The near future...

[DaddyYautja]

Kaku's estimations are a bit off, there... Most technological breakthroughs, energy-wise, get more out of less. When we get into creating things like fusion reactors, the energy supply will be vast.

And it doesn't even seem to give a category for a civilisation which might have devised a method of vacuuming energy out of the 'ether' or some alternative dimension.

Look at the physical amount of material needed for the first atomic bomb, versus how much TNT an explosion of that size would have required!

If we restrict our understanding of extraterrestrial civilisations by how much resources they exhaust, we could easily be going about it in the wrong way... Doc Brown's time machine ran on household garbage, for crying out loud, whereas the former version required plutonium! A fictional example, sure, but in layman's terms, the principle's a feasible one. By the 'type 1/2/3' theory, the more efficient time machine would be regarded as less advanced.

For all we know, someone could be zipping around the galaxy on something powered by cotton wool...

Your estimation is a bit off as well.
TNT and Nuclear Weapons are two different types of reactions and one did not replace the other.
There are still HUGE conventional bombs being used for combat.

And Nuclear energy requires as much work if not more that other types. 

[SM]

The energy output of nukes is still described as a TNT equivalent however.

[Deuterium]

Be interesting to see if and how this might tie into the Blade Runner universe where FTL travel is mundane by 2019.

SM...believe me, I am not trying to be a contrarian...but what exactly in the Blade Runner film (exclusively), provides unambiguous confirmation that FTL travel has been achieved, much less "mundane"?

One can easily explain the terms "off-world colonies" as being settlements within our solar system (e.g. Moon, Mars, Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Titan, etc.).

Rutger Hauer's wonderful line about watching "attack ships burning off the shoulder Orion", actually only makes sense if he is speaking of observing spaceships within our solar system, that happen to align with our perspective of the Constellation of Orion.  When viewed from another stellar system, constellations that we identify, as viewed from our system (Sol), are completely distorted and lose all associations we associate with them.  In other words, the name and shape of what we call "Constellations", is specific, and exclusive to our particular perspective, within our Solar system.  As you move light-years away, to even the nearest stars, our familiar stellar alignments (which we call "constellations) warp and distort.  The further from Sol, the greater the divergence. Yeah, I know I am sounding like a wet blanket...but I am just doing my part to keep any pretense of Science...honest.

Does that mean that Rutger Hauer realized this when he purportedly ad-libbed this line...of course not.

I am just saying, that his comment could still be explained without assuming FTL travel, or assuming we achieved interstellar travel.

Of course, there may be something else stated within the film that I have forgotten...   

[harlock]

^ Agreed.

Did Blade Runner actually have FTL ships as canon?

I know there were off-world colonies, but all of those could have been in-system and we could reach them with STL ships, we reach other planets in-system in measurements of AU (1 AU = 8.3 light minutes), not light years.

For example, Mars can be either 0.5 AU or 1.5 AU away from Earth depending on its orbital path. Thats a maximum of nearly 13 minutes if going at the speed of light at its furthest point from us.

Of course, I could stand to be corrected, but a fast ship in Blade Runner is different to a FTL ship (unless there really is travel to other star systems than our just own planets).

[SM]

As far as I'm concerned, "Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion" means Roy has been to the vicinity of Betelguese or Bellatrix and back.  Just because the constellations don't work when you're not on Earth, doesn't stop those stars being considered Orion's shoulders.

And viewing an attack ship on fire off the shoulder of Orion from Earth isn't really something "you people wouldn't believe", if anyone could just watch it.

[harlock]

A fair point, actually.

Also theres the replicant/android thing.

[180924609]

I have to agree with SM here. Yes, it was naive, but Blade Runner suggests interstellar travel, in the same 'common or garden' way that ALIEN did.

Remember that these movies were made at a time when there was no readily available wikipedia 'relativity-for-dummies' reference media at you fingertips like there is today. Pretty much every science fiction movie or novel since the year dot would be destroyed if you had to justify it with mathematical precision or physics. All that is important are the simple human concepts: far away, long time to get there, difficult to get there, isolation whilst there, etc.

[Deuterium]

As far as I'm concerned, "Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion" means Roy has been to the vicinity of Betelguese or Bellatrix and back.  Just because the constellations don't work when you're not on Earth, doesn't stop those stars being considered Orion's shoulders.

And viewing an attack ship on fire off the shoulder of Orion from Earth isn't really something "you people wouldn't believe", if anyone could just watch it.

SM, I am not sure if you realize this, but stars within a Constellation are not connected or bound with each other, and are completely RANDOM groupings of stars that just happen to lie in the same direction in the night sky, from our perspective.  It is our own human brains that strive for patterns.  Bellatrix (250 light years from Sol) and Betelguese (640 Light years from Sol) are no where near each other.  And even if you were orbiting one or the other, you certainly wouldn't see the constellation we know as Orion.

And my only point, is that it is an open for subjective interpretation, wether the Blade Runner universe featured FTL travel.  I am just trying to point out one possibility/interpretation.

And unless there were incredible energies involved (hundreds to thosands of megatons), one wouldn't expect to be able to see a spaceship "on fire" within our solar system.  One of the brightest recorded events (not including solar related phenomena) that occured WITHIN our solar system, was the impact of Shoemaker-Levy comet into Jupiter.  And that could ONLY be seen through high powered telescopes...not the naked eye.

[SM]

Where did I suggest any such thing?

Betelguese can be referred to the right shoulder of Orion and Bellatrix the left no matter if you view it from Earth or are orbiting it.

Them being near each other or not isn't relevant to anything.

[Deuterium]

Where did I suggest any such thing?

Betelguese can be referred to the right shoulder of Orion and Bellatrix the left no matter if you view it from Earth or are orbiting it.

Them being near each other or not isn't relevant to anything.

No it can't.  There is no "shoulder of Orion"...there is no "Constellation of Orion", when viewed from either Bellatrix or Betelguese.  What we see as the "hunter", and the shape of the ORION constellation is completely unique to our perspective within our solar system.

[SM]

It doesn't matter.  The stars are still the shoulders.

If you're in an area of space near either you could be said to be "off the shoulder of Orion".

[Deuterium]

It doesn't matter.  The stars are still the shoulders.

If you're in an area of space near either you could be said to be "off the shoulder of Orion".

I can't seem to convince you otherwise...so fair enough.  I will leave it at this...only someone looking from within Earth's system would say something is "off the shoulder of Orion".

[SM]

If you want to maintain that narrow view - go ahead.  The area was named from Earth.  Don't see how why that would change if someone actually travelled there.

We're not talking about the entire constellation.  We're talking about two stars that make up the constellation.  If Roy had said "Attack ships on fire in Orion" you'd have a point.  But that's not what he said.

[DaddyYautja]

The energy output of nukes is still described as a TNT equivalent however.

Cause that was the method used when they started messing around with nukes.
Joules are also used.

[Deuterium]

If you want to maintain that narrow view - go ahead.  The area was named from Earth.  Don't see how why that would change if someone actually travelled there.

We're not talking about the entire constellation.  We're talking about two stars that make up the constellation.  If Roy had said "Attack ships on fire in Orion" you'd have a point.  But that's not what he said.

I willl try one more time...

SM, the first image below shows the "constellation" of Orion, as viewed from Earth (Northern Hemisphere).  Note the positions in the sky of Betelgeuse and Bellatrix, as well as Rigel, and the three stars making Orion's belt:



Below is a view from Betelgeuse, as looking back towards our Sun.  The Sun is roughly in the same position in sky as Betelgeuse is in the first image (above and slightly to the left).  Please note where Bellatrix is.  It is to the far left.  So, you are Roy Batty, orbiting Betelgeuse, looking back towards our Sun...and it just so happens that Bellatrix is in the field of view.  But where are all the other stars that make up the constellation of Orion.  Where is Rigel?  Where is Mintaka, Alnilam and Alnitak (which make up Orion's "belt")??  They are no where to be seen.  The reason is because they are in a completely different part of the sky, and not anywhere near the section of the sky we can see.

So where exactly would Roy Batty point to, when he is seeing something "off the shoulder of Orion"?

The same issue happens if he was orbiting Bellatrix.