PDA

View Full Version : Sleek = Advanced?!



PG15
October 29th, 2006, 10:59 AM
I've seen this on this forum many-a-time, and I don't get it.

So some ship is all sleek and "pretty", how does that, in anyway, make it more advanced than something that's blocky and/or "ugly"? Yes, I'm talking about the Orion and, say, the O'Neil; now, just because they look different and one is said to be better looking, how does that automatically mean that the O'Neil is more advanced than the Orion?

Is it just human bias, or am I missing something?

Hooperman1990
October 29th, 2006, 11:02 AM
Well stuff like the daedelus and the orion (and ESPECIALLY the prometheus) had sticky out bits because the technology wasnt advanced enough to fit snugly (if we assume that technology gets smaller as it gets more advanced). Also, the oneill was nice and shiny and the orion was a bit dull coloured cos the oneill had a fancy looking new alloy that was tougher. Although i suppose it doesnt have to be, after all, a city ship really isnt sleek but would eat several oneills without a flicker!

WTFOwned
October 29th, 2006, 11:19 AM
I say that just because it looks better, does not mean it is better.

Looks don't matter - especially for interstellar warships.
If it looks like crap and your enemy thinks it must suck because of it and therefore they use less force, all the better for you!

Just because it looks ugly, does not mean it can't kick your ass.

Wraith_Hunter
October 29th, 2006, 11:21 AM
Because something looks pretty it doesn't necessarily make it so.

There is another thread here, where someone says Asgard are just as advanced as the Lanteans because they have a nice looking city etc.

Remember appearences can be deceiving. Sure Aurora class ships look like crap, but you have to make allowances for the way they were rushed into service. It was done during a time of war, which if they lost would have cost them the entire galaxy & the Lantean race. So looks I doubt were the last thing on their minds.

If they had time, then I'm sure they could have prettied it up a lot more. However you have to consider, would it really matter how visually appealing your ship is given it's nature. While flying it, your inside. Therefore can't look at it & admire how beautiful it is. The only ones who will be getting a look at it will be your enemies. Of which they will be trying to blast the crap out of it. So the uglier the ship, the more menacing it'll look to them.

Take a look at Mike Tyson, he'd scare the crap out of almost anyone in a dark alley. However, one of the pretty boy wrestlers or ufc fighters could probably hand him a new one with fairly little trouble. Yet, they wouldn't instill that fear factor into you at first. Therefore in times of conflict you want a mean looking machine. Which I think that the Aurora class serves that purpose fairly well myself.

Ultimately it comes down to purpose, warships should look ugly. When you land in orbit of an enemy planet you want to scare the crap out of them, not have them looking on & commenting how stunning your ship looks.

I'm sure every race has their own people who want to make things look good. That's why Asuras, Atlantis look visually stunning. However they were built when there was time to plan & contruct every detail. 'Aurora' class ships were built rapidly during a time of great conflict.

So no, it doesn't matter how great something looks, that serves no indication as to how advanced something is. For instance, take a look at Dyson hoovers, some are really nice looking. Yet they continually get rated low for being the most likely to break down & all that. Yet Orek (or soemthing like that) look 50 years out of date, but scores very well for functionality.

Looks can be deceiving!

ACharmedAsgard
October 29th, 2006, 12:41 PM
Looks in no way makes something more advanced.

However some races may make their ships look good as a symbol of their advancement and is why, although looks aren't what makes a people or ship, when we know someone is advanced we expect their ships to look good.

It's a human thing.

There's one thing though, the Ori and Ancients are basically the same race just split into two parts and they are both about as advanced as each other. why then does the Ancient ship look like crap, and the Ori ships look quite nice? probably because of what I said earlier maybe?

PG15
October 29th, 2006, 01:11 PM
Pretty much.

Going back to the buildings analogy I had in another thread, it's the same reason why Chinese Pagotas look different from Egyptian pyramids.

SaberBlade
October 29th, 2006, 01:33 PM
I think the general idea is that the better it looks, the more advanced it is.

It as if the more powerful it is, or the better it is, the better you want it to look.

We could use Ancients and Orii as an example, but you need to remember that the Ancients we've gotten looked like pieces of crap after being through hell. Yet, the Asgard ships just look better and better based on how advanced they are. So perhaps the Asgard are more like us than say the Ancients or the Orii. If we used Ancient tech alone to build a ship, I could see something really cool being designed.

Just look at Atlantis. The most advanced tech and it look great, their ships however could be better. then you've got things like their weather time loop machine but then you've got the Time Jumper which looks so much better.

Star Fox
October 29th, 2006, 01:34 PM
The Oneill Also happens to be 10,000 Years newer, id think a tad more advanced

jds1982
October 29th, 2006, 01:44 PM
The Oneill Also happens to be 10,000 Years newer, id think a tad more advanced

More likely just newer.

PSp2gamer
October 29th, 2006, 01:44 PM
The Oneill Also happens to be 10,000 Years newer, id think a tad more advanced

So we are more advanced then the Ancients because we are 10,000 years newer?

PG15
October 29th, 2006, 02:09 PM
But that's problem, isn't it? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Just because it's shinier to somebody doesn't mean it's more advanced.

ACharmedAsgard
October 29th, 2006, 02:17 PM
So we are more advanced then the Ancients because we are 10,000 years newer?

No, if you remember the Asgard civilisation is far more then 10,000 years old. The Ancients regognised the Asgard as an advanced race during the time of the treaty of the 4 races which means that the Asgard have been advanced way longer then 10,000 years and far longer then we have been around. Evidence for this, is that 10,000 years ago they were able to travel from their home galaxy to ours in order to meet with the Ancients, Nox and Furlings and so were quite advanced.

There maybe a possiblity that the Asgard have become more advanced then the Ancients in some areas of technology over the passed 10,000 years seen as though they can travel from one galaxy to the other in minutes (as mentioned in the gateworld Omnipedia and some episodes) whilst it took the Ancient ships stubstantially longer. Another example is the Asgard's beaming technology which seems to be more versitile then the Ancient ring technology.

jds1982
October 29th, 2006, 03:44 PM
Yeah it took the Ancients a long time to get here from their home galaxy, it's really really far away. Plus they were probably indecisive about where to settle, so that would have made the journey longer.

PSp2gamer
October 29th, 2006, 05:18 PM
Yeah it took the Ancients a long time to get here from their home galaxy, it's really really far away. Plus they were probably indecisive about where to settle, so that would have made the journey longer.

Im sure there Hyperdives have improved since they came from there Home Galaxy to the MW too.

2ndgenerationalteran
October 29th, 2006, 05:38 PM
The Oneill Also happens to be 10,000 Years newer, id think a tad more advanced

what do you mean 10,000 years newer so its more advanced? Its newer made by a race thats probably been around for about 30,000 years, compared to the ancients millions of years. If you ask me the Orion is way more advanced than the Oneill.

We probably tend to notice the sleek ships as aerodynamic and extremely streemlined so it can fly through the air without much resistance, opposed to the blocky ships with things protruding out from it that would cause resistance slowing down the ship or tear it appart. Of course this isnt much of a matter in space as much as it is in an atmosphere.

Hatcheter
October 29th, 2006, 06:28 PM
I've seen this on this forum many-a-time, and I don't get it.

So some ship is all sleek and "pretty", how does that, in anyway, make it more advanced than something that's blocky and/or "ugly"? Yes, I'm talking about the Orion and, say, the O'Neil; now, just because they look different and one is said to be better looking, how does that automatically mean that the O'Neil is more advanced than the Orion?

Is it just human bias, or am I missing something?

I'd say that's less about bias, and more shallowness. It's probably the typical line of thinking because that's exactly what has happened over the last fifteen or twenty years with most technology. Cars, appliances, computers, etc., are all taking on sleeker, smoother, more asthetically pleasing shapes as they've developed into more powerful and efficient machines.

It's really irrelevant, though. Style and function do not go hand in hand. A nice looking object only indicates that a society has developed a sense of art or architecture. Such things are not relevant when it comes to the functionality of an object.

An-Alteran
October 29th, 2006, 08:01 PM
No, if you remember the Asgard civilisation is far more then 10,000 years old. The Ancients regognised the Asgard as an advanced race during the time of the treaty of the 4 races which means that the Asgard have been advanced way longer then 10,000 years and far longer then we have been around. Evidence for this, is that 10,000 years ago they were able to travel from their home galaxy to ours in order to meet with the Ancients, Nox and Furlings and so were quite advanced.

There maybe a possiblity that the Asgard have become more advanced then the Ancients in some areas of technology over the passed 10,000 years seen as though they can travel from one galaxy to the other in minutes (as mentioned in the gateworld Omnipedia and some episodes) whilst it took the Ancient ships stubstantially longer. Another example is the Asgard's beaming technology which seems to be more versitile then the Ancient ring technology.
Wrong. The Asgard were using sleeping chambers for system to system transit 30,000 years ago.

The Ancients were using hyperdrives 50,000,000 years ago.
The Ancients had Stargates 50,000,000 years ago.
The Ancients had flying city-ships some 3,000,000-10,000,000 years ago.

Mikaeru
October 30th, 2006, 04:27 AM
Because the whole universe is like the people of Earth, shallow. Who cares if it has any subtains if it looks really pretty. :p

Seastallion
October 30th, 2006, 07:54 AM
I've seen this on this forum many-a-time, and I don't get it.

So some ship is all sleek and "pretty", how does that, in anyway, make it more advanced than something that's blocky and/or "ugly"? Yes, I'm talking about the Orion and, say, the O'Neil; now, just because they look different and one is said to be better looking, how does that automatically mean that the O'Neil is more advanced than the Orion?

Is it just human bias, or am I missing something?

;) A very good case in point... The Replicator ship constructed of replicator blocks. Not very pretty, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that under normal circumstances it could kick some serious butt. I gotta wonder how one of those would fair up against an Ori toilet bowl ship. :p Those aren't very 'sporty' looking either. Although, I'd agree with many that the O'Neill class Asgard ship is by far the prettiest and most sportsy looking ship. :D

Heaven
October 30th, 2006, 08:05 AM
Is it just human bias, or am I missing something?

it's a scifi rule, if you want something to look primitive make it ugly

that's why earth and all other primitive human civilizations have ugly tech

ACharmedAsgard
October 30th, 2006, 08:11 AM
Wrong. The Asgard were using sleeping chambers for system to system transit 30,000 years ago.

The Ancients were using hyperdrives 50,000,000 years ago.
The Ancients had Stargates 50,000,000 years ago.
The Ancients had flying city-ships some 3,000,000-10,000,000 years ago.

I was talking about the Asgard Technology in the past 10,000 years NOT thirty thousand.

And I didn't say they could travel from galaxy to galaxy in minutes during the time of the treaty of the great races, I just stated that they were advanced enough to make the journey between galaxies at that time.

So I wasn't wrong thank you. (Crosses arms and frowns)

Kirath
October 30th, 2006, 10:10 AM
I've seen this on this forum many-a-time, and I don't get it.

So some ship is all sleek and "pretty", how does that, in anyway, make it more advanced than something that's blocky and/or "ugly"? Yes, I'm talking about the Orion and, say, the O'Neil; now, just because they look different and one is said to be better looking, how does that automatically mean that the O'Neil is more advanced than the Orion?

Is it just human bias, or am I missing something?

I think in scifi a lot of times the more advanced races in scifi have the better looking ships because the theory is their tech is advanced enough that everything doesn't have to be functional and that they can take the time to pimp our war cruiser. A good example if this is the ships in Babylon 5. the Minbari and Centauri ships are prettier because they have better tech. Artificial gravity, gravimetric shielding, better weapons etc... so that time and resources can be taken to look at on the other end of the spectrum are earthforce ships. Everything on a earthforce ship is function first. A earthforce destroyer is essentially 3 rectangles joined together,the hull armor is thicker, the central section where the bridge and crew quarters are located spins to generate a kind of poor mans gravity. Why because compared to many of the other races the humans in B5 have not been spacefarers for very long.

Seastallion
October 30th, 2006, 11:39 AM
(I need to apologize here... :o I sort of got of topic, but I felt it was relevent to the direction of the discussion, even if not directly relevent to the topic of the thread.) ;)


I was talking about the Asgard Technology in the past 10,000 years NOT thirty thousand.


And I didn't say they could travel from galaxy to galaxy in minutes during the time of the treaty of the great races, I just stated that they were advanced enough to make the journey between galaxies at that time.

So I wasn't wrong thank you. (Crosses arms and frowns)

The only problem with that theory is that we DON'T KNOW when the time of the alliance was. They left the milky way galaxy about 3 Million years ago, and presumably stayed away from the milky way for the most part after that, although it is obvious that when the alliance DID take place they were still fairly active in the galaxy. It seemed that when they were in Pegasus they simply stayed there as though in a self-imposed exile, and only returned to the Milky Way after their defeat in the Pegasus galaxy.

The timing of the great alliance and the departure of Atlantis was VERY badly planned. We know for a fact that the plague that wiped out the Ancients in the milky way was already underway when Atlantis left Earth. The Ancient woman found in Antartica was present when Atlantis left, and she herself became exposed to the plague. That was about 3 Million years ago. Then we know that the Asgard were using sleeper ships only 30,000 years ago. On the other hand, we don't know how long it took for the plague to wipe out the Ancients. It is possible they survived for a million years longer after the plague began, but we don't know. We know they had enough time to construct the device on Dakara (although it might've been constructed well before the plague for very different reasons), and the time machine that didn't work.

Also, we can NOT assume the Asgard were running back and forth between the galaxies during the time of the alliance. Or at least not with ships. The Ancient's obviously provided their allies with stargates, so it is very possible that they encountered the Asgard when very young in their evolution, and likely even helped them along. This may be why the Asgard are so interested in helping humans, as we have NOT seen them helping any other races in this fashion. Perhaps they are doing it as a way to repay the Ancients for their helping them. I would time the great alliance at right about 3 Million years ago, just before Atlantis left Earth. Or at least that is when I'd say the Alliance probably began to fall apart. With the Ancients dying, the other younger races (the Asgard, Nox, and Furlings) no longer had the common guidance of the ancient Alterans. It is likely that the Ancients had helped all of those races along, as a sort of mentor race, being the oldest and most advanced. It is also worth noting that all four races of the alliance were humanoid in shape. We have no idea what part the Ancients might've played in their evolution. We've seen a large number of humanoid shaped races that all might've been the result of the Dakara device recreating the Alteran species with varying degrees of success.

On some worlds only a human-friendly ecosystem evolved, and on others humanoid, or near-human species evolved. The Aschen, as well as the race of Aris Boch are examples of very near human races that are still distinctly different. Then there are races that are VERY unhuman looking such as the aquatic alien that kidnapped Daniel, the smuggler aliens allied with the Lucian Alliance, and several other races that have been encountered by the SGC.

We don't know for a fact that some of those species are a result of the Dakara device, but it is a good guess. The vast majority of humans in the galaxy encountered are still descended from Earth, however. I would go so far as to say that at least the races of the great alliance were NOT created by the Dakara device. I would also say that the Dakara device did NOT create ALL life in the milky way, just a considerable amount of it.

Wow... I'm WAY off topic. :p Oh, well. :D

ACharmedAsgard
October 30th, 2006, 12:04 PM
..............The Ancient woman found in Antartica was present when Atlantis left, and she herself became exposed to the plague. That was about 3 Million years ago..............

................ I would time the great alliance at right about 3 Million years ago, just before Atlantis left Earth. Or at least that is when I'd say the Alliance probably began to fall apart...........

Wow... I'm WAY off topic. :p Oh, well. :D


The Gateworld Omnipedia states in the section about the Ancients that Atlantis left Earth between 5 and 10 million years ago and that Ayiana was kept in a ancient status unit allowing her to survive millions of years. so I'm affraid your wrong about the timing of Atlantis leaving earth.

And as I've said before, I was talking more on the development of the Asgard in the past 10,000 years not the past 30,000. It also mentions that the treaty was made after the return of the Ancients from Atlantis which means within the last 10,000 years.

Don't worry about being off topic, we all do it LOL :P

Seastallion
October 30th, 2006, 12:25 PM
The Gateworld Omnipedia states in the section about the Ancients that Atlantis left Earth between 5 and 10 million years ago and that Ayiana was kept in a ancient status unit allowing her to survive millions of years. so I'm affraid your wrong about the timing of Atlantis leaving earth.

And as I've said before, I was talking more on the development of the Asgard in the past 10,000 years not the past 30,000. It also mentions that the treaty was made after the return of the Ancients from Atlantis which means within the last 10,000 years.

Don't worry about being off topic, we all do it LOL :P

;) Don't be so quick to completely trust in the Gateworld Omnipedia. It isn't always right. I've spotted a mistake or two in times past. Aiyana may very well have spent some time in the stasis chamber, but NOT a few million years. Those stasis pods don't stop aging, rather only slowing it down. Remember the crew of the first Ancient Warship they found in Pegasus? In only 10,000 years the entire crew had aged far too old to survive outside the pods. Aiyana could not have spent that much time in that stasis chamber. She retained her youth because she got caught outside in a snow storm and was buried beneath the ice preserving her body. Because of her Ancient physiology she was able to be revived even after millions of years of cryonic preservation and plague infection.

Given that knowledge, we can only surmise that Atlantis left Earth very near about 3 Million years ago rather than 5-10 Million years ago. Dr. Jackson had to be wrong about his speculation on when it left. He was after all guessing at the time, and didn't have a specific date for it. Given that we (the audience) SAW Aiyana at the time Atlantis left, and knowing her approximate age, that must be the true time of Atlantis departure. Either that, or their dating on the Ice was wrong. However, which would you trust more? Dr. Jackson's random guess based on sketchy information, or the dating of the ice encasing Aiyana who was present at the time Atlantis actually left?

Like I said, don't be so quick to trust the Omnipedia. It isn't always 100%. :)

Back to the Asgard... Where did you get the info that the Alliance was AFTER they returned to Earth? As far as it is known the Ancients were never able to restart their civilization after their return. Many integrated themselves into the ancient tribes of man, placing the first seeds of civilization among humanity, others lived out there lives in meditation in remote places as hermits, while others still made their way to Antartica to use the Stargate to leave Earth. Nothing has ever been known about if they made it or not, although it seems likely that at least a few did. We do know that Janus was successful in recreating his time-machine after he left for Earth, where SG-1 eventually found it and took possession of it. The Ancients may yet live somewhere, but if they are, they have kept themselves hidden from everyone, including the races of the old great alliance.

kirmit
October 30th, 2006, 12:30 PM
The Gateworld Omnipedia states in the section about the Ancients that Atlantis left Earth between 5 and 10 million years ago and that Ayiana was kept in a ancient status unit allowing her to survive millions of years. so I'm affraid your wrong about the timing of Atlantis leaving earth.

Sorry but when has it ever been shown that Aiyana was kept alive by an ancient stasis pod? She was found frozen in the ice. Going off topic myself but come to think of it if she was left there between 5 and 10 million years ago and was still as young as the day she was frozen then why did the ancients use stasis pods? They should've jsut used ice, it seems to be more effective.

on topic however, to me the better you are at making something the better it gets to look, things that look jagged and rough tend to give the feel of unexperienced work, whereas smooth and shiny show experience imo.

ACharmedAsgard
October 30th, 2006, 12:52 PM
Sorry but when has it ever been shown that Aiyana was kept alive by an ancient stasis pod? She was found frozen in the ice. Going off topic myself but come to think of it if she was left there between 5 and 10 million years ago and was still as young as the day she was frozen then why did the ancients use stasis pods? They should've jsut used ice, it seems to be more effective.

on topic however, to me the better you are at making something the better it gets to look, things that look jagged and rough tend to give the feel of unexperienced work, whereas smooth and shiny show experience imo.

May be the status pods work far better with the Ancients psyology? . Like I said I got most of my stuff from the Omnipedia but I do see some flaws in the information. I'm basically throwing ideas about - it allows you to gain a greater understanding of things in the Stargate Universe :)

Oh..........and I still think the warships look crap. (Stay on topic mike, Stay on topic!! :p)

Seastallion
October 30th, 2006, 01:08 PM
May be the status pods work far better with the Ancients psyology? . Like I said I got most of my stuff from the Omnipedia but I do see some flaws in the information. I'm basically throwing ideas about - it allows you to gain a greater understanding of things in the Stargate Universe :)

Oh..........and I still think the warships look crap. (Stay on topic mike, Stay on topic!! :p)

;) Read my above post again. The part about the Ancients in the stasis pods in the first Ancient Warship they found in Pegasus. The crew had aged just as Dr. Weir had done. Those stasis pods don't work so well. They may not have used cryonic preservation because it caused damage to the brain, that wasn't so easily healed. Aiyana was a case example of this, although she retained much of her powers, and capacity for intelligence.

The Ancient Warships? They looked different, but I wouldn't day they looked that bad. They were in fact very large. MUCH larger than the Daedalus class ships.

kirmit
October 30th, 2006, 01:25 PM
May be the status pods work far better with the Ancients psyology? . Like I said I got most of my stuff from the Omnipedia but I do see some flaws in the information. I'm basically throwing ideas about - it allows you to gain a greater understanding of things in the Stargate Universe :)

Oh..........and I still think the warships look crap. (Stay on topic mike, Stay on topic!! :p)

wow thought you were talking to me then (me being a Mike aswell lol :cameron: ). You're right though the omnipedia has gotsome flaws in it and it's for us to determine what's right :).

ACharmedAsgard
October 30th, 2006, 01:34 PM
wow thought you were talking to me then (me being a Mike aswell lol :cameron: ). You're right though the omnipedia has gotsome flaws in it and it's for us to determine what's right :).

Exactly Mike! ;) :P

The Reason for throwing suggested explinations about, to discuss their validity. :)

jds1982
October 30th, 2006, 01:38 PM
There's always the possibility that the Lantians were the "dumb" Ancients and really couldn't design pretty things.

kirmit
October 30th, 2006, 01:50 PM
There's always the possibility that the Lantians were the "dumb" Ancients and really couldn't design pretty things.

I think someone had this idea before, that the plague that wiped them out affected brain chemistry, so the smarter ones were affected first and more severely, the 'dumber' ones were left alone and fled.

ACharmedAsgard
October 30th, 2006, 02:02 PM
I think someone had thing idea before, that the plague that wiped them out affected brain chemistry, so the smarter ones were affected first and more severely, the 'dumber' ones were left alone and fled.

Well as you know, usually when theres a plague the weaker old (and possibly more intelligent/wiser) people go first. Maybe all the older elder Ancients who knew more about their races technology died first meaning that the less knowlegable younger generations had to take over and eventually went to atlantis.

A possible explanation for the lack of old fashioned eligance in those asteriods of a warship.

1138
October 30th, 2006, 02:09 PM
I think in scifi a lot of times the more advanced races in scifi have the better looking ships because the theory is their tech is advanced enough that everything doesn't have to be functional and that they can take the time to pimp our war cruiser.

This does not make any sense if those are the writer's intent. It makes no sense for an advanced society to make trade offs by adding things that are not functional. It only adds to the cost but does not give any benefit. Engineers don't add things or create designs that are superfluous without any benefit. No matter how advanced a race, resources are never unlimited, so there must be a tangible benefit for anything extra. Good looks on starships don't help them do their job. If you're trying to compare to consumer goods, the benefit for good looking and "sleek" products (like cars) are increased sales and/or a price premium. The government, on the other hand, are not going to buy more starships just because one is better looking, especially not if it's more expensive.

Look at some real life examples. Age of sail warships were beautifully decorated, with figure heads and carvings at the back. Eventually, it was decided to get rid of them except for the more prominent ships because they were expensive and did not improve combat effectiveness. In the 20th century, aircraft carriers and submarines lack any of the same sort of decoration. These are undoubtedly more advanced than any age of sail battleship and much less ornately decorated.

Nowadays, we have to think about aerodynamics, armour and radar coverage when designing ships and vehicles. In fact, it is the lack of extraneous decoration that makes it possible for aircraft to travel at supersonic speeds. To make flight more fuel efficient, even paint is being stripped off to reduce weight. This is advancement - we can travel the same distance with less fuel.

ACharmedAsgard
October 30th, 2006, 02:22 PM
This does not make any sense if those are the writer's intent. It makes no sense for an advanced society to make trade offs by adding things that are not functional. It only adds to the cost but does not give any benefit. Engineers don't add things or create designs that are superfluous without any benefit. No matter how advanced a race, resources are never unlimited, so there must be a tangible benefit for anything extra. Good looks on starships don't help them do their <a href="http://forum.gateworld.net/?go=job">job</a>. If you're trying to compare to consumer goods, the benefit for good looking and "sleek" products (like cars) are increased sales and/or a price premium. The government, on the other hand, are not going to buy more starships just because one is better looking, especially not if it's more expensive.

Look at some real life examples. Age of sail warships were beautifully decorated, with figure heads and carvings at the back. Eventually, it was decided to get rid of them except for the more prominent ships because they were expensive and did not improve combat effectiveness. In the 20th century, aircraft carriers and submarines lack any of the same sort of decoration. These are undoubtedly more advanced than any age of sail battleship and much less ornately decorated.

Nowadays, we have to think about aerodynamics, armour and radar coverage when designing ships and vehicles. In fact, it is the lack of extraneous decoration that makes it possible for aircraft to travel at supersonic speeds. To make flight more fuel efficient, even paint is being stripped off to reduce weight. This is advancement - we can travel the same distance with less fuel.

On the subject of function and form, I think we expect advance races to have beautiful ships, as we expect them to be intelligent enough to create a ship that does the job needed and do it well, and still be able look good.

The Ancient warships look ugly and seem to be destroyed very easy. This is an example of no form and little function if the ship is easy to destroy, it doesn't do much for the ancients as the most advanced race either.

jds1982
October 30th, 2006, 02:41 PM
On the subject of function and form, I think we expect advance races to have beautiful ships, as we expect them to be intelligent enough to create a ship that does the job needed and do it well, and still be able look good.

The Ancient warships look ugly and seem to be destroyed very easy. This is an example of no form and little function if the ship is easy to destroy, it doesn't do much for the ancients as the most advanced race either.

You mean a beaten up, 10,000 year old ship being operated by primitives with virtually no grasp of it's technology was easily destroyed? Shocker! We've never seen any Ancient ship at it's prime functioning level. Don't forget that what's aesthetically pleasing to one person may not be so to another. Maybe the Ancients thought their ships were beautiful. or more likely they just didn't care.

kirmit
October 30th, 2006, 02:52 PM
You mean a beaten up, 10,000 year old ship being operated by primitives with virtually no grasp of it's technology was easily destroyed? Shocker! We've never seen any Ancient ship at it's prime functioning level. Don't forget that what's aesthetically pleasing to one person may not be so to another. Maybe the Ancients thought their ships were beautiful. or more likely they just didn't care.

If they didn't care then why make all their other technology so sleek and shiny? I don't think the point is that the ships ugly, I think it's the fact is differs so much from all other ancient technology encountered.

PG15
October 30th, 2006, 05:10 PM
What other technology?

If you mean Atlantis...well, that's different. It's their "crowning achievement" or some such and wasn't designed for war.

kirmit
October 31st, 2006, 05:49 AM
What other technology?

If you mean Atlantis...well, that's different. It's their "crowning achievement" or some such and wasn't designed for war.

look at all the ancient tech so far found in SGA, the trinity outpost, the satellite, the puddle jumpers, Atlantis itself, they all follow a particular theme, whereas the aurora class ships look totally different asif by a completely different race.

jds1982
October 31st, 2006, 06:32 AM
look at all the ancient tech so far found in SGA, the trinity outpost, the satellite, the puddle jumpers, Atlantis itself, they all follow a particular theme, whereas the aurora class ships look totally different asif by a completely different race.

Or by a race under threat of annihalation that didn't really care about how pretty their ships were at the moment. Or they were designed by a Lantian who liked that style.

IcyNeko
October 31st, 2006, 09:09 AM
Humans:

Sleek Designs: Fighter Planes, Warships, Missile technology.
Blocky Design: HumVee Transport. :P

DaCk
October 31st, 2006, 12:15 PM
look at all the ancient tech so far found in SGA, the trinity outpost, the satellite, the puddle jumpers, Atlantis itself, they all follow a particular theme, whereas the aurora class ships look totally different asif by a completely different race.

http://board.thescifiworld.net/viewtopic.php?t=837

that is why it looks completely different. not because they were in a rush to build them. saying that is just a way for us fans to canonize the ugliness of them.

Zepro
October 31st, 2006, 11:57 PM
Just remember (I think) the O'Neills were built during the peak of the Replicator war... so... they were under the threat of annihilation as well.

Buuuut, you don't REALLY have to spare lots of resources or time or energy or manpower to make a ship look pretty. A bit of wallpaper here and there makes a huge difference :) Even a few pot plants here and there gives it more life.

ACharmedAsgard
November 1st, 2006, 07:10 AM
You mean a beaten up, 10,000 year old ship being operated by primitives with virtually no grasp of it's technology was easily destroyed? Shocker! We've never seen any Ancient ship at it's prime functioning level. Don't forget that what's aesthetically pleasing to one person may not be so to another. Maybe the Ancients thought their ships were beautiful. or more likely they just didn't care.

To be honest, I would actually like to see a fully working, good condition Ancient Warship, operated by Ancients, show us what its made of on Stargate.

And if what it shows us what we'd expect from an Ancient Warship... well at least the function part.....then I'd put my feelings on its looks behind me

P.S If we were seen as primitives....why would the Asgard say we had made steps to becoming the 5th member of the great races?
:P - just a question

jds1982
November 1st, 2006, 07:18 AM
P.S If we were seen as primitives....why would the Asgard say we had made steps to becoming the 5th member of the great races?
:P - just a question

We are comparitively primitive when compared to the Ancients.

ACharmedAsgard
November 1st, 2006, 07:31 AM
We are comparitively primitive when compared to the Ancients.

But have a lot of potential! :) sorry i'm being very human.

WTFOwned
November 1st, 2006, 12:23 PM
You mean, great potential, right?

ACharmedAsgard
November 2nd, 2006, 01:20 AM
You mean, great potential, right?

Of Course ;)

Ripple in Space
April 7th, 2007, 04:14 PM
Well IMO the most advanced Warship encountered in the SG-U is the Aurora-class. I think the Ori BattleCruiser is centuries less advanced seeing as how we know the Lanteans had beam cannon tech, yet opted to make drones the primary weapon on their Warships.

We also know drones require more power than beam cannons (Drones need a ZPM to function optimally, and several Mk. 2 Naq Gens to even activate; Beam Cannons can work on a Mk. 1 Naq Gen.), therefore, in order for the Lanteans to opt for a weapon that uses exponentially more energy, it must be that much more powerful.

And the Orion wasn't sleek or streamlined at all. IMO, the Al'kesh is the most sleek/streamlined ship encountered. A fleet of Al'kesh couldn't even damage a single Aurora, and a single drone from an Aurora would decimate an Al'kesh.

Sleek doesn't equal advanced.

ACharmedAsgard
April 7th, 2007, 04:47 PM
Sleek doesn't mean advanced but when someone is superior they usually make there technology sleek to give the asumption of advancement. Same reason why the rich by fast sleek cars.

Rich buy fast, sleek cars to show they are rich.

Advanced races build fast sleek ships to show they are advanced

PG15
April 7th, 2007, 04:52 PM
That's different. Why would another race have the same "definition" of "advanced" as us?

ACharmedAsgard
April 7th, 2007, 05:01 PM
Because the show is written by humans so what happens and what races feel and like is biased and based on human tastes

Ripple in Space
April 7th, 2007, 06:16 PM
Sleek doesn't mean advanced but when someone is superior they usually make there technology sleek to give the asumption of advancement. Same reason why the rich by fast sleek cars.

Rich buy fast, sleek cars to show they are rich.

Advanced races build fast sleek ships to show they are advanced

Then why is the show's most advanced warship (Aurora) clunky? None of the other ships are even close to its technological level.

Btw, have you seen the Escalade, Hummer, or Range Rover? Are they sleek?

SoulReaver
April 7th, 2007, 06:52 PM
Then why is the show's most advanced warship (Aurora) clunky? None of the other ships are even close to its technological level.so far no evidence thereof

SoulReaver
April 7th, 2007, 06:55 PM
Sleek doesn't mean advanced but when someone is superior they usually make there technology sleek to give the asumption of advancement. the borg beg to differ - sleekness is irrelevant http://img.presence-pc.com/forum/images/perso/alkpone.gif

they're the most advanced "race" in the MW yet they opted for the supreme form of blockiness - cubes :sheppardanime21:

Ouroboros
April 7th, 2007, 07:51 PM
I've seen this on this forum many-a-time, and I don't get it.

So some ship is all sleek and "pretty", how does that, in anyway, make it more advanced than something that's blocky and/or "ugly"? Yes, I'm talking about the Orion and, say, the O'Neil; now, just because they look different and one is said to be better looking, how does that automatically mean that the O'Neil is more advanced than the Orion?

Is it just human bias, or am I missing something?

It doesn't. It's just one of those cliches that got started way back in the long long ago and now everybody copies it without even realizing they're doing it.

While we're here I'd also like to take a minute to ***** about the whole idea of "more advanced > better" to. It's something I see here ALL THE TIME.

"Oh well X would beat Y because X is more advanced".

Well no, that's bull****, and here's why.

Just because something might be built with more advanced technology doesn't mean that it will perform in a superior fashion at any given task. For example lets take a muscle car from the 60s and pit it against a Toyota Prius in a quarter mile drag race.

Well surely the Yaris will prevail right guys, I mean it's almost half a century more advanced, right!

What you don't agree with me! Ok you take that iron sword and I'll take this plastic ruler and we'll duel. I'm so gonna kick your ass though because my plastic ruler is thousands of years more advanced than your stupid iron sword you idiot primitive you!

Oh what, not a fair comparison, you bet it isn't but the way some people act around here you'd think that because something was "more advanced" it won't matter if I pit a performance car against a gas saver in a race or a classroom instrament against a weapon in a fight, the more "advanced" thing will always prevail because it's more advanced of course.

Just because a ship or gun or pocketwatch might have been made with more sophisticated technolgoy doesn't automatically mean it's going to be better. The fact a more advanced society made it is not the sole determining factor in whether or not something is better at a given task than something else. It could be a potential reason why something ends up better sure but that's the key word folks could. It could also end up an overcomplicated gimmicky piece of crap with lots of "high tech" bells and whistles and very little core capabilty... see Toyota Prius.

SoulReaver
April 8th, 2007, 05:02 AM
While we're here I'd also like to take a minute to ***** about the whole idea of "more advanced > better" to. It's something I see here ALL THE TIME.

"Oh well X would beat Y because X is more advanced".

Well no, that's bull****, and here's why.

Just because something might be built with more advanced technology doesn't mean that it will perform in a superior fashion at any given task. For example lets take a muscle car from the 60s and pit it against a Toyota Prius in a quarter mile drag race.

Well surely the Yaris will prevail right guys, I mean it's almost half a century more advanced, right!

What you don't agree with me! Ok you take that iron sword and I'll take this plastic ruler and we'll duel. I'm so gonna kick your ass though because my plastic ruler is thousands of years more advanced than your stupid iron sword you idiot primitive you!yeah exactly. also in a race 'tween my WWI-era wooden biplane versus your 21st century skateboard (ultra-modern pvc/nbr hybrid materials), you betcha I'm gonna win the race ! idem if I pit my iron-age metal sword versus your hi-tech ionic toothbrush (japan's latest electric toothbrush), I'll be damned if my sword don't pwn your brush ! http://img.presence-pc.com/forum/icones/smilies/sol.gif

Bacardi
April 9th, 2007, 06:09 AM
my personal opionion is this...

advanced civilisation = advanced technology = easy for civilisation to integrate into a ship = more time to work on aesthetics

less advanced civilisation = less advanced tech = complicated for designers to integrate = not so fussy about looks as long as it works ok

Cban
April 9th, 2007, 07:06 AM
look at all the ancient tech so far found in SGA, the trinity outpost, the satellite, the puddle jumpers, Atlantis itself, they all follow a particular theme, whereas the aurora class ships look totally different asif by a completely different race.

i don think during the war they cared how a ship looked i think they would of just cared how many of them they could of made in the shortest time possibe without wasting time making the ship big and shiny

Dutch_Razor
April 9th, 2007, 10:19 AM
I say, why not make your ships a bit more shiny like the O'neill?

OK never at the cost of functionality, it is a warship after all, but still maybe your enemy will, just for a split second, think "hey that's a shiny ship" and it might distract him? Or the sun glare could blind them.

All excuses to your Command to have a reason to design your ship to be shiny of course :P

PG15
April 9th, 2007, 12:15 PM
my personal opionion is this...

advanced civilisation = advanced technology = easy for civilisation to integrate into a ship = more time to work on aesthetics

less advanced civilisation = less advanced tech = complicated for designers to integrate = not so fussy about looks as long as it works ok

True, but why would the aliens value the same aesthetics as us?

Bacardi
April 9th, 2007, 12:36 PM
they wouldnt, but the ships are designed by the graphic artists here on earth, and they should have the same reasoning as us...well you would have thought so.

Mister Oragahn
April 9th, 2007, 03:53 PM
Back to the Asgard... Where did you get the info that the Alliance was AFTER they returned to Earth? As far as it is known the Ancients were never able to restart their civilization after their return.

My theory on the matter is that the Alliance is a progressive union, like the European one, and that it predates the Alterans' departure, but also postdates it, up to the point where those who returned from Atlantis had the choice to maintain diplomatic and scientific relations. I believe that somehow, the Alterans never completely severed the relations with the other races. After all, they had the stargates to travel from one galaxy to another.


Many integrated themselves into the ancient tribes of man, placing the first seeds of civilization among humanity, others lived out there lives in meditation in remote places as hermits, while others still made their way to Antartica to use the Stargate to leave Earth.

I have a problem with that last one. Though it's kinda blurry in my head as to what gate was ins ervice when they returned, I was under the impression that they returned to Earth, directly from Atlantis (which would put their arrival exactly during Ra's reign, so they'd end at the Giza gate), or that if they didn't, they were still going to use stargates to go to Earth, and thus there's no point about some talks about how they walked to return to the Antartica gate.
They're Ancients. Even if they arrived through the Giza gate (and would have been probably massacred by Ra), they'd have arrived through one gate, and I don't see the hassle to go back to another gate, short circuit the stargate hierrachy on Earth because of the presence of two gates and whatever other mess. Especially since the Antartica gate could ahve been alerady "lost" in caverns (I mean, there's obviously something wrong that happened for the first and foremost gate used by the Alterans to end inside a cave instead of being stuck in some outpost or at least, in the ruins of a plaza... which would be weird anyway considering the frozen landscapes by the time Atlantis left.

I say that because it's not the first time I hear people talk about how the Ancients returned to the Antartica gate, like if they arrived on Earth God knows how and, well, had to depart by going through the unofficial gate buried under ice.



Sorry but when has it ever been shown that Aiyana was kept alive by an ancient stasis pod? She was found frozen in the ice. Going off topic myself but come to think of it if she was left there between 5 and 10 million years ago and was still as young as the day she was frozen then why did the ancients use stasis pods? They should've jsut used ice, it seems to be more effective.

on topic however, to me the better you are at making something the better it gets to look, things that look jagged and rough tend to give the feel of unexperienced work, whereas smooth and shiny show experience imo.

That is a very good point. It would seem that the Lantians didn't devlop much powers, especially not the healing ones, which is probably what helped Ayiana survive and stay young in that lump of ice for so long, while Lantians in their advanced machinery couldn't maintain their age.

When Merlin went into stasis, he was already old, wasn't he?


http://board.thescifiworld.net/viewtopic.php?t=837

that is why it looks completely different. not because they were in a rush to build them. saying that is just a way for us fans to canonize the ugliness of them.

Ha! So funnily, once in a while, we're lucky that some kind of mistake actually made some sense.

However, I have estimated that for the Lantians, they so reached a technoligical plateau that they'd have more time to play on the superficial stuff, to look cool, impressive, beautiful, to inspire awe. Maybe, sometimes this has a cost that is deemed unaffordable by the most anal retentive military man. So that all those fancy gizmos and that nice paintaing make the ship more heavy and it sucks 0.0001% of our power productions. Strip that crap off my ship!

Well, I thought the Alterans were a bit complacent and appreciated the pleasures of life, after inventing power sources that could but planets.

But the strict ideology of function over form does holds its grounds in an era where you're only going for the strict results.

If your ventral fin there looks ugly but radiates heat with a +1.37% efficiency, then go for the ugly. You never know. It could really save your skin.

The Goa'uld are a lot about style over substance. The Asgards... well, since they owned the Goa'uld so much, and still needed to look badass, I supposed they could easily afford some sleekness... and yet I don't see how that sleekness does not, for some particular reason, follow function to some sufficient degree.

I mean, how many aliens besides the Borg fly in cubes, spheres or cigars, safe some lunatics in Dune and other superspecies from out there...
:D

kymeric
April 9th, 2007, 04:03 PM
I've seen this on this forum many-a-time, and I don't get it.

So some ship is all sleek and "pretty", how does that, in anyway, make it more advanced than something that's blocky and/or "ugly"? Yes, I'm talking about the Orion and, say, the O'Neil; now, just because they look different and one is said to be better looking, how does that automatically mean that the O'Neil is more advanced than the Orion?

Is it just human bias, or am I missing something?

Because when you are trying to figure something out the first time u expect it to look all wierd and clunky (model T, wright brothers, first tanks)

When youve been doing it for hundreds of millions of years you expect to have maxxed out your area for advancement a very very very very long time ago and have now focused on aesthetics.

Unless theyre a very clunky and spirey ppl.......

ACharmedAsgard
April 10th, 2007, 04:38 AM
Then why is the show's most advanced warship (Aurora) clunky? None of the other ships are even close to its technological level.

Btw, have you seen the Escalade, Hummer, or Range Rover? Are they sleek?
I ask the same question every single day

and for a 4 x 4 the range rover is quite sleek

Ripple in Space
April 10th, 2007, 09:00 AM
My parents owned one a few years back. I never loved it. They currently own an Escalade, and are shopping for a H2. I don't like those either, they seem really clunky to me.

I'd take a BMW 3 or Z4 any day over one of those, and a Z4 is half the price.

Ouroboros
April 10th, 2007, 08:11 PM
My parents owned one a few years back. I never loved it. They currently own an Escalade, and are shopping for a H2. I don't like those either, they seem really clunky to me.

I'd take a BMW 3 or Z4 any day over one of those, and a Z4 is half the price.

But then you wouldn't be able to block the view of other drivers in normal vehicles as you cruise around by yourself in your giant building on wheels.

genius21
April 11th, 2007, 05:21 AM
the aurora type ships don't look much becouse when those were build they were in a major war and needed to build fast and not looks.

the asgard before the replicators didn't have a war the goauld were no threat and when the replicators came they already had alot of ships so they had time to build and design the o'neill.

earth just begun and didn't had much exp, building and designing ships and the manufacturing abillity was low (after unending everything will go up hopefully also design)

fallenexile452
April 11th, 2007, 08:40 AM
i think that sleek ships may look pretty but the beliskner lets not forget wasn't exactly sleek like the o'neill but it still had that awe factor especially when it descended through the clouds. the ancient warship just made me feel nothing special, even if it was rough around the edges i was still expecting it to give me the shivers, in my view a good ship is strong a great ship looks mean and imposing as well.

Mister Oragahn
April 11th, 2007, 05:07 PM
But then you wouldn't be able to block the view of other drivers in normal vehicles as you cruise around by yourself in your giant building on wheels.

The road experience of the Pissed Off. :D

A 4x4 is cool. You see well above everyone else, you use much more fuel, and with a bit of luck, it has a noisy engine.

Ouroboros
April 11th, 2007, 05:13 PM
The road experience of the Pissed Off. :D

A 4x4 is cool. You see well above everyone else, you use much more fuel, and with a bit of luck, it has a noisy engine.

...and a little place to put your cellphone when you're not changing lanes with it glued to your face.

Womble
April 12th, 2007, 07:19 AM
I've seen this on this forum many-a-time, and I don't get it.

So some ship is all sleek and "pretty", how does that, in anyway, make it more advanced than something that's blocky and/or "ugly"? Yes, I'm talking about the Orion and, say, the O'Neil; now, just because they look different and one is said to be better looking, how does that automatically mean that the O'Neil is more advanced than the Orion?

Is it just human bias, or am I missing something?
It's aesthetic bias, yes, BUT:

As irrational as it may sound, there is something to the view that truly functionally good weapons are also "pretty". Not always, but often. Think of the weapons that, one way or another, became symbols of their time or of their society- Samurai swords, Roman triremes, knight lances, classic frigates, Winchester rifles, warplanes like the Spitfire, the Messerschmitt, the MiG 29, the F16. They are all weapons of war, in which function dictates form- yet the outcome is quite pleasing aesthetically as well. Why can't the same hold for spaceships?;)

ascott08
April 30th, 2007, 09:31 AM
building everything to look and sleek and attractive is usually a sign of enlightment or social advancement, not necessarily technological. humans have begun to build everything to look sleek and biological. car, trains and buildings used to be square but now-a-days they include curves and more organic features.

immhotep
April 30th, 2007, 09:59 AM
Yes its more a cultural thing than a technological. However the ability to make sleek and smooth ships also has underlying technology. For example the beliskner wasnt sleek and smooth, it was almost rustic, and was developed in a earlier time when Thor and his hammer (the asgard god and thier ships/technology) were reflected in thier architecture.
However the Oniel is made to impress, most likely as a result of meeting earth and the replicators and the rise of more aggressive goauld like Sokar and Anubis.
The need to impress is an important tactical consideration that the Asgard have obviously catched on too, there could be many way they aquired this need to impress, it may even be a human trait they have learned recently.
When they built oniel they were creating their most advanced ship ever. A new generation of warships to fight the replicators, however their galaxy was being overrun and its likely that the asgard forsaw that thier resources may deplete very quickly, and their production run short. Enter the impress factor, if they can make enemies think they are far more powerful than they actually are, then its likely that even with only half a dozen ships they could easily impose a great force than they could with 50 beliskners.
The oniel was something new and for all we know the Beliskner had been their staple ship since the rise of the goauld, if the asgard have been bluffing the goauld fr millenia, the Oniel is just one step along the path. The Oniel is a powerful ship, thats not the point, but its in limited numbers, and because of that fact they needed it to be impressive and scare people away from combat with the Asgard so they could focus on the real threat the oniels were built for, the Replicators.
Now we are in a different mentallity, right now we are designing functional ships, which are small and reletively unattractive, however the deadalus and even the promethius are perfectly capable of holding out against hataks and hive ships and now even Ori motherships. When we get comfortable in ship design and have perfected the technology we choose to use in the final model of deadalus, then we can start thinking about aesthetics. For now our ships are not sleek but are pretty advanced given the number of asgard and ancient and goauld componants were using. When we get advanced and sleek then we will have reached a level of technological progress that is comfortable and able to readjust from the practical to other factors such as style and look.
It is my opinion that the ancients would have eventually perfected the Aurora design to be Oniel'ishly sleek, and the deadalus is kind of at the same point in development as the aurora, its getting there, but isnt perfected which is why it isnt sleek and shiney like the atlantis city ship or the PJ. At the moment its functional but not perfect enough for things to be done to the ship which may hinder the functionality, ie add a new shiny hull, which might disrupt power distribution or access to space docks or hangers to shield arrays etc..

ACharmedAsgard
April 30th, 2007, 03:37 PM
When your advanced you want people to covet what you have and to go wow. Seeing a sleek and beautiful ship does this.

Making ships sleek is a product of an advanced races' arrogence

thegatebuilders
April 30th, 2007, 08:07 PM
the debate on the thread makes for good reading and in support of the majority opinion, if a fan who was seeing the ship for the first time without any reference to atlantis was asked take three guesses as to what race the ship belonged to am sure atlantis wont come to mind, because thats how anti ancient the ship looks. however contrary to popular opinion, the ship suits the need perfectly, as even advance races would have design there ship according to the role needed. From what we can ascertain the orion was probably built at the height of war, and we know that the ancient lost the war not because of tactics or technology inferiority but because they wraith could build at a much faster rate than the ancients could keep up with and i think the orion was an attempt to rectify that by building a ship that could be mass produced in order to compete with the wraith demands, and to do this all form of asthetics would have to be ignored, thus explaining it lack of beauty and im sure previous ship before the orion would show a side of the ancient we have all come to expect.

thegatebuilders
April 30th, 2007, 08:11 PM
another assumption on why the ship looked just as it is could be the fact that it was designed specifically for war, the orion i believe epitomise the nature of the war with wraith, war isnt beautiful, there is nothing astectically pleasing about dying, anyone whose been in one will tell you that and the ship was meant to be a reminder of that to the ancients.

titan_hq
May 1st, 2007, 09:38 AM
it's a scifi rule, if you want something to look primitive make it ugly

that's why earth and all other primitive human civilizations have ugly tech

I like the look of earth ships in most sci-fi programs, id take the prometheus over an oneil any day, just becuase i think it looks better.

But i agree completly, if somethings looks primitive it looks blocky, and (from what ive seen) its ussually colored quite dark, wheras advanced stuff is normally light grey/white and have glowy bits.

ACharmedAsgard
May 1st, 2007, 04:07 PM
It all really human biased. We as a race like advanced stuff to look pretty so you are most likly to see the most advanced of ships being the 'prettiest' and vice versa.

Ehecatl
May 1st, 2007, 04:13 PM
Sleek makes it look neater and more streamlined. In some cases it can mean maneuverability.

ACharmedAsgard
May 1st, 2007, 04:18 PM
Sleek makes it look neater and more streamlined. In some cases it can mean maneuverability.
Correct, but I always wanted to know whether streamlined vessels are much good in space?

ManiacMike
May 2nd, 2007, 01:52 AM
Correct, but I always wanted to know whether streamlined vessels are much good in space?

No difference at all. Only in planets with gravity or atmosphere.

Look at the borg cube. Just a box. Fast and powerful.

Londo Molari
May 2nd, 2007, 05:32 AM
In general sleeker DOES mean more advanced. In GENERAL, not always. Why? Because as your technology becomes more advanced, it becomes easier to have everything built into a seamless surface. Instead of attaching everything onto the surface.

Just look at our warships and fighter aircraft today, and compare them to the ones from 20, 30, 40 years ago... they are definitely sleeker... less antennas and small thingies poking out.

So its very logical to assume that if we see advanced aliens, their ships will be very sleek. Thats not always true, like someone said, even if you're very advanced, if you're building something a hurry, or if you're upgrading it with new stuff all the time, it will tend to look ugly, but that doesn't mean its not advanced.

ACharmedAsgard
May 2nd, 2007, 03:48 PM
Sleekness can also mean advanced as well as it shows that the race as been able by some means to ward off enough threats to have the time to make their technology sleek.

This means could be that the race is advanced enough to protect themselves - giving them the oppertunity for sleekness