Space ships in sci-fi - which is the most 'realistic'?

Cafe Society
1

As the title: in science fiction, what spacecraft, in your opinion, would be most realistic?

In this, I do not mean technological realism (so, phasers, warp and transportation can occur)

What I mean in realism in both their design and use.

For example: I love the Star Trek ship designs - the Enterprise is a beautiful ship. But I’ve always questioned how realistic it is.

It has a bridge on the top centre of the saucer section, like on a classic battleship - when surely the most sensible location would be deep inside the ship? They don’t have (or need) a Mk. 1 eyeball view of space after all.

It has warp nascelles, from what I have heard to keep harmful radiation away from the rest of the ship - but on those long stalks, how difficult must it be to, say, rush from the bridge to Engineering? And what about those poor crewmen who maintain the nascelles, in among the radiation? Don’t they get suits? In the TV shows, it seems they don’t.

When the Enterprise encounters hostile ships, they seem to engage in combat terribly close. Would it in fact be more like modern Battlestar Galactica, where the ships seem to fight over huge distances?

Finally, what about fighters and other small craft? Star Trek seems to be a universe akin to pre-aircraft carrier battleships; something like Space: Above and Beyond or Star Wars however seemed like aircraft carriers in space.

This isn’t a dig at Star Trek - or any show - intentionally; at the time the show was first made I’m sure it made absolute sense, and I still enjoy the franchise. But do you think any show has got it broadly accurate in how such ships would be designed and/or deployed?

What would, in your opinion, be the most sensible design and/or deployment of such spaceships?

2

The shuttles in Moonraker.

3

The Star Trek / Star Wars thing is purely aesthetics based on plot. Star Trek took a naval analogy because its primary focus is (usually) on diplomacy & exploration, while Star Wars took an Air Force tact because it’s primarily an action, militaristic combat-centric (Empire vs Rebels) universe.

I have to give major props to the new **Battlestar **for successfully putting not only a new but semi-realistic spin on the Star Wars motif. When I first watched the pilot miniseries I loved it when the fighters didn’t shoot laser energy weapons, but simple particle-based ones (i.e. machine guns) and guided missiles. Kind of reminded me when I first saw **Aliens **and they were still using firearms, because there’s no reason you couldn’t (or wouldn’t). Also when they had their first capital ship vs capital ship battle the way the Cylons simply launched a big volley of nuclear-tipped missiles at Galactica made me think, “Yeah, this is what the Klingons would do!” Galactica also gets honorable mention for showing their fighters moving via real physics (small maneuvering thrusters) instead of needlessly (and impossibly) rolling & banking like atmospheric craft (both Wars & Trek do this with impunity!)

As far as fictional ships being realistic, The Discovery in Kubrick’s 2001 comes pretty close to perfect. The sequel too…

4

I was always under the impression that they just don’t go into the nacelles while they are in operation. Engineering isn’t in the nacelles, it’s in the lower cylindrical part of the ship.

Earthforce Starfury fighters in Babylon 5 also were shown using maneuvering thrusters instead of banking. And Earth vessels & Babylon 5 itself used centrifugal force to simulate gravity.

5

The human ships in the Halo universe do a pretty good job. Yes, they have artificial gravity and faster-than-light drives, but they don’t have energy shields, relying instead on heavy armor, and they use nuclear missiles and enormous railguns instead of energy weapons. Also, they aren’t even remotely streamlined, because there’s no reason to be.

6

Its not nearly realistic as it is bio-mechanical, sentient, and reproduces by live birth(cooler in execution than it sounds) but the approach Moya from Farscape has to combat is one I find realistic.

RUN, HIDE, STARBURST!(a kind of FTL jump). Combat are you crazy? :slight_smile:

7

Der Trihs is right about engineering and the ships of Star Trek were like the large Ocean going vessels of the age of sail. Even the “5 year mission” was more like the English Navy of the 1700 & 1800s.

8

How in the hell have we made it 7 posts in and no one has mentioned the grandfather and grandmaster of realistic spaceship design:** 2001: A Space Odyssey**.

I present the nuclear powered Discover 1. It emits no sounds audible from the outside (as one would expect in space), has no visible exhaust, travels at realistic speeds, and abides by the laws of physics when it comes to maneuvering. It also features an internal centrifuge that creates artificial gravity, but only for a specific area of the ship.

And of course, this is just one of several practical spaceships featured in the movie, again showing why 2001: A Space Odyssey is almost more science-fact than science-fiction.

9

Red. I think post three. last line mentioned that.

Declan

10

So he did. Well, it deserves to be mentioned more than once anyway :stuck_out_tongue:

11

The Enterprise has always bugged me with the long spindles for the nacels. Engineering nightmare. Oh, and don’t tell me how they use force fields to overcome that. They use forcefields for windows in one of the movies too. Give me a break. “You know, it would be terribly inconvenient to put actual windows in this craft. Let’s just throw a couple of terawatts at the problem.”

12

I’d nominate

The eagle from space 1999 with the exception of landing on planetary surfaces

the interceptor from UFO

Declan

13

nm

14

The bridges on the many Trek starships are usually in suboptimal places-bad enough that the Federation put it on top of the saucer section (where it is deeply vulnerable to damage), instead of in the middle (and thus protected by many decks), but the Klingons stuck theirs at the end of a long spindle at the front of the vessel, where it merely has to be decapitated from the rest of the ship to become instantly irrelevant.

I believe there is a race in Star Fleet Battles which uses spheres-unspectacular but optimal.

15

Another little detail I liked about the ships in the new Galactica: There’s one scene where we see a fighter landing in one of Pegasus’ bays, upside-down relative to what we’d seen before. If you’ve got artificial gravity, then there’s no reason not to have it pointing in different directions in different parts of the ship, if that will let you make more efficient use of space.

16

I always assumed the thin sections connecting the Enterprise was so they could use explosives to blow them in an emergency. They do this in one episode of TNG(blow the saucer section free) And I think in Enterprise too? (the saucer and engines seperate).

Yes it is crazy to waste that much power and have no backup, I think we were supposed to read that as they have so much essentially “free” energy they are wasting it basically, and the ships are so reliable they trust forcefield windows.
How many people do you know that have all their vital emails on a webmail server somewhere, that could dissapear at any moment! But its so reliable no one cares.

17

Didn’t someone from with real credentials say that the Firefly class of ship from Firefly/Serenity would actually appear to be flight worthy?

[URL=“http://videos.howstuffworks.com/science-channel/45262-firefly-spaceship-flight-mechanics-video.htm”]Crew Member[/URL

I can’t find the link I was looking for, just this one…

18

I always liked the Enterprise because it didn’t look like it was a rocket or disc or battleship or airplane. That made it seem realistic because it appeared to be purpose-built for space travel.

19

it’s a disc with two rockets attached.

20

Actually it looked purposely built for peaceful space travel. While it is armed, nothing about that class of ship or the follow ons, scream warship.

Declan