www.ditl.org

My vote for worst ship design has to go to the Space Shuttle. What a pile of resource-intensive crap. It can't leave orbit, it is a 'flying brick' in atmosphere, and if its little shower-tiles get broken, it explodes. Seriously, it really sucks. It's a total... wait a minute? "Worst ships in sci-fi"? Oh, ok, never mind...

Tsukiyumi wrote:My vote for worst ship design has to go to the Space Shuttle. What a pile of resource-intensive crap. It can't leave orbit, it is a 'flying brick' in atmosphere, and if its little shower-tiles get broken, it explodes. Seriously, it really sucks. It's a total... wait a minute? "Worst ships in sci-fi"? Oh, ok, never mind...

I heard the Space Shuttle was designed to carry large amounts of Cargo into space and be mass produced. I guess expecting the fuel requirements to become cheaper in the near future.

The space shuttle was just ahead of its time. The tiles required more maintenance then expected, the size of the SRBs was limited because they had to be moved by train, and go through a tunnel(a size determined by rails, which was determined by a pair of mules pulling a wagon. Our most advanced vehicles abilities limited by something that happened a hundred years ago! True story.) And using the SRBs in the first place! Those things are dangerous, they have no off switch. You ignite them, there's no turning back for two and a half minutes.

And it wasn't 'minor' damage to the tiles. Shuttles have come down with over a hundred dings in the tiles. It was the depth that killed it. A battered body can survive, but all it takes is a knife in the heart to actually kill you. And with only two failures in over a hundred flights, the shuttle is actually quite reliable.

The Challenger disaster killed the program's success. The Military pulled a lot of it's funding, meaning that the only time the shuttle has been used to capacity on a regular basis is when it works on the ISS. Because of that the shuttle hasn't been cost effective.

The real irony is that the Russians came up with a better shuttle design and had one completed shuttle(one flight) with a second ready to go in less then a year and three others in various stages of construction, yet they lacked the funding to do more then one flight. Talk about unfair.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:The real irony is that the Russians came up with a better shuttle design and had one completed shuttle(one flight) with a second ready to go in less then a year and three others in various stages of construction, yet they lacked the funding to do more then one flight. Talk about unfair.

Ah, the Buran. Totally automated flight, that first one. Very impressive.

And, I guess in the future I should open with "extreme sarcasm ahead" when I do a joke post.

That would save me time in correcting you.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:(a size determined by rails, which was determined by a pair of mules pulling a wagon. Our most advanced vehicles abilities limited by something that happened a hundred years ago! True story.)

Oh no, it's worse than that.

The size of the tunnel is, of course, dependent on the gauge of the railway, which is 4 ft, 8.5 in. Standard US railway gauge is based on the English gauge, after much disputing between railway lines in the 1800s. Where, then, did the English come up with their gauge? They used a bunch of jigs and pre-existing hardware from wagonmakers. Why did the wagonmakers use that width? Because there were many roads at the time in England that were still two ruts, and if your wheels didn't fit those ruts, you would not have a good time of it.

And what made those ruts originally? Roman chariots, whose width was based on the breadth of two warhorses' butts. So, the punchline inevitably goes, the next time you wonder what horse's ass designed this, you may be right.

Jordanis wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:(a size determined by rails, which was determined by a pair of mules pulling a wagon. Our most advanced vehicles abilities limited by something that happened a hundred years ago! True story.)

Oh no, it's worse than that.

The size of the tunnel is, of course, dependent on the gauge of the railway, which is 4 ft, 8.5 in. Standard US railway gauge is based on the English gauge, after much disputing between railway lines in the 1800s. Where, then, did the English come up with their gauge? They used a bunch of jigs and pre-existing hardware from wagonmakers. Why did the wagonmakers use that width? Because there were many roads at the time in England that were still two ruts, and if your wheels didn't fit those ruts, you would not have a good time of it.

And what made those ruts originally? Roman chariots, whose width was based on the breadth of two warhorses' butts. So, the punchline inevitably goes, the next time you wonder what horse's ass designed this, you may be right.

That is hilarious! See, this is why I come to this site.

I really hated the Excelsior when I first saw it, but man, now it might be my favorite design in Trek.

Jordanis wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:(a size determined by rails, which was determined by a pair of mules pulling a wagon. Our most advanced vehicles abilities limited by something that happened a hundred years ago! True story.)

Oh no, it's worse than that.

The size of the tunnel is, of course, dependent on the gauge of the railway, which is 4 ft, 8.5 in. Standard US railway gauge is based on the English gauge, after much disputing between railway lines in the 1800s. Where, then, did the English come up with their gauge? They used a bunch of jigs and pre-existing hardware from wagonmakers. Why did the wagonmakers use that width? Because there were many roads at the time in England that were still two ruts, and if your wheels didn't fit those ruts, you would not have a good time of it.

And what made those ruts originally? Roman chariots, whose width was based on the breadth of two warhorses' butts. So, the punchline inevitably goes, the next time you wonder what horse's ass designed this, you may be right.

So... we're limited by two asses from long ago.

Any chance we could... upgrrade? Or are we pretty much stuck with it?

We're stuck with it - there's simply too much railway to re-lay just because it would be handy to have a slightly wider track. Ironically Brunel proposed a wider-gauge track when standardisation was in progress in the 18th century, but was overruled for some reason. The Russians also use a wider gauge, which plays merry hell with transfering from the European network to the Russian network - it caused Kaiser Bill and Hitler no end of problems, which was particularly useful in 1941..

Captain Seafort wrote:We're stuck with it - there's simply too much railway to re-lay just because it would be handy to have a slightly wider track. Ironically Brunel proposed a wider-gauge track when standardisation was in progress in the 18th century, but was overruled for some reason. The Russians also use a wider gauge, which plays merry hell with transfering from the European network to the Russian network - it caused Kaiser Bill and Hitler no end of problems, which was particularly useful in 1941..

Ah, great. Thanks, Seafort...

*Headdesk infinity* Anyone got a time machine handy? Some chroniton particles so I can go back in time and help Brunel out?

Oh, Nebulon-B escrt frigates from Star Wars.

Image linked here

One good shot to that connecting bar and it's two-two ships for the price of one!

At least that was acknowledged as a weak point in-universe. In "Wraith Squadron" (one of Allston's X-wing books) a Neb-B was destroyed in exactly that way - concentrated fire to the connecting neck.

Captain Seafort wrote:At least that was acknowledged as a weak point in-universe. In "Wraith Squadron" (one of Allston's X-wing books) a Neb-B was destroyed in exactly that way - concentrated fire to the connecting neck.

Aye, that's true. And I read that book and battle. A bad design, there.

Star Destroyers, owing to their ridiculous size (especially the Super Star Destroyers), and the fact that the Control Room is stuck right on top of the ship, and the Shield generators are stuck right on top of the Control Room.

Despite the enormous crews, they literally seem to lose all control when the Bridge is destroyed.

Big is a problem? You'd better tell that to the designer of every battleship ever built. Size = more room for engines, weapons, shields, etc. Indeed, Star Destroyers are among the better designs dur to their arrowhead configuration - it allows them to concentrate as much firepower as possible on a single target.

The bridge issue was mainly caused by the proximity to DSII - the misfiring main engines drove the ship into the Deat Star before backup control crews could tak over. In "Wraith Squadron" a similar attack destroyed an ISD bridge, and the ship was able to keep fighting.

Theres big and theres big I think the SSD's were overkill, though they were also built to intimidate too.