Your assumptions about FTL drive are all wrong.
And the blue hue when warping is caused by the Doppler effect applying to light and is called Blue shift.
(Or if an object is getting farther away) Red shift.
I wouldn't really call the Warhammer 40k Warp science. It's a lot more religion, actually.
Realistic fiction is your complaint?
I dont think you understand the concept of Fiction.
OP probably doesn't have a science degree
[QUOTE=Skellyhell;34463336]Realistic fiction is your complaint?
I dont think you understand the concept of Fiction.[/QUOTE]
I know right! Next these people are going to call bullshit on The Invisible Man for having an Invisible Man when it's not possible science.
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5182016/Voyage_of_the_Damned.jpg[/img]
Who needs complete new designs when you can just base em off the titanic.
[QUOTE=joost1120;34463265]I wouldn't really call the Warhammer 40k Warp science. It's a lot more religion, actually.[/QUOTE]
It's science veiled with religion.
Since when was Star Trek and Stargate supposed to be realistic
This just reminded me of the badage boys.
Real spacecraft shouldn't look ANYTHING like the crap in Halo. There are very real engineering considerations that a cursory understanding of render almost all sci-fi spacecraft laughably bad. The two pieces of fiction that did it best when it comes to spacecraft design are 2001: A Space Odyssey and Avatar- because both had spacecraft designed by actual engineers.
[IMG]http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/images/realdesigns/IsvDiagram.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/images/realdesigns/hope0.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.projectrho.com/avt/rafikSplash.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;34463640]It's science veiled with religion.[/QUOTE]
THEOLOGY!
[QUOTE=Arachnidus;34456600]To be fair, Starship Troopers was supposed to be a satire. And it was. An awesome one.
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
:words:
okay I'm done[/QUOTE]
Don't the ships from Star Trek use something akin to an Alcubierre Drive?
[editline]1st February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=catbarf;34487868]Real spacecraft shouldn't look ANYTHING like the crap in Halo. There are very real engineering considerations that a cursory understanding of render almost all sci-fi spacecraft laughably bad. The two pieces of fiction that did it best when it comes to spacecraft design are 2001: A Space Odyssey and Avatar- because both had spacecraft designed by actual engineers.[/quote]
No, actually.
Those were spacecraft which were, for the large part, based on modern-day technology, and neither were warships.
They were gangly, held-together-with-girders contraptions because they didn't [i]have[/i] to be anything else. The UNSC ships in Halo generally have something like 1-3 meters of armor plate between them and the vacuum, which is why they're not skeletal looking, like a "real" interstellar spacecraft. Not to mention the obvious effects that numerous "futuretech" discoveries and the like would have on spacecraft. The ships in Halo (the UNSC ones, at least) are actually fairly decent depictions of what warships might look like in the future (besides their magic deceleration). Also, the ships in Halo are designed for a certain modicum of in-atmosphere maneuvering, which is why they're slightly aerodynamic.
[QUOTE=Zombii;34489794]No, actually.
Those were spacecraft which were, for the large part, based on modern-day technology, and neither were warships.
They were gangly, held-together-with-girders contraptions because they didn't [i]have[/i] to be anything else. The UNSC ships in Halo generally have something like 1-3 meters of armor plate between them and the vacuum, which is why they're not skeletal looking, like a "real" interstellar spacecraft. Not to mention the obvious effects that numerous "futuretech" discoveries and the like would have on spacecraft. The ships in Halo (the UNSC ones, at least) are actually fairly decent depictions of what warships might look like in the future (besides their magic deceleration). Also, the ships in Halo are designed for a certain modicum of in-atmosphere maneuvering, which is why they're slightly aerodynamic.[/QUOTE]
The ships in Halo have no way of radiating their considerable heat, which is a serious realism issue. Another big problem is their lack of axial symmetry- the engines aren't directly in line with the mass, like on the frigate in the OP. You can see how the lower part of the ship juts out, consequently shifting the center of mass downwards, yet the engines in back are in line with the rest of the hull. The other big issue is the deck layout is like a real ship, rather than with 'down' being towards the engines, necessitating hand-waved artificial gravity and inertial compensation that cancels out acceleration forces for the crew.
The biggest problem is the lack of separation between crew and engine. Nuclear powerplants produce a lot of radiation, and need to be kept away from the crew- hence the connector strut on the warship (the last one) I posted above. Again, the solution in Halo is a handwave.
I'll say that the Halcyon-class, the one from the original Halo, is the most realistic of the bunch. It's basically a cylindrical brick, without oddly-shaped and structurally-weak protuberances everywhere, unlike the ships in the sequels. Give it some radiator fins and more projecting engines, along with a revised deck layout, and it could even be plausible.
As for atmospheric capability- making a spacecraft that can go in an atmosphere is like making an express train that doubles as a submarine. Two very different design considerations. A much more effective solution would be for the dedicated spacecraft to carry a dedicated aircraft, rather than devote space and mass to making one ship do everything.
[editline]1st February 2012[/editline]
Actually, this reminds me of a PC game that had fairly realistic ship design- Nexus: The Jupiter Incident. Still no radiators, but engines are mounted externally and the hull designs stay axial and balanced.
[img]http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x200/sswamp_trooper/spacetechfreighter.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/reviews/large/nexus_006-large.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=catbarf;34490081]The ships in Halo have no way of radiating their considerable heat, which is a serious realism issue. Another big problem is their lack of axial symmetry- the engines aren't directly in line with the mass, like on the frigate in the OP. You can see how the lower part of the ship juts out, consequently shifting the center of mass downwards, yet the engines in back are in line with the rest of the hull. The other big issue is the deck layout is like a real ship, rather than with 'down' being towards the engines, necessitating hand-waved artificial gravity and inertial compensation that cancels out acceleration forces for the crew.
The biggest problem is the lack of separation between crew and engine. Nuclear powerplants produce a lot of radiation, and need to be kept away from the crew- hence the connector strut on the warship (the last one) I posted above. Again, the solution in Halo is a handwave.
I'll say that the Halcyon-class, the one from the original Halo, is the most realistic of the bunch. It's basically a cylindrical brick, without oddly-shaped and structurally-weak protuberances everywhere, unlike the ships in the sequels. Give it some radiator fins and more projecting engines, along with a revised deck layout, and it could even be plausible.
As for atmospheric capability- making a spacecraft that can go in an atmosphere is like making an express train that doubles as a submarine. Two very different design considerations. A much more effective solution would be for the dedicated spacecraft to carry a dedicated aircraft, rather than devote space and mass to making one ship do everything.
[editline]1st February 2012[/editline]
Actually, this reminds me of a PC game that had fairly realistic ship design- Nexus: The Jupiter Incident. Still no radiators, but engines are mounted externally and the hull designs stay axial and balanced.[/quote]
I was going to type up a large post to supply some counter-points, but I realized that my knowledge of the points I was going to use is spotty at best, particularly on the issue of fusion powerplants and their radiation factor. I do agree with the gravity and inertia handwaving, though. As for not being axially symmetric, I think that the MAC system on top balances out the hangar below, but it all depends. With heat, I could go off and say that perhaps they have heat-dumping systems built in (like arrays of fins which unfold or jut out to radiate heat away) when they're not in combat or slipspace, but something akin to that is never mentioned in the books or games.
I'll go ahead and concede the argument to you, but I will say that I sincerely doubt that the only "realistic" spacecraft are those akin to the Valkyrie, especially in the future.
[QUOTE=Zombii;34490343]I sincerely doubt that the only "realistic" spacecraft are those akin to the Valkyrie, especially in the future.[/QUOTE]
Just curious, how come?
[QUOTE=catbarf;34490368]Just curious, how come?[/QUOTE]
Because while the Valkyrie is a great concept, I think that the whole "train" design is mainly based on the fact that it's built around technology that we currently have available. Another reason is the fact that there are an extremely large amount of types of possible ships out there that are, could or will be possible. It's just that whenever I see someone giving examples of "realistic" interstellar craft, the Valkyrie or one of it's many derivatives is always the first, and often only, example.
I'm sorry if this seems like a vain point or such, it's 2AM here and I should have gone to sleep an hour ago. I'll probably come back and edit this later.
[QUOTE=Zombii;34490436]Because while the Valkyrie is a great concept, I think that the whole "train" design is mainly based on the fact that it's built around technology that we currently have available. Another reason is the fact that there are an extremely large amount of types of possible ships out there that are, could or will be possible. It's just that whenever I see someone giving examples of "realistic" interstellar craft, the Valkyrie or one of it's many derivatives is always the first, and often only, example.
I'm sorry if this seems like a vain point or such, it's 2AM here and I should have gone to sleep an hour ago. I'll probably come back and edit this later.[/QUOTE]
Ah, the Valkyrie concept is actually not based on any particular technology, but rather a fact of engineering- that it's way easier, in terms of stability and structural support, to pull a mass than to push it. Instead of needing a dense hull and lots of internal support to keep the rest of the ship centered over the engines, you just need a couple of very strong tethers. Given that space travel hinges on minimizing delta-V expenditure, it makes a big difference. There are a couple of issues with the Valkyrie design (for starters, the likelihood of spitting radioactive death straight into the crew module without adequate countermeasures, or the difficulty of low-speed maneuvers), so it's not by any means the be-all and end-all of spacecraft, but it's definitely a contender.
In Star Wars, "English" is known as Galactic Basic, which is the native language for humans. All other alien races speak in their own tongue, but because humans have colonized all over the galaxy and play such a huge roll in galactic politics, many species learn and speak Basic as universal way of communication. If they are incapable of speaking it but can still understand, like Wookies or Aqualish for example, then someone will stand in as a translator, like Han or Dr. Cornelius Evazan (the guy threatening Luke in the cantina).
You're explanation for why guns suck in most sci-fi seems to only be relevant to Stargate, meaning you're trying to make the argument that if it isn't practical or makes sense in Stargate, that means everyone has it wrong. And on that note, I was going to go on to pick apart the OP but really what it comes down to is that the OP thinks Stargate is flawed. I'd go so far to say that the threat title should be change to Top 10 Fails in Stargate that Some Other Science Fictions Also Sometimes Fall Victim To.
Energy weapons are cool for TV shows, but realistically they're not as good as ballistic/kinetic impactors. When a (strong) laser impacts a surface it ablates the top layer of the surface by vaporising it (yay plasma), but the resulting vapour then blocks the laser from impacting the surface again, requiring you to either move the laser (Doesn't work well) or turning the laser off and letting the vapour dissipate. Then there's also the issue of trying to hit the exact same spot to ablate more of the surface away. And that's ignoring the fact that the atmosphere and particulate matter can reflect parts of the beam away from the source, weakening it. And energy based weapons would suffer from charging time and would be physically weaker than current guns (ever dropped your phone and had it stop working?)
Of course, you could just try to heat the surface, causing internal damage (That's what the missile defence shield the US was building was planned to do, same with the anti-missile lasers on military air craft), that'd work well in space where it's hard to get rid of the heat (Radiative heat transfer only, so you want to increase the surface area by hanging crap off your craft)
And when it comes to space to ground warfare, nothing beats just dropping a huge rock on your enemies.
[QUOTE=Zombii;34489794]Don't the ships from Star Trek use something akin to an Alcubierre Drive?[/QUOTE]
Yes, actually. Identical. At least, the Alcubierre Drive was thought up as an explanation for Star Trek style FTL. Going on what I remember, of course.
You can see how the writers in early stargate episodes tried to make it so that other races actually spoke their own language, but they gave that up because no one wants to hear about daniel jackson and how he deciphers whatever
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;34490848]
And when it comes to space to ground warfare, nothing beats just dropping a huge rock on your enemies.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't have to be huge, you just need to accelerate it for a long long time.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;34490848]And when it comes to space to ground warfare, nothing beats just dropping a huge rock on your enemies.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colony_(Gundam)#Colony_drops[/url]
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;34490848]Energy weapons are cool for TV shows, but realistically they're not as good as ballistic/kinetic impactors. When a (strong) laser impacts a surface it ablates the top layer of the surface by vaporising it (yay plasma), but the resulting vapour then blocks the laser from impacting the surface again, requiring you to either move the laser (Doesn't work well) or turning the laser off and letting the vapour dissipate. Then there's also the issue of trying to hit the exact same spot to ablate more of the surface away. And that's ignoring the fact that the atmosphere and particulate matter can reflect parts of the beam away from the source, weakening it. And energy based weapons would suffer from charging time and would be physically weaker than current guns (ever dropped your phone and had it stop working?)
Of course, you could just try to heat the surface, causing internal damage (That's what the missile defence shield the US was building was planned to do, same with the anti-missile lasers on military air craft), that'd work well in space where it's hard to get rid of the heat (Radiative heat transfer only, so you want to increase the surface area by hanging crap off your craft)
And when it comes to space to ground warfare, nothing beats just dropping a huge rock on your enemies.[/QUOTE]
The vapor issue isn't so much of a problem, as at the timescales involved (microsecond pulse) all the energy is dumped before ablation occurs. This is also only a problem in an atmosphere, since in space the material will be ejected at massive velocity. Beam weapons do attenuate in atmosphere, but bullets slow down- same general principle, different specific application.
In space, though, energy weapons (by which I mean lasers), are a necessity. Current off-the-shelf detector technologies can detect the Space Shuttle's main drives from the distance of Jupiter. Even the maneuvering thrusters can be detected from the distance of the Moon. Presumably future technology would be better, and there's no disguising the drive plume from a nuclear furnace, so the enemy will see you coming. With that in mind, combat ranges are measured at distances so mind-bogglingly vast that lightspeed lag becomes an accuracy issue.
If the guy with a laser can see, hit, and kill you at 200,000km out, any gun is worthless, simply because the time to target would be measured in minutes or hours and any course correction made by the target would render the shot ineffective. Lasers are also inherently more accurate than any gun can be, which would allow them to target specific systems (like radiators) to directly cripple the other ship.
When it comes right down to it, the only practical space weapons are things that can move at the speed of light (ie, lasers), and things that can constantly adjust their course (ie, missiles). Anything else will have to get too close to be effective.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;34447190]yeah, it's fiction, not science fiction
it's futuristic fantasy[/QUOTE]
There is. [url=http://mspaintadventures.wikia.com/wiki/Ectobiology]Ectobiology[/url] is an example. Hell, [url=http://mspaintadventures.wikia.com/wiki/Eridan_Ampora]Eridan[/url] practically worships science.
[i]Facepunch[/i]
A home for rocket scientists and master physicists!
[QUOTE=catbarf;34496100][url=http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2010/01/physicist-physician-physical-therapist.html]physicists[/url][/QUOTE]
My bad :v: thanks.
[QUOTE=Irockz;34495598]There is. [url=http://mspaintadventures.wikia.com/wiki/Ectobiology]Ectobiology[/url] is an example. Hell, [url=http://mspaintadventures.wikia.com/wiki/Eridan_Ampora]Eridan[/url] practically worships science.[/QUOTE]
what are you talking about?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
