[Question] What is the best fictional spaceship?

[GasBandit]

Well as you pointed out Stationary is a word that doesn't apply to reality.

What you want to use is "stationary relative to the universe"...

The universe's internal parts are not stationary, they're all swirling and whizzing around. There's no such thing as stationary relative to the universe, the galaxy, the solar system, or even the planet. The point was to display the absurdity of deciding identities based on relocatability.

If it [having a power source] doesn't then what's the difference between a metal container and a car...

Needing a hill, I suppose.

What part of "under it's own power" is so confusing?

How is having soldiers move tents from one end of the base to the other any different from having sailors raise and lower sails, secure rigging, hoist anchors, etc? What if the base had self-moving tents, or tent-pitching robots?

The Death Star has features of both a station and a ship, basically being a hybrid, so it qualifies as a ship just fine for the purposes of this thread...


So does the Magog World Ship (although Worlds would be more accurate. Man, Andromeda had such potential)...

Fine then. The Milky Way is the best ship. Thread over.

 

[@Li3n]

The universe's internal parts are not stationary, they're all swirling and whizzing around. There's no such thing as stationary relative to the universe, the galaxy, the solar system, or even the planet. The point was to display the absurdity of deciding identities based on relocatability.

You didn't have a very good grade in physics, did you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_(physics)

How is having soldiers move tents from one end of the base to the other any different from having sailors raise and lower sails, secure rigging, hoist anchors, etc? What if the base had self-moving tents, or tent-pitching robots?

Then the tents would also be robots...

Fine then. The Milky Way is the best ship. Thread over.

Well it's certainly the cheapest...

 

[GasBandit]

You didn't have a very good grade in physics, did you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_(physics)

Straight As actually. Rest only applies in relation to another object. In fact, that very link backs up my assertion, not yours. You can't be stationary relative to the universe because everything in the universe is moving. You can't be stationary in relative to the galaxy because everything in the galaxy is moving. You can't be stationary relative to the solar system because everything in the solar system is moving. See the pattern?

That's why the "stationary" argument is invalid for spaceborne constructs.

Then the tents would also be robots...

And then John was a zombie. Seriously though, they're part of the base. The base moves through the manipulation of its crew or under the power of it's mechanoids... is it still a base?

Well it's certainly the cheapest...

And it contains everything we've ever known, loved, hated, destroyed or made. What a deal!

 

[Baerdog]

This argument is retarded.


The best ship is the Normandy SR-2

 

[Frank]

No way, it's the Vindicator/Whatever you want to name it from Star Control 2, Mass Effect's granddaddy.

 

[Baerdog]

I can't hear you over the sound of how much your opinion contradicts mine.

 

[@Li3n]

Straight As actually. Rest only applies in relation to another object. In fact, that very link backs up my assertion, not yours. You can't be stationary relative to the universe because everything in the universe is moving. You can't be stationary in relative to the galaxy because everything in the galaxy is moving. You can't be stationary relative to the solar system because everything in the solar system is moving. See the pattern?

That's why the "stationary" argument is invalid for spaceborne constructs.

You do know that they do use objects that are in motion in physics, right... as in geostationary orbit and all that jazz... and there's really nothing to stop it form scaling up to a galaxy, as that one moves in one way too (the universe overall is a bit more fuzzy, but i was using it more as space = aka all the other matter around the ship which just follows it's inertia).

Because really, if you don't your teachers grading methods need to be re-examined...

And then John was a zombie.

Seriously though, they're part of the base. The base moves through the manipulation of its crew or under the power of it's mechanoids... is it still a base?

Really, you're counting the humans as part of the base?

At least with robots i'd assume where integrated into the structures...

And if so then it would be a robotic base (well more like robotic tents), and you could call it a robot (well, the tents, unless it's a base made up of just one robo-body)...


Seriously, you're being way too nitpicky... admit it, you're just doing it because you think it annoys me...

The 1st Death Star qualifies enough as a ship to count... even if it's primarily designed as a space station...
Added at: 12:29

And it contains everything we've ever known, loved, hated, destroyed or made. What a deal!

Ermmm... yes, we all all totally unidimensional beings, and here we are having a totally normal, not transdimensional at all, discussion... between us unidimensional beings...

 

[GasBandit]

You do know that they do use objects that are in motion in physics, right... as in geostationary orbit and all that jazz... and there's really nothing to stop it form scaling up to a galaxy, as that one moves in one way too (the universe overall is a bit more fuzzy, but i was using it more as space = aka all the other matter around the ship which just follows it's inertia).

Because really, if you don't your teachers grading methods need to be re-examined...

Where I was going was a geostationary orbit is still an orbit, it only looks "stationary" if you don't broaden the perspective. For any given thing that seems to be stationary, you need only widen the perspective by one degree of magnitude to see that it is not. I appear stationary to the guy next to me in a moving car. A parked car looks stationary to other people on the planet, who also consider the planet itself to be stationary... but it doesn't look stationary from elsewhere in the solar system. The sun looks stationary while in the solar system, but not from other solar systems or in interstellar space. From there it breaks down even faster because the galaxy is not only plainly not stationary but is also changing shape, and galaxies and clusters in the universe have even been observed to be travelling the "wrong way" and they have even been observed colliding. Once you're above planetary scale, "stationary" is a largely meaningless term because the very physics of space travel requires you to take into account that all things are moving all the time.

Really, you're counting the humans as part of the base?

At least with robots i'd assume where integrated into the structures...

Why would crew/staff not be considered part of a ship/station?

Seriously, you're being way too nitpicky... admit it, you're just doing it because you think it annoys me...

Dude, I think some days, that's the only reason behind ANY of our interactions - annoying each other.

The 1st Death Star qualifies enough as a ship to count... even if it's primarily designed as a space station...

Not only do I disagree, but I feel compelled to point out the fallacy in your logic - why does the first death star count but not the second? Obviously the second would have to have the same mobility of the first, otherwise the superlaser weapon is a very expensive waste.

 

[PatrThom]

This thread is rapidly approaching its Schwarzchild radius.

--Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

This thread is rapidly approaching its Schwarzchild radius.

--Patrick

The nerdiest way to say "You suck."

 

[TommiR]

Where I was going was a geostationary orbit is still an orbit, it only looks "stationary" if you don't broaden the perspective. For any given thing that seems to be stationary, you need only widen the perspective by one degree of magnitude to see that it is not. I appear stationary to the guy next to me in a moving car. A parked car looks stationary to other people on the planet, who also consider the planet itself to be stationary... but it doesn't look stationary from elsewhere in the solar system. The sun looks stationary while in the solar system, but not from other solar systems or in interstellar space. From there it breaks down even faster because the galaxy is not only plainly not stationary but is also changing shape, and galaxies and clusters in the universe have even been observed to be travelling the "wrong way" and they have even been observed colliding. Once you're above planetary scale, "stationary" is a largely meaningless term because the very physics of space travel requires you to take into account that all things are moving all the time.

But isn't all movement relative by definition? It all depends on the frame of reference, which doesn't really need to be stationary regarding anything, it is simply the point of observation where you fix the coordinate system. I'm having difficulty understanding your argument regarding motion, perhaps you could explain what you mean a bit further.

Ermmm... yes, we all all totally unidimensional beings, and here we are having a totally normal, not transdimensional at all, discussion... between us unidimensional beings...

If I may ask, what are you specifically referring to here with 'dimensions'? I mean, if we keep things simple, we all perceive our surroundings in three spatial dimensions and one temporal, so I don't think Gas was saying that everything is somehow uni-dimensional. Do you perhaps mean dimensions as in 'parallel universes' or something like it?

 

[fade]

Your mom.

Wait.

That's more of a planet.

Wait, I'm confused. She possesses the ability to move by herself, but she doesn't actually use it. I don't think this is covered in the argument so far. Therefore, I don't know whether to classify your mom as a space ship or a space station.

 

[GasBandit]

But isn't all movement relative by definition? It all depends on the frame of reference, which doesn't really need to be stationary regarding anything, it is simply the point of observation where you fix the coordinate system. I'm having difficulty understanding your argument regarding motion, perhaps you could explain what you mean a bit further.

The argument for the definition of a space station being rooted in it being stationary is shown to be untenable because when travelling on an interstellar scale, from any given origin your target "station" will be a moving target.

If I may ask, what are you specifically referring to here with 'dimensions'? I mean, if we keep things simple, we all perceive our surroundings in three spatial dimensions and one temporal, so I don't think Gas was saying that everything is somehow uni-dimensional. Do you perhaps mean dimensions as in 'parallel universes' or something like it?

He was making a joke about being an extradimensional alien. IE, Krang. When I'd said everything we'd ever known, loved, hated etc was in the milky way, and Krang comes from Dimension X.

 

[TommiR]

The argument for the definition of a space station being rooted in it being stationary is shown to be untenable because when travelling on an interstellar scale, from any given origin your target "station" will be a moving target.

In that case, wouldn't a more useful interpretation of 'stationary' in terms of objects in space be 'unable to maneuver to any significant degree' rather than 'relative velocity'? At least I think it is probably closer to what was meant.

He was making a joke about being an extradimensional alien. IE, Krang. When I'd said everything we'd ever known, loved, hated etc was in the milky way, and Krang comes from Dimension X.

I like turtles.

 

[figmentPez]

The argument for the definition of a space station being rooted in it being stationary is shown to be untenable because when travelling on an interstellar scale, from any given origin your target "station" will be a moving target.

The International Space Station is in a more-or-less fixed orbit around the Earth. While it moves a whole lot, it is reliably found in a predetermined area relative to the Earth, and relative to the sun. Barring some catastrophic change in the laws of physics, it is not going to be found orbiting Mars.

The Death Star does not have such a standard location. It is not in orbit around any one planet or star. It is mobile, moving from planetary system to planetary system at will.


The difference between the moving Death Star and a moving tent city? The Death Star functions while it's moving under it's own power, and is a single unit. Those tents, when disassembled and being moved, do not perform their function as shelter while moving. Moreover, those tents are not a single unit.

 

[GasBandit]

The International Space Station is in a more-or-less fixed orbit around the Earth. While it moves a whole lot, it is reliably found in a predetermined area relative to the Earth, and relative to the sun. Barring some catastrophic change in the laws of physics, it is not going to be found orbiting Mars.

The Death Star does not have such a standard location. It is not in orbit around any one planet or star. It is mobile, moving from planetary system to planetary system at will.


The difference between the moving Death Star and a moving tent city? The Death Star functions while it's moving under it's own power, and is a single unit. Those tents, when disassembled and being moved, do not perform their function as shelter while moving. Moreover, those tents are not a single unit.

The space shuttle operates under many of the same constraints. Once it is in orbit, it basically has maneuvering capabilities through thrusters - and the ISS has thrusters as well. Remember how often they have to "dodge space junk." Yet the shuttle is a "ship" and the station is a "station" despite having similar maneuvering capabilities (other than surviving re-entry, of course).

 

[fade]

Seems like "primary function" might be the concept you're looking for...

 

[figmentPez]

The space shuttle operates under many of the same constraints. Once it is in orbit, it basically has maneuvering capabilities through thrusters - and the ISS has thrusters as well. Remember how often they have to "dodge space junk." Yet the shuttle is a "ship" and the station is a "station" despite having similar maneuvering capabilities (other than surviving re-entry, of course).

The space station, while it does maneuver to avoid debris, does so only in order to maintain a safe orbit. It remains in the same general location relative to the planet. The shuttle is not always found in orbit. It travels from the surface to orbit, shuttling passengers and cargo. That's a pretty huge difference in maneuvering capabilities, and that you brush-off that capability shows you're either trolling this conversation, or are completely deluding yourself in order to be right. Either way, I should have shut up a long time ago because there's no logic that will work on you at this point.

 

[LordRendar]

How bout we settle for "If it was ment to transport people/goods from A to B" it is a ship.If it is primarily used to house people it is a base.

 

[GasBandit]

The space station, while it does maneuver to avoid debris, does so only in order to maintain a safe orbit. It remains in the same general location relative to the planet. The shuttle is not always found in orbit. It travels from the surface to orbit, shuttling passengers and cargo. That's a pretty huge difference in maneuvering capabilities, and that you brush-off that capability shows you're either trolling this conversation, or are completely deluding yourself in order to be right. Either way, I should have shut up a long time ago because there's no logic that will work on you at this point.

It's only the external boosters and fuel tank that get the space shuttle out of the atmosphere. Including those in the space ship would be like saying the ferry that gets you across the channel is part of the car you are driving. The shuttle itself is a box with maneuvering thrusters. The ISS is a bigger box with thrusters. Both can move around in orbit (but not leave orbit) under their own power. This is the same as comparing a star destroyer to the death star. If you find the idea that the ISS is a space ship preposterous, that's because it is, and so is the idea that the Death Star is a space ship.

Fade has the right idea - it's about function. The death star was designed to be a base. A station. Yes, it has a planetkilling weapon, and yes, it can move. But it is still a base.

 

[figmentPez]

How bout we settle for "If it was ment to transport people/goods from A to B" it is a ship.If it is primarily used to house people it is a base.

What about combat ships? An X-wing's primary purpose is not transport, it is combat. Figuring out the Death Star's primary purpose is a whole lot more complicated. Is it primarily a base for housing troops? Or are the troops just there because of the necessity of protecting the giant planet exploding laser? Hmm, I'd lean towards the latter, but I'm not well versed in the politics of the Star Wars universe. Maybe the Death Star really had some great purpose as a military base beyond "do what we say or we'll blow up your planet".
Added at: 15:24

Both can move around in orbit (but not leave orbit) under their own power

The shuttle can leave orbit under it's own power. The station cannot.

The boosters for the shuttle cannot function alone, they are a part of the shuttle's function, but even without them the shuttle has more maneuverability than the station.

 

[GasBandit]

How bout we settle for "If it was ment to transport people/goods from A to B" it is a ship.If it is primarily used to house people it is a base.

What about combat ships? An X-wing's primary purpose is not transport, it is combat. Figuring out the Death Star's primary purpose is a whole lot more complicated. Is it primarily a base for housing troops? Or are the troops just there because of the necessity of protecting the giant planet exploding laser? Hmm, I'd lean towards the latter, but I'm not well versed in the politics of the Star Wars universe. Maybe the Death Star really had some great purpose as a military base beyond "do what we say or we'll blow up your planet".

Well, there's the problem... I'm about as stupidly overinformed about Star Wars minutiae as a guy can be without crossing the event horizon known as "reading the extended universe books," from which there is no return (or social life).

The death star did have a big planet killing laser, but it also had dry dock facilities to build, repair and maintain starships up to and including star destroyers. Even the first death star housed over a half million ground troops and the transports to deliver them and the escort craft to.. uh.. escort them (the second would have housed more had it been completed, it was actually a whole lot bigger than the first). X-wings and the like are more in the "fighter" category, though laypeople still would call it a space ship just because it is capable of transporting its pilot into/across space and back, the in universe term is "Starfighter." From a functionary standpoint, it's closer to a jet fighter than a naval vessel. The death star is like somebody loaded up Norfolk, VA with tactical nuclear artillery, cut it off the coast with a bigass saw, put a bigass motor on it and pushed it out to sea.

The shuttle can leave orbit under it's own power. The station cannot.

you don't just mean returning to Earth, do you?

The boosters for the shuttle cannot function alone, they are a part of the shuttle's function, but even without them the shuttle has more maneuverability than the station.

Not in space, it doesn't.

 

[fade]

So, where do you draw the line? How big can a spaceship be before it ceases to be a ship anymore? A super star detroyer is a hell of a lot bigger than Atlantis (Stargate), both are able to travel under their own power. Is Atlantis not a starship because it looks more like a city?

http://conservationreport.com/2009/01/14/science-fiction-spaceship-size-comparison-chart/

Interesting to see the Independence Day and V ships on there. I think we have the best grasp on the sizes of those, because they hovered over familiar cities.

 

[LordRendar]

I agree with GB. If we compare the X-Wing to Earth terms,it would be a fighterplane,meant to be launched from a mothership.
Can a X-Wing travel from planet to planet?Sure,but it sure isnt ment to. And that is I think the most important aspect of judging if it is a ship.

 

[TommiR]

One possible definition of warships versus combat space stations might be 'if the primary purpose for which it was designed is to maneuver across significant distances to intercept and engage targets, it's a ship' and 'if it is not intended to intercept targets but rather engage enemies that venture into weapons range, it is a combat space station'.

According to this definition, which I believe may be a useful one, the Death Star would have been a ship I think, with the primary purpose of travelling to and blowing up planets.
Added at: 23:56

I agree with GB. If we compare the X-Wing to Earth terms,it would be a fighterplane,meant to be launched from a mothership.
Can a X-Wing travel from planet to planet?Sure,but it sure isnt ment to. And that is I think the most important aspect of judging if it is a ship.

I think the X-Wing and other fighters were meant to travel to a target and blow it up, making them fighters (small ships).

 

[LordRendar]

So is every fighter/bomber.Travel to a place and blow it up.Does not make them ships.

 

[TommiR]

Aren't they? I would have placed them in the small ships category.

edit: And in terms of your definition, aren't they meant to transport and deploy ordnance on target?

 

[LordRendar]

touche.
let me stew a while over my wording and i will come back to continue the discussion. xD

 

[GasBandit]

Babylon 5 got around the need for fighters to have hyperspace engines by having "hyperspace gates" in addition to hyperspace drives. So if your ship can't jump to hyperspace on its own, you can just maneuver it through a gate.

 

[@Li3n]

If I may ask, what are you specifically referring to here with 'dimensions'? I mean, if we keep things simple, we all perceive our surroundings in three spatial dimensions and one temporal, so I don't think Gas was saying that everything is somehow uni-dimensional. Do you perhaps mean dimensions as in 'parallel universes' or something like it?

Oh yes... there is totally three spatial dimensions and i, like all other inhabitants of this time and place no nothing about that just being an illusion of the limited sense of inferior 1D beings such as yourse... i mean us... yeah, totally human here...

Where I was going was a geostationary orbit is still an orbit, it only looks "stationary" if you don't broaden the perspective.

Now i know you're just screwing with me...


But let's simplify... is being able to modify it's own inertia a primary function of the spaceborne entity in question? Then it counts enough as a ship for the purposes of the OP's question, no matter how much it's also a hybrid with another type of spaceborne thing... unless it's Superman...

Dude, I think some days, that's the only reason behind ANY of our interactions - annoying each other.

Sure, but it's much better when both sides actually mean it and one isn't just arguing to be contrary... makes the discussion feel more real...

Not only do I disagree, but I feel compelled to point out the fallacy in your logic - why does the first death star count but not the second? Obviously the second would have to have the same mobility of the first, otherwise the superlaser weapon is a very expensive waste.

Because at the time of it's destruction it was quite an immobile trap... see, the devil is in the details like that.

So is every fighter/bomber.Travel to a place and blow it up. Does not make them ships.

I really doubt that the OP had such a narrow definition in mind that it would exclude fighters...

 

[GasBandit]

Now i know you're just screwing with me...

Actually, no, this is a totally legit nerd verbal slapfight. It's an internet forum. It's star wars minutiae. How could there not be one?

But let's simplify... is being able to modify it's own inertia a primary function of the spaceborne entity in question? Then it counts enough as a ship for the purposes of the OP's question, no matter how much it's also a hybrid with another type of spaceborne thing... unless it's Superman...

The OP is "with me on this":

Yeah, I'm with GB on this.

Deep Space Nine had thrusters and moved around a bit on occasion, doesn't stop it from being a space station.

So if you want to pull the "OP's intent" card on me, I got your trump.

Because at the time of it's destruction it was quite an immobile trap... see, the devil is in the details like that.

It was pretending. Remember? "Now witness the power of this fully armed AND OPERATIONAL BATTLESTATION?"

I really doubt that the OP had such a narrow definition in mind that it would exclude fighters...

Eh, I could go either way on the fighters personally, it's the STATIONS I'm vehement about. After all, Luke's X-Wing was little more than a personal transport for his trip to Dagobah.

 

[fade]

According to my AP English teacher in high school, author intent became irrelevant the moment s/he put the work into a public forum.

 

[figmentPez]

It was pretending. Remember? "Now witness the power of this fully armed AND OPERATIONAL BATTLESTATION?"

C'mon Gas, you should know that political leaders are fond of making statements that sound grandiose but are technically inaccurate.

 

[HCGLNS]

/thread

 

[Shakey]

Thunder Road. It was made out of a freaking tilt a whirl.