Home The Bridge

By All Known Laws of Aviation... the Borg Cube!

PetrichorPetrichor ✭✭✭
edited January 2019 in The Bridge
mjxxgqdoacqw.jpg

"By all known laws of aviation, a Borg cube should not be able to fly.

Its thrusters are too small to get its non-aerodynamic body off the ground.

The Borg cube, of course, flies anyway.

Because Borg do not care what other species think is impossible."


(get the reference?)

Comments

  • Travis S McClainTravis S McClain ✭✭✭✭✭
    I've been meaning to bring this up but kept forgetting. I remember in the Blu-ray features, it was stated that they went with the cube design because aerodynamics don't exist in space and the basic generic geometric shape felt appropriate for the Borg.
  • KaiteeKaitee ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not a huge fan of the episode overall, but I like the notion from Enterprise's Borg ep that Borg ships are just other people's ships that got assimilated. Like, the Borg never actually decide to build a cube, they're just "Okay, got a ship. Needs to go faster, let's add on a subspace drive," then "and some cubicles for these extra folks we just assimilated," then "need a stronger cutting beam," and over the course of all these hundreds of thousands of add-ons it just becomes a cube, because of the cumulative effect of only ever considering efficiency.

    Although I think I read somewhere that a sphere is more efficient, but I like the cube. Spheres are curved and curves are a natural thing, I like the idea that there's something in the Borg collective psyche that just has to do everything in perfectly straight lines - like that's their ideology, even though they don't realise it about themselves, they're incapable of accepting that nature and emergent order from chaos has value, they have to do everything according to their 'pure order' philosophy (that's actually unworkable and destructive, because they think they're evolution but they're actually cancer).

    Of course that means you can't have spheres, never mind 'tactical cubes' and scouts and whatever that ridiculous contraption was that the Queen rode around in, but whatever, never liked 'em anyway.
  • PhantumPhantum ✭✭✭
    Aren't Borg are more about efficiency? Why replace organic parts on a drone when they function adequately.

    Do the borg want a ship that maximises the surface area to volume or minimises it? Surface area can be useful for interacting with the outside... Square or pyramid do this. Sphere if want to minimise surface area to volume, or contain volume within a smallest radius, optimise distance between all internal points, and likely most efficient for subspace bubbles etc. Sphere has lowest moment of inertia for turning, although given that they have artificial gravity = artificial inertia also (Einsteins strong equivalence principle). It could be that in the end the cube is best because it allows the most efficient use of replication, since it can be made entirely of smaller cubes, all subparts can be of a like physical construction, replaced in and out ... Spheres tend to have wasted space?

    My biggest surprise with the cubes is that since I first saw the borg I expected the cube ships to fit together more, it seemed logical to me but was never used was it?
  • Jim SteeleJim Steele ✭✭✭✭✭
    Phantum wrote: »
    My biggest surprise with the cubes is that since I first saw the borg I expected the cube ships to fit together more, it seemed logical to me but was never used was it?
    At least not in the TV series, the video game Star Trek Armada II you could fuse together 8 Borg Cubes to make a larger, practically invincible one.

    Jim

    DB: Do Better
  • Jim Steele wrote: »
    Phantum wrote: »
    My biggest surprise with the cubes is that since I first saw the borg I expected the cube ships to fit together more, it seemed logical to me but was never used was it?
    At least not in the TV series, the video game Star Trek Armada II you could fuse together 8 Borg Cubes to make a larger, practically invincible one.

    Jim

    A Fusion Cube it was called. And it was a behemoth.

    I saw this faction mission and wondered the same as many here; "It's in space - it doesn't matter what shape it is.".

    But then I remembered that TNG episode where they discovered that the geometry of Starships nacelles was causing damage to space. I believe it's the reason why Voyagers nacelles move when the ship goes to warp speed - to overcome this problem.

    So, it appears that the shape of a ship 'does' matter somewhat. After all, almost all warp capable ships we see have a main hull with warp nacelles (*in multiples of 2) protruding.

    And although it's unrelated to the episode above, perhaps Federation scientists are puzzled at how a Cube can generate a stable warp field with it being such a peculiar design.

    * - Yes, I know we do see ships with single nacelles, and even ships with 3 nacelles, but the vast majority we see have 2 - with leads me to think that it's the most practical of designs.

    In short - let's give the writers of DB's faction missions some creative licence here. Besides, there's many things in canon Trek that don't makes sense or contradict each other. And if you don't like my explanation above - I look forward to hearing you ideas :)
  • Bluebeard1Bluebeard1 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Assuming that deflectors and shielding are not used, then the shape of a vessel in space is EXTREMELY important.
    The interstellar medium is estimated to be roughly 1 atom per cubic kilometre, but when travelling at a reasonable percentage of the speed of light, these atoms, molecules, dust motes, micro meteorites and other objects too small to be either detected or avoided can be exceedingly dangerous. Even a single atom, when impacting at 0.99C, could cause noticeable damage

    It has been postulated that a needle shaped ship would be best suited to this situation with the pointed end facing in the direction of travel to minimize possible impacts. A Borg cube with huge flat surfaces would be a very impractical shape.

    This said and done, we all know they have shields, deflectors, tractor beams and incredibly sophisticated sensors (as science fiction needs something to explain away such huge problems to interstellar travel)
  • GhostStalkerGhostStalker ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2019
    Phantum wrote: »
    Aren't Borg are more about efficiency? Why replace organic parts on a drone when they function adequately.

    Do the borg want a ship that maximises the surface area to volume or minimises it? Surface area can be useful for interacting with the outside... Square or pyramid do this. Sphere if want to minimise surface area to volume, or contain volume within a smallest radius, optimise distance between all internal points, and likely most efficient for subspace bubbles etc. Sphere has lowest moment of inertia for turning, although given that they have artificial gravity = artificial inertia also (Einsteins strong equivalence principle). It could be that in the end the cube is best because it allows the most efficient use of replication, since it can be made entirely of smaller cubes, all subparts can be of a like physical construction, replaced in and out ... Spheres tend to have wasted space?

    My biggest surprise with the cubes is that since I first saw the borg I expected the cube ships to fit together more, it seemed logical to me but was never used was it?

    Why replace organic parts? Are you kidding me? Think about everything we've invented to supplement our insufficient organic parts. If you could replace your eyes with cameras that could zoom 100x, see all the wavelengths of light, and in the dark, wouldn't you? There's absolutely nothing efficient about an organic body. Not even the rate at which we use energy. It's a product of evolution, not design. That's why a majority of "futurists" predict a biological/technological fusion.
    Bluebeard1 wrote: »
    Assuming that deflectors and shielding are not used, then the shape of a vessel in space is EXTREMELY important.
    The interstellar medium is estimated to be roughly 1 atom per cubic kilometre, but when travelling at a reasonable percentage of the speed of light, these atoms, molecules, dust motes, micro meteorites and other objects too small to be either detected or avoided can be exceedingly dangerous. Even a single atom, when impacting at 0.99C, could cause noticeable damage

    It has been postulated that a needle shaped ship would be best suited to this situation with the pointed end facing in the direction of travel to minimize possible impacts. A Borg cube with huge flat surfaces would be a very impractical shape.

    This said and done, we all know they have shields, deflectors, tractor beams and incredibly sophisticated sensors (as science fiction needs something to explain away such huge problems to interstellar travel)

    Couple of things, sorry. It's actually 1 atom per cubic centimeter in interstellar space. Also the ships don't "technically" travel at .99c, or anywhere near it. They sidestep all relativistic/time dilation issues that would come with that. The cheat is that they enter "subspace" - which isn't a wormhole but it does shrink the distance between two points by whatever factor of "warp" they use. The physics are shady because it's obviously fictional, but warping space involves shrinking the space in front of you while expanding the space behind you.

    But yes, all ships typically run "navigational deflectors" - although not Cochrane's Phoenix, which probably should have hit something and exploded ;)
  • Dirk GundersonDirk Gunderson ✭✭✭✭✭
    Phantum wrote: »
    Aren't Borg are more about efficiency? Why replace organic parts on a drone when they function adequately.

    Do the borg want a ship that maximises the surface area to volume or minimises it? Surface area can be useful for interacting with the outside... Square or pyramid do this. Sphere if want to minimise surface area to volume, or contain volume within a smallest radius, optimise distance between all internal points, and likely most efficient for subspace bubbles etc. Sphere has lowest moment of inertia for turning, although given that they have artificial gravity = artificial inertia also (Einsteins strong equivalence principle). It could be that in the end the cube is best because it allows the most efficient use of replication, since it can be made entirely of smaller cubes, all subparts can be of a like physical construction, replaced in and out ... Spheres tend to have wasted space?

    My biggest surprise with the cubes is that since I first saw the borg I expected the cube ships to fit together more, it seemed logical to me but was never used was it?

    Why replace organic parts? Are you kidding me? Think about everything we've invented to supplement our insufficient organic parts. If you could replace your eyes with cameras that could zoom 100x, see all the wavelengths of light, and in the dark, wouldn't you? There's absolutely nothing efficient about an organic body. Not even the rate at which we use energy. It's a product of evolution, not design. That's why a majority of "futurists" predict a biological/technological fusion.

    I admit, I went for Supremacy much more often in Civilization: Beyond Earth than I did Harmony or Purity.

    qev26546kitl.jpeg
  • DScottHewittDScottHewitt ✭✭✭✭✭
    Jim Steele wrote: »
    Phantum wrote: »
    My biggest surprise with the cubes is that since I first saw the borg I expected the cube ships to fit together more, it seemed logical to me but was never used was it?
    At least not in the TV series, the video game Star Trek Armada II you could fuse together 8 Borg Cubes to make a larger, practically invincible one.

    Jim

    IIRC, there is a Mod that allows eight Fusion Cubes to Fuze into an Omega Cube.......
    "The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
  • TaskerTasker ✭✭✭
    If Armada II had been easy to get to run on modern pc’s, I probably would never have tried Timelines.

    I found the Armada III mod for SoSE too late.

  • DScottHewittDScottHewitt ✭✭✭✭✭
    Tasker wrote: »
    If Armada II had been easy to get to run on modern pc’s, I probably would never have tried Timelines.

    I found the Armada III mod for SoSE too late.

    I Modded the fire out of I and II. Loved that game. Got a DVD around here somewhere with the Mods I had dowbnloaed, still.d
    "The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
  • PhantumPhantum ✭✭✭
    Phantum wrote: »
    Aren't Borg are more about efficiency? Why replace organic parts on a drone when they function adequately.

    Do the borg want a ship that maximises the surface area to volume or minimises it? Surface area can be useful for interacting with the outside... Square or pyramid do this. Sphere if want to minimise surface area to volume, or contain volume within a smallest radius, optimise distance between all internal points, and likely most efficient for subspace bubbles etc. Sphere has lowest moment of inertia for turning, although given that they have artificial gravity = artificial inertia also (Einsteins strong equivalence principle). It could be that in the end the cube is best because it allows the most efficient use of replication, since it can be made entirely of smaller cubes, all subparts can be of a like physical construction, replaced in and out ... Spheres tend to have wasted space?

    My biggest surprise with the cubes is that since I first saw the borg I expected the cube ships to fit together more, it seemed logical to me but was never used was it?

    Why replace organic parts? Are you kidding me? Think about everything we've invented to supplement our insufficient organic parts. If you could replace your eyes with cameras that could zoom 100x, see all the wavelengths of light, and in the dark, wouldn't you? There's absolutely nothing efficient about an organic body. Not even the rate at which we use energy. It's a product of evolution, not design. That's why a majority of "futurists" predict a biological/technological fusion.
    Bluebeard1 wrote: »
    Assuming that deflectors and shielding are not used, then the shape of a vessel in space is EXTREMELY important.
    The interstellar medium is estimated to be roughly 1 atom per cubic kilometre, but when travelling at a reasonable percentage of the speed of light, these atoms, molecules, dust motes, micro meteorites and other objects too small to be either detected or avoided can be exceedingly dangerous. Even a single atom, when impacting at 0.99C, could cause noticeable damage

    It has been postulated that a needle shaped ship would be best suited to this situation with the pointed end facing in the direction of travel to minimize possible impacts. A Borg cube with huge flat surfaces would be a very impractical shape.

    This said and done, we all know they have shields, deflectors, tractor beams and incredibly sophisticated sensors (as science fiction needs something to explain away such huge problems to interstellar travel)

    Couple of things, sorry. It's actually 1 atom per cubic centimeter in interstellar space. Also the ships don't "technically" travel at .99c, or anywhere near it. They sidestep all relativistic/time dilation issues that would come with that. The cheat is that they enter "subspace" - which isn't a wormhole but it does shrink the distance between two points by whatever factor of "warp" they use. The physics are shady because it's obviously fictional, but warping space involves shrinking the space in front of you while expanding the space behind you.

    But yes, all ships typically run "navigational deflectors" - although not Cochrane's Phoenix, which probably should have hit something and exploded ;)

    Efficiency as in only replace what required to function. Why waste energy upgrading drones to do things not in their job description... As for the eye replacement, good luck trying to improve the functionality of the eye much with the space available. It works close to diffraction limited optics, at the most favourable wavelengths. Its low light power is exceptional, and the detection cells are wired into the nervous system in a far more efficient way for object recognition than the pixel arrays of digital cameras now ... Sure there may be some improvements possible but the only advantage I have found for other optic systems is by integrating them over large time periods (e.g. 1 minute exposures for city lights, 8 hours for Astronomy)

    You are right about the warp avoiding collision issues, it stretches space/time so the two points nearly touch through an external dimension. The shrinking and expanding space you describe is more like an exotic form of standard propulsion that may avoid inertia issues in acceleration. Like timing paddling a kayak in waves to use their motion.
  • PhantumPhantum ✭✭✭
    Bluebeard1 wrote: »
    Assuming that deflectors and shielding are not used, then the shape of a vessel in space is EXTREMELY important.
    The interstellar medium is estimated to be roughly 1 atom per cubic kilometre, but when travelling at a reasonable percentage of the speed of light, these atoms, molecules, dust motes, micro meteorites and other objects too small to be either detected or avoided can be exceedingly dangerous. Even a single atom, when impacting at 0.99C, could cause noticeable damage

    It has been postulated that a needle shaped ship would be best suited to this situation with the pointed end facing in the direction of travel to minimize possible impacts. A Borg cube with huge flat surfaces would be a very impractical shape.

    This said and done, we all know they have shields, deflectors, tractor beams and incredibly sophisticated sensors (as science fiction needs something to explain away such huge problems to interstellar travel)

    You are forgetting they have artificial gravity on the ships for impulse power. This is why they feel no acceleration that would crush the ships. Artificial gravity is manipulating mass and inertia, which could be applied to any dust and external matter in a collision, zero mass = zero force collision or deflecting. Actually this artificial gravity is the single hardest thing to explain in Star Trek from the physics I know... I wrote my thesis on the Strong Equivalence Principle.
  • Bluebeard1Bluebeard1 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @GhostStalker:
    My apologies, yes it seems the density of the interstellar medium has been revised heavily since my college days. Thanks for reminding me how long it's been and how old I am lol. While this is still only an estimate and can't be measured until we actually have a working interstellar craft (Voyager probes aside), it does strengthen my point.
    As for warp speed, I was specifically referring to sub light, or impulse speed. Federation craft have full impulse at 0.25C according to cannon and Borg cubes (ST:TNG Q Who) apparently travel considerably faster at both warp and sub light speeds. Even at 0.25C the impact from an atom is considerable (a quarter of a big boom is still a big boom.) F=MA still shows a high energy impact where M is tiny but A is huge and 1 atom per cubic CM means a lot more booms than I previously suggested.


    @Phantum:
    I didn't specifically mention artificial gravity, correct, but my intention was that "without sci fi tech the shape of a space ship is important".
  • DScottHewittDScottHewitt ✭✭✭✭✭
    I am amazed by the inertial dampeners. Think about it. Full impulse to Warp One is acceleration from approximately 46560.5 miles per second, to approximately 186282 miles per second in a few seconds.

    Anyone with good maths wanna figure the "G"s, based on say ten seconds to do the acceleration?
    "The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
  • FlemmingFlemming ✭✭✭✭✭
    giphy.gif

    I am pointing more fingers at me than I am at you.
    Intentionally Left Blank
  • KaiteeKaitee ✭✭✭✭✭
    Phantum wrote: »
    Actually this artificial gravity is the single hardest thing to explain in Star Trek from the physics I know... I wrote my thesis on the Strong Equivalence Principle.
    I wrote mine on Star Trek (you can get away with anything in a history degree).
  • Dirk GundersonDirk Gunderson ✭✭✭✭✭
    I am amazed by the inertial dampeners. Think about it. Full impulse to Warp One is acceleration from approximately 46560.5 miles per second, to approximately 186282 miles per second in a few seconds.

    Anyone with good maths wanna figure the "G"s, based on say ten seconds to do the acceleration?

    If we assume that the warp drive works like Alcubierre’s theorized FTL drive, then the ship and its occupants wouldn’t really be experiencing that much acceleration. I would be impressed even just by the acceleration from orbital velocities to full impulse...I really don’t want to do the math on that but I bet it is a lot of Gs.
  • FlemmingFlemming ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2019
    I was an Astrophysics Double Major, my thesis was the large scale structure of the Universe.

    [Editorial note: I read some of the garbage papers of exoplanets being published in Nature of all places.

    My three-year-old could get published in Nature, it takes *Thomas Dolby voice* SCIENCE! to be published in a real journal like the ApJ.

    Anyways, reading these pieces of drivel like this mass media report illustrated by this Google Doodle about OMG WE FOUND SEVEN EARTHLIKE EXOPLANETS I CANT CONTAIN MY HUMAN EXCRIMENT!

    I guess no one knew how to read the actual paper cause when you do, those magical planets orbit so fast any inhabitants would get whiplash from the change of seasons. (Seriously, seasons would last a week)

    And the report is not even appologetic of the concept, they made visualizations:
    796_TRAPPIST-1_sizes.jpeg

    see here.

    Look at those numbers. It doesnt make sense, but to*Thomas Dolby voice* SCIENCE!, it is "okay"]
    Intentionally Left Blank
  • DScottHewittDScottHewitt ✭✭✭✭✭
    Flemming wrote: »
    I was an Astrophysics Double Major, my thesis was the large scale structure of the Universe.

    [Editorial note: I read some of the garbage papers of exoplanets being published in Nature of all places.

    My three-year-old could get published in Nature, it takes *Thomas Dolby voice* SCIENCE! to be published in a real journal like the ApJ.

    Anyways, reading these pieces of drivel like this mass media report illustrated by this Google Doodle about OMG WE FOUND SEVEN EARTHLIKE EXOPLANETS I CANT CONTAIN MY HUMAN EXCRIMENT!

    I guess no one knew how to read the actual paper cause when you do, those magical planets orbit so fast any inhabitants would get whiplash from the change of seasons. (Seriously, seasons would last a week)

    And the report is not even appologetic of the concept, they made visualizations:
    796_TRAPPIST-1_sizes.jpeg

    see here.

    Look at those numbers. It doesnt make sense, but to*Thomas Dolby voice* SCIENCE!, it is "okay"]

    Key missing data is mean surface temperature on a cloudy day. They are all right on top of the star........
    "The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
  • Bluebeard1Bluebeard1 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I was told in college to always use 0.981g for Earth's gravity so that it fits nicely into equations where 1g becomes an SI unit (metric). 1g stated as 10m/s/s acceleration.

    That lovely picture shows 1g for Earth's gravity, so lazy.

    Edit: Sadly a quick google search tells me that this lazy rounding up is also the popular way nowadays, even Wikipedia shows this.
  • DScottHewittDScottHewitt ✭✭✭✭✭
    Bluebeard1 wrote: »
    I was told in college to always use 0.981g for Earth's gravity so that it fits nicely into equations where 1g becomes an SI unit (metric). 1g stated as 10m/s/s acceleration.

    That lovely picture shows 1g for Earth's gravity, so lazy.

    Edit: Sadly a quick google search tells me that this lazy rounding up is also the popular way nowadays, even Wikipedia shows this.

    So, wait. The baseline used for gravity is NOT Earth normal gravity?!?!?
    "The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
  • Bluebeard1Bluebeard1 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2019
    errm no, 2 reasons...
    1. The Earth's surface gravity is different all over the planet (at the poles you weigh more than at the equator).

    2. Scientists like everything to fit together nicely, e.g. 1 litre of water weighs 10 Newtons under 1g of gravity, has a mass of 1kg and requires 1 joule of energy to move 1 metre (and so it goes on like this throughout the metric, or SI system).
    Throwing in the number "9.81m/s/s" as the value of gravitational acceleration upsets these numbers by a tiny amount. But if you take 1g as "10 m/s/s" then scientists and mathematicians have their OCD satiated nicely and equations become much simpler.
    Thus meaning that Earth's average surface gravity is slightly less than 1g and Kip Thorne's calculator doesn't explode.

    Yeah I'm a nerd...
Sign In or Register to comment.