ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
Suggested Deviants
Suggested Collections
You Might Like…
Description
A guide to the most over-used spaceship designs in the history of science fiction, and the reasons I love/hate them. Really, this is a preface to my own exploration of rational concepts for viable interplanetary, if not interstellar, sci-fi spacecraft.
Exhibit A - The "Sulaco": A perfectly good design by the brilliant Syd Mead, made understandably famous by the sci-fi/horror classic Aliens. Now so imitated that you can scarcely find a space-opera-themed movie, TV show, video game, or comic that isn't glutted with "Sulaco" rip-offs. This basic design of course has a longstanding pedigree, from the classic Star Wars "Rebel Blockade Runner" (A1) all the way back to the great grandaddy of them all, the maniac-computer-possessed "Discovery" (A2) from 2001.
Exhibit B - The "Yamato": Look, I get it, okay? Japan; maritime culture; Imperial Japanese Navy. Ships in space. Space ships. We all know and love these naval-themed designs from Yamato and Macross, but come on. There's absolutely no valid excuse for a flat-topped, keeled vessel with an upstanding mast-like bridge....in space. It just doesn't make any sense.
Exhibit B2 - The "Botany Bay": It doesn't make any sense when it's a submarine, either.
Exhibit C - The "Enterprise": You can come up with whatever pseudoscientific supraluminal warp-drive substitute you want, but when we see the big saucer with the cylindrical drive nacelles, we know you got it from Star Trek. And it still doesn't make any sense.
Exhibit D - The "Nostromo": Whether it's in Alien or Buck Rogers or Battlestar Galactica or on the lurid cover of a paperback science-fiction novel, it's still just a glorified space shuttle. And unless it's going to be spending a hell of a lot more time flying through the air than in space, it also doesn't make any sense.
Aside from the fact that they've been imitated ad nauseum, the primary shared trait that bugs me about all these classic ship designs is the apparent assumption of gravity. Every single one of these vessels has a dorso-ventral orientation with vertically stacked decks arranged parallel to the ships' long axes. Even assuming artificial gravity, there is absolutely no practical reason for a space vessel to be configured like this. I know what you're thinking: Okay, smart-ass, so what's YOUR brilliant idea? Well, stay tuned--and in the meantime, remember Ender's immortal words of wisdom: "The enemy's gate is down."
P.S. Two other things that bug me:
Exhibit E - Tiny, delicate ships: Sure, these work as near-future lunar transfer vehicles. That's about it. Would you like to spend two years in a Gemini-sized capsule with three other people on your way to Mars and back? I wouldn't. Is there any reason we can't make this ship bigger? And robust enough not to blow apart in a stiff solar wind? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Exhibit F - Why is your ship streamlined? Is there air in space I don't know about?
Exhibit A - The "Sulaco": A perfectly good design by the brilliant Syd Mead, made understandably famous by the sci-fi/horror classic Aliens. Now so imitated that you can scarcely find a space-opera-themed movie, TV show, video game, or comic that isn't glutted with "Sulaco" rip-offs. This basic design of course has a longstanding pedigree, from the classic Star Wars "Rebel Blockade Runner" (A1) all the way back to the great grandaddy of them all, the maniac-computer-possessed "Discovery" (A2) from 2001.
Exhibit B - The "Yamato": Look, I get it, okay? Japan; maritime culture; Imperial Japanese Navy. Ships in space. Space ships. We all know and love these naval-themed designs from Yamato and Macross, but come on. There's absolutely no valid excuse for a flat-topped, keeled vessel with an upstanding mast-like bridge....in space. It just doesn't make any sense.
Exhibit B2 - The "Botany Bay": It doesn't make any sense when it's a submarine, either.
Exhibit C - The "Enterprise": You can come up with whatever pseudoscientific supraluminal warp-drive substitute you want, but when we see the big saucer with the cylindrical drive nacelles, we know you got it from Star Trek. And it still doesn't make any sense.
Exhibit D - The "Nostromo": Whether it's in Alien or Buck Rogers or Battlestar Galactica or on the lurid cover of a paperback science-fiction novel, it's still just a glorified space shuttle. And unless it's going to be spending a hell of a lot more time flying through the air than in space, it also doesn't make any sense.
Aside from the fact that they've been imitated ad nauseum, the primary shared trait that bugs me about all these classic ship designs is the apparent assumption of gravity. Every single one of these vessels has a dorso-ventral orientation with vertically stacked decks arranged parallel to the ships' long axes. Even assuming artificial gravity, there is absolutely no practical reason for a space vessel to be configured like this. I know what you're thinking: Okay, smart-ass, so what's YOUR brilliant idea? Well, stay tuned--and in the meantime, remember Ender's immortal words of wisdom: "The enemy's gate is down."
P.S. Two other things that bug me:
Exhibit E - Tiny, delicate ships: Sure, these work as near-future lunar transfer vehicles. That's about it. Would you like to spend two years in a Gemini-sized capsule with three other people on your way to Mars and back? I wouldn't. Is there any reason we can't make this ship bigger? And robust enough not to blow apart in a stiff solar wind? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Exhibit F - Why is your ship streamlined? Is there air in space I don't know about?
Image size
1158x746px 180.17 KB
© 2010 - 2024 thomastapir
Comments34
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
There's a website called Atomic Rockets that addresses this concern. He specifically mentions something along the lines of, "A spaceship is NOT an Airbus."
On a related note, I like the design concept of the Jupiter 2 from the original Lost in Space, though I find myself more than a little irritated these days watching the ship fly horizontally through space like it's still in an atmosphere - though the horizontal orientation makes perfect sense IN an atmosphere. Even with some kind of artificial gravity, having the acceleration vector perpendicular to the gravity vector makes no sense. What would be the top of the ship on a planet's surface should be the bow of the ship in flight in deep space; that goes for every ship of any size other than unmanned probes.