Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 Leigen_Zero wrote:

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

 insaniak wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
No, They all just have universal translators.

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.

 whembly wrote:

 Leigen_Zero wrote:

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.

And such a waste of acting talent.

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.

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

Gitzbitah wrote:

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.

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.

 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

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.

With the targeting software that ships are likely to have, hitting a fighter would be easy.

 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.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 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.

But it is kind of cool though.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 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.

That right there is totaly on the mark.

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.