Why most of the work never appears on the page

I have a habit of going down research rabbit holes.

If I’m writing about something technical - especially in science fiction — I don’t stop at “this sounds reasonable.” I keep pulling on threads until I’m confident the idea doesn’t quietly violate physics, rely on hand-waving, or collapse the moment you stress it.

Most of that work never appears on the page - and that’s not an accident.

I Needed It to Work — Even If the Reader Never Sees It

In Whispers in the Dark, there are interstellar craft, system-scale survey vessels, long-duration missions, and failure modes that matter to the plot.

What you won’t find is an explanation of how the ships are propelled, a breakdown of exhaust velocities, or a tour of the engineering stack that makes it all possible.

But I still needed to know those answers.

Not because the reader needs a technical briefing — but because I needed to be confident that the story wasn’t quietly cheating. That nothing depended on impossible acceleration, magic heat rejection, or ignoring inconvenient things like momentum, radiation, or interstellar dust.

It also keeps the narrative internally consistent by preventing convenient escape hatches from appearing later. Once you allow that kind of shortcut, the “hard” part of hard science fiction starts to erode.

If a character is going to survive a failure, or make a decision based on what’s still possible, the underlying system has to behave in a way that’s at least internally honest.

Constraints First, Cool Ideas Second

One of the first constraints I set for myself was simple: no faster-than-light travel.

Once you accept that, a lot of other things follow naturally.

Interstellar distances demand patience. High velocities make tiny particles catastrophic. Acceleration, deceleration, shielding, and heat rejection all become more important than raw power. You stop thinking in terms of “ships” and start thinking in terms of infrastructure.

That pushed the research in specific directions:

  • long-duration, low-acceleration flight profiles
  • propulsion systems limited more by thermal management than energy
  • architectures that assume damage will happen, and plan for it
  • designs that value survivability and redundancy over speed

None of that needed to be spelled out in the narrative. But it shaped what could happen — and just as importantly, what couldn’t.

Failure Modes Matter More Than Capabilities

I tend to stress-test ideas by breaking them.

  • What happens if propulsion is damaged but power remains?
  • What systems are likely to survive a high-velocity debris strike — and which aren’t?
  • How would you design a ship to be able to tolerate that?
  • What does “crippled” actually mean, in practical terms?

Those questions matter because they affect character choices.

A ship that has energy but limited thrust behaves very differently from one that’s simply “dead.” Orbital mechanics, patience, and careful planning suddenly become tools instead of inconveniences.

Again, most of this never needs to be explained outright. But it has to be there, in the background, so the consequences feel earned rather than convenient.

Why It Stays Off the Page

There’s a temptation in hard science fiction to show your work.

I understand it — especially after spending time making sure the work exists. But explanation only belongs in the story when it changes what the characters do, or how the reader understands their choices.

Otherwise, it’s just noise.

The research still matters. It just doesn’t need to be foregrounded.

The Guiding Rule

I’ve settled on a simple rule that helps me decide what stays and what goes:

  • If the science changes a character’s decisions, it belongs on the page.
  • If it only reassures the author, it belongs in the notebook.

Most of the interstellar transit research lives firmly in that second category.

It’s there if I need it. It constrains the story in quiet ways. And it lets me write with confidence, without asking the reader to push through an explanation they didn’t ask for.

Keeping that balance feels like the right way to create the kind of science fiction that feels most honest to me.

Enjoyed this? Get the science behind the story → Join the list