martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
Realistic means something is rooted in reality. Interplanetary spacecraft concepts with nuclear thermal propulsion are, while vampires are not.
Fictional (But Realistic) Spacecraft
- Thread starter ozmosis
- Start date
The Wave
ACCESS: Restricted
Can both examples not be equally realistic?
In 2001, the spaceship Discovery One is a nuclear thermally propelled starship, which does not exist in real life and has only had concepts made on paper and computer graphics. While there are atomic propelled robots on other planets such as Mars and even a station orbiting our planet, we still have had no interstellar travel utilizing nuclear propulsion or starships colonizing other planets.
Vampires do not exist in real life, but have had fantastical concepts written to paper in stories. Additionally, there are people in the real world who suffer from the rare skin condition of Xeroderma pigmentosum, which causes an extreme sensitivity to sunlight and thus do not leave their homes during the day. There are also ritualistic sacrifices by ancient people and remote tribes who consume blood as a religious and sacred tradition, so I would say that both things are equally realistic in an abstract/concrete way.
To give another example, in the recent blockbuster movie Morbius, the protagonist Michael Morbius is a dying scientist who undergoes genetic therapy and treatment for his cancer which modifies his DNA and cellular structure so his body craves hemoglobin molecules which are found in blood. This depiction of vampires is more realistic than a classical vampire movie like Dracula where Bela Lugosi performs as a mythical beast with no regard for modern medicine and technology, so I think you could call it both a more realistic vampire movie and a realistic movie in general.
As drejr said, the aesthetic verisimilitude of the movie makes you believe that Michael Morbius is truly a DNA modified vampirical scientist, and 2001 makes you believe that there really could be nuclear spaceships and monoliths on the moon when both are in the same realm of plausibility.
Last edited:
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
NO. The very basic qualitative clue is your correct statement that "Vampires do not exist in real life", whereas NERVA was successfully ground tested in real life (TRL 6) - do you *really* not grasp the *FUNDAMENTAL* difference between existence and nonexistence??? But the fact alone that you grossly misclassify Discovery One as a "starship", whereas it really was an interplanetary spacecraft design never intended to venture outside the Solar System on interstellar voyages, makes me suspect that you really don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about, son.
Last edited:
The Wave
ACCESS: Restricted
There is no need to become upset.
I am simply posing a philosophical question in that both are fictional movies and take inspiration from real world elements. One uses experimental engines on a fictional ship in space, the other uses DNA splicing and unstable modifications on humans (a la CRISPR) to justify the need to consume specific nutrients in blood. They both take elements from real world concepts and real things to create a sense of realism, but they are both fiction and not reality at their core.
Yes, the NERVA engine was successfully tested once, but there are currently no interplanetary ships in existence. People can have medical conditions where they are extremely allergic to sunlight and there are tribes who consume blood ritualistically; it's possible to modify one's DNA (or condition them mentally) so they crave the specific nutrients in hemoglobin. These two comparisons are not so different in that regard. One is a pseudo-vampire named Morbius who says the catchphrase "It's Morbing time" and the other is a starship with an AI named HAL who is sorry because he "can't do that"; both of these things could theoretically be created but they do not exist.
USSC Discovery One travels in space amongst a backdrop of stars, so I think it's okay to refer to it as a "starship". There is little difference between "starship" "spaceship" "spacecraft", they all effectively mean the same thing, much like "airplane" "aeroplane" "aircraft" etc
I am simply posing a philosophical question in that both are fictional movies and take inspiration from real world elements. One uses experimental engines on a fictional ship in space, the other uses DNA splicing and unstable modifications on humans (a la CRISPR) to justify the need to consume specific nutrients in blood. They both take elements from real world concepts and real things to create a sense of realism, but they are both fiction and not reality at their core.
Yes, the NERVA engine was successfully tested once, but there are currently no interplanetary ships in existence. People can have medical conditions where they are extremely allergic to sunlight and there are tribes who consume blood ritualistically; it's possible to modify one's DNA (or condition them mentally) so they crave the specific nutrients in hemoglobin. These two comparisons are not so different in that regard. One is a pseudo-vampire named Morbius who says the catchphrase "It's Morbing time" and the other is a starship with an AI named HAL who is sorry because he "can't do that"; both of these things could theoretically be created but they do not exist.
USSC Discovery One travels in space amongst a backdrop of stars, so I think it's okay to refer to it as a "starship". There is little difference between "starship" "spaceship" "spacecraft", they all effectively mean the same thing, much like "airplane" "aeroplane" "aircraft" etc
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
First, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA - it was tested successfully more than once, but I should not be surprised that your... statements are at odds with... well, reality.
But can you point me to ONE SINGLE SCIENTIFIC PAPER that explicitly supports your harebrained vampire DNA modification fantasies with concrete evidence and approaches? If not, then that's all it is - fantasy, but not (even bad) science fiction...
Your last argument is like saying "well, a cruise ship travels against the backdrop of the sky, and it's surrounded by air, so it's okay to refer to it as an "airship". NO. But let me fix that for ya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship. So NO, starship, spaceship, and spacecraft DO NOT all effectively mean the same thing. Gaslighting much, trolling, or just plain... ignorant?
Last edited:
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,665
- Reaction score
- 4,165
I have to disagree about Morbius being in any way realistic. Morbius' acquired superhuman strength and supersense are fantasy, the bloodlust could easily be sated by regular visits to the nearest abattoir.
I am mildly surprised the word realistic makes an appearance in any discussion of the Marvel-'universe'.
It's morbing time lol
Anyway, I'm not sure if the big "What if" of 2001 isn't "What if nuclear spacecraft existed?" but "What if nuclear spacecraft existed because space gods uplifted apes with space magic during an astronomical conjunction in the distant past?"
A mutation on a block of a chromosome screwing with the corpus callosum and protein expression seems like small beans as far as fantasy goes.
The poster doesn't have much to do with the movie.
Anyway, I'm not sure if the big "What if" of 2001 isn't "What if nuclear spacecraft existed?" but "What if nuclear spacecraft existed because space gods uplifted apes with space magic during an astronomical conjunction in the distant past?"
A mutation on a block of a chromosome screwing with the corpus callosum and protein expression seems like small beans as far as fantasy goes.
The poster doesn't have much to do with the movie.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,665
- Reaction score
- 4,165
You could question the realism of space gods uplifting apes with space magic, but this thread is mainly concerned with fictional, but realistic spacecraft. Kubrick also made The Shining, with various loose ends that heavily suggested spiritual and/or magical factors at work.
I maintain Discovery offers a broadly realistic spacecraft, with a mostly credible (the spinning section should have been larger) solution for artificial gravity and a configuration that kept the crew at a distance from the reactor's radiation. It should have kept its radiators, though. In all, 2001 offers a believable technological backdrop to a story that I admit has major magical elements. I still love it.
I maintain Discovery offers a broadly realistic spacecraft, with a mostly credible (the spinning section should have been larger) solution for artificial gravity and a configuration that kept the crew at a distance from the reactor's radiation. It should have kept its radiators, though. In all, 2001 offers a believable technological backdrop to a story that I admit has major magical elements. I still love it.
The horror genre has always been a vampire parasite of hard science fiction, it started with Frankenstein, continued with Alien and finally has managed to end the scientific part of fantasy. A bad parasite is the one that kills the host. In my opinion, the time has come to open the windows for the vampires to leave... and Batman with them.
I'l refrain from the totally off topic 'vampire mythos' (this film as as far as i will go) but i did like the stretched 'Winston Churchill' with its little canards, massive solar wings and NERVA. 
Attachments
Kat Tsun
eeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Joined
- 16 June 2013
- Messages
- 1,200
- Reaction score
- 1,531
Ye but a lot of Theseus in cover artwork lacks the "carapace" anyway, whatever that's supposed to be. It's all based on the website art which explicitly mentions that bit. I guess that's where the radiators would be, but maybe it's more like the Space Shuttle where the radiators are just integrated into the structure, so it's not a big deal.
The world needs more SF authors like Peter Watts and W.H. Keith who publish their artwork and writing processes on their websites.
Last edited:
That would have made more sense on Buran than the Nerva through the belly…but that was Buck’s Ranger 3:i did like the stretched 'Winston Churchill' with its little canards, massive solar wings and NERVA.
Ranger 3
Ranger 3 is the shuttle like space probe used by Buck Rogers for his five month exploration of the solar system. Ranger 3 was the designation of the long range space probe that Buck Rogers was selected to fly on a six month exploration of the Solar System in 1987. Unfortunatly, an unforseen...
As far as 2001 goes…the Orion III spaceplane aesthetics better fit the Drax space station from MOONRAKER:
View: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02VJdRa9vQcBBxGfTTo2YAVYdGWBbxBmsaDiTBKueyyUGDsz5Aihq1bPQsSykTozMZl&id=100032407346313
-and the Moonraker shuttles I could see servicing Space Station V from 2001. That seems a more realistic pairing.
Rhinocrates
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 26 September 2006
- Messages
- 2,638
- Reaction score
- 6,265
I prefer the Cronenbergean horror to jump scares. They start with 'Oh? You say that like it's a bad thing...' Vampires have been updated in the form of a certain psychiatrist, no supernatural or even transhuman powers needed. As for Batman, it's certainly ever-diminishing circles around the drain - there is, after all, only so much you can do with the character.
Hollywood's problem is that huge budgets mean huge financial risks, driving films towards 'proven' formulas and franchising models that eventually become stale and rigid. The Marvel superhero movies epitomise this.
Last edited:
Rhinocrates
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 26 September 2006
- Messages
- 2,638
- Reaction score
- 6,265
A rather witty or incredibly depressing guide to stereotypical sf spacecraft. The stereotyping of design is part of the reliance on formula I mention above. The depressing bit is that given vast creative possibilities, they always default to 'what would happen if a tank and an aircraft carrier had a baby that then grew really, really big?'
The guidelines in use by countless engineers in multiple fictional continuities seem to roughly converge on the following:
The guidelines in use by countless engineers in multiple fictional continuities seem to roughly converge on the following:
- Human spaceships should be grey. While some important parts may be coloured, the majority of the spaceship should be the colour of unpainted metal (Truth in Television, as a coat of paint is surprisingly heavy: a Boeing 747 takes about half a tonne). In saturated anime palettes, said color may be rendered as blue or green. In American works, military ships may also be painted olive-drab in utter defiance of common sense. More post-modern, Cyberpunk-influenced works can cover them in gratuitous, dazzling and obtrusive advertising and massive corporate logos instead; a Space Station is particularly prone to getting this "truck stop in space" visual treatment.
- While not required, visibly being constructed from riveted metal plates is encouraged, as are Borg cube-like details called greebles or nurnies.
Bonus points for including actual space station equipment such as airlocks, solar batteries, and external manipulators. Note that fictional vessels tend to use enormous amounts of energy yet typically lack thermal radiators
to shed waste heat (no air-cooling in space). Although that could explain all the so-called wings...
- Since Our Weapons Will Be Boxy in the Future, larger spaceships must be angular too; the standard human spaceship will be mostly rectangular with engines on one end and weapons on the other.
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
Those Drax shuttles were just NASA STS with a different paint job. Given their actual real life NASA flight rates, costs, and losses, there is no way they could have credibly provided logistics for Space Station V, let alone built it up, but then again the same is indeed true for the Drax station, since it is much closer in terms of size and occupancy to Space Station V than to MIR or the ISS (though engineering wise it's a complete mess).That would have made more sense on Buran than the Nerva through the belly…but that was Buck’s Ranger 3:
Ranger 3
Ranger 3 is the shuttle like space probe used by Buck Rogers for his five month exploration of the solar system. Ranger 3 was the designation of the long range space probe that Buck Rogers was selected to fly on a six month exploration of the Solar System in 1987. Unfortunatly, an unforseen...buckrogers.fandom.com
As far as 2001 goes…the Orion III spaceplane aesthetics better fit the Drax space station from MOONRAKER:
View: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02VJdRa9vQcBBxGfTTo2YAVYdGWBbxBmsaDiTBKueyyUGDsz5Aihq1bPQsSykTozMZl&id=100032407346313
-and the Moonraker shuttles I could see servicing Space Station V from 2001. That seems a more realistic pairing.
Last edited:
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
Recall though that this is a discussion of fictional (but realistic) spacecraft designs, and not of horror movie styles or motion picture economics.
Last edited:
A rather witty or incredibly depressing guide to stereotypical sf spacecraft. The stereotyping of design is part of the reliance on formula I mention above. The depressing bit is that given vast creative possibilities, they always default to 'what would happen if a tank and an aircraft carrier had a baby that then grew really, really big?'
The guidelines in use by countless engineers in multiple fictional continuities seem to roughly converge on the following:
- Human spaceships should be grey. While some important parts may be coloured, the majority of the spaceship should be the colour of unpainted metal (Truth in Television, as a coat of paint is surprisingly heavy: a Boeing 747 takes about half a tonne). In saturated anime palettes, said color may be rendered as blue or green. In American works, military ships may also be painted olive-drab in utter defiance of common sense. More post-modern, Cyberpunk-influenced works can cover them in gratuitous, dazzling and obtrusive advertising and massive corporate logos instead; a Space Station is particularly prone to getting this "truck stop in space" visual treatment.
- While not required, visibly being constructed from riveted metal plates is encouraged, as are Borg cube-like details called greebles or nurnies.
- Since Our Weapons Will Be Boxy in the Future, larger spaceships must be angular too; the standard human spaceship will be mostly rectangular with engines on one end and weapons on the other.
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
So what's that weird beaky floaty thing above Theseus in the second picture from the bottom supposed to be? Aliens? Divine Intervention? Lunch truck equivalent? Don't worry, it won't be a spoiler, since I'll never read that particular "opus" anyway.
Last edited:
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
Lost me right there. You seem to confuse hard science fiction with lighthearted comedy. I recommend some remedial Michael Crichton reading.
Last edited:
Peter Watts said that this version of the Theseus was terrible.
The is CG trailer by Danil Krivoruchko's team (Watts collaborated with them) that is very close to what Peter Watts had in mind.
Watts also have a cool model of ship in his office.
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
Good thing that in space no one can hear you scream...
Last edited:
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
Form Follows Function.One of the most capable spacecraft—Apollo—had a cone up front…one in back—and a simple cylinder in between.
Future spacecraft will likely also look like Volvo products…that’s my guess
Kat Tsun
eeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Joined
- 16 June 2013
- Messages
- 1,200
- Reaction score
- 1,531
It's the Monolith/TMA-1 of the book, obviously.
2001 and Blindsight have a lot more in common than you seem to want to deny, though, because you read about a salient plot point and dismissed it out of hand. They're both funny first contact stories with vastly more intelligent aliens who turn out to be vaguely inimical to human life for their own reasons. Blindsight's being more rooted in evolutionary competition (a sort of pessimism it shares with Cixin's Dark Forest trilogy) and 2001's being more rooted in ecological preservation (a message about nature it shares with Herbert's Dune). I guess they reflect their times well enough.
But I'm just talking about the design language (i.e. shapes/forms, the time periods they were made, and their relevant inspirations) of the fictional starship from the website and covers of the book. I sort of waded into the conversation after skimming yours and Rhinocrates and found it weird you were willing to ignore all aspects of a science fiction story because it had literally one (imo funny/interesting) plot element in it.
We all give fiction a pass at these things because they capture our imagination in one form or another. All of the logic of the arguments you've been hoisting against Blindsight can be applied in equal measure to 2001, after all, because it's just aesthetic snobbery over a major plot point, one ultimately as immaterial to the starship's visual design as the starship's design itself is to the plot.
I don't inherently disagree with your initial statement that fictional starships can be rooted in realistic design and "TRL" scales. There was a Brad Pitt movie like this, which was being touted as a super realistic space movie a few years ago, but it wasn't very good. "drejr" brought up the notoriously bad Moon Zero Two. Gravity is an actually good film about this sort of stuff and I thought the whole plot about the mysterious Soviet LK Lander and face smashed Gyrfalcon in Apollo 18 was really cool, even if the movie itself was ultimately about killer hermit crabs. There aren't enough movies about the plucky Soviet space program.
That said...
I disagree that Discovery One is more rooted more in engineering than in symbolism. The thing is shaped like...a thing, and it's pretty obvious when you watch the movie that the little space pod trucks are another thing, and then there's the fetus at the end. It's got a lot more symbolism in it than it has literalism, that's for sure. Comparatively, the design language of Theseus drawn by Peter Watts is rooted in modern starships and space stations and that alone makes it substantially more "realistic" than the symbolic club-shaped nuclear missile satellites, and rather risque club-shaped Discovery One, of 2001.
Perhaps this is because Discovery One is more integral to the whole plot of 2001 whereas Blindsight makes it more a tertiary component. Where else are we going to find funny superintelligence if not in space?
Just because the book has a funny explanation for Paleo-Dracula doesn't mean its starship isn't realistic. Just because a starship is shaped like a fertility symbol doesn't mean it's unrealistic either. Discovery One and Theseus are probably comparably realistic in that they both used relevant-of-their-time designs borrowed from news articles and cutting edge science, except Theseus is only seen on a book cover and Discovery One is in a movie. Theseus is also more starship-y while Discovery One has to wear two hats of being a realistic enough starship and a lightning rod for one of the more salient themes of the film.
Perhaps 2010 could have reused the Discovery One model with some mylar wrapped fuel tanks strapped to the engine and connected by a mess of cabling to the main engine? That would probably be too on-the-nose though. Babylon 5 would have turned out way weirder if they had to work with that instead of the actual Leonov model too.
Last edited:
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
There is *nothing* "weird" about pointing out elements of a *science* fiction story that don't conform with established science - I find it weird that you apparently *don't* follow that logic. As an aerospace engineer I'm looking for plausibility and consistency. In general I prefer story lines that are hard(core) science fiction and then introduce *one* element of surprise (i.e. monolith). BTW, Michael Crichton, whom I had the pleasure to encounter in person in another Millenium on another Continent, was in my view the supreme master of that kind of plot. So no, "we all" do *NOT* give fiction a pass at "these things" - speak for yourself, but don't tell me what to do, ok? I do agree though that Ad Astra was a train wreck - they lost me at the baboon scene... Good plots are taut and economical, not sprawling or rambling - I may be wrong, but from what I understand about Blindsight based on the discussion above, having a vampire on board seems to be completely unnecessary for the larger story line, so why even introduce it in the first place? And once again, Discovery is NOT wearing "two hats" BECAUSE IT IS NOT A *STARSHIP* (seriously, did you deliberately slip that mischaracterization in just to tick me off, or was it just actual sheer ignorance?)! 2001 was created with the collaboration of science and engineering experts as well as actual aerospace companies. Blindsight was created in collaboration with... recreational drugs (just guessing...)?
Last edited:
Kat Tsun
eeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Joined
- 16 June 2013
- Messages
- 1,200
- Reaction score
- 1,531
Yet you literally give Discovery One a pass for not broiling the crew alive due to its lack of radiators. Which should be the actual movie: just dudes dying of heatstroke because they forgot to add the radiators to their ship. But it isn't. Because it was filmed in Britain, not in space, so yes, "we all", as in "humans", definitely do this. It's called "suspension of disbelief".
I'm sure there's no fertility symbolism in the movie that ends with a fetus overlooking the Earth after the phallic starship travels to Jupiter.
Anyway I don't see what vampires has to do with Theseus's visual design.
Because the plot of Blindsight is a science fiction story about people discovering that consciousness, introspection, and what we might call the very essence of what we call "Humanity" is holding us back from achieving evolutionary success, it is pretty thematically dense. Not as dense as 2001, which despite you liking it, introduces a lot of things beyond just the Monolith.
The most successful organisms in Blindsight's story are completely unconscious automata that think at the speed of reflex, just at a intellectual level far beyond ants or whatever, and humans end up stuck in a local maxima due to consciousness. The vampire is necessary, to show something that sits between these unconscious superintelligences like Rorschach and the Captain of Theseus, and more importantly it's a way for the Captain to interact and boss the crew around.
Writing around characters lacking introspection, individual consciousness, and aesthetic values is important because otherwise there would be nothing to write about, which is why there is a human crew. This is sort of lampshaded in the book at one point where the crew wonder why they sent people at all, but Theseus's mission command assumed that anything they find would require a human touch, because the Mission Command is only human.
I just find your weird hyper focus on the "telematter" engine of Theseus, and the vampires, as opposed to its visual design aspects that make the ship look like something NASA might build at the Lunar Gateway, odd. I feel like if Rhinocrates hadn't mentioned the antimatter engine and the vampires, or if you simply hadn't spontaneously come across the plot beats first, but rather an image of Theseus itself first, you would have a completely different opinion about the ship.
Which is weird, to me, because I usually segregate visuals from themes. Theseus has no thematic requirements beyond "it needs to look like something NASA could make".
Contrast this with 2001, whereas Discovery One has a ton of thematic requirements, in addition to being realistic. This might make Discovery One a more significant and audacious undertaking, because the visual design has to be both realistic (for its time, obviously it looks nothing like a spaceship would today) and translate thematic understanding, but the only reason those engineers were consulted in the first place is because Kubrick had a running theme of using powerful fertility images in his films. Or maybe he used powerful humanistic images? You can easily read Discovery One as a spinal column and a human brain. Or a eyeball and an optic nerve.
Unfortunately the film ends with a shot of a fetus overlooking Earth, so I think Kubrick had one real vision in mind (a nascent God-like entity overwatching the Earth after its birth), but he was open enough about the themes to design the ship with multiple valid interpretations. There are books literally written about this, while Clarke himself had a belief that mankind and machines would eventually merge to create a super man, which is what actually happens at the end. Because the film is very vague and probably should be watched before reading the novel tbh.
Blindsight is more about Clarke's future of man and machine combining and it creates a better machine, rather than a better man.
All that said, it's about as pedantic and nitpicky as focusing on the lack of radiators of Discovery One, or its mere existence being more for the symbolism of a film masquerading as a science fiction film but being more about the poetic man's search for meaning and God in the natural world, when the spaceships actually look cool and you ignore the design of the ship in favor of focusing on a minor and irrelevant plot point about a book you said you won't read.
Okay? What does that have to do with Theseus being cool looking? I'm probably not going to watch 2001 more than once or twice in my lifetime but I can still appreciate that the nuclear missile satellites and Discovery One look cool, although I prefer the Leonov from 2010 by far. Discovery One always looked a bit naked to me.
TRL scales and stuff aren't important for cool, realistic spaceships, but you can make cool, realistic spaceships without using TRL scales. Discovery One, obviously, predates TRLs? How did they design a ship that is so evocative and capturing of the imagination without them? Probably because Discovery One was designed around thematic symbolism over hard realism. That doesn't mean it's not realistic, for its time, but the main driver was the theme of the movie: the merging of man and machine into a new form of life that creates a ultra intelligent superman.
Comparatively, Theseus's main driver was "I think this looks cool and realistic":
Probably closer to Discovery One if it were built in real life tbh and certainly more of a 1980s spaceship in appearance.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Messages
- 2,543
- Reaction score
- 1,767
While aircraft are allowed graceful lines…and subs too…my shorthand for Sci-fi craft is “realistic means ugly.”
The two satellites I give a pass to are GOCE and the Saturn Pegasus…I wonder if that influenced Lucas?
The Imperial Star Destroyer is just a spearhead shaped supertanker wearing a Stahlhelm atop the bridge.
Even though George wanted “Starkiller,”
I picture Lucas driving down Rt. 66 and buying peyote from a Native American with Michael Ansara’s voice and a last name that equates to “He who treads on the sky.” The local cowboys could not pronounce it—so they gave him the nickname “Luke.”
The two satellites I give a pass to are GOCE and the Saturn Pegasus…I wonder if that influenced Lucas?
The Imperial Star Destroyer is just a spearhead shaped supertanker wearing a Stahlhelm atop the bridge.
Even though George wanted “Starkiller,”
I picture Lucas driving down Rt. 66 and buying peyote from a Native American with Michael Ansara’s voice and a last name that equates to “He who treads on the sky.” The local cowboys could not pronounce it—so they gave him the nickname “Luke.”
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
Well hello there Kat Tsun (sorry, still trying to get mental associations with feline pet food brands out of my thought processes when coming across a moniker like that), chill, dude, relax, whatever. Me thinks you're way overinterpreting scifi (and as a German aerospace engineer with a penchant for futuristic aerospace architectures I'd tell you to really reconsider your life priorities), but whatever works for you, friendo. It really just comes down to me really liking 2001 and really disliking Buffy and any and all other associated inane vampire crap, comprende (well, ok, I admit that What We Do in the Shadows is the *one* glaring exception - Matt Berry really just devours the scenery in this one like a nuclear powered wood chipper!)? The fact that you find my focus on the hokey telematter engines of Theseus and vampires(!) odd tells me you're no aerospace engineer, but fret not, not everybody is cut out to be successful in plying that very particular trade (I recently completed 35 years in that very profession on both sides of the Atlantic and am about to be feted for a quarter century career in a major US aerospace company as a resident alien (BTW, Resident Alien is also a marvelous killer show to watch!)). But I feel like I digress... anyway, 2001 rules ok! But you do you, bro.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,927
- Reaction score
- 9,128
My take on realistic Spacecraft - from Alternate History 2001: a Space Time Odyssey
here cold war has hot space race since Soviet landen on moon on July 4, 1969.
I used here all kind of NASA studies from 1970s to 1980s picked what best suited.
On Soviet ship design i consult Encyclopedia Astronautica and Buran.ru
The NASA mission ARES 1/2 use Nerva engines, Modified Space station Modul.
The Soviets use Nuclear power Ion engines (in Story there Nerva program had nuclear disaster in 1970s)
On radiation protection for Soviets there have 80 meter distance between Orbital complex and shielded nuclear Reactors
The US Nuclear Ferry use different system with Standpipe that serve as additional shield filled with hydrogen
and additional polyethylene foam block was placed on top part of the main hydrogen tank. (not illustrated)
Two Ferry have Beryllium shields to prevent that Nerva engines interact by their Neutrons output.
here cold war has hot space race since Soviet landen on moon on July 4, 1969.
I used here all kind of NASA studies from 1970s to 1980s picked what best suited.
On Soviet ship design i consult Encyclopedia Astronautica and Buran.ru
The NASA mission ARES 1/2 use Nerva engines, Modified Space station Modul.
The Soviets use Nuclear power Ion engines (in Story there Nerva program had nuclear disaster in 1970s)
On radiation protection for Soviets there have 80 meter distance between Orbital complex and shielded nuclear Reactors
The US Nuclear Ferry use different system with Standpipe that serve as additional shield filled with hydrogen
and additional polyethylene foam block was placed on top part of the main hydrogen tank. (not illustrated)
Two Ferry have Beryllium shields to prevent that Nerva engines interact by their Neutrons output.
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
I'd still like to see a centrifuge though, or perhaps two counter rotating ones.My take on realistic Spacecraft - from Alternate History 2001: a Space Time Odyssey
here cold war has hot space race since Soviet landen on moon on July 4, 1969.
I used here all kind of NASA studies from 1970s to 1980s picked what best suited.
On Soviet ship design i consult Encyclopedia Astronautica and Buran.ru
The NASA mission ARES 1/2 use Nerva engines, Modified Space station Modul.
The Soviets use Nuclear power Ion engines (in Story there Nerva program had nuclear disaster in 1970s)
On radiation protection for Soviets there have 80 meter distance between Orbital complex and shielded nuclear Reactors
The US Nuclear Ferry use different system with Standpipe that serve as additional shield filled with hydrogen
and additional polyethylene foam block was placed on top part of the main hydrogen tank. (not illustrated)
Two Ferry have Beryllium shields to prevent that Nerva engines interact by their Neutrons output.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,665
- Reaction score
- 4,165
Attachments
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
I'd like to see more detail and design justification on the size/volume of the rotating section living modules though, but it's definitely on the right track
!
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,665
- Reaction score
- 4,165
Babylon 5’s Omegas owe much to that design:
Cortez is about the limit of believability
Cortez is about the limit of believability
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,665
- Reaction score
- 4,165
Stephen Baxter and Alastair Reynolds wrote a sequel to it: The Medusa Chronicles
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,927
- Reaction score
- 9,128
I not imply centrifuge in this designs, because for Mars Exploration are 600 to 800 days in space.
With good training program on board the crew can do those mission without artificial gravity.
I design also manned mission to Saturn Moon Titan for other Alternate History.
But entire Mission take 40 months, so it need artificial gravity by rotate the spacecrafts.
habitat on long Boom with other end nuclear reactors as counter weight
The engines and propellants tanks are at rotation center of Boom.
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
Well, if you refer to the design shown for example at https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/swordandlaser/images/f/f7/027-blindsight.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170423015209&tbnid=cWlDeRsM6anBtM&vet=12ahUKEwjwjKOnrNyAAxWCPkQIHT7qDqIQMygKegUIARDXAQ..i&imgrefurl=https://swordandlaser.fandom.com/wiki/Blindsight&docid=RYYtER23q8nf6M&w=600&h=877&q=blindsight watts&ved=2ahUKEwjwjKOnrNyAAxWCPkQIHT7qDqIQMygKegUIARDXAQ, the answer remains a firm NO, since this just looks like a hack job Klingon ripoff being rightfully lasered on from a thorny thicket to me, rather than an even halfway serious spacecraft design. Form Follows Function, remember?
Last edited:
The K2
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 29 June 2020
- Messages
- 255
- Reaction score
- 575
Known today as “old school” SFX. But I feel that just as good as today.
Meddings magic miniatures - JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN : Gerry Anderson's big screen science fiction epic with long time effects designer Derek Meddings.
This is one of those films that had always escaped me back in the day though not through any fault of my own - it just never seemed to play ...
nzpetesmatteshot.blogspot.com
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,927
- Reaction score
- 9,128
Irony of History
Allot of crew of Medding Team, who worked on Journey to the far side of the Sun (aka Doppelgänger)
Got hired by Stanley Kubrick for Models building and support SFX for 2001: A Space Odyssey
because Derek Medding and his team was one best SFX Specialists of their time.
Some of their best work.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi2QVirXBVQ
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAEBZjVRbAc
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8PR3QIwXHs
Allot of crew of Medding Team, who worked on Journey to the far side of the Sun (aka Doppelgänger)
Got hired by Stanley Kubrick for Models building and support SFX for 2001: A Space Odyssey
because Derek Medding and his team was one best SFX Specialists of their time.
Some of their best work.
Similar threads
-
-
-
Space: 1959 "Space Age" concept poster on cardboard- Started by Triton
- Replies: 22
-
-
2001: A Space-Time Odyssey- Started by Michel Van
- Replies: 144