Post a part of scifi fluff that really annoys you. Mine is the fact that in doctor who when they travel to the space station in the year 200,100 the security forces are still using g36s.
psychadelicmime wrote: when they travel to the space station in the year 200,100 the security forces are still using g36s.
They are ceremonial weapons
What really annoys me in sci-fi is when you have advanced technology but don't have people using it "properly". Star Trek is a huge one for this, even when the "advanced technology" isn't rendered inoperative by some electrical storm or something they do the most derp things. Why isn't your ship computer making micro warp jumps all over the place and firing its weapons etc rather than just sitting there getting pounded by incoming fire while the helmsman apparently waits for orders to roll the ship over or hide in a nebula or something and the weapon officers are all asleep at their posts or on the holodeck?
Everyone knows that the "mcguffin deus ex machina mark X" navi computer used in all federation Ships is a traitorous peice of kit, ergo no automated control, red shirt only.
My biggest issue also related to this sort of thing is the fact that they also design this and similar controls systems in all universes with small explosive charge behind them. Not only that is that the technology for surge protection and fuses seems to have been phased out.
More Redshirts have died from defective equipment than the combined efforts of the Klingons and Romulans!
notprop wrote: Everyone knows that the "mcguffin deus ex machina mark X" navi computer used in all federation Ships is a traitorous peice of kit, ergo no automated control, red shirt only.
My biggest issue also related to this sort of thing is the fact that they also design this and similar controls systems in all universes with small explosive charge behind them. Not only that is that the technology for surge protection and fuses seems to have been phased out.
More Redshirts have died from defective equipment than the combined efforts of the Klingons and Romulans!
That is very true. And their ship design is really inefficient too. I know they are approaching post-scarcity levels of technology but that doesn't mean you just ignore efficient design.
And their marines/security forces (the limited amount we see of them) are just pants. Their guns are pants, they have no armour, no equipment, no vehicles, etc.. and they all appear to have had no training what so ever.
Who needs armour when you have heroes who hide behind unnamed redshirts - anyway what armour does exist also seems to have thise same sxplosive charges in them too.
Weird note - my iPhone predicta text wants to replace heros (sic) with jerks. Which seems very apts to me.
You expect me to seriously believe that two species not only managed to randomly evolve close enough to make the mating rituals and behaviors attractive both ways... AND make the plumbing mutually compatable... AND make the DNA mutually compatable as well?
That no matter what, be it an alien zombie apocalypse, alien locust swarms or any other sort of fallout, the bad guys are still trying to get away with money. What use is money gonna have?
Vulcan wrote: Inter-species romance and crossbreeding.
I suppose that some breeding/romance could possibly occur, especially if you have an alien which reproduces parasitically with a wide range of native species, or one which has a very fluid and mutable genome.
Vulcan wrote: Inter-species romance and crossbreeding.
You expect me to seriously believe that two species not only managed to randomly evolve close enough to make the mating rituals and behaviors attractive both ways... AND make the plumbing mutually compatable... AND make the DNA mutually compatable as well?
Bull.
They did a story arc in TNG to explain that one in the Trekverse - all the 'main' races of the time were seeded by another race a long time before for some reason, which is why they're all remarkable similar to poor human actors with rubber glued to their heads... Intelligent Design apparently
Technology in general. Especially in things like Star Wars and Star Trek. This is god knows how many generations of tech ahead of us and they have things that have been obsolete by today's standards. For instance, in Star Trek when any ship is under attack the ship itself doesn't do anything besides whine and complain with alarms. We have better counter systems on todays planes and battle-ships than that. You would think an advanced star-ship should be able to shoot it's own guns if it's under attack.
Also, running off of the inter-race thing, why do all species happen to speak the same language? And it happens to be English? I guess the Federation has translators for ship-to-ship communications, but when talking face-to-face how do they communicate so well? Again, I guess Federation species know a common language but not every species is a Federation species. If humans have translators built into their brains (or something stupid like that ), they may understand the alien but how does the alien understand the human...
Some of the aliens in Star Trek speak languages which cannot be handled by the universal translator and they need to have some kind of manual translation using an interpreter.
I don't really know how it works for face to face.
Why are there only 4 members of an SG team and thus they are outgunned the second It gets even a tiny bit hairy. That goes for Federation away teams as well.
They will in the face of an enemy armed with sharpened pineapples surrender without a second thought to preserving Earth security (here have a DHD code thingy everyone). Backed up by a company or so of soldiers we wouldn't have to put up with half of O'neils half arsed wisecracks. It's not like there's airfayre to pay. Deploy some resources Hammond for gods sake.
If the queen ever heard about the stargate program you can bet your arse there would be a few hundred Royal Marines headed to every planetary hit there was; true spreading goneria and staling resources would make for a very PG series, but god dammit we have a space Empire to build here!
It's easy to criticise shows made 20 years ago for having seemingly low-tech solutions to things, but they can only extrapolate what they have or know at the time. I find it fascinating to watch old sci-fi (and yes, Next-Gen is old) to see how they imagined the future would be.
Also a point on languages, writers realise that episodes that spend a lot of time with 'exciting' translation scenes aren't all that fun, so unless the episode demands it for plot purposes (see TNG: Darmok) then we get the convenience of the univeral translator.
This can actually be seen in Star Trek: Enterprise, which actually had a linguistics specialist on board as the writers initially wanted to represent humanity's first steps into the stars, but after just a few episodes they dropped that angle and hastily had the universal translater 'invented'.
My own personal annoyance is how time gets standardised. Someone on one planet (Earth, probably) talking to someone on another says "I'll see you in two weeks" or something - how does that other person know what an Earth week is, or how to go about calculating it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote: Why are there only 4 members of an SG team and thus they are outgunned the second It gets even a tiny bit hairy.
This was actually lampshaded in the show (I've literally just finished watching through SG1 a couple of days ago). At least twice someone raised the point "there's no rule that says there has to be 4 people in a team" (although in one case Jack was actually arguing to allow SG1 to continue as a 3-piece without him).
Riquende wrote: It's easy to criticise shows made 20 years ago for having seemingly low-tech solutions to things, but they can only extrapolate what they have or know at the time. I find it fascinating to watch old sci-fi (and yes, Next-Gen is old) to see how they imagined the future would be.
I have a lot of science fiction books from the 1920's, through the 40's, 50's 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's up to today - it is really interesting seeing hyper spacial ships with positronic brains being programmed using punch cards
My own personal annoyance is how time gets standardised. Someone on one planet (Earth, probably) talking to someone on another says "I'll see you in two weeks" or something - how does that other person know what an Earth week is, or how to go about calculating it?
Having a universal timing system actually makes sense for any large federation of different species, or even a single species over several planets/systems/etc. Something based on the decay rate of carbon 14 or some other constant would make sense.
Riquende wrote: I
My own personal annoyance is how time gets standardised. Someone on one planet (Earth, probably) talking to someone on another says "I'll see you in two weeks" or something - how does that other person know what an Earth week is, or how to go about calculating it?
They actually explained this in Star Trek when someone asked about the star-dates being out-of-sequence. Something like the time is standardized around what quadrant of Space you are in, and most facilities have multiple clocks/calendars that mark the dates/times in all quadrants (similar to how multi-national corporations today have clocks that display the different time-zones)
Wait a mo, I just replicated 20,000 Datas crewing 1,000 Defiants, why don't we all just enjoy these cigars and romulan brandy and watch the giant cube fireworks?
Riquende wrote: It's easy to criticise shows made 20 years ago for having seemingly low-tech solutions to things, but they can only extrapolate what they have or know at the time. I find it fascinating to watch old sci-fi (and yes, Next-Gen is old) to see how they imagined the future would be.
That's the exact reason I can never take the idea of "hard" SF seriously, or anyone who tries to seriously put forward idea X as the real future of humanity that's seriously going to happen any day now you guys. In a few decades, the fads of today will be on the pile with atomic rayguns, and mirrorshades-n-trenchcoats cyberpunk, under "looked good at the time". The only things that are consistent in our predictions of the future are how comically wrong they turn out to be. Yes, Arthur C. Clarke predicted orbital satellites, but he also predicted cargo transport with giant hovercraft, and using uplifted chimpanzees as domestic servants.
Wait a mo, I just replicated 20,000 Datas crewing 1,000 Defiants, why don't we all just enjoy these cigars and romulan brandy and watch the giant cube fireworks?
That works...
For things like that, I assume there's a reason that they can't do that, which would take too long to explain. After all, imagine a writer in the 19th century predicting the invention of nuclear bombs. He might them extrapolate and say that the nation with the most nukes now rules the world, and nobody dares to oppose them in any area, lest they be summarily destroyed by these super-weapons. It's a reasonable prediction, but doesn't take into account the limitations of the weapons or the political, legal and other circumstances that surround them.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Mine i either the rejection of AI or it's underutilization.
They're either helpless or evil.
The problem is, you run into the situation where if AI's can do everything humans can better, you can't really write a story where a human does anything meaningful. It's even worse if they go the "strong AI" route, where if you give a computer a big enough processor, it essentially becomes a fantasy god.
I can forgive a lot a lot of tropes that are there to make the setting more interesting, and give humans stuff to do. Genre also matters, because a lack of scientific rigor often isn't a result of being lazy, it's just not the freakin' point of the story, and attempts to make it so come off as just showing off your own scientific knowledge to try and win geek points.
I remember a thread elsewhere, where people were posting how they hated FTL space travel, human-like aliens, resource shortages, space dogfights, etc. And then someone else posted a setting that took all of these ideas into account, where a space battle takes place between two spherical spacecraft at a million miles with invisible lasers over half a second, and the first the crew know of it is when the computer beeps to tell them they just won. Or they make contact with aliens, which turn out to be hyper-intelligent crystals who converse in exotic math and have no concept of "diagonal".
Okay, there is one that annoys me--the mixing up of "sentient" (has senses) with "sapient" (intelligent).
psychadelicmime wrote: when they travel to the space station in the year 200,100 the security forces are still using g36s.
They are ceremonial weapons
What really annoys me in sci-fi is when you have advanced technology but don't have people using it "properly". Star Trek is a huge one for this, even when the "advanced technology" isn't rendered inoperative by some electrical storm or something they do the most derp things. Why isn't your ship computer making micro warp jumps all over the place and firing its weapons etc rather than just sitting there getting pounded by incoming fire while the helmsman apparently waits for orders to roll the ship over or hide in a nebula or something and the weapon officers are all asleep at their posts or on the holodeck?
The complete lack of ANY sort of military competance in the supposedly military forces of certain sci-fi. Star Trek is the biggest culprit.
Red Shirts. They're freakin marines on a Navy Ship! Yet they'll just walk right down the middle of the street on an Alien world with only pistols, NO form of body armor, and no attempt to take advantage of any sort of cover. Everyone seems to have completely lost any sense of military tactics, superior firepower, and armor.
Also, for how often Phasers are rendered useless you think they would carry some sort of combat knife. Instead they seem to be fond of using their phasers as a melee weapon, which almost always gets dropped in favor of some sort of pisspoor wrestling moves that never really work.
Star Trek: there is a big giant video screen on the bridge that can show them anything. The view outside, technical data, video chat. Every important person is on that bridge. All the computers are on that bridge. That screen could show them what is outside the ship wherever the bridge might be located.
But they always stick the bridge right on top center of the dang saucer. One hull between the brains of the ship and death.
Elemental wrote: That's the exact reason I can never take the idea of "hard" SF seriously, or anyone who tries to seriously put forward idea X as the real future of humanity that's seriously going to happen any day now you guys. In a few decades, the fads of today will be on the pile with atomic rayguns, and mirrorshades-n-trenchcoats cyberpunk, under "looked good at the time". The only things that are consistent in our predictions of the future are how comically wrong they turn out to be. Yes, Arthur C. Clarke predicted orbital satellites, but he also predicted cargo transport with giant hovercraft, and using uplifted chimpanzees as domestic servants.
There are a number of "hard sf" ideas which either exist today, or are on the way. Hell, we had large hovercraft routinely going between the UK and France until we developed better ferries, we have large airships being developed for carrying cargoes and while we don't have uplifted animals yet, there is a lot of work being done on both genetic and hardware engineering, as well as research into how the mind works which will eventually lead to that kind of technology.
The problem is, you run into the situation where if AI's can do everything humans can better, you can't really write a story where a human does anything meaningful. It's even worse if they go the "strong AI" route, where if you give a computer a big enough processor, it essentially becomes a fantasy god.
There are a few good "man against machine" stories out there although you are right that if you make AI's too powerful then humans don't really get too much of a look in. This tends to be why we see shackled AI's, or very subservient AI's in most fiction.
Germs, and how little they play a part in encountering alien species.
Using "War of the Worlds" as an good example of poorly planned alien enviroment preperation. In most other sci-fi settings, you never see something like this happening. It's like the go waltzing through a biological fire fight and manage to not get hit by anything.
That was one thing I priased Enterprise for was their emphasis on making sure no one brought anything back with them when they would go to alien worlds.
Large, non-satellite bodies being clearly visible in the sky, (usually moon-sized or bigger in the sky). Impossible. Even 'moons' that are way closer than our own in the sky.
The movie pitch-black and TES series of computer games (this one could be explained by distortion from the 'Camera' lens i guess) are the worst offenders.
With regards to SG1 i always thought that if it were such a super-secret deniable/black-op surely all the SG teams would have cyanide pills as standard and be subjected to some serious brainwashing. EDIT: Forgot about the sarcophagus tech, hmm. Abdominal/cranial explosives or a contact solution that de-natures all the proteins in the body, rendering the operative into mush?
SilverMK2 wrote:What really annoys me in sci-fi is when you have advanced technology but don't have people using it "properly". Star Trek is a huge one for this, even when the "advanced technology" isn't rendered inoperative by some electrical storm or something they do the most derp things. Why isn't your ship computer making micro warp jumps all over the place and firing its weapons etc rather than just sitting there getting pounded by incoming fire while the helmsman apparently waits for orders to roll the ship over or hide in a nebula or something and the weapon officers are all asleep at their posts or on the holodeck?
I think it takes a second or two to actually engage the warp drive, as the gravity bubble it creates takes a moment to build up. Additionally, I seem to recall that you can't raise shields whilst in warp, so the combination of effects would essentially turn your ship into a whack-a-mole game.
The closest they can come to your solution is referred to as the "Picard Manoeuver".
Wait a mo, I just replicated 20,000 Datas crewing 1,000 Defiants, why don't we all just enjoy these cigars and romulan brandy and watch the giant cube fireworks?
That works...
Also:
ALL TIME TRAVEL EVER.
Replicators are used to make ships.
And if i remember correctly, they cant do extremely fine details, like micro-processors.
Me has to be the ancient race that created mankind or that we descended from, it ticks me off.
I watched 30minutes of Enterprise this evening that demonstrated another SciFi standard Mcguffin - Sheild Harmonics/weak spots.
[soon to be dead from exploding console Helmsman #1] Another hit sir, we're down to 12% on aft shields and the bakery deck is depressurised; damage control are dealing with but we've lost all of the profiteroles for dinner.
[Captain] Dammit! Profiteroles are ace, they will pay for this. Target coordinates Xyz,123.
[Helmsman #2] That did it sir, their venting plasma and retreating.
Right do we have crew that do not know these supposed weak spots and captains that don't exploit them until their own ship is virtually a floating hulk. And another thing why do they all give thir ships/shields deactivation codes that any old nugget can use even from outside of the ship? Argh!
What really annoys me in sci-fi is when you have advanced technology but don't have people using it "properly". Star Trek is a huge one for this, even when the "advanced technology" isn't rendered inoperative by some electrical storm or something they do the most derp things. Why isn't your ship computer making micro warp jumps all over the place and firing its weapons etc rather than just sitting there getting pounded by incoming fire while the helmsman apparently waits for orders to roll the ship over or hide in a nebula or something and the weapon officers are all asleep at their posts or on the holodeck?
The complete lack of ANY sort of military competance in the supposedly military forces of certain sci-fi. Star Trek is the biggest culprit.
Red Shirts. They're freakin marines on a Navy Ship! Yet they'll just walk right down the middle of the street on an Alien world with only pistols, NO form of body armor, and no attempt to take advantage of any sort of cover. Everyone seems to have completely lost any sense of military tactics, superior firepower, and armor.
Also, for how often Phasers are rendered useless you think they would carry some sort of combat knife. Instead they seem to be fond of using their phasers as a melee weapon, which almost always gets dropped in favor of some sort of pisspoor wrestling moves that never really work.
They clearly receive their training and weapons from XCOM
I'm telling you, UNIT, XCOM and the redshirts are one and the same!
ProtoClone wrote: Germs, and how little they play a part in encountering alien species.
Using "War of the Worlds" as an good example of poorly planned alien enviroment preperation. In most other sci-fi settings, you never see something like this happening. It's like the go waltzing through a biological fire fight and manage to not get hit by anything.
That was one thing I priased Enterprise for was their emphasis on making sure no one brought anything back with them when they would go to alien worlds.
Actually, seeing as how the inside of living creatures forms one of the most hostile environments on earth, with bacteria and virii only able to inhabit/attack species they've specifically adapted to, it's so unlikely as to be impossible for alien diseases to effect humans, and vice-versa.
The worst trends in sci-fi are, first off: using alien species as a hamfisted metaphor for racism: racism isn't wrong because it's mean or intolerant, it's wrong because it's factually incorrect and grossly detached from reality; when you introduce beings that genuinely are of a fundamentally different nature, pretending they shouldn't be treated any different because "TOLERANCE!" is outright gibbering lunacy.
The second is treating humans as "weak but clever", or levelheaded to a fault; we're physically large and powerful creatures possessed of incredible endurance and general resilience, ridiculous adaptability, an instinctive grasp of basic tactics, and a propensity for extreme violence in the face of danger.
ProtoClone wrote: Germs, and how little they play a part in encountering alien species.
Using "War of the Worlds" as an good example of poorly planned alien enviroment preperation. In most other sci-fi settings, you never see something like this happening. It's like the go waltzing through a biological fire fight and manage to not get hit by anything.
That was one thing I priased Enterprise for was their emphasis on making sure no one brought anything back with them when they would go to alien worlds.
Actually, seeing as how the inside of living creatures forms one of the most hostile environments on earth, with bacteria and virii only able to inhabit/attack species they've specifically adapted to, it's so unlikely as to be impossible for alien diseases to effect humans, and vice-versa.
The worst trends in sci-fi are, first off: using alien species as a hamfisted metaphor for racism: racism isn't wrong because it's mean or intolerant, it's wrong because it's factually incorrect and grossly detached from reality; when you introduce beings that genuinely are of a fundamentally different nature, pretending they shouldn't be treated any different because "TOLERANCE!" is outright gibbering lunacy.
The second is treating humans as "weak but clever", or levelheaded to a fault; we're physically large and powerful creatures possessed of incredible endurance and general resilience, ridiculous adaptability, an instinctive grasp of basic tactics, and a propensity for extreme violence in the face of danger.
There are some instances of sci-fi taking Xenophobia to the other extreme (see 40k... where if it aint human, it's filthy xenos, and needs to be purged)
The thing that kinda gets me is, how many sci-fi series out there have a bad guy (TM) who owns an "ultimate superweapon" but ALWAYS gets beat by some tiny dude who gets a "lucky" shot off.
Well that depends on what your other races end up being and how your sci-fi is written.
You could write a sci-fi where all the aliens are much shorter than humans, like all Hobbit sized, and Humans would also be extremely intelligent. But then you'd have humans roflstomping everyone else and that just wouldn't make for great literature or gameplay.
Sci-fis are almost always written from a human perspective, because we are human. So its a natural POV.
With Humans being the main characters, you need the humans to be struggling against a foe thats stronger than they are in some way. This is how you set up a good story generally.
So this results in most aliens being either stronger, smarter,or having better technology than humans in some way.
Its not the only way to write sci-fi, but it is the most successful.
Inconsistency really annoys me. I don't care how improbable the context is, I just would like consistency, for example If a gun.bomb works in a certain way, it works that way all the time.
Changing the laws of physics/ structural integrity/Newtonian Laws is another. Right, so you are wearing a solid metal suit, but you can climb across a thin wooden roof?
If you're going to run with a series of books/programmes, at least keep it consistent.
The complete lack of ANY sort of military competance in the supposedly military forces of certain sci-fi. Star Trek is the biggest culprit.
Clearly you have never seen "Space, Above and Beyond". It was a show that lasted about a season or so back in the 90's that had what was supposed to be and elite group of marines fumbling around like kids playing in the back yard. Almost weekly, someone would be stealing a fighter from the carrier to go on unauthorized personal missions or some unknown ship would be allowed to land with no communication.
I could go on, but those things are enough for starters.
I don't like sillyness in places where its inapropriate.
Dr Who works because it doesn't take itself seriously, which is how Time Travel should be treated IMO. Time Travel can't be hard sci-fi, it just doesn't work.
My biggest question in Star Trek is why there's so many people on that ship. At any given point in time there is at most about a dozen people who are capable of doing anything, and that includes the add on characters like Ensign Ro.
And it isn't as if all those people are in the background doing important but basic ship functions, there's an episode where Data goes bad and takes over the whole ship, and he flies it just fine by himself.
Wait a mo, I just replicated 20,000 Datas crewing 1,000 Defiants, why don't we all just enjoy these cigars and romulan brandy and watch the giant cube fireworks?
Replicators can't produce positronic brains. Which just leads to the question about how Data can go in the Transporters...
The bigger question is why they continue to treat death as a thing, when anyone can be recreated through the technology used in transporters (and every so often duplicates of people are made, and treated exactly like regular people, or people's signal are kept in the transporter etc). I mean, when that's happening the only reason to die is because people chose not to bring you back to life. Which is fair enough, sort of, but it should completely change how death was viewed.
Grey Templar wrote: The complete lack of ANY sort of military competance in the supposedly military forces of certain sci-fi. Star Trek is the biggest culprit.
Red Shirts. They're freakin marines on a Navy Ship! Yet they'll just walk right down the middle of the street on an Alien world with only pistols, NO form of body armor, and no attempt to take advantage of any sort of cover.
Star Trek isn't a military vessel, and they're not marines on a navy ship. It's a civilian operation, albeit one that is used for military purposes when needed.
Everyone seems to have completely lost any sense of military tactics, superior firepower, and armor.
Honestly, the absence of modern tactics doesn't bother me much given the technology available in Star Trek. Once you have guns powerful enough to blast through any cover the enemy might modern tactics of suppression and manoevre stop making a lot of sense. And who needs door entry tactics when you can just teleport in?
What's annoying is that the show argues that armour has little value because phasers are so powerful that they could just up the setting and blast through... but they never actually use that to blow through cover, and instead just end up having a pretty typical Hollywood style shoot out.
Yep. In fact in Enterprise they even went with the idea of universal translators being a technology in development, so that one character on ship was a language expert who's job it was to translate the alien language and get the translators working well.
They dropped it about halfway through the first season and just let the translator work fine on all the aliens, because it produced no good storytelling.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: The worst trends in sci-fi are, first off: using alien species as a hamfisted metaphor for racism: racism isn't wrong because it's mean or intolerant, it's wrong because it's factually incorrect and grossly detached from reality; when you introduce beings that genuinely are of a fundamentally different nature, pretending they shouldn't be treated any different because "TOLERANCE!" is outright gibbering lunacy.
It was even worse when they were preaching racial equality but actually pretty damned racist at the same time. I mean, we're talking about a show where humans make out and even breed with aliens as a matter of course, and it's not treated as an issue at all.
But when Geordi finally got some alien action... she was black. So they could show inter-species relationships as completely normal, but at the same time they didn't dare upset the apple cart of 20th century race politics.
Vulcan wrote: Inter-species romance and crossbreeding.
You expect me to seriously believe that two species not only managed to randomly evolve close enough to make the mating rituals and behaviors attractive both ways... AND make the plumbing mutually compatable... AND make the DNA mutually compatable as well?
Bull.
In my own sci-fi universe (I write) inter species romance does take place, but no way in HELL is it going to produce any sort of zygote. There are plenty of refugee children to adopt. I am a firm believer in convergent evolution, so I do not think it is too far fetched that aliens would look at least vaugely humanoid. At least bipedal.
One thing I HATE, is when, in an otherwise quite realistic setting (Mass Effect, I'm looking at you) there is often something like space magic. Call it The Force, Call it Biotics, call it Psionics, etc, but it totally takes me out of a Hard(ish) SF setting when I see someone fething pushing someone with their mind/a blue energy field.
This is another thing that I don't have in my universe. I write in sort of a semi-hard SF space opera setting, btw.
Also I really don't like it when female characters (or male characters? ) are basically there for no reason but sex appeal. All characters should serve a legitimate purpose as far as plot goes.
And stupid things that could have easily been fixed in movies with a SLIGHT knowledge of physics annoy the crap out of me.
Yup, there are things in most SF universes that just bug the hell out of me. That's why I write my own stories. A few good examples of science fiction that isn't TOO far out there/physics ignorant are the Revelation Space series by Alastair Reynolds, the movie Avatar (except for the damn floating mountains), and The Leviathan Wakes/Caliban's War trilogy.
Even primitive words that are found in the middle of nowhere?
No, it's the travelers who have the translators.
In Star Trek, from memory it was supposed to be an extra feature of their communicators, although I think some of the very early fluff suggested it being an implant that acting directly on the crewman's brainwaves.
Wait a mo, I just replicated 20,000 Datas crewing 1,000 Defiants, why don't we all just enjoy these cigars and romulan brandy and watch the giant cube fireworks?
That works...
Also:
ALL TIME TRAVEL EVER.
Replicators are used to make ships.
And if i remember correctly, they cant do extremely fine details, like micro-processors.
Me has to be the ancient race that created mankind or that we descended from, it ticks me off.
Replicators can create complicated patterns, but they can't create energy. So you can replicate, for example, a phaser, but you then still need to go an charge it before it will work.
Having said that, I'm fairly sure they broke that rule in various Star Trek episodes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the interspecies thing, the novel writers tried to tackle that one early on, but explaining that a certain amount of genetic tinkering was required to make it work. So Spock, for example, wasn't actually a straight mix of Vulcan and Human... he was a genetically engineered creature that was what the scientist in charge of creating him thought was the most functional mix of Vulcan and Human traits.
Then later Star Trek went on to introduce the idea that the Federation abhors genetic engineering, and that the galaxy had been seeded by a master race, and so everyone was more or less compatible genetically.
They were all useless, perfectly interchangeable and completely forgettable. Enterprise was the final culmination of Star Trek's ability to only write alien and special characters. It got really noticeable in Voyager, where everyone that didn't have special alien condition was just boring. And then in Enterprise it got ridiculous. I watched the whole damn thing and at the end I still had to remind myself which one was the engineer and which was the security guy, because they both acted in the exact same boring ways.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Star Trek did have the first interracial kiss in TV history.
Yeah, and then almost 30 years later they couldn't have a black guy date a white alien. Or a white guy date a black alien.
Vulcan wrote: Inter-species romance and crossbreeding.
You expect me to seriously believe that two species not only managed to randomly evolve close enough to make the mating rituals and behaviors attractive both ways... AND make the plumbing mutually compatable... AND make the DNA mutually compatable as well?
Bull.
This, the explosives behind the screens get me too, but holy feth this drives me up the wall sometimes XD
My biggest irritant is the lack of advanced human and alien technologies in sci fi universes where human tech is comparable to alien. This is even worse when there is an alliance and democracy between the humans and aliens yet all we get is human tech instead of new possibilities and mixes of differing cultures.
That and a universe where technology is blooming at it's greatest heights but is dwarfed by an ancient artifact of grand power that no one understands.
I hate the "destroy the mothership and the rest of the alien force crumbles". Most recent offender was Avengers. Apparently earth is the only place in the universe with monotreme reproduction (laying eggs) so no alien civilization ever had the benefit of knowing not to put all of ones eggs in a basket.
Also dislike the concept of actively trying to contact alien species/civilizations. If they are even remotely like us, but above us technologically, we're screwed. Unless they put all their eggs in one basket of a mothership.
Classic: Evil androids blowing fuses and shutting down after being given a simple logic puzzle that relies on a fallacy.
TNG: Sesame Street on a space ship. Seriously, how many episodes were about teaching Worf or his son to cooperate? New age philosophy with gems like, "The adventure is in here..." points to own head.
DS9: Aggregeous use of silly-putty on actor's nose or forhead to signify he/she is an alien.
Voyager: Forced conventions that were never needed, like "Blue Alert". Flying through stars using "metaphasic" shields. Re-alligning the deflector dish turning it into Green Lantern's power ring.
Enterprise: Having to be the inventors of every cliche ever used in the other series.
Star Wars: More muppets than Farscape. CGI muppets.
Dr. Who: Like most BBC stuff, it's about conversating your opponents into submission.
Galactica: Retcons & forgotten plot threads. Cylons spines glow, Sharon jammed a headphone jack into her arm, and yet nobody can tell them from humans without an autopsy? Tyrel spent a long time on the station that messed up cylon neural stuff (loading munitions) but was later outed as a cylon? Spinning up all that stuff about the cathederal and then forgetting about it all for three seasons?
Anything "post apocalyptical". Sorry, but I just don't believe in the concept. Most scenarios are highly contrived and frequently require people to behave contrary to human nature.
d-usa wrote: Star Trek did have the first interracial kiss in TV history.
The episode features a kiss between James T. Kirk (William Shatner) and Lt. Uhura (Nichelle Nichols). This is often cited as the first white and black interracial kiss depicted on a scripted television series,[1][2] but took place after Sammy Davis, Jr. had briefly kissed Nancy Sinatra on the variety program Movin' With Nancy in December 1967;[3] and an interracial kiss on Emergency Ward 10, a British drama series, in 1964;[4] a kiss between Asian American actress, Victoria Young and David McCallum in the 1966 The Man from U.N.C.L.E episode, "The Her Master's Voice Affair;" September 16th, 1966, and a kiss between multi-racial actress Barbara Luna and William Shatner in the October 6th, 1967 Star Trek: The Original Series episode, "Mirror, Mirror". Predating, in America, all of these but the "Man from U.N.C.L.E", the November 3rd, 1966 episode of "Daniel Boone" where the title character leans in to take a kiss on the cheek (audible smack) from a little black girl who Boone had saved from slavery, along with her family and friends. The episode and the little girl are both called "Onatha". And, even predating that Daniel Boone episode is the 1959 episode of Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer with Darren McGavin, titled "Siamese Twinge," where a white male (named "Gary") kisses his Asian fiancé ("Sandi") on the forehead.
The episode portrays the kiss as involuntary, being forced by telekinesis, perhaps to avoid any hint of romance that would risk outrage among some sensitive viewers. As one TV critic put it, "The underlying message was, 'If I have to kiss you to save my ship and crew, by God, I'll do it.'"[5] Also, William Shatner recalls in Star Trek Memories that NBC insisted their lips never touch (the technique of turning their heads away from the camera was used to conceal this). However, Nichelle Nichols insists in her autobiography Beyond Uhura (written in 1994 after Shatner's book) that the kiss was real, even in takes where her head obscures their lips.[6]
When NBC executives learned of the kiss they became concerned it would anger TV stations in the conservative Deep South.[7] Earlier in 1968, NBC had expressed similar concern over a musical sequence in a Petula Clark special in which she touched Harry Belafonte's arm, a moment cited as the first occasion of direct physical contact on American television between a man and woman of different races.[8] At one point during negotiations, the idea was brought up of having Spock kiss Uhura instead,[9] but William Shatner insisted that they stick with the original script.[citation needed] NBC finally ordered that two versions of the scene be shot—one where Kirk and Uhura kissed and one where they did not.[10] Having successfully recorded the former version of the scene, Shatner and Nichelle Nichols deliberately flubbed every take of the latter version, thus forcing the episode to go out with the kiss intact.[11][12]
As Nichelle Nichols writes:
'Knowing that Gene was determined to air the real kiss, Bill shook me and hissed menacingly in his best ham-fisted Kirkian staccato delivery, "I! WON'T! KISS! YOU! I! WON'T! KISS! YOU!"
It was absolutely awful, and we were hysterical and ecstatic. The director was beside himself, and still determined to get the kissless shot. So we did it again, and it seemed to be fine. "Cut! Print! That's a wrap!"
The next day they screened the dailies, and although I rarely attended them, I couldn't miss this one. Everyone watched as Kirk and Uhura kissed and kissed and kissed. And I'd like to set the record straight: Although Kirk and Uhura fought it, they did kiss in every single scene. When the non-kissing scene came on, everyone in the room cracked up. The last shot, which looked okay on the set, actually had Bill wildly crossing his eyes. It was so corny and just plain bad it was unusable. The only alternative was to cut out the scene altogether, but that was impossible to do without ruining the entire episode. Finally, the guys in charge relented: "To hell with it. Let's go with the kiss." I guess they figured we were going to be cancelled in a few months anyway. And so the kiss stayed.'[13]
There were, however, few contemporary records of any complaints commenting on the scene.[14] Nichelle Nichols observes that "Plato's Stepchildren" which first aired in November 1968 "received a huge response. We received one of the largest batches of fan mail ever, all of it very positive, with many addressed to me from girls wondering how it felt to kiss Captain Kirk, and many to him from guys wondering the same thing about me. However, almost no one found the kiss offensive" except from a single mildly negative letter from one white Southerner who wrote: "I am totally opposed to the mixing of the races. However, any time a red-blooded American boy like Captain Kirk gets a beautiful dame in his arms that looks like Uhura, he ain't gonna fight it."[14] Nichols notes that "for me, the most memorable episode of our last season was 'Plato's Stepchildren.'"[15]
washout77 wrote:Technology in general. Especially in things like Star Wars and Star Trek. This is god knows how many generations of tech ahead of us and they have things that have been obsolete by today's standards. For instance, in Star Trek when any ship is under attack the ship itself doesn't do anything besides whine and complain with alarms. We have better counter systems on todays planes and battle-ships than that. You would think an advanced star-ship should be able to shoot it's own guns if it's under attack.
Also, running off of the inter-race thing, why do all species happen to speak the same language? And it happens to be English? I guess the Federation has translators for ship-to-ship communications, but when talking face-to-face how do they communicate so well? Again, I guess Federation species know a common language but not every species is a Federation species. If humans have translators built into their brains (or something stupid like that ), they may understand the alien but how does the alien understand the human...
I've read a couple of posts on the 'every species speaks english' theme, I don't think this is a 'fluff problem' more an approximation that the writers/directors/etc have to make in order to make the shows more appealing to an audience that speaks, primarily, english.
I agree that in reality, inter-species communication would likely be nigh-on impossible (just think how difficult it is to communicate with other languages on earth, and we've had a good few thousand years to work on it). When you take into account that all earth languages are based on a select few 'root' languages that are unique to the species, you have to consider that a sentient alien species may have evolved in such a fundamentally different way that it would be almost impossible to translate a human concept to another species' concept of the same item. We can only do english to chinese to french to arabic because underneath all the syntax is still a good portion of shared symbols and patterns. If you come from another planet, you can almost guarantee that system is going to be so fundamentally different it would be quicker to invent a new language and teach it to both the alien and the human at the same time, than it would be to try and suss out the alienlanguage (remember, we are trying to each an alien english, while simultaneously teach a human alien-ese).
THEN on top of that, stick a hundred thousand years of totally unrelated cultural development and you've increased the problem to the power N (think of how the 'horns' gesture is considered cool in UK/US, but is one of the worst hand gestures you can make in Greece, an alien species wouldn't understand why you are making the hand gesture to begin with, let alone why the greek xenolinguist is getting angry while the UK xenolinguist is nodding in approval...
But, back to the original point, look at the classic trope 'Kirk saves the day by seducing the green three-breasted alien babe':
Awesome TV show that entertains the trekkies - through a combination of suave talking and spoken-word jazz, Kirk seduces the alien babe and averts the death of the crew, while at the same time getting his leg over
Actual scenario - Kirk and a team of 12 linguists spend three weeks pouring over a 5-minute recording of the alien's voice hoping that it at least conforms to a definite-clause grammar...
As for me, I get annoyed by any form of long-distance space travel. They always seem to forget that while they can move using warp without aging, time continues to run normally outside their frame of reference, in reality, by the time the intrepid heroes would have arrived on the alien planet to begin diplomacy on behalf of Earth, the alien civilisation would likely have evolved, peaked, declined, become extinct, then replaced with another species that has already evolved, declined, etc, etc before they even got into the system...
I think that aliens would have drives (food, shelter, sex, etc) basically similar to ours, as these are core survival points for any biological life form.
Too, all human languages include in some form or other of nouns, verbs and adjectives (etc.) which result from the need to identify objects, and describe them and their actions. Aliens surely would have the same need to describe the world and thus have noun analogues in their language.
Thus I think it would be possible to have communication with an alien as long as it wasn’t communicating by colour, or smells, or had absolutely no common place in the world (hive mind, and that sort of thing with a completely alien psychology.)
Obviously there is a whole range of cultural and probably subconscious elements in communication, like body language, which would be difficult to translate.
As for me, I get annoyed by any form of long-distance space travel. They always seem to forget that while they can move using warp without aging, time continues to run normally outside their frame of reference, in reality, by the time the intrepid heroes would have arrived on the alien planet to begin diplomacy on behalf of Earth, the alien civilisation would likely have evolved, peaked, declined, become extinct, then replaced with another species that has already evolved, declined, etc, etc before they even got into the system...
Depends on what type of space travel . If they're in realspace, that's true.
Although... using wormholes and blackholes for travel? Man... didn't anyone see Event Horizon? You just don't know who/what is on the "other side". o.O
Even primitive words that are found in the middle of nowhere?
No, it's the travelers who have the translators.
In Star Trek, from memory it was supposed to be an extra feature of their communicators, although I think some of the very early fluff suggested it being an implant that acting directly on the crewman's brainwaves.
That would explain why the universal translator never seems to work when a character starts quoting in Klingon.
Battlestar Galactica: Fighting through the universe to find a suitable new home and then condemning everyone to grubbing in mud and weeds by flying almost all the tech and things that could start them with a good level of civilization into the sun.
As for me, I get annoyed by any form of long-distance space travel. They always seem to forget that while they can move using warp without aging, time continues to run normally outside their frame of reference, in reality, by the time the intrepid heroes would have arrived on the alien planet to begin diplomacy on behalf of Earth, the alien civilisation would likely have evolved, peaked, declined, become extinct, then replaced with another species that has already evolved, declined, etc, etc before they even got into the system...
Depends on what type of space travel . If they're in realspace, that's true.
Although... using wormholes and blackholes for travel? Man... didn't anyone see Event Horizon? You just don't know who/what is on the "other side". o.O
I have!
That was a silly movie. And sickening. Coming from me, that's not a good thing.
Relapse wrote: Battlestar Galactica: Fighting through the universe to find a suitable new home and then condemning everyone to grubbing in mud and weeds by flying almost all the tech and things that could start them with a good level of civilization into the sun.
I can't exalt this enough. We're talking about a society that argued about everything from worker's rights and birth rights while being chased by genocidal cyborgs but came to a unanimous decision to doom themselves to short brutal lives as dirt farmers, or warlords of semi-civilized nomadic tribes. In my mind, the series just ended when they discovered the nuked 13th colony. Such a bleak finish!
Relapse wrote: What about the shows where someone jumps from one ship to another without a space suit and survives?
I'm talking humans here, not aliens or androids.
Depends on how long it took. The human body can survive unprotected for a short period of time with no major consequences. Its not true that our eyes explode or anything like that. You would die of suffocation before you died from the effects of the vaccum.
This also discounts any radiation from nearby stars, which could prove lethal.
Relapse wrote: What about the shows where someone jumps from one ship to another without a space suit and survives?
I'm talking humans here, not aliens or androids.
Depends on how long it took. The human body can survive unprotected for a short period of time with no major consequences. Its not true that our eyes explode or anything like that. You would die of suffocation before you died from the effects of the vaccum.
This also discounts any radiation from nearby stars, which could prove lethal.
I really don't think someone is going to be latching onto any part of a ship in space or contacting it with any part of their unprotected body and not get seriously messed up.
How 1-3 men can tear through thousands of highly trained mercenaries without a scratch.
Also, how in the future, close range fire-fight are still a thing. Im sorry, but 300 years in the future We will just blow them away with out ships.
Also, dogfights in space, it makes no sense.
Relapse wrote: Battlestar Galactica: Fighting through the universe to find a suitable new home and then condemning everyone to grubbing in mud and weeds by flying almost all the tech and things that could start them with a good level of civilization into the sun.
I can't exalt this enough. We're talking about a society that argued about everything from worker's rights and birth rights while being chased by genocidal cyborgs but came to a unanimous decision to doom themselves to short brutal lives as dirt farmers, or warlords of semi-civilized nomadic tribes. In my mind, the series just ended when they discovered the nuked 13th colony. Such a bleak finish!
Agreed. I can' t envision the colonists being happy to reduce themselves to a primitive level facing wars over resources, diseases that could have otherwise been easily cured, having to build with mud bricks or polluting water supplies due to inadequate sewage treatment among just of a few of the problems they would face. It seems the series ended on a truly silly note with that descision to destroy the tech when the equipment on the ships could have helped them bypass all of that painful climb to a decent level of civilization they would realize their decendants would have to make.
hotsauceman1 wrote: How 1-3 men can tear through thousands of highly trained mercenaries without a scratch.
Also, how in the future, close range fire-fight are still a thing. Im sorry, but 300 years in the future We will just blow them away with out ships.
Also, dogfights in space, it makes no sense.
Why not?
Having fightercraft in space is a logical extension of how modern naval warfare is conducted today.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Same reason they do not have fighter craft in star trek, The main ship would pack so much power to destroy those in a second.
Not necessarily. Smaller ships, whilst weaker, are much more mobile and a skilled pilot could evade the main ship's attacks. And no ship is too small to carry a nuke.
You know pearl harbor? All those tiny aircraft bombing the hell out of those battle cruisers? That's sort of what would happen.
I think he's talking about how the dogfights are showed. A Star Wars type dogfight uses techniques that only apply in an atmospheric craft. Ever played a spaceflight dogfighting game with real vacuum and no gravity mechanics? It's vastly different than a flight sim.
Star Trek is stupid, its not a good representation of warfare.
You assume a ship would actually be able to always hit fighters and bombers. Which is not going to be the case. That alone makes fighters and bombers a viable weapon in space. Especially since you only need to cause one hull breech to cause serious issues.
A ship firing speed of light weapons should always be able to hit a fighter or bomber at the ranges they are fighting at unless you can get inside of a firing arc or are going faster than the guns tracking speed relative to your position, which would mean you're literally right on top of them.
And a hull breach in a space ship with properly constructed bulkheads is actually less of an issue than a hull breach on a bulkheaded water ship. They just seal of the breach and continue on, all it does is deny them immediate access to that section of the ship, in all likelihood the electronics in the decompressed section would still work barring damage from the weapon itself.
Kilkrazy wrote:I think that aliens would have drives (food, shelter, sex, etc) basically similar to ours, as these are core survival points for any biological life form.
Too, all human languages include in some form or other of nouns, verbs and adjectives (etc.) which result from the need to identify objects, and describe them and their actions. Aliens surely would have the same need to describe the world and thus have noun analogues in their language.
Thus I think it would be possible to have communication with an alien as long as it wasn’t communicating by colour, or smells, or had absolutely no common place in the world (hive mind, and that sort of thing with a completely alien psychology.)
Obviously there is a whole range of cultural and probably subconscious elements in communication, like body language, which would be difficult to translate.
Even if they have some analogies, and even human-like communications methods, still imagine trying to translate the concept of colours (and other adjectives that affect other senses) to an alien that doesn't 'see' in the visible light spectrum (for example they use infra-red), or perhaps trying to explain the act of reproduction to a species that replicates asexually. The problem is that we cannot reduce a definition to it's simplest form without relying on a concept we created (even numbers, for example, an alien would definately know mathematics in order to be able to travel interstellar, but by no means should we assume that it knows 2+2=4
whembly wrote: Depends on what type of space travel . If they're in realspace, that's true.
Although... using wormholes and blackholes for travel? Man... didn't anyone see Event Horizon? You just don't know who/what is on the "other side". o.O
Even in wormholes, you pass through in 10 minutes, because time is compressed, but outside everything carries on at normal pace (e.g. 10,000 years).
Whilst the level of technology will influence the kinds of ships which would be effective, there is certainly something to be said for small(er) ships - essentially just a crew compartment, fuel/power reserves, engine and a big arsed gun/ECW/missile pods (+/- shields).
Smaller masses means higher accelerations, larger numbers of ships, smaller targets and less resources to build. It also spreads your capabilities and also gives potentially more tactical options.
These may not be fighters - I can't really see much point in single seater fighters in space combat once you start getting ships massing several hundred thousand to millions of tonnes.
Ratbarf wrote: A ship firing speed of light weapons should always be able to hit a fighter or bomber at the ranges they are fighting at unless you can get inside of a firing arc or are going faster than the guns tracking speed relative to your position, which would mean you're literally right on top of them.
And a hull breach in a space ship with properly constructed bulkheads is actually less of an issue than a hull breach on a bulkheaded water ship. They just seal of the breach and continue on, all it does is deny them immediate access to that section of the ship, in all likelihood the electronics in the decompressed section would still work barring damage from the weapon itself.
Or you just don't bother with atmosphere at all during combat, and instead rely on vacuum suits. Cuts down explosive decompression nicely.
Ratbarf wrote: And a hull breach in a space ship with properly constructed bulkheads is actually less of an issue than a hull breach on a bulkheaded water ship. They just seal of the breach and continue on, all it does is deny them immediate access to that section of the ship, in all likelihood the electronics in the decompressed section would still work barring damage from the weapon itself.
One thing that annoys me on actual warships in sci-fi - they never seem to go into combat depressurised or with their crew fully suited, two things I would have thought to be SOP on a space ship going into a fight.
SilverMK2 wrote: Whilst the level of technology will influence the kinds of ships which would be effective, there is certainly something to be said for small(er) ships - essentially just a crew compartment, fuel/power reserves, engine and a big arsed gun/ECW/missile pods (+/- shields).
Smaller masses means higher accelerations, larger numbers of ships, smaller targets and less resources to build. It also spreads your capabilities and also gives potentially more tactical options.
These may not be fighters - I can't really see much point in single seater fighters in space combat once you start getting ships massing several hundred thousand to millions of tonnes.
Not really. Acceleration is just a matter of percentage of mass devoted to engines, and larger engines rapidly become more efficient than smaller ones (efficiencies of scale and all that jazz). A larger ship can afford to mount a larger percentage as engine, as the small ship has static costs (life support, etc.) as a higher percentage of its mass already.
Grey Templar wrote: Star Trek is stupid, its not a good representation of warfare.
You assume a ship would actually be able to always hit fighters and bombers. Which is not going to be the case. That alone makes fighters and bombers a viable weapon in space. Especially since you only need to cause one hull breech to cause serious issues.
Or just use unmanned drones with nukes and ram them, evading fire with your maneuverability as you close the distance.
Ratbarf wrote: A ship firing speed of light weapons should always be able to hit a fighter or bomber at the ranges they are fighting at unless you can get inside of a firing arc or are going faster than the guns tracking speed relative to your position, which would mean you're literally right on top of them.
And a hull breach in a space ship with properly constructed bulkheads is actually less of an issue than a hull breach on a bulkheaded water ship. They just seal of the breach and continue on, all it does is deny them immediate access to that section of the ship, in all likelihood the electronics in the decompressed section would still work barring damage from the weapon itself.
Or you just don't bother with atmosphere at all during combat, and instead rely on vacuum suits. Cuts down explosive decompression nicely.
There's a thought. Jettison the air to prevent the damage and confusion it could cause if the ship got hit and everything blew towards the breach.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Same reason they do not have fighter craft in star trek, The main ship would pack so much power to destroy those in a second.
Not necessarily. Smaller ships, whilst weaker, are much more mobile and a skilled pilot could evade the main ship's attacks.
And no ship is too small to carry a nuke.
You know pearl harbor? All those tiny aircraft bombing the hell out of those battle cruisers? That's sort of what would happen.
Except:
1) in spacethere's no reason to think fighters would be faster than other ships.
2) everyone can see everyone from far away. There's no surprise advantage.
Ratbarf wrote: And a hull breach in a space ship with properly constructed bulkheads is actually less of an issue than a hull breach on a bulkheaded water ship. They just seal of the breach and continue on, all it does is deny them immediate access to that section of the ship, in all likelihood the electronics in the decompressed section would still work barring damage from the weapon itself.
One thing that annoys me on actual warships in sci-fi - they never seem to go into combat depressurised or with their crew fully suited, two things I would have thought to be SOP on a space ship going into a fight.
A quick gripe. Surviving explosions that no one should.
In star trek enterprise they where in space and a mine hit them and destroyed part of the ship. There was another and two people survived at point blank range because they had a sheild.
Laughing Man wrote: Not really. Acceleration is just a matter of percentage of mass devoted to engines, and larger engines rapidly become more efficient than smaller ones (efficiencies of scale and all that jazz). A larger ship can afford to mount a larger percentage as engine, as the small ship has static costs (life support, etc.) as a higher percentage of its mass already.
There is an economy of scale to some degree, however, there is also the law of diminishing returns. To accelerate a large mass at the same rate as a smaller mass, you need to use significantly more energy. You can certainly mount huge engines on a bigger ship, however, the energy output of those engines will not necessarily give the same or better power to mass ratio as smaller engines on a smaller ship.
What you have to remember is that even if a small ship needs to devote a larger proportion of its internal structure and mass to "uncompressable" essential systems (ie systems which cannot be made smaller and lighter or be eliminated), it can also cut out a lot of the extra gear that will be required in a larger ship and also cut out a lot of the support structure.
A small ship which is 50% engines, power plant and fuel, 10% life support, 20% weapons and 20% superstructure (pulling numbers out of my butt) devotes a lot of mass and space to engines and power, certainly.
However, a larger ship would have to dedicate a lot of mass and space to things like corridors, crew quarters, mess halls, communication rooms, possibly FTL tech, more extensive superstructure, heavier armour (after all it is a bigger target and a much greater investment so you want to protect it) that you just don't need on a small ship where you might have a crew of 4/5 people all essentially living in a single room within a ship for much shorter periods of time. You might have something like 30% engines and power and fuel, 5-10% life support, 20% weapons and 40% superstructure.
And as I mentioned you will have a hell of a lot more mass and engines, that while powerful, will not accelerate the ship at the same rate as the engines on a small ship. Kind of like how aircraft carriers are slower than destroyers.
Ratbarf wrote: A ship firing speed of light weapons should always be able to hit a fighter or bomber at the ranges they are fighting at unless you can get inside of a firing arc or are going faster than the guns tracking speed relative to your position, which would mean you're literally right on top of them.
And a hull breach in a space ship with properly constructed bulkheads is actually less of an issue than a hull breach on a bulkheaded water ship. They just seal of the breach and continue on, all it does is deny them immediate access to that section of the ship, in all likelihood the electronics in the decompressed section would still work barring damage from the weapon itself.
It doesn't matter if your weapons fire at the speed of light, you need to be able to track your target. being off by even a thousandth of a degree at long range will result in a complete miss against a small target like a fighter. You give way too much credit to the computers of the future, and the equipment they are controlling.
Yes, a ship will have bulkheads so breeches arn't as big a deal, but they are still dangerous. And vital systems are all the more vital.
On a planet you only need to avoid the ship sinking, you won't die if your ship is simply dead in the water. But in space you need to keep the ship together, ensure your life support systems arn't taken out, and keep your mobility.
Fighters craft would still be a very valuable part of space combat.
Frazzled wrote: 1) in spacethere's no reason to think fighters would be faster than other ships.
In any kind of reaction based engine and many of the other types of "sci-fi" engine, the top speed of any ship will be determined by the amount of shielding it has to protect it from micro debris and is more or less irrelevant. Now, acceleration... that is a function of mass. Larger ships have more mass and so require more energy to accelerate at the same rate as smaller masses. Engines, generally, follow the law of diminishing returns - you can make an engine larger but you get to the point where it is not economical from an energy input point of view.
Laughing Man wrote: Not really. Acceleration is just a matter of percentage of mass devoted to engines, and larger engines rapidly become more efficient than smaller ones (efficiencies of scale and all that jazz). A larger ship can afford to mount a larger percentage as engine, as the small ship has static costs (life support, etc.) as a higher percentage of its mass already.
There is an economy of scale to some degree, however, there is also the law of diminishing returns. To accelerate a large mass at the same rate as a smaller mass, you need to use significantly more energy. You can certainly mount huge engines on a bigger ship, however, the energy output of those engines will not necessarily give the same or better power to mass ratio as smaller engines on a smaller ship.
What you have to remember is that even if a small ship needs to devote a larger proportion of its internal structure and mass to "uncompressable" essential systems (ie systems which cannot be made smaller and lighter or be eliminated), it can also cut out a lot of the extra gear that will be required in a larger ship and also cut out a lot of the support structure.
A small ship which is 50% engines, power plant and fuel, 10% life support, 20% weapons and 20% superstructure (pulling numbers out of my butt) devotes a lot of mass and space to engines and power, certainly.
However, a larger ship would have to dedicate a lot of mass and space to things like corridors, crew quarters, mess halls, communication rooms, possibly FTL tech, more extensive superstructure, heavier armour (after all it is a bigger target and a much greater investment so you want to protect it) that you just don't need on a small ship where you might have a crew of 4/5 people all essentially living in a single room within a ship for much shorter periods of time. You might have something like 30% engines and power and fuel, 5-10% life support, 20% weapons and 40% superstructure.
And as I mentioned you will have a hell of a lot more mass and engines, that while powerful, will not accelerate the ship at the same rate as the engines on a small ship. Kind of like how aircraft carriers are slower than destroyers.
It may take a large ship longer to accelerate than a smaller one, but once its moving it will have inertia built up and then it only matters who has the bigger engine.
The only disadvantage a large ship would have would be when ever trying to increase or decrease your speed, or turn. And with a proportionally powerful engine to its mass could have just as much maneuverability as a smaller ship.
A large ship could easily simply turn on its center of mass and fire its engines in the opposite direction of travel to decelerate.
Grey Templar wrote: It may take a large ship longer to accelerate than a smaller one, but once its moving it will have inertia built up and then it only matters who has the bigger engine.
The only disadvantage a large ship would have would be when ever trying to increase or decrease your speed, or turn. And with a proportionally powerful engine to its mass could have just as much maneuverability as a smaller ship.
A large ship could easily simply turn on its center of mass and fire its engines in the opposite direction of travel to decelerate.
Top speed is irrelevant when it comes to manoeuvrability, and manoeuvrability is the key element in naval, air and land warfare and in most science fiction is also the key part of space warfare. Being able to react to your enemy, redeploy formations, etc... even the time it takes to get up to top speed are all more important than the actual top speed.
And as I have said several times now, larger engines don't necessarily give the same power to mass ratio as smaller engines as you hit the law of diminishing returns. If you have some kind of Star Trek drive, large ships apparently don't have this problem and are able to accelerate, turn etc at the same kind of speed as smaller ships. In more "near term" tech, larger ships don't have that kind of parity with smaller ships.
Part of the problem with single-man fighters in Sci-Fi is that they might as well be missiles.
The problem with comparisons to modern earth navies is that the aircraft carrier's strength over the battleship was that it could strike from behind the horizon...
...and in space there is no horizon.
So two ships standing off at 100,000km, one launches manned fighters and the other launches unmanned missiles - the missiles can steer and evade better since G-tolerance (and therefore delta-V) is higher, the missiles have a higher payload since they don't have a cockpit and life support, and the missiles have a longer range because they only have to make a 1-way trip.
Yeah, but you will still have maximum effective ranges.
At very long distances, missiles will be trivially easy to shoot down with counter measures because you have tons of time to track it and hit it. yes, you could put in evasive abilities for the missiles but that is just making your weapons more and more complicated(and thus expensive) which will hit a point where its not worth it.
Ships may be so far that there is plenty of reaction to to avoid in coming fire, you simply alter your course so you end up in a different place than they were aiming(because you need to lead your target)
And there are planets, moons, and other celestial bodies to consider. Fighting in an asteroid belt or the rings of a planet for example. Space is far from empty.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Part of the problem with single-man fighters in Sci-Fi is that they might as well be missiles.
The problem with comparisons to modern earth navies is that the aircraft carrier's strength over the battleship was that it could strike from behind the horizon...
...and in space there is no horizon.
So two ships standing off at 100,000km, one launches manned fighters and the other launches unmanned missiles - the missiles can steer and evade better since G-tolerance (and therefore delta-V) is higher, the missiles have a higher payload since they don't have a cockpit and life support, and the missiles have a longer range because they only have to make a 1-way trip.
See the problem?
One of the common counters against missiles in fluff is the increasing sophistication of ECM, as well as the amount of hard radiation given out in nuclear weapons scrambling missile systems (since they don't generally carry as much shielding as even small ships) and laser point defence. Additionally, you get problems with C&C when launching large volleys over extended distances, especially when you throw in ECM/weapon detonations/etc.
Smaller ships may not be able to handle the G's of a missile, however, they can continue to operate even if cut off from the carrier/rest of the fleet and are generally more durable and can mount more defensive systems, as well as better/larger sensor and C&C systems.
Missiles are certainly going to be at the forefront of many engagements however, either launched from capital ships at distance, or from smaller cutters/etc at shorter range.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Part of the problem with single-man fighters in Sci-Fi is that they might as well be missiles.
The problem with comparisons to modern earth navies is that the aircraft carrier's strength over the battleship was that it could strike from behind the horizon...
...and in space there is no horizon.
So two ships standing off at 100,000km, one launches manned fighters and the other launches unmanned missiles - the missiles can steer and evade better since G-tolerance (and therefore delta-V) is higher, the missiles have a higher payload since they don't have a cockpit and life support, and the missiles have a longer range because they only have to make a 1-way trip.
See the problem?
Wait... there wouldn't be any "G-tolerance" issue for fighter planes in space...right?
My whole thing is that if you're advanced enough to build frick'n space ships... they stick some advanced weaponary on said ships. The. End.
I've always thought Stargate did pretty well with the whole 'avoiding annoying sci fi stuff' thing. Even the language barrier they were pretty happy to ignore with, "do you want an episode of 40 minutes of Daniel learning ancient language A, then 5 minutes of plot?"
The 4 person team thing was pretty much that most of the time they were doing the whole 'peaceful exploring' thing. - And they did have the MALP to make sure everything was safe.
And, if things were looking a bit dicey, they did usually have a couple of marine squads along with them as backup (this was mostly SG-3's job.)
If things were looking particularly bad, you would at times see several squads ready to rock. - I think the season 3 finale was a bit example, when everyone assembled to go help SG1.
Funnily enough, Stargate also did quite well in avoiding one of my pet peeves. Usually, as far as things goes, Status Quo is God. However, Stargate was quite good at avoiding that, with them regularly acquiring and making use of new tech. Everything from training tools, to some public medical advances to finally developing fully fledged starships and laser beams by the shows end.
Someone mentioned AI always being badly treated in Science Fiction, although I haven't read the books, I'd like to suggest Iain M Banks' "The Culture" series which explores both what it means to have a post-scarcity society and omniscient, rather beneficial AI.
Plus, the stories have the most awesome ship names ever.
Unit1126PLL wrote: the missiles can steer and evade better since G-tolerance (and therefore delta-V) is higher,
Shows like Star Trek and Star Wars get around G-force issues with 'inertial dampers'... so not really an issue there.
the missiles have a higher payload since they don't have a cockpit and life support
But can only hit once...
, and the missiles have a longer range because they only have to make a 1-way trip.
Which is only an issue if range is a problem. Super-duper Doubletalk engines in many cases make that not so.
So some sort of made up nonsense makes fighters practical - alrighty then. That's another thing for this thread that bugs me about sci-fi fluff, made up nonsense.
They can only hit once - but that one hit is much harder than two runs from a fighter of similar size that has to fire even smaller munitions.
Range is a problem, if you're trying to (for example) remain out of range of an planet's surface or orbital defenses.
EDIT:
As far as the other problems - radiation in space would fry a fighter's computer just as much as a missiles', unless you're going to claim you can fly a space fighter without any sort of computer at all. The same goes for ECM and point defense - anything that can scramble or swat a missile can scramble or swat a fighter. The missile, though, is significantly less likely to get swatted because it can make higher G maneuvers.
And G-forces certainly do matter in space - they exist any time there is an acceleration, and a human can tolerate ~12 Gs without dying. A silicone computer can tolerate ~12,000. That's three orders of magnitude more maneuverable.
Smaller ships != to one-man fighters - corvettes, for example, would be perfectly acceptable.
AI is generally thought of as being able to adapt and put into place solutions much faster than a human could. However, they don't tend to go through intuitive leaps to radical solutions as a human might.
And it only ever does what it is programmed to do.
Which is great - I don't want my army operating in a manner that even I can't predict. And it's not like they're so inflexible as to be totally useless. Even modern missiles are smarter than that.
can think for themselves, and can adapt much quicker than an AI.
Of course humans can think for themselves but that's not necessarily a desirable trait. Actually the entire point of an AI is that it is able to adapt more quickly than a human. If it isn't adapting more quickly, then it's more like just a normal computer than an AI, and even a normal computer would have faster reflexes than a human.
Unit1126PLL wrote: As far as the other problems - radiation in space would fry a fighter's computer just as much as a missiles', unless you're going to claim you can fly a space fighter without any sort of computer at all.
Of course, however, the point being that a small ship will have more mass dedicated to protecting against radiation, since it has a crew to protect and will be a larger mass anyway, giving it more "spare" mass to play with for shielding systems.
The same goes for ECM and point defense - anything that can scramble or swat a missile can scramble or swat a fighter.
Again, small ships have more spare mess to pack in more complex ECM systems than a missile, meaning they will, generally, be able to "see" better and "hide" better.
The missile, though, is significantly less likely to get swatted because it can make higher G maneuvers.
True.
And G-forces certainly do matter in space - they exist any time there is an acceleration, and a human can tolerate ~12 Gs without dying. A silicone computer can tolerate ~12,000. That's three orders of magnitude more maneuverable.
I entirely agree with this point (ignoring the fact that while computer chips may be able to survive that - you also have to remember the rest of the missile, as well as the power of the engines/thrusters it has).
Smaller ships != to one-man fighters - corvettes, for example, would be perfectly acceptable.
This is my thought when thinking of small ships - something akin to patrol boats rather than speedboats when capital ships are aircraft carriers.
Unit1126PLL wrote: As far as the other problems - radiation in space would fry a fighter's computer just as much as a missiles', unless you're going to claim you can fly a space fighter without any sort of computer at all.
Of course, however, the point being that a small ship will have more mass dedicated to protecting against radiation, since it has a crew to protect and will be a larger mass anyway, giving it more "spare" mass to play with for shielding systems.
The same goes for ECM and point defense - anything that can scramble or swat a missile can scramble or swat a fighter.
Again, small ships have more spare mess to pack in more complex ECM systems than a missile, meaning they will, generally, be able to "see" better and "hide" better.
The missile, though, is significantly less likely to get swatted because it can make higher G maneuvers.
True.
And G-forces certainly do matter in space - they exist any time there is an acceleration, and a human can tolerate ~12 Gs without dying. A silicone computer can tolerate ~12,000. That's three orders of magnitude more maneuverable.
I entirely agree with this point (ignoring the fact that while computer chips may be able to survive that - you also have to remember the rest of the missile, as well as the power of the engines/thrusters it has).
Smaller ships != to one-man fighters - corvettes, for example, would be perfectly acceptable.
This is my thought when thinking of small ships - something akin to patrol boats rather than speedboats when capital ships are aircraft carriers.
In this case we're in agreement actually. When I say fighters in space make no sense, I am thinking of the one-man style fighters from Star Wars and several other series, not the few-man Federation attack ships from ST: DS9 (for example) or corvettes from Homeworld.
And G-forces certainly do matter in space - they exist any time there is an acceleration, and a human can tolerate ~12 Gs without dying. A silicone computer can tolerate ~12,000. That's three orders of magnitude more maneuverable.
Oh... hmmm, okay. For some reason I thought that the absence of gravity helps mitigates the G forces. o.O
Grey Templar wrote: Well, G-force is really inertia IIRC. Its simply measured in relation to earth's normal gravitational pull. sea level is 1 G.
The human body can survive up to 12Gs, or 12 times earth's gravitational pull.
The deceleration of a vehicle puts force equal to a certain number of Gs on its occupants.
Generally negative G's are worse for you than positive G's (ie G's which pool blood in the head rather than the feet), with -4G generally being the point at which you red out. 10G is generally the point at which most people would black out.
All the aliens have human emotions. On TV shows they are often a single facet.
Very rarely do aliens act...alien, or can do unexpected things. Here's the only ones I kind think of in that category:
*Shadows (B5)
*Alien (Alien)
*Andromeda Strain (alien virus/lifeform/thingy)
*Monument builders (2001)
kronk wrote: Drones! Let the pilots steer them from inside the capital ships. If the communications are jammed, have the drones AI take over.
The problem with drones and more/bigger missiles is that we are talking about at least one (probably more) highly volatile and power dependent explodey control panels.
If a comms or navigational panel can kill a redshirt you can bet you arse a missile one will.
Of course the down side to fighters is the inevitable episode where one gets lost in space and there a nervous wait while the oxygen runs out. Still it kills an hour so whatevs.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So some sort of made up nonsense makes fighters practical - alrighty then. That's another thing for this thread that bugs me about sci-fi fluff, made up nonsense.
Yeah, like that faster-than-light-travel nonsense.
Oh, wait, what's NASA working on again?
There's an awful lot of technology that started out as the stuff of space opera and wound up either being made or being considered feasible with the right advancements. SciFi doesn't have to just include stuff that's technologically possible today... that would somewhat defy the point of it.
They can only hit once - but that one hit is much harder than two runs from a fighter of similar size that has to fire even smaller munitions.
But happens once. If at all.
Range is a problem, if you're trying to (for example) remain out of range of an planet's surface or orbital defenses.
No, I was talking about range as in the distance the projectile can travel before running out of fuel, since you were talking about only needing to go one way.
Yes, the missile only needs to make a one way trip... but that's not an issue in a setting where the fuel or power source for the fighter takes up a significant amount of space.
G force exists in space. I assume that if you were to suddenly stop the Shuttle, everyone would crash into the front bulkhead as there is nothing connecting them to the shuttle- thus they keep going at full speed until they can't anymore.
My pet peeve is space combat. "Real" space combat, as evidenced in my favorite book series (The Lost Fleet) would be at gigantic distances with everything hampered by relativistic velocity. Humans simply couldn't cope without advanced targeting computers and/or AI.
Even at near-light speed velocities, missiles fired at something even 10-20 light-seconds away would hit their target that many seconds before you ever see the light from the explosion return to you. Also, to hit the target you are firing at, you have to extrapolate a guess based on where it was headed when you fired them, versus the portion of lights-peed that your missiles can obtain, and hope it makes no course corrections in the meantime.
Imagine how long it takes a sound message to travel to the moon. Now imagine reacting by sight to something that has already happened and is already on it's way by the time you see it happen.
yup, and thats again why fighters are a good idea. They don't have the issues with their visual of the target being multiple seconds or even minutes behind.
Grey Templar wrote: yup, and thats again why fighters are a good idea. They don't have the issues with their visual of the target being multiple seconds or even minutes behind.
The problem with that is that they have to make the approach while completely exposed (space is BIG and also empty) and dealing with weapons that they can't see before they've already been hit. They also have to carry four times as much fuel as a missile or drone in order to actually make it back to their host ship. Much more efficient to just throw an AI in a disposable drone or missile chassis, load it up with submunitions, and have it suicide into something when it finally runs out of ammo. You can cut-and-paste AI software a hell of a lot faster than it takes to grow a new person and teach him to fly a space ship.
Laughing Man wrote: Not really. Acceleration is just a matter of percentage of mass devoted to engines, and larger engines rapidly become more efficient than smaller ones (efficiencies of scale and all that jazz). A larger ship can afford to mount a larger percentage as engine, as the small ship has static costs (life support, etc.) as a higher percentage of its mass already.
There is an economy of scale to some degree, however, there is also the law of diminishing returns. To accelerate a large mass at the same rate as a smaller mass, you need to use significantly more energy. You can certainly mount huge engines on a bigger ship, however, the energy output of those engines will not necessarily give the same or better power to mass ratio as smaller engines on a smaller ship.
Oh, definitely. Didn't mean to imply that Star Destroyer sized ships are actually a good idea by any means (mostly because turning ought to tear the things in half).
Laughing Man wrote: The problem with that is that they have to make the approach while completely exposed (space is BIG and also empty) and dealing with weapons that they can't see before they've already been hit.
Luckily for them, I hear space is quite big...
They also have to carry four times as much fuel as a missile or drone in order to actually make it back to their host ship.
Once again, only an issue if fuel space is at a premium.
And assuming they go back to their control ship, rather than the ship pickinhg them up after the battle.
You can cut-and-paste AI software a hell of a lot faster than it takes to grow a new person and teach him to fly a space ship.
Can you? How long does it take to copy an AI capable of piloting a space-going craft in battle?
This works against the fighter, not in its favor. With larger weapons, lasers can simply aim for wider areas of space and still turn a small object to a rapidly expanding cloud of gas, whereas on a smaller platform increasing the area coverage might just might singe the paint job of the target. The larger ship also has larger sensor arrays available to it, which means it gets a better idea of where to shoot in the first place.
They also have to carry four times as much fuel as a missile or drone in order to actually make it back to their host ship.
Once again, only an issue if fuel space is at a premium.
And assuming they go back to their control ship, rather than the ship pickinhg them up after the battle.
If it's being picked up by the host ship, the fighter still needs to carry twice the amount of fuel as a drone or missile, as it needs to be able to stop (if otherwise, four times, as it needs to stop, accelerate back to the host, and then stop again). As for fuel space, with most sensible drives (read: anything that isn't powered by handwavium) it definitely is. Even with the best delta-V per kilogram (tied between NSWR and Orion drives, IIRC), being able to carry more nuclear explosives is Always A Good Thing (tm).
You can cut-and-paste AI software a hell of a lot faster than it takes to grow a new person and teach him to fly a space ship.
Can you? How long does it take to copy an AI capable of piloting a space-going craft in battle?
Presumably less than 30 years. Even assuming that an AI would entirely fill the storage capacity of ye olde human brain, you're only looking at about 2.5 petabytes.
Yeah, if a fighter is powered by a small nuclear reactor, fuel is not going to be an issue. At least in the context of a battle.
Check out Star Wars, X-wings are capable of FTL travel just like all the larger ships. They don't have real range concerns related to fuel.
Alternativly, you have fighter craft that, while they use a fuel that needs to be replenished quite frequently, the fighter is large enough to carry a substantial fuel supply. Easily enough to last for most of a battle or a a long distance between its carrier and its target.
Yes, missiles are only a 1 way journey, but there are plenty of reasons a missile is not ideal in space.
1) easy to shoot down. If you are shooting a missile accross many thousands of kilometers of space, its going to take a relativly long time to reach its target. Plenty of time to get shot down by an anti-missile laser or missile. A fighter can carry counter measure systems or simply alter its course enough to make tracking it difficult or impossible given the distance.
2) Missiles are expensive. Yes, a fighter is more expensive than a missile. But it can be used over and over again and only requires fuel and ammo input.
Ultimatly, a mixture of fighters, missiles, and other stuff will get used. Because every type of weapon has a counter and only using one specific thing leaves you vulnerable to those counters. So you ill use a good mixture of weaponry to ensure you are never left completely without an answer.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, if a fighter is powered by a small nuclear reactor, fuel is not going to be an issue. At least in the context of a battle.
It will, actually. While you can use the energy from a reactor to move your propellant, you still need propellant in the first place. For obvious reasons, throwing your entire reactor out the ass end of your ship is probably not a good idea, nor is just venting coolant. It's slightly easier with fusion, as you can throw your byproducts in the other direction, but that limits your acceleration based on how quickly you're reacting your fuel. Of course, you could use the aforementioned nuclear salt water reactors, but you again run into the issue that you're throwing your reactor fuel out the back as fast as you're reacting it (mostly because otherwise the continuous nuclear detonation turns your ship into a nifty little cloud of radioactive gas).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Check out Star Wars, X-wings are capable of FTL travel just like all the larger ships. They don't have real range concerns related to fuel.
Ignoring FTL for the moment due to handwavium. If we assume we have FTL, we can also assume time travel and terapedos, neither of which is good for predicting how war works.
Alternativly, you have fighter craft that, while they use a fuel that needs to be replenished quite frequently, the fighter is large enough to carry a substantial fuel supply. Easily enough to last for most of a battle or a a long distance between its carrier and its target.
A missile could carry the same amount of fuel on a smaller platform.
Yes, missiles are only a 1 way journey, but there are plenty of reasons a missile is not ideal in space.
1) easy to shoot down. If you are shooting a missile accross many thousands of kilometers of space, its going to take a relativly long time to reach its target. Plenty of time to get shot down by an anti-missile laser or missile. A fighter can carry counter measure systems or simply alter its course enough to make tracking it difficult or impossible given the distance.
A missile can carry just the same countermeasure systems as a fighter, and can alter it's course enough to make tracking impossible as well. Modern day cruise missiles can weave through canyons; there's no reason a missile cannot maneuver as well as a fighter.
2) Missiles are expensive. Yes, a fighter is more expensive than a missile. But it can be used over and over again and only requires fuel and ammo input.
Even with the re-usability of fighters, missiles are still cost-per-effectiveness cheaper. It's why modern cruise missiles are not entirely obsolete simply because fighters are re-usable.
Ultimatly, a mixture of fighters, missiles, and other stuff will get used. Because every type of weapon has a counter and only using one specific thing leaves you vulnerable to those counters. So you ill use a good mixture of weaponry to ensure you are never left completely without an answer.
The problem is, a fighter has the same counters as a missile, but cannot defend itself as effectively because it has a human pilot, which necessitates space and mass wastage for extra fuel and life-support and also inhibits maneuverability and reaction times on account of the biological nature of the pilot.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Even with the re-usability of fighters, missiles are still cost-per-effectiveness cheaper. It's why modern cruise missiles are not entirely obsolete simply because fighters are re-usable.
Of course, to turn that around: we still have fighters despite missiles being more cost-effective...
Ignoring technological limitations, since that's just a matter of development time, is there any real reason to assume that will change?
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, if a fighter is powered by a small nuclear reactor, fuel is not going to be an issue. At least in the context of a battle.
It will, actually. While you can use the energy from a reactor to move your propellant, you still need propellant in the first place. For obvious reasons, throwing your entire reactor out the ass end of your ship is probably not a good idea, nor is just venting coolant. It's slightly easier with fusion, as you can throw your byproducts in the other direction, but that limits your acceleration based on how quickly you're reacting your fuel. Of course, you could use the aforementioned nuclear salt water reactors, but you again run into the issue that you're throwing your reactor fuel out the back as fast as you're reacting it (mostly because otherwise the continuous nuclear detonation turns your ship into a nifty little cloud of radioactive gas).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Check out Star Wars, X-wings are capable of FTL travel just like all the larger ships. They don't have real range concerns related to fuel.
Ignoring FTL for the moment due to handwavium. If we assume we have FTL, we can also assume time travel and terapedos, neither of which is good for predicting how war works.
FTL is not handwavium, NASA is actually working on something right now thats right out of Star Trek(Space compression) which is well within the real of possibility. The energy requirements are within the feasible range of what we can accomplish.
Time Travel OTOH has very hard barriers not related to physics.
Again, FTL is no longer considered the realm of handwavium.
Yes yes, just because it now only requires a minimal energy expenditure equal to the entire mass of Jupiter instead of the mass of a couple universes makes it feasible. Not to mention the problem of getting out of a bubble once you make one, or causality violations meaning ships coming home for repairs before you finish building them.
Again, FTL is no longer considered the realm of handwavium.
Yes yes, just because it now only requires a minimal energy expenditure equal to the entire mass of Jupiter instead of the mass of a couple universes makes it feasible. Not to mention the problem of getting out of a bubble once you make one, or causality violations meaning ships coming home for repairs before you finish building them.
Wrong, NASA's latest calculations put the energy required in the realm of what a Fusion reactor could generate. Which is more than viable.
Grey Templar wrote: Time Travel OTOH has very hard barriers not related to physics.
Only if you assume causality actually works, which isn't neccessarily true. Relativity has a lot more evidence going for it, and between the three (FTL, relativity, and causality) you can only have two.
Again, FTL is no longer considered the realm of handwavium.
Yes yes, just because it now only requires a minimal energy expenditure equal to the entire mass of Jupiter instead of the mass of a couple universes makes it feasible. Not to mention the problem of getting out of a bubble once you make one, or causality violations meaning ships coming home for repairs before you finish building them.
Wrong, NASA's latest calculations put the energy required in the realm of what a Fusion reactor could generate. Which is more than viable.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Even with the re-usability of fighters, missiles are still cost-per-effectiveness cheaper. It's why modern cruise missiles are not entirely obsolete simply because fighters are re-usable.
Of course, to turn that around: we still have fighters despite missiles being more cost-effective...
Ignoring technological limitations, since that's just a matter of development time, is there any real reason to assume that will change?
Yes, because it is already changing. Fighters are slowly being replaced by drones and UAVs as our technology develops.
Is there any reason to assume singe-seat manned fighters will even make it off of this planet before being replaced by drones and eventually AI?
Laughing Man wrote: Yes yes, just because it now only requires a minimal energy expenditure equal to the entire mass of Jupiter instead of the mass of a couple universes makes it feasible. Not to mention the problem of getting out of a bubble once you make one, or causality violations meaning ships coming home for repairs before you finish building them.
The first computer was little more than an adding machine.
Again, SciFi shouldn't be limited to our current level of scientific understanding. If it is, it isn't SciFi... it's just Sci.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, because it is already changing. Fighters are slowly being replaced by drones and UAVs as our technology develops.
Is there any reason to assume singe-seat manned fighters will even make it off of this planet before being replaced by drones and eventually AI?
Politics, for one. There will be considerable resistance to AI-piloted warmachines for quite some time, I would expect.
And remote-controlled drones potentially run into the same problem as communication, or tracking projectiles... Distance-induced signal lag. Not as huge a problem in terrestrial warfare, but a very big one in space.
The primary advantage of the fighter over the missile is that of judgement - the missile strike where it is targeted, the fighter pilot can see the target has moved over there and react accordingly.
Of course, that is rapidly becoming less of a concern with increases in sensor, computer, and remote control technology.
Grey Templar wrote: Time Travel OTOH has very hard barriers not related to physics.
Only if you assume causality actually works, which isn't neccessarily true. Relativity has a lot more evidence going for it, and between the three (FTL, relativity, and causality) you can only have two.
Again, FTL is no longer considered the realm of handwavium.
Yes yes, just because it now only requires a minimal energy expenditure equal to the entire mass of Jupiter instead of the mass of a couple universes makes it feasible. Not to mention the problem of getting out of a bubble once you make one, or causality violations meaning ships coming home for repairs before you finish building them.
Wrong, NASA's latest calculations put the energy required in the realm of what a Fusion reactor could generate. Which is more than viable.
Laughing Man wrote: Yes yes, just because it now only requires a minimal energy expenditure equal to the entire mass of Jupiter instead of the mass of a couple universes makes it feasible. Not to mention the problem of getting out of a bubble once you make one, or causality violations meaning ships coming home for repairs before you finish building them.
The first computer was little more than an adding machine.
Again, SciFi shouldn't be limited to our current level of scientific understanding. If it is, it isn't SciFi... it's just Sci.
No, it's space opera. There's almost always a little bit of give (usually in the FTL department, admittedly), but sci fi manages to keep most of the physics raping to a minimum (and when they do violate physics, at least have the common decency to know the repercussions of doing so and staying internally consistent), and try to actually be plausible. Once you enter the realm off the USS Make gak Up, both of those go out the window and it becomes space opera.
Politics, for one. There will be considerable resistance to AI-piloted warmachines for quite some time, I would expect.
And remote-controlled drones potentially run into the same problem as communication, or tracking projectiles... Distance-induced signal lag. Not as huge a problem in terrestrial warfare, but a very big one in space.
Well, hopefully the practicalities of war will overcome political resistance, or we will be roflstomped by the first people to put AIs in machines.
And if they don't have FTL communications to beat signal lag with, then any sort of interstellar empire at all is pointless because you don't have FTL comms! It would take 4 years for a, say, army-mustering request to reach Alpha Centauri, not to mention the 4 more it would take to receive their reply!
Grey Templar wrote: Time Travel OTOH has very hard barriers not related to physics.
Only if you assume causality actually works, which isn't neccessarily true. Relativity has a lot more evidence going for it, and between the three (FTL, relativity, and causality) you can only have two.
Again, FTL is no longer considered the realm of handwavium.
Yes yes, just because it now only requires a minimal energy expenditure equal to the entire mass of Jupiter instead of the mass of a couple universes makes it feasible. Not to mention the problem of getting out of a bubble once you make one, or causality violations meaning ships coming home for repairs before you finish building them.
Wrong, NASA's latest calculations put the energy required in the realm of what a Fusion reactor could generate. Which is more than viable.
Ah. So the equivalent of setting off the entire world's nuclear arsenals. Six times. Yes, that's totally feasible with a fusion generator. Still doesn't address problems with causality violations due to Special Relativity either.
Laughing Man wrote: Ah. So the equivalent of setting off the entire world's nuclear arsenals. Six times. Yes, that's totally feasible with a fusion generator.
It's still just a starting point, though. The fact that they may need a more efficient energy source doesn't preclude the development of one. Lithium camera batteries were impossible a hundred years ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Well, hopefully the practicalities of war will overcome political resistance, or we will be roflstomped by the first people to put AIs in machines.
Never underestimate the power of the human organism to be stupid...
And if they don't have FTL communications to beat signal lag with, then any sort of interstellar empire at all is pointless because you don't have FTL comms! It would take 4 years for a, say, army-mustering request to reach Alpha Centauri, not to mention the 4 more it would take to receive their reply!
Of course, since we're talking scifi, some of that comes down to the setting. Various scifi settings have had varying degrees of speed for FTL communication... Often it's just down to what creates the most drama. Early Star Trek used it to push the ship out into a real frontier, where Captains had to act autonomously because it could take months to hear from head office.
I've seen signal-lagged drones used quite effectively in at least one story, where the writer managed to use them cleverly to add depth to the battle, with drone controllers having to factor that lag into their commands. It's certainly more common to just assume that control signals are instantaneous, though.
Laughing Man wrote: Ah. So the equivalent of setting off the entire world's nuclear arsenals. Six times. Yes, that's totally feasible with a fusion generator.
It's still just a starting point, though. The fact that they may need a more efficient energy source doesn't preclude the development of one. Lithium camera batteries were impossible a hundred years ago.
And barring blowing up about a cow's weight in antimatter (probably two or three cows to make up for most of the radiation being unusable), there isn't really a more efficient energy source. So instead of needing to make an anti-Jupiter, we just have to build a fusion plant the size of Jupiter.
Frazzled wrote: 2) everyone can see everyone from far away. There's no surprise advantage.
That's a massive assumption that may not be true at all. Think about the potential effective range of weapons in a frictionless environment - range could be measured in hundreds of thousands of kilometres or even more. And then think about the size of space at that range.
I mean sure, if you've got Star Trek quality sensors that can determine the number of lifeforms on a planet in seconds then spotting the exact location of enemy ships within a few hundred thousand kms... but Star Trek sensors are stupid. Instead you're staring in to the vast black of space, trying to pick up heat signatures or the like, on vessels that are likely designed to mask their heat signatures. It's likely combat would be all about surprise and identifying the exact position of the enemy before he identifies you.
This is why I've always preferred the sub battle analogy to space combat - the art is in spotting the enemy, once that's done killing him is the easy part.
At very long distances, missiles will be trivially easy to shoot down with counter measures because you have tons of time to track it and hit it. yes, you could put in evasive abilities for the missiles but that is just making your weapons more and more complicated(and thus expensive) which will hit a point where its not worth it.
Anything you said there that counts against missiles also counts against fighters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Wait... there wouldn't be any "G-tolerance" issue for fighter planes in space...right?
There would. Rapid acceleration and deceleration causes nausea and blackouts whether you're in a gravity well like earth or not.
Laughing Man wrote: And barring blowing up about a cow's weight in antimatter (probably two or three cows to make up for most of the radiation being unusable), there isn't really a more efficient energy source.
...that we currently know about.
Given that not so long ago FTL travel was just considered completely impossible, writing it off on the basis that we just don't currently have a big enough battery seems a litle premature, don't you think?
Frazzled wrote: 2) everyone can see everyone from far away. There's no surprise advantage.
That's a massive assumption that may not be true at all. Think about the potential effective range of weapons in a frictionless environment - range could be measured in hundreds of thousands of kilometres or even more. And then think about the size of space at that range.
I mean sure, if you've got Star Trek quality sensors that can determine the number of lifeforms on a planet in seconds then spotting the exact location of enemy ships within a few hundred thousand kms... but Star Trek sensors are stupid. Instead you're staring in to the vast black of space, trying to pick up heat signatures or the like, on vessels that are likely designed to mask their heat signatures. It's likely combat would be all about surprise and identifying the exact position of the enemy before he identifies you.
This is why I've always preferred the sub battle analogy to space combat - the art is in spotting the enemy, once that's done killing him is the easy part.
It's not a very good analogy, however, given that something with engines as weak as the space shuttle is still visible from Pluto's orbit with nothing more than a telescope. You also have the problem that space, being empty, doesn't have any heat in it. Thus, anything hot enough to radiate heat (read: hot enough for anything to survive) will be glowing like a beacon to anything looking at it in the right spectrums. Even worse, trying to hide your heat also quickly teaches the lesson that vacuum is a perfect insulator, and you'll quickly boil your crew in their own waste heat. Not to mention the problems of active sensors, occluding known celestial bodies, and being unable to accelerate due to the visibility of your propellant.
Grey Templar wrote: There is a limit to AI, it takes time and effort to program it. And it only ever does what it is programmed to do.
Humans are preprogrammed, can think for themselves, and can adapt much quicker than an AI.
No. Humans are put through flight training, which is at least as expensive as building an AI, and something you have to do for every single pilot. Once you've got the AI you can just copy & paste it.
And in combat they aren't thinking for themselves, they're following their training. Having planes out there with everything thinking for themselves would be total fething chaos. Nor is it simple to adapt human training and instinctive behaviour to counter a new threat.
Laughing Man wrote: Even worse, trying to hide your heat also quickly teaches the lesson that vacuum is a perfect insulator, and you'll quickly boil your crew in their own waste heat.
The obvious fix being steam powered space craft...
Laughing Man wrote: And barring blowing up about a cow's weight in antimatter (probably two or three cows to make up for most of the radiation being unusable), there isn't really a more efficient energy source.
...that we currently know about.
Given that not so long ago FTL travel was just considered completely impossible, writing it off on the basis that we just don't currently have a big enough battery seems a litle premature, don't you think?
Given that E=MC^2 is pretty much an immutable law of the universe, the only way to get better power efficiency involves violating the laws of physics in ways that would make an S&M fetishist feel ill.
Laughing Man wrote: Even worse, trying to hide your heat also quickly teaches the lesson that vacuum is a perfect insulator, and you'll quickly boil your crew in their own waste heat.
The obvious fix being steam powered space craft...
In which case you've got a wonderful heated plume of steam to show them exactly where you are and where you've been. Not precisely stealthy.
Yeah, missiles only happening once is such a big limitation that we don't bother to use them at all in the modern world.
Yes, the missile only needs to make a one way trip... but that's not an issue in a setting where the fuel or power source for the fighter takes up a significant amount of space.
It's always a problem. Space is frictionless. This means that the range on a one-way trip is infinite. Enough fuel to get up to crazy fast speed, then a little fuel for adjusting course and evasive manoeuvres when you reach the target.
On the other hand a fighter has finite range, however far it got on half its fuel, it needs that much to turn around and go home again.
All the aliens have human emotions. On TV shows they are often a single facet.
Very rarely do aliens act...alien, or can do unexpected things. Here's the only ones I kind think of in that category:
*Shadows (B5)
*Alien (Alien)
*Andromeda Strain (alien virus/lifeform/thingy)
*Monument builders (2001)
Yeah, good one. That always annoys me, not only that aliens have similar emotions and motivations to ourselves, but they have none of our variation. Klingons are the classic example - they are a warrior race. All of them. Every single one is assumed to focused on warrior culture and honour (a few Trek episodes sort of deal with characters who aren't honourable but still). At the same time humans continue to be seen as wildly diverse.
sebster wrote: On the other hand a fighter has finite range, however far it got on half its fuel, it needs that much to turn around and go home again.
Quarter of the speed. Half will only let you stop. You'll need the same amount of match the velocity you had in the other direction, then a fourth portion to keep from kamikaze'ing your berth.
Laughing Man wrote: Given that E=MC^2 is pretty much an immutable law of the universe, the only way to get better power efficiency involves violating the laws of physics in ways that would make an S&M fetishist feel ill.
No, you're right. There is absolutely no possibility that our current understanding of science could be flawed.
In which case you've got a wonderful heated plume of steam to show them exactly where you are and where you've been. Not precisely stealthy.
Clearly the ship would be collecting the steam to provide water to their hydroponics and life suport systems...
Yeah, missiles only happening once is such a big limitation that we don't bother to use them at all in the modern world.
It wasn't a question of whether or not they would be used at all, just a reason that they were potentially inferior to fighters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: On the other hand a fighter has finite range, however far it got on half its fuel, it needs that much to turn around and go home again.
...unless it gets picked up.
Yeah, good one. That always annoys me, not only that aliens have similar emotions and motivations to ourselves, but they have none of our variation. Klingons are the classic example - they are a warrior race. All of them. Every single one is assumed to focused on warrior culture and honour (a few Trek episodes sort of deal with characters who aren't honourable but still). At the same time humans continue to be seen as wildly diverse.
Funnily enough, some Star Trek writers tried to make that a feature, by claiming that one of the reasons humanity is so dominant in the galaxy is that very diversity compared to other races.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, missiles are only a 1 way journey, but there are plenty of reasons a missile is not ideal in space.
1) easy to shoot down. If you are shooting a missile accross many thousands of kilometers of space, its going to take a relativly long time to reach its target. Plenty of time to get shot down by an anti-missile laser or missile. A fighter can carry counter measure systems or simply alter its course enough to make tracking it difficult or impossible given the distance.
You're really not thinking this through. There is exactly no reason to think that a missile cannot carry counter measures, and an AI capable of adapting its course. That's just you putting imaginary limitations on the missile to justify fighters.
2) Missiles are expensive. Yes, a fighter is more expensive than a missile. But it can be used over and over again and only requires fuel and ammo input.
Not a thing at all. A missile, like a fighter, may well be very expensive indeed. But when the side with missiles has such an overwhelming advantage over the side with fighters, the real cost is the capital ships lost by the idiots trying to fight a war with fighters.
Ultimatly, a mixture of fighters, missiles, and other stuff will get used. Because every type of weapon has a counter and only using one specific thing leaves you vulnerable to those counters. So you ill use a good mixture of weaponry to ensure you are never left completely without an answer.
Weapon platforms get outmoded. We don't have battleships anymore, because aircraft carriers and missile boats developed to be able to do everything that battleships could once do. Once we're looking at a future in which craft are capable of movement with g-force that will kill a human pilot, and there is AI capable of performing at least equal to human pilots, then the advantages of one-way AI controlled missiles completely dominate over human fighter craft.
Laughing Man wrote: It's not a very good analogy, however, given that something with engines as weak as the space shuttle is still visible from Pluto's orbit with nothing more than a telescope.
Once you know where it is, you can easily zoom in on that spot and see it any time you please. The problem is seeing it in the first place. There are objects bigger than Pluto that we haven't spotted yet. And that's with years on years of looking. The idea that it can be done in second without unbelievable processing power is quite a piece of speculation.
You also have the problem that space, being empty, doesn't have any heat in it. Thus, anything hot enough to radiate heat (read: hot enough for anything to survive) will be glowing like a beacon to anything looking at it in the right spectrums. Even worse, trying to hide your heat also quickly teaches the lesson that vacuum is a perfect insulator, and you'll quickly boil your crew in their own waste heat. Not to mention the problems of active sensors, occluding known celestial bodies, and being unable to accelerate due to the visibility of your propellant.
All of which I mentioned, and then went on to talk about heat retention and masking. It is a massive assumption to suggest that there could be no possible future tech that couldn't mask or control heat emissions.
And there's also the problem that while heat may be there, it doesn't radiate instantly. You may be able to see it, once the heat reaches you... at which point you'll have a very good idea where the object was a few minutes ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Laughing Man wrote: Quarter of the speed. Half will only let you stop. You'll need the same amount of match the velocity you had in the other direction, then a fourth portion to keep from kamikaze'ing your berth.
No, half is right. The second quarter is spent decellerating, but you're still moving forward. Then the return journey uses the other half of the tank.
sebster wrote: All of which I mentioned, and then went on to talk about heat retention and masking. It is a massive assumption to suggest that there could be no possible future tech that couldn't mask or control heat emissions.
And there's also the problem that while heat may be there, it doesn't radiate instantly. You may be able to see it, once the heat reaches you... at which point you'll have a very good idea where the object was a few minutes ago.
There's also the option of going the other way entirely... don't mask the craft's heat emissions, but deploy heat-emitting chaf to create multiple fasle returns. Good luck shooting all of the heat signatures that just appeared on your scopes...
insaniak wrote: It wasn't a question of whether or not they would be used at all, just a reason that they were potentially inferior to fighters.
But it's a reason that doesn't make any sense.
You have a capital ship, that by any logic is going to cost vastly more than missile or fighter plane (if only because it's going to have a lot of fighters and missiles on it). Whatever weapon of war that increases the chance that it is their capital ship instead of yours that gets trashed is going to be preferred by all sides, even if it is a one shot weapon.
...unless it gets picked up.
Which assumes that your carrier ships will advance into the new area after defeating the enemy. Which is a huge gamble, especially if they're firing missiles that by definition massively outrange your fighters.
Funnily enough, some Star Trek writers tried to make that a feature, by claiming that one of the reasons humanity is so dominant in the galaxy is that very diversity compared to other races.
Which only doubles down on the weird racist vibe. We're so unique and different, everyone else is a collection of stereotypes.
I mean, I like that Star Trek tried to be positive and progressive about the future, but part of that is that when they dropped the ball it was really noticeable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: There's also the option of going the other way entirely... don't mask the craft's heat emissions, but deploy heat-emitting chaf to create multiple fasle returns. Good luck shooting all of the heat signatures that just appeared on your scopes...
sebster wrote: You have a capital ship, that by any logic is going to cost vastly more than missile or fighter plane (if only because it's going to have a lot of fighters and missiles on it). Whatever weapon of war that increases the chance that it is their capital ship instead of yours that gets trashed is going to be preferred by all sides, even if it is a one shot weapon.
So why doesn' the US just have a fleet of Cruise Missile ships instead of Carriers?
Which only doubles down on the weird racist vibe. We're so unique and different, everyone else is a collection of stereotypes.
Ultimately, I think it was just an attempt by a couple of writers to explain away deficiencies created by other writers... they had to have some sort of explanation that worked, but were constrained by the existing material.
insaniak wrote: So why doesn' the US just have a fleet of Cruise Missile ships instead of Carriers?
Because, as I've mentioned, there's a horizon on earth which you can hide behind and precludes targeting without self-guiding and self-directing missiles. You need to be able to send a human to the other ship (at least far enough to see it on the horizon) to blow it up, and the cheapest and most spammable way of doing that is with a single-seat or double-seat aircraft, which needs a launching point. Hence carriers.
In space, there is no horizon.
Additionally, as UAVs and Drones become increasingly prevalent, the difference between a carrier-launched drone and a battleship-launched missile becomes increasingly narrow, to the point where the only difference is the carrier gets the drones back.
EDIT:
It is also of note that even with the limitation of the horizon, some fleets (such as the Russians) do indeed use exclusively cruise-missile launching ships as their primary capital force. See the Kirov-class cruiser, the completion and commissioning of which inspired the United State's reactivation of the Iowa battleships in the 1980s (to be fitted with missile launchers, no less.)
Yes, missiles are only a 1 way journey, but there are plenty of reasons a missile is not ideal in space.
1) easy to shoot down. If you are shooting a missile accross many thousands of kilometers of space, its going to take a relativly long time to reach its target. Plenty of time to get shot down by an anti-missile laser or missile. A fighter can carry counter measure systems or simply alter its course enough to make tracking it difficult or impossible given the distance.
That depends entirely on what percentage of the speed of light you can get them up to on their way there. Even 0.1 lightspeed is hugely fast, and once it's at that velocity, the engines can cut out, giving the enemy a tiny unpowered object to detect. One of possibly dozens, considering a ship would have to carry enough for a long engagement. Hell, you don't even need a warhead on the thing, just the mass of the "missile" is enough to act like a giant bullet.
It would be like detecting micrometeorites coming at the ship. You might not even know an attack is happening when they come in, as they might even just show up as mundane space debris.
The downside of space-capable fighters versus missiles is that you cannot just have auxiliary ships in the fleet making new fighters and trained pilots from the metals in asteroid belts as the fleet sweeps through.
Am i the only one who thought that the kind of future naval warfare shenanigans are really impossible in anything but orbital engagements?
I mean, this does make fighter craft viable, but once you put things into vast interstellar distances required to travel, and would be traveled, assuming the universe has some sort of FTL business. I mean, the chances of two ships running into each other to actually have an engagement would be small, even if they had huge effective weapon ranges. And even an infinitesimally small fraction of a degree could cause weapons to miss by miles. If they were within some sort of viable range to make the math work, they would potentially kill themselves by running into each other.
insaniak wrote: So why doesn' the US just have a fleet of Cruise Missile ships instead of Carriers?
Because the enemy is concealed by the horizon, and giving aircraft an important role as scouts. Same thing for the threat of submarines, concealed by the ocean you need aircraft carrying sonar to detect the enemy. Then you've got aid and support to ground forces. Finally you've got air superiority... removing their aircraft from the sky and making it safe for yours - which is a function of there being a value to having aircraft in the sky in the first place.
Now consider a fleet operating not on the surface of the Earth, but in open space. You don't need to deploy air resources forward to see over the horizon or over a particular patch of sea - visual range is almost unlimited.
And then you have the likely increases in AI. We're already seeing the slow shift to unmanned planes. If we're going to project FTL and massive space navies, it only makes sense to think search and rescue and ground support missions would be better achieved by very advanced AI that we're likely to see in the future. And then once we acknowledge advanced-AI drones in all of those roles, the idea of humans piloting ships in space (limited by g-forces), compared to an equivalent AI ship makes little sense. And then once you've got AI piloting those things, the moral qualms of one-shot fighters goes away and you see they're much better off with double the effect range, as one shot missiles.
Ultimately, I think it was just an attempt by a couple of writers to explain away deficiencies created by other writers... they had to have some sort of explanation that worked, but were constrained by the existing material.
Fair point not to criticise those writers specifically.
tbh I think you're more likely to see some sort of fusion between the two. A C&C 'stealth' fighter controlling a large number of AI missiles, that way the best of both worlds become available, high capacity hard hitting munitions controlled on a realtime link.
I think it's something she would do... just think:
tbh I think you're more likely to see some sort of fusion between the two. A C&C 'stealth' fighter controlling a large number of AI missiles, that way the best of both worlds become available, high capacity hard hitting munitions controlled on a realtime link.
Vulcan wrote: Inter-species romance and crossbreeding...
Not to mention space-aids would be way worse than normal earth-aids.
There a scene in an episode of Hyperdrive (the one with the big red wobbly hats) that the crew get made to sit through a sex-ed video before going to a first contact trip.
Yes, alien STDs are messy
1. In Stargate for example. WHY are all the aliens speaking english??
I mean its just so very stupid.
the show 'Farscape' had a simple but effective way of explaining this in the form of 'translator microbes'.
2. In the majority of Scifi shows, almost all the aliens are basically 'Humans with masks on'
why is that?? Everyone has 2 legs, 2 arms and the facial features are mostly the same.
Why not somehing like the Shadows from Babylon 5, Elcor or Hanar from Mass effect.
3. In independence Day, the virus uploading was just so stupid.. *sigh*.. So stupid..
1. In Stargate for example. WHY are all the aliens speaking english??
I mean its just so very stupid.
the show 'Farscape' had a simple but effective way of explaining this in the form of 'translator microbes'.
2. In the majority of Scifi shows, almost all the aliens are basically 'Humans with masks on'
why is that?? Everyone has 2 legs, 2 arms and the facial features are mostly the same.
Why not somehing like the Shadows from Babylon 5, Elcor or Hanar from Mass effect.
3. In independence Day, the virus uploading was just so stupid.. *sigh*.. So stupid..
1. Tiny translators in the comm badges, in the equipment, embedded in the ear are generally the explanation in all of these shows. It's just not said out loud in every episode. Usually it's mentioned once and that's it.
2. Because these shows aren't real and have budgets to meet. Sad but true. Starfish aliens are more common in CGI heavy shows and videogames. Facts of life here.
3. That was actually explained. All human computer technology was reverse engineered from the alien ship in the independance day universe. This means that the apple computer is literally alien technology already.
1. In Stargate for example. WHY are all the aliens speaking english??
I mean its just so very stupid.
the show 'Farscape' had a simple but effective way of explaining this in the form of 'translator microbes'.
2. In the majority of Scifi shows, almost all the aliens are basically 'Humans with masks on'
why is that?? Everyone has 2 legs, 2 arms and the facial features are mostly the same.
Why not somehing like the Shadows from Babylon 5, Elcor or Hanar from Mass effect.
3. In independence Day, the virus uploading was just so stupid.. *sigh*.. So stupid..
1. Tiny translators in the comm badges, in the equipment, embedded in the ear are generally the explanation in all of these shows. It's just not said out loud in every episode. Usually it's mentioned once and that's it
2. Because these shows aren't real and have budgets to meet. Sad but true. Starfish aliens are more common in CGI heavy shows and videogames. Facts of life here.
3. That was actually explained. All human computer technology was reverse engineered from the alien ship in the independance day universe. This means that the apple computer is literally alien technology already.
1. How was it explained in Stargate?
2. They could have even made the masks more 'non-human'. It would have required less make up and lookes cooler.
3. Oh yeah, i remember now. My bad.
All aliens could speak english, because they could...well, most human "aliens" anyway.
The "true" aliens (like those fish men and the spider aliens) needed some sort of ambassador to communicate (Jackson for the fishmen and this clone for the spiders), and the Goald have been in contact with humanity long enough to know their language.
The Aschen, those medieval peasants on that one world and other Tau'ri derivatives? They can all speak English.
HawkWall wrote: 2. They could have even made the masks more 'non-human'. It would have required less make up and lookes cooler.
The more non-human you make them, the more involved the make-up process gets. It hasn't been as simple as putting a rubber mask on and calling the job a good'un since probably the 70s.
And the more involved the make-up process gets, the more time people spend in the chair instead of on set... which pushes out production times, which pushes out costs.
In short, the Sith order of the Star Wars world was forcibly confined to just two individuals (a master and an apprentice) by an ancient edict called the Rule of Two. Hence Vader/the Emperor being the crux of the dark side.
Might have first been hinted at in the Phantom Menace, by a throwaway line by Yoda at the very end of the film. But in the Expanded Universe didn't they go like "look at how many Sith there were before Darth Bane did this Rule of Two order."
Even discounting the wildly deviating cost of a mass-produced targeting computer versus a human life, Ship-to-Ship Missiles trump Space Fighters because of one very important term in space: "Bingo Fuel".
There's a point where if your buddy doesn't turn back, you either have to spend exorbitant amounts of fuel using the mothership to pick them up, or they spend an eternity floating through space at the speed they ran out of fuel at, where if a missile misses the target, you shrug and fire another one.
AegisGrimm wrote: ...where if a missile misses the target, you shrug and fire another one.
Of course, I would assume that you'd tip the thing with a nuke, and then you could just give it a magnetic influence detonator and have it detonate if it missed. The detonation would not be appreciated by anything.
Another bit about the fighter v. missile thing that should be touched upon is armament. If the fighter is shooting off nuclear weapons, they're going to need quite a bit of shielding and whatnot, if it's lasers or what have you, power becomes a concern, etc. For missiles, it's a lot easier to just have the damn thing accelerate to 0.9c and just smack into whatever you're shooting at, depending on propulsion.
CuddlySquig wrote: Might have first been hinted at in the Phantom Menace, by a throwaway line by Yoda at the very end of the film. But in the Expanded Universe didn't they go like "look at how many Sith there were before Darth Bane did this Rule of Two order."
They stuck with the Rule of Two for a while, because they had to... Film stuff is canon, regardless of how silly it is, or how much it contradicts anything that was written previously.
So they created a set period in which the Rule of Two applied... but even within that period, there were often more than two Sith running around at once.
After all, you can't really expect the bad guys to follow the rules all the time... Even when those rules are their own.
Jon Conner could never have sent Kyle Reese to protect Sarah Conner because Jon Conner couldn't have existed without Kyle Reese impregnating Sara Conner first. So in other words, Kyle Reese couldn't have been Jon Conners father.
generalgrog wrote: Jon Conner could never have sent Kyle Reese to protect Sarah Conner because Jon Conner couldn't have existed without Kyle Reese impregnating Sara Conner first. So in other words, Kyle Reese couldn't have been Jon Conners father.
CuddlySquig wrote: In short, the Sith order of the Star Wars world was forcibly confined to just two individuals (a master and an apprentice) by an ancient edict called the Rule of Two. Hence Vader/the Emperor being the crux of the dark side.
The reason for creation made complete sense though, the Sith leaders kept getting ganged up on and killed by their minions.
For some reason, I am immune to the pull of tvtropes.
In the Star Wars Expanded Universe, they explained that it
was Darth Bane that made up the Rule of 2, not because
they were getting ganged up on, but because he wanted
them to consolidate their power and not act all nice nice like
the Light Side.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Damn, I hated that book.
Frankly, I'd rather have the Sith be more like they were in SWTOR... ya know, more like a bad episode of Game of Thrones with everyone plotting and scheming to move up in the world.
AegisGrimm wrote: ...where if a missile misses the target, you shrug and fire another one.
Of course, I would assume that you'd tip the thing with a nuke, and then you could just give it a magnetic influence detonator and have it detonate if it missed. The detonation would not be appreciated by anything.
Another bit about the fighter v. missile thing that should be touched upon is armament. If the fighter is shooting off nuclear weapons, they're going to need quite a bit of shielding and whatnot, if it's lasers or what have you, power becomes a concern, etc. For missiles, it's a lot easier to just have the damn thing accelerate to 0.9c and just smack into whatever you're shooting at, depending on propulsion.
Nukes are actually fairly ineffective in space, due to the lack of a shockwave. Better to use bomb pumped lasers.
ProtoClone wrote: Germs, and how little they play a part in encountering alien species.
Using "War of the Worlds" as an good example of poorly planned alien enviroment preperation. In most other sci-fi settings, you never see something like this happening. It's like the go waltzing through a biological fire fight and manage to not get hit by anything.
That was one thing I priased Enterprise for was their emphasis on making sure no one brought anything back with them when they would go to alien worlds.
Actually, seeing as how the inside of living creatures forms one of the most hostile environments on earth, with bacteria and virii only able to inhabit/attack species they've specifically adapted to, it's so unlikely as to be impossible for alien diseases to effect humans, and vice-versa.
The worst trends in sci-fi are, first off: using alien species as a hamfisted metaphor for racism: racism isn't wrong because it's mean or intolerant, it's wrong because it's factually incorrect and grossly detached from reality; when you introduce beings that genuinely are of a fundamentally different nature, pretending they shouldn't be treated any different because "TOLERANCE!" is outright gibbering lunacy.
The second is treating humans as "weak but clever", or levelheaded to a fault; we're physically large and powerful creatures possessed of incredible endurance and general resilience, ridiculous adaptability, an instinctive grasp of basic tactics, and a propensity for extreme violence in the face of danger.
Which is why I like 40k, whenever humans are threatened, we go crazy and beat the living hell out of whatever alien provoked us (Major example being the great crusade, and every toughened guardsman ever).
Ratbarf wrote: Rule of Two? I rather liked both of the Bane books personally.
The concept that there can only be 1 master and 1 apprentice at any one time in the universe...
>_> If I remember correctly.
There are two Darth Bane books, one of which is called Rule of Two. I was asking if he didn't like either books, just the one, or the whole concept. Rule of Two does make a certain amount of sense as has been stated. It also allowed the Sith to go underground, as the Jedi thought them extinct.
While not annoyed per se, I find it disagreeable(from a realism standpoint, depending on the IP) when certain works include a focus of any sort on melee weaponry or rather a contrived justification for the use of melee weapons in combat.
40k, while not contemporary sci-fi, is a prime example, but there are traces of this in other works -- Protoss zealots and dark templar in Starcraft, lightsabers and vibro-weapons in Star Wars, energy swords in Halo, omni-blades in Mass Efffect.
I never understand this problem.
If you have armour that can reliably withstand most ranged weapons and a melee weapon that can penetrate this armour melee is a viable prospect.
purplefood wrote: I never understand this problem.
If you have armour that can reliably withstand most ranged weapons and a melee weapon that can penetrate this armour melee is a viable prospect.
It's not simply an issue of a melee weapon defeating armor(generally there are ranged weapon options available as good or better at defeating armor and *from cover*), but things like getting in range in the first place, dealing with the problem of being caught in the open and out-flanked, not being able to maneuver with the benefits that modern armies seem to have, not being able to adequately retaliate against a foe using ranged weapons.
Vaerros wrote: ...but things like getting in range in the first place, dealing with the problem of being caught in the open and out-flanked, not being able to maneuver with the benefits that modern armies seem to have, not being able to adequately retaliate against a foe using ranged weapons.
None of which are really a big issue for a trained Jedi with a lightsaber.
Vaerros wrote: ...but things like getting in range in the first place, dealing with the problem of being caught in the open and out-flanked, not being able to maneuver with the benefits that modern armies seem to have, not being able to adequately retaliate against a foe using ranged weapons.
None of which are really a big issue for a trained Jedi with a lightsaber.
They still run the risk of being outflanked and sometimes(as I understand it) are. To use their weapon, they still effectively have to run up to the enemy and hit them with it(or throw it and lose their deflection capabilities temporarily). They still cannot use their awesome weapon to retaliate against ranged attackers(aside from, if they have particularly strong deflection fu, redirecting shots).
Many combatants have something going for them that makes their combat style feasible enough to suspend disbelief -- Jedi with their reflexes and deflection, Protoss with their speed -- but they all have the aforementioned vulnerabilities, to varying degrees.
Compel wrote: Not to mention if the only ranged weapons that can penetrate a shield have a slight tendancy to cause a gigantic nuclear explosion...
You also miss the fact that all these melee weapons are found in media that is primarily visual, and it looks so much better having a close in melee as opposed to simply shooting your opponent. I think that the closest I can find to two such opposing styles meeting faithfully is Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Yeah, its Dune.
In Dune, they have laser weapons and shield generators. However, when a laser weapons when fired at a shield generator cause a nuclear explosion in both the weapon and the shield. However, shields protect against projectile weapons, but not slow-moving objects.
Solution? Soldiers wear mini-shield generators and charge into combat with hand weapons. When attacking with hand weapons, the strategy is to move very quickly on defence (to increase the relative speed between you and the attacker and thus activate the shield gen), and be fairly slow on attack so that you're slow enough to get through the shields.
Which was a pretty cool justification. I just don't understand (or didn't read far enough) why they didn't use automated laser-robots as tactical nukes against shielded targets...
Compel wrote: Not to mention if the only ranged weapons that can penetrate a shield have a slight tendancy to cause a gigantic nuclear explosion...
Whereas the slow blade....
Which universe are you talking about here?
It's the Dune universe, where the only weapons that can penetrate shields are lasers, but when a laser hits a shield you get an explosion ranging in the low kilotons iirc. So they use knives and hand to hand combat for nearly all ground fighting. It's actually a pretty cool idea when you think about it.
Oh and the reason they don't shoot the lasers because it causes massive explosions is their equivalent of interplanetary law. No nukes allowed!
Also, hand to hand fighting and close combat weapons are still used and taught today amongst the infantry. And hand to hand fighting as a staple of infantry fighting isn't exactly that far away historically either. In WW1 many infantry men used their rifles as clubs or bayonet delviery systems, and if Erich Maria Remarque is to be believed the Germans generally went over with nothing but a trench trowel and a bag full of Grenades. Also, hand to hand combat is also still the primary way of quietly eliminating enemy sentries if movies/books/videogames are to be believed.
AndrewC wrote:You also miss the fact that all these melee weapons are found in media that is primarily visual, and it looks so much better having a close in melee as opposed to simply shooting your opponent. I think that the closest I can find to two such opposing styles meeting faithfully is Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Cheers
Andrew
True, though the Raiders of the Lost Ark scene you're talking about was actually not intended. It was just something that Harrison Ford did that the stunt guy went along with and ended up being in the movie.
Trasvi wrote: Yeah, its Dune.
In Dune, they have laser weapons and shield generators. However, when a laser weapons when fired at a shield generator cause a nuclear explosion in both the weapon and the shield. However, shields protect against projectile weapons, but not slow-moving objects.
Solution? Soldiers wear mini-shield generators and charge into combat with hand weapons. When attacking with hand weapons, the strategy is to move very quickly on defence (to increase the relative speed between you and the attacker and thus activate the shield gen), and be fairly slow on attack so that you're slow enough to get through the shields.
Which was a pretty cool justification. I just don't understand (or didn't read far enough) why they didn't use automated laser-robots as tactical nukes against shielded targets...
To be a major House in the Landsraad requires you to have a stockpile of nukes. The Great Convention, however, prohibits you from using any atomic devices, or else all the other Houses, the Guild and the Imperium are under obligation to turn your world into glass.
Trasvi wrote: Yeah, its Dune.
In Dune, they have laser weapons and shield generators. However, when a laser weapons when fired at a shield generator cause a nuclear explosion in both the weapon and the shield. However, shields protect against projectile weapons, but not slow-moving objects.
Solution? Soldiers wear mini-shield generators and charge into combat with hand weapons. When attacking with hand weapons, the strategy is to move very quickly on defence (to increase the relative speed between you and the attacker and thus activate the shield gen), and be fairly slow on attack so that you're slow enough to get through the shields.
Which was a pretty cool justification. I just don't understand (or didn't read far enough) why they didn't use automated laser-robots as tactical nukes against shielded targets...
In the Dune universe it's illegal to have non human guided ai. I forget exactly what the war was called but apparently it was long and bloody and AI are now a sure way to earn yourself a Galaxy wide perma ban.
In the Dune universe it's illegal to have non human guided ai. I forget exactly what the war was called but apparently it was long and bloody and AI are now a sure way to earn yourself a Galaxy wide perma ban.
Also, hand to hand fighting and close combat weapons are still used and taught today amongst the infantry. And hand to hand fighting as a staple of infantry fighting isn't exactly that far away historically either. In WW1 many infantry men used their rifles as clubs or bayonet delviery systems, and if Erich Maria Remarque is to be believed the Germans generally went over with nothing but a trench trowel and a bag full of Grenades. Also, hand to hand combat is also still the primary way of quietly eliminating enemy sentries if movies/books/videogames are to be believed.
.
I'm not talking about soldiers receiving basic training in hand-to-hand and the occasional use of such techniques to subdue enemies, but a much more specialized approach than that. And no, that kind of approach hasn't been taken in warfare for a very long time.
ProtoClone wrote: Germs, and how little they play a part in encountering alien species.
Using "War of the Worlds" as an good example of poorly planned alien enviroment preperation. In most other sci-fi settings, you never see something like this happening. It's like the go waltzing through a biological fire fight and manage to not get hit by anything.
That was one thing I priased Enterprise for was their emphasis on making sure no one brought anything back with them when they would go to alien worlds.
Actually, seeing as how the inside of living creatures forms one of the most hostile environments on earth, with bacteria and virii only able to inhabit/attack species they've specifically adapted to, it's so unlikely as to be impossible for alien diseases to effect humans, and vice-versa.
The worst trends in sci-fi are, first off: using alien species as a hamfisted metaphor for racism: racism isn't wrong because it's mean or intolerant, it's wrong because it's factually incorrect and grossly detached from reality; when you introduce beings that genuinely are of a fundamentally different nature, pretending they shouldn't be treated any different because "TOLERANCE!" is outright gibbering lunacy.
The second is treating humans as "weak but clever", or levelheaded to a fault; we're physically large and powerful creatures possessed of incredible endurance and general resilience, ridiculous adaptability, an instinctive grasp of basic tactics, and a propensity for extreme violence in the face of danger.
Which is why I like 40k, whenever humans are threatened, we go crazy and beat the living hell out of whatever alien provoked us (Major example being the great crusade, and every toughened guardsman ever).
I know, right? 40k's the only setting that I know of that captures it quite so well. Most settings just go with the star wars or star trek style rubbish, where aliens are people too and humans are just average, mild-mannered "ideal americans" (that's the best way I can phrase it, and it's not entirely accurate to what I'm meaning, but I'm sure a lot of you will get it; just that sort of inoffensive Hollywood conception of how people act).
Also, hand to hand fighting and close combat weapons are still used and taught today amongst the infantry. And hand to hand fighting as a staple of infantry fighting isn't exactly that far away historically either. In WW1 many infantry men used their rifles as clubs or bayonet delviery systems, and if Erich Maria Remarque is to be believed the Germans generally went over with nothing but a trench trowel and a bag full of Grenades. Also, hand to hand combat is also still the primary way of quietly eliminating enemy sentries if movies/books/videogames are to be believed.
.
I'm not talking about soldiers receiving basic training in hand-to-hand and the occasional use of such techniques to subdue enemies, but a much more specialized approach than that. And no, that kind of approach hasn't been taken in warfare for a very long time.
100 years in western warfare, a lot less in some parts of the world.
Regarding the space-fighters thing, I've been thinking about some kind of Dune-eque way of justifying fighters in space:
1) Capital ships are equipped with shields against lasers.
2) Engagement between capital ships begins at ranges of several dozen light-seconds, so shooting is incredibly ineffective until range closes. Ship speeds are measured in fractions of light-speed, with 0.05c being a typical velocity.
3) FTL travel exists, in my universe in the form of semi-teleportation, completely swapping the particles existing at the two locations. Ships can project a field for a decent-sized radius which stops this FTL travel (as a defence mechanism) but this also stops themselves from using FTL.
4) Ships are incredibly vulnerable to kinetic weapons. A speck of dust colliding with a craft at a relative speed of 0.5c causes huge damage, let alone the 1kg railgun shots used by capital ships. Ships have automated point defences to defend themselves against projectiles and space debris, but they obviously need to locate the object and determine a firing solution to destroy them.
Combining these, fighters become a decent mechanism for combating enemy capital ships. Fighters deploy from their capital ship and jump as close to the enemy as possible, accelerating to speeds around 0.1c. An automated system keeps the ship 'jumping' ever so slightly every few microseconds, changing the location and trajectory by mere arcseconds to prevent the point defences from locking on. They aim to get close enough to use their kinetic weapons on vulnerable parts of the ships - comms arrays, radiators, engines.. The only effective defence against fighters is fighters of your own.
Fighters can be controlled via on-board AI or pilots, but the distances involved are too far for commands via remote control.
Sound plausible?
Also, my biggest annoyance in sci-fi (or most tv/film) is how they portray computer programming. I remember a Stargate episode where, on their first encounter with a completely new alien technology, they not only manage to hack into it but reprogram it to do something completely different, within the space of about 5 minutes. I'm a fairly skilled programmer but I definitely couldn't analyse even a new earth-originated language, discern its syntax and grammar, and write anything meaningful in less than an hour. Throw in decent security and encapsulation and sandboxing and it shouldn't be possible to do any of this (see outrage at security flaws in Java or Ruby in recent news...)
Also, entire races with the same personality/traits (Klingons = warriors)
The problem is that you have fields which prevent FTL jumping, yet your fighters rely on this FTL micro jump technique to avoid the point defence systems of the capital ships in order to get close enough to use their kinetic weapons.
In regards to the Klingons - you see a lot of other personality traits within the race, it is just their culture is highly militaristic. It also doesn't help that is pretty much the only side of their culture we tend to see.
SilverMK2 wrote: The problem is that you have fields which prevent FTL jumping, yet your fighters rely on this FTL micro jump technique to avoid the point defence systems of the capital ships in order to get close enough to use their kinetic weapons.
In regards to the Klingons - you see a lot of other personality traits within the race, it is just their culture is highly militaristic. It also doesn't help that is pretty much the only side of their culture we tend to see.
Didn't the writers start to worry (during the movie era?) that the Klingons were being routinely portrayed as galactic bogey-men, and this was deemed unsuitable for Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek?
I thought the Borg were the Galactic bogey men? But you really want to see a one trick race? The Hrojan from Voyager. All they do is hunt, all the time, even though it's making them extinct. It's all kinds of dumb really.
Ratbarf wrote: I thought the Borg were the Galactic bogey men? But you really want to see a one trick race? The Hrojan from Voyager. All they do is hunt, all the time, even though it's making them extinct. It's all kinds of dumb really.
Yes, but bogey-men comprised mostly of victims deprived of their own choices and personalities, it's far less morally dubious than having an entire race of villainous types!
Did they ever explore the deep origins of the Borg? I'd always assumed that it was a quest for perfection/immortality that went badly, badly wrong and snowballed out of control?
Isn't the queen the original borg? And honestly, the scene where they introduce her in Voyager is probably one of the coolest scenes in star trek.
This is the closest I can find to a version of it. It's the first 45 seconds or so. Though the voice actor cuts in and kind of ruins the scenes gravitas.
Ratbarf wrote: Rule of Two? I rather liked both of the Bane books personally.
The concept that there can only be 1 master and 1 apprentice at any one time in the universe...
>_> If I remember correctly.
Yeap, when the apprentice thinks they are powerful enough they challenge the master and the victor finds a new apprentice, that way (In Bane's mind) only the truly worthy inherit the power of the dark side masters
Ratbarf wrote: Rule of Two? I rather liked both of the Bane books personally.
The concept that there can only be 1 master and 1 apprentice at any one time in the universe...
>_> If I remember correctly.
There are two Darth Bane books, one of which is called Rule of Two. I was asking if he didn't like either books, just the one, or the whole concept. Rule of Two does make a certain amount of sense as has been stated. It also allowed the Sith to go underground, as the Jedi thought them extinct.
Three now, Dynasty of evil finished out the trilogy
Also, hand to hand fighting and close combat weapons are still used and taught today amongst the infantry. And hand to hand fighting as a staple of infantry fighting isn't exactly that far away historically either. In WW1 many infantry men used their rifles as clubs or bayonet delviery systems, and if Erich Maria Remarque is to be believed the Germans generally went over with nothing but a trench trowel and a bag full of Grenades. Also, hand to hand combat is also still the primary way of quietly eliminating enemy sentries if movies/books/videogames are to be believed.
.
I'm not talking about soldiers receiving basic training in hand-to-hand and the occasional use of such techniques to subdue enemies, but a much more specialized approach than that. And no, that kind of approach hasn't been taken in warfare for a very long time.
100 years in western warfare, a lot less in some parts of the world.
100 years...in western warfare, what? We're talking about the complete package here -- melee weapons as primary weapons and armor systems designed to protect against them. It's been centuries since that kind of fighting has been truly common.
Klingons tend to be portrayed fairer in Deep Space 9, if I remember right.
Although, everything does have that warrior slant on it.
For example, Klingon Farmers are Honourable Warriors fighting glorious battles against the harsh elements of their homeworld in order to feed our more Honourable Warriors.
) are basically there for no reason but sex appeal. All characters should serve a legitimate purpose as far as plot goes.
