The main problem with your assumption is that the technology you see is practically the same technology as today which for all intents and purposes it shouldn't be.Tamri wrote: It's like that. Two points:
1) Bell - RESEARCH ship, not the military. Googling standards for research technics of the same NASA. Somehow I don't think that the practice of over 100 years radically changed, so what could be on warship - on the research vessel appears as a receiver for a deck of cards in the modern computer.
2) Outside fucking 2160-th year. The newest space scout, designed for deep space exploration completed with equipment on which people worked around 2000, with some exceptions. I don't know about you, but for me, the writing of the above paragraphs is mutually exclusive, and not just have them in stock.
Purely hypothetically, filling the spaceship must be double - the latest at the time of construction of the system for normal operation and the most reliable solid stuff that can somehow work in an environment where not working everything else. In the event of a sudden polar fox. Completed the ship only the second set - idiocy, if not worse. Because of this depends directly on the efficiency of ship operation in the normal mode, in which case it will be extremely low. Meaning?
The most glaring example that most people don't notice are the TCA space suits and how lightweight and most importantly flexible they are when compared with their current equivalents which have visually and practically remained unchanged since the earliest days of space flight. That's a crucial piece of equipment that has visually remained unchanged for more the better part of a century already due to the limitations of technology to that particular field. Yet for all their similarities the space suits of today are not the space suits of the 1960s, they are made from other materials, with different techniques and they have different performance characteristics. The reason they are visually identical is because the human inside is identical with the same wants and needs in regards to their operation while the technology still still hasn't advanced enough to offer better size, weight and flexibility characteristics.
Yes, the bridge is operated by touch screen flat panels but you don't know how more advanced the technology behind them is when compared with their modern equivalent; the fact that they remain visually recognizable doesn't mean anything other than the fact that the human wants and needs are similar to the one's of today. The technology is undoubtedly related but that doesn't mean that the 2160 counterpart of the touch screen flat panel is technologically identical with the ones of today (that are known for the their unreliability which is why the military doesn't want to be anywhere near them for now).