I think any design is fair so long as they stop putting very tall bridge structures on the "top" of the ship, unless it's some sort of "lander" ship for use with planetary invasions or something.
They could make it an observer tower for series where long-range detection is screwed, but I don't see why they need to keep putting the main bridge and the main bridge crew on what is essentially a shooting range target.
Then again I suppose this depends on the ship type and the intent of construction. If it's a cheap shit multi-purpose hauler a open bridge on top or front of the ship, not necessarily built too far out from the ship's overall profile, would save the cost of installing and maintaining some cameras. Easier to put heavier retractable armor for when things get hairy, too.
>>13819985 The space shuttle is a glider not a space plane. Planes have engines to fly in the atmosphere, the shuttle has no engine for that. It literally falls out of the sky like a brick. If you miss the runway you're toast 'cause you have no engines to rely on to do another approach.
Best spaceship design would be a long cylinder It has a small silhouette so it is hard to hit, but you can habe very powerful weapons built straight through its hull to destroy enemy ships It could also rotate like an oneill sphere to keep the crew healthy when not in combat
Multiple kilometer long stick ships that places the crew module on one side and the reactor on the other to minimize the need for heavy radiation shielding. Huge radiators making up most of the surface area
Either way, with how orbital shit works, you'll burn for a while to change your course, during which you might have some semblance of "gravity", and then a long time of cruising with the engines idle(and the crew is thus in effectively zero gravity) until you need to change course again. You pretty much need a spinning section(and a counter spinning section) if you want to keep your crew fit.
>>13819732 This is Free Trader Beowulf, calling anyone... Mayday, Mayday...We are under attack... Main drive is gone...Turret number one not responding... Mayday...Losing cabin pressure fast calling anyone... Please help...This is Free Trader Beowulf...
>>13820588 >ALWAYS HAVE THEIR ENGINES RUNNING And waste propellant when you don't actually need to do that shit?
If you need to do the weird maneuvers because you are swinging your ship around on purpose to avoid debris, etc, sure, but doing so when you don't need to fly in weird ways is just a waste of propellant.
>thick hull >constant 1G when the engines are running >completely self sufficient >can store entire astroids on the outside for later use >armed for every fight >even has a planet buster >can still work with 1/3 of the ship eaten by space cthulhu >nice place to live, lots of open space and plenty of hot sunbathing girls.
The list goes one, the point its, if i need to live on a geration ship, sidonia is a good choice to go with.
>>13821954 well it was more to preserve the crew's bodies. And I'm working off the Expanse where, they DO drift thrustless and use orbital mechanics correctly, but if needed they pop thrust to give the crew a g to work in, for emergencies, etc
>>13819977 >They could make it an observer tower for series where long-range detection is screwed, but I don't see why they need to keep putting the main bridge and the main bridge crew on what is essentially a shooting range target.
In order to direct and maneuver a large ship like that it helps to be able to see as much of the ship as possible. Imagine trying to drive or park a car from the PoV of the grill
>>13823369 Direct vision is not needed for a sure enough craft. Navigation by instruments alone is more than viable. Even a small cessna can take off and land in zero visibility on instruments alone. A concealed bridge would not be an issue in space with sufficient sensors. And if you need to see: cameras.
>>13822957 >>13823834 It's the same ship that's in the OP. The Hive have five Worm gods. Oryx killed one and used part of it to create the Dreadnaught. Oryx also turns his defeated enemies into a chitin substance that's used to build the Dreadnaught, and Hive weapons. So yeah like >>13823215 said, I'd say the ship has a living aspect to it and also billions of years old.
>>13825194 This. If there were actual wars in space, it would be reactive designs. If pursuit and closing/gaining distance are big factors, something like a jet (minus the need for aerodynamics) isn't a bad idea. If dog fighting and maneuvering are needed, less unidirectional designs would be better cover open spess. Given what we can do with ballistics and missiles in an atmosphere, and all humans in space needing ship or station, weapon systems would probably be the main factor.
space warfare would be bizarre either extreme range lasers blinding sensors and slowly ablating armor or high velocity impactors just knocking shit out in a basically unstoppable blow. and it's nigh impossible to hide.
>>13825270 Well, probably not unlike warfare today a lot of it would be designed around detecting the other guy first while being as hard to detect as possible. So space combat could be u-boats all over again.
>>13825352 Colonies in gundam are viable Oneil cylinders are theoretically plausible However you need two of them spinning together to counter out centrifugal force from spinning the colonies out of orbit.
>>13825774 On a long enough time frame sure, but in the huge distances combat is likely taking place at, you will still have to scan massive areas to try and locate a target. Even along known orbits and transits, visual acquisition is gonna be tough.
And if you're constantly scanning for the enemy with other means, you're going to be even easier to pick out of the background radiation. They'll see you first if you're constantly pinging radar or other waves.
It's like the other anon said, it'll be all about trying to see the other guy first without him seeing you. You won't be undetectable, but you want to make it as hard to find you as possible.
Also you could risk using your laser charge outside its kill range to dazzle their sensors, but if you fuck up you nay have to wait for them to recharge and that could mean death for your crew.
>>13823408 It's based on a true spaceship design called the Valkyrie that is reasonable, as far as interstellar design goes. Would only need several thousand metric tons of antimatters to be able to go to 0.92 c.
Well, I had assumed cameras would already be in play here.
If they're docking to other ships or to a dock, automatic positional triangulators would do much of the alignment work already. Others, >>13823817 has pointed them out.
Most modern warships have radar masts higher than whatever crow nests that they retain, if any at all, which was what I was really going for in that. Unlike in modern naval ships where the bridge mostly goes up so that the crew doesn't drown from a mere hole in the hull rather than any actual need for unmitigated vision power, putting the bridge in a spaceship in a more armored portion, ie the ship's midsection, would give more protection in that one shattered window isn't going to send them all hurtling out into space. Mostly, like what >>13828317 said.
And in peacetime those observer towers can also unofficially double as quiet getaways for paired crewmembers who think that bonking in full view of the heavens is a surefire way to cement the love, according to silly Fleet mess talk.
So far it's extraordinary that we got Interstellar, Gravity, The Martian & The Expanse in such a short period, but even then, there's still the question of whether or not you know better yerself than what is held as realistic.
Some people would vouch that Orion, Nuclear Pulse propulsion is the future and would be the penultimate achievement of mankind... but I know better than a thruster which propel hyperkinetic debris at it surrounding everytime it thrust.
Before you can engage the enemy, you must first detect the enemy. Paradoxically, this is both extremely easy, and rather difficult.
To begin with, detection itself is easy. There is, to sum up many an armchair strategist’s lament, no stealth in space. Running the life support alone makes a starship stand out 300K hotter – for warm-blooded oxygen-breathers – than the background of space. Using power plant, thrusters, weapons systems, or anything else aboard only makes it more visible. Starships stand out plainly against the near-absolute cold of space, even across entire star systems, and this is inescapable.
From Non-Standard Starship Scuffles by Alistair Young (2014) On the Atomic Rockets page on stealth.
>>13831764 That could also be viable, you also need to remember that layered hulls spin at different rates, a hull of equal mass half as far away from the axis mundi of the station would need to spin twice as fast as the first, this means more rotational vibrations unless the outer hull has a greater mass. On top of making sunlight focusing difficult. So it is possible but very complicated as opposed to simply chaining two colonies together. Another alternative is segmented rotations where in you shiska bob counter rotating segments together.
>>13831771 You don't understand really, space it'self is neither hot nor cold, that is dependant on sunlight hitting or not hitting you and transferring energy onto you via photons. The background is an ambient -270.45 Celsius
>>13831867 Here is a good example of a combined colony design. Antillia's lower habitation ring and top most resourcing centre/ drop off point rotate clockwise, meanwhile the the main shaft and heavy duty factory mid section rotate counter to balance it out, Im not sure about the mirrors however they may be fixed or may be rotate im not sure, i also do not think they are done construction, i remember one of the vs maps having you fight by their edge with girders and parts under completion.
>>13819738 >It's more realistic than 99% of anime designs and 80% of Hollwood designs, so yes.
Fuck no, just because it's a brick doesn't mean it's realistic. A "realistic" deep space/starship design looks something like the ISV Venture Star from Cameron's Avatar (or to a lesser extent, the Icarus-class from Sunshine) - all exposed struts to save on mass, a good distance between the engines and crew/passenger habitat, a big honking shield in the direction of travel and giant-ass radiators to keep everyone from boiling.
And I think that, once you exclude the more knowingly whimsical or hyper-advanced/magitek designs, anime tends to be better about functional design than Hollywood. They tend to remember things like "fuel tanks" and "radiators" with some regularity.
>>13835926 Pardon my ignorance (I'm not as well-versed in physics) but when you say the decks are parallel to the thrust axis, do you mean in relation to where the engines are pointing? So when the ship accelerates the stuff on the decks will get smooshed towards the engines?
>>13835709 all these realistic and unrealistic depictions of spacecraft in anime and hollywood that you are on about, I can think of as many examples of both fucking it up as I can think of both getting it wrong. Making a sweeping generalization in response to a sweeping generalization is just going to piss more people off not help the situation idiot.
>>13835969 Yes. When the ship thrusts, you will have a relative acceleration in the opposite direction.
This acceleration forms your new perception of "down". If the deck plans are parallel to your perception of " down", you will fall toward the back of the ship and get hurt. If they are perpendicular, you will just feel a few seconds of 'gravity' as you are pressed into the floor.
>>13821970 Man, the Odette II is a sleek as fuck spaceship. The bridge is interesting, the solar sail is nice too.
Not to mention what the ship did in Mouretsu Pirates on top of its history. >Used to be an armed merchant ship used to attack enemy warships >Now disarmed and given to a high school as the ship for their spaceship flying club >It still has the top tier electronic warfare systems and was used by said high school girls to fight off a ship that was trying to hack into their ship
>>13825181 Also the big hanging structures in this image are prisons used to house beings Oryx doesn't just kill outright. He usually spends centuries torturing before rendering them down into chitin to integrate into the ship.
>>13822957 The ship is dead actually. Like, it's made of dead organic matter. Every one of the Hive are basically billion year old insectoid space liches, from the lowest ranking Thrall (picky screaming cannibals that rush unarmed into the enemy hoping the claw and bit them to death) to Oryx himself (Ancient immortal God King who just decided to grow wings for the fuck of it at some point, and can rip living creatures out of the universe into an acausal hellscape to be warped into new slaves for his army)
The species that they used to be had a life expectancy of about 10 years. Now they can't be killed so long as they hide the metaphorical concept of their death in objects, creatures, or places.
Destiny has a lot wrong with it, but the lore around the antagonists is pretty fucking metal. Vex were the most threatening thing ever, before we started to hear more about the Hive. I have to wonder what kind of mindblowing shit we're going to learn once we get a decent Cabal expansion.
>>13838455 As a Aerospace quasi-engineer and self-proclaimed writer, I can list and explain the acceptable break from reality and Artistic License used in those two movie and why calling them "bullshit" is being hypocrite or a troll.
"Gravity" reduced the distance of everything for dramatic reason and avoid the need to create a new context with closer space structure, that famous scene were people bitch he "didn't have to let go" can easily be explained considering inertia, grip and some elasticity. The rest have the merit of being close enough for most people, even the stupid extinguisher or the dramatically timed fall of the Chinese station.
"The Martian", beside making the assumption that we need Manned-Exploration to shovel dirt into cans and that we can cultivate food, only bullshited on the size of the base (so camera-crew can fit) and of the absurdly luxurious spaceship (to accentuate the isolation of the protagonist). The powerful/dense wind at the beginning was unrealistic too but that have the merit of being understandable in 10 minutes.
Pictured, what should have looked like the Spaceship of the Martian
>>13819732 In space there's no such t hing as drag or resistance, flat things go just as fast as round or pointy things. Squares optimize usable space, so yes, anything cube-shaped is very good design.
>>13845002 Because of you I'm thinking about what a Homeworld movie would be like.
Desert of Kharak would be MAD-MAXish with more gun and less flaming guitars Homeworld 1 would be a straightforward Battlestar versus the oppressive Taidan and Homeworld 2 would be a mystical Stargate run.
Though : I don't know any (live) movie portraying large space fleet battle as the core focus. You could said Enders but that's stretching. ...the expanse look to be on it on a lesser scale.
>>13845117 I agree a little but spherical/tubular design give greater structural strength per mass of metal. Also, volume is pretty much free in space, mass is a problem but nothing keep you from making a ship with no "fuselage/armor". Triangular frame is also great, something OP ship cover a little.
>>13819732 The advantage to a design like this is only realized if: 1. This ship lives in space its whole life and doesnt need to land (or is made of unobtanium that doesnt give a fuck about re-entery) 2. It's used by humans that look like us. 3. It's repaired by humans and not robots. 4. You need to make emergency repairs while stranded somewhere. Why the fuck has time to do body work to make a curved piece of metal etc while on 10% power in deep space? Naw nigga you want pre-made PLATES and to just weld them in place.
That's it really. Ease of repair while stranded in deep space. Oh and I guess efficiency by not using a saucer to transport bulky goods.
>>13846867 > The illusion of centripetal force does not eliminate the force caused by the relative acceleration of the ship. > That only works when it ISNT accelerating. When it is, the spinning section would need to fold in and stop moving.
I'm not sure you understand. Those habitat hub can be parallel to the ship axis to obtain centripetal gravity but they can also rotate so the horizontal force added by the ship's thrust still result in a force mostly perpendicular to the deck.
Will there be forces that doesn't act like true gravity ? YES, just like centripetal gravity still have (noticeable) Coriolis force, but this design make it possible to keep everybody walking on flat surface even while a ship accelerate for days/week.
There would only be a problem if the human body can notice and get nauseous in such configuration.
>>13847033 Oh, that's awesome, way better than before.
I've actually seen those Rho images before, it's just your first description didn't mention that the habitat could rotate and change between parallel and perpendicular to thrust axis. It's an important point.
Whether or not you like it, nuclear fusion is the only way to have casual interplanetary travel. And be happy nuclear-pulse propulsion is too impracticable to actually use, because those are propelled by riding the shockwave of nuke. (see >>13831519 pic)
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.