Realistic starship equipment vs scifi equipment

[Spacescifi]

 

It is ironic when real equipment can rival or even be better than scifi equipment for a ship. A list I will start and you may add to if you wish.

 

Robotic arms vs tractor beams: Personally, if I want to grab an asteroid that has less mass than my ship, I would rather grab it with a foldable robotic arm. It would be cheaper to make and should cost less in waste heat and energy to operate than a kind of energy/plasma based towing beam often depicted in media scifi.

Even if an asteroid was more massive than my ship, I would rather land and make an imporr/export base out of it, or perhaps a spaceship, as I slowly burn off rock as reaction mass.

 

 

Your turn! What modern spacecraft equipment rivals or is even superior in someway to scifi starship equipment.

 

[Guest]

I think that realistic control and navigation systems are pretty cool. A lot of media starships have a lot of unlabeled buttons, screens that don't show anything sensible and controls that would be very hard to use IRL. Real spaceships have controls that are actually quite logical and easy to understand, once you know where everything is (which also follows logic, though it may not be that obvious at the first glance).

[Spacescifi]

3 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

I think that realistic control and navigation systems are pretty cool. A lot of media starships have a lot of unlabeled buttons, screens that don't show anything sensible and controls that would be very hard to use IRL. Real spaceships have controls that are actually quite logical and easy to understand, once you know where everything is (which also follows logic, though it may not be that obvious at the first glance).

 

True. I will add another:

 

Guns vs laser pistols.

Styro Pyro always wears eye protection, because even laser reflecting off the target or a wall can damage vision.

Guns are lethal enough and won't hurt the user like a laser might.

Plasma or particle beam pistols are also dangerous for users.

Last I checked, plasma welders wear eye protection to protect their eyes. Also if the plasma coming out is hot enough to burn through a wall, it's hot enough to burn the guy firing the pistol. Heat is omnidirectional in the air and does not care about the guy shooting it.

Particle beam pistols would likely not only require eye protection but radiation suits, since particle beams leave behind radiation that can give the person firing them cancer.

 

Riker would very much need 23rd century tech to not go blind or get cancer as much as he fires his phaser particle beam pistol.

[Scotius]

Seatbelts. Circuit breakers. Fire extinguishers. Control panels made out of materials that do not actively explode. Bridges without large, easily breakable windows.

Basically everything that made me facepalm while watching Star Trek

[kerbiloid]

Closed bay doors where people are standing.

Spoiler

 

[DDE]

12 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

What modern spacecraft equipment rivals or is even superior in someway to scifi starship equipment.

Newton's First Law.

[kerbiloid]

Newton's Laws at all.

[razark]

All of it.

Any technology that exists is far superior to a script-writer's imaginary device that doesn't.

 

[Nuke]

if it looks cool, its wrong. 

On 9/8/2019 at 4:27 AM, kerbiloid said:

Closed bay doors where people are standing.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

actually that kind of thing is plausible. you can create a plasma field that objects can pass through but atmosphere cannot. small test articles exist. however the power requirements of that system is going to be absurd compared to just a door, and failsafes are impossible (lose power that's a lot of dead storm troopers, unless those suits have life support).

Edited September 13, 2019 by Nuke

[Nuke]

On 9/8/2019 at 10:14 AM, razark said:

All of it.

Any technology that exists is far superior to a script-writer's imaginary device that doesn't.

 

a lot of these things are more to save your effects budget than to represent advanced technology. few led strips = forcefield = cheap, building a giant door on set that operates = expensive. the transporter on star trek was invented because the shuttle model wasn't ready yet. a tractor beam is cheaper to throw in with effects than it is to have a proper waldo model, which would be cheaper and more practical. you see these on a lot of pre-cgi scifi shows. in reality the simple solution is often the best solution.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Nuke

[Guest]

They don't even have gas masks.  Bay doors are more practical, but would take time to cycle, and pressurizing a hangar this big would also take time. Presumably, power drain of a plasma window in the hangar is insignificant compared to the shield protecting the rest of the hull. If you lose power in a spaceship, you're in for a very bad time, anyway.

[Nuke]

2 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

They don't even have gas masks.  Bay doors are more practical, but would take time to cycle, and pressurizing a hangar this big would also take time. Presumably, power drain of a plasma window in the hangar is insignificant compared to the shield protecting the rest of the hull. If you lose power in a spaceship, you're in for a very bad time, anyway.

i think the hanger design isnt that great in most scifi. the only one that even came close to how it should be is babylon 5. the airlock is small so you dont have to take an eternity to cycle them but you have a large internal hanger that can accommodate a large number of ships. it also has a secondary zero g dock which i presume is for freight. the whole station is just a great design. all pressurized docks should have an airlock. unpressurized docking bays also make a lot of sense for certain applications. especially in situations where you are just offloading passengers (using a pressurized tunnel that seals to one of the ships airlocks) or cargo, refueling and departing. anywhere you have an a lot of ships rotating through on a regular basis (much like current airports). 

[razark]

8 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

Bay doors are more practical, but would take time to cycle, and pressurizing a hangar this big would also take time. Presumably, power drain of a plasma window in the hangar is insignificant compared to the shield protecting the rest of the hull.

While you're looking at that argument, keep in mind that you're discussing:

• A) a space station large enough to be confused for a moon
• B) a space station capable of destroying a planet without suffering any ill effects to propulsion, shielding, life support, tractor beams, surface mounted point defense, air space traffic control, or any other systems.
• C) a universe where cybernetic space wizards with laser swords are an actual thing.

 

I can only assume that a civilization that has managed to come to terms with those points can handle see-through hanger doors/force fields.  (Once you add space magic, anything is possible.)

Edited September 13, 2019 by razark

[kerbiloid]

Why at all depressurize the whole hangar? And why is this bay entrance so ridiculously large compared to the ships to operate with?
In Elite / Frontier we happily enter much smaller doors, even in a rotating station.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Why at all depressurize the whole hangar? And why is this bay entrance so ridiculously large compared to the ships to operate with?
In Elite / Frontier we happily enter much smaller doors, even in a rotating station.

That's only the ships we're shown. SW universe doesn't lack much larger ones. Also, a small airlock is still slower than a plasma window, in high traffic conditions it would become a serious bottleneck.

[Scotius]

5 hours ago, razark said:

While you're looking at that argument, keep in mind that your discussing:

• A) a space station large enough to be confused for a moon
• B) a space station capable of destroying a planet without suffering any ill effects to propulsion, shielding, life support, tractor beams, surface mounted point defense, air space traffic control, or any other systems.
• C) a universe where cybernetic space wizards with laser swords are an actual thing.

 

I can only assume that a civilization that has managed to come to terms with those points can handle see-through hanger doors/force fields.  (Once you add space magic, anything is possible.)

I do wonder how Death Star handled absurd amount of heat generated by its super-laser firing Best explanation i could think of, is that the core of the station was filled with a sea worth of water. It was flash-boiled by the heat, then steam was sent to massive turbine farms to recharge emptied capacitors. Which would make D a steampunk space station

[magnemoe]

On 9/8/2019 at 7:46 AM, Spacescifi said:

 

True. I will add another:

 

Guns vs laser pistols.

Styro Pyro always wears eye protection, because even laser reflecting off the target or a wall can damage vision.

Guns are lethal enough and won't hurt the user like a laser might.

Plasma or particle beam pistols are also dangerous for users.

Last I checked, plasma welders wear eye protection to protect their eyes. Also if the plasma coming out is hot enough to burn through a wall, it's hot enough to burn the guy firing the pistol. Heat is omnidirectional in the air and does not care about the guy shooting it.

Particle beam pistols would likely not only require eye protection but radiation suits, since particle beams leave behind radiation that can give the person firing them cancer.

 

Riker would very much need 23rd century tech to not go blind or get cancer as much as he fires his phaser particle beam pistol.

Lasers are very nice for weapon on an spaceship at least for close in defense since beam travel at light speed making it easy to intersect fast moving targets. 
Lasers also work better in vacuum than atmosphere. 

As sidearms lasers are pointless, firearms are very simple and does more than enough damage. Can see the purpose of an laser sniper rifle but nothing more. 

Plasma and particle weapons will not work in atmosphere anyway for any practical range. 

[DDE]

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Why at all depressurize the whole hangar?

They don't. The ships enter freely.

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

And why is this bay entrance so ridiculously large compared to the ships to operate with?

SW hangars typically have the entire outer-facing wall as a forcefield.

Furthermore, the DS has numerous internal docks for Star Destroyers.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

They don't. The ships enter freely.

I mean if use solid doors. (They say, that's in particaular to not depressurize the hangar.)

1 hour ago, DDE said:

SW hangars typically have the entire outer-facing wall as a forcefield.

Furthermore, the DS has numerous internal docks for Star Destroyers.

Why put whole SD into DS?

All of them are hyperjumpable.
Putting such thing into 1 g field would cause problems but not help for anything,
They have droids and spacesuits to repair damages in space. They anyway were doing this before DS had been created.

This doesn't excuse the Empire. I see only cosplay of aircraft carrier back ramp here .

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Lasers are very nice for weapon on an spaceship at least for close in defense since beam travel at light speed making it easy to intersect fast moving targets. 

Such as pipes and wires.

P.S.
Only hand-held flechette grenade launchers with autoprogrammable aerial detonation, only hardcore.
A rubberball grenade version to stun, capture, and hang criminals like Solo, if this looks funny for locals. Also to feed ewoks (with captured criminals, they like it. (The ewoks do.)).
An electromagnetic pulse grenade for droids. A incendiary grenade to make the show hot. A recon grenade to spy (with a dragonfly spydroid inside).
Also candy grenades for peace and friendship. A net grenade to catch animals. A smoke grenade to get honey from the honeycombs.
A pokemon grenade to create virtual false pokemons where they aren't, to distract opponents' attention.
Of course, a hook-on-rope grenade for laracrofting.

P.P.S.
And rapiers.

Edited September 13, 2019 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

P.S.
Only hand-held flechette grenade launchers with autoprogrammable aerial detonation, only hardcore.
A rubberball grenade version to stun, capture, and hang criminals like Solo, if this looks funny for locals. Also to feed ewoks (with captured criminals, they like it. (The ewoks do.)).
An electromagnetic pulse grenade for droids. A incendiary grenade to make the show hot. A recon grenade to spy (with a dragonfly spydroid inside).
Also candy grenades for peace and friendship. A net grenade to catch animals. A smoke grenade to get honey from the honeycombs.
A pokemon grenade to create virtual false pokemons where they aren't, to distract opponents' attention.
Of course, a hook-on-rope grenade for laracrofting.

P.P.S.
And rapiers.

I like the idea, this is something you could build in real life to.
An taser grenade should probably work, add an anaesthetization drug too it who start to kick in then the taser effect tapper of. 
One thing you might want here is dual feed perhaps an drum magazine and an tube one add the option to hand feed special rounds

Also you would want the typical sci-fi stunner as an grenade to rather than an gun, preferable in this gun. That way you get many hundred meters range and the option to take out target behind cover. 
 

[kerbiloid]

P.P.P.S.
And a nethacking grenade with wi-fi and bluetooth adapters.
It flies, connects to the found networks, and infects them with a virus.

Edited September 13, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Guest]

8 hours ago, magnemoe said:

As sidearms lasers are pointless, firearms are very simple and does more than enough damage. Can see the purpose of an laser sniper rifle but nothing more. 

Plasma and particle weapons will not work in atmosphere anyway for any practical range. 

Actually, laser sidearms can be useful in cases where firearms are too powerful. A missed gunshot on a spaceship can punch a hole clean through the hull, and even frangible rounds will generate shrapnel. A laser beam could cause nasty wounds to soft tissue, while only making a tiny hole in a spaceship hull. Also, lasers don't have appreciable recoil, which makes them much easier to hit with (especially in 0G, where a pistol shot will tumble you), and are quieter. If you ever fired a real pistol, you'd know that hitting anything, even at close range, isn't trivial, and the sound is absolutely ear shattering. Confined spaces make things worse, and a spaceship in vacuum makes that much worse (a suppressor will improve things, but not as much as you'd hope). A laser pistol, on the other hand, wouldn't deafen everyone aboard, making it a very good alternative. Most people greatly underestimate just how loud handguns are and how hard are they to aim accurately, especially in a stressful situation (interestingly, rifles, otherwise more powerful, are also quieter by a huge margin, thanks to a longer barrel). I think most weapons used aboard ships will be lasers of some descriptions.

Also, plasma weapons pretty much only work in atmosphere. In atmosphere, you're basically tying to shoot ball lighting, which can last quite a while. In space, it'll just dissipate, although it might, perhaps, be possible to make a spheromak work somehow (even then, this won't be plasma, but a cannon firing fusion explosions). Particle beams don't really care for atmosphere that much.

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

A missed gunshot on a spaceship can punch a hole clean through the hull,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet

Also, the spaceships where they are gunslinging should have a hull enough thick to be safe for firing just for their size.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet

Also, the spaceships where they are gunslinging should have a hull enough thick to be safe for firing just for their size.

You're assuming that the spacecraft in question was designed with gunslinging in mind. This will not always be the case. Not to mention that even if you don't depressurize the hull, there's usually enough delicate and vital equipment around to accidently hit. 

Hollowpoints don't solve the issue, only mitigate it. They're much worse than frangible bullets, in fact. For fighting inside spaceships, you want something like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug
Even that doesn't really guarantee you won't mess up something delicate with either a direct hit or metal fragments floating around and getting into things. Laser pistols are much cleaner about that, even disregarding noise and recoil issues.

[kerbiloid]

27 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

You're assuming that the spacecraft in question was designed with gunslinging in mind.

I'm assuming that if a Star Destroyer doesn't crush itself in a hangar, it has at least a seaship-thick hull.
Also unlikely the outer wall is available for gunslingers (a safety gap with the inner walls).

Edited September 14, 2019 by kerbiloid