gunnut

DO NOT EVEN BREATHE IN MY PRESENCE!!!

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Tarek Morgen

You remind me of my second girlfriend (I met her after she sended me deaththreats after I made fun of the same show).

Btw: does anyone outside Germany remember the Orion?

__________________
uh I might be wrong

taygone

I voted for Galatica (the latest version) mainly because of weapons systems. They still used projectile based weaponry. I almost wanted to pick the Babylon 5 one due to shape, I don't see any fancy cool looking ships right away to take place of the shuttles. But considering Battlestar Pegasus looked so high speed compared to Galatcia, I picked Galatica.

gunnut

You guys are confusing "realistic" with "current" technology.

Realistic means we can probably achieve it with our current understanding of the universe.

Current means we have similar technology right now.

Galactica seems archaic in certain aspects. Projectile weapon in space? We have energy based weapons in development right now. Far more useful and practical in space. Even gauss gun is more realistic than guided missiles in space.

Remember in Star Trek the Borg have adaptive shields? So Star Fleet came up with phasers on rotating frequencies. What does the Raptor's radar use? Rotating frequencies. How fast? Thousands of iterations per second. Far faster than what was stated in the show. What can it do? It can launch an electronic attack on enemy radar. This is far beyond anything mentioned in any sci fi show, with the exception of some Star Trek episodes.

The computer technologies in Star Trek is definitely "realistic," sometimes even behind the progress.

The only unrealistic thing in all these sci fi shows is "faster than light" travel. We have absolutely no understanding of how this is possible. We understand how quantum computer and matter teleportation can work. We don't know jack about how to go faster than light.

Blademaster

Realistic means that it is something that we can foresee us doing it years from now. For instance, we can foresee that we will have bendable flexible laptops where the screen will roll up after we are done.

I see Galactica as the most realistic because some of the technology they use are things that we can foresee us doing it years from now.

ArmchairGeneral

I hate you. I really hate you. You are an evil and sadistic man, Dale. Did I mention I despise you? I just spent 4 hours on that site. I have a physics exam tomorrow. I haven't studied yet. At all. Oh, and a biochemistry quiz. I would destroy my computer, except that it isn't mine. And I only bought the online version of my physics text, anyway. BTW, I hate you.

And yes, it is bookmarked. As are half the links from the place. It's worse than Wikipedia crossed with Google crossed with WAB. On steroids. And genetically enhanced. And I thought my course load alone would doom me next semester. HAH!

Which is a long and involved way of saying: That site rocked my face off. And I hate you.

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

gunnut

Actually I think Galactica is the least realistic because I don't see the technologies as something we will use in the future, they are something we are using or have since discarded.

I think Star Trek is the most realistic, other than the faster than light travel (all of them) and the holodeck.

dalem

You're welcome.

-dale

taygone

I agree, they are making lasers capable of taking down missiles and such, but how long until that's really practical and cost effective? I see a Galatica type vessel being up first and maybe have an auxilary laser system, but I don't see projectile weapons going away until then, especially nukes.

dalem

I agree it's hard to imagine a more efficient way of transferring destructive energy than KE weapons or "slugthrowers", as the sci fi world has termed them. But just because it is hard to imagine doesn't mean it's silly. Can man-portable energy weapons be made feasible today? No. In a hundred years? Heck - I don't even know what a toothbrush-equivalent is going to look like in a hundred years, let alone something as aggressively developed as weaponry.

Maybe I'm stuck in a late-20th century paradigm, but I think it all depends on energy. If we can get a truly revolutionary energy source-and-storage pairing going, something that not just replaces fossil-fuels and chemical batteries, but that actually eclipses them, then I think a lot of the sci fi-type boundaries will be pushed and pierced.

I mean, any one of us with a basic physics background could design a plasma-type blaster weapon that would "work", i.e. direct harmful energy at a target. But to make it reality we need metallurgy and the above energy issues to advance a fair amount.

-dale

taygone

Can you imagine the apparatus? Will it fit in your hand or will it be some sort of sonic/ion thing honing in on plaque the size of your shower? If there was such a big fuss about fluoride can imagine what's next?

I saw Star Trek V the other day (been awhile) and they did a great job at making it look realistic considering CGI today. Then it got me to thinking, if we could just get a ship into space and not worry about re-entry, we could just put a big honking generator soley for the use on a laser weapons system. I saw some show on History Channel, I think it was Star Wars Tech and they really are trying to make plasma technology. So now I'm debating how soon could they have something to surpass Galactica before it even gets into space. I guess I picked Galatica because in the back of my mind I can't wait for the next season to get started.

Shamus

How I ever missed this site is beyond my comprehension......by the way Dale....I hate you too...

__________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but
it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

The Chap

JBIS Vol.60 No. 12

Now that something to ponder!

Oh, B5. The earth ships. The "Star Furies" always remind me of the wonderful old game "Thrust".

__________________
Where's the bloody gin? An army marches on its liver, not its ruddy stomach.

Blademaster

Yes plasma is a reality but the concept of using plasma as weapons remains in the fantasy land. However kinetic energy based weapons are very much real and exotic forms of kinetic energy based weapons envisioned but beyond our grasp are way more realistic than plasma based weapons.

ArmchairGeneral

Speaking of "realistic" in a future with FTL travel and energy shields seems slightly silly. I mean, when you've demolished our current framework for physics once or twice already, what's a plasma cannon more or less?