A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

jlf1961 -> A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 2:00:35 AM)

In another thread, I pointed out that the "Serenity" looked much better than the Tardis, simply because of the fact the Tardis looks like a blue call box.

Another person, responded with the "Galactica" since it had guns and space fighters.

The truth of the matter is that the Galactica, Imperial Star Destroyers, The Enterprise were perfectly good designs, but they were sterile had no "personality" so to speak.

In all honesty, when it comes to the original star trek universe, the klingon designs were much better than the federation.

But the Millennium Falcon and Serenity have much more personality. They have the "well lived in look" of a privately owned shoe string operation. And Sereniity brings with it the fact that it is held together with the proverbial "spit, bailing wire, and duct tape."

Who can forget the lines"
"Landing is going to get interesting."
"Define 'interesting'"
"Oh god, oh god we are all gonna die."

So hands down, the best sci fi ship is Serenity.



FrostedFlake -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 2:29:47 AM)

I think you are underselling the big blue box.

Let's take a moment to visualize a realistic starship design, circa 1963.

Tough, ain't it?

Let's also recall Verity Lambert had to sit at the art directors' desk to get him to work for her. Woman. 1963. What difference does it make if she's the boss?

Now let's take a look at how many different designs there might be in ten million heads. That was the audience for episode one, when folks weren't actually shooting at the President. A lot of them won't like your design. They will have reasons.

Let's review.

There was no way The Doctor was going to be handed a ship the audience would like. But they could give him a ship that can disguise itself. So the ship can look like any convenient object. And still be slicker than snot on a doorknob. And satisfy every fan, because each imagined the real nature of the ship for himself. This last bit is the real secret of the blue box. They made YOU design the TARDIS. Just the way you want. And at the same time, every other fan did the same, inevitably with his own ideas.

To put that another way, They brought the audience on staff.

Genius.

ETA : CandiDanielz is RIGHT. It's an acronym. It's capitalized.



CandiDanielz -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 2:33:46 AM)

The TARDIS ftw



jlf1961 -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 2:57:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake

I think you are underselling the big blue box.

Let's take a moment to visualize a realistic starship design, circa 1963.

Tough, ain't it?

Let's also recall Verity Lambert had to sit at the art directors' desk to get him to work for her. Woman. 1963. What difference does it make if she's the boss?

Now let's take a look at how many different designs there might be in ten million heads. That was the audience for episode one, when folks weren't actually shooting at the President. A lot of them won't like your design. They will have reasons.

Let's review.

There was no way The Doctor was going to be handed a ship the audience would like. But they could give him a ship that can disguise itself. So the ship can look like any convenient object. And still be slicker than snot on a doorknob. And satisfy every fan, because each imagined the real nature of the ship for himself. This last bit is the real secret of the blue box. They made YOU design the TARDIS. Just the way you want. And at the same time, every other fan did the same, inevitably with his own ideas.

To put that another way, They brought the audience on staff.

Genius.

ETA : CandiDanielz is RIGHT. It's an acronym. It's capitalized.



Okay, the TARDIS can change its shape, and it has a swimming pool, but what is a shape changing box with a swimming pool against a ship that you are never quite sure if if it aint gonna fall out of the sky at some point?

Lets face it, the TARDIS has the power of the universe at its disposal, while Serenity depends on the ingenuity of a cute tech/mechanic/jury rigger extraordinaire just to get off the ground.

Add to that is the wonderful fact that Serenity has that 'lived in look' that makes it conceivable that you half expect Slim Pickens, or Walter Brennen to step out of a cabin.



ShaharThorne -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 3:09:12 AM)

I just want the Tardis because of the closet space...



jlf1961 -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 3:48:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaharThorne

I just want the Tardis because of the closet space...



Closet space?

Come on, six pairs of jeans, six shirts, six pocket tees, maybe twelve pairs of socks, two pair of boots and a pair of sneakers.

How much bloody closet space you need?



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 5:02:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Okay, the TARDIS can change its shape,

Not on the outside it doesn't.
It has always been an old police box.
But the whole point about it is, it's a shitload bigger inside than the outside would suggest.
I don't know of any other space ship like that.

TARDIS: Time And Relative Distance In Space.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
and it has a swimming pool,

A swimming pool, an ocean, another whole universe... amongst other stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
but what is a shape changing box with a swimming pool against a ship that you are never quite sure if if it aint gonna fall out of the sky at some point?

I'm pretty sure the TARDIS isn't quite so reliable either.
Many a time (pun intended), it has landed where it shouldn't have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Lets face it, the TARDIS has the power of the universe at its disposal, while Serenity depends on the ingenuity of a cute tech/mechanic/jury rigger extraordinaire just to get off the ground.

Add to that is the wonderful fact that Serenity has that 'lived in look' that makes it conceivable that you half expect Slim Pickens, or Walter Brennen to step out of a cabin.

Serenity is just a beat-up old ship - but it's still very 'modern'.

What about The Liberator??
That one didn't always do as it was told either [:D]

And what about Moya?? Now that was a tad different too!



ExiledTyrant -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 5:39:15 AM)

Slave 1 FTW!

[img]http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20081104150704/starwars/images/f/fc/ESB20th-Slave1-SWI49.jpg[/img]

Notice the "Prisoner Cages".
[img]http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5089/5298068099_005f48b1f9_o.jpg[/img]

Naturally a freak like me would prefer Slave 1, the 5 star accommodations are already in place for the lovelies.

Jus sayin
Exiled



jlf1961 -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 5:47:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Okay, the TARDIS can change its shape,

Not on the outside it doesn't.
It has always been an old police box.
But the whole point about it is, it's a shitload bigger inside than the outside would suggest.
I don't know of any other space ship like that.

TARDIS: Time And Relative Distance In Space.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
and it has a swimming pool,

A swimming pool, an ocean, another whole universe... amongst other stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
but what is a shape changing box with a swimming pool against a ship that you are never quite sure if if it aint gonna fall out of the sky at some point?

I'm pretty sure the TARDIS isn't quite so reliable either.
Many a time (pun intended), it has landed where it shouldn't have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Lets face it, the TARDIS has the power of the universe at its disposal, while Serenity depends on the ingenuity of a cute tech/mechanic/jury rigger extraordinaire just to get off the ground.

Add to that is the wonderful fact that Serenity has that 'lived in look' that makes it conceivable that you half expect Slim Pickens, or Walter Brennen to step out of a cabin.

Serenity is just a beat-up old ship - but it's still very 'modern'.

What about The Liberator??
That one didn't always do as it was told either [:D]

And what about Moya?? Now that was a tad different too!



Look, Serenity may be a "beat up old ship" and clearly you do not understand why that makes it so appealing. There is something special about a beat up vehicle that you have to tinker with to keep it running, and has limits to what you can do or when you can do it.

The TARDIS essentially has no limits. The interior can be rearranged at a whim, all the doctor has to do is tell it to change the interior.

Now Serenity has a finite interior space. It takes imagination to figure out just where you are going to put stuff. Not to mention that because it is "just a beat up old ship" you really have to get creative on repairs.

I used to have an old, beat up chevy 3/4 pickup, built in 1969. Some parts you just cant get anymore. Add to that, you could "tinker" with it. Much more fun than a damn pickup that will tell you what is wrong just by plugging in a box.

Which is the same reason I am presently looking for an old Jeep CJ. I want it pre electronic ignition, pre computer, and pre shift on the fly four wheel drive. I like the two gear shifts, running down parts from various junk yards, that is the fun stuff.

It is the 'cowboy/country boy/red neck' way. Which is why Serenity is a better ship.



kalikshama -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 6:04:22 AM)

Technology in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Ships

Heart of Gold

S.S. Heart of Gold is the first prototype ship to successfully use the revolutionary Infinite Improbability Drive. It is 150 metres long and has been represented in various shapes. The original radio series did not specify a shape. In the novel adapted from the first four episodes of the radio series, it was described as a sleek white running shoe, which the TV adaptation adopted as a basis for its depictions. In the 2005 movie, it is more spherical with a hole and red brake lights on the rear that form the shape of a heart, a shape derived from a teacup in the brownian motion producer that powers the Infinite Improbability Drive. It also features a mural around the hole which depicts the invention of the Drive. It was built as a secret government project on planet Damogran from where Zaphod Beeblebrox, the then-President of the Imperial Galactic Government, stole it at the launching ceremony.

The ship's cybernetics consist of a new generation of Sirius Cybernetics Corporation robots and computers with Genuine People Personalities (including Eddie the shipboard computer and Marvin).

In the novel Life, the Universe and Everything, it is revealed that the core of the Improbability Drive is actually the Golden Bail of Prosperity, one of five items that forms the Wikkit Gate. The drive is subsequently stolen by the robots of Krikkit, but it is later recovered by Zaphod Beeblebrox and reinstalled.

Starship Bistromath

Slartibartfast's ship in the novel Life, the Universe and Everything. The ship is said to work by abusing the laws of 'bistromathics', which is the specific mathematics of values of various factors in restaurants, such as the bill, number of people attending, number of people said to be attending, number of people who leave and the time they all arrive. In the novel Life, the Universe and Everything, bistromathics is explained that "Just as Einstein observed that space was not an absolute, but depended on the observer's movement in time, so it was realized that numbers are not absolute, but depend on the observer's movement in restaurants."

The ship's appearance was described as having some of the features of a spaceship (guidance fins, rocket nozzles, escape hatches, etc.), but far more strongly resembling "a small upended Italian bistro."

Further explanation of the theory behind bistromathics:

The first nonabsolute number is the number of people for whom the table is reserved. This will vary during the course of the first three telephone calls to the restaurant, and then bear no apparent relation to the number of people who actually turn up, or the number of people who subsequently join them after the show/match/party/gig, or to the number of people who leave when they see who else has shown up.

The second nonabsolute number is the given time of arrival, which is now known to be one of those most bizarre mathematical concepts, a recipriversexcluson, a number whose existence can only be defined as being anything other than itself. In other words, the given time of arrival is the one moment of time at which it is impossible that any member of the party will arrive. Recipriversexclusons now play a vital part in many branches of mathematics, including statistics and accountancy, and also form the basic equations used to engineer the Somebody Else's Problem field.

The third and most mysterious piece of nonabsoluteness of all lies in the relationship between the number of items on the bill, the cost of each item, the number of people at the table and what they are each prepared to pay for. (The number of people who have actually brought any money is only a sub-phenomenon in this field.)

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Ships



jlf1961 -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 6:17:40 AM)

Douglas Adams did to physics what Robert Asprin and Bill Fawcett did for inter corporate relations.

An upended Italian Bistro? While it sounds good for dining, but what about cargo?



MercTech -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 6:45:35 AM)

You forget the common denominator of all sci fi ships in cinema; they have much more space inside than outside. The engines are much too small for the size of hull. And, there are never maintenance spaces (I guess nothing every breaks that can't be fixed by changing a mysterious circuit board)

Now, the TARDIS is not a blue box. It looks like a blue box because the chameleon circuit is broken and it got stuck in that shape.

I will admit to going "Ewwww" when the Doctor fixed the chamelion circuit and the TARDIS was shown as an antique foot bellows home organ with floral paint job.
Tom Baker era, they tried to retire the police box prop and had the Doctor fixing the chameleon circuit. So much fan protest they had the Master steal the chameleon circuit for his TARDIS.



DomKen -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 6:54:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Okay, the TARDIS can change its shape,

Not on the outside it doesn't.
It has always been an old police box.

Actually from time to time the Doctor has fixed the chameleon circuit and it has been able to change appearance but it has always gotten broken again.



MasterCaneman -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 7:08:51 AM)

FR-Approaching nerdgasm, Captain...I've been on boards where the merits of various sci-fi ship designs have reached critical mass, especially between SW and ST people, with the Whovians occasionally throwing in smug repartees until mods had to step in. The only design in SF that makes any sense is Discovery, from 2001: A Space Odyssey, all the others are laid out more along the lines of ocean-going ships, because that's the way we're 'wired' to view a 'ship'.



Kana -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 7:12:32 AM)

Doesn't Larry Niven propose some realistically designed ships in Ringworld and a Mote in Gods Eye?



jlf1961 -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 7:15:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

FR-Approaching nerdgasm, Captain...I've been on boards where the merits of various sci-fi ship designs have reached critical mass, especially between SW and ST people, with the Whovians occasionally throwing in smug repartees until mods had to step in. The only design in SF that makes any sense is Discovery, from 2001: A Space Odyssey, all the others are laid out more along the lines of ocean-going ships, because that's the way we're 'wired' to view a 'ship'.


The Discovery works because it was designed with the technology at the time. The other ships assume that at some point somebody developed artificial gravity, there for an up and down makes since.

In truth, the Borg cube design is as good as any, since you really do not need any kind of streamlining unless you are entering an atmosphere.

The starship designs from sci fi is not so much a tribute to the old wet maritime dogma, but aesthetics. Humans, and by extension, alien beings with intelligence has a flare for making things look good.



MasterCaneman -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 7:23:13 AM)

Kana, jlf, you're both right. But I will stand by my assertion that most SF ships are laid out the same way as naval vessels. True, they may have 'artificial gravity', but it seems at odds with how they're laid out versus real physics. In my opinion, the most logical way to do it, AG or no, is to build the ship as one would a building, with the 'decks' akin to 'floors'. That way, the propulsive forces are in sync with the artificial gravity gizmos they're using.

Oh, and by the way, this is usually how those heated discussions on ship design begin, so I'm putting up my shields now and charging the turbolasers, as well as telling the Viper crews to stand by...



Kana -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 7:30:37 AM)

In the Sprawl trilogy, Gibson uses O'Neill cylinders



DomKen -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 9:59:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

Kana, jlf, you're both right. But I will stand by my assertion that most SF ships are laid out the same way as naval vessels. True, they may have 'artificial gravity', but it seems at odds with how they're laid out versus real physics. In my opinion, the most logical way to do it, AG or no, is to build the ship as one would a building, with the 'decks' akin to 'floors'. That way, the propulsive forces are in sync with the artificial gravity gizmos they're using.

Oh, and by the way, this is usually how those heated discussions on ship design begin, so I'm putting up my shields now and charging the turbolasers, as well as telling the Viper crews to stand by...

That's the reasonable way to do it. Makes for ugly ships. Like the Alliance Cruiser from Firefly.



MalcolmNathaniel -> RE: A rational discussion on the merits of various ship designs in Sci Fi (3/22/2014 10:24:46 AM)

This discussion is pointless.

It's about aesthetics rather than ship design. Art is in the eye of the beholder.

The TARDIS is the shape it is in because of budget decisions. It was originally supposed to change every time it moved, but that's more expensive. Instead they applied handwavium to add in the perception field. Also, Timelord technology is supposed to be so far ahead of ours that it appears to be magic. Clarke's third law.

Star Wars was supposed to take place in a "used universe." That's why rebel and smuggler ships are battered while the Empire ships and personal vessels on Coruscant are sleek and shiny. That was a very novel idea at the time. Look anything made before then and all you will see are sleek and shiny spaceships.

Same thing with the 'verse in Firefly. The Nostromo in Alien is of this sort as well.

The Enterprise was Earths flagship for a while. Of course it was pretty.

There are several realistic spaceship designs in movies, bur damned few because the producers want to use the rule of cool. One warning about that site: you can start following links, look up from your monitor, and find out it's Tuesday. Use that site with caution.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625