance to get right guys for ALIEN, who build Nostromo and its Interieur.
It feel and look of old Freighter build from Aircrafts parts and everything useful.
Gave the Audience a believable Realistic spaceship, who isn't working with current tech !
James Cameron manage this magic too !

FTL technology with unionized workers instead of robots?... well something had to eat the monster.

 

[Jeb]

Kind of surprised no one's mentioned the Endurance from Interstellar.

 

[martinbayer]

Because it's just a jumbled mess that looks more like a disassembled Rubik's Cube put back together by M. C. Escher? And using chipped and dirty bathroom tiles for the interior spaceship design certainly didn't help credibility either.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Kind of surprised no one's mentioned the Endurance from Interstellar.

View attachment 705334

A wheel with only one spoke?, seems designed by Escher and Rorhbach after drinking a bottle of Green Fairy.

 

[robunos]

A wheel with only one spoke?, seems designed by Escher and Rorhbach after drinking a bottle of Green Fairy.

https://citroenvie.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Early-DS-Interior.jpg

cheers,
Robin.

 

[publiusr]

Because it's just a jumbled mess that looks more like a disassembled Rubik's Cube put back together by M. C. Escher? And using chipped and dirty bathroom tiles for the interior spaceship design certainly didn't help credibility either.

No tankage to speak of. All payload.

In terms of Blindsight…a vampire—being undead—needs no life support.

Pull him out of the grave…shove him inside a Zond atop UR-500…then tell him to tough it out

Have that UR-500 payload shoved by a Falcon Heavy super Agena/lander…send him to Io.

“You want your castle back drac? You build a base and start mining.”

 

[drejr]

I just read the book summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight_(Watts_novel), and YIKES!!!

this is what you get for reading wikipedia I guess

 

[Rhinocrates]

In terms of Blindsight…a vampire—being undead—needs no life support.

To be pedantic, Watts' 'vampires' are not supernatural in any way but are worked out as purely biological predators - a thought experiment beginning with the question, 'if stories of vampires are true accounts, what sort of creature living in the real world could best fit their description?' Watts himself was a biologist specialising in marine mammals often commissioned by the Canadian government before he turned to writing full time. The 'Vampire Domestication' presentation can be downloaded as a transcript so you don't need to look at the gruesome visuals and is hard science mixed with satire (the guy has a very dark sense of humour). The hard science in this case happens to be biology, not engineering.

This does raise the question of what suite of sciences we invoke. A spacecraft or habitat designed for deep space exploration is going to need a life support system that closes as many loops as possible - or an artificial ecosystem in other words. On top of that, canned monkey doesn't travel well anyway - we're inefficient, bulky, heavy and resource-hungry, limited to a narrow range of temperatures and other environmental conditions - and on top of that, we're easily upset by microgravity and radiation. Might we not want to adapt that engineering too? A plausible fictional spacecraft is going to have good engineering and make use of other disciplines too if it's really going to work.

Hibernation (or more precisely, torpor), for example, is a standard technique in fiction - such as 2001: A Space Odyssey of course - and it is now being seriously investigated by various space agencies and as a medical technique.