Re: Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- From: J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:35:44 -0400
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:29:37 -0400, Michelle Bottorff wrote
(in article <1i48b3i.13p73us334wf0N%mbottorff@xxxxxxxxxxx>):
J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One of the things I've always disliked about warships as depicted in TV and
the movies (SF and otherwise) is how much _space_ most of 'em have. Some
movies get it right; _Das Boot_, for example. More of 'em are like, oh,
_Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea_ or, worse, _SeaQuest DSV_. I think I've
mentioned what subs are really like...
I just watched Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. And I can explain why
they have so much room in there. I swear one point I saw them walking
down a hallway, open a door in the side wall, go through it, and walk
down another hallway apparently crosswise to the first one.
Clearly most of that submarine is actually in some other dimension.
On the other paw. If it's a SF setting, there may be reasons why living
space is deemed to be a higher priority than it is/has been on warships
currently, and in the past.
You didn't mention Star Trek. Do you consider it reasonable for a ship
on a "five year mission" to be more spacious than your typical
submarine?
The ENTERPRISE, all versions, was way too big and had corridors and such
which were much too wide. Damage control on that thing would have been a
nightmare.
Commodore Anson did a five-year mission aboard a fourth-rate line of battle
ship: HMS CENTURION, 60. He started with eight ships (two of them merchant
ships full of supplies), ended with one, despite having captured several
others along the way. But he made it home, and the prize money from his
various captures ensured that even the lowest seaman got the equivalent of
20-25 years pay. Of course, part of that was due to the fact that there
weren't many left to share out the prize money, as he lost in excess of 75%
of his men along the way... CENTURION was smaller than one of the warp
nacelles on ENTERPRISE. It's entirely possible to run a 'five year mission'
on something a whole lot smaller than ENTERPRISE. Whether or not it's a good
idea...
I _think_ that the modern record for time at sea was set by USS AMERICA prior
to, during, and after Desert Shield/Storm. 520 days at sea. AMERICA was a
KITTY HAWK class carrier, not a nuke, so she was refueled at sea fairly often
during those 520 days. KITTY HAWK carriers were about the size of Kirk's
ENTERPRISE, but held a whole lot more crew, 5,000 or so including air group,
instead of under 500. The USN's current ENTERPRISE is essentially a nuke
KITTY HAWK.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- From: David Goldfarb
- Re: Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- From: David Friedman
- Re: Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- From: Michelle Bottorff
- Re: Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- References:
- Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- From: Michelle Bottorff
- Re: Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- From: Sea Wasp
- Re: Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- From: Michelle Bottorff
- Re: Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- From: Sea Wasp
- Re: Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- From: Bill Swears
- Re: Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- From: Sea Wasp
- Re: Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- From: Bill Swears
- Re: Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- From: Ric Locke
- Re: Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- From: J . J . O'Shea
- Re: Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- From: Michelle Bottorff
- Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- Prev by Date: Re: Does this sentence work?
- Next by Date: Re: Deaf -- can't tell if they sound right
- Previous by thread: Re: Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- Next by thread: Re: Cause this isn't Star Wars...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|