A ship does not get increasingly complex as it gets bigger. It has more stress points, but that does not make it more complex. The size of the individual parts remain the same because there is no need to make them bigger...nor is there any need to add more. The only parts that would get bigger or need more of that may be critical to anything is environmental control and those would be checked and the system would be full pressurized before inhabiting... and with a ship that big you're going to either have a minor problem which you could put off for quite a long period of time, or so massive that its going to kill you instantly.
Quote:
Really. So in your opinion, an ocean liner is no more complex in construction or mechanical operation than a dingy with an outboard motor. A glass sphere with air inside it is no more complex than a nuclear-powered submarine. A Chevy Bronco with an eight cylinder engine is no more complex than a moped with a single cylinder engine. The ISS is no more complex than a single space shuttle or rocket. A Beowulf cluster is no more complex than a PDA. And engineers all over the world have, somehow, missed this for thousands of years, and still don't know about it.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
A ship does not get increasingly complex as it gets bigger.
|
You should totally announce your discovery to the world. I'm sure someone here can hook you up with any number of experts in the field of engineering. You could make bazillions. Just tell 'em about the rope.
Quote:
| It has more stress points, but that does not make it more complex. In fact in ME, quite the contrary. The ship can get bigger because of a larger amount of Element Zero. None of the other part of the ship are affected save for placement of parts. |
That's true across the board. One pump which would be sufficient to move water in a small ship would not suffice for a ship 100x larger. One circuit panel which would handle basic systems for one small ship would not be workable in a ship significantly larger. One hydraulic assembly to open ten doors will not even open a single door if it's hooked up to ten thousand doors. The larger you make the ship, the more equipment you need to make it function properly. The more equipment you add, the greater the complexity. And the greater the need for redundancy, and spares, which further magnifies the complexity because all of that equipment is capable of failure, must be checked regularly and monitored constantly. Whereas small ships can house small groups using small, comparatively simple systems, a single large ship capable of housing a population equivalent to the state of New York is going to need sufficient equipment to serve that population.
The systems designed to support smaller groups of people have to be scaled upward drastically to support a population nearly equivalent to the population of the state of New York. 17,000,000 Quarians are not going to get by with one air conditioner, regardless of how many times you say it or try to convince everyone else that it's true. You need sufficient support to keep everyone alive, support provided in the form of multiple systems. A thousand air conditioners, all interconnected to provide redundancy in the event of failures in a few, with backup air conditioners in place and enough spare parts to rebuild the bare minimum number of air conditioners to keep the population alive. Every system has to be designed this way, and it is, despite your assertions, much more complex.
Quote:
| The size of the individual parts remain the same because there is no need to make them bigger...nor is there any need to add more. |
Quote:
| The only parts that would get bigger or need more of that may be critical to anything is environmental control |
Quote:
| and those would be checked and the system would be full pressurized before inhabiting... and with a ship that big you're going to either have a minor problem which you could put off for quite a long period of time, or so massive that its going to kill you instantly. |
Seriously Dur. You're using the internet to post these ideas of yours. Why don't you take an extra 5 minutes or so and use it to see if the facts actually support them before you post?
Furio--Lvl 50+3 Fire/Fire/Fire Blaster, Virtue
Megadeth--Lvl 50+3 Necro/DM/Soul MM, Virtue
Veriandros--Lvl 50+3 Crab Soldier, Virtue
"So come and get me! I'll be waiting for ye, with a whiff of the old brimstone. I'm a grim bloody fable, with an unhappy bloody end!" Demoman, TF2
You are arguing dissimilar things. It boat with a motor attached to it is no more or less complex than another boat with a motor attached it of a different size. What you are talking about is taking and making things more powerful to move the mass of a larger object which requires more efficient engines/motors and more fuel.
But you want to argue a ship become more complex because it has more doors. In a way that is true, but not relevantly so. The bio-dome of the ship would be separate from the actual ships functions which are unaffected by the size, save for the drive, either it's size or complexity.
Larger motors are DEFINITELY more complex than smaller motors. Because in order to maintain efficiency, you can't just 'size up' - you have to design more carefully, take more failure conditions into account, be more careful selecting materials, use finer tolerances in manufacturing (a 0.1% divergence in a 5cm piston is... 0.005 cm, or 0.05 mm, or 1/2 the width of a human hair. [http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/] I think that might be an acceptable tolerance in a car-size engine.
In a 50 cm piston (For a large ship, maybe?) it would be 0.05 cm, or 1/2mm. Easily visible to the human eye. Ever seen 100,000 psi of flaming gases go through a 1/2mm hole?
I believe some of the word used are "catastrophic failure", "explosive decompression," you get the picture.
And in terms of materials, you'd need much different materials for an engine with 10x the displacement, because the temperatures are MUCH higher.
Pretty basic science, dude.
Arc #6015 - Coming Unglued
"A good n00b-sauce is based on a good n00b-roux." - The Masque
Also, imagine bringing a bicycle to a stop. Pretty simple, right? And that's pretty complex little machine, relatively. How about a pickup truck? Not sooo hard.
Now try to bring a supertanker to a stop. Ya think ya might need a little more room? (5-10 miles?)
Ya think ya might need some foresight as to what's much further ahead? Perhaps a sensor/system to look ahead? Do you know any cars that need radar to operate?
Does that make a larger unit more complex? You bet.
Arc #6015 - Coming Unglued
"A good n00b-sauce is based on a good n00b-roux." - The Masque
Quote:
What I'm talking about is so far over your head, it has an orbital altitude. I've explained it nine ways to Sunday and you're still clinging to your rope.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
You are arguing dissimilar things. It boat with a motor attached to it is no more or less complex than another boat with a motor attached it of a different size. What you are talking about is taking and making things more powerful to move the mass of a larger object which requires more efficient engines/motors and more fuel.
|
Quote:
| But you want to argue a ship become more complex because it has more doors. In a way that is true, but not relevantly so. The bio-dome of the ship would be separate from the actual ships functions which are unaffected by the size, save for the drive, either it's size or complexity. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Durakken
A ship does not get increasingly complex as it gets bigger
|
'nuff said.
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
Quote:
Mmm... Taco Bell...
|
Originally Posted by galadiman
Ever seen 100,000 psi of flaming gases go through a 1/2mm hole?
|
Quote:
Maaaan. Two things:|
Originally Posted by Luminara
Mmm... Taco Bell...
|
1) I never, EVER expected you would go to such a place. </Respect.>
2) I should have totally seen that coming. -2 Man points on me.
Also, Hyperstrike, the inherent subtleties of your point are well taken, and your level-headed and reasonable mode of expression is laudable.
Arc #6015 - Coming Unglued
"A good n00b-sauce is based on a good n00b-roux." - The Masque
Quote:
I was sort of giving you the benefit of the doubt that you believed the assumption was both cynical and reasonable. Because if not:|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
Where exactly did I say my assumption was reasonable? I'm pretty sure I said it was cynical. You know contemptuously distrustful of (in this case Vulcan) nature and motives. Not trusting an imaginary race of aliens, that's hardly reasonable.
|
Quote:
|
Sorry but that assumption is just silly. Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space. So there is no possible way that all the millions of Vulcans that had spread out across the Star Trek Universe managed to return home in just a few minutes to get killed. And yes I said millions of Vulcans. Vulcans had been been exploring space and spreading across the galaxy for 1,500 years. It's ludicrous to assume that all but 10,000 died. |
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Marcian: After abandoning the thread where you & some others created "Statesline", you have forced it upon me again in your sig. I now reach for the brain bleach.|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
I say they just use the number "40" to mean "a lot" and move on. Forty people died on Vulcan; there were only forty survivors. They lost over 99% of their people.
|
Or, to put it another way:
"AUGHGH! MY EYES"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
English does not borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and rifles through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
Quote:
That's what she said!|
Originally Posted by galadiman
I should have totally seen that coming.
|
Quote:
Rope? Come on Dur, that's just a stupid analogy.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
Luminara, You keep on saying bigger things are more complex. They aren't. 10 feet of rope is not more complex than 100 feet of rope. It just isn't. It's a larger amount to look after, clean, repair, and whatever else, but that doesn't make it more complex. It makes it take longer to clean, repair, traverse, or whatever on a 1 to 1 basis but on a 1 to 100 basis it makes it much much simpler and easier because even with redundant systems on the large one it is still a lot fewer than the 100 small ones.
|
Instead, compare cars to submarines. A car engine has fewer parts than a sub's nuclear power plant, but the sub's engine could be said to be "less complex". Having fewer moving parts doesn't necessarily mean it has less complexity nor does it mean that it's more reliable. The Navy spends a lot more time and money in maintenance on a sub's engine than you do on your car's engine.
Quote:
| As far as the Vulcan thing...How can you argue that all the Vulcans were on Vulcan when you just argued it's not logical to put all your eggs in one basket with the Quarians. Vulcans are logical, they'd have had a secondary and tertiary colony at the very least because it is logical to get your species off a singular planet for just such an occurrence as the planet blows up. |
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
I was sort of giving you the benefit of the doubt that you believed the assumption was both cynical and reasonable. Because if not:
Then you've just said that there is no possible way for something to happen, and anyone that thinks otherwise is being ludicrous, based on an assumption you admit is not explicitly reasonable. |
Dear sweet Arcanaville it should be obvious that someone is being ludicrous when they are quoting "The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy" to justify their opinion.
Summaru: Durakken points out a ridiculously silly number used by the ST movie writers and a bunch of people try to make up excuses for it?
A game is not supposed to be some kind of... place where people enjoy themselves!
Quote:
I think it was a stupid part of the plot of JJTrek, too (one of many). I was merely attempting to correct someone who did not do the research before he started trying to make sense of conclusions based on faulty information.
|
Originally Posted by ChaosExMachina
Summaru: Durakken points out a ridiculously silly number used by the ST movie writers and a bunch of people try to make up excuses for it?
|
Goodbye, I guess.
@Lord_Nightblade in Champions/Star Trek Online
nightblade7295@gmail.com if you want to stay in touch
Quote:
Daaaaamn!|
Originally Posted by Luminara
Mmm... Taco Bell...
|
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Durakken
In Star Trek (XI) the Vulcan home world is destroyed and it's stated something like the number of Vulcans killed was 4,000,000,000 and there are only something like 4,000 Vulcans left in the galaxy...
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
I'm basing my numbers on the very cynical assumption that only 1/10 of 1% of the Vulcan race was off planet. One tenth of one percent. That would mean of the 6 billion that died on Vulcan, 6 million were offworld when their homeworld was destroyed.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ironik
Just another example of why JJ Abrams sucks.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ironik
Although to be fair, no one involved in Trek (including Roddenberry) was ever concerned with continuity, so "canon" is kind of a loosey-goosey word for that franchise.
In this instance, though, since Abrams' movie is considered a reboot, none of the other series or movies matters. So if Spock said only a few thousand Vulcans survived, then that's likely the case since he doesn't make a lot of mistakes. |
I'm not going to offer an exact survivor count they "should have used" because the "facts" in this case are pretty vague and speculative. But I will strongly suggest that given everything that is generally known about the background of Star Trek and the assumptions made about Vulcans and interstellar travel that the idea there would ONLY be around 10,000 off-world Vulcan survivors is a grossly low number for all sorts of reasons. Should that number have been more reasonably 250 thousand, a million, tens of millions? Who knows. But only 10,000? No, that just seems way too low all things considered.
It's quite likely Abrams picked the nearly improbable low number he used more for the dramatic effect to drive home the tragedy of Vulcan's destruction. Let's face it saying that there's only 10,000 left sounds a lot more dire than using a more "realistic" value like 5 million. Basically (once again for Abrams and crew) logic and rationality gave way to serving the silly meanderings of his ill-informed imagination.
Loth 50 Fire/Rad Controller [1392 Badges] [300 non-AE Souvenirs]
Ryver 50 Ele� Blaster [1392 Badges]
Silandra 50 Peacebringer [1138 Badges] [No Redside Badges]
--{=====> Virtue ♀
Quote:
Some population numbers in fiction do make me scratch my head in bewilderment.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
Of course this has nothing to do with the topic... it's does it bother you that writer just throw out numbers that don't make sense in terms of population like ST:XI's Vulcan population number or like DCU's constantly saying almost all their cities have like 10 million...
|
I consider the latest Star Trek movie as a separate piece of canon, so without additional information on how the Vulcans of that ST universe "work", didn't see an issue with its population. Lothic's point about such a low number for dramatic effect works for me and doesn't break the flow of the narrative for me.
Regarding the DCU cities... I've not heard any sort of "10 million" counts before, but 10 million is not an unbelievable number. New York has a bit over 8 million people in its namesake city and nearly 20 million in the state. As many comic book cities seem to be expys of New York, and if one includes suburbs, then 10 million seems an acceptable round number.
Can holes be poked in fiction? Absolutely. And I have minor quibbles and sometimes problems with suspension of disbelief with all universe references used in your debate. But nothing to do with population--especially given your specific arguments against their presented numbers.
You're not super until you put on The Cape!
Attercap.Net
Quote:
Very close, now Vulcans can become the misunderstood , emo, sparkly galactic bad boys. So few - so tragic.
|
Originally Posted by Lothic
Clearly Abrams could've used whatever number of Vulcan survivors he and his writers wanted to. As has been pointed out Trek canon has never been quite as consistent as it could (should?) have been.
I'm not going to offer an exact survivor count they "should have used" because the "facts" in this case are pretty vague and speculative. But I will strongly suggest that given everything that is generally known about the background of Star Trek and the assumptions made about Vulcans and interstellar travel that the idea there would ONLY be around 10,000 off-world Vulcan survivors is a grossly low number for all sorts of reasons. Should that number have been more reasonably 250 thousand, a million, tens of millions? Who knows. But only 10,000? No, that just seems way too low all things considered. It's quite likely Abrams picked the nearly improbable low number he used more for the dramatic effect to drive home the tragedy of Vulcan's destruction. Let's face it saying that there's only 10,000 left sounds a lot more dire than using a more "realistic" value like 5 million. Basically (once again for Abrams and crew) logic and rationality gave way to serving the silly meanderings of his ill-informed imagination. |
Quote:
Also for Vulcan you need to take into account that though the vulcans are a founding member of the federation, it does seem that in many cases the home world of vulcan doesnt embrace the idea of vulcans joining star fleet. Infact in the new movie even, it seems almost an afront to the vulcans that having been acepted to the science academy that spock would choose to skip that and join star fleet. |
Originally Posted by Durakken
Does it both anyone else that it appears that a number of writers don't seem to understand population sizes, how populations grow, and how much space is needed for any particular amount of a population...
Some numbers come to mind immediately that annoy me... In Star Trek (XI) the Vulcan home world is destroyed and it's stated something like the number of Vulcans killed was 4,000,000,000 and there are only something like 4,000 Vulcans left in the galaxy... Ok, the 4 bil number could be understandable because once you get space capabilities it could be thought that a pop stabilizes at a given number, but then saying there are only 4,000 Vulcans left...That is so unrealistic and unlikely it's really not ignorable. Looking at all the history of Star Trek we know AND just basic logic about a culture that have been out in space and have expanded to the level that we are left to assume they have there is no way that the Vulcan population was ALL on Vulcan nor that only that amount of pop was savable or off-world... clearly if the Enterprise, a ship from a 100 year old space civ could carry that many when it's not designed to, a colony ship from a 200+ year old space civ could carry more than that and thus indicates that there had to be at least that many on every Vulcan colony when they were originally set up and had expanded. Of course there is always mass Gotham population movement... From 10m to 2m to 6m to 8m over the course of 10 years would throw the DCU USA into mass chaos...and not to mention the, I think, 8 million people that were killed in the Coast City thing...and then the complete repopulation of that area. in that same time >.> but we'll forgive that because comics are odd like that. |
If i am not mistaken this is shown in otherways also, like Sarek originally saying he opposed spock joining star fleet. So it could be said that those 10k vulcans left are basicly those that are the minority to join star fleet or choose to find vocations that took them off world and that the majority of vulcans choose to stay on their homeworld or work within vulcans own exploration etc through their science academy accounting for why so few are off world at the time of the appocolypse.
I'd like to remind everyone in this thread that discussing other games is prohibited, as per rule 8 of the board:
Quote:
Feel free to discuss fictional population sizes in other mediums like film and books, but from here on please don't discuss Mass Effect or any other game. Thanks.
| ...any videogame (aside from City of Heroes) topics are not allowed. |
Quote:
but ME is a book >.> 3 books in fact... and 4 comics...
|
Originally Posted by Moderator 05
I'd like to remind everyone in this thread that discussing other games is prohibited, as per rule 8 of the board:
Feel free to discuss fictional population sizes in other mediums like film and books, but from here on please don't discuss Mass Effect or any other game. Thanks. |
Yup...pretty much they way I figured this "debate" would go. Durakken takes a position based on flawed assumptions, then ignores all factual evidence to the contrary.
Furio--Lvl 50+3 Fire/Fire/Fire Blaster, Virtue
Megadeth--Lvl 50+3 Necro/DM/Soul MM, Virtue
Veriandros--Lvl 50+3 Crab Soldier, Virtue
"So come and get me! I'll be waiting for ye, with a whiff of the old brimstone. I'm a grim bloody fable, with an unhappy bloody end!" Demoman, TF2