flyboy Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 My vote: Harpy fighter from Crusher Joe. Also Kawamori-designed... Felix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
do not disturb Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Technical accuracy is a perfectly acceptable criteria for judging a work of science fiction. That's why it's called science fiction. you're absolutely right, thats why its called science FICTION hence making the science involved false, fake, untrue, etc. science is not the keyword here, its FICTION. so that being said, what "technical accuracy" are you talking about? if you're talking about a real space shuttle, with real astronauts, with real science and facts that have been recorded and documented over all the missions into space, thats fine, i can live with that. if you mean the FICTIONAL technical mumbo-jumbo made up by one gene rodenberry because he joined startfleet academy and battle the klingons therefore he technically knows what hes talking about because he himself broke the light speed barrier, made first contact and discovered the secrets to space travel and he learned all this technically accurate information from the vulcans themselves....stop kidding yourself. *takes a breath* theres absolutely nothing technical about science fiction...its fiction, so you can basically make it up crap as you go along. wheres the science in that exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JELEINEN Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Technical accuracy is a perfectly acceptable criteria for judging a work of science fiction. That's why it's called science fiction. you're absolutely right, thats why its called science FICTION hence making the science involved false, fake, untrue, etc. science is not the keyword here, its FICTION. so that being said, what "technical accuracy" are you talking about? if you're talking about a real space shuttle, with real astronauts, with real science and facts that have been recorded and documented over all the missions into space, thats fine, i can live with that. if you mean the FICTIONAL technical mumbo-jumbo made up by one gene rodenberry because he joined startfleet academy and battle the klingons therefore he technically knows what hes talking about because he himself broke the light speed barrier, made first contact and discovered the secrets to space travel and he learned all this technically accurate information from the vulcans themselves....stop kidding yourself. *takes a breath* theres absolutely nothing technical about science fiction...its fiction, so you can basically make it up crap as you go along. wheres the science in that exactly? But the science doesn't have to be fake. In fact, often it is preferable that it is not. Men like Poul Anderson and Bob Heinlein were scientists who used their knowledge to help write stories. Now obviously this is not the place for a debate on the definition of "science fiction." but needless to say, science must play a part in it, otherwise we'd just call it fantasy (and even fantasy requires internal logic and self-consistancy). It would be like writing a book of historical fiction and saying the US Civil War never happened; it doesn't make it an invalid story, but certainly disqualifies it from being historical fiction. Certainly some stories are more true to science than others, but that doesn't make it any less of a valid criteria of judgement. Now, you personally may not give much importance to that criteria when judging a show or book. This is fine, but please keep in mind that there are those who do find it important. If you don't like it, that's your problem, not ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundown Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 (edited) My vote:Harpy fighter from Crusher Joe. Also Kawamori-designed... Felix No wonder I liked the Samurai aerospace fighter from Battletech. It was one of them displaced anime designs shoved into the Battletech world. I've even still got the unassembled and unpainted miniature. -Al Edited April 21, 2004 by Sundown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JELEINEN Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 My vote: Harpy fighter from Crusher Joe. Also Kawamori-designed... Felix Agreed. Those things were pretty sweet looking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 I like the Harpy. I think it would still look nice even if the two carrots from the front were removed and the nose remained shaped like an A-Wing. In fact, it would look a lot better IMHO if the carrots were replaced with more linear looking twin booms. It looks too lumpy IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 i can't believe people are arguing over physics and space, who gives a crap? none of anything thats on TV makes any sense....ITS CALLED A STORY CREATED BY SOMEONES IMAGINATION. therefore, there is no way to justify your arguments here or ever. please stop as its sad AND annoying. go talk to gene rodenberry or george lucas or something cause no one here gives a crap about what is, what isn't, what could be, or what shouldn't be, its completely retarded to argue about a fictional story with fictional guidelines. The Centauri have artificial gravity; in at least one episode Star Fury pilots are given a briefing on Centauri tactics and thats specfically mentioned. I'm not absolutely certain, but I believe the vessels of the "Hyperion" class [1] don't have gravity, as I think we always see the crew strapped down in them. I don't think its ever stated for definite that the Narn have artificial gravity, but as we usually see them strapped down the assumption would be no. And Haterist... I think this is relatively mild, comparatively speaking. I used to hang out on a UK B5 newsgroup, and long, heavily involved, complicated discussions on physics was pretty much another way of saying "hello" on that... Heh... In Star Trek, every conceivable system on the Enterprise has failed one time to another, lights go wonky, bridge consoles explode, replicators fail, holodecks go berserk, transpotters go off line, sub-space anomalies cause everyother thing to go nuts... BUT THE ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY GENERATOR WORKS WITH 100% RELIABILITY even if full power to the ship is lost! Heck it even works on derelict wrecks floating about in space! Has there ever been an episode of Trek which showed zero-G inside a ship? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptRico Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Oh damn how could I forget this one, more of a Mobile Armor (I know technicaly it's not a MA but...) counts...RX-78GP03 Dendrobium Orchis Sorry, forgot to take off that part.^^; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundown Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Has there ever been an episode of Trek which showed zero-G inside a ship? Not sure about an episode, but a movie. Star Trek VI showed a zero-G battle inside a Klingon cruiser, when the artificial gravity generator was disabled. Very cool. -Al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stamen0083 Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 (edited) That is a potentialy good idea but why? there is no up or down in space, why go through the trouble in the first place? It does not matter if there is no up or down. Like you said, if one section is rotating, it might drag the rest of the ship with it, making it rotate too. Spinning another section the other way will drag the ship in the other direction, hence it will cancel out the rotation introduced by the first section. We provide the balance system on a moveing bicycle The rider plays no part in keeping the bicycle balanced. If that was the case, then a bicycle rider should have no problem keeping the bike balanced when it's not moving. Prove me wrong if you can. If there was nothing onboard the ship, if everything was locked down...and the ship was rotated and sent on a flightpath in space, then yeah it would likely arrive without haveing to correct it's course...but when you introduce moveing parts inside the ship (specificly the crew) this introduces other problems... No, it doesn't, and that's my point. The vector introduced by the rotating sections would minimize whatever forces are introduced by the internals. If you don't know this from basic physics, then I don't want to do this with you. Like a cell phone set on vibrate "dances" across a table...the movements of the astronauts within the shuttle, brushing aganst the wall, pushing off of them, introduces slight shifts in the ships direction...and the crew doing the same onboard a rotateing star ship will also effect it's path over time... You'd be right here for a ship that does not have anything to counteract the internal forces. However, for one thing, the mass of the crew compared to the mass of the shuttle or space ship is effectively negligible, so the pushing against the walls on the inside does not affect the outside all that much. This is especially true for massive spacecrafts. However, like I said, the rotating section's force vector would negate that even more. Has there ever been an episode of Trek which showed zero-G inside a ship? Yes. In an episode of Star Trek Voyager, something happened to the artificial gravity on the ship, and Janeway's quarters had no gravity. Her coffee was floating all over the place, as did the rest of her stuff in the room. At least, as far as I recall. PS: What does Retracting Head Ter Ter mean? Edited April 21, 2004 by Stamen0083 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxer Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 I'm not going to get involved in the discussion. Fighters will be fighters. That being said, I will state my favorites (In order of thought ): 1. The Orguss: The Obvious alternative to VFs. Even comes in Mass production and ace types! 2. Any Emaan fighter from Orguss 3. The Bronco II (Also Orguss) 4. The Gunstar (Of course!) 5. Taiidan Light Corvette (So light it's practically a fighter) 6. Uhh...this thing. Mr. Ball from For The Barrel The WORST fighters In my current opinion. 1. Tie fighters: The cheaper-cheaper alternative to Mass production colors. It's not brown, therefore it is WORSE than cannon fodder 2. Any Star Trek Fighter from any series: Need I say anything? Dominion fighters??? No. Just...no. If you want fighters, go find the cannon established by Starfleet Command games and the TMP eras of the games. Now THOSE are fighters. All I can think of for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druna Skass Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 (edited) Damn I can't belive I forgot to mention the GP03's core fighter... As far as sci-fi stuff goes, what the hell does the science matter as long as it looks cool? Edited April 21, 2004 by Druna Skass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAG Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 In no particular order: -B5 Starfury -X-Wing -Kilrathi Dralthi from WC (kill these pancakes by the dozens, but they look cool) -Hellcat from WC -Colonial Viper -Peregrine class from ST (more of a PT boat than an actual fighter, but still....) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UN Spacy Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 (edited) I know it's anime, but I love the Black Tiger, Cosmo Tiger and Cosmo Zero from Space Battleship Yamato/Star Blazers.And the retro funk of the BDG Viper cannot be beaten. Same here......any Fighter from with the Leiji Matsumoto feel is bad ass. The Cosmo Zero or MKII Black Tiger Fighters is SUPERB. The Colony War Fighter series (on the PS1) were also good. Pic taken from a GREAT artist at Yamato Mechanics HERE. Edited April 21, 2004 by UN Spacy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolly Rogers Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 I vote for Dr. Evil's space craft. Actually I should vote for his other one... "Private!" "Johnson!" "Willie!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSW Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 The rider plays no part in keeping the bicycle balanced. If that was the case, then a bicycle rider should have no problem keeping the bike balanced when it's not moving. Prove me wrong if you can. If the rider plays no part in keeping a bike balanced then give a bike a little push to send it rolling down a hill...even if you weld the front fork strait ahead so little rocks won't cause it to inadvertantly change front wheel direction mid roll...the bike will fall...it's rolling momentum will help carry it some distance, but it won't travel nearly as far before falling as it would if it was being ridden... And maybe you haven't seen stunt bikers doing thier balanceing tricks...they may not be able to keep a non moveing bike balanced indefinetely, but they can balance it longer then the non moveing bike can itself. You'd be right here for a ship that does not have anything to counteract the internal forces. However, for one thing, the mass of the crew compared to the mass of the shuttle or space ship is effectively negligible, so the pushing against the walls on the inside does not affect the outside all that much. This is especially true for massive spacecrafts The wheel weights used to correctly balance an automobile tire are quite insignifigant in comparision to the mass of the wheel itself, yet if they arn't placed correctly the wheel will not be balanced... I know of the rotateing physics you describe...and yep it would work...on paper...that is because it depends on absolute accuricy...the stress one rotateing section imposes on the ship have to be exactly countered by the other rotateing section...but in the real world of engineering, the world of manufactureing...that absolute accuricy is damn near impossable (which is why things are built to measure against "tolerances")...if the difference between the rotateing secton's mass is even something as small as a tenth of a gram the ship should encounter no flight path problems on the way to the moon...but if it was traveling the millions of miles to Jupiter...well then you better plan on haveing to make a few course corrections...and if the destination is even farthur away...well all those little bumps from the crew along with the "manufacturing tolerances" really start to add up...even you should realise that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stamen0083 Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 If the rider plays no part in keeping a bike balanced then give a bike a little push to send it rolling down a hill...even if you weld the front fork strait ahead so little rocks won't cause it to inadvertantly change front wheel direction mid roll...the bike will fall...it's rolling momentum will help carry it some distance, but it won't travel nearly as far before falling as it would if it was being ridden... Perhaps I exaggerated a bit much when I said the rider plays no part in keeping the bike balanced. He plays a part, but my point was that if the wheels were not rotating, balancing the bike would be a hell of a lot harder. Even you should realize that. And maybe you haven't seen stunt bikers doing thier balanceing tricks...they may not be able to keep a non moveing bike balanced indefinetely, but they can balance it longer then the non moveing bike can itself. They don't count, since they can pretty much balance anything. I'm talking about the average Joe riding a bicycle down the street. (which is why things are built to measure against "tolerances") I'm fully aware of tolerance, but thanks for the tip. ...if the difference between the rotateing secton's mass is even something as small as a tenth of a gram the ship should encounter no flight path problems on the way to the moon...but if it was traveling the millions of miles to Jupiter...well then you better plan on haveing to make a few course corrections...and if the destination is even farthur away...well all those little bumps from the crew along with the "manufacturing tolerances" really start to add up...even you should realise that! You keep missing my point! The rotating will introduce a vector which will work to counteract forces against it. A ship with that much mass will have a very big force vector, so the forces the crew introduce would be insignificant compared to it. You know what? I'm done. If you don't understand, it's too bad. I've wasted enough time and brain cells here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSW Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 You keep missing my point! The rotating will introduce a vector which will work to counteract forces against it. A ship with that much mass will have a very big force vector, so the forces the crew introduce would be insignificant compared to it. You know what? I'm done. If you don't understand, it's too bad. I've wasted enough time and brain cells here. and you keep missing my point...that vector introduced through rotation will change as the crew moves about the ship...No these little minute seemingly insignifigant forces at work won't instantly change the ships vector, but over time they will...And for short distances these changes don't amount to much...but for long distances it sure as hell does But this wouldn't be a problem if there were enough fuel onboard to perform course corrections mid flight (just like you would have to do with any ship)...but the big remaining problem for such rotateing sections is mechanical in nature, specificly the bearings and seals around the pivot point (eventualy the fricton generated by these moveing parts will effect the rotation speed...so more energy will need to be spent to compensate, cause if those rotateing sections are not spinning fast enough to counter each other then they arn't helping to maintain the flight vector...needless to say that trying to maintain or even repair such bearings mid flight could be a real chore)...The KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principal should never be forgotten...keep the ship in zero G, keep enough fuel on hand for flight path corrections, and provide rotateing beds for the crew to sleep in (that way if the bearings in the bed need repaired, the whole ship isn't at risk of comeing appart) the rotateing beds should simulate enough gravity that it keeps thier muscles from signifigantly weakening and heart working properly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
do not disturb Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 first off, if you're talking about the fictional future, i doubt they'll be and teflon ball bearings or any of that madness. hello free floating, friction free gyroscope that surround by a force field generated buy it own spin. the more it spins the more power it generates. does this make sense? it seems a more logical example as opposed to ball bearings....keeping in mind this is all fake and therefore could be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impreszive Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 To answer the B5 question; the Narn didn't have artificial gravity. The Centauri did, as did the Minbari. Earth only got the technology by the end of season 4, from the Minbari. Now as to favorite ships. 1. (Tie) The Omega Class Destroyer and the Imperial Star Destroyer -scary since the Omega is larger than the Impe destroyer. I love the Omega's rugged design and ability to absorb damage. The Star Destroyer is an elegant weapon for administering a beatdown on a massive scale. Let's not forget that it is a triangle of Death. 2. The Thunderbolt Starfury 3. The A-Wing 4. The Republic Gunship 5. The Asgard ships from SG-1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Has anyone mentioned Hikaru's Magic Bicycle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zentrandude Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 You keep missing my point! The rotating will introduce a vector which will work to counteract forces against it. A ship with that much mass will have a very big force vector, so the forces the crew introduce would be insignificant compared to it. You know what? I'm done. If you don't understand, it's too bad. I've wasted enough time and brain cells here. and you keep missing my point...that vector introduced through rotation will change as the crew moves about the ship...No these little minute seemingly insignifigant forces at work won't instantly change the ships vector, but over time they will...And for short distances these changes don't amount to much...but for long distances it sure as hell does But this wouldn't be a problem if there were enough fuel onboard to perform course corrections mid flight (just like you would have to do with any ship)...but the big remaining problem for such rotateing sections is mechanical in nature, specificly the bearings and seals around the pivot point (eventualy the fricton generated by these moveing parts will effect the rotation speed...so more energy will need to be spent to compensate, cause if those rotateing sections are not spinning fast enough to counter each other then they arn't helping to maintain the flight vector...needless to say that trying to maintain or even repair such bearings mid flight could be a real chore)...The KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principal should never be forgotten...keep the ship in zero G, keep enough fuel on hand for flight path corrections, and provide rotateing beds for the crew to sleep in (that way if the bearings in the bed need repaired, the whole ship isn't at risk of comeing appart) the rotateing beds should simulate enough gravity that it keeps thier muscles from signifigantly weakening and heart working properly... in a way your both right. i can see it if you dont have a counter rotation section teh ship might waste tons of fuel keeping the non rotation section from rotating. from all the designs i seen that use rotating living areas that the mass would be so large they would spin the nonrotating section instead of the intended purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renegadeleader1 Posted April 22, 2004 Author Share Posted April 22, 2004 Thank you tech heads for killing the thread! The whole point of this thread was to talk about your favorite starfighter designs not bitch and moan about what is realistic or not how physics make things impossible. Remember not that long ago a horseless carriage was considered impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Thank you tech heads for killing the thread! The whole point of this thread was to talk about your favorite starfighter designs not bitch and moan about what is realistic or not how physics make things impossible. Remember not that long ago a horseless carriage was considered impossible. HAHAHAHA You actually thought it would turn out differently!!? Dude, I think this is a cool thread... It woked fine. There are just a ton of tech heads here who overanalyse everthing. Like I said though, the winner is either Buzz Lighyear's supersuit, or Hikaru's magic bicycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JELEINEN Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 For something a little different, I really like these designs: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=70751 http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=77654 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Paragon Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Gunstar. Yep definitely... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bromgrev Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Thread necromancy ... Y-Wing, no doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddsun1 Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Hey, thanks for that link, UN Spacy. That site is pretty cool. Just wish I could understand more of it. I've always loved the "Starblazers" ship designs. Much better fighter designs, from a practical standpoint--like much better all 'round vision for the pilot than other shows' designs. Much as I love the X-Wing, Y-Wing, Colonial Viper, and Buck Rogers' starfighters; you have to admit, they're terrible designs as far as pilot visibility (rearward, and in Y-Wing's case, overhead too!) is concerned. And isn't that supposed to be one of the most critical elements of good fighter design? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddsun1 Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 (edited) Love the starfighters. They have a "century fighters" feel to them, like they're heavily influenced by those fighters of the 50's-60's. The cockpits, and in some cases the nose sections, make me think of the Thunderchiefs, Voodoos, Super-Sabres and Starfighters. Edited June 4, 2005 by reddsun1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddsun1 Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Lots of sharp, pointy design cues on a lot of the Space Cruiser Yamato ships, even further adding to their "functionality." If guns and missiles fail, you've got some handy ramming utensils on the wings, tails, etc. for "impaling" an enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druna Skass Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 My top ten... X-Wing A-Wing TIE Defender TIE Interceptor Vic Viper (ZOE Version) Saberfish GP03 Core Fighter Exass Dendrobium Stamen (big mobile armors count right?) Cosmograsper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stamen0083 Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Dendrobium Stamen (big mobile armors count right?) You want the Dendrobium Orchis. Dendrobium Stamen is the Gundam unit itself. Stamen Core Fighter sucks. Zephyranthes ground type Core Fighter is better. :-P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 (edited) I like the 'Fluttering Petal' Heavy fighter from the Renegade Legion RPG/Boordgame. Can't find a decent pic of it now though. Edited June 5, 2005 by Retracting Head Ter Ter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sktchrtst2002 Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 Hey REDDSUN! COOL COLOR SCHEMES! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bromgrev Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 Nice pics, reddsun1. Those old Yamato fighter designs are definitely in my top 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.