Suspend your disbelief!

From 2001 to Invasion of the Body Snatchers
User avatar
LaughingCheese
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:57 am

Re: Suspend your disbelief!

Post by LaughingCheese »

Good points, thanks.


EDIT: Also about Jurassic Park, they do allude to imperfect DNA when they say they used frog DNA to fill in the blanks (or whatever it was). Not that it would work, but I'm kind of surprised that wasn't brought up.


Speaking of disbelief, the freaking massive size of Star Wars starships?

I mean sure a galactic empire should be able to build such craft, I guess? But still, when you really think about the engineering required....maybe smaller staraships make more sense?

This also applies to the Forerunners in Halo; basically anything with megastructures in it really.
User avatar
kostmayer
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2812
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:08 am

Re: Suspend your disbelief!

Post by kostmayer »

Nutso wrote:Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. The Joker's plans are all executed to perfection even when he uses mental-hospital escapees to execute these plans.
The point was raised by The Key of Awesome http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbgLapRAloQ
"You ain't gonna get off down the trail a mile or two, and go missing your wife or something, like our last cook done, are you?"
"My wife is in hell, where I sent her. She could make good biscuits, but her behavior was terrible."
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Suspend your disbelief!

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Captain Seafort wrote:It depends on the context. Given the sort of firepower that's been deployed in London in the not so distant past (mortars, RPGs and a few good-sized IEDs spring to mind), robust patrolling can be appropriate under certain circumstances. Not to mention that time the army sent light tanks to Heathrow. It would require either specific intelligence or a far more serious standing threat than the US has faced since 1860s, but it can happen.
Those aren't really battles, though. And enemy sneaking in and firing off a weapon the running - or more usually running and then firing. Not really the same thing as one who is coming to seize territory and hold it against opposition.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Suspend your disbelief!

Post by McAvoy »

Tyyr wrote:Defenses cost money, a lot of it. Your average fighter has dozens of man hours of maintenance expended on it for every hour it's in the air. Fuel costs money, weapons cost money and need more fuel to be carried, your pilots are spending hours flying circles in the air instead of doing something useful like training. Plus the shear number of aircraft you'd have to have to give meaningful coverage to the eastern seaboard. The US isn't overflowing with free aircraft for this kind of duty either. With our commitments to the Middle East and other places finding a dozen squadrons to set up this kind of patrol isn't going to be easy and ultimately... why? After 9/11 people know the consequences of an airplane getting hijacked which makes the odds of a similar attack happening again just about zero. So... why?
When I worked on NAS Ocean in Virginia Beach I can confirm that the US Navy's Master Fighter Base on the East Coast never had CAP missions.

The kind of scenario played out in Olympus has Fallen is the kind of idea that you'd only ever get in a Hollywood action movie. It's just too ridiculous so yeah... we're not prepared to repel that kind of threat. Because no one would be that insane.
Honestly I thought the ending was bullshit. Someone attacking DC, wrecking the White House, killing a bunch of people, and overall doing that amount of damage, well would seriously piss off most Americans. It would make the aftermath of 9-11 look like a slight twitch in the emotions of the average American.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Suspend your disbelief!

Post by Tyyr »

I think the size of ships in Star Wars is perfectly reasonable. Look at the evolution of warships. A battleship (The Maine)of the 1900's vintage was about 13,500 tons loaded. By 1941 the Iowa's were 52,000 tons loaded and the Yamato's were about 70,000 tons loaded. About 40 years and the size of a battleship increased by 400 to 500%. In 40 years. A ship that in 1900 would have been a top of the line battleship would have only been the size of a cruiser in WWII, and would have gotten it's teeth kicked in soundly by something like a Baltimore.

When you get to Star Wars you're in space. You're free of any concerns about displacement, flooding, fitting through locks, docking, all of that. There's really no reason NOT to build something as big as you can reasonably afford to and still move. Factor in increases in productivity and economic output along with the fact that the Empire runs far less than one Star Destroyer per inhabited planet and I don't see why those sizes are out of line.

If you want suspension of disbelief in Star Wars lets start with the Millenium Falcon being a "freighter". Outside of drug running or couriering ridiculously expensive commodities I have a hard time believing that you could make an entire line of "freighters" that have less cargo capacity than a standard shipping container.
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Suspend your disbelief!

Post by McAvoy »

Actually the Maine you are thinking of is much smaller than 13,500 tons and it is a 1886 design that was originally an Armored Cruiser that was reclassified as a second class battleship. Poorly designed ship but it is important in the fact that it gave the US shipbuilders experience in building large ships. But I suppose you could be talking about the pre-dreadnought USS Maine, Maine class of 1899 which fits you what you described.

Or maybe I over thought that one.

Anyway, prior to HMS Dreadnought, battleships grew fairly slowly. HMS Warrior of 1860 had a displacement of about 9,100 tons and a length of 420 feet. The prototype pre-dreadnought type battleship that people are familiar with is the Royal Sovereign class of 1889. They had a displacement of 14,500 tons and a length of 410 tons. They only got that big because restrictions on the size of the ships were lifted. 30 years for a 50% jump.

Whereas it took about 6 or 7 years to nearly double the displacement between the HMS Dreadnought and Queen Elizabeth class. The HMS Hood was even larger of about 10,000 tons more. If there was no Washington Treaty, there would have been Iowa class sized ships in the 1920's. Who knows how large they would have gotten without the treaty.

But you are correct though about the progress of naval technology. A pre-dreadnought armored cruiser or even protected cruiser of 1900, even a small one could easily sink the HMS Warrior. Even though the HMS Hood is roughly of similar size to a Iowa class, she would have a very rough day if they ever fought each other. So, that goes without saying.

In Star Wars they can build giant ships because they have a whole galaxy's industrial might to do so. They have droids that can do alot of the work to make it much safer. They have countless people to do the work.

Even Star Trek which powers only take a small portion of their space should be able to build even larger ships.

But here is the problem, Trek might be limited in how large they can build ships due to the unique technology they use. A material which is rare and hard to refine and manufacture for example could slow completion times and even limit the size of the ships. When it comes to battleships, building the hull an machinery is easy. Building up the turrets and the guns take up alot of time and it is limited by the capacity of the factories of that country. Armor, especially the face hardened type is limited by the capacity of the mill especially the thickness. GB prior to WW2 had an issue with armor and had to buy armor elsewhere for it's battleships and cruisers. The US during and after WW1 knew it could reliably do armor thicknesses of 13.5" constantly. Any thicker and it's quality may vary.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
Jim
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1907
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh
Contact:

Re: Suspend your disbelief!

Post by Jim »

Tyyr wrote:If you want suspension of disbelief in Star Wars lets start with the Millenium Falcon being a "freighter". Outside of drug running or couriering ridiculously expensive commodities I have a hard time believing that you could make an entire line of "freighters" that have less cargo capacity than a standard shipping container.
I agree there. Does the Falcon even have a cargo hold? It has the hidden holds under the hallway, but where does the real cargo go?
Ugh... do not thump the Book of G'Quan...
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Suspend your disbelief!

Post by Tyyr »

You are overthinking it. I'm going with the 1899 battleship Maine.

There are a lot of issues with regards to the size and capabilites of battleships and their growth in the 1900 to 1945 time period. It's something entire books HAVE been written about, some actually very good books. It's worth studying. However the main point wasn't to go into the intricacies of it all but just to show that rapid expansion in sizes do take place. Again, 40 years, 400% growth in size of a ship of the line to the point that a 1900's era ship of the line would get it's ass handed to it by a 1940's cruiser.

Look at main battle tanks. in 1943 the 25 ton Pz IV and 30 ton Sherman were considered a frontline battle tanks. Today the 70 ton Abrams is a main battle tank and APCs and self propelled artillery are sitting around 25 to 30 tons. You've got other issues there, the biggest ones being rail and highway transportability but still, 50 years, they more than doubled in size even within the constraints.

And hell, today we think the ships we make are absolutely massive. Well they did in 1940, and 1900, and 1800, and 1500, etc. No one in 1500 could imagine a ship the size and power of an Iowa, and that's only 450 years before it's created.

Not really meaning to turn this into a think where I debunk SoD with some things but... well there you go.
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Suspend your disbelief!

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Tyyr wrote:If you want suspension of disbelief in Star Wars lets start with the Millenium Falcon being a "freighter". Outside of drug running or couriering ridiculously expensive commodities I have a hard time believing that you could make an entire line of "freighters" that have less cargo capacity than a standard shipping container.
Virtually the whole of science fiction has a notion of cargo handling that is stuck in the 1930s. We see it in Trek all the time - people loading small crates and barrels into cargo bays, often by hand.

Modular shipping containers, people!
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
Posts: 9585
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: NY
Contact:

Re: Suspend your disbelief!

Post by stitch626 »

Ship size in Star Wars never bothered me. They had Star Destroyer sized ships 20000+ years before the OT (The Infinite Empire). The only limitation for ships was purpose and engine power. Considering that development of new tech has been stagnant in the universe for at least 5000 years, they go for bigger rather than more efficient.

Also, any ship that regularly carries cargo (including individual items) counts as a freighter. The Falcon has enough space to fit a few crates of stuff and thats what the class was used intended for.



The first SoD issue that comes to my mind is Prometheus. I can forgive a lot of the movie. Even the humans being stupid... I think because that is so prevalent these days that I barely notice anymore. But I could not believe that Main Character Person could walk after that ridiculously unlikely surgical procedure. Or that such a device would be implemented in the first place... I would feel safer in the hands of a surgeon from the 1800s...
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
RK_Striker_JK_5
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 12986
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:27 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award, Cochrane Medal of Excellence
Location: New Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Suspend your disbelief!

Post by RK_Striker_JK_5 »

GrahamKennedy wrote:
Tyyr wrote:If you want suspension of disbelief in Star Wars lets start with the Millenium Falcon being a "freighter". Outside of drug running or couriering ridiculously expensive commodities I have a hard time believing that you could make an entire line of "freighters" that have less cargo capacity than a standard shipping container.
Virtually the whole of science fiction has a notion of cargo handling that is stuck in the 1930s. We see it in Trek all the time - people loading small crates and barrels into cargo bays, often by hand.

Modular shipping containers, people!
I honestly think I have more mechanical assistance in the backroom of the Walmart I work at than I've seen in a season of TNG.
Post Reply