Should I use real-world space agencies (like NASA / ESA equivalents) for authenticity,
or go with a fictional, self-created organization to have full creative freedom?
The story is very realism-driven , so both options feel valid:
Real agencies:
Instant credibility
Familiar to audience
– Less creative flexibility
– Risk of inaccuracies / legal sensitivity
Fictional agency:
Full control over tech, decisions, failures
Easier to shape narrative
– Needs extra work to feel believable
Curious how you all approach this in sci-fi that leans realistic.
What would you choose—and why?
Thank You
---ROY
4 people like this
You might sight NASA as the overall Government Agency but create your own project group to cover your fictional group.
3 people like this
A fictional department within an existing agency. For example the IMF from the Mission Impossible series is based out of Langley, Virginia which is the headquarters of the real CIA. In the first MI film, that is even one of the key settings.
Also, James Bond works for MI6, but as far as I know the good guys in the "00" section and "Q Branch" are as fictional as bad guys in Spectre.
The titular department in The X-Files also started as a quirky fictional department within the real FBI. In fact, in season 1, episode 1 it had 1 member, Mulder. Scully joins him in the pilot.
4 people like this
Thank you both for the insights—really helpful perspectives.
I like the idea of grounding the story in a real agency while building a fictional unit within it. That balance between authenticity and creative freedom feels like the right approach for what I’m aiming to do.
Appreciate you taking the time to share examples as well—it definitely gives me a clearer direction.
3 people like this
A real one. Because that will force you to write something which is compatible with what they do. So you will be forced to take into account what they do and don't. And you will be able to ask them if you run into problems.
4 people like this
Real agencies every time if the goal is realism. The reason is not just credibility. It is the constraints. When you write inside a real organization you inherit all the friction that comes with it. Bureaucracy. Competing priorities. Budget fights. Turf wars between departments. Those constraints create organic conflict that a fictional agency has to manufacture from scratch. The audience may not know the specifics of how NASA or ESA operates internally but they instinctively understand institutional friction. They have all worked inside systems that move slower than the crisis requires. That recognition is what makes grounded sci fi feel real. The hybrid approach is usually the strongest. Ground it in a real agency but build a fictional unit inside it that gives you narrative freedom. That way you get the weight of real institutional behavior without being locked into facts you cannot verify. The story still feels anchored but you can push the technology and the decisions wherever the narrative needs them to go. I have been working through this exact question on a project that sits at the intersection of AI systems and real world decision making. The moment you place the technology inside a real organization the stakes change because the audience knows those systems already exist.
2 people like this
Dear Eric, many thanks for expressintg exactly what I was thinking about.
2 people like this
Dear everyone,Thank you all for sharing your thoughtful insights. I really appreciated your perspectives—they gave me a lot to think about.
Best regards,
-ROY
3 people like this
I think the sweet spot is somewhere between reality and fiction.
You want enough of the real world there that it feels grounded and believable, but not so much that you’re boxed in by it. At the same time, going fully fictional gives you freedom, but you risk losing that sense of weight if it’s not anchored properly.
For realism-driven sci fi, blending the two usually works best. It lets you keep that credibility while still shaping the world the way the story needs.