rebeldream

Well I think you have to kind of disregard FTL, it's kind of neccesary for the narrative, I'll give it a pass.

I'm a big Star Wars fan, and it does have a gritty 'used universe' feel to it(not to mention being much more realistic socially and psychologically than, say, Star Trek. there's no utopia coming, we'll be killing eachother as long as we exist), but when it comes to scientific/technological realism, Star Wars isn't really where it's at.

Star Trek, no.

I'm not nearly as familiar with B5 as I oughta be, I hear it's really good. Just from what I've seen it seems pretty realistic, but as I've never really watched it much myself I can't say much about it.

Battlestar Galactica. Man oh man. Ok setting aside the fact that I'm in love with Starbuck, I think BSG wins it. I'm not a scientist, so I can't really speak to specifics, but overall it seems very realistic to me, just the whole feel and so many little stylistic elements.

Plus, you know, Starbuck, swoon ,etc

dalem

He's an attractive man, for sure.

-dale

Dwarven Pirate

For future-verse, I'd have to mix Bladerunner and Starship Troopers. With a dollop of Spaceballs...

ArmchairGeneral

Must say, though, I preferred him in A-Team.

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

Wraith601

I'd have to go with the Omega. BSG rocks, but the Viper isn't very realistic at all and guns are a little to low tech.

__________________
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley

zraver

Star Destroyer, its the only design that can focus 80% of more of its total firepower into any non rear arc giving it the best throw weight design even if all the ships being compared were armed the same. Plus it carries a Storm trooper division (17,000) and a full air group.

Armed with Star Wars technology it has many times more throw weight than any of the other contenders. it dwarfs the enterprise, in fact the enterprise doesn't posses a single weapon that can penetrate the vessels shields with a single shot.

Star Wars vs Star Trek Essays: Star Wars vs Star Trek in Five Minutes comparison

Turbolaser Commentaries turbo-lasers

Wraith601

This thread is about most realistic ship not most powerful. Though I do agree the Star Destroyers owns most anything else.

Canmoore

I agree the Star Destroyer is a "Carrier" compared to the other ships. The Star Destroyer is perhaps the most realistic because of its size.

Why invest in many smaller ships, when one super giant ship can do it all? One star Destroyer brings an enormous amount of firepower, plus it can transport an infantry division, and an air group. It is just more effective.

Stitch

I'm sorry, I just really like the "classic" Constitution-class starships, like the NCC-1701; it has a timeless design that would still look good a hundred years from now. Plus, it was the first "real" spaceship ever designed; it wasn't a stupid saucer design, like the Jupiter 2, or a rocket ship, like the ship from Forbidden Planet. It was a revolutionary design for an interstellar spaceship at the time, and it still looks good today, even with the "revamped" designs, like the NCC-1701-A and the -D.

Also, remember that Federation starships were never originally designed to be pure warships, like Star Destroyers or the Executor; the primary mission of most deep-space Federation starships is the exploration of the galaxy, not the conquering of it. It is, first & foremost, a science ship; it's armament was originally designed for defense only, not offense. So, of course, a pure warship, like a Star Destroyer, or even Slave I, is probably going to be able to get the better of a Constitution-class starship like the Enterprise.

zraver

I was also talking design. Space is a 3D plus time enviroment and the Star Destroyer is designed to function in that type setting. Even if you scale it down to more realistic sizes its design concepts are superior to the enterprise or the other offered designs.

perhaps the only design that would be superior would be a cone like ship.

1- You can design it to focus 75% of its fire in any one direction and 100% forward and rear- you can' flank it or cross it's T

2- You can hide the vitals in the widest part of the vessel so that the ships spaces act like baffles and the cone lends it self to thrust gravity becuase you can stack the decks so that the narrowest part of the cone is up for the crew.

3- You can roll the hull to rotate in fresh armor/hull and weapons towards the enemies bearing.

Canmoore

The only weakness in the Star Destroyer, is that its Bridge, communication hub and delicate instruments stick out of the ship like a sore thumb.. A better design would have had these more snug to the ship.

dalem

You two should go here.

Pages and pages and pages of people that think they know how much better one fictional dad is than the other.

-dale

zraver

Oh, I agree the flying bridge is a joke, but the arrowhead design overall is a very functional design.

Canmoore

I concur.

Wraith601

Trust me I gave up on Star Wars vs. Star Trek debates after the first time I was in one. Those thing get more heated than a debate religion, abortion, and the Iraq War combined.