# To all sci-fi furs out there.



## Arcane hollow (Mar 14, 2009)

Explain your choice, and if you have a ship designed already feel free to explain.


----------



## Telnac (Mar 14, 2009)

Power & functionality.  The Federation ships in Star Trek look sweet & all, but they lack the sheer awesomeness of a Borg vessel, or the Galactica even Serenity from Firefly.

No matter what time era we're talking about, building anything that can carry people & survive the vacuum of space will be expensive & difficult.  The last thing engineers need is some design consultant telling them that the ship's reactor needs to look like the wings of an eagle.


----------



## Arcane hollow (Mar 14, 2009)

Telnac said:


> Power & functionality.  The Federation ships in Star Trek look sweet & all, but they lack the sheer awesomeness of a Borg vessel, or the Galactica even Serenity from Firefly.
> 
> No matter what time era we're talking about, building anything that can carry people & survive the vacuum of space will be expensive & difficult.  The last thing engineers need is some design consultant telling them that the ship's reactor needs to look like the wings of an eagle.



Totally agree with you on that, I'd rather have something that looked like it came straight from the scarp heep if i knew it worked, and could take more abuse than I could put her threw.


----------



## BigPuppy_Stuart (Mar 14, 2009)

Power and functionality are a must, form and elegance are just a plus


----------



## PriestRevan (Mar 14, 2009)

Raw Power and Functionality. Look at the Millenium Falcon from Star Wars.

Ugly as hell, but it worked. 
----

Look at Padme's ship:

http://www.starshipmodeler.org/wfest2k6/v_ta_DSC00490.jpg

Beautiful, but it wasn't very good at anything other than being fast.


----------



## Henk86 (Mar 14, 2009)

Combo of all four. Like the Galaxy class starship from star trek.


----------



## Arcane hollow (Mar 14, 2009)

Henk86 said:


> Combo of all four. Like the Galaxy class starship from star trek.



Ture to a point, But the pure awesomeness The Pegasus, Borg vessels and any Daedalus class vessel, out shine the Galaxy class.


----------



## Kangamutt (Mar 14, 2009)

What are we talking about here? Is it going to be a battleship? Freighter? Luxury cruiser?

The vehicle's primary function should be a key factor in the debate of form & function.

But remember this: _Form follows function._


----------



## Arcane hollow (Mar 14, 2009)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> What are we talking about here? Is it going to be a battleship? Freighter? Luxury cruiser?
> 
> The vehicle's primary function should be a key factor in the debate of form & function.
> 
> But remember this: _Form follows function._



Starships in general, but we will discard luxury cruisers.


----------



## Rayne (Mar 14, 2009)

Arcane hollow said:


> Ture to a point, But the pure awesomeness The Pegasus, Borg vessels and any Daedalus class vessel, out shine the Galaxy class.



Indeed. Give me a BC-304, a Mercury or Valkyrie-class Battlestar, or a Borg Cube over a Galaxy-class starship any day.


----------



## Greasemunky (Mar 14, 2009)

Figure out how to have both, unless you're in a war or something.
Intimidation can do wonders.


----------



## Tycho Rass (Mar 14, 2009)

Anyone ever play Freelancer?

The Kusari (japanese style) ships are beautiful, but the Rheinland (german style) ships can crush anything that stands in their way.


----------



## Lulian (Mar 14, 2009)

Just make a ship completely made up of guns. Not only will it look awesome, but it'll have awesome firepower.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 14, 2009)

Omega-class destroyers from "Babylon 5", Eagles from "Space: 1999" and "Discovery" from "2001: A Space Odyssey" are good examples of ships that both look good and have a believable design.


----------



## pheonix (Mar 14, 2009)

Raw power and functionality are a must. Your beauty and elegance will eat it against a ship with power and functionality, though I guess it all depends more on your crew then anything else. A crew with little experience with a ship that has power and functionality will most likely lose to a crew with a ship with beauty and elegance if they have much more experience.


----------



## Tycho Rass (Mar 14, 2009)

I guess you alway have ships like the Necromonger flagship, the Necropolis.  Artistically pleasing, with raw firepower to back it up.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 14, 2009)

Here's another one with all four:







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Ascendant


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 14, 2009)

I will always look good, look at the Pillar of Autumn; it's all about raw power and functionality and it looks amazing, and it's just a inherit design of the way the ship is built.


----------



## Murphy (Mar 14, 2009)

Uh, I think a ship should posses power and should function normally... and look cool while kicking ass.


----------



## Arcane hollow (Mar 14, 2009)

Rayne said:


> Indeed. Give me a BC-304, a Mercury or Valkyrie-class Battlestar, or a Borg Cube over a Galaxy-class starship any day.



Indeed.


----------



## Russ (Mar 14, 2009)

Raw Power and Functionality has a beauty and elegance of its own. Just watch Galactica firing its flak barrier 



> Anyone ever play Freelancer?
> 
> The Kusari (japanese style) ships are beautiful, but the Rheinland (german style) ships can crush anything that stands in their way.


 
The Kusari ships are mentioned to be the most technologically advanced which would give them a functionality though they still had their asses kicked by Rheinland


----------



## Arcane hollow (Mar 14, 2009)

Russ said:


> Raw Power and Functionality has a beauty and elegance of its own. Just watch Galactica firing its flak barrier



So true, that is beautiful.


----------



## Attaman (Mar 15, 2009)

Functionality at first, elegance later.

You are first going to want something that can safely get you from point A to point B, and comfort is going to be of little importance.  Once that's handled you can work on elegance.

Better to have 100 bare-bones ships that look crap but work satisfactory than five amazing works of art that will bust apart the moment someone has a hard sneeze within it.


----------



## Nikolai (Mar 15, 2009)

Both.

Make it do the same thing as the greatest ship ever, and look good doing it. Rarely do cosmetics actually disrupt the functionality of a ship, if done right. Sometimes they improve it.

Basically, the only reason why a ship can't look good, is because the designer didn't try to make it look good in my book. 

That, or make it invisible.


----------



## Attaman (Mar 15, 2009)

Nikolai said:


> Rarely do cosmetics actually disrupt the functionality of a ship, if done right. Sometimes they improve it.


  How efficiently they can move, the maneuvers they can pull off, the stress they can handle, overall safety of the vessel, occupancy, redundancy...



> Basically, the only reason why a ship can't look good, is because the designer didn't try to make it look good in my book.


  If going for Space Opera, yep.  OP, you speaking about Hard Sci-Fi or Space Opera?


----------



## Kajet (Mar 15, 2009)

Well... I think functionality is most important, but appearance is kind of important, the Pillar of Autumn is kind of butt ugly, BUT since it's a military vessel it's design shouldn't be all that fancy, Look at pretty much any Enterprise model looks like it'd be too easy to rip off a warp nacelle... The most "battle-worthy" ship in the Trek universe I can think of would be the Defiant...

But I guess that's what furs who have sci-fi/space stories need to figure out, what their shit looks like huh?


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Mar 15, 2009)

"Raw Power and Functionality."  Voted that.  I like starships where you can see how they work.  It's awesome.


----------



## Greasemunky (Mar 15, 2009)

Tycho Rass said:


> Anyone ever play Freelancer?
> 
> The Kusari (japanese style) ships are beautiful, but the Rheinland (german style) ships can crush anything that stands in their way.



Fuck, fuck fuck Freelancer fuck yea... Borderworlds ships, look badass (but not remotely elegant) and are very good at performing. Corsair ships, ass end ugly but easily the best in the game. Liberty, well, seeing as how it and Bretonia are low level zones, still in theory kick much ass (Liberty is supposedly the most advanced, look at Ageira) Bretonia ships look funky, and are sort of just there. Civvy ships, rather graceful, very agile, and come apart like tissue paper. Liberty rouge ships, all fins and spoilers, and lousy performance. 

By the way  I've played Freelancer for, bout 3/4 years, found every single thing in vanilla.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 15, 2009)

Raw Power and Functionality

I dont mind a nice looking ship, but after a fight...that nice looking ship...isnt so nice looking no more. So give me a butt ugly but powerful and functional ship, for when I come back from my fight it will still be ugly


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 15, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Better to have 100 bare-bones ships that look crap but work satisfactory than five amazing works of art that will bust apart the moment someone has a hard sneeze within it.



And let's not forget impressing on designers the need to put CIRCUIT-BREAKERS in the control consoles to avoid the inevitable shower of sparks and fires when the ship is hit by anything, for fuck's sake!


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 15, 2009)

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04E8NaUorOU


----------



## jagdwolf (Mar 15, 2009)

a dead enemy will not care if the ship that killed them was pretty.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 15, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Watch this:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04E8NaUorOU



You can keep your Andromeda... I've got "Liberator" from "Blake's 7"


----------



## Tycho Rass (Mar 15, 2009)

Greasemunky said:


> Fuck, fuck fuck Freelancer fuck yea... Borderworlds ships, look badass (but not remotely elegant) and are very good at performing. Corsair ships, ass end ugly but easily the best in the game. Liberty, well, seeing as how it and Bretonia are low level zones, still in theory kick much ass (Liberty is supposedly the most advanced, look at Ageira) Bretonia ships look funky, and are sort of just there. Civvy ships, rather graceful, very agile, and come apart like tissue paper. Liberty rouge ships, all fins and spoilers, and lousy performance.
> 
> By the way  I've played Freelancer for, bout 3/4 years, found every single thing in vanilla.



True, true.

Don't rag on the civvy ships too much, I will rape you with an Eagle.  The Titan is a space tank.  Blood Dragon is unholy; all the firepower of a VHF, with the agility of a LF.

If you still play it, come check out 24/7 Freelancer Universe.  Great server with an optional (but awesome) mod.  Got a lot unlocked, including cap ships and large trade vessels.  Not sure of your vibe, but if it tends towards pirating, I advise staying away from Rheinland and the Sigmas, as your poor little tailhole will get pillaged by the two most powerful clans on the server, Warhawks and Phantom Regiment.

You can find me on there under this same name.  I hold a staff position there.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 15, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> You can keep your Andromeda... I've got "Liberator" from "Blake's 7"



Okay, then... take THIS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64xKpE59n4I&feature=related


----------



## makmakmob (Mar 15, 2009)

I always figured a starship should reflect the people/whatevers who made it. Given the likely 'flagship' nature of starships, I guess a balance between the four.


----------



## Toto (Mar 15, 2009)

The ships of the Imperial Navy. Unfortunately the video don't give us the a real sense of scale.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK9ndNN8Tzs&feature=related


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 15, 2009)

Spirit of Fire http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/UNSC_Spirit_of_Fire,  bitches.

http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/UNSC_Frigate
http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/UNSC_Destroyer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYwdeJye9d8


----------



## Tycho Rass (Mar 15, 2009)

The ultimate pairing of form and function.



http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Doctor's_TARDIS


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 15, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Okay, then... take THIS:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64xKpE59n4I&feature=related



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N77GAsv8X-Q&feature=related

I'll take the TARDIS over the Lexx - after all, the TARDIS is bigger on the inside than the outside


----------



## Bambi (Mar 15, 2009)

I'd say functionality and raw power first, but this doesn't necessarly mean that the ship is manufactured without having a certain "look".


----------



## eternal_flare (Mar 15, 2009)

wooo! No one prioritizes beauty and elegance. :3
Raw power and functionality is all we need, yeah; irl or sci-fi.


----------



## Tycho Rass (Mar 15, 2009)

Raw power, thats the TARDIS for you.  Sort of careens through time and space like a drunken sailor, but can overpower black holes and move planets.


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 15, 2009)

Seriously? All four!
My recipe for a good ship:
- simple, to ease maintenance and repair
- decent firepower on any range to keep any threads at bay, no matter what your foe throws at you
-a rather clean and simple hull, which is simply to hide what your space vessel has got under the hood (no need to show that your baby can blow most enemies out of the sky with one shot ;-))
-appealing look, both outside and inside. The outside for parades and for diplomatic missions, the inside for the crew. A crew that is accomodated properly (private cabin for everyone instead of cramping a dozen people inside a little locker room) is more relaxed and is far more efficient.


----------



## Attaman (Mar 15, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYwdeJye9d8



A better video to use for showing off may be the unfinished fan film.  'Course, in the Halo universe it's mostly the human ships that make sense.


----------



## Seas (Mar 15, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Okay, then... take THIS:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64xKpE59n4I&feature=related



Blowing up a planet?
What can be more badass?
Aha, I know!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qiWAgQeAVY


----------



## Thatch (Mar 15, 2009)

Raw power and functionality will MAKE a starship beatiful.
That doesn't mean it can't be clean and crew-friendly. Raw power and functionality doesn't require pipe-like hallways, dirt and heavy air. Bah, things like that IMPAIR functionality, as the crew is by far the most important thing on a ship, a space one or otherwise.


All the wussies who like pretty boats better go and play with 'Their Little Ponies' and not travel around in space. It's not a pretty place to begin with. It's cold, desolate and dangerous.


----------



## Nekosan (Mar 15, 2009)

If a starship (or anything for that matter) is functional and powerful then form will usually follow function and the ship will be beautiful.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 15, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N77GAsv8X-Q&feature=related
> 
> I'll take the TARDIS over the Lexx - after all, the TARDIS is bigger on the inside than the outside





Tycho Rass said:


> Raw power, thats the TARDIS for you.  Sort of careens through time and space like a drunken sailor, but can overpower black holes and move planets.



But the TARDIS isn't a giant bug that eats planets...




Seastalker said:


> Blowing up a planet?
> What can be more badass?
> Aha, I know!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qiWAgQeAVY



Point taken... you win!  (Even though it wasn't one ship alone that blew up that sun...)


----------



## Henk86 (Mar 15, 2009)

Arcane hollow said:


> Ture to a point, But the pure awesomeness The Pegasus, Borg vessels and any Daedalus class vessel, out shine the Galaxy class.



Nah, not really.


----------



## Rayne (Mar 15, 2009)

Kajet said:


> Well... I think functionality is most important, but appearance is kind of important, the Pillar of Autumn is kind of butt ugly, BUT since it's a military vessel it's design shouldn't be all that fancy, Look at pretty much any Enterprise model looks like it'd be too easy to rip off a warp nacelle... The most "battle-worthy" ship in the Trek universe I can think of would be the Defiant...



The Intrepid-class ships at least look a great deal more battle-worthy than the Galaxy-class hips. Not as much so as the Defiant-class, given that it still suffers from the good old "let's just rip the nacelles right off and then break 'er in two" syndrome that seems to plague Federation star ships.

And hell, the Halcyon-class ships such as the Pillar of Autumn can look as ugly as they want given that they can take such a massive beating and still laugh at you, which is beautiful in its own right.


----------



## Armaetus (Mar 15, 2009)

Lulian said:


> Just make a ship completely made up of guns. Not only will it look awesome, but it'll have awesome firepower.



http://smashbros.planets.gamespy.com/ssbb/images/ssbb_20.jpg

You mean like the Halberd? It has cannons all around the sides, back and front of course...but it is dwarfed by the Subspace Gunship.


----------



## Kommodore (Mar 15, 2009)

I like warhammer, a lot. Imperial ships ftw. I don't know how they fall on the functionality side of things, half-kilometer high decorations are not the most practical of additions.


----------



## Armaetus (Mar 15, 2009)

Small, medium, large and gigantic:

Main page - http://www.st-minutiae.com/misc/comparison/

http://www.st-minutiae.com/misc/comparison/comparison_small.png
http://www.st-minutiae.com/misc/comparison/comparison_medium.png
http://www.st-minutiae.com/misc/comparison/comparison_large.png
http://www.st-minutiae.com/misc/comparison/comparison_huge.png


----------



## Attaman (Mar 16, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> I like warhammer, a lot. Imperial ships ftw. I don't know how they fall on the functionality side of things, half-kilometer high decorations are not the most practical of additions.


Perhaps, but then neither is having thousands of levies manually loading office building-sized torpedos.  What they sacrifice in functionality, they make up for in style, size ( As this baby shows), and durability (Some of the lowest end 40K calcs have ships slugging it out with Torpedos bearing 112 five gigaton warheads, higher end have ships remaining functional after being hit only a few times with these things).

Of course, if one wants to look at the most impractical of 40K ships, they need look no further than this unholy monstrosity.  Even assuming the shorter near-1km ships are close to it, we're speaking a ship tens of kilometers long.  Assuming something like a light cruiser, it may be in the hundreds of kilometers.  Then when you consider that means that one of the torpedo tubes must be at least 500m in height...


----------



## Kommodore (Mar 16, 2009)

Scaling 40k ships is a difficult thing to do, my own research turned up sizes for battleships that went up to 9km for Apocalypse class battleships. You know, the sizes change with every addition. Still, nothing beats a Craftworld: 



			
				bfg said:
			
		

> Craftworlds, though spacecraft, are vast beyond comprehension. They are not merely huge capital ships ploughing through space with a surrounding escort of smaller vessels. they are not even akin to vast cities, as some of the largest star forts of the Imperium might be considered, but rather are immense spacefaring worlds accompanied by vast armadas, the likes of which might otherwise be set aside to defend an entire system or even sub-sector. Whole battlefleets cluster around key points and stations all across the *thousands of miles of the craftworldâ€™s exterior* as smaller, nimbler craft rush and surge across its surface in a constant shimmering patrol.



Of course good 'ol GW, as nebulous as ever, hasn't released a picture of one for a while. I know there are some second edition pics, but I can find them. My google-fo must be weak.

EDIT: Found some. 
http://img34.imagehaven.net/img.php?id=FGAKVT6H13_saim-hann.JPG
http://img35.imagehaven.net/img.php?id=MI7ZKYYYLP_iyanden_02.JPG


----------



## Attaman (Mar 16, 2009)

Funny thing is, that's one of the smaller end Craftworld examples.  Others pit them at only slightly smaller than regular planetoids.  And the scary thing is, Eldar can make them disappear.  Fast.


----------



## The Grey One (Mar 16, 2009)

Raw power and functionality because I'd want my starship to show that it means business and you'd get messed up if you decided to battle with it.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 16, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> But the TARDIS isn't a giant bug that eats planets...



Oh, it's a *planet-killer* you want? 

It slices! It dices! It reduces planets to component molecules!


----------



## Ro4dk1ll (Mar 16, 2009)

Balance. Although my idea of beauty and elegance is a scrap metal junker similar to the ship in Firefly. :1


----------



## Russ (Mar 16, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Scaling 40k ships is a difficult thing to do, my own research turned up sizes for battleships that went up to 9km for Apocalypse class battleships. You know, the sizes change with every addition. Still, nothing beats a Craftworld:
> 
> Of course good 'ol GW, as nebulous as ever, hasn't released a picture of one for a while. I know there are some second edition pics, but I can find them. My google-fo must be weak.
> 
> ...


 
Heh. I always thought Craftworlds to be more spherical. Granted I never had my hands on one of the sourcebooks.


----------



## Tycho Rass (Mar 16, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> But the TARDIS isn't a giant bug that eats planets...



No, but it has the added perk of being a time machine.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Mar 16, 2009)

Romulan _D'deridex_-class holds a special place in me. Big and scary, and with lots of firepower, but also quite elegant. I designed a similar ship..it's on my FA page.


----------



## FireFoxZero (Mar 16, 2009)

Not sure if it has been mentioned yet but the Halcyon(sp) Class ships from the Halo universe were pretty sturdy but very functional. An example of which would have been the Pillar of Autumn, but I find most of the starships and space vehicles of the Halo universe to be very interesting, by far I just love the Long Sword Intercepter/Fighter. They're not touched on much in the books nor the games, with the exception of the first halo.

As for preferenace's I chose the third choice because where's the fun with a overpowered Starship/Airship, gotta be level through and through.

EDIT: Although I also believe it is a combination of both the pilots/captain skill and the ship itself that makes a good starship.


----------



## Masakuni (Mar 16, 2009)

A balance of both; You don't want something that'll get shot down quickly, and that's more important than looks, too. But if you can, it's also a good idea to make it look a bit cool while doing so, as long as you don't compromise the power of the machine. 

Yet if I had to choose one, power and functionality of course. At the end of the day, the strong ships are the ones who rule the skies and seas, even if they look like someone just built them out of old scrapyard parts.


----------



## Tycho Rass (Mar 16, 2009)

Masakuni said:


> A balance of both; You don't want something that'll get shot down quickly, and that's more important than looks, too. But if you can, it's also a good idea to make it look a bit cool while doing so, as long as you don't compromise the power of the machine.
> 
> Yet if I had to choose one, power and functionality of course. At the end of the day, the strong ships are the ones who rule the skies and seas, even if they look like someone just built them out of old scrapyard parts.



Nothing looks quite as cool as a time-traveling, intergalactic police box.


----------



## Gaius_Baltar (Mar 16, 2009)

Deffinately go for Power and Functionality over the looks.

The Galactic, and every other Battlestar (excluding some of th interrior the Pegassus) are ment for efficiency and defending themseles better against the enemy.
"form follows fuction" was one of he first lines said in the show; and it's true.

The Enterprize and Voyager are both pretty looking, nd ver comortable lookin and accomidating on the insde, and are deffinately not the most tactically advantageous in desin.
This is becausethey are mainly built for tools of explortion and deplomacy.

The Galactica is a tool of war, and this is seen in almost every aspect of the ship.
Every door is an air-tight hatch, they layout if rather efficin, landing struts allow for quick landins from anyting from a viper to Colonial-one, while the under-sde of the stuts serve as the hagar and launch-bay, justto nme a few combat-orientated design traits.
(tgh th Pegassus seems to have a lot more pretty curves on the interrior, and the CIC has those uselss fancy glass doors instead of usefull reinforced air-tight hatches.)

EDIT:
forgot about 40K Imperial ships.
Form follows functon also appies to them
There aso these 0Km long ships ar covered bow to stern in symbols of Imperium, andhave 3Km^3 large imperial eagles as the bow of the ship is simply because of how zeaous and overly nationalistic and patriotic (and religiously devoted) they are to the Imperium and the Emperor.


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 16, 2009)

Though if you sustain any real hull damage in space, you're going to be a serious trouble.  Even if you seal off the damaged part of the ship, it won't be possible to fix or even control anything in the damaged section.

In the Star Trek univese, the ships are basically screwed if the shields fail, so they can afford to look pretty.  (Also I think there may be some in-universe reason the nacelles need to be extended in order to surround the whole ship in the "warp field.")

Realitically, could even something like the Galactic take a large nuclear warhead exploding next to it?  I think without some sort of energy field absorbing most of the damage, ship-to-ship combat would amount to "first to get hit dies."

And if energy-field defense is most important, than a graceful look could be very functional, depending on what kind of technology you imagine.


----------



## Gaius_Baltar (Mar 17, 2009)

dietrc70 said:


> Though if you sustain any real hull damage in space, you're going to be a serious trouble. Even if you seal off the damaged part of the ship, it won't be possible to fix or even control anything in the damaged section.
> 
> In the Star Trek univese, the ships are basically screwed if the shields fail, so they can afford to look pretty. (Also I think there may be some in-universe reason the nacelles need to be extended in order to surround the whole ship in the "warp field.")
> 
> Realitically, could even something like the Galactic take a large nuclear warhead exploding next to it? I think without some sort of energy field absorbing most of the damage, ship-to-ship combat would amount to "first to get hit dies."


 
If you look at the Galactica, or any other Battlestar; you will notice it has these "ribs" along with chunks of armour plating on top of this.

This acts much like a tanker's 2nd hull.
It absorms the majority of the dammage, while dispursing whatever kenetic force it sustained though a large area of the ship.
This is wy the Galactica could istain soomuch dammage and still be flying.
but to continue what I'm going to say; i must give a spoiler alert

BSG SPOILERS (if you haven't see that far into season 4)


The galactica in the later part of season 4 is litterally falling appart. From all those jumps, getting real beaten up durring combat, and even entering the atmosphere of New-Caprica; The Galactica's entire hull is riddled with hairline fractures, and entire supporting structures have snapped completely appart. even visual cracks and fissures ar in the ship.

So yes it;s "outter hull" protected it realisticly. but it also realisticly couldn't protect her from the constant wear-and-tear of years of combat and abuse.

__________________________________________

Spoilers over.

Where as the cylon base-stars, and resurecton ships have no outer-hull, and are quire raped in combat whenever they are under heavy fire


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 17, 2009)

dietrc70 said:


> In the Star Trek univese, the ships are basically screwed if the shields fail, so they can afford to look pretty.  (Also I think *there may be some in-universe reason the nacelles need to be extended* in order to surround the whole ship in the "warp field.")



Yes, there is... radiation.  The Defiant class had better radiation shielding, so their nacelles could be tighter to the hull...


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 17, 2009)

Gaius_Baltar said:


> Deffinately go for Power and Functionality over the looks.
> 
> The Galactic, and every other Battlestar (excluding some of th interrior the Pegassus) are ment for efficiency and defending themseles better against the enemy.
> "form follows fuction" was one of he first lines said in the show; and it's true.
> ...



Oh, you're talking about the _new_ "Battlestar Galactica"... the original Galactica design looks pretty cool too, even if it did have seventies dÃ©cor inside


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 17, 2009)

dietrc70 said:


> Realitically, could even something like the Galactic take a large nuclear warhead exploding next to it?  I think without some sort of energy field absorbing most of the damage, ship-to-ship combat would amount to "first to get hit dies."
> 
> And if energy-field defense is most important, than a graceful look could be very functional, depending on what kind of technology you imagine.



Atomic Rocket is your friend on these important questions:



> http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#nuke
> 
> Nuclear weapons will destroy a ship if they detonate exceedingly close to it. But if it is further away than about a kilometer, it won't do much more than singe the paintjob and blind a few sensors. And in space a kilometer is pretty close range.
> 
> _followed by more incredibly useful stuff..._


----------



## Russ (Mar 17, 2009)

Gaius_Baltar said:


> <Spoilers Snipped>
> 
> Where as the cylon base-stars, and resurecton ships have no outer-hull, and are quire raped in combat whenever they are under heavy fire


 
I know. It appears Galactica is still capable of putting up a fight (judging from the upcoming episode) though I doubt itll last long. I may actually cry when it gets destroyed. The last four episodes have emphasized just how badly Galactica is damaged after four years of no-rest.

The Cylon Basestars are lightly armed and rely of Raiders to defend themselves. The Basestar-to-Basestar fight in The Hub was just basestars launcing missiles at eachother. And just two of those missles were enough to penetrate the hull and injure Gaius. And yea they do get ripped apart when those Raider escorts are gone.

Chances are Cylons would have lost if they hadn't disabled the Colonial defences and tried an all-out attack.


----------



## Arcane hollow (Mar 17, 2009)

Gaius_Baltar said:


> If you look at the Galactica, or any other Battlestar; you will notice it has these "ribs" along with chunks of armour plating on top of this.
> 
> This acts much like a tanker's 2nd hull.
> It absorms the majority of the dammage, while dispursing whatever kenetic force it sustained though a large area of the ship.
> ...



I wanna see want to see a Galaxy class go threw the same abuse the Galactica went threw for four Years.


----------



## Rayne (Mar 17, 2009)

Russ said:


> I may actually cry when it gets destroyed. The last four episodes have emphasized just how badly Galactica is damaged after four years of no-rest.



I'm already pretty upset about the end of the series and the end of Galactica herself in general. The last four episodes, however awesome, totally haven't helped that, either. I actually felt pretty bad about the loss of the Pegasus back in season three and the loss of the BC-303 Prometheus (as well as the BC-304 Korolev DSC) in Stargate, and I wasn't nearly as attached to either of those ships.


----------



## Zseliq (Mar 17, 2009)

A ship with strong ability to work is beautiful. The same for dogs. A dog who can do his job well is beautiful, even if he doesnt have a filly coat or perfect ears.


----------



## Russ (Mar 17, 2009)

Rayne said:


> I actually felt pretty bad about the loss of the Pegasus back in season three


 
I know how you feel. I had spoilers it would be destroyed but it still got to me. The music proably helped too. That was a damn good ship despite the bad luck it seemed carry with it.


----------



## Rayne (Mar 17, 2009)

Russ said:


> I know how you feel. I had spoilers it would be destroyed but it still got to me. The music proably helped too. That was a damn good ship despite the bad luck it seemed carry with it.



And hey, at least it took out a base star and crippled another with its guns and missiles before utterly annihilating a third base star by just ramming it. It was a seriously unlucky ship, though, as shown in the series and then Razer. The four captains she saw during BSG was the only thing that kept her going so long. :/


----------



## Russ (Mar 17, 2009)

Rayne said:


> And hey, at least it took out a base star and crippled another with its guns and missiles before utterly annihilating a third base star by just ramming it. It was a seriously unlucky ship, though, as shown in the series and then Razer. The four captains she saw during BSG was the only thing that kept her going so long. :/


 
Aye. The events in Razor, Gina's imprisonment and the whole state of the crew by the time they met the Fleet had put a really bad sense over the ship.

I am not sure if Lee's command would be "kept her going". People in some battlestar forums I frequent are still _very_ angry at him


----------



## Rayne (Mar 17, 2009)

Russ said:


> Aye. The events in Razor, Gina's imprisonment and the whole state of the crew by the time they met the Fleet had put a really bad sense over the ship.
> 
> I am not sure if Lee's command would be "kept her going". People in some battlestar forums I frequent are still _very_ angry at him



Oh, I'm still angry at him too. He's always been an ass, amongst other things, but he at least kept the crew stable and the ship in check from the time Garner died up to the ship's destruction, all while operating with well under 50% of a Mercury-class' standard crew compliment during war-time conditions, he did his part.

And BSG forums, eh? Linkage, perhaps? I've never really tracked down any good ones.


----------



## Rebel-lion (Mar 18, 2009)

I have to say I really like the gothic look of the Imperial Navy


----------



## Attaman (Mar 18, 2009)

Rayne said:


> And hey, at least it took out a base star and crippled another with its guns and missiles before utterly annihilating a third base star by just ramming it. It was a seriously unlucky ship, though, as shown in the series and then Razer. The four captains she saw during BSG was the only thing that kept her going so long. :/



I think you may have forgot the fourth ship destroyed by the rubble of Pegasus.


----------



## Rayne (Mar 18, 2009)

Attaman said:


> I think you may have forgot the fourth ship destroyed by the rubble of Pegasus.



I did forget that, but I don't remember if it was destroyed or just heavily damaged.

*Re-watches.*


----------



## Tycho Rass (Mar 18, 2009)

Who bloody well cares about guns, when you can go anywhere, anytime, instantly?


----------



## Russ (Mar 18, 2009)

Rayne said:


> I did forget that, but I don't remember if it was destroyed or just heavily damaged.
> 
> *Re-watches.*


 
I thought three Basestars got destroyed. 1 during Pegasus' entry, second one is the one Peggy rammed and the third one is the one that got hit by the flight pod from Peggy's explosion. The fourth one was just damaged AFAIK.

BTW http://www.battlestarforum.com/ is a forum I frequented for quite some time. Some interesting discussions tend to occur. Have been a little bit away from it though. Some people did not like this half of the season and theres been some whining going on that got old.


----------



## Attaman (Mar 18, 2009)

Tycho Rass said:


> Who bloody well cares about guns, when you can go anywhere, anytime, instantly?



Imperium of Man.  Because they can't.

Actually, lots of Sci-Fi is starting to make slower travel for their ships (and less reality warping).


----------

