What ticks you off about scifi spaceship designs?

[RainDreamer]

I am really annoyed about 2 things I see in a ton of fiction spaceships designs:

1. Wings. What the heck are they doing in space?

2. There is always an "up" side. Usually where an exposed bridge is located. This baffle me. Can be excused somewhat for small fighter craft since it is designed around a cockpit and a human can only be oriented one way, and it can turn fast enough due to low mass. Still can be better designed though. But looking at huge capital ships with a clearly vertical design somehow all aligned on the same spatial plane(?) to fight face to face really ticks me.

What about you?

[Red Iron Crown]

Pretty much everything listed here.

[Vanamonde]

Engines mounted so that they don't thrust through the center of mass. Damn near all SF ships do that.

[razark]

1. Wings. What the heck are they doing in space?

Large, flat panels with lots of surface area?

Those aren't wings. They're radiators.

[Dodgey]

Large, flat panels with lots of surface area?

Those aren't wings. They're radiators.

You give Hollywood too much credit. Form over function really ticks me off.

[razark]

You give Hollywood too much credit. Form over function really ticks me off.

It's not my fault if they get something right for the wrong reasons.

For 2001, the spaceship was purposely designed without radiator panels, specifically to avoid looking like it had wings.

[Red Iron Crown]

I've heard that Kubrick and Clarke fought over that, Clarke insisted that the Discovery needed a huge radiator while Kubrick didn't want it for aesthetic reasons.

[Stargate525]

Yup, because form over function never happens in real life...

It depends a LOT on how hard the setting is. Star Trek level hardness I have a lot of tolerance for, whereas 'hard' sci-fi I'm more critical of.

My biggest peeve across everything, though, is spindly-looking vessels that are designed for combat (Enterprise nacelle pylons, I'm looking at you. >.>).

[Brethern]

I view it like this. we don't have matter antimatter power generation, nor gravity generators or FTL travel.

So how are we supposed to even criticize a sci fi movie for getting it wrong, when our spacecraft are nothing more than a tin can with a bottle rocket on the end of it.

That's like a cave man telling a suburban man that hunting a saber toothed tiger is the only way to get food and that the grocery store is wrong.

[basic.syntax]

The Star Trek "reboot" Enterprise design. I'm OK with the glass and chrome inside, but... they broke a long convention, by lowering the warp nacelles to the same level as the primary saucer, taking away their line of sight to space ahead, obscuring the "Bussard Collectors" magical ability to collect... energetic particles, or whatever it is they are supposed to be collecting. And yes, spindly pylons... they were visually beefed up, from the original series, to the movie versions.

[Camacha]

Pretty much everything listed here.

I do not agree with the turning issue there. If you turn your craft while burning your engine, you will get a sweeping motion.

[NovaSilisko]

I've heard that Kubrick and Clarke fought over that, Clarke insisted that the Discovery needed a huge radiator while Kubrick didn't want it for aesthetic reasons.

Kubrick thought it would make the audience think it had wings and was thus designed to fly through an atmosphere. Not a lot of faith in his audience, there...

[Camacha]

Kubrick thought it would make the audience think it had wings and was thus designed to fly through an atmosphere. Not a lot of faith in his audience, there...

Though probably rightfully so.

[Bill Phil]

Wait...

So... The OP is referring to fictional science?

What ticks me off most...

When it's designed unrealistically, even though there wasn't any gain to do so...

Besides that...

Arranging everything in decks throughout the whole ship. Maybe a centrifuge could be decked, but decking the whole ship requires some wizardry, for artificial gravity of course.

[Camacha]

Maybe a centrifuge could be decked, but decking the whole ship requires some wizardry, for artificial gravity of course.

Or a continuously burning engine. If yo accelerate for half the journey and decelerate for the other half you could build a ship with normally oriented decks for sure.

[Bill Phil]

Or a continuously burning engine. If yo accelerate for half the journey and decelerate for the other half you could build a ship with normally oriented decks for sure.

But few ships in scifi do that...

I'm also referring to the ships with artificial gravity that comes from "gravity plating" or something.

Also, what about when it's turning around? It would be in freefall, so decking wouldn't help much.

[Camacha]

Also, what about when it's turning around? It would be in freefall, so decking wouldn't help much.

That would be a negligible amount of time compared to the full journey and a short amount of time in any case.

[Bill Phil]

That would be a negligible amount of time compared to the full journey and a short amount of time in any case.

Unless the ship takes a while to turn...

Ships like that will also spend tike in orbit over planets. Probably a large amount. What about then?

[razark]

Unless the ship takes a while to turn...

The time spent turning will still be extremely small compared to the entire rest of the voyage. If your ship takes more time to turn around than burning, you need to go back to the drawing board.

Ships like that will also spend tike in orbit over planets. Probably a large amount. What about then?

What about it? Periods of zero-g don't negate the usefulness of a normal deck organization during travel time.

[Camacha]

Unless the ship takes a while to turn...

Ships like that will also spend tike in orbit over planets. Probably a large amount. What about then?

I do not see a problem.

[Pipcard]

I enjoy both hard/realistic spacecraft designs (with solar panels, radiators, realistic/plausible propulsion methods, etc.) and Star Trek's softer/unrealistic starships.

When I want a soft sci-fi spaceship, I prefer mine with saucers and warp nacelles, not looking like boxy bricks.

Although that trope analysis page bothers me somewhat, because the ISS aesthetic (which I love) is different from the blocky ships (which I find ugly) that the trope page is describing. Also, space battles make great entertainment, but we should not try to make them "truth in television." Keep space peaceful.

This trope is probably going to be Truth in Television for military spacecraft in the near-future (with the earliest favoring the tinkertoy/habitrail/industrial plumbing aesthetic of the International Space Station), just because of the limits of our launching methods  cylindrical rocket sections bolted together in space. Eventually, though, it may become a relic of the near-present as space-based construction becomes easier.

Will space-based construction become easier, though? I love the realism and practicality of cylindrical pre-fabricated modules that use the volume inside a rocket fairing, but will it ever be practical to construct a spacecraft that is a different shape and/or not constrained by fairing size? Otherwise, I can't accept anything other than cylinders for hard sci-fi spacecraft (that don't enter an atmosphere).

________________

The Star Trek "reboot" Enterprise design. I'm OK with the glass and chrome inside, but... they broke a long convention, by lowering the warp nacelles to the same level as the primary saucer, taking away their line of sight to space ahead, obscuring the "Bussard Collectors" magical ability to collect... energetic particles, or whatever it is they are supposed to be collecting. And yes, spindly pylons... they were visually beefed up, from the original series, to the movie versions.

They weren't obscured, though?

Edited June 4, 2015 by Pipcard

[daniel l.]

How everything is based on shields and when they go down the entire ship is tissue paper.

Also the idea that lasers make things explode.

[Camacha]

How everything is based on shields and when they go down the entire ship is tissue paper.

That actually makes sense. If you can use energy shielding you do not have to lug heavy pieces of space ship with you or to space at all. I think NASA engineers would kill for good, light shielding against high velocity space debris.

Also the idea that lasers make things explode.

This could be true. If a laser with enough energy hits anything, the instant vaporisation of the part hit will cause gasses to violently expel.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Camacha

[daniel l.]

That actually makes sense. If you can use energy shielding you do not have to lug heavy pieces of space ship with you or to space at all. I think NASA engineers would kill for good, light shielding against high velocity space debris.

This could be true. If a laser with enough energy hits anything, the instant vaporisation of the part hit will cause gasses to violently expel.

But what about the dumb idea that lasers make pewpew sounds, there is no air in space and if there was all you would hear was the laser gun humming as it worked, plus why do spaceships in scifis have massive amount s of interior space when all they need is enough for the crew, all that extra space should be used for more reactors or armor or guns.

[Camacha]

why do spaceships in scifis have massive amount s of interior space when all they need is enough for the crew, all that extra space should be used for more reactors or armor or guns.

There might be psychological reasons for that. Going off into space, possibly never to be seen again is stressful enough. Being cooped up in a soup can certainly is not going to help. It might very well be that somewhat spacious living quarters are required for long term, healthy survival.

Do not forget that so far, in real life, we only made it to the garden shed. Anyone can crash out in one of those for a night, but living in one for the rest of your life is another matter.