[blowfish]

You're trying to apply logical spaceship design to Freespace





DOES NOT COMPUTE

[High Max]

;-)

[Woolie Wool]

You're trying to apply logical spaceship design to Freespace





DOES NOT COMPUTE

I think the same can be said for most soft sci-fi ship designs. The nipple-on-a-boob bridge of the Enterprise, the huge blind spots on Minbari ships, the gaping holes in Star Wars' rebel transports, and every single feature of the Space Battleship Yamato and SDF-1 Macross ("even our capship turns into a giant robot!"). Rule of Cool wins the day. This model rocks.

[-Norbert-]

Who sais they are still using glass in that time. Maybe they found some transperent material that's just as tough as the rest of the hullarmor, but is only used sparingly because it's hard to get.
In that case a big cockpit would be an advantage, because the pilot would have a better viewing angle.
Granted, that might not such a bit matter for a bomber, but for a fighter like the Ulysses (good example since the Ulysses' cockpit makes up about one third of the whole fighter) that is important.

[peterv]

You're trying to apply logical spaceship design to Freespace





DOES NOT COMPUTE

Plus: A logical spacefighter a few centuries ahead will most probably have no pilot at all.

[Aardwolf]

Heck, we've already got the Predator UAV...

[Thaeris]

On the contrary, a good many FS ships have some semblance of reason to them. You could argue that the Apollo is balanced along its CG: the main engines are just higher than the CG while the smaller, less powerful secondaries are located further down, cancelling the moment. The original Herc is fairly reasonable... and you could make an argument for the Herc 2 if you "put your back into it." The Erinyes is actually quite logical in its general configuration as well.

...About the cockpit sticking out... A cockpit is a weak point on any space ship or aircraft. Just as the case is that your head needs to stick out to do its job, so does the cockpit. In my opinion, Vasudan pilots are actually better protected than their Terran contemporaries in most circumstances (as far as the cockpit goes). Of course, they're not going to see outside of forward too well...

-Thaeris

[General Battuta]

No, no, no. A thousand times no. No 'space fighter' (if such absurdities ever existed; I can reference some great pages on space warfare that show why they really won't) would be built with a single set of huge engines at the back and a 'pointy', aerodynamic shape. There's just no logic to it.

[-Norbert-]

The most logical spacefigther I have seen so far is the Aurora Starfury from Babylon 5.
For those who don't know it, it has gib engines to the front and back and small manouvering thrusters up, down, left and right.
The pilot sits in the center of the turning axis to minimize the effects of g-forces during turns.
And the entire cockpit is in fact an escape-pod that can be ejected from the rest of the fighter.

[headdie]

No, no, no. A thousand times no. No 'space fighter' (if such absurdities ever existed; I can reference some great pages on space warfare that show why they really won't) would be built with a single set of huge engines at the back and a 'pointy', aerodynamic shape. There's just no logic to it.

actually if you are building a craft that needs to be effective in both space and within an atmosphere or dense nebula aerodynamic shapes make a lot of sense and most of the popular sci-fi assume that space fighters will do both.  the most obvious contrast is in star wars between RA/NR/GA designs such as X-Wing, A-Wing, B-Wing etc and TIEs of most designs and that is that because of the solar panels on TIES they only pitch well in anything other than vacuum but in space their agility is brilliant.  I know this is an extreme example but I think serves as an example of space based design Vs atmospheric design

[Woolie Wool]

The most logical spacefigther I have seen so far is the Aurora Starfury from Babylon 5.
For those who don't know it, it has gib engines to the front and back and small manouvering thrusters up, down, left and right.
The pilot sits in the center of the turning axis to minimize the effects of g-forces during turns.
And the entire cockpit is in fact an escape-pod that can be ejected from the rest of the fighter.

The Starfury pilot stands instead of sits.

[General Battuta]

No, no, no. A thousand times no. No 'space fighter' (if such absurdities ever existed; I can reference some great pages on space warfare that show why they really won't) would be built with a single set of huge engines at the back and a 'pointy', aerodynamic shape. There's just no logic to it.

actually if you are building a craft that needs to be effective in both space and within an atmosphere or dense nebula aerodynamic shapes make a lot of sense and most of the popular sci-fi assume that space fighters will do both.  the most obvious contrast is in star wars between RA/NR/GA designs such as X-Wing, A-Wing, B-Wing etc and TIEs of most designs and that is that because of the solar panels on TIES they only pitch well in anything other than vacuum but in space their agility is brilliant.  I know this is an extreme example but I think serves as an example of space based design Vs atmospheric design

TIE fighters make no sense as a space design. Moreover all the 'aerodynamic' designs are so cripplingly stupid as spacecraft that they wouldn't ever fly. The Shuttle is already hobbled by its need to be aerodynamic; a fighter certainly wouldn't be able to afford that baggage.

[c914]

In real space design don't count much. Counts only where is placed centre of the mass, thrusters and if it is some kind of battleships "stealth" ability (sphere is good) and turrets mounted in good places. Soo... you can get anything you want even Tie Fighter which from sides is just like sting duck

[Thaeris]

TIE fighters make no sense as a space design. Moreover all the 'aerodynamic' designs are so cripplingly stupid as spacecraft that they wouldn't ever fly. The Shuttle is already hobbled by its need to be aerodynamic; a fighter certainly wouldn't be able to afford that baggage.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to say that's actually a very stupid/ignorant comment. Despite the obvious fancy of Star Wars designs, the TIE design is actually very logical.

(1.) The center of mass lines up pretty much perfectly with the center of thrust. Main propulsion problems solved! In fact, the whole bloody thing is symmetrical, so you don't have to worry much about where and how to put the thrusters... so long as they're symmetrically placed. It's bare bones simple and free from much of the silly sci-fi-ish garbage that gets put on most space ship designs.

(2.) The solar wings, though more practical on something which is not going to have to get shot at, provide rather stellar mounts for maneuvering thrusters. The distances from the center of mass would allow small-medium sized thruster batteries to give good pitch, roll, and admirable rates of yaw control.

In a way, the TIE is actually quite similar to the Star Fury design in terms of potential functionality. Though the Fury is definately more cool...

<Thaeris denies Battuta engineering points>

-Thaeris

[General Battuta]

TIE fighters make no sense as a space design. Moreover all the 'aerodynamic' designs are so cripplingly stupid as spacecraft that they wouldn't ever fly. The Shuttle is already hobbled by its need to be aerodynamic; a fighter certainly wouldn't be able to afford that baggage.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to say that's actually a very stupid/ignorant comment. Despite the obvious fancy of Star Wars designs, the TIE design is actually very logical.

(1.) The center of mass lines up pretty much perfectly with the center of thrust. Main propulsion problems solved! In fact, the whole bloody thing is symmetrical, so you don't have to worry much about where and how to put the thrusters... so long as they're symmetrically placed. It's bare bones simple and free from much of the silly sci-fi-ish garbage that gets put on most space ship designs.

(2.) The solar wings, though more practical on something which is not going to have to get shot at, provide rather stellar mounts for maneuvering thrusters. The distances from the center of mass would allow small-medium sized thruster batteries to give good pitch, roll, and admirable rates of yaw control.

In a way, the TIE is actually quite similar to the Star Fury design in terms of potential functionality. Though the Fury is definately more cool...

<Thaeris denies Battuta engineering points>

-Thaeris

No. Not at all. The TIE has no maneuvering thrusters. It has no engines for rapid deceleration without a 180 degree flip (the fact that all its engines are on the back are enough to disqualify it). The massive solar panels completely obstruct pilot visibility.

Even the Starfury is not really utilitarian enough to be realistic, though it's making good progress.

It's not a bad design but it's not remotely realistic. 'Realistic' would be an unpiloted, largely unarmored missile bus. I refer you here for a thorough discussion of space combat and ship design. Please read it over completely and take a number of physics courses before you decide to call me 'stupid and ignorant'.

In fact I'd appreciate an apology.

[Herra Tohtori]

Well, considering that all Star Wars ships seem to have other means than reaction control system for controlling their attitude, I'd say normal approach isn't entirely valid for TIE's and other imaginary ships like that.

Heck, for all we know they could have some inertial maneuvering system within them (though I doubt it). Gyroscopes can be used for that, though they are far from the most viable solution.


More likely they use something silly like aether rudders, but that's beyond the point (and laws of physics).

[General Battuta]

They use aetheric rudders. What I'm doing is shooting down questions of realism, not realism-plus-fantastic-technology.

[-Norbert-]

That doesn't make sense. A human being positioned on a horizontal surface with the thighs pointing out horizontally can be described as "seated" and a human being upright with feet flat against a floor can be described as "standing" even if they're strapped in that way. Standing and sitting are postures, and even if they're maintained artificially they're still postures.

Actually I was just joking, but if you really want to discuss it out I'll have a counterargument ready:

Since there is no gravity the pilot is actually floating.
Do you say someone who's floating upright in the water is standing? Or someone who's floating in the water in a sitting-like position is actually sitting?
I certainly don't since both sitting and standing mean "sitting ON something" or "standing ON something" for me.

Hanging, lying, standing, floating upright... all those share the same bodyposture, but are still different..... So no, the starfury pilot is not standing in my opinion (but as you pointed out correctly he certainly isn't sitting either - at least not the Aurora starfury pilots).

[Woolie Wool]

and if it is some kind of battleships "stealth" ability

Stealth does not exist in space. People will be able to see you from across a star system, no matter what you're flying. Just the fact that the interior of your ship must be almost 300 kelvins hotter than space just to keep you alive will make you extremely easy to spot even if you're running with engines off. And when you do cut engines on, you have a huge neon "I AM HERE" sign coming out your exhaust nozzles.

That doesn't make sense. A human being positioned on a horizontal surface with the thighs pointing out horizontally can be described as "seated" and a human being upright with feet flat against a floor can be described as "standing" even if they're strapped in that way. Standing and sitting are postures, and even if they're maintained artificially they're still postures.

Actually I was just joking, but if you really want to discuss it out I'll have a counterargument ready:

Since there is no gravity the pilot is actually floating.
Do you say someone who's floating upright in the water is standing? Or someone who's floating in the water in a sitting-like position is actually sitting?
I certainly don't since both sitting and standing mean "sitting ON something" or "standing ON something" for me.

Hanging, lying, standing, floating upright... all those share the same bodyposture, but are still different..... So no, the starfury pilot is not standing in my opinion (but as you pointed out correctly he certainly isn't sitting either - at least not the Aurora starfury pilots).

They are sitting/standing on something. In a conventional spacefighter, it would be a seat. In a Starfury, it would be the floor of the cockpit. Just because they're strapped in doesn't mean they're not touching the seat/floor.

[Herra Tohtori]

and if it is some kind of battleships "stealth" ability

Stealth does not exist

That is absolutely true.

However, low observability is a different matter altogether and there definitely are ways to reduce sensor footprint of a space ship, just like there are ways to reduce radar echoes on fighter planes so that the echo is indistinguishable of, say, birds. Thermal radiation can be reduced - for a limited time - with good insulation and heatsinks big enough to absorb the waste heat from appliances. Technically with heatsinks big enough it could be possible to even cool the exterior of the ship down to 2.8 Kelvins which would blend it quite nicely to the background temperature of space. Although red shifting that black body radiation spectrum to microwaves would be problematic; perhaps it would be easier to make the surface of the ship emit microwaves at the same spectrum as background radiation is observed. Anyway, there are ways.

Yes, you can not entirely remove your radiation footprint in space. But space is big. Unless you use active sensors or thrusters, it is extremely unlikely that you would be noticed, especially if you park your ship someplace where radar contacts could plausibly be asteroids. Long range reconnaissance missions would be quite plausible with passive sensors, heatsinks and traditional radar signature reducing techniques (surface materials, shape of the ship etc.), but I agree with you that stealth for combat ships at ranges that FS2 usually has is almost entirely impossible.