Writing an essay for English, last major project of the year. I decided to compare/contrast the Constitution class starship and the Imperial I class Star Destroyer.
Spoiler:
Science Fiction. The realm of fantasy and abnormal physics, with a laser gun or two thrown in the mix for fair measure. More than one galaxy call this genre home, two of the most popular being those of Star Trek and Star Wars. Many an enthusiastic fan has enjoyed contrasting the two vastly different franchises for decades, but this essay will simply compare a symbolic component of each. Namely, Star Trek’s Constitution class starship, and the Star Wars Imperial I class Star Destroyer.
Perhaps the most distinct difference, and easily the simplest to point out, is that of the premise of each vessel. While both are spacefaring vessels capable of combat actions, the intentions that mandated the addition of these characteristics to each craft are vastly different. The Star Destroyer’s very classification denotes the aggressive purposes for which it is designed. While it cannot literally lay waste to entities that are, for all intents and purposes, immune to contemporary weaponry, it does clearly function as a destroyer in a fleet that operates among the stars. By contrast, the Federation of Planets’ Constitution class starship is an exploratory vessel merely armed for the sake of self-defense.
A direct impact of this differentiation can be seen on the set of weaponry each ship carries. Perhaps belying the Constitution’s typical mission of diplomacy and trailblazing are 18 phaser emitters; directed energy cannons capable of inducing secondary reactions within a target’s hull itself. This makes even a single Constitution class a force to reckon with, particularly if one considers its dual photon torpedo launchers. In comparison, an Imperial-I class Star Destroyer mounts an impressive turbolaser armanent coupled with banks of ion cannons to provide offensive capability befitting that of a true warship. A group of Star Destroyers can easily slag portions of a planet’s crust through coordinated bombardment.
Personnel aboard the starcraft constitute the last major variance betwix the two. Clearly there are going to be some key differences in perspective between your typical Federation redshirt and Imperial Navy crewmember given their respective missions, but there’s one that stands above the rest. Constitution class ships, such as the Enterprise, have been cited multiple times to contain the ‘best and brightest of Starfleet’. Suffice to say, the same has never been said concerning Star Destroyers; indeed, in the movies there’s something to be said about the level of incompetence demonstrated by even ranking members of each Imperial’s crew. Granted, there’s probably some measure of deprecation among >25,000 count of Star Destroyers operating in the Empire’s name at its peak as opposed to the twelve or so Constitutions in the service of Starfleet, but this is an indicator of significant disparity between the crew complements staffing each vessel.
In conclusion, while it would not be an impossible task to draw similarities between the two warships, outside of the fundamentals the two share very little in common. Each is staffed almost entirely by humans, but can’t that be said of nearly every sci fi starcraft? Each can travel at faster-than-light speeds, but again, what self-respecting sci fi franchise doesn’t have a spacefaring battlecruiser capable of such? The Imperial Star Destroyer and Constitution class should therefore be considered very, very different ships.
This is the rough draft (it's actually exactly 1 page in Word). The teacher was impressed, but I'm certain I can do better than this. Anyone have any suggestions?
Re: Halp.
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 7:21 am
by Prototype
What sort of level is this meant to be?
Re: Halp.
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 10:45 am
by ҉
The Empire had more than 25K ImpStars at its height, not 1K.
Re: Halp.
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 12:31 pm
by Chairman_Tiel
Prototype wrote:What sort of level is this meant to be?
My college thesis.
No, it's for freshman English I. Had to retake it this year.
Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:The Empire had more than 25K ImpStars at its height, not 1K.
I seriously doubt that figure, given that even 1 is considered a serious commitment to an engagement. Granted, an entire Empire spanning millions of worlds to patrol, that's why I said >1000. Might as well change it, though.
Re: Halp.
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 12:49 pm
by ҉
Tiel wrote:
Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:The Empire had more than 25K ImpStars at its height, not 1K.
I seriously doubt that figure, given that even 1 is considered a serious commitment to an engagement. Granted, an entire Empire spanning millions of worlds to patrol, that's why I said >1000. Might as well change it, though.
It appears on page 7 of Specter of the Past, the first book in the Hand of Thrawn duology.
Re: Halp.
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 1:24 pm
by Chairman_Tiel
I'm aware, though I just don't get the ridiculous numbers Star Wars throws out sometimes. They say there are 'millions of worlds', yet the most we've ever seen is close to 50, if that. 'Thousands' would be a much more realistic 'through the roof' count, if that was meant to provide as many opportunities for new canon as possible.
The same with star destroyers. 25,000? Heck, by the last days of the New Republic just three Star Destroyers on the field constituted a 'do or die' scenario, and we've never seen more than ten on a battlefield at a time. Take into consideration their enormous sizes and crew count (equalling that of a small city) and it just doesn't seem possible. But, whatever. I'm not one to cross established canon, especially not any introduced by the genius that is Zahn.
Re: Halp.
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 1:31 pm
by Iv121
Oh you also forgot the moon with engines (I'm not actually sure it had em ). with that money they could build a fleet so big they won't need that thing's main cannon to annihilate things and it will be still more mobile and versatile , but who am I to judge canon
Re: Halp.
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 3:37 pm
by Crash Override
The Constituition is far more better.
It was created as a vision of how a starship can be in the future.
EVERYTHING in the Star Trek series [Regarding ships] is realistic.
Re: Halp.
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 3:50 pm
by ҉
Tiel wrote:I'm aware, though I just don't get the ridiculous numbers Star Wars throws out sometimes. They say there are 'millions of worlds', yet the most we've ever seen is close to 50, if that. 'Thousands' would be a much more realistic 'through the roof' count, if that was meant to provide as many opportunities for new canon as possible.
The same with star destroyers. 25,000? Heck, by the last days of the New Republic just three Star Destroyers on the field constituted a 'do or die' scenario, and we've never seen more than ten on a battlefield at a time. Take into consideration their enormous sizes and crew count (equalling that of a small city) and it just doesn't seem possible. But, whatever. I'm not one to cross established canon, especially not any introduced by the genius that is Zahn.
There were more than a thousand Venators at Coruscant. You don't see thousands in the movie, but there are dozens visible at least.
For planets, the list on Wookieepedia is massive. I have no idea how many are on there. Just from the movies you get Naboo, Tatooine, Coruscant, Iego, Malastare, Tund, Bogden, Kamino, Geonosis, Rishi, Subterrel, Ansion, Cato Nemoidia, Alderaan, Kashyyyk, Mygeeto, Saleucami, Felucia, Utapau, Mustafar, Polis Massa, Kessel, Dagobah, Yavin, Hoth, Bespin, and Endor. That's close to thirty, and it's a minute fraction of the worlds that we know about, or even the important worlds.
lightspeed12 wrote:
EVERYTHING in the Star Trek series [Regarding ships] is realistic.
Including the FTL, shields, teleporters, and phasers, right?
Re: Halp.
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 3:59 pm
by ACH0225
You should have written your paper on owls. But besides that, remember that the Star Trek ships have an expiration date for their trip.
Re: Halp.
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 4:42 pm
by Crash Override
Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:
Tiel wrote:I'm aware, though I just don't get the ridiculous numbers Star Wars throws out sometimes. They say there are 'millions of worlds', yet the most we've ever seen is close to 50, if that. 'Thousands' would be a much more realistic 'through the roof' count, if that was meant to provide as many opportunities for new canon as possible.
The same with star destroyers. 25,000? Heck, by the last days of the New Republic just three Star Destroyers on the field constituted a 'do or die' scenario, and we've never seen more than ten on a battlefield at a time. Take into consideration their enormous sizes and crew count (equalling that of a small city) and it just doesn't seem possible. But, whatever. I'm not one to cross established canon, especially not any introduced by the genius that is Zahn.
There were more than a thousand Venators at Coruscant. You don't see thousands in the movie, but there are dozens visible at least.
For planets, the list on Wookieepedia is massive. I have no idea how many are on there. Just from the movies you get Naboo, Tatooine, Coruscant, Iego, Malastare, Tund, Bogden, Kamino, Geonosis, Rishi, Subterrel, Ansion, Cato Nemoidia, Alderaan, Kashyyyk, Mygeeto, Saleucami, Felucia, Utapau, Mustafar, Polis Massa, Kessel, Dagobah, Yavin, Hoth, Bespin, and Endor. That's close to thirty, and it's a minute fraction of the worlds that we know about, or even the important worlds.
lightspeed12 wrote:
EVERYTHING in the Star Trek series [Regarding ships] is realistic.
Including the FTL, shields, teleporters, and phasers, right?
Sarcasm?
Re: Halp.
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 4:57 pm
by ҉
lightspeed12 wrote:
Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:
lightspeed12 wrote:
EVERYTHING in the Star Trek series [Regarding ships] is realistic.
Including the FTL, shields, teleporters, and phasers, right?
Sarcasm?
Absolutely not. Never. I hate sarcasm in all its forms, and I would never use it myself.
Re: Halp.
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 4:58 pm
by Phalanx
My wager is yes, lightspeed. Frankly, I agree, too. Also, look at a star trek ship. Those things have laughably little structural integrity, if any. The enterprise's big old disc section would collapse right down on those engines.
Re: Halp.
Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 5:01 am
by Ivan2006
Phalanx wrote:My wager is yes, lightspeed. Frankly, I agree, too. Also, look at a star trek ship. Those things have laughably little structural integrity, if any. The enterprise's big old disc section would collapse right down on those engines.
You know, that doesn´t exactly matter since Star Trek ships are assembled in space, fly in space and never enter any atmosphere.
Actually, the only known Federation ship (not counting shuttles) capable of entering atmosphere and not breaking would be the voyager and other ships of the Intrepid-class.
The Star Trek FTL is the most realistic one of all FTL-engines, in fact, the theoretical Alcubierre Drive was inspired by Star Trek Warp Drives.
About shields, transporters and phasers I´m not sure, but Phasers seem quite realistic considering they are testing similar tech right now, just without a visible beam.
And you can´t say teleporters or shields wouldn´t theoreticallly be possible.
Remember, they´re in the mid-23rd century as of TOS when most tech still had quite some flaws.
Re: Halp.
Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 6:27 am
by Chairman_Tiel
Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:
Tiel wrote:I'm aware, though I just don't get the ridiculous numbers Star Wars throws out sometimes. They say there are 'millions of worlds', yet the most we've ever seen is close to 50, if that. 'Thousands' would be a much more realistic 'through the roof' count, if that was meant to provide as many opportunities for new canon as possible.
The same with star destroyers. 25,000? Heck, by the last days of the New Republic just three Star Destroyers on the field constituted a 'do or die' scenario, and we've never seen more than ten on a battlefield at a time. Take into consideration their enormous sizes and crew count (equalling that of a small city) and it just doesn't seem possible. But, whatever. I'm not one to cross established canon, especially not any introduced by the genius that is Zahn.
There were more than a thousand Venators at Coruscant. You don't see thousands in the movie, but there are dozens visible at least.
For planets, the list on Wookieepedia is massive. I have no idea how many are on there. Just from the movies you get Naboo, Tatooine, Coruscant, Iego, Malastare, Tund, Bogden, Kamino, Geonosis, Rishi, Subterrel, Ansion, Cato Nemoidia, Alderaan, Kashyyyk, Mygeeto, Saleucami, Felucia, Utapau, Mustafar, Polis Massa, Kessel, Dagobah, Yavin, Hoth, Bespin, and Endor. That's close to thirty, and it's a minute fraction of the worlds that we know about, or even the important worlds.
I'm aware of the count of Venators deployed at Coruscant, or rather, the 'supposed' count. The whole nixed up scale of things in Star Wars is extraordinary. The whole reason the Empire has upwards of 25k km long Star Destroyers is to patrol millions of systems, yet how do you propose they even accomplished that with so few ships and so many planets? Likewise, in the waning days of the Old Republic, 'thousands' of Venators defending one (1) world? How many campaigns did they cripple by drawing that many ships back, do you figure? Especially given that even three is considered a fleet in its own regard.
The whole purpose of this is to make sure writers and other content creators have ample breathing room when it comes to creating new worlds and characters, but the end result is a galaxy that's not sure what to make of itself.
But, essay's getting turned in tomorrow, seeing as no one I've spoken to has been able to find any issue with it.
Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:
lightspeed12 wrote:
EVERYTHING in the Star Trek series [Regarding ships] is realistic.
Including the FTL, shields, teleporters, and phasers, right?
I've always thought the biggest difference between SW and ST was that the latter actually tried to explain the principles of how its devices functioned. SW only accomplishes that through the Expanded Universe, and even then to a much lesser extent.
