This is a really good point, and one I hadn't thought about -- that the author might be writing with the engineers in mind, who would therefore be able to follow the logic of why certain things are non-expendable without further explanation.Algernon Sydney is Dead wrote:Maybe it's the engineering crowd I run with, but I thought this would be obvious. (1) You don't put a lot of expendable stuff on this kind of craft. (2) Considering the G forces involved, the pilot probably needs his chair to stay conscious, or maybe even alive. (3) If they are shaving fuel to such insane margins (which I doubt they would ever do in real life -- except in less "routine" emergencies), then there is no way, they wouldn't have already cut mass to the bone, to save that precious fuel.Various wrote:surely there must be some expendable equipment/clothes laying around equaling 110 lbs...
In that case, it's not so much a plot hole as an accessibility issue. I for one am definitely not an engineer, and therefore want at least another sentence or two in the story to convince me that there really, really isn't a measly 110 pounds of crap they can chuck out the door.
Still, it was distracting enough that I think the story would have been improved by just a little more detail in this area. When I write something and my readers say they didn't understand something, I work under the assumption that 98% of the time it's a failure on my part as the writer, and not their reading comprehension. I hardly think it's fair to blame readers for missing the point if I didn't make it clear enough to begin with. I think something similar is at work in "The Cold Equations", as so many of us found ourselves distracted by a detail that could be so easily clarified given just a few more words. As the whole plot hinged on our believing that there was no way to save the girl, it's frustrating not to be able to relax and enjoy the story because I can't suspend my disbelief.