Cyno01: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Cyno01: ArcadianRefugee: Since we are talking starcraft....

A lot of times you see ships that look something like this:

[www.orbiter-forum.com image 640x398]
EAS Cortez

What's the point in having portions of the ship separated with those long strut sections?

From a safety standpoint keeping the engines away from the living quarters is a good idea, radiation, possibility of explosion, that sorta thing. Modulability too i guess.

Can we just admit they do it because:

1) Kubrick did it
2) It looks neat

Thank you.

Well why does the ISS look like this?

[www.asc-csa.gc.ca image 640x361]

And not like this?

[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 640x456]

If theres no practicality to that sorta design.

Can we also agree that nearly everything in this thread was imagined before the ISS took shape and became well known?

But I think you're partly right, in that while I think many people took their cues from Kubrick, Kubrick himself took cues from real space engineering, much of which does have that kind of construction. So in that sense, I guess we're both right. But from a serious SF perspective, I feel it's reaching more than a little bit to presume that an advanced superscience vessel beyond the near future would depend on similar structural engineering to fragile experimental spacecraft of the mid-to-late 20th Century. And so I still strongly believe these are mostly conceptional elements that are put in there to echo earlier design tropes -- both real and fictional -- that creators hope will ring familiar for viewers, and that that consideration is higher in their minds than what might be more plausible (even admitting that we have very little idea of what would be plausible; but given that, almost anything could be).

I love me some MST3k, but putting it ahead of Babylon 5's Shadow Battlecrab?

/trolled by EW
//the shame, the shame
///blames sheldon for the b5 h8

The Reliant and SDF-1.

Cyno01: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Cyno01: ArcadianRefugee: Since we are talking starcraft....

A lot of times you see ships that look something like this:

[www.orbiter-forum.com image 640x398]
EAS Cortez

What's the point in having portions of the ship separated with those long strut sections?

From a safety standpoint keeping the engines away from the living quarters is a good idea, radiation, possibility of explosion, that sorta thing. Modulability too i guess.

Can we just admit they do it because:

1) Kubrick did it
2) It looks neat

Thank you.

Well why does the ISS look like this?

[www.asc-csa.gc.ca image 640x361]

And not like this?

[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 640x456]

If theres no practicality to that sorta design.

The ISS doesn't build, service, and store gigantic spaceships. Spacedock does. When we have real fleets of starships, we'll likely build a similar-looking base station for them.

Tellingthem: My favorite. Still kind of creeps me out looking at the thing...
[images.wikia.com image 640x306]

I have a Klingon Bird of Prey in my office at work.

Did I mention I do simulations for the Navy?

The coolest part about the SDF1 is the Daedalus maneuver. Using your tiny little shield to cover the front of your aircraft carrier arm, punching a hole in the enemy ship, then open the bay doors of that carrier and have two dozen giant robots fire their full complement of weapons at the enemy from inside their ship.

Now that's badass.

Evil Twin Skippy: Tellingthem: My favorite. Still kind of creeps me out looking at the thing...
[images.wikia.com image 640x306]

I have a Klingon Bird of Prey in my office at work.

Did I mention I do simulations for the Navy?

Of what, a Klingon Bird of Prey?

moanerific: Virtual Pariah

I think that design-wise, the Earth Alliance and Narn ships from B5 are the most realistic. Omega Class had the rotating crew section for gravity. Narn ships didn't have any gravity, IIRC.

One of the novels(not so canon) said that Narn warships kept their thrusters on low for the first half of a trip, then flipped around and slowly decelerated as they approached their target. There you go, 'gravity'.

Becuase the ISS is solar powered, it looks vaguely like something with leaves.

FirstNationalBastard: Evil Mackerel: bluorangefyre: FirstNationalBastard: Well, a single Borg cube did a pretty good number in it.

Oh, and the Dominion destroyed it.

Done in one.

ALTHOUGH, the Sao Paolo was re-christened as Defiant almost immediately afterwards.

Its bad luck to rename ships.

Ah, but was the Sao Paolo ever really in service before becoming the Defiant-A?

It's entirely possible that the Sao Paolo was a brand new ship from the fleetyards that had been given the name and registration number, but was quickly diverted to DS9 to serve as the Defiant-A.

Now, the Yorktown being re-named as the Enterprise-A... That's more of a grey area.

Everything I've read, and from what I remember, the São Paulo, NCC-75633, was commissioned as an escort ship for use in the Dominion war. She was finished, the São Paulo launched, and was immediately taken by Adm. Ross to DS9, and delivered as a replacement to the Defiant. Adm Ross worked with Starfleet Ops to rename her the Defiant, in honor of all the work the previous Defiant did for the Federation. So, the São Paulo was in service under that name for only a short time. She was also not renamed or reregistered as the Defiant-A, she was, for all intents as purposes as far as registries are concerned, the Defiant. She was even assigned the same registry number, NX-74205, not NX-74205-A.

Hope that helps.

FirstNationalBastard: Actually, by the time it was renamed, it would had to have been NCC-74205. The NX prefix is reserved for experimental prototypes of a ship class. However, once the class goes into service, the ship's registry is usually changed from NX to NCC. I mean, look at the Excelsior. It was NX-2000 in Star Trek 3, but by the time Sulu commanded it in Star Trek VI, it was NCC-2000.

/Yeah, I know, they didn't want to create new visuals for just a couple episodes, so the shots of the Sao Paolo Defiant retained the old registry number. But in universe, the new Defiant would have either gotten the "-A" suffix, or kept the Sao Paolo's registry number.

//NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDSSSSSS!!!

The Defiant was a special case, though, as she was still under 'prototype' status due to the Romulan cloaking device she had onboard. The rest of the class were not authorized to carry a cloaking device. You are correct though with the change to the new Defiant, she should have had the NCC registry number, as the second Defiant did not have a cloaking device.

If there's any game that needs a good remake, its this one.

What the hell is an aluminum falcon anyways?

I would have liked to have seen the tardis make this list. But if I could make one other recommendation, I just watched Pandorum the other day, and wow, what a ship. Regardless of your opinion of the film, It's hard to not be in awe of the generation ship, and the vastness of it's depiction.

Tainted1: What the hell is an aluminum falcon anyways?

I don't know, but here's a bronze owl.

GypsyJoker: Tainted1: What the hell is an aluminum falcon anyways?

I don't know, but here's a bronze owl.

[wasistdas.co.uk image 640x360]

I hated that little bastard.

thornhill: Probably already been said:

The Enterprise from Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a beautiful understated design that holds up quite well. And I have a big soft spot for the Enterprise D.

The re-fit Enterprise from the first three movies, the Enterprise A from 5&6 and the Enterprise E are my personal favorites. Although the Defiant was pretty damn cool and I'd also have no problem with the Falcon at number one.

The Destiny is a good choice, too. Plus, after catching up on Stargate shows via Netflix, I've come to realize Atlantis got even less of a finale than Universe did.

Slartibartfast would like a word...

loonatic112358: devine: Hmm, does the Fleet of Worlds count?

Technically it's not a ringworld, but a kempler rosette

and the Puppeteers are cowards

Yup, but let's face it if the galaxy's core goes supernova, cowardice is the only sensible option.