Coming at it Cold: Spaceship design sans emotional investment...

[Chrisisall]

Okay, imagine that you've read lots of SF, but you've never actually seen a movie or TV show.
What would be your reaction to the following (or ones you'd like to add) if you were seeing them for the first time?

Mine:

Millennium Falcon: Interesting. Not bi-laterally symmetric, but kind of a crab shape & futuristic, in a strange old-fashioned kind of way.

Serenity (one of my favourite, BTW): Kinda buggy-lookin', but cool vertical take-off & landing Harrier-like jets.

X-Wing: Nice design, but sort of unwieldy & not so aerodynamic for atmo.

Viper (old or new): Cool, tight little fighter craft!

Tardis: WTF?

Galactica (old or new): Aircraft carrier in space, not bad.

Forbidden Planet C-57D: Laffable flying saucer.

Discovery: COOL!! Long, but fascinating!!

Pan Am Space Clipper: I could see it being real in the future (Way past 2001, though).

Enterprise: Grand, graceful, beautiful- I have no idea what the meaning of all of it is, but I can't take my eyes off of it!!


Your turn.

 

[sojourner]

wrong forum?

 

[Gepard]

My reaction to all the ships in the OP would be the same: where the heck is the consumables and fuel storage, how is there gravity pulling the characters perpendicular to the ship's direction of travel, and where are all the radiators for dumping waste heat? Oh, yeah, and why can they bank in space and stop on a dime without flipping over and pointing the engines in the direction of travel?

From a real-world science perspective, almost all TV and movie spaceship designs look the same.

 

[maneth]

Indeed. Kubrick & Clarke's Discovery in 2001 is one of the few exceptions.

 

[Finn]

I can't actually answer that question, because I wouldn't know. It would be like guessing what my life would be like if I had never been to New England. I couldn't begin to guess. Besides, I'd assume the books would describe those ships in that way...

 

[Chrisisall]

wrong forum?

The loaded point to this thread should be obvious; Enterprise's design is the most original & interesting in film & TV history.
Given that, I *think* this is a proper place for it, but if I'm wrong I'm sure a mod can move it for me.

 

[Chrisisall]

Oh, yeah, and why can they bank in space and stop on a dime without flipping over and pointing the engines in the direction of travel?

As a dude associated with the most realistic space stuff on film in the digital age (New BSG), I direct that question back at ya.

 

[Chrisisall]

I can't actually answer that question, because I wouldn't know.

Dude, IMAGINE!!!!!!

 

[Sector 7]

Isn't 3 posts in a row spamming? Please use the MultiQuote feature.
Since your thread is intended to ridicule other designs to make Star Trek's Enterprise look good, I shall choose not to participate.

Call me when you decide to create a fair and reasonable thread about the merits/faults of Enterprise design.

 

[Chrisisall]

Isn't 3 posts in a row spamming?

Sorry.

Please use the MultiQuote feature.

Thing is, if it's a function that should be used, why isn't it more apparent?[/quote]
Since your thread is intended to ridicule other designs to make Star Trek's Enterprise look good, I shall choose not to participate.

Call me when you decide to create a fair and reasonable thread about the merits/faults of Enterprise design.[/QUOTE]
That's not the point...
know what? Peeps here seem to be more interested in technicalities than fun.
See ya.

 

[plynch]

Seems like a fine thread to me. Millenium Falcon seems very realistic (though I know it wouldn't be). It just looks it -- the aforementioned asymmetry. It looks used, though not junk. In my memory, her flight is less turn-on-a-dime, too. In my splintered mind's eye, I can picture her rotating and orienting her engines, then moving "forward." But maybe that's just take off and landing.

The grace of the ENT's nacelle pylons, and her look when coming at you saucer-on is terrific. And understandable since she creates a warp bubble, and doesn't exactly travel through space (except under impulse).

Serenity looks too artistic (in flight anyway) for my tastes; the interiors are useful-looking, though. Just Netflixed and watched Disc 1, so waiting to see more. Be well.

 

[Vanyel]

Looking at it "cold", starfleet designs would be bad designs. The only way to outrun or escape you enemy, the most vulnerable part of your ship are out on struts and just begging to hit over and over again.

B5's Earth Force designs seem more like something that would work better. Their rotation sectors, while vulnerable to provide a greater sense of realism. Starfuries are just cool.

The giant ships from Independence Day also seem to flow logically from a race that takes over a planet, kills it population then takes all the planets resources.

I can't think of a single fighter from the Star Wars universe that would not be a flying brick in an atmosphere.

Cylon Raiders from TOS:BSG, were a nice design, even if it had three Cylons inside. If you're a race of machines, why not put multiple Cylons in a ship, you can build more.

I may wrote more later, dinner's ready.

 

[Sector 7]

Isn't 3 posts in a row spamming?

Sorry.

Please use the MultiQuote feature.

Thing is, if it's a function that should be used, why isn't it more apparent?

Sometimes it is good to just ask someone. I did not know about it either until a moderator told me. After a couple friendly warnings, I finally asked the mod how to do it.
1- Read all posts in the thread.
2- Click "MultiQuote" button in each post to which you wish to respond.
3- When finished reading all quotes, click "Post Reply".

Since your thread is intended to ridicule other designs to make Star Trek's Enterprise look good, I shall choose not to participate.

Call me when you decide to create a fair and reasonable thread about the merits/faults of Enterprise design.

That's not the point...
know what? Peeps here seem to be more interested in technicalities than fun.
See ya.

To quote Lois Griffin, "Meth is a helluva drug." Assuming you are (hopefully) not on drugs, let us look at this as an average person would:
- The thread has the words "sans [without] emotional investment
- It is followed by a very emotional post bashing other spaceship designs
- You reply to posters rudely
- "The loaded point to this thread should be obvious; Enterprise's design is the most original & interesting in film & TV history." This should have been in the first post so visitors would know that it is a facetious thread rather than a serious one.
- "Peeps here seem to be more interested in technicalities than fun.
See ya." When my children would stomp off because they did not get their own way, I usually punished them. One time I made the younger one stomp until her little legs were shaking and she was exhausted. She is now a mother of almost four (due next month) and has never stomped to this day.

A fun thread is fine... if people understand the purpose of the thread. A simple phrase such as: "this one is tongue-in-cheek"; "lets have some crazy fun with this one"; "don't overthink this, its all in fun". I hope you come back and join the fun.