167 réponses à ce sujet

[Bob from Accounting]

Well I would assume that advancement in material science plus the use of mass effect fields would provide a greater flexibility in ship design.
I base this in the fact that the existing ships are not all twice as wide as they are long as shown in the game, which is our best source for evidence.

 

Err, no. You misunderstood.

 

Ships do not have to be twice as wide as long. What I meant is that if you double the length, you also have to double the width.

 

So a ship cannot just be scaled from say, 200 x 200 x 1000 meters to 200 x 200 by 2000 meters. You'd have to scale it by, at the very least, 400 x 400 x 2000 meters. You can't just increase one dimension. You have to increase all three. But length is still five times the width.

[von uber]

Ok, again - why? Why not just provide additional strength within the ship?
What additional forces would there be to necessitate such an increase in width?

[Bob from Accounting]

It's not that simple. We can't just build a mile-high skyscraper in real life by 'providing additional strength' inside the building. Steel has so much strength and durability, and that's it. That's what we have to work with. It's the same for starships, both in Mass Effect and almost certainly in the future in real life. Whatever alloys and ceramics we use to build them aren't of infinite strength.

 

Like I said, it's the same reason why a longer pencil is much easier to snap than a short one - even though they're the exact same width and made of the exact same materials. It's a consequence of work being equal to the integral of the dot product of force and distance. The greater the distance, the more work is done for an equal force. Thus, it takes a far lesser force (and weaker weapons) for the necessary work to be done to shear the ship in half or cause other damages for a long ship compared to a short ship of equal width and depth. So a very long, thin ship would be very fragile.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

It's not that simple. We can't just build a mile-high skyscraper in real life by 'providing additional strength' inside the building. Steel has so much strength and durability, and that's it. That's what we have to work with. It's the same for starships, both in Mass Effect and almost certainly in the future in real life. Whatever alloys and ceramics we use to build them aren't of infinite strength.

 

Like I said, it's the same reason why a longer pencil is much easier to snap than a short one - even though they're the exact same width and made of the exact same materials. It's a consequence of work being equal to the integral of the dot product of force and distance. The greater the distance, the more work is done for an equal force. Thus, it takes a far lesser force (weaker weapons) for the necessary work to be done to shear the ship in half or cause other damages.

 

Someone forgot about mass effect fields...

[ImaginaryMatter]

It's not that simple. We can't just build a mile-high skyscraper in real life by 'providing additional strength' inside the building. Steel has so much strength and durability, and that's it. That's what we have to work with. It's the same for starships, both in Mass Effect and almost certainly in the future in real life. Whatever alloys and ceramics we use to build them aren't of infinite strength.

 

Like I said, it's the same reason why a longer pencil is much easier to snap than a short one - even though they're the exact same width and made of the exact same materials. It's a consequence of work being equal to the integral of the dot product of force and distance. The greater the distance, the more work is done for an equal force. Thus, it takes a far lesser force (and weaker weapons) for the necessary work to be done to shear the ship in half or cause other damages. So a very long, thin ship would be very fragile.

 

Okay, except we have to idea about the strength of materials in Mass Effect; the only thing we really do know about them is that they can be made stronger by using mass effect fields. Perhaps, the materials ships are made out of can be made to withstand the forces a warship goes through and the current dimensions are based on other considerations.

 

Like they do make long pencils (of the same width as average pencils) and they don't usually break when people use them.

[von uber]

You can do very clever things with concrete and steel to build tall buildings higher than you'd expect.
Look at the shard in London, its a innovative concrete and steel structure that uses some clever techniques to keep the building width and deck width down.
Who knows what they could do in mass effect especially with mass effect fields.

[DeinonSlayer]

Someone forgot about mass effect fields...

While we're on that subject, how exactly does the ability to manipulate mass allow the creation of artificial gravity? Just how much would the mass of, say, the deck plating of a ship need to be amplified to generate Earth-normal gravity? What kind of stress does that put on the material, and how much power draw would that take? Does it decrease the amount of time needed between drive core discharges due to accelerated static-electric build-up? Do objects below each "gravitized" deck stick to the ceiling if tossed up there, with null-G somewhere between floor and ceiling? Would vastly increasing the mass of the plate not have the opposite of the desired effect when trying to decrease the ship's overall mass to permit FTL travel?

[Bob from Accounting]

You can do very clever things with concrete and steel to build tall buildings higher than you'd expect.
Look at the shard in London, its a innovative concrete and steel structure that uses some clever techniques to keep the building width and deck width down.
Who knows what they could do in mass effect especially with mass effect fields.

 

It doesn't matter.

 

Whatever techniques there are to reduce stress for large ships are going to be available for small ships as well. SInce reducing stress is almost certain to be a critical factor in design, it's a pretty safe bet that all ships are going to have it. If Mass Effect fields can strengthen the ship somehow, they're probably going to be a feature of both small and large ships.

 

You can't escape simple physics. Long thin ships are always going to be more vulnerable than shorter ships of the same dimensions. Period. And there's no reason long ships would have any special design features short ships wouldn't already incorporate.

[ImaginaryMatter]

While we're on that subject, how exactly does the ability to manipulate mass allow the creation of artificial gravity? Just how much would the mass of, say, the deck plating of a ship need to be amplified to generate Earth-normal gravity? What kind of stress does that put on the material, and how much power draw would that take? Does it decrease the amount of time needed between drive core discharges due to accelerated static-electric build-up? Do objects below each "gravitized" deck stick to the ceiling if tossed up there, with null-G somewhere between floor and ceiling? Would vastly increasing the mass of the plate not have the opposite of the desired effect when trying to decrease the ship's overall mass to permit FTL travel?

 

I have several ideas, the simplest and most likely one being that the writers never considered it. Then there could be Clarke's law or it could be a consequence (somehow) of the ME universe operating under a different set of physical laws. Maybe, it works in similar method to how Singularity operates.

[DeinonSlayer]

It's certainly a handwave (an almost universal one in science fiction). Still, it'd be interesting if the Normandy had been designed with a centrifuge for artificial gravity. It'd look less sleek (less like something built to function in-atmo), but there'd be entire portions of the ship you'd routinely navigate in zero gravity.

... I imagine it'd be a real b**** to program, too.

[ImaginaryMatter]

It's certainly a handwave. Still, it'd be interesting if the Normandy had been designed with a centrifuge for artificial gravity. It'd look less sleek (less like something built to function in-atmo), but there'd be entire portions of the ship you'd routinely navigate in zero gravity.

 

I always imagined ships with a cetrifuge for central gravity would be ugly looking which is why no one does it.

[Bob from Accounting]

It's certainly a handwave (an almost universal one in science fiction). Still, it'd be interesting if the Normandy had been designed with a centrifuge for artificial gravity. It'd look less sleek (less like something built to function in-atmo), but there'd be entire portions of the ship you'd routinely navigate in zero gravity.

... I imagine it'd be a real b**** to program, too.

I seriously doubt any ship would be big enough for that. It takes a great deal of space. Plus, it would make it more or less impossible for the crew to easily phyiscally access the parts of the ship they need to be at. Plus, I don't see how crewmen could enter and exit the centrifuge without stopping it and turning the gravity off. Plus, any kind of breach or jam could be immediately fatal if the centrifuge is damaged for some reason and stops suddenly.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

It doesn't matter.

 

Whatever techniques there are to reduce stress for large ships are going to be available for small ships as well. SInce reducing stress is almost certain to be a critical factor in design, it's a pretty safe bet that all ships are going to have it. If Mass Effect fields can strengthen the ship somehow, they're probably going to be a feature of both small and large ships.

 

You can't escape simple physics. Long thin ships are always going to be more vulnerable than shorter ships of the same dimensions. Period. And there's no reason long ships would have any special design features short ships wouldn't already incorporate.

 

Longer arrays for armor, longer arrays for batteries and defensive fire capability, longer arrays for sensors, longer arrays for crew considerations, longer arrays for cargo and ammunition, longer arrays for fuel, longer arrays for power resources, and you can give more length and more power to a mass accelerator. Minus the last one, that's the Navy's ideal for building larger ships. Look at modern Carriers, like the Nimitz class and Gerald Ford class.

[Bob from Accounting]

That's nice. And entirely irrelvant.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

That's nice. And entirely irrelvant.

 

No, it's entirely relevant. Your dismissing of my statements is cowardice and argumentative repugnance. As well, your claims aren't true because you want them to be.

[Darks1d3]

David calling something irrelevant. That's rich.

[DeinonSlayer]

I seriously doubt any ship would be big enough for that. It takes a great deal of space. Plus, it would make it more or less impossible for the crew to easily phyiscally access the parts of the ship they need to be at. Plus, I don't see how crewmen could enter and exit the centrifuge without stopping it and turning the gravity off. Plus, any kind of breach or jam could be immediately fatal if the centrifuge is damaged for some reason and stops suddenly.

You must have despised 2001, then.

Do you have an alternative to the magical gravity decking?

[grey_wind]

You must have despised 2001, then.

Do you have an alternative to the magical gravity decking?

Heroism.

[Bob from Accounting]

You must have despised 2001, then.

Do you have an alternative to the magical gravity decking?

 

I did, actually.

 

If I could fully explain a mechanism for artificial gravity, I wouldn't be sitting here. But I do prefer science that's left unexplained over science that is explained but is just wrong.
 

Suffice it so say, Mass Effect's explanation has satisfied me as well as any science fiction story.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I did, actually.

 

If I could fully explain a mechanism for artificial gravity, I wouldn't be sitting here. But I do prefer science that's left unexplained over science that is explained but is just wrong.
 

 

You're complaining about wrong science. That's rich.

 

Pray tell, what is wrong with the science?

[von uber]

And there's no reason long ships would have any special design features short ships wouldn't already incorporate.

You are basically arguing for no innovation.
The two Normandys with their drive cores stuffed in the ship show that ship design changes and that there is no reason why a long ship is not practical without having to be massively wider.
Anyway the point about forces stand - if it is a massive ship it won't be doing extreme manoeuvres.

[CrutchCricket]

The idea of needing a formula for 'length' is ludacris

 

Pictured: Ludacris

 

The idea that any of you would argue against David when he uses three-time Grammy Award-winning rapper Ludacris as evidence is quite frankly, ludicrous. I am shocked by your lack of heroism BSN!

[DeinonSlayer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to generate an Earth-norm gravitational field, wouldn't the plating need to have its mass increased to match that of the Earth itself? I admit I'm no subject-matter expert on gravity, except that it's proportionate to an object's mass.

[Bob from Accounting]

You are basically arguing for no innovation.
The two Normandys with their drive cores stuffed in the ship show that ship design changes and that there is no reason why a long ship is not practical without having to be massively wider.
Anyway the point about forces stand - if it is a massive ship it won't be doing extreme manoeuvres.

 

I gave you the reason.

 

No amount of 'design' can overcome simple physics.
 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I gave you the reason.

 

No amount of 'design' can overcome simple physics.
 

 

No one has said anything that can't overcome simple physics. In fact, if what you're saying now is true, then we should never have been able to build aircraft or spacecraft of any kind. Everything everyone has said but you is possible and practical. Don't dismiss evidence.