Slice of SciFi #280: VoiceMail Show

This is the show where our loyal, adoring, and inquisitive fans and listeners get to hear us comment on their comments about our stories and comments… it’s the Circle of Entertainment Life!

We do want to hear your comments and feedback… No, really, we do! Pay no attention to how much Mike grumbles about them — you know, that guy sitting in the dark corner with all of the blinky lights, the knobs and the scotch.

This week, Mike, Brian, Sam and Bret respond to the questions and comments posed by your voicemail submissions, and as always, BEWARE SPOILERS!!

Go Social with Slice of SciFi
Twitter: @sliceofscifi


  1. ejdalise says

    As someone I’m sure mentioned before, bullets are self-oxidizing, so they do not depend on an atmosphere to function (one of the many errors in Firefly {Our Mrs. Reynolds} I opted to overlook)

    The recoil is a problem, as energy will be imparted in the opposite direction.

    Interesting enough, when a person was shown hit by laser (Star War), they were knocked back, so there is some energy imparted (per Star War writer(s)), and consequently there would be the same “recoil” issue with lasers.

    Laser have been proposed as methods of propulsion (we fire a laser at a spaceship we want to “push”), so again, that also indicates some sort of mass transfer (light is both wave and particles), and subsequent “recoil” from that transfer.

    The argument is sometimes made laser are safer in space because they would not cause holes in the spaceship . . . but to my mind they are far too easily deflected (intentionally or not) by reflective surfaces (much like BBs, especially around x-mas time and when icicles are about). I would be worried about putting my eye out.

    I would rather risk having to repair a small bullet hole in the ship. Also, with proper training, the bulk of the bullet can be contained inside the target. Again, recoil is an issue, but maybe one could just hang on to something (maybe even the intended target).

    My two cents worth . . . which I’m sure someone will argue against.