Star Trek

Because star trek's retarded

>>79738222
> what are shields

>>79738222
because once you kill the humans controlling the ship, the ship's AI takes over and cannot be defeated

File: don't.png (116KB, 480x276px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 480x276px

Pretty sure the way combat works in Star Trek the shields are a ship's first and only line of defense, they don't seem to have any ability to sustain hull damage.
Also Star Trek is as soft as sci-fi gets and it uses its setting as a vehicle for character drama and moral/ethical parables. There probably isn't any worse sci-fi universe to get into autistic tech arguments over.

>>79738222
That's not actually where the crew are

>>79738478
They can take hull damage.
>Also Star Trek is as soft as sci-fi gets
You must not watch much trek or sci fi if you believe that.

>two ships meet
>the bridge orientation is always upright
>IN FUCKING SPACE

>>79738478
Still better than Babylon 5 when ships just disintegrate when it get hit like one time.

>>79738593
The retards won't get it otherwise

Space has a definite up & down

>>79738576
>>79738478

It's not the softest scifi, but it's nowhere close to hard scifi either. It's inconsistent. One episode you have stories about real scientific concepts, another it's just social allegory with humans that evolved to be half black and half white for some reason. It's all over the place.

>>79738593
Well, they are meeting. To be oriented in the same way is like a friendly handshake between spaceships.

>>79738576
How is Star Trek not soft? Did you miss the omnipotent space gods and the magic particle quantum flux fields?

>>79738632

Yes I know they're not supposed to be humans, but that makes it even worse.

>>79738632
I'll give you that.

>>79738222
>Shields
>Evasion maneuvers so the bridge is not in line of sight

You can't be this retarded right?

>>79738576
>>79738576
I suppose something like Warhammer 40k or Star Wars is worse, but Star Trek is definitely on the soft end of the sci-fi spectrum. Basically anything can happen as long as it serves the purpose of the story they're trying to tell, there are almost no limits.

>>79738662
>evasive maneuver when the enterprise turns like an eighteen wheeler because of its horrible design and fuckall navigational thrust

>>79738665
40k is about as hard as sifi comes

>>79738695
...no?

File: hull.jpg (54KB, 499x294px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 499x294px

>>79738433
>>79738478
>>79738662
>structural damage sustained even with shields still up

Inflict hits like this on the bridge and that's checkmate.

File: Kaptin_Bluddflagg.jpg (99KB, 850x878px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 850x878px

>>79738695

>>79738737
Hard doesn't mean humorless

>>79738750
Please, tell us what you think "hard scifi" means.

>>79738829
>>79738695

40k literally has magic and gods that power most of the universe's bullshit.

it's a tv show you goddamn motherfuckers

>>79738222
Star Fleet Battles used to have a great reason for why exact targeting is impossible: ECM

Because both ships are constantly jamming and counter-jamming each other's sensors, and also firing from vastly greater ranges than the shows imply, exact targeting of specific parts of a ship is impossible.

reminder that star fleet allows families on board their military and exploration(fully equipped for warfare) vessels so they can false flag on a moments notice

>>79738222
The Klingons were retards

Never forget that their entire war effort and ability to sustain themselves was disrupted when a single moon blew up

>>79738864
But it's all explained as science fact

>>79738692
>implying there is such a thing as aerodynamics and air resistance in space you brain dead fucktard

>>79739738
>what is solar wind
>what is particles in space
>what is structural integrity

>what is extremely spaced out particles that some how correlate with being aerodynamic where there is no air
>what is solar wind, (i think you should google it)
>what is retardation (>>79739881)

>>79738433
everyone knows torpedoes can penetrate the shields cause they only stop beam weapons like lasers

>>79738711

The Reliant opened fire before the shields were completely up.

>>79739942
explain the Enterprise in TOS and Voyager being able to enter atmosphere and fly on planets

>>79738635
It's still not "soft as sci-fi gets". Which by no means makes it "hard sci-fi".
Yet I'd say it's "as hard as space opera gets" in some selected instances (which includes none of the movies except for the first one).

>>79738866
wat, so basically these ships are shooting without ever knowing where they will hit? bullshit. Also if they can jam each other's sensors, why cant they stop people from teleporting over to their ship all the time

File: 1422417934217.jpg (57KB, 688x512px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 688x512px

>>79739969
>they only stop beam weapons like lasers

>>79740073
What would be an example of a scifi that's softer than Star Trek?

>the first one
Climaxes with a man and a machine merging together to ascend into a higher form of life on a higher plane of existence that exists outside of the space-time continuum as we know it.

That's as soft as space opera gets.

>>79739942
First episode of ENT

The ship is nearly torn to shreds because without a forward deflector, space debris hits the ship like shrapnel.

There is no atmosphere, but there is matter present to create resistance

The original idea was to have the bridge inside the hull

>>79739738
Are you retarded?
Do you not know what inertia is? Do you not understand why navigational thrusters are needed?

>>79740040

I don't recall TOS enterprise ever entering atmosphere:

>>79740239
it's the episode where they travel to the past and pick up an american pilot who was sent to intercept the ufo which was the Enterprise

>>79740239
Tomorrow is Yesterday

>>79740136
>What would be an example of a scifi that's softer than Star Trek?

Star Wars, Doctor Who (mostly), every single instance of sci-fi capeshit

>>79738628
>space has a definite up & down
This is you pretending to be retarded, right?

>>79740489
Not him, but since "up and down" are always defined through a frame of reference (what's "down" on earth? Is it the direction towards the center of gravity? Is it south?), once you can define axes of any sort, you can also define "up" and "down".

File: 1485972761966.png (180KB, 540x420px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 540x420px

>>79738222
I am a pretty autistic sci-fi fan and Trekkie so I am going to do my best here:

Because TOS technically inferior tech compared to TNG, bridge placement and orientation was more crucial to blind flying when the scanners shat the bed, like in situations in nebulas or ion storms (think Wrath of Khan). I don't have a problem with humans flying spaceships in linear lines, we have virtually been doing that for thousands of years with other craft so it makes sense in terms of navigation to point a ship in linear paths. The obvious answer is "this is aesthetically easier to see on film".

TOS-era Enterprise wasn't as tactically equipped with the scanning ability of TNG-on ships, so a viewscreen was more important. Kirk blind flies from a viewscreen a few times in the show and the films, when basic operating systems fuck up. Of course, the bridge is the most heavily shielded section of the ship next to the warp core.

>>79740586
A vaccum of 360 degree directional movement does not have a fucking up or down...

You are giving me autism, stop.

>>79738914
Enterprise was literally never meant as a military vessel.

Does a luxuray cruise become a battleship once it is attacked by pirates?

>>79738478
the defiant had "ablative armor", but as far as I know it was the only star trek ship that could sustain damage with the shields down

>>79740073
Stark Trek is literally hard sci-fi, I don't know where all this contrarian horseshit is coming from that it isn't.

File: 1383102207512.jpg (172KB, 972x796px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 972x796px

>Klingons
>having room to talk about retarded ship designs

Why, yes, let's not only put our entire command section in front, let's extend a skinny neck connecting it to everything else.

Face it, Star Trek designs have always been knee-deep in retardation. BSG is clearly the patrician choice for warship design philosophy.

>>79738222
>he thinks the bridge is up top in the open

File: 1283579551743.jpg (222KB, 2224x600px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 2224x600px

>>79740976
It is.

File: 1487843291609.jpg (106KB, 600x927px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 600x927px

>>79740900
what did they mean by this?

>>79740664
if you're somewhere inside a galaxy there's a general plane of reference

>>79741002
I wish that shit was labelled.

What the fuck is that big yellow room? Those rooms of the green shit in the bottom right? And that room of purple space stuff that looks like a picture of a galaxy above the room with red and black beams

>>79741078
>yellow
probably a hangar/shuttle bay
>green/purple
fuel storage probably

File: Star Trek Enterprise In a Mirror Darkly Constitution class cross section.jpg (206KB, 1600x562px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1600x562px

>>79741078

>>79741065
That doesn't mean up and down are real. You are talking about relative directions, not "durrr there an up and down in space". Stop beating this autistic horse.

>>79741375
humans are used to a mostly two dimensional frame of reference
in a three dimensional frame like space, humans need to associate a two dimensional plane to understand it better

>>79741421
That isn't the question you absolute retard. There are no objective "ups" or "downs" in space. 360 degree space does not give a dusty fuck what sort of handicap you have with understanding limitless direction.

Only downs here are you though.

File: 1485559234067.jpg (139KB, 600x580px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 600x580px

>>79741447
>Only downs here are you though.

>>79741236
neat, although
>no holodeck
>no transporter room

>>79741583
Transporter room would be amidships adjacent to the turbolift shaft, somewhere below Stellar Cartography.

Holodeck on a TOS ship? Bait harder, kiddo.

>>79740664
You simply can't read, as it would seem. It doesn't matter on how many axes you can MOVE. All that matters is what frame of reference you define and take into account.

>>79742137
And again, this doesn't change the fact thar independently of what you want or can process, there are no actual directions in space.

>>79741447

There are in Star Trek. The Riker maneuver was ground breaking tactics.

File: Chris_Pine_molesting_Sofia_Boutella.webm (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>79738222
Who cares. Here's Chris Pine having fun with Sofia Boutella.

>>79743578
Holy shit, chris literally behaving like a rapist, why is he not jailed yet

File: Boutella_vs_Pine.webm (1MB, 1160x722px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1160x722px

>>79743621
I think they actually kinda like each other

>>79743578
>>79743642
He's getting old FAST, man!
I think Sofia Boutella is only 2 or 3 years younger than him but this looks like a 40-something trying to get into a 20-something's panties.

File: kermit.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>implying the bridge and the battle bridge are in the same place

you'd need a complete ambush for your idea to work.

>>79740664
Star systems all orbit within the galactic plane, so yes it's very easy and logical to define up/down.

>>79740732

No, but it does when you equip it with torpedoes.

>>79740793

If it has FTL it's soft.

File: 1487918048887.jpg (11KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 225x225px

>>79743760
>star systems all orbit within the galactic plane
Please, for the love of Kahless...stop talking.

File: TASholodeck.jpg (35KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 320x240px

>>79741641
There IS a holodeck on the Constitution Class but it didn't appear until The Animated Series.

>>79743815
That is the dumbest shit I ever heard. Why?

File: f0b6a7c549824a641e6614d86aec917c.jpg (56KB, 564x642px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 564x642px

>>79741583
also the bowling alley isn't marked.

>>79738523
>destroy bridge
>eliminate almost all senior leading officers
>destroy weapon and flight control
come on, anon!

File: ryan-dening-ext-donnager-anubis-battle-01.jpg (363KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1600x900px

I appreciated The Expanse for thinking about this.

>the Donnager is constructed around a hollow central core with other compartments, sub-assemblies and equipment assembled around it like the layers of an onion. The Donnager's core contains several important elements of the ship's structure including the heavily-protected CIC pod and the hangar bay.

>>79743906
>travel at warp speeds to exotic planets
>still install a bowling alley just in case you get bored

>>79744078
six lanes at that, they must have taken bowling very seriously

>>79743678
Boutella is a dancer and model and probably fit as fuck.
Pine, on the other hand, is an actor who probably only works out for the odd shirtless scene here and there, most likely enjoys a good drink every now then and appears to have a genetic disposition towards getting sorta "soft in the middle". So it's not THAT surprising, if you ask me.

>>79744052
Is this show worth watching? I'm curious about it and I would like to hear an opinion from someone who also enjoy Star Trek.

>>79743834

The galaxy is disc-shaped. That necessitates a top and a bottom.

>>79740793

Star Trek is NOT hard science fiction. Jesus, what would that make the stuff that people like Greg Egan write?

>>79738452
isnt AI retarded in Trek? otherwise they wouldnt have people manually flying ships

>>79744078

Bowling is a universal language. You may not be able to speak to a new alien race but you can always bowl with them.

>>79744366
dubs deserve reply
it's nothing like trek, but it's definitely a good show

File: 1454198350474.jpg (32KB, 650x488px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 650x488px

>>79738222

They actually figured it out in Generations albeit a little bit too late...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSCWB4GqcFE

#Skip to 1:34 ^^

File: 1470196251272.jpg (33KB, 620x348px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 620x348px

>>79744472
what your opinion on her, QT or BEAST

>>79744610

she'd be QT if she stopped trying to be so BEAST

Either way she's a trash-tier Bobbie

>>79740900
exept having fighters, ever getting that close with ships and the cylon basestars. hard sci fi combat would be shit to look at, imagine the donnager battle in expanse, but as soon as the first torp hits its over

File: Phaser_lance.webm (3MB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1440x1080px

>>79738478
>>79738576
>>79738711
>>79739881
>>79740039
>>79740773

You DO realize that in its 50-year run (already 30 years by the time Voyager came around) Star Trek has been flip-flopping on a ton of issues.

Just to name one example: In that TOS episode whose name I don't remember right now, the one where there's that "vampire cloud" that magically drains its victims of all their blood, it's stated that a single OUNCE of antimatter could render a large part of a planet's surface inhabitable. It's basically the Tsar Bomba squared. Now while it's never stated how much antimatter is actually needed to power a ship's warp reactor it has to be a lot more than an ounce, since they could procure that amount very quickly in that episode and didn't have to wait for days until they could generate it (thus it's fair to assume that copious amounts of it are stored somewhere on the ship).
TOS has been SOMEWHAT consistent on how dangerous an exploding starship could be since the Enterprise's self-destruct mechanism is sometimes treated like an "ultimate weapon" and a ship exploding thousands of kilometres away (note that they seldom if ever had face-to-face combat in TOS – mainly due to budgetary reasons, but it was actually a ton more realistic than the clusterfuck space battles we got in DS9 which however looked cool as fuck) would still send the big E rattling.
Come the movies and subsequent series, you had starships exploding left and right, sometimes crashing into each other, sometimes crashing into asteroids, moons, planets, you name it, and sometimes they would just fly through those explosions completely unaffected whereas, had they stayed true to TOS logic (which was far from consistent itself, mind you!), at some point every starship explosion should've looked like the Nostromo's explosion in "Alien".

So, as you can see: "Canon" is but a guidline and that also very much applies to Trek starships' durability,

>>79739371
That's not it what "hard science fiction" is.

File: Gowron.webm (117KB, 268x200px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 268x200px

>>79744805
Yeah, sometimes a ship's "duranium" hull amounts to nothing more than rusty sheet metal and a single photon torpedo would essentially vaporize an entire multi-ton vessel and sometimes a ship could get pummeled with a complete arsenal of torpedoes and sustain a dent and a scorch mark at best.

>>79744434
Yes it is, just autistically screeching that it's not doesn't change that. Why this triggers you is beyond me.

>>79744423
No...it doesn't

>>79743838
Not canon.

>>79744999
gimme a break. I love me some good hard sci-fi and I love Star Trek as well, but Trek is, if anything, on the "hard edge" of soft sci-fi

File: a-koo-chee-moya.gif (633KB, 286x218px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 286x218px

>>79743578
>>79743642
>tfw you realize Jaylah is a brown woman in whiteface...

I wanna lick her cheekbones though

>>79745038
You just keep saying "NUH UH NUH UH NUH UH". That doesn't constitute a fact. By all definitions, Star Trek is literally hard science fiction.

>>79745027
Animated series is canon.

>>79745020

Nah it does though, that's how discs work. It's like a circle, but it's flat,and that's the top of the disc, and then the bottom, that's another circle, but they're sort of the same circle? And galaxies are like that but with a a non-negligible height dimension, so yeah, I guess they're more like really flatted cylinders, my bad bro.

>>79738222
It isn't a matter of figuring it out. The Klingons didn't just attack the bridge because there would be no honor in doing so.

>>79738576
Trek is incredibly soft when compared to the whole sci-fi genre and not just Star Wars.

>>79745086
>By all definitions, Star Trek is literally hard science fiction.

Which definitions? It takes a very contrived plot device for them ever to care about cosmic radiation, or fuel, or breathable oxygen. In the normal running of things they don't give a shit about the hard realities of space travel, which is quintessential to hard scifi.

File: 1487891676196.png (1MB, 1018x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1018x768px

>>79745109
I think you struggle with fundamentally understanding why there are no set directions in space and keep infuriating me with your pseudo bullshit. Especially when everything is a google search away to explain why your statements are inherently retarded.

The main deck was in display because once shields down and a shot hits the ship it's pretty much over

>>79745102
So when is Giant Spock going to show up again?

TAS is garbage.

>>79745149

Nah, but see

There's a top and a bottom surface, so, when you're in your spaceship, you might point the top of the spaceship at the top, and the bottom at the bottom

Like you don't have to but you can if you want

>>79745086
>>79740793
nice b8, m8

File: 1477519002721.jpg (36KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 499x499px

>>79744366
>Is The Expanse worth watching?

Personally, I love the show. I think what I enjoy most is that this version of the future genuinely feels believable. There's no space lasers or holodecks. Everything feels familiar despite being 300 years into the future. Because of this the world building is really well done and totally immersive.

The show also treats space with a lot of respect - apparently it did a lot of research to get the science right. Simple things like maneuvers at high-g, or matching the velocity of an escaping vessel are life-or-death situations and very intense. The show doesn't dangle red space lasers and CGI vomit on the screen to make space battles exciting.

The absence of good Star Trek or Star Wars had left me a little bored of the sci-fi genre. And when I heard that The Expanse was a """SyFy""" original I rolled my eyes. I watched the pilot a few days ago and I'm already caught up (show's thirdway through season 2). This is actually one of those rare small shows that flies under the radar and tragically disappears one day. It's a shame more people don't watch this.

We need more good sci-fi!

Ok serious question from a guy that really only got into TNG, so definitely not super knowledgeable of Star Trek...

Why didn't every serious battle involve just laying into the either of the two massive warp engines hanging off the ship?

I got the sense from watching the show that they're basically the ship's testicles. One good kick and it's all over.

It may take a little time, but it's a better strategy than just hitting random spots on the hull and watching random crewmen get knocked into the corridor walls.

Doing that, the other guy is always on the defense until they have to kick out the core or get blown up.

>>79745126
>ST3 Klingons
>honourable

choose one.
The very first scene featuring Klingons in that movie has them literally backstabbing the people who provided them with valuable information (which of course isn't valuable at all since they have no real grasp of what that dossier is actually about and they basically just give in to paranoia).

File: Jaylah_confrontational.webm (852KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

852KB, 1920x1080px

>>79745081
brown, white – she's sexy as fuck. Both, in and out of character.

>>79745326
If the warp nacelles are destroyed or disabled, the ship just can't go into warp. It is still perfectly capable of maneuvering in non warp speeds.

File: God Damn It Son Of A Bitch.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>79738222
>enemy shields are down
>they don't transport parts of the ship or crew into space

>incoming torpedoes
>they don't transport the torpedoes behind the enemy

>>79743850
As far I know we still don't have fully developed theory of space-time warp, so warp drive not fully scientific.
Alcubierre mechanism requies negative energy density, so its not fully hard yet.

>>79743850

Because we have no concept of faster than light travel, so at some point down the rabbit hole of how it works you'd have to say "dunno, lol".

>>79745463
what is that im scared

>>79745827
But you need to do that with any science fiction at some point, otherwise it is just "future historical fiction". That by itself doesn't disqualify other science fiction things (not talking about Star Trek) from being hard science fiction. You need to avoid being autistic, eventually you are going to have to invent a science, but if ir is fleshed out and makes sense in context of your universe, it is fine.

Otherwise your definition of hard science fiction ends at modern technology.

>>79738601
Did you even watch the show?

>>79745890
>Otherwise your definition of hard science fiction ends at modern technology.

No. Take Aalstair reynolds, for example. In Blue Remembered Earth there's system-wide activity from Earth, mining and colonisation, but it's off the back of metallic hydrogen fuelled rockets, space elevators and maglev slingshots. All perfectly feasible by the standards of current science but utilised in a scifi context.That's hard scifi. You can imagine new genres to try to justify to yourself some other definition for hard scifi but this is what it is.

>if ir is fleshed out and makes sense in context of your universe, it is fine.

Sure, no one ever said there was anything wrong with soft scifi.

>>79738711
>>Posts a picture of damage that happened while the shields were down

Are you trolling or legitimately retarded?

>>79746045
You are being absolutely retarded. So in your mind, you can't invent a science and be hard science fiction? That is absurd. Then it isn't really science fiction...

>>79746045
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction

Buddy, you can have a need for scientific accuracy while still maintaining a science FICTION and fleshing out future technologies that may not exist yet. Your bullshit of "if the science doesn't exist yet, it can't be hard science" is so goddamn juvenile that it's laughable.

>>79740102
A better explanation is that the ships are a lot farther apart than TV would have you believe. If you're a thousand miles away from an enemy ship you'd be happy to hit it anywhere and a bridge hit would be a stroke of luck. Even in WW1, when ship duels were relatively common and took place at a range of a few miles, you counted yourself lucky to get any hit.

>>79746301
*hard science fiction

>>79741013
Star Trek would have been a lot more interesting if they put massive stencils of hot chicks on their ships like the air force.

>>79746247
>>79740039
>confirmed for never watching TWoK

They also fired when the shields were up and it still wrecked the hull. ToS era shields weren't impenetrable bubbles like the TNG era, morons.

>>79746250
>you can't invent a science and be hard science fiction?

Definitively no.

>>79746301

>Hard science fiction is a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific accuracy.

First line. Making shit up isn't accurate. Sure, you can expand on things, extrapolate current technologies forward. But if you ask a Star Trek writer how a replicator works, or how a transporter works, or how they achieve faster-than-light travel, or what kind of reaction mass a starship uses for power they're not going to have a reasonable, grounded answer for you. that's what makes it soft.

>>79745109
>Calling the galaxy flat
>Thinking it has a "top" and "bottom" anymore than Earth does
Jesus shit

>>79741236
>long range sensor
Fuck I thought that was a yuge laser or some ultimate fuck you weapon

>>79746404
>Definitively no.
Keep reading the definition, fuckwit. I think you have an issue with what the word "fiction" means in hard science fiction.
>First line. Making shit up isn't accurate
The third or fourth line is about creating new technologies rooted in scientific logic and accuracy.
>But if you ask a Star Trek writer how a replicator works, or how a transporter works, or how they achieve faster-than-light travel, or what kind of reaction mass a starship uses for power they're not going to have a reasonable, grounded answer for you.
We stopped talking about Star Trek, the conversation became about "can you invent nee technologies and be considered hard science fiction". Yes, you can and there are numerous examples of this. Why you are being a cunt about the word "hard science fiction" is anyone's guess.

Hard science fiction does not mean that every facet of the technology is just historical or the fucking same. Hard science fiction demands a level of scientific accuracy where appropriate or needed but you literally have to fictionalize soem aspects of technologies that don't EXIST. Hence, fiction...

>>79746429
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#

>From Earth, the Milky Way appears as a band because its disk-shaped structure is viewed from within

>disk

>>79744805
That's a thing I really miss from TOS when watching later series. TOS managed to capture a sort of submarine warfare vibe to their shit that, when used correctly, made for legit great tv.

I'm looking at you, Balance of Terror.

>>79746372
They shields were still coming up when they were hit. Reliant kicked the shit out of Enterprise because they took out most of the weapons and power before the shields were up. Later, they explicitly mention that shields won't work in the nebula and that the odds will be even - meaning Reliant's shields were up and Enterprise's still weren't. AND the damage to the side of the photon launches happened in the nebula where we KNOW shields were down.

Maybe you should rewatch the movie before commenting. Your memory is clearly faulty.

>>79746627
Your stupidity continues...

>>79744445
the doctor in Voyager is an AI

>>79746605
>rooted in scientific logic and accuracy.

There is NO currently workable scientific logic for faster-than-light travel. there are no operating principles. There's nothing to work forward from. There's nothing we can point at and say "Well, we did this, so if we had the resources we could do that". That's all entirely plausible within hard science fiction; we can't build space elevators yet, but if we put enough time and money into it we could. Faster-than-light travel cannot have a place in hard scifi. By your own definition it cannot because it has no basis whatsoever in contemporary scientific knowledge.

>>79746638
They struck several times while the shields were fully up. The Reliant was also struck and was clearly taking damage even before the Enterprise crew forced them to power down.

Don't try to pull that shit with me, I've watched Wrath over 50 times.

>>79738576
star trek is science fantasy

>>79746648

Nice argument there faggot, I certainly feel like I have been proven wrong by your ...

>>79745843
It actually LOOKS like a wolverine, but it's a dog reacting to a leaf blower.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnphFxH3FxM

>>79746429
>Thinking it has a "top" and "bottom" anymore than Earth does

Ever seen a world map? Or a globe? There's a universally accepted standard for top and bottom when it comes to the planet Earth.

>>79744999

It isn't hard sci. You autistically screeching that it is doesn't change that.

>>79746691
>By your own definition it cannot because it has no basis whatsoever in contemporary scientific knowledge.
This is why I think you are being retarded. There is no rule that says hard science fiction can't invent and flesh out new technologies rooted in some fashion of your "contemporary scientific knowledge". At some point you have to concede that you are writing fiction and not a fucking biography or historical nonfiction. Nowhere does it say you can't invent technologies and then disqualify your hard science fiction (no matter how fleshed out and rooted) from being HARD. There are literally dozens of novels that are considered hard science fiction on the list of examples from the definition, that invent technologies we do not have.

Your whole argument is autistic as shit.

File: 1464639808776.jpg (4KB, 250x159px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 250x159px

>Watching Voyager
>Shuttle fires a phaser shot at Voyager
>"Captain, our shields are down to 22%"
>"Hold our fire Tuvok, we're not here to fight"
>Combat lasts another 20 seconds

>>79746798
This has to be bait

>>79746713

Reliant didn't take any damage until they used its prefix code to drop the shield. At no point is there any indication that either ship's shields are up when it is hit. The Enterprise's DEFENSE FIELDS are up, quote unquote, but when Reliant locks phasers Enterprise's SHIELDS are down. Maybe you should rewatch it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCpYqWAIwFA

>>79746691
So in your brain: if I write a hard science fiction but I incorporate an alien race that CAN do faster than light travel, NOW all of a sudden, despite keeping to near perfect scientific accuracy, I am writing some low-fi shit..because humans in real life can't travel faster than light?

>>79746847
>there's no magnetic north
>there's no galactic north

>>79746818
>There is no rule that says hard science fiction can't invent and flesh out new technologies rooted in some fashion of your "contemporary scientific knowledge"

Please, I implore you, read my post. You'll see how wrong you are and how right I am.

>Nowhere does it say you can't invent technologies

No, but it says you have to scientifically accurate, and how can you be accurate to something that doesn't exist? You can make up all the new machines you want, you can theorise about sentient AIs and advanced materials science and neural implants, but if you have to make up new science to justify them then it's not hard scifi. It's that simple. Scientific rigour is the name of the game. And FTL is not definable in a scientifically rigorous fashion.

>>79746949
Then you just don't know what the fucking word "fiction" means. You can have scientific rigour and still fictionalize technologies that do not currently exist...it's in the definition...

>>79746916
>despite keeping to near perfect scientific accuracy

How do the aliens achieve faster than light travel?


>some low-fi shit.

No, You're writing soft scifi. I have never, in this thread or otherwise, indicated that there is a difference in quality between hard and soft scifi, just that there is an INCONTROVERTIBLE difference in nature.

>>79746847

It's not bait. The guy is retarded. If he were in a space ship approaching earth with the north pole facing down, he'd think he was upside down.

>>79746949
You are quite literally not talking about science fiction at all then.

>>79746429
You're fucked.

>>79746847

Why?

>>79746949
>You can have scientific rigour and still fictionalize technologies that do not currently exist

Oh man, I mean I literally just covered this, in the post you're replying to. I'll try again.

You can make up all the new machines you want, you can theorise about sentient AIs and advanced materials science and neural implants, but if you have to make up new science to justify them then it's not hard scifi.

>>79747028
Nah, I am, though, famalam. Hard science fiction, to be specific.

File: Warp Core Breach.webm (3MB, 900x380px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 900x380px

>>79744805
Antimatter isn't a conventional explosive though, it annihilates real matter and yes, we don't know how much antimatter they have, but we know it's less than the total conventional matter the ship is made out of though, so it should always be completely used up before it has a chance to escape the hull and pose a threat to others.

It's a shame they just used regular explosions for warp core breaches, but we don't really know what it will actually look like in reality.

>>79746949
>>79747007
>>79747089

>Later discoveries do not necessarily invalidate the label of hard SF, as evidenced by P. Schuyler Miller, who called Arthur C. Clarke's 1961 novel A Fall of Moondust hard SF,[3] and the designation remains valid even though a crucial plot element, the existence of deep pockets of "moondust" in lunar craters, is now known to be incorrect.

>There is a degree of flexibility in how far from "real science" a story can stray before it leaves the realm of hard SF.[10] Some authors scrupulously avoid such technology as faster-than-light travel, while others accept such notions (sometimes referred to as "enabling devices", since they allow the story to take place)[11] but focus on realistically depicting the worlds that such a technology might make possible. In this view, a story's scientific "hardness" is less a matter of the absolute accuracy of the science content than of the rigor and consistency with which the various ideas and possibilities are worked out.

Get fucked, kiddo. Literally in the definition of hard science fiction.

>>79747024

Nah, he'd just be approaching the bottom of the planet, nothing wrong with that

>>79747127

What do you think this proves?

>>79747156
>There is a degree of flexibility in how far from "real science" a story can stray before it leaves the realm of hard SF.[10] Some authors scrupulously avoid such technology as faster-than-light travel, while others accept such notions (sometimes referred to as "enabling devices", since they allow the story to take place)[11] but focus on realistically depicting the worlds that such a technology might make possible. In this view, a story's scientific "hardness" is less a matter of the absolute accuracy of the science content than of the rigor and consistency with which the various ideas and possibilities are worked out.
That you are an autistic faggot who just wants to write scientific nonfiction and has no idea what he is talking about?

>>79747109
Strangely enough the best view we have of a real explosion in space from Star Trek was a hand-animated thermonuclear blast from Patterns of Force. TOS photon explosions were reasonable too, just bright flashes in space. It wasn't until TWOK and later that photons suddenly got weak enough that having one detonate against your hull, while not optimal, still wasn't a huge deal.

>>79747204

>some fags like me decided that they wanted hard scifi to mean something else so they imagined for themselves a new definition

Literally meaningless.

>>79747273
Here it is again for you, just in case you have trouble reading:
>In this view, a story's scientific "hardness" is less a matter of the absolute accuracy of the science content than of the rigor and consistency with which the various ideas and possibilities are worked out.
Now scroll up and see how this applies to everything I have said you.

Fucking stubborn autistic underage fuck

>>79747273
>some fags like me decided that they wanted hard scifi to mean something else so they imagined for themselves a new definition
I literally quoted from the defintion of "hard science fiction". Are you just pretending to be retarded?

>>79747365
He's not worth your effort, Anon.

>>79747365
>In this view

Can you say "subjective"? Meanwhile this opinion rails against the very core of the whole concept. Are you a liberal? Making up new definitions for existing terms is a very liberal thing to do.

>>79743621
>>79743578

She started it:
https://youtu.be/PTufJl960k8

>>79747109
They should have done it the way it works in Fringe, where it just literally vanishes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdoO5tCCOms#t=1m15s

>>79745290
Fukken this, so much.

I also dismissed it as more syfy nonsense, but then I heard it was strongly based on the books by James Corey. I watched a few short clips and then caught up with the series in two days.

File: 1487447410230.gif (980KB, 227x221px) Image search: [Google]

980KB, 227x221px

>>79747423
>Can you say "subjective"?
Literally in the definition you mongoloid
>are you my liberal boogeywoogeyman?
Are you running out of dumb shit to say so now you are resulting to /pol/ autism, friendo?

Would it rustle your jimjams if I voted Hillary and didn't cancel my Netflix subscription?

>>79740793
>Time Travel
>Dominant alien species are humanoid with the only differences being tiny things like facial features (and yeah different blood, which makes that SO MUCH more believable)
>Dilithium crystals
>Parallel universe where your doppleganger is an evil version with a goatee
Oh yeah. VERY hard sci-fi. That being said, who gives a fuck if it is hard or soft? What matters is if it's enjoyable to you. If your enjoyment is dependent on how hard the science is, you will probably not enjoy a whole lot of science fiction.

>>79747668
That's not how antimatter works. The main output is gamma rays and you get about 42 megatons of explosive yield per kilo of antimatter. Even a tenth of a gram of it would fatally irradiate or burn everyone within a block of that blast.

>>79746301
>>79747127
>>79747204
Is quoting Wikipedia a valid argument now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science_fiction
>Some prime examples of soft science fiction on film and television include:
>The Star Trek franchise

What did they mean by this? Did they mean that Star Trek is soft scifi?

>>79747777
There are two different conversations happening kiddo.
1. Is Star Trek hard sci fi (it isn't)
2. Can you make up new technologies on hard sci fi (yes), and what defines it.

I am having conversation 2. You would know that if you bothered to read the chain.

>>79747846

But why isn't Star Trek hard scifi?

>>79747777
>Is quoting Wikipedia a valid argument now?
Is this 2005 where Wikipedia was not a near instantaneously self-correcting system supported by accurate sources and compiled data?

>>79747846
>Stark Trek is literally hard sci-fi, I don't know where all this contrarian horseshit is coming from that it isn't.
Even if you aren't that poster, you have still been defending that poster from attacks, so you share a portion of the ridicule.

>>79747768
You're thinking far too 3-dimensionally, it detonates in subspace when scaled up from the microscopic quantities you've created.

>>79741236
so what creates gravity?

>>79747904
>Even if you aren't that poster, you have still been defending that poster from attacks, so you share a portion of the ridicule
No I'm not retard. I am having a completely different conversation on what defines hard science fiction. Jesus fuck, this board gets more retarded by the day.

Fuck off with your "guilty by association" autism just because you are too stupid to follow a thread.

>>79747968
Why did you never explain to that poster that Star Trek is soft?

Why did you only attack other posters who were explaining to that poster that Star Trek isn't hard?

Based on your behavior, it is hard to believe that you are a separate person.

>>79748014
Because I wasn't talking to him? Is this hard for you?

>>79747957
Gravity is an illusion produced by mass bending space. While gravity theory can produce very accurate predictions of mass interactions, what is actually happening is interactions between various gravity wells.

>>79748057
>Because I wasn't talking to him?
Why not?

You did disagree with their position, right? Right?

>>79748057

But this is a communal space, anon. For example, I'm not the person you're replying to, but I'm here in this space, observing and participating in your conversation.

Just fire a nuke

In that world of starships and lasers it's not unviable

>>79748085
Yes, Star Trek is soft sci fi, do you need validation or some shit?

>>79738222
Because that's not supposed to be an issue.

In the original series, the Enterprise is just intended to serve as a vessel to bring the characters to a new story, as well as an example of the technological marvels of the future. It's shape, the non-industrial shirt-sleeve environment on board and the apparent neglect for tactical considerations should only tell you that no matter what problem or (expectable) enemy you through at it: it withstands it and a crew in t-shirts can manage it. That's how advanced the tech is.

In the movies, Star Trek got a more gritty angle, with diverse specialized uniforms, haz-mat suits, guards with helmets and a need for dramatic battles. The conceptual difference could't be bigger.

Roddenberry recreated this situation in TNG:
The Enterprise-D has families on board because the tactical issues are alleviated through superpowerful tech. The ship has large windows and bars and lounges on the outer hull. Later, the military angle with equally powerful adversaries came back because it allows for better stories. And the bridge on top and families on board start to look stupid.

>>79748088
And?

>all this autistic bitching about hard vs soft as if that's what makes anything good as opposed to being well written, acted, and directed

>>79746632
Yeah, Balance of Terror was one of if not THE best TOS episode: Tense, well acted and sorta gripping, since you DO feel a certain sense of remorse at the end.

The close-up battles in TWOK were actually still reasonable as well: Khan had no real grasp of space combat (another reason why I HATED STID: Yeah sure, let the 20th century superhuman psychopath design a big-ass starship cause we can't figure out how to do it ourselves – it'll probably look like a 1980s 1st generation stealth aircraft, but it'll TOTALLY AWESOME) and one would presume that two Starfleet ships getting sorta close to each other when their communications array is apparently cunted is nothing out of the ordinary. Also the second battle scene warrants them getting up close since they need to be able to spot each other without their sensors working properly. So everything's fair and square up until TWOK.
Oh well, but that's just crying over spilt milk I guess.

>>79738695
dude I love 40k but it's science fantasy as fuck

>>79748120
But why didn't you explain this to them?

>Poster X says Star Trek is hard scifi
>Poster Y corrects Poster X and explains that Star Trek is soft scifi
>you do not correct Poster X
>you do attack Poster Y
The obvious conclusion is that you're supporting Poster X.

Or that you are Poster X, and you are only pretending to be Poster Z after you got BTFO.

Is this hard for you?

>>79748189
None of this is logic

>>79748108
Nukes work differently in space, the blastwave is caused by the fact its happening in an atmosphere, it would just be a bright flash and massive amounts of radiation. Unless shields were down I don't think they'd be much of a threat unless it pierced the hull first, especially with their medical knowledge.

>>79748207
k

>>79748207

it is though?

>>79748189
>WHY DONT YOU REPLY OR POST TO EVERYONE ALL THE TIME
>THIS MAKES YOU EVERYONE
kys

>>79748176
>>79738695

40k is literally Warhammer Fantasy in SPAAAAAAACE! It even has legit magic, not "muh unknown science" or "muh psychic powers" (it has those too) but actual, full-fantasy "standing in a circle invoking the dark powers" magic.

>>79748246
>if you dont argue with someone
>you secretly are them and condone them
No, this is not logic

>>79748291
It looks like you're defending them though, since you only argued against the person correcting them.

>>79748319
And that right there, is not a logical conclusion.

>>79748261
I know all that.

>>79748357
Of course you would say that. You don't understand logic. You've been arguing that Star Trek is hard sci-fi, after all.

>>79748319
>since you only argued against the person correcting them.
This doesnt mean you agree with the person you arent arguing with.

You learn debate soon, after 6th grade.

>>79748357

Seems pretty straightforward, if I'm fighting some dude and you come up and start fighting me you're most likely that dude's friend

or like, clone, to make the metaphor more accurate

>>79748149
>Yeah sure, let the 20th century superhuman psychopath design a big-ass starship cause we can't figure out how to do it ourselves

But anon, they didn't recruit him for his genius but rather for his SAVAGERY!
No, it makes no fucking sense and I totally share your feelings regarding STID...

>>79748396
Again, I am a different anon

>>79748432
Based on your behavior, there is no reason to believe you.

>all this autism about Star Trek
I can't say I'm surprised.

File: Autism.jpg (53KB, 491x566px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 491x566px

>>79748445

>>79747656
Fuck, she's cute.

>>79748406
Yes, you're such a master of 7th grade debate.

>>>Star Trek is hard scifi.
>>No it isn't.
>You're so autistic! Get fucked, kiddo!
Wow.

>>79747656

He's right, about the shoes, why would you wear shoes while sitting in a chair

>>79748573
>>79747656

note that Sofia expressedly craves for attention to her feet (1:16 "I want some feet attention!"). She should be /tv/'s dream girl for that.

>>79740073
When I think of hard sci-fi, military shit comes to mind like Halo or Starship troopers

>>79744805

Damn I love that battle, where they remembered that space is 3 dimensional for once in the series.

For all their flaws, this is one thing I like about the Abrams movies. Most of the action is still on a 2D plane (so the audience doesn't get confused or motion sick) but the camera spins around just enough to remind you that space doesn't have a true up or down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRsHBe0jErk

>>79748124
interesting

Since scientists can make Datas and The Doctors why didn't the federation make fully autonomous suicide bombers to take out the dominion? No need to put lives in danger.

>>79749121
Because muh robot and hologram rights.

>>79746045
>mfw there will never be an adaptation of Absolution Space
t. sad Reynoldsfag

>>79749121
>Since scientists can make Datas
They can't
>The Doctors
Holograms require holoemitters to be installed where you want to use them
>why didn't the federation make fully autonomous suicide bombers to take out the dominion?
They'd consider that morally wrong

>>79746833
The old of prey was not as obsolete as you would think.

Why did later shows stop using the "vaporize" setting on the phasers?

>>79749862
What would they use it for?

File: The Three Stooges Get A Phaser.webm (2MB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 960x720px

>>79749862
They use it occasionally as a tool but murder is frowned upon in Starfleet

>>79750028
>murder is frowned upon in Starfleet

Not really

>>79738593
They fly parallel to the galactic plane you mong.

>>79750877
There's no up in the galaxy either, even if your retarded idea is true 50% of the ships should be completely upside down because they guessed wrong.

>>79751143
I think I accidentally started this argument this morning

My point was that having ships flying at all angles would confuse the plebs.

So the writers made the decision that in THEIR FICTIONAL VERSION OF SPACE, there is an objective up an down. Just to facilitate the tv show.

>>79747109
Whoa, do I need to watch more than the first two Resident Evils? I hear they're cheesy and stupid but that's kinda cool.

>>79747109
That's a fair description but I think they're worth a watch; 1, 3 and 4 are my favourites, 5 was really dumb but I'm going to see 6 over the weekend because it's always an enjoyable experience.

>>79738222
THAT WOULDN'T BE HONORABLE