which is a more practical and realistic ship?

[General_Finley]

Okay so I remember someone describing the daedalus as a flying tank, or at least somthing similar so I started to wonder which is a more practical and realistic ship if they existed in the real world?
303
304
Galactica
NX
enterprise E
aurora class
ori mothership
bird or prey
battlestar pegasus
ship from Odyssey 2001

[jnadreth]

Out of them all

303
304
and Battlestar Pegasus

Reason being is that they have huge Fighter/Shuttle Bays (Always Good), the Tauri Ships are the most advanced (304 with Asgard refit definately) and the Battlestar is closer to our tech level so we might be able to build some

[FN-P90]

Well seeing as the Ship from 2001 uses technology tat we can buil and in some parts have surpased that one is with in our grasp in the next 50 to 100 years or so. the rest not so much.

[General_Finley]

personally I am going with Galactica and the one from 2001 because aside from Galactica's ftl drive we could probably biuld one in right know if we had a moon/orbital construction base. and the one from 2001 has we could almost definatly biuld.

[Empress Vajnraa]

personally I am going with Galactica and the one from 2001 because aside from Galactica's ftl drive we could probably biuld one in right now

With the economy the way it is right now, what makes you think we "can" build it?

Also, we are talking about an aircraft carrier sized space ship. Building something like that in an atmosphere is hard enough, but shipping those materials into space and expecting people to build a warship out of it is WAY beyond what our infrastructure can handle now.

[Deus257]

the ship from 2001 Odyssey seems more pratical and realistc since it uses technologies we currently with a few exceptions of technological leaps since the novel was published. I also add the galactica too seeing as how its weapons are similar to modern day weapons.

[Laxian of Earth]

more practical is is the 304 class (with all the asgard upgrades....even in its base configuration (with only beaming technology, shields and hyperdrive from the asgard) it is pretty handy

realistic? I'd go with the ship from Oddyssey 2001 and galactica (galactica has artificial gravity, hullplating that can survive a nuclear impact and an FTL drive, sure but that's the only really unrealistic stuff (in near future, further on most should be possible), the rest could be made right now (projectile weapons do work in space, fighters - with a more limited range of course - could be made, the computers on the ship etc. all could be made right now

greetings LAX

[General_Finley]

With the economy the way it is right now, what makes you think we "can" build it?

Also, we are talking about an aircraft carrier sized space ship. Building something like that in an atmosphere is hard enough, but shipping those materials into space and expecting people to build a warship out of it is WAY beyond what our infrastructure can handle now.

sorry I should have said we have the technology to biuld one, I mean we probably could biuld a battlestar if we pooled the world recources and poured large amounts of money into the indevore, I mean if we can give 1.9 million dollars to somthing a meaningless a swine oder, and with a projected budget of 3.4 trillion dollars we can probably biuld a Galactica class battlestar aside from the anti gravity, and Ftl and Nasa is working to remidy the anti-gravity.

[FN-P90]

sorry I should have said we have the technology to biuld one, I mean we probably could biuld a battlestar if we pooled the world recources and poured large amounts of money into the indevore, I mean if we can give 1.9 million dollars to somthing a meaningless a swine oder, and with a projected budget of 3.4 trillion dollars we can probably biuld a Galactica class battlestar aside from the anti gravity, and Ftl and Nasa is working to remidy the anti-gravity.

Well there is no way that in the next 100 years we will have an FTL drive, and the Anti-Gravity thing you see in Sci FI is actully caused by a Production budget that dosnt want to spend the money to make them seem like they are all floatinf WHICH THEY SHOULD BE!

[Crazy Tom]

Anyone who mentioned ships with fighter bays, your wrong, the arguments against space fighters in a realistic space enviroment are overwhelming.

Anyone who mentione ships that are layed out like airplanes, your wrong, in real life that would cause people to get slamed against a bulkhead whenever the ship accelerated.

Any ships with anti gravity, FTL, or any other handwavium- disqualified since the tech done't exist.

And a message to the people who think we can build a battelstar:

a) That ship is a drama queen, not a real warship, it's meant to look cool, that's it.

b) With curent propulsion methods, even nuclear pusle propulsion, a ship that big would have a unntrly lame acceleratin even if it's not torn apart...

c) ... we can't manufactue anything that big and have it sustain any sort of igh acceleration, since the structural stess would tear it apart.

edit: In fact, the only ship in that list that even qualifies is the Odyssey from 2001.

[FN-P90]

Anyone who mentioned ships with fighter bays, your wrong, the arguments against space fighters in a realistic space enviroment are overwhelming.

Anyone who mentione ships that are layed out like airplanes, your wrong, in real life that would cause people to get slamed against a bulkhead whenever the ship accelerated.

Any ships with anti gravity, FTL, or any other handwavium- disqualified since the tech done't exist.

And a message to the people who think we can build a battelstar:

a) That ship is a drama queen, not a real warship, it's meant to look cool, that's it.

b) With curent propulsion methods, even nuclear pusle propulsion, a ship that big would have a unntrly lame acceleratin even if it's not torn apart...

c) ... we can't manufactue anything that big and have it sustain any sort of igh acceleration, since the structural stess would tear it apart.

edit: In fact, the only ship in that list that even qualifies is the Odyssey from 2001.

Artifical Gravity is possible but for it to be comfterble for people they would have to be in one of these

Spoiler:

[freyr's mother]

With the economy the way it is right now, what makes you think we "can" build it?

Also, we are talking about an aircraft carrier sized space ship.

Larger...much larger.

Building something like that in an atmosphere is hard enough, but shipping those materials into space and expecting people to build a warship out of it is WAY beyond what our infrastructure can handle now.

When that space elevator gets built, things wont be as difficult to do.

[Sealurk]

Artifical Gravity is possible but for it to be comfterble for people they would have to be in one of these

Spoiler:

Well the O'Neill cylinder design was meant to be huge, miles across, and you don't quite need that.

To get a comfortable approximation of Earth gravity through centripetal means, i.e. rotation, you need a diameter of at least 400m or so rotating at 2rpm or less so as not to induce uncomfortable coriolis force effects.

Big and clunky for sure, but not the miles wide space stations favoured by sci-fi authors. For comparison, the Eiffel tower is ~300m high, and a Nimitz class carrier is ~300m long.

[FN-P90]

Well the O'Neill cylinder design was meant to be huge, miles across, and you don't quite need that.

To get a comfortable approximation of Earth gravity through centripetal means, i.e. rotation, you need a diameter of at least 400m or so rotating at 2rpm or less so as not to induce uncomfortable coriolis force effects.

Big and clunky for sure, but not the miles wide space stations favoured by sci-fi authors. For comparison, the Eiffel tower is ~300m high, and a Nimitz class carrier is ~300m long.

Well the point of the Cylinder is to be a Colony or people to livevery comfterbly in.

[Sealurk]

Also, as Crazy Tom pointed out, space fighters are so wrong it's laughable. They were created to make big spaceships look bigger, and because filmmakers and TV producers who have no time for realistic depictions of space warfare think they look cool. Which they do, but they don't work and are unlikely to ever exist once we get out into space for real.

Realistic space warfare is not especially suited to film or television. It is almost certainly less 'interesting' to watch than fictional submarine warfare. The ranges involved would likely by tremendous - tens of thousands of kilometres. Everything hinges on who detects whom first, and there is practically no stealth. Radar becomes less important than infrared, and battles are over in very short spaces of time.

At least, this is the educated opinion of most people looking into this kind of thing right now.

Finally, nukes in space are not the killer weapons they sound like - spacecraft are pretty much by their nature radiation hardened and built to deal with massive temperature ranges and fluctuations, and a nuke would very likely have to detonate extremely close to its target to do any major damage - remember, there is no air in space, so nothing to transmit the awesomely powerful shockwave nukes generate on Earth. They would still be useful weapons, just not the doomsday devices they are when used on Earth.