The ideal ship form

For AeronMelon@lemmy.world

216 points · 65 comments · view on lemmy.world

65 Comments

N0t_5ure@lemmy.world · 52 pts · 193d (4 replies)

Yes, I see.....

Edit: Did your mom tell you it's peak performance?

DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 193d

Set phasers to cum.

wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 193d

Not just for the ladies either 😏

normalexit@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 192d

Ramming speed Mister Data

yakko@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 193d

It me

Etterra@discuss.online · 21 pts · 193d

Get on my level, heretics.

FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 193d (2 replies)

That ship is in shape!

(Round is a shape.)

negativenull@piefed.world · 26 pts · 193d

Em4vKzhGLVb9r7x.webp

rants_unnecessarily@piefed.social · 8 pts · 193d

Ship shape!

FaceDeer@fedia.io · 17 pts · 193d (9 replies)

Close, but it was actually the Wasp class that was ideal.

Spaceships are not boats! The engine is not at the back, the engine is at the bottom!

brisk@aussie.zone · 15 pts · 193d (4 replies)

Tag yourself. I'm "large, rolling rock"

Lawnman23@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 192d

Ghostie@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 193d
[ removed ]
Stamau123@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 193d

Robby

A7thStone@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 193d

Macintosh

Cort@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 193d

Is that an extra nacelle or are you just happy to see me?

FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 193d (2 replies)

For the record, Wasp violates rodenberries fairly arbitrary rules for feddie ships in that it has an odd number of nacelles.

FaceDeer@fedia.io · 3 pts · 193d (1 reply)

Lots of ships do that. It was always more of a guideline than a rule.

FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 193d

a rule I happen to like, lol. At least it has radial symetry so it doesn't look weird. (like that kelvin ship with one. weird)

MeatPilot@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 193d (5 replies)

This is peak ship form:

Also the one on the far left fits up your bum easier.

ThisSeriesIsFalse@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 193d (3 replies)

No flared base though, might get stuck up there.

its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 10 pts · 193d (1 reply)

To boldly go where 2 dudes went last weekend.

Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 193d

Boldly going to your mom

MeatPilot@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 193d

Good point, I was going to say the little legs night help it not get sucked up. But I think in reality it would work more like an arrow tip and rip your asshole further if you tried pulling it back out.

clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 192d

BT jumpships have a cool design, with a HUGE deployable solar sail to recharge their capacitor bank for the next Kearny-Fuschida jump. I'll grant you that they aren't much to look at.

https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Invader Is the most common type.

scarabic@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 193d

Shape is irrelevant. Space is a vacuum. You will be assimilated.

FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 193d

USS Orbiprise

ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 10 pts · 193d (18 replies)

I thought peak performance looked like a police box…

starik@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 193d (17 replies)

Not aerodynamic enough for space travel

SatyrSack@quokk.au · 10 pts · 193d (16 replies)

Does warp speed require an aerodynamic hull?

teft@piefed.social · 5 pts · 193d (2 replies)

Probably not. There have been a few times where someone has been outside the hull but inside the warp field and they didn't get blown off.

Triumph@fedia.io · 13 pts · 193d (1 reply)

That would be a weird place to receive oral sex.

A7thStone@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 193d

Captain Jack Harkness has entered the chat.

NachBarcelona@piefed.social · 5 pts · 193d (10 replies)

yes

ummthatguy@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 193d (9 replies)

DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 193d (2 replies)

The Borg got it right. Right angles are easier to build, and expand on. There's no need for aerodynamics in space.

Really, though, the most likely outcome is something like this:

Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 192d

Ah yes, the USS Entropy

clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 192d

What is that? The space city from Valerian, maybe?

SaltSong@startrek.website · 6 pts · 193d (5 replies)

They just use more power.

SatyrSack@quokk.au · 5 pts · 193d (4 replies)

Borg cubes also technically utilize a different warp technology than Starfleet vessels. Not to say the Starfleet warp tech requires an aerodynamic hull.

SaltSong@startrek.website · 6 pts · 193d

According to the TNG tech manual, the smooth curves of the ship makes it easier to maintain a warp field in a shape that uses less power while traveling at warp. So, not aerodynamic, but voidynamic, or something.

gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 193d

Iirc borg have transwarp as well as backup warp capability. And as to “how it works”: I was under the impression that, regardless of the type of warp reactor (federation dilithium/antimatter, Romulan microsingularity, whatever the borg use, etc) the main important output is a shitload of energy, and the thing generating the energy is largely irrelevant - all that matters is that an Alcubierre effect is generated, and serves as superluminal motive force.

verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 193d

Plus little sheet metal feet that flip down, like a lawn chair

Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 193d

Not an aerodynamic hull, per se. Just a hull that allowed for an efficient warp bubble to be created and maintained.

DmMacniel@feddit.org · 10 pts · 193d (1 reply)

I think the Pasteur is a beautiful ship.

negativenull@piefed.world · 9 pts · 193d

It's the ideal form!

Ghostie@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 193d
[ removed ]
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 193d (9 replies)

This has me thinking: if ships like this are only ever in the void of space (so never needing to land on a planet or interact with any aspect of it), would there be any point to designing an aerodynamic ship like this vs a huge cube?

Like sure having a more streamlined ship could make navigating asteroid belts or whatever easier vs a huge box, but like, does it matter for the force required to make it accelerate and decelerate?

(I just woke up so this might be an obvious answer)

Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 193d

There are the considerations with exterior aesthetics, but it's also about being able to maximize interior space and meet design criteria. A change in doctrine after Wolf 359 was to leave as small of a target profile/silhouette as possible, so ships started becoming more streamlined. This also lead to ships being able to travel faster because that lead to creating a more efficient warp bubble around the ships.

Out of universe, Roddenberry said the nacelles need to see each other, operated in pairs, and the bussard collectors (glowy red parts in front) need to have unobstructed view so they could collect materials from space.

arex@startrek.website · 12 pts · 193d

A sphere is the ideal shape to distribute the force of the atmosphere inside the ship on the hull. A cube would not distribute the forces evenly and would need to be re-enforced in places.

SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 193d

According to the technical manual, the Enterprise-D looked aerodynamic because it made the warp field more efficient.

But yeah, as others have said, the rule of cool always applies.

negativenull@piefed.world · 7 pts · 193d

The honest answer: Aerodynamic ships look cooler

CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 7 pts · 193d (1 reply)

I am not sure about how this phenomenon works in context of the warp drive where space-time itself is warped around the ship, but in universes with more conventional FTL mechanics where objects are contradictory to special relativity just accelerated to speeds beyond the speed of light, yes, aerodynamics do actually kinda come into play again.

Space isn't really a vacuum, it just is empty enough ao that we can mostly treat it like one. But space still contains a lot of particles, dust or debris for example, that with higher speeds, there is something very similar to an air reaistance, drag and all that.

However, there may be other factors that can be more important for a space craft design. If you are into absolutely overthinkinh such things, I can recommend Isaac Arthur on Youtube.

Madison420@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 193d

The deflectors primary purpose is to push dust and junk away from the hull and to some extent into the brussards and you can make that basically any shape and size for that matter.

Hazel@piefed.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 193d (1 reply)

Not if it never encounters an atmosphere, but many sci-fi ships are supposedly capable of planetary landings.

Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 193d

Don't forget frequent dips in Nebulae.

JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 193d

If they ever need any sort of aerodynamics they could just shape the navigational shields.

ChicoSuave@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 193d (4 replies)

Peak performance does not include a deflector dish?

Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 193d

It's there, it's the blue streak about 2/3 down. That's a Medical ship so it wouldn't need as large or sophisticated of a deflector as a capital ship or science class.

FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 193d (2 replies)

It’s the blue bar thing that looks like a forced smile.

ChicoSuave@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 192d

That grimace deflector is underwhelming. But I guess it counts.

Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 191d

The white person smile :|

Kolanaki@pawb.social · 4 pts · 191d

Peak form is a Borg Cube. No wasted space.

Reygle@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 193d

I realize it would have been nearly impossible for the model makers to do it, but I think that model could have been even better with a rotation to the "saucer" area- for free gravity inside.

MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 193d

I appreciate the joke, but, er, no.