LibriumArcana.Games

Mankind shouldn't go anywhere without a faithful animal companion. So list what you think are good pets to have and what suck for onboard a spaceship (assume for the sake of argument that space travel is a billion times more common than it is today).

I read an Arthur Clarke novel called "Islands in the Sky" where they were talking about how to get rid of vermin that inevitably come up via the supply rockets. The main character who had never been up in space before shrugged and said cats; and they said "Cats are useless. They don't adapt well to freefall. Owls on the other hand..."

I think an Owl swooping in freefall would look sweet to be honest. However, there is the matter of the bird shit.

Goldfish? Meh. Water will no doubt be recycled for any spaceship, so constantly changing the goldfish tank would result, eventually, of all the water on the ship tasting like fish.

Turtles? They're pretty cool. You can feed them lettuce, if the artificial gravity fails they're protected (just withdraw into their shell and they'll be fine!). Plus turtles are cute.

Of course. Who can say no to Fido?

Any ideas?

In the book The Rowan, there is actually a specis of cat that has adapted to life on spaceships and hunts down any vermin infesting the ships. Ferrets might be worthwhile for this to, or some birds.

Smaller breeds of dogs would likely make nice pets on board ships. Assuming you have colony planets with breathable atmo you would want larger types of dogs and cats however.

A few slightly different possibilities:

Monkeys, perhaps? Get some of the more intelligent ones, and they'll be able to swing around in freefall just fine with a little training. They're social, too.

Parrots, particularly the talking kind. Since we're talking about the possibility of special breeds of cat, why couldn't there be a quick and (relatively) easy way of training African gray parrots to talk? If you're on a long voyage, you won't be able to afford to bring many people (you'd need too many supplies) but people need someone to talk to. They live a long time, as well.


Something furless might also be preferred so there's no fur floating around to clog up filters, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

I think birds and maybe amphibs would have the easiest time adapting to zero-g and I really like Mayabird's parrot idea.
"Polly wants a ration bar!"
I'm not sure any exlusively land-based animal would easily adapt to zero-g but frankly seeing trying to DO so should be hilarity cubed (and pure pandemonium). Imagine walking into a cabinet and suddenly hear a desperate little 'meaow' from somewhere. After searching every nook and cranny you finally remember to look straight up and find out that Nermal doesn't know how to get off the ceiling (something very like that happened to me here so imagine what freefall could do) :D.
On a more serious note, assuming they can adapt (or we have artificial gravity) anything to hunt vermin is a good idea to bring (be it cats, ferrets or terriers), if it's a colony mission you might want larger dogs for guard duty and probably some beasts of burden (which can manufacture new ones by semthelves using only the most rudimentary materials) at least for starters.

Batman wrote:I think birds and maybe amphibs would have the easiest time adapting to zero-g and I really like Mayabird's parrot idea.
"Polly wants a ration bar!"

Why amphibians?

I mentioned African grays because they can learn far better than just mere mimicry of a few phrases. They can have vocabularies of a few hundred words and ask for things they want, identify objects, and even apologize if they think they did something wrong. That way, there can actually be some back and forth talking.

"Hey George, you hungry?"
"Wanna blue ration!"
"Alright, here's a blue ration bar for you."
"Thank you, RAWK!"


I'd say beasts of burden would only be useful on planets that don't need much in the way of terraforming, but otherwise they'd be a big sink on resources (you have to provide them water, clean their wastes, feed them, etc) unless you're getting some food directly from them, like milk or eggs. If it's a good planet, though, it'd be very useful, like the horses brought to Tau Ceti in Stuart Slade's Interstellar Highway. They were saying that it takes a long time to build up an industrial base to maintain and build tractors, but if you need another horse, you just send mama and papa horse to the pasture and wait a while.

I mentioned amphibs (with a qualifying 'maybe' I might add) because I think that animals that spend at least part of their life in/under water would have an easier time adapting to freefall because the buoyancy gives at least a not so close approximation of weightlessness. Feel free to blow that theory right out of orbit.
I would have gone with fishes but they have this pesky problem with living outside water.
WRT beasts of burden if you need to terraform a planet the payload requirements are so high you might as well come in with the foundings for a proto-industrial society or blow the whole thing off, true. Same if your colony ship is the size of an SSD, If your cargo capacity is measured in billions of tons who cares?
I was thinking more along the early Heinleinian lines with a society that does NOT have the resources to lug infinite amounts of equipments along nor heavily terraform a planet.
But we seem to agree on their usefulness on pseudoterran planets, anyway.

One problem with ampibs is they must be kept wet for the most part and water is not something you throw around lightly I would think.

As for the stock animals, machines break down faster and easier than oxen. Animals also have a built in means of providing replacement, machines require industry that may or may not be avialable.

An example may be seen in Firefly where seattlers on the outer planets are often riding horses, it's not that they think horses are neat and cooler than cars, it's that it's easier for them to maintain and replace horses than cars or hovercraft.

Using the same universe but on the flip side, maintaining riding horses would be an expensive pain in the ass for Mal, so he uses the mechinal mule which for him is cheaper and easier.

Well, I actually have to agree with Batman for once. But only sertain kinds of amphibians. There are treefrogs in africa which secrete a waxy substance which holds in moisture, little water needed. The insects to feed them are pretty easy and clean to breed on a ship(crickets and fruit flies. they could serve a dual purpose and get rid of food waste) In addition, they would be just fine even in zero g. Keep the little guys on your finger.

Most treefrogs actually would make decent pets. The water used to keep them moist is no more than any other pet to be honest, and theirs is more easily recycled because it just evaporates off of them, or gets urinated out in the form of dilute urine. I say dilute because, while a bird or mammal will secrete urine with a high ionic concentration, a frogs is about as concentrated as their blood. Geckos would make good pets for similar reasons

I also have to agree with the african gray parrots. for the same reasons. THose creatures are simply amazing, and if you are alone... that parrot will be your best friend. Literally. You can even have a conversation with it.

I am of course assuming hard science fiction. So I would advise against larger animals which can neither fly, nor adhier to walls. Changes in acceleration could be nasty for an animal which is not strapped down otherwise.

I reckon tortoises would be growse. They seem low-maintenance.

But I'd also want to take a pooch with me too. Man's Best Friend! You'd probably put dogs into a special compartment like airlines do, where he'd be strapped down during take off and landing (just like you would be, too). During free fall maybe take him for walks but leave him in the compartment or in your stateroom.

Ah-ha, but the problem with birds is that they would quickly starve to death or die of thirst.

Our esophagus (and that of other mammals) is lined with muscles that expand and contract to move food along on its way to the stomach (to be snooty, it is called 'peristalsis'). This allows us to eat when we're lying down, or even upside-down, or in zero-G.

Birds (probably amphibians, and reptiles too) don't have this; they way they swallow is that gravity pulls food from the mouth to the gizzard. They would not be able to swallow and so, couldn't survive up there.

I find that very hard to believe given that a lot of reptiles are largely horizontal and thus can't rely on gravity to get their food from the mouth to the stomach.

Like i said 'probably.' I'm not sure about reptiles, but because of their similarity to birds it made sense. I'm quite sure about birds, though, but it is surprisingly difficult to find decent documentation on the subject.

Hedgecore wrote:Like i said 'probably.' I'm not sure about reptiles, but because of their similarity to birds it made sense. I'm quite sure about birds, though, but it is surprisingly difficult to find decent documentation on the subject.

I was going to say something earlier because I had heard the same thing about birds, but couldn't find any good sources. I did find this, though, which states that:

The esophagus is large in diameter, particularly in birds that swallow large meals. Swallowing is accomplished by esophageal peristalsis, and in most birds appears to be aided by extension of the neck.

which seems to suggest that they at least don't rely solely on gravity and use muscles. However, I couldn't find any diagrams of an avian esophagus to see if they have muscles or not. I could always find a live specimen and see for myself, but maybe some of the biology folks can enlighten us and spare the poor bird's life.

Hedgecore wrote:Ah-ha, but the problem with birds is that they would quickly starve to death or die of thirst.

Our esophagus (and that of other mammals) is lined with muscles that expand and contract to move food along on its way to the stomach (to be snooty, it is called 'peristalsis'). This allows us to eat when we're lying down, or even upside-down, or in zero-G.

Birds (probably amphibians, and reptiles too) don't have this; they way they swallow is that gravity pulls food from the mouth to the gizzard. They would not be able to swallow and so, couldn't survive up there.

Um, you are pretty damn wrong there.

Amphibians use their tongues and muscle contractions to shove food down their throats, snakes use muscle contractions and so do many lizards. Birds also use peristalisis, which is...muslce contractions.

Comrade Tortoise wrote: Amphibians use their tongues and muscle contractions to shove food down their throats, snakes use muscle contractions and so do many lizards. Birds also use peristalisis, which is...muslce contractions.

Interesting. I can't remember where i first read about the bird thing, but recall the source was pretty good. When I tried to find something to cite recently, I couldn't find anything that would count as scholarly, though I found I'm not the only one who'd heard or read it.

I'm curious as to where the conception started.