Tweet
Just thinkin'...not to pick on any particular movie, but take Star Wars as example...the fighters fly in space but have openings like jets for air to get to the engines-this wouldn't work in space. And if a star destroyer was orbitting a planet and was shot up and got caught in planets gravity, if it crashed into that planet it would most likely destroy most of the life on that planet like the asteroid that killed the dinos here. I like the way most of the ships look in movies and if they were to look anything like they might if they were real-they would probubly look more like refrigerators than sleek fighter planes. Also, my guess if humans ever advance to level in these movies they would most likely have to have space government treaties to not fight in an inhabitted planets general vicinity to avoid a catastrophe like I mentioned above. But in any case, artistic licensing has to take over to make thing look cool i guess.
-
-
*adjusts glasses in nerdly fashion, as he did in that other thread about Star Wars*
... the fighters fly in space but have openings like jets for air to get to the engines-this wouldn't work in space.
X-Wings are also used in surface assaults (at least in the Expanded Universe books and comics), so those air-intake engines might actually be practical. And of course, all ships in The Galaxy Far, Far Away have to start their engines and ascend from a starting point on the ground.
And if a star destroyer was orbitting a planet and was shot up and got caught in planets gravity, if it crashed into that planet it would most likely destroy most of the life on that planet like the asteroid that killed the dinos here.
In Empire Strikes Back, a Star Destroyer is incapacitated as the Rebels escape the planet Hoth, but it's unclear whether that Destroyer was in orbit around the planet, and thus would descned to Hoth's surface, or whether it would hang suspended in the vacuum of space. If it did crash land into Hoth, would such an impact have any effect on the Wampas and Taun Tauns that inhabit the frozen world? I'm not so sure. And in Return of the Jedi we do see the Executor crash into the Death Star II following its immolation.
*removes nerdly glasses, which he does not really wear anyway* -
Well most film and tv space-craft are designed for asthetic and not really functionality. The X-Wings are made to travel in space and in an atmosphere but truth is the wings of the x-wing are just flat slabs. To fly in an atmosphere they should have a specific shape to create lift so it can fly. They would never really work. For instance you never see flying model x-wings at air shows, or colonial vipers, old and new, or the batplane because they all would have to be redesigned to have wings that allow them to fly-and that might change their look drastically.
If a Star Destroyer were to crash onto a planet the damage it does depends on the speed of impact, the density of the ship and what its power source is. What type of energy does it use? What fuel? Is it radioactive or worse? How much mass is the ship? Is it made of alloy metals like our space probes? Or is it made of other materials-denser materials than currently known alloys? Also is it made iof exotic materials to allow it to travel though hyperspace? These are things that don't get answered unles they are important to the story.Comment
-
Intake
The forward face of each engine cowling is dominated by a massive opening with a T-shaped brace (designated as cooling fins by the Star Wars Source Book) connected to a cone-shaped structure.
The ICS labels these openings as retro thrusters, although some question exists over this function. Certainly, if these openings were cooling intakes as in modern aircraft design nothing would prevent the X-wing from reversing thrust through them, real jet aircraft can do just that. However, not every fighter has such prominent openings. The X-wing, Z-95, E-wing, B-wing, and K-wing do, but not the Y-wing, A-wing or TIE-series fighters. Certainly, if these were "reverse thrusters" such a system would be obvious on all fighter designs. While the same could be said of cooling intakes, it's worth noting that the TIEs already have their prominent radiator panels, and the Y-wing has an extensive series of tubes and cables running between the fuselage and engines which are part of the cooling system. The A-wing's engines have such a large opening in the exhaust nacelle that they must expel a significant amount of heat this way.
A dual-purpose opening is therefore the most likely description. The presence of "cooling fins" in the opening would satisfy enough of the cooling intake role that the rest of the structure is devoted to providing reverse thrust for maneuvering and slowing the fighter.
The ICS calls the cones inside an "electromagnetic gyro" used for aiding the ship in maneuvering through tight turns. It is possible that these gyros are what allow the X-wing to roll, even though they are off-center. If opposing gyros spin in the same direction (I.E., the top-left and bottom-right gyros rotate the same direction) the effect may be similar to how the X-wing's differential thrust still allows the craft to hold a steady, level course by running all four engines at equal power.
from X-wingENGLISH AND DAMN PROUD OF IT
British by birth....English by the grace of God. 
Yes Jamie...it is big isn't it....Comment
-
>the fighters fly in space but have openings like jets for air to get to the engines-this wouldn't work in space.
'Course, just 'cos they LOOK like scoops doesn't mean they are....
>The ICS labels these openings as retro thrusters,
Like that!
>If a Star Destroyer were to crash onto a planet the damage it does depends on the speed of impact, the density of the ship and what its power source is.
True; but I think even if it was made of aluminum and powered by rubber bands, having something like that crash into your planet would ruin EVERYONE'S day.... We DO see what would happen in the third film. Part of the problem with catastrophic damage like this in a movie is that you don't have much time to actually show how much damage is done. You get the odd tidal wave scene in most disaster movies; but even THAT doesn't really show the vastness of the effects. (The comic Albedo showed the effects of an incident like this.... over the course of three issues....)
>you never see flying model x-wings at air shows
I had one. Granted, it was a foot long; and not a full sized one like you're referring to. But it did fly. Not WELL.... At that size and weight a model rocket engine would provide enough thrust... and ANYTHING can fly if you put enough thrust behind it. It wasn't very aerodynamic; but in a setting like Star Wars where you've got contra-gravity and force fields this isn't a huge problem.
>But in any case, artistic licensing has to take over to make thing look cool i guess.
Not always. If your tech level is high enough you can explain anything.... but once you do, you'd better keep that explanation. The Enterprise (any version) wouldn't work either; but they explain it with "integrity fields" that keep it all together, and "warp fields" which neccessate putting the engines away from the body on little sticks. And it's cool, 'cos that seems well within the tech level and they've kept that explanation for a while.
Don C.Comment
-
It's up to the writer and film-maker to decide what to show us. The Star Destroyers are porttrayed as very large but scale of the vehicles has also been an issue in Star Wars. Despite what powers these ships they would have to be truly massive and the metal they are made of extremely dense to be as dangerous as say a planet killer asteroid.
Well, when I say fly, I don't mean model rocketry. A rocket can be launched with thrust, but doesn't really "fly" like a plane. The wings of the Star Wars ships, those that do have wings, wouldn't enable them to fly like areoplanes we have. Their wings would have to be modified.
We don't know that the Enterprise wouldn't work. We know that in space there is no atmosphere so space-craft don't have to be necessarily areodynamic. You could travel in a brick, ( Or a cube like the Borg). Would it be safe & efficient tho? Travelling at multiple times the speed of light a spec of dust could destroy the entire ship, ( so I have heard). So would it be make sense to have a vessel that is broad and bulky? Sleek still seems to be a good ship design. What materials would be used to make vessels that could endure the stresses of light speed and beyond? The structural integrity field was proposed since Next Gen but it need not be the rule.
Ships in Star Wars and Star Trek travel thru space and time differently. They use different means. Star Was ships jump thro Hyper space, and come out near their destination. In Star Trek they create a field around the ship which allows them to warp space/time so the ship can travel faster and without time dialation effects, ( relativistic effects-where time for the [passangers of the ship moves more slowly than time for the rest of the universe not travelling in ships). All these modes of propulsion are purely theoretical so far. Perhaps the real way to traverse the galaxy has not even been imagined yet.Last edited by johnmiic; May 23, '08, 1:36 PM.Comment
-
>The wings of the Star Wars ships, those that do have wings, wouldn't enable them to fly like areoplanes we have. Their wings would have to be modified.
Maybe. Like I said; they have contra-gravity in that setting, so aircraft don't have to work like ours. You could artificially alter the center of gravity; even if the unit doesn't have enough power to allow the whole vehicle to hover. Force fields can be used for lift too, altering the shape to aerofoil in an atmosphere.
>So would it be make sense to have a vessel that is broad and bulky? Sleek still seems to be a good ship design.
Or a ball. Spherical would be your best bet for a lot of reasons. But for sci-fi you don't need to conform to the CURRENT laws of physics and technology. I've always thought that internal consistency is a LOT more important than "accuracy," since what's true now might not be true later. Or in another setting where technology is different. Or maybe even the laws of physics work differently.
>What materials would be used to make vessels that could endure the stresses of light speed and beyond?
Unobtanium?
>The structural integrity field was proposed since Next Gen but it need not be the rule.
And it's a fantastic explanation! It also explains why ships just explode when damaged.
Don C.Comment
Comment