Search forums

Forums

Export thread

What is the best fictional spaceship?

Jan 13, 2012#1

Frankie Williamson

Not the one that would win in a fight or any of that stupid God damn nonsense, but which is the best? I NEED TO KNOW THE FUCKING ANSWER.

Jan 13, 2012#2

Ravenpoe

The Heart of Gold, from HHGTTG

Also, the answer is 42.

Jan 13, 2012#3

Frankie Williamson

I preferred the sequel HRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH

Yes I realize that he meant Hitchhiker's Guide.

Jan 13, 2012#4

Bowielee

If we're ignoring combat, I'll go with Moya from Farscape.

Jan 13, 2012#5

Gusto

The iconic Enterprise D.

Jan 13, 2012#6

sixpackshaker

Argo/Yamato

Jan 13, 2012#7

Dave

I want to say Serenity, but without Kaylee it would be dead in the water.

I'd have to say the alien craft from Rama.

Jan 13, 2012#8

TommiR

I've always liked the Imperial Star Destroyers.

Jan 13, 2012#9

drawn_inward

Slave I has been my fav since I was 4 or 5.

Jan 13, 2012#10

GasBandit

The amalgamate borg fusion cube. It's a big borg cube made up by gluing 8 regular borg cubes together into a big Rubix Borg Cube.

Jan 13, 2012#11

drifter

Jan 13, 2012#12

Necronic

GasBandit said:
The amalgamate borg fusion cube. It's a big borg cube made up by gluing 8 regular borg cubes together into a big Rubix Borg Cube.

Seriously? Your answer is A CUBE?

Lame. I'm going to say the Borg Sphere. Much better geometry.

Jan 13, 2012#13

Espy

Drifer I will raise you one SDF.

Jan 13, 2012#14

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Seriously? Your answer is A CUBE?

Lame. I'm going to say the Borg Sphere. Much better geometry.

The sphere is a much less powerful ship designed to attack multiple weaker vessels at once but cannot hold its own against a single strong warship (such as the Enterprise, once weapons are properly modulating), whereas the cube is designed to overpower in 1v1. The fusion cube is the best of both worlds - it cannot be withstood, it cannot be swarmed. The fusion cube doesn't have to be pretty, it is the anvil that smushes you to a stain.

Basically, the argument you just gave me was that a humvee is better than a tank because it can go faster.

Jan 13, 2012#15

Frankie Williamson

Maybe I should have asked and why.

Jan 13, 2012#16

GasBandit

Frankie Williamson said:
Maybe I should have asked and why.

Actually, you specifically seemed to say "I don't care why." At least that's what I gathered from your initial post.

Jan 13, 2012#17

Frankie Williamson

GasBandit said:
Actually, you specifically seemed to say "I don't care why." At least that's what I gathered from your initial post.

Yeah, I should have been more clear that I didn't want a THIS SHIP IS BETTER CAUSE IT CAN BEAT THAT SHIP IN A FIGHT AND HERE'S SOME TECHNICAL SCHEMATICS TO PROVE MY POINT AND GOKU CAN BEAT UP SUPERMAN horseshit, not an overall I don't care why.

I should have posted this:

What ship is the best and why do you think it's so rad? Please don't base your answers entirely on how big it's universe ending supreme ultimate power is.

Jan 13, 2012#18

GasBandit

Frankie Williamson said:
Yeah, I should have been more clear that I didn't want a THIS SHIP IS BETTER CAUSE IT CAN BEAT THAT SHIP IN A FIGHT AND HERE'S SOME TECHNICAL SCHEMATICS TO PROVE MY POINT AND GOKU CAN BEAT UP SUPERMAN horseshit, not an overall I don't care why.

I should have posted this:

What ship is the best and why do you think it's so rad? Please don't base your answers entirely on how big it's universe ending supreme ultimate power is.

Fair enough. The borg fusion cube is the best because of its big universe ending supreme ultimate power.

Jan 13, 2012#19

TommiR

GasBandit said:
The sphere is a much less powerful ship designed to attack multiple weaker vessels at once but cannot hold its own against a single strong warship (such as the Enterprise, once weapons are properly modulating), whereas the cube is designed to overpower in 1v1. The fusion cube is the best of both worlds - it cannot be withstood, it cannot be swarmed. The fusion cube doesn't have to be pretty, it is the anvil that smushes you to a stain.

Basically, the argument you just gave me was that a humvee is better than a tank because it can go faster.

A cube or a sphere always has at least half of it's surface area concealed by the rest of the ship. A dagger or a needle shape, such as an Imperial Star Destroyer, can present a much higher percentage of it's surface area, and hence a lot more guns, to a target.

Jan 13, 2012#20

klew

I like the Borg cube simply because it tells everyone "there's no such thing as aerodynamics in space"

Jan 13, 2012#21

GasBandit

TommiR said:
A cube always has at least half of it's surface area concealed by the rest of the ship. A dagger or a needle shape, such as an Imperial Star Destroyer, can present a much higher percentage of it's surface area, and hence a lot more guns, to a target.

That would be more important if you can make the assumption that every square meter of surface area has a weapon mounted on it. That's not the case, not even on an ISD, unless you count point-defense anti-fighter weapons, which don't care about shape either.

Jan 13, 2012#22

sixpackshaker

Also with a dagger shape, you are presenting a greater amount of your total surface area to enemy attacks.

A cube that takes many hits to one side just needs to flip and present a fresh face to the enemy.

Jan 13, 2012#23

Frankie Williamson

Borg cubes regenerate pretty quickly anyway.

Jan 13, 2012#24

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker said:
Argo/Yamato

Mostly because it was a major influence on the Death Star and Andromeda, etc.

Jan 13, 2012#25

TommiR

GasBandit said:
That would be more important if you can make the assumption that every square meter of surface area has a weapon mounted on it. That's not the case, not even on an ISD, unless you count point-defense anti-fighter weapons, which don't care about shape either.

Not the square meters, but perhaps the percentages are relevant in a big-numbers game. I believe it has a lot to do with the arcs-of-fire of the weapons mounted on a ship, and a cube seems to have a difficult time competing in that regard. Assuming turreted instead of spinal-mounted weapons, of course.

sixpackshaker said:
Also with a dagger shape, you are presenting a greater amount of your total surface area to enemy attacks.

A cube that takes many hits to one side just needs to flip and present a fresh face to the enemy.

Slanted armor, on which a dagger shape can hardly be rivalled. Most of the energy gets deflected.

Regarding a cube flipping over to present a fresh side to the enemy, there may be some efficiency drawbacks in being able to bring only ~one-sixth of it's total firepower to bear on the enemy at a time.

Jan 13, 2012#26

sixpackshaker

I will say the most impressive moment for me in a sci-fi movie was the first time as a child that I saw the Star Destroyer pass overhead in the opening moments of Star Wars. From that moment on, you knew that movies were going to be different.

Jan 13, 2012#27

GasBandit

But really, shape is irrelevant. The big weaknesses of the ISD are three-fold: the emitters for their deflector shields protrude beyond the protection of said shields in a visually conspicuous manner, and its fusion reactor is so oversized it bulges outside the framework of the ship, making an easy target once the aforementioned shields fall. The third weakness is, like all star wars universe ships, there is a dearth of large, powerful long range weaponry to combat other capital ships. It doesn't matter how many turbolaser turrets you tack on your superstructure, if your enemy is beyond their short range. Compare that to star trek capital ship phasers which have a range of around 190,000 km.

Jan 13, 2012#28

TommiR

GasBandit said:
But really, shape is irrelevant. The big weaknesses of the ISD are three-fold: the emitters for their deflector shields protrude beyond the protection of said shields in a visually conspicuous manner, and its fusion reactor is so oversized it bulges outside the framework of the ship, making an easy target once the aforementioned shields fall.

I beg to differ on the first part, much due to reasons I've already stated. On the second part, can you provide me with some sources on that, as it seems like a pretty dumb thing to do without any in-universe reasons? The Wookieepedia makes no mention of this fact regarding shield emitters, though SW canon is notorious in being difficult to determine exactly.

The third weakness is, like all star wars universe ships, there is a dearth of large, powerful long range weaponry to combat other capital ships. It doesn't matter how many turbolaser turrets you tack on your superstructure, if your enemy is beyond their short range. Compare that to star trek capital ship phasers which have a range of around 190,000 km.

As far as I'm aware, the other cap ships in the SW universe use much the same weapons technology, with similar ranges. No in-universe disadvantages there, I think.

And as to Star Trek, I've watched a number of episodes, and I've yet to see a ship-on-ship combat that wasn't fought at visual range, regardless of any possible informed abilities of engaging targets at distances greater to half a light-second.

Jan 13, 2012#29

sixpackshaker

/nerdmode

The two balls on top of the star destroyer's bridge is are the shield generators. Because they were outside the shields the rebel fighters were able to easily blow them up.

Any Ewok would know that.
Added at: 22:45

TommiR said:
Regarding a cube flipping over to present a fresh side to the enemy, there may be some efficiency drawbacks in being able to bring only ~one-sixth of it's total firepower to bear on the enemy at a time.

Actually one would easily bring 3 large surfaces of the cube to bear against the enemy.

Jan 13, 2012#30

GasBandit

TommiR said:
I beg to differ on the first part, much due to reasons I've already stated. On the second part, can you provide me with some sources on that, as it seems like a pretty dumb thing to do without any in-universe reasons? The Wookieepedia makes no mention of this fact regarding shield emitters, though SW canon is notorious in being difficult to determine exactly.

The two domes on top of the command structure at the aft of the ship are the shield emitters. A sustained 5-10 second barrage of fire from an X-wing starfighter is sufficient to destroy one, indicating it is not protected by the shield. C'mon, you've played X-Wing, right?

Wookiepedia link incoming:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/ISD-72x_deflector_shield_generator_dome

Imperial I-class and Imperial II-class Star Destroyers each carried two ISD-72x generators/sensor arrays.[1] The shield projector vanes were positioned in a crown formation around the command tower's sensor globes.[1][2] The vanes projected both ray and particle shields and were scattered along the "crown", one vane per function.[1]
This deflector shield required a massive amount of energy, drawn from the Star Destroyer's main reactor via power generators located deep within the command tower.[1][2] Thick armor protected the sensor banks from impacts, but the globes were vulnerable to suicide attacks from small starships [1] or missile weapons such as concussion missiles or proton torpedoes from starfighters. [6]

As far as I'm aware, the other cap ships in the SW universe use much the same weapons technology, with similar ranges. No in-universe disadvantages there, I think.

I wasn't talking in-universe, I was talking across all sci-fi, the scope of this thread. Yes, limited to the SW universe, they were not at a disadvantage vs other capital ships who also used the "dozens of small turrets" paradigm.

And as to Star Trek, I've watched a number of episodes, and I've yet to see a ship-on-ship combat that wasn't fought at visual range, regardless of any possible informed abilities of engaging targets at distances greater to half a light-second.

"Visual range" in star trek is longer than you might think, especially when combatants are superluminal ("at warp"). The images on the main screens are not actual camera footage, but are computer representations from sensor data rendered in real time. It's also more common to have long range battles in book form, because for the TV shows "look more dramatic" when all the ships are on screen at the same time.

Also: seems like someone else hashed all this out already.

Jan 13, 2012#31

Krisken

Red Dwarf.

Jan 13, 2012#32

drifter

The Valkyrie because it's a totally sweet jet/robot that's highly maneuverable in land, air and space that can be flown by a single pilot. I mean seriously, it looks like hella fun to fly. Plus you can use it to pick up chicks, both figuratively and literally. The fact that you can blow shit up with it is just the icing on the cake.

Delicious, delicious icing.

Jan 13, 2012#33

Frankie Williamson

You can apparently fly a valkyrie with a guitar too

And that's rad.

Jan 13, 2012#34

sixpackshaker

dammit drifter, you ruined one of my favorite effects from old anime...

Jan 13, 2012#35

TommiR

GasBandit said:
The two domes on top of the command structure at the aft of the ship are the shield emitters. A sustained 5-10 second barrage of fire from an X-wing starfighter is sufficient to destroy one, indicating it is not protected by the shield. C'mon, you've played X-Wing, right?

Wookiepedia link incoming:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/ISD-72x_deflector_shield_generator_dome

Indeed the Wookieepedia seems to say so. I should wonder why much of the rest of the source material for an Imperial Star Destroyer I've read (Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections) has indicated that the globes are pure sensor devices, and that there is no benefit for placing a component of such critical importance to the survival of a capital ship in a place where it can be easily taken out by a mere starfighter. Consider that the Executor suffered the destruction of only one of it's two globes in the Battle of Endor. Yet the destruction of only one of them, which contrary to all sense was afforded only minimal protection to begin with, is supposed to have collapsed the bridge deflector shields. I wonder if all this is not more of a 'correlation not causation' type of thing.

And yes, I've played various SW fighter games. It is no secret that capital ships in those games got nerfed big time in order to make the player's balls feel bigger.

I wasn't talking in-universe, I was talking across all sci-fi, the scope of this thread. Yes, limited to the SW universe, they were not at a disadvantage vs other capital ships who also used the "dozens of small turrets" paradigm.

I feel in-universe is the only valid comparison, when you are comparing performance of universe-specific technologies. Otherwise the only thing we are left with is the writer's presumptiousness in how outrageous they are willing to make their tech.

"Visual range" in star trek is longer than you might think, especially when combatants are superluminal ("at warp"). The images on the main screens are not actual camera footage, but are computer representations from sensor data rendered in real time. It's also more common to have long range battles in book form, because for the TV shows "look more dramatic" when all the ships are on screen at the same time.

Also: seems like someone else hashed all this out already.

My memory of TNG episodes does not entirely concur with your source, but I suppose they've done their research, so I'll concede the point that ST vessels can fight at long ranges. Though I am not entirely convinced of the validity of the reasons they give for some ships and captains favoring the close-range fights I remember, given the above.
Added at: 02:32

sixpackshaker said:
Actually one would easily bring 3 large surfaces of the cube to bear against the enemy.

Not if it was directly facing the enemy. But I'm not sure this is of much significance. As I stated earlier, a cube always has at least 1/2 of it's surface area obscured by the rest of the ship, which I think places an upper limit to the surface area it can present to the enemy, and hence the number of weapons. Whereas an Imperial Star Destroyer can potentially target an enemy craft with it's full firepower.

Jan 13, 2012#36

ThatNickGuy

Necronic said:
Seriously? Your answer is A CUBE?

Lame. I'm going to say the Borg Sphere. Much better geometry.

That's a more well-rounded answer.
Added at: 22:47
Personally, I'm a fan of The Concordia from Wing Commander.

Jan 13, 2012#37

Frankie Williamson

I like the Wing Commander reference.

The pun can stay.

For now.

Jan 15, 2012#38

PatrThom

I'm going to go in a completely different direction. Here are two qualified choices, both from the same author...Alan Dean Foster.

Taking the "badassery" crown, a seemingly innocent moon orbiting a gas giant planet several times the size of Earth is revealed to be no moon, but actually a giant ancient artifact--and weapon of unimaginable power*--when it awakens and effortlessly vaporizes a group of intruders.

...the moon is later drawn down into a pocket on the surface of the planet itself, which clears its cloudy covering to reveal the moon as nothing more than a shuttle for the planet-sized main ship, whose surface is dotted with dozens (or even hundreds, according to the protagonist) of similar modules.

*a weapon which can generate a destructively powerful gravitational field that can be targeted anywhere within a few light years. It rips matter apart by stripping it of its electrons.

The second (and much cooler) ship is Flinx's personal ship Teacher, which you could consider an interstellar treehouse/library/apartment/laboratory. It's every boy's dream.

--Patrick

Jan 15, 2012#39

Gryfter

Galactica yo

Jan 16, 2012#40

@Li3n

The only real answer is the ship that makes all the ships:

Jan 16, 2012#41

Bowielee

Ah Homeworld. I should dig up my copy of that game and see if it still runs.

Jan 16, 2012#42

@Li3n

Bowielee said:
Ah Homeworld. I should dig up my copy of that game and see if it still runs.

I still haven't finished the last mission for Homeworld 1...

Jan 16, 2012#43

Necronic

Oh wow the last page just started going on a complete nerd rampage.

My borg sphere/cube comment was a joke of course. They are both clever for the aerodynamics issue (which actually doesn't hold up at high enough speeds in space dear god don't start talking about the physics of a "warp bubbles" now), but it's a one trick pony of a joke and once you get past that they are boring ships.

My all time favorite ship is probably the X-Wing. It's such an iconic shape that has been in my head since before I can remember otherwise. It's just such a cool starfighter. Much better that the last star fighter btw.

Jan 16, 2012#44

HCGLNS

The T.A.R.D.I.S.

Bigger on the inside, travels anywhere, stylish exterior, comes complete with funny English pilot and sexy stewardess. It's a living vessel and powered by the greatest source of energy in the multiverse, and it also goes "Wonk wonk wonk" as is flies.

Jan 16, 2012#45

@Li3n

Necronic said:
They are both clever for the aerodynamics issue (which actually doesn't hold up at high enough speeds in space dear god don't start talking about the physics of a "warp bubbles" now),

Why would you need aerodynamics in space? :confused:

Jan 16, 2012#46

Necronic

Because space isn't actually a vacuum, and the faster you go the less of a vacuum it actually is. Once you start hitting near light speeds you will actually have some degree of drag from the small quantities of interstellar gas that exist.

On top of that there is the issue of stellar debris, and the easiest way to avoid that is to present a smaller profile. The larger your area the larger the probability of some micro-meteorite punching a hole through your spaceship. It also makes sense to have sloping sides facing forward as it will reduce the force of impact substantially. That said this issue ultimately has to be one of those "thank god we invented the whatchamacallit" things because it really makes high speed space travel completely unfeasable.

Edit: Just for fun I calculated the force/cm2 if you are travelling 1au/s through "cold space" which has 20-50 atoms/c3. This would create a pressure of ~4.5 * 10^-12 g/cm2. Now if you have a ship that is 1 km2 front face that is a total pressure of ~.0045 g. Actually not very much and you would have to really be booking it.

Jan 16, 2012#47

PatrThom

Necronic said:
Oh wow the last page just started going on a complete nerd rampage.

It's what we do.

--Patrick

Jan 16, 2012#48

sixpackshaker

HCGLNS said:
The T.A.R.D.I.S.

Bigger on the inside, travels anywhere, stylish exterior, comes complete with funny English pilot and sexy stewardess. It's a living vessel and powered by the greatest source of energy in the multiverse, and it also goes "Wonk wonk wonk" as is flies.

But it does not go where you WANT to go. The funny English pilot will inspire you to the point that you give your life for the greater cause. It does not go "Wonk Wonk Wonk Wonk" when you remember to let the brake off...

Jan 17, 2012#49

@Li3n

Necronic said:
Because space isn't actually a vacuum, and the faster you go the less of a vacuum it actually is.

Wow, now that's badly put... pretty sure a space scientist would rip your head of for that...

But yeah, the bigger the speed the more the stuff that's there matters... but i always assumed it wouldn't be that much... and quite irrelevant to ships that use shields...

Jan 17, 2012#50

PatrThom

In many continuities, "shields" are used to disrupt energy weapons, not physical objects.
(which is one of the many reasons why it's hard to pit one continuum against another)

--Patrick

Jan 17, 2012#51

phil

I like the serenity, mostly because it's one of the few ships that you can actually tell where people are when you see them in it. You kind of do with the millennium falcon, but mostly you just see people in the cockpit.

Jan 18, 2012#52

Frankie Williamson

It's pretty easy to tell with the Enterprise D, but I was a fucking NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERD and had the technical manual when I was 10.

Jan 18, 2012#53

@Li3n

PatrThom said:
In many continuities, "shields" are used to disrupt energy weapons, not physical objects.
(which is one of the many reasons why it's hard to pit one continuum against another)

--Patrick

Hint: energy doesn't exist by itself...

But i guess it could be a situation like with bullet proof vests not being good against knifes...

Jan 18, 2012#54

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
In many continuities, "shields" are used to disrupt energy weapons, not physical objects.
(which is one of the many reasons why it's hard to pit one continuum against another)

--Patrick

In both star wars and star trek, there are canonical examples of shields deflecting/destroying solid objects. In fact, the "big dish" on the front of the secondary hull of every enterprise is the "Navigational Deflector" - it's primary purpose was to deflect space debris at speed. And really, if Star Wars shields didn't stop physical objects, why bother taking down the shield generator on Endor before flying into the superstructure of the Death Star II?

Jan 18, 2012#55

Just Me

It's a long time since I did anything nerdy technical in Star Wars but I'm pretty sure my old source books mention particle shielding as well as energy shielding, protection against asteroids and torpedoes on one hand and another set of projectors to shield against laser and blaster shots.

Jan 18, 2012#56

PatrThom

Right. Star Trek is one of those continuities where shields CAN block/deflect physical objects. All I'm saying is that it is difficult to pit canon against canon when both are potentially following different rules (or existing in universes with different rule sets). The 1701-D is a good example. I know what the deflector dish is there for (I have the Interactive Technical Manual and it's called the Deflector, after all), but that only explains what happens in the Roddenberryverse. In the Lucasverse (for example), blaster fire can be parried by a hand weapon, but there is no way of knowing whether that could be done with phaser fire. People travel by shuttle, not transporter. Little things.

Obviously any civ which can figure out an attractive force (tractor beams) can figure out a repulsive one (pressor beams) and can no doubt adapt that to defense, but whether that defense is static (can't move past this line but once inside you're fine) or dynamic (anything closer than X radius is pushed out to X radius) is the question. I see plenty of evidence that shields prevent physical movement (brig cell doors, preventing decompression in the shuttle bay, etc) but I am not sure how that would work with energy weapons or anything moving at relativistic velocities.

And we haven't even touched on drive technologies yet!

--Patrick

Jan 18, 2012#57

Necronic

@Li3n said:
Wow, now that's badly put... pretty sure a space scientist would rip your head of for that...

Meh, vacuum is simply the lack of pressure. The situation I described would increase pressure, therefore reduce vacuum. It is a bit like saying that you will reduce the cold by increasing the heat, since heat is actually a thing and cold is simply the absence of it.

Edit: also wtf is a "space scientist"?

Jan 18, 2012#58

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Edit: also wtf is a "space scientist"?

Dr. Jonas Venture, Sr?

Jan 18, 2012#59

General Specific

Death Star.

It has a reactor that has the energy output of a small star and is capable of destroying planets in 1 shot. Just add in a few safety barriers and you're good to go.

Jan 18, 2012#60

HCGLNS

OK, problem solved.

Greatest of All Time: Shapeship

Silver Surfers Board

Jan 19, 2012#61

@Li3n

Necronic said:
Meh, vacuum is simply the lack of pressure. The situation I described would increase pressure, therefore reduce vacuum. It is a bit like saying that you will reduce the cold by increasing the heat, since heat is actually a thing and cold is simply the absence of it.

That's quite an interesting definition of a vacuum... i went with the whole lack of matter thing myself...

Necronic said:
Edit: also wtf is a "space scientist"?

A scientist IN SPACE.... (i guess astrophysician, the word just didn't come to me at the time)...

Jan 19, 2012#62

GasBandit

General Specific said:
Death Star.

It has a reactor that has the energy output of a small star and is capable of destroying planets in 1 shot. Just add in a few safety barriers and you're good to go.

That's not a spaceship, it's a space station. That's like saying, "What's the best car there is? FORT KNOX."

Jan 19, 2012#63

PatrThom

At least we can all agree that it's no moon.

--Patrick

Jan 19, 2012#64

sixpackshaker

PatrThom said:
At least we can all agree that it's no moon.

--Patrick

I'd have to, LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THAT THING!

Jan 19, 2012#65

TommiR

GasBandit said:
That's not a spaceship, it's a space station. That's like saying, "What's the best car there is? FORT KNOX."

The Death Star had a hyperdrive and sublight drives, so things might be a bit blurred there. I guess it depends on the precise definition one is using.

Jan 19, 2012#66

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
That's not a spaceship, it's a space station. That's like saying, "What's the best car there is? FORT KNOX."

A space station that can move... can your Fort do that without transforming into a giant robot?

Jan 19, 2012#67

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
A space station that can move... can your Fort do that without transforming into a giant robot?

In Supreme Commander, the Fatboy can. It's a ground unit factory and air resupply platform with 12 heavy artillery grouped into 4 turrets, two anti air turrets and a few short range machine guns for defense.

And it's on treads so it can move.

But that doesn't make it the best "tank."

Jan 19, 2012#68

figmentPez

TommiR said:
The Death Star had a hyperdrive and sublight drives, so things might be a bit blurred there. I guess it depends on the precise definition one is using.

Well, if we're blurring definitions, I'll just take Altantis:

Jan 19, 2012#69

HCGLNS

Jan 19, 2012#70

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
But that doesn't make it the best "tank."

No, just the most awesome...

Jan 19, 2012#71

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
No, just the most awesome...

Awesome it is, a tank, not so much

Jan 20, 2012#72

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Awesome it is, a tank, not so much

But it's a vehicle, because it's mobile... it's not a tank because it doesn't satisfy the requirements of being one any more then a armoured personnel carier does...

While a nominal space station that has spaceship like engines does kinda satisfy the requirments for being a ship...

Jan 20, 2012#73

LordRendar

Jan 20, 2012#74

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
But it's a vehicle, because it's mobile... it's not a tank because it doesn't satisfy the requirements of being one any more then a armoured personnel carier does...

While a nominal space station that has spaceship like engines does kinda satisfy the requirments for being a ship...

No, there's a larger standard of definition than just "can be moved." Otherwise this is a "car.":

Jan 20, 2012#75

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
No, there's a larger standard of definition than just "can be moved." Otherwise this is a "car.":

Yes, it includes "under it's own power"... my bad leaving that out...

Jan 20, 2012#76

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
Yes, it includes "under it's own power"... my bad leaving that out...

So, if a sci fi property was to imagine a way to move a planet under power, it becomes a spaceship?

Jan 20, 2012#77

figmentPez

GasBandit said:
So, if a sci fi property was to imagine a way to move a planet under power, it becomes a spaceship?

Damn straight it does:

Jan 20, 2012#78

GasBandit

Warworld is not a goddamned spaceship.

Jan 20, 2012#79

sixpackshaker

In the film: Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D.

The Daleks were going to make Earth into a space ship...

Jan 20, 2012#80

figmentPez

GasBandit said:
Warworld is not a goddamned spaceship.

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/

Jan 20, 2012#81

sixpackshaker

Why isn't a Super Star Destroyer, just called a Star Cruiser or Star Battleship?

Jan 20, 2012#82

LordRendar

Cuz that sounds just lame in comparison.

Jan 20, 2012#83

PatrThom

It potentially gets even more complicated when you consider Ego, the living planet. Here we have a planet-sized living organism which eventually gains mobility when it gets a rocket motor shoved into its rear end.

LordRendar said:

Now I'm not going to be able to get TSOP out of my head all day.

--Patrick

Jan 20, 2012#84

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
Why isn't a Super Star Destroyer, just called a Star Cruiser or Star Battleship?

Actually, the real term is "Executor Class Star Dreadnought," but (retconning says) it was called a "super star destroyer" on initial paperwork to obfuscate it's true scale from enemy spies.

figmentPez said:
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/

To me it's more a question of function than size. As your poster shows, the Executor is (was? a long long time ago?) a good deal larger than Babylon 5 is (will be? the year is 2257?), but they are still a ship, and place, respectively. A "ship" is something you go to "places" in, a "place" (or "base") is somewhere ships go. That you can change where a "place" is doesn't make it a "ship," in my book.

It is neat to see the various sizes though - it never occurred to me that the White Star (B5) was bigger than the original (Star Trek) Enterprise... and I expected the Doomsday Machine planetkiller to be a lot bigger...

Jan 20, 2012#85

figmentPez

GasBandit said:
To me it's more a question of function than size. As your poster shows, the Executor is (was? a long long time ago?) a good deal larger than Babylon 5 is (will be? the year is 2257?), but they are still a ship, and place, respectively. A "ship" is something you go to "places" in, a "place" (or "base") is somewhere ships go. That you can change where a "place" is doesn't make it a "ship," in my book.

So, an aircraft carrier is a base and not a ship?

The Death Star wasn't a stationary encampment, it was a mobile planet destroyer.

Jan 20, 2012#86

GasBandit

figmentPez said:
So, an aircraft carrier is a base and not a ship?

The Death Star wasn't a stationary encampment, it was a mobile planet destroyer.

It was more than just a weapon, it was designed as a base. And the fact that aircraft carriers can launch/retrieve planes doesn't make it a base any more than a star destroyer (which can launch tie fighters).

Jan 20, 2012#87

figmentPez

In what ways is the Death Star more of a base than an aircraft carrier?

Jan 20, 2012#88

GasBandit

figmentPez said:
In what ways is the Death Star more of a base than an aircraft carrier?

Because, for one thing, you can fucking build star destroyers in it:

Another thing - even without it's primary weapon, it was a formidable base - it housed over a half million ground troops and over 30,000 storm troopers. It had shopping malls, cantinas, all the crap you'd need on a planet or starbase to house a permanent population. It. Was. A. Space. Station. If that isn't enough for you, because Obi Fuckin' Wan Kenobi said it was, so shut up.

Jan 20, 2012#89

Frankie Williamson

Man, that picture is neat, but where do they get the info that a Romulan Warbird is THAT much larger than a Galaxy Class ship?

Officially it's quite a bit smaller than what they're portraying. MEMORY ALPHA!

Jan 20, 2012#90

GasBandit

Frankie Williamson said:
Man, that picture is neat, but where do they get the info that a Romulan Warbird is THAT much larger than a Galaxy Class ship?

Officially it's quite a bit smaller than what they're portraying. MEMORY ALPHA!

There are several different classes of warbird. According to MEMORY ALPHA, the d'deridex class is 1300 meters.

Jan 20, 2012#91

Frankie Williamson

The original designer's intended length was that, but the model ended up shorter. The only official length came out of the DS9 technical manual at a 1040 meters but that's also disputed.

It just never seemed in the show that the warbird was THAT much larger than the Enterprise.

Jan 20, 2012#92

figmentPez

GasBandit said:
Because, for one thing, you can fucking build star destroyers in it:

Another thing - even without it's primary weapon, it was a formidable base - it housed over a half million ground troops and over 30,000 storm troopers. It had shopping malls, cantinas, all the crap you'd need on a planet or starbase to house a permanent population. It. Was. A. Space. Station. If that isn't enough for you, because Obi Fuckin' Wan Kenobi said it was, so shut up.

It wasn't a Space Station because it wastn't stationary. The Death Star did not have a standard location, it moved around acting as a mobile base. Yes, it was a lot bigger than an aircraft carrier, but they both serve the same purpose. If an aircraft carrier were to be scaled up to the size of the Death Star, it's store would be scaled up to a shopping mall, it's mess hall would be scaled up to cantinas, it's long-term crew would scale up to a more-or-less permanent population and it's ability to service fighters would scale up to the ability to construct ships.

The Death Star is a mobile war camp, but it is still a ship, just as an aircraft carrier is the largest self-contained war camp that has yet been made on this planet, but it is still a ship.

Jan 21, 2012#93

Bowielee

figmentPez said:
It wasn't a Space Station because it wastn't stationary. The Death Star did not have a standard location, it moved around acting as a mobile base. Yes, it was a lot bigger than an aircraft carrier, but they both serve the same purpose. If an aircraft carrier were to be scaled up to the size of the Death Star, it's store would be scaled up to a shopping mall, it's mess hall would be scaled up to cantinas, it's long-term crew would scale up to a more-or-less permanent population and it's ability to service fighters would scale up to the ability to construct ships.

The Death Star is a mobile war camp, but it is still a ship, just as an aircraft carrier is the largest self-contained war camp that has yet been made on this planet, but it is still a ship.

Not according to the Emperor.

Palpatine said:
Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station

Jan 21, 2012#94

PatrThom

I rescind all my previous nominations. THIS is the one fictional ship to rule them all:

No, really. Experts agree.

--Patrick

Jan 21, 2012#95

Frankie Williamson

Ha, that big size comparison picture reminded me of Lexx. Man, I dunno, I hear it called a fantastic show and that there was more to it than shitty Canadian actors and God awful special effects but I never saw it.

The ship does carry a hell of an oomph when it comes to sheer firepower and the ship itself is mildly retarded and completely obedient to it's captain.

Jan 21, 2012#96

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
So, if a sci fi property was to imagine a way to move a planet under power, it becomes a spaceship?

One planet? You're thinking small time my friend:

Jan 23, 2012#97

GasBandit

figmentPez said:
It wasn't a Space Station because it wastn't stationary. The Death Star did not have a standard location, it moved around acting as a mobile base. Yes, it was a lot bigger than an aircraft carrier, but they both serve the same purpose. If an aircraft carrier were to be scaled up to the size of the Death Star, it's store would be scaled up to a shopping mall, it's mess hall would be scaled up to cantinas, it's long-term crew would scale up to a more-or-less permanent population and it's ability to service fighters would scale up to the ability to construct ships.

The Death Star is a mobile war camp, but it is still a ship, just as an aircraft carrier is the largest self-contained war camp that has yet been made on this planet, but it is still a ship.

If you really want to split hairs, since earth is orbiting the sun at 30 km/s, and the solar system is flinging around the milky way at 568,000 mph, and the milky way itself is zinging off at 300 km/s, technically nothing on the interplanetary, interstellar, or intergalactic scale is "stationary" and nothing is ever a station, ever.

But that's stupid.

Jan 23, 2012#98

BananaHands

Also, it holds cookies.

Jan 23, 2012#99

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
If you really want to split hairs, since earth is orbiting the sun at 30 km/s, and the solar system is flinging around the milky way at 568,000 mph, and the milky way itself is zinging off at 300 km/s, technically nothing on the interplanetary, interstellar, or intergalactic scale is "stationary" and nothing is ever a station, ever.

Yeah, but as i pointed out, it's because of an external force (or inertia)... "under it's own power" isn't a pretty necessary part of the definition you know.

Jan 23, 2012#100

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
Yeah, but as i pointed out, it's because of an external force (or inertia)... "under it's own power" isn't a pretty necessary part of the definition you know.

It doesn't matter if it isn't under its own power if the definition of "station" is supposedly rooted in "stationary." That was my point. Bases can move, and I don't see the power source as having any bearing.

Let me put it this way... if your base is a tent city, and every day you take the northmost row of tents down and repitch them at the south end of the base, over the course of a year you'll have moved the base about a mile and a half. Does that mean it's a ship? A vehicle?

Jan 23, 2012#101

Frankie Williamson

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.

Jan 23, 2012#102

PatrThom

Of course it has thrusters. Otherwise it would've fallen into something's gravity well and perished.

--Patrick

Jan 23, 2012#103

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
Of course it has thrusters. Otherwise it would've fallen into something's gravity well and perished.

--Patrick

It has the capability to move. Nothing's to say that they couldn't fire those thrusters up and make a very, very slow migration across the galaxy. Hey look, ma, I'm moving under my own power! I R SPACE SHIP.

Jan 23, 2012#104

Frankie Williamson

Well, it relocated itself from Bajor's orbit to right near the wormhole which, if the internet isn't lying to me, 3 hours distance by sublight impulse speed.

Jan 24, 2012#105

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
It doesn't matter if it isn't under its own power if the definition of "station" is supposedly rooted in "stationary." That was my point. Bases can move, and I don't see the power source as having any bearing.

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"...

GasBandit said:
Bases can move, and I don't see the power source as having any bearing.

If it doesn't then what's the difference between a metal container and a car...

GasBandit said:
Let me put it this way... if your base is a tent city, and every day you take the northmost row of tents down and repitch them at the south end of the base, over the course of a year you'll have moved the base about a mile and a half. Does that mean it's a ship? A vehicle?

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

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)...

Jan 24, 2012#106

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
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.

Jan 24, 2012#107

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
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)

GasBandit said:
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...

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

Well it's certainly the cheapest...

Jan 24, 2012#108

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
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!

Jan 24, 2012#109

Baerdog

This argument is retarded.

The best ship is the Normandy SR-2

Jan 24, 2012#110

Frankie Williamson

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

Jan 25, 2012#111

Baerdog

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

Jan 25, 2012#112

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
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...

GasBandit said:
And then John was a zombie.

GasBandit said:
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

GasBandit said:
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...

Jan 25, 2012#113

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
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.

Jan 25, 2012#114

PatrThom

This thread is rapidly approaching its Schwarzchild radius.

--Patrick

Jan 25, 2012#115

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
This thread is rapidly approaching its Schwarzchild radius.

--Patrick

The nerdiest way to say "You suck."

Jan 25, 2012#116

TommiR

GasBandit said:
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.

@Li3n said:
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?

Jan 25, 2012#117

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.

Jan 25, 2012#118

GasBandit

TommiR said:
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.

Jan 25, 2012#119

TommiR

GasBandit said:
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.

Jan 25, 2012#120

figmentPez

GasBandit said:
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.

Jan 25, 2012#121

GasBandit

figmentPez said:
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).

Jan 25, 2012#122

fade

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

Jan 25, 2012#123

figmentPez

GasBandit said:
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.

Jan 25, 2012#124

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.

Jan 25, 2012#125

GasBandit

figmentPez said:
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.

Jan 25, 2012#126

figmentPez

LordRendar said:
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

GasBandit said:
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.

Jan 25, 2012#127

GasBandit

LordRendar said:
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.

figmentPez said:
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.

Jan 25, 2012#128

fade

figmentPez said:
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.

Jan 25, 2012#129

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.

Jan 25, 2012#130

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

LordRendar said:
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).

Jan 25, 2012#131

LordRendar

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

Jan 25, 2012#132

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?

Jan 25, 2012#133

LordRendar

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

Jan 25, 2012#134

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.

Jan 26, 2012#135

@Li3n

TommiR said:
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...

GasBandit said:
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...

GasBandit said:
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...

GasBandit said:
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.

LordRendar said:
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...

Jan 26, 2012#136

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
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":

Frankie Williamson said:
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.

@Li3n said:
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.

Jan 26, 2012#137

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.

Jan 26, 2012#138

figmentPez

GasBandit said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Jan 26, 2012#139

HCGLNS

/thread

Jan 26, 2012#140

Shakey

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

Jan 26, 2012#141

GasBandit

Shakey said:
Thunder Road. It was made out of a freaking tilt a whirl.
View attachment 4144

I... I remember that movie... The Explorers, right? You too can project an indestructible bubble using your commodore 64 (or was it an apple II?)... didn't they bribe a dog with gum in that movie?

Jan 26, 2012#142

Shakey

GasBandit said:
I... I remember that movie... The Explorers, right? You too can project an indestructible bubble using your commodore 64 (or was it an apple II?)... didn't they bribe a dog with gum in that movie?

I think it was an Apple, I don't remember about the dog. It's been a long time since I've seen it. I just remember the messed up ending with the alien that talks to them in tv quotes.

Jan 26, 2012#143

GasBandit

Shakey said:
I think it was an Apple, I don't remember about the dog. It's been a long time since I've seen it. I just remember the messed up ending with the alien that talks to them in tv quotes.

I am nigh on certain they bribed a dog guarding the junkyard where they got the Thunder Road with bubble gum.

Yes, I'm right. It's at 8:45

And the computer is an Apple II-c .

Jan 26, 2012#144

Shakey

I'm going to have to watch that again, along with flight of the navigator. Those movies shaped my dreams of space as a kid more than star wars ever did.

Jan 27, 2012#145

Necronic

fade said:
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.

I think it depends on how many people dock to unload cargo in her.

Jan 27, 2012#146

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
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?

As you said, it's the internet, and star wars minutiae... just because it's a legit nerd verbal slapfight doesn't mean you're not being intentionally obtuse...

GasBandit said:
The OP is "with me on this":

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

Well i never said it's not also a station... i mean that's what they all call it... just that it counts as a ship too...

But if the OP wants to exclude hybrid vehicles i guess he can. But he should have mentioned that from the start.

Hey OP, Magog World Ship, does it count?

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

From the way things went down it looked like it was still immobile... it just had fully functioning weapons...

GasBandit said:
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.

C'mon, everyone refers to fighters as spaceship all the time...

Jan 27, 2012#147

HCGLNS

uh, hello? I said /thread

Jan 27, 2012#148

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
As you said, it's the internet, and star wars minutiae... just because it's a legit nerd verbal slapfight doesn't mean you're not being intentionally obtuse...

You're just wrong, that's all.

Well i never said it's not also a station... i mean that's what they all call it... just that it counts as a ship too...

You've been reading the wabbajack again I see.

From the way things went down it looked like it was still immobile... it just had fully functioning weapons...

It was a ruse to draw in the rebel fleet, and once the fleet was there, it didn't need to go anywhere.

C'mon, everyone refers to fighters as spaceship all the time...

... which is what I said. Laypeople call it fighters ships all the time... which is, as I also said, why I'm not as nitpicky about the fighters.[/quote]

Jan 27, 2012#149

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
It was a ruse to draw in the rebel fleet, and once the fleet was there, it didn't need to go anywhere.

So we have no way of knowing if it could move or not at the time... so when i didn't include it i was erring on the side of caution...

Jan 27, 2012#150

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
So we have no way of knowing if it could move or not at the time... so when i didn't include it i was erring on the side of caution...

So are you saying that a ship whose engines have been removed for repair, for instance, ceases to be a ship?

Jan 27, 2012#151

fade

My 1984 Dodge Dart became a lawn ornament when I removed the engine.

Jan 27, 2012#152

GasBandit

fade said:
My 1984 Dodge Dart became a lawn ornament when I removed the engine.

But did it cease to be a car?

Also, condolences on owning a Dart.

Jan 27, 2012#153

Necronic

GasBandit said:
But did it cease to be a car?.

Was it EVER a car?

Jan 27, 2012#154

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
So are you saying that a ship whose engines have been removed for repair, for instance, ceases to be a ship?

Can you use it as a ship before you put the engine back?

GasBandit said:
But did it cease to be a car?

If i sculpt a piece of wood in the form of a car, is it a vehicle?

Jan 27, 2012#155

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
Can you use it as a ship before you put the engine back?

I would argue that a broken ship is still a ship. It doesn't become an "extremely refined asteroid" without engines.

Jan 27, 2012#156

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
I would argue that a broken ship is still a ship. It doesn't become an "extremely refined asteroid" without engines.

Sure, but that's more of a thing we do because we never found a reason to use another word for one...

But that just show how broadly the word can be used, hardly a reason against using it for something that's also part space station... which is why we call carriers ships too...

Jan 27, 2012#157

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
Sure, but that's more of a thing we do because we never found a reason to use another word for one...

...so your argument is that the entirety of human expression is incorrect about maritime classification?

*clap*
*clap*
*clap*
Bra-vo sir. I have seen (and made) some ambitious arguments in my time, but that's one of the big ones for sure.

But that just show how broadly the word can be used, hardly a reason against using it for something that's also part space station... which is why we call carriers ships too...

A carrier is not a station.. it carries fighters, not ships. And it has nothing to do with broad use of the word, it has to do with the thing in question being built to be a ship. It can be an incomplete ship, or a broken ship, or a decomissioned ship... it's still a ship. Likewise, the death star was built to be a station. A moving station, sure, but a station.

Jan 27, 2012#158

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
...so your argument is that the entirety of human expression is incorrect about maritime classification?

Well we're not talking about things that sail on water, so obviously the expression isn't as fixed as you're implying...

Also: Historically, a "ship" was a vessel with sails rigged in a specific manner.

GasBandit said:
A carrier is not a station.. it carries fighters, not ships. And it has nothing to do with broad use of the word, it has to do with the thing in question being built to be a ship. It can be an incomplete ship, or a broken ship, or a decomissioned ship... it's still a ship. Likewise, the death star was built to be a station. A moving station, sure, but a station.

And what would the aquatic equivalent of a space station might be?

Jan 27, 2012#159

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
Well we're not talking about things that sail on water, so obviously the expression isn't as fixed as you're implying...

Also: Historically, a "ship" was a vessel with sails rigged in a specific manner.

Space vessel terminology is largely based on current maritime terminology. It has fighters, ships, bases, captains, admirals, etc etc etc.

And what would the aquatic equivalent of a space station might be?

Said that already. Remember when I said Norfolk? A seaport. Currently we lack the resources and technology to build a true, free-floating "Ocean Station."

Jan 27, 2012#160

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Space vessel terminology is largely based on current maritime terminology. It has fighters, ships, bases, captains, admirals, etc etc etc.

Aren't fighters taken from planes?

Regardless, that was my point, it applies more broadly then it originally did... so unless you want us to go back to "boats with sails" there's plenty of room for the Death Star...

GasBandit said:
Said that already. Remember when I said Norfolk?

Not really... must have missed it.

GasBandit said:
A seaport. Currently we lack the resources and technology to build a true, free-floating "Ocean Station."

Muhahahhahahahahahahahaaaa.........
Added at: 00:27
Now if you'll excuse me, i have some business with nature calling...

Jan 27, 2012#161

Shakey

Who cares if something like the death star is included. It was blown up by a damn fighter, it was a one trick pony peice of crap. Which is usually how the giant supposedly overpowered ships/slowly moving bases are.

The Thunder Road. That is all.

Jan 28, 2012#162

@Li3n

Shakey said:
Who cares if something like the death star is included. It was blown up by a damn fighter, it was a one trick pony peice of crap.

No, it was blown up by the power of The Force... compared to which the power to destroy a planet was insignificant... your disturbing lack of faith shall not stand...

....

....

....

....

So... are you choking yet?

Jan 30, 2012#163

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
No, it was blown up by the power of The Force... compared to which the power to destroy a planet was insignificant... your disturbing lack of faith shall not stand...

Let me push my imaginary glasses back up my nose nasally point out that the force was only used as a targeting aid, the proton torpedo set off the chain reaction.

Luke Skywalker must be a horrible aim though... I hit that shit every time in X-Wing, no force assistance needed.

Jan 30, 2012#164

fade

Yeah, I always wondered about those targeting devices. The mechanical computers they used in WWII bombers did a better job than those Plaaht Devices.

Jan 30, 2012#165

figmentPez

I don't understand tech in the Star Wars universe. No paper... WHAT?

Jan 30, 2012#166

GasBandit

fade said:
Yeah, I always wondered about those targeting devices. The mechanical computers they used in WWII bombers did a better job than those Plaaht Devices.

I've also made the shot without getting a lock. I never got why you needed a missile lock on a stationary target anyway.

Feb 8, 2012#167

Necronic

So are you saying that a ship whose engines have been removed for repair, for instance, ceases to be a ship?

@Li3n said:
Can you use it as a ship before you put the engine back?

If i sculpt a piece of wood in the form of a car, is it a vehicle?

---------------------------------------

And King Milinda asked him: "How is Your Reverence known, and what is your name, sir?"

"As Nagasena I am known, O Great King, and as Nagasena do my fellow religious habitually address me. But although parents give name such as Nagasena, or Surasena, or Virasena, or Sihasena, nevertheless, this word "Nagasena" is just a denomination, a designation, a conceptual term, a current appellation, a mere name. For no real person can here be apprehended."

But King Milinda explained: "Now listen, you 500 Greeks and 80,000 monks, this Nagasena tells me that he is not a real person! How can I be expected to agree with that!" And to Nagasena he said: "If, Most Reverend Nagasena, no person can be apprehended in reality, who then, I ask you, gives you what you require by way of robes, food, lodging, and medicines? Who is it that guards morality, practises meditation, and realizes the [Four] Paths and their Fruits, and thereafter Nirvana? Who is it that killing living beings, takes what is not given, commits sexual misconduct, tell lies, drinks intoxicants? Who is it that commits the Five Deadly Sins? For, if there were no person, there could ne no merit and no demerit; no doer of meritorious or demeritorious deeds, and no agent behind them; no fruit of good and evil deeds, and no reward or punishment for them. If someone should kill you, O Venerable Nagasena, would not be a real teacher, or instructor, or ordained monk! You just told me that your fellow religious habitually address you as "Nagasena". Then, what is this "Nagasena"? Are perhaps the hairs of the head "Nagasena?"

"No, Great King!"

"Or perhaps the nails, teeth, skin, muscles, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, serous membranes, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, stomach, excrement, the bile, phlegm, pus, blood, grease, fat, tears, sweat, spittle, snot, fluid of the joints, urine, or the brain in the skull-are they this "Nagasena"?"

"No, Great King!"

"Or is "Nagasena" a form, or feelings, or perceptions, or impulses, or consciousness?"

"No, Great King!"

Then is it the combination of form, feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness?"

"No, Great King!"

"Then is it outside the combination of form, feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness?"

"No, Great King!"

"Then, ask as I may, I can discover no Nagasena at all. This "Nagasena" is just a mere sound, but who is the real Nagasena? Your Reverence has told a lie, has spoken a falsehood! There is really no Nagasena!"

Thereupon, the Venerable Nagasena said to King Milinda: "As a king you have been brought up in great refinement and you avoid roughness of any kind. If you would walk at midday on this hot, burning, and sandy ground, then your feet would have to trend on the rough and gritty gravel and pebbles, and they would hurt you, your body would get tired, your mind impaired, and your awareness of your body would be associated with pain. How then did you come on foot, or on a mount?"

"I did not come, Sir, on foot, but on a chariot."

"If you have come on a chariot, then please explain to me what a chariot is. Is the pole the chariot?"

"No, Reverend Sir!"

"Is then the axle the chariot?"

"No, Reverend Sir!"

"Is it then the wheels, or the framework, of the flag-staff, or the yoke, or the reins, or the goad-stick?"

"No, Reverend Sir!"

"Then is it the combination of poke, axle, wheels, framework, flag-staff, yoke, reins, and goad which is the "chariot"?"

"No, Reverend Sir!"

"Then, is this "chariot" outside the combination of poke, axle, wheels, framework, flag-staff, yoke, reins and goad?"

"No, Reverend Sir!"

"Then, ask as I may, I can discover no chariot at all. This "chariot" is just a mere sound. But what is the real chariot? Your Majesty has told a lie, has spoken a falsehood! There is really no chariot! Your Majesty is the greatest king in the whole of India. Of whom then are you afraid, that you do not speak the truth?" And he exclaimed: "Now listen, you 500 Greeks and 80,000 monks, this King Milinda tells me that he has come on a chariot. But when asked to explain to me what a chariot is, he cannot establish its existence. How can one possibly approve of that?"

The 500 Greeks thereupon applauded the Venerable Nagasena and said to King Milinda: "Now let You Majesty get out of that if you can!"

But King Milinda said to Nagasena: "I have not, Nagasena, spoken a falsehood. For it is in dependence on the pole, the axle, the wheels, the framework, the flag-staff, etc, there takes place this denomination "chariot", this designation, this conceptual term, a current appellation and a mere name."

"Your Majesty has spoken well about the chariot. It is just so with me. In dependence on the thirty-two parts of the body and the five Skandhas, there takes place this denomination "Nagasena", this designation, this conceptual term, a current appellation and a mere name. In ultimate realtiy, however, this person cannot be apprehended. And this has been said by our sister Vajira when she was face to face with the Lord Buddha:

"Where all constituent parts are present, the word "a chariot" is applied. So, likewise, where the skandhas are, the term a "being" commonly is used."

"It is wonderful, Nagasena, it is astonishing, Nagasena! Most brilliantly have these questions been answered! Were the Lord Buddha Himself here, He would approve what you have said. Well spoken, Nagasena! Well spoken!"

--------------

This passage should be rewritten using Spaceships. Then we will create Space Buddhism.

Feb 8, 2012#168

sixpackshaker

I took some post-hole-diggers (I finally got that PHD) to a hardware store, to have the broken handle repaired.

The clerk said, "Wow! those look really old."

"Yes," I said, "it belonged originally to Abe Lincoln."

"No! really?"

"Yes, but we had to replace the blades once and the handles 3 times."

Feb 8, 2012#169

Necronic

And now we have Hardware Buddhism.

Feb 9, 2012#170

PatrThom

Necronic said:
---------------------------------------

And King Milinda asked him: "How is Your Reverence known, and what is your name, sir?"

"As Nagasena I am known, O Great King, and as Nagasena do my fellow religious habitually address me. But although parents give name such as Nagasena, or Surasena, or Virasena, or Sihasena, nevertheless, this word "Nagasena" is just a denomination, a designation, a conceptual term, a current appellation, a mere name. For no real person can here be apprehended."

But King Milinda explained: "Now listen, you 500 Greeks and 80,000 monks, this Nagasena tells me that he is not a real person! How can I be expected to agree with that!" And to Nagasena he said: "If, Most Reverend Nagasena, no person can be apprehended in reality, who then, I ask you, gives you what you require by way of robes, food, lodging, and medicines? Who is it that guards morality, practises meditation, and realizes the [Four] Paths and their Fruits, and thereafter Nirvana? Who is it that killing living beings, takes what is not given, commits sexual misconduct, tell lies, drinks intoxicants? Who is it that commits the Five Deadly Sins? For, if there were no person, there could ne no merit and no demerit; no doer of meritorious or demeritorious deeds, and no agent behind them; no fruit of good and evil deeds, and no reward or punishment for them. If someone should kill you, O Venerable Nagasena, would not be a real teacher, or instructor, or ordained monk! You just told me that your fellow religious habitually address you as "Nagasena". Then, what is this "Nagasena"? Are perhaps the hairs of the head "Nagasena?"

"No, Great King!"

"Or perhaps the nails, teeth, skin, muscles, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, serous membranes, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, stomach, excrement, the bile, phlegm, pus, blood, grease, fat, tears, sweat, spittle, snot, fluid of the joints, urine, or the brain in the skull-are they this "Nagasena"?"

"No, Great King!"

"Or is "Nagasena" a form, or feelings, or perceptions, or impulses, or consciousness?"

"No, Great King!"

Then is it the combination of form, feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness?"

"No, Great King!"

"Then is it outside the combination of form, feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness?"

"No, Great King!"

"Then, ask as I may, I can discover no Nagasena at all. This "Nagasena" is just a mere sound, but who is the real Nagasena? Your Reverence has told a lie, has spoken a falsehood! There is really no Nagasena!"

Thereupon, the Venerable Nagasena said to King Milinda: "As a king you have been brought up in great refinement and you avoid roughness of any kind. If you would walk at midday on this hot, burning, and sandy ground, then your feet would have to trend on the rough and gritty gravel and pebbles, and they would hurt you, your body would get tired, your mind impaired, and your awareness of your body would be associated with pain. How then did you come on foot, or on a mount?"

"I did not come, Sir, on foot, but on a chariot."

"If you have come on a chariot, then please explain to me what a chariot is. Is the pole the chariot?"

"No, Reverend Sir!"

"Is then the axle the chariot?"

"No, Reverend Sir!"

"Is it then the wheels, or the framework, of the flag-staff, or the yoke, or the reins, or the goad-stick?"

"No, Reverend Sir!"

"Then is it the combination of poke, axle, wheels, framework, flag-staff, yoke, reins, and goad which is the "chariot"?"

"No, Reverend Sir!"

"Then, is this "chariot" outside the combination of poke, axle, wheels, framework, flag-staff, yoke, reins and goad?"

"No, Reverend Sir!"

"Then, ask as I may, I can discover no chariot at all. This "chariot" is just a mere sound. But what is the real chariot? Your Majesty has told a lie, has spoken a falsehood! There is really no chariot! Your Majesty is the greatest king in the whole of India. Of whom then are you afraid, that you do not speak the truth?" And he exclaimed: "Now listen, you 500 Greeks and 80,000 monks, this King Milinda tells me that he has come on a chariot. But when asked to explain to me what a chariot is, he cannot establish its existence. How can one possibly approve of that?"

The 500 Greeks thereupon applauded the Venerable Nagasena and said to King Milinda: "Now let You Majesty get out of that if you can!"

But King Milinda said to Nagasena: "I have not, Nagasena, spoken a falsehood. For it is in dependence on the pole, the axle, the wheels, the framework, the flag-staff, etc, there takes place this denomination "chariot", this designation, this conceptual term, a current appellation and a mere name."

"Your Majesty has spoken well about the chariot. It is just so with me. In dependence on the thirty-two parts of the body and the five Skandhas, there takes place this denomination "Nagasena", this designation, this conceptual term, a current appellation and a mere name. In ultimate realtiy, however, this person cannot be apprehended. And this has been said by our sister Vajira when she was face to face with the Lord Buddha:

"Where all constituent parts are present, the word "a chariot" is applied. So, likewise, where the skandhas are, the term a "being" commonly is used."

"It is wonderful, Nagasena, it is astonishing, Nagasena! Most brilliantly have these questions been answered! Were the Lord Buddha Himself here, He would approve what you have said. Well spoken, Nagasena! Well spoken!"

--------------

This passage should be rewritten using Spaceships. Then we will create Space Buddhism.

Better Nagasena than lever.

--Patrick

Feb 10, 2012#171

Shakey

The shit happened to this thread?

Feb 10, 2012#172

Necronic

Is there a thread? I see no thread.

Are the posts the thread?
Are the authors the thread?
Are the words the thread?

I can see no thread here.

Feb 16, 2012#173

@Li3n

Shakey said:
The shit happened to this thread?

It got Buddha'd... :csi:

Forums