I think the point he makes about Star Trek misses something major. He likes that the shows set earlier in the timeline have a more barebones aesthetic because he sees that as more realistic. But I...
I think the point he makes about Star Trek misses something major.
He likes that the shows set earlier in the timeline have a more barebones aesthetic because he sees that as more realistic. But I feel like that is only realistic in the way we view space travel today.
At the point in the timeline when TNG, DS9 and Voyager come into play, interstellar space travel has been around for over 300 years ( Zefram Cochrane develops warp technology in 2063, TNG/DS9/VOY takes place from 2364-2395).
I feel like it's reasonable to assume that in 300-400 years of manned interstellar travel using warp technology we would start building ships that are less utilitarian and more pragmatic.
They are. But in this case, pragmatic is more appropriate to what the Federation ships became. For Trek starships, utilitarian simply means the ships were designed and built strictly on need. No...
They are. But in this case, pragmatic is more appropriate to what the Federation ships became.
For Trek starships, utilitarian simply means the ships were designed and built strictly on need. No ship was designed to have anything it didn’t absolutely need to function
After 300 years of advancement in technology, the Federation could be more pragmatic in their design as we see crew lounges, bars, the Holodeck added. Are these utilitarian in nature? Not really. No ship needs them. They don’t directly contribute to the functioning of the ship. But they’re pragmatic in nature because the crew benefits greatly from their existence.
At least that’s what I think he/she was getting at
It’s obvious he didn’t do a comprehensive analysis of any starship. I’m sure that none is particularly realistic. He just pointed out a few details he found interesting.
It’s obvious he didn’t do a comprehensive analysis of any starship. I’m sure that none is particularly realistic. He just pointed out a few details he found interesting.
Didn't scientists discover that the "warp field" talked about in Star Trek would actually work (even if the power requirements would make it practically impossible to implement)?
Didn't scientists discover that the "warp field" talked about in Star Trek would actually work (even if the power requirements would make it practically impossible to implement)?
The hypothetical Alcubierre faster-than-light drive is not like Star Trek's fictional warp drive. For one thing, the Alcubierre drive doesn't create a subspace bubble around the spaceship!
The hypothetical Alcubierre faster-than-light drive is not like Star Trek's fictional warp drive. For one thing, the Alcubierre drive doesn't create a subspace bubble around the spaceship!
I am surprised that BSG’s - bridge at the core of the ship design - was not mentioned. I remember seeing in an interview that this was a very purposeful design. “Why wouldn’t you put the bridge in...
I am surprised that BSG’s - bridge at the core of the ship design - was not mentioned. I remember seeing in an interview that this was a very purposeful design. “Why wouldn’t you put the bridge in the safest place?”
The arboghast? Come on, if they looked at The Enterprise for Star Trek and the Death Star for Star Wars, couldn't they do the stolen ship legitimate salvage Rocinante, which plays a more important...
The arboghast? Come on, if they looked at The Enterprise for Star Trek and the Death Star for Star Wars, couldn't they do the stolen ship legitimate salvage Rocinante, which plays a more important role?
They renamed it after legitimately salvaging it from the wreckage of the MCRN Donnager, after its crew all suddenly and spontaneously died of unknown causes.
They renamed it after legitimately salvaging it from the wreckage of the MCRN Donnager, after its crew all suddenly and spontaneously died of unknown causes.
Not to get all Comic Book Guy, and I prefer Star Trek too, but... Impossible, or just extremely wasteful of propellant in service of looking cool? Because wasting a shit-ton of gas to make big...
The kind of turns the Millennium Falcon makes in space are impossible without an atmosphere. [...] There's no reason for X-Wings to change their wing alignment like that, other than the fact that it looks cool. And TIE fighters don't even have a visible system of propulsion.
Not to get all Comic Book Guy, and I prefer Star Trek too, but...
Impossible, or just extremely wasteful of propellant in service of looking cool? Because wasting a shit-ton of gas to make big dumb arcing turns for no reason seems extremely Han Solo to me.
IIRC, the canon reasons for moving S-foils on an X-Wing are to manage overheating, space critical components out during combat, and provide space for the Taim & Bak turbolasers to gimbal.
The TIE Fighter's TIEs are pretty visible -- if one believes Dennis Muren, they're the "taillights" -- although they're kind of dinky, and ion engines as we currently understand them seem pretty awful for a combat vessel.
The FTL unobtainium-powered ships of fiction are meant to be based on physics beyond our ken, and it's perfectly in keeping that they wouldn't run exclusively on mass-based propellants carried...
The FTL unobtainium-powered ships of fiction are meant to be based on physics beyond our ken, and it's perfectly in keeping that they wouldn't run exclusively on mass-based propellants carried within the ship.
You've got your vacuum energy, zero-point energy, ram-scooping, pinpoint black holes, and a host of other fictional explanations for why you've seldom got a shortage of power to play with.
All that being said:
Aerodynamics are pointless unless the ship is meant to engage with atmosphere, and it's really wasteful to land the whole damn frigate.
How's your gravity control? Why build ships with "up" and "down" design orientations if you can make the interior environment behave in any way you choose?
Why bother with symmetry at all for something that doesn't land, doesn't have fixed exterior/interior orientations, and isn't necessarily subject to differential stresses from acceleration?
One of the best designs in SF TV was the Shadow vessels in Babylon 5 - they looked like chandeliers made of icicles, painted black. How'd it work? Non-corporeal passengers! Nicely done for sheer WTF.
One of the best designs in SF TV was the Shadow vessels in Babylon 5 - they looked like chandeliers made of icicles, painted black. How'd it work? Non-corporeal passengers! Nicely done for sheer WTF.
This isn't entirely true if we are talking about ships that travel at significant factors of C in real space. Even interstellar space isn't totally barren. Lots of random particles floating about...
Aerodynamics are pointless unless the ship is meant to engage with atmosphere, and it's really wasteful to land the whole damn frigate.
This isn't entirely true if we are talking about ships that travel at significant factors of C in real space.
Even interstellar space isn't totally barren. Lots of random particles floating about at extremely low densities. However, when you start moving very very fast it really adds up. When you're moving a few million kilometers per hour, even interstellar dust will create substantial friction and drag.
So I just came up with a theory for tie fighters. What if the capital ships generate a gigantic magnetic field to allow for the tie fighters propulsion? That would explain the lack of powerful...
So I just came up with a theory for tie fighters. What if the capital ships generate a gigantic magnetic field to allow for the tie fighters propulsion? That would explain the lack of powerful thrusters. Also, the wing area could be used to house all of the magnetic field drive components. Then, the fighters would only need a powerful energy source and some weapons. That could give the tie fighters a huge advantage since they wouldn't have to worry about thrusters, propellents, or the load of extra heat that would probably generate.
I think the point he makes about Star Trek misses something major.
He likes that the shows set earlier in the timeline have a more barebones aesthetic because he sees that as more realistic. But I feel like that is only realistic in the way we view space travel today.
At the point in the timeline when TNG, DS9 and Voyager come into play, interstellar space travel has been around for over 300 years ( Zefram Cochrane develops warp technology in 2063, TNG/DS9/VOY takes place from 2364-2395).
I feel like it's reasonable to assume that in 300-400 years of manned interstellar travel using warp technology we would start building ships that are less utilitarian and more pragmatic.
They are. But in this case, pragmatic is more appropriate to what the Federation ships became.
For Trek starships, utilitarian simply means the ships were designed and built strictly on need. No ship was designed to have anything it didn’t absolutely need to function
After 300 years of advancement in technology, the Federation could be more pragmatic in their design as we see crew lounges, bars, the Holodeck added. Are these utilitarian in nature? Not really. No ship needs them. They don’t directly contribute to the functioning of the ship. But they’re pragmatic in nature because the crew benefits greatly from their existence.
At least that’s what I think he/she was getting at
That is exactly what I was getting at, I am pretty sure you explained my point better (and more accurately) than I would have. Thank you!
It’s obvious he didn’t do a comprehensive analysis of any starship. I’m sure that none is particularly realistic. He just pointed out a few details he found interesting.
Didn't scientists discover that the "warp field" talked about in Star Trek would actually work (even if the power requirements would make it practically impossible to implement)?
The hypothetical Alcubierre faster-than-light drive is not like Star Trek's fictional warp drive. For one thing, the Alcubierre drive doesn't create a subspace bubble around the spaceship!
I am surprised that BSG’s - bridge at the core of the ship design - was not mentioned. I remember seeing in an interview that this was a very purposeful design. “Why wouldn’t you put the bridge in the safest place?”
The arboghast? Come on, if they looked at The Enterprise for Star Trek and the Death Star for Star Wars, couldn't they do the
stolen shiplegitimate salvage Rocinante, which plays a more important role?Don't you mean the Tachi?
They renamed it after legitimately salvaging it from the wreckage of the MCRN Donnager, after its crew all suddenly and spontaneously died of unknown causes.
Not to get all Comic Book Guy, and I prefer Star Trek too, but...
Impossible, or just extremely wasteful of propellant in service of looking cool? Because wasting a shit-ton of gas to make big dumb arcing turns for no reason seems extremely Han Solo to me.
IIRC, the canon reasons for moving S-foils on an X-Wing are to manage overheating, space critical components out during combat, and provide space for the Taim & Bak turbolasers to gimbal.
The TIE Fighter's TIEs are pretty visible -- if one believes Dennis Muren, they're the "taillights" -- although they're kind of dinky, and ion engines as we currently understand them seem pretty awful for a combat vessel.
The FTL unobtainium-powered ships of fiction are meant to be based on physics beyond our ken, and it's perfectly in keeping that they wouldn't run exclusively on mass-based propellants carried within the ship.
You've got your vacuum energy, zero-point energy, ram-scooping, pinpoint black holes, and a host of other fictional explanations for why you've seldom got a shortage of power to play with.
All that being said:
One of the best designs in SF TV was the Shadow vessels in Babylon 5 - they looked like chandeliers made of icicles, painted black. How'd it work? Non-corporeal passengers! Nicely done for sheer WTF.
For real! The designs in B5 were so good.
This isn't entirely true if we are talking about ships that travel at significant factors of C in real space.
Even interstellar space isn't totally barren. Lots of random particles floating about at extremely low densities. However, when you start moving very very fast it really adds up. When you're moving a few million kilometers per hour, even interstellar dust will create substantial friction and drag.
So I just came up with a theory for tie fighters. What if the capital ships generate a gigantic magnetic field to allow for the tie fighters propulsion? That would explain the lack of powerful thrusters. Also, the wing area could be used to house all of the magnetic field drive components. Then, the fighters would only need a powerful energy source and some weapons. That could give the tie fighters a huge advantage since they wouldn't have to worry about thrusters, propellents, or the load of extra heat that would probably generate.