Have been meaning to get back into this group, here's my big project besides an actual book, the blog version of a rant on the most/ closest to realistic Star Wars ships, including the saga of the original design of the Millennium Falcon.
https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2023/07/unidentified-found-objects-revisited.html

And, here's the video that I started with, showcasing my Action Fleet collection and other semi-random artifacts.
https://youtu.be/3zBRKJWRaWA

If there's a question to discuss, I suppose it would be, what even counts as "realism"? Does it only apply to old-school hard sci fi like 2001? Can it extend to designs that assume tech that is unknown or "impossible" like FTL, artificial gravity, etc?
Does it still apply at all to something like Star Wars where the only rules are what was previously shown? Maybe this will be interesting, maybe not; it's what I have for now.

David N. Brown
Mesa, Arizona

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

David Brown wrote:

If there's a question to discuss, I suppose it would be, what even counts as "realism"? Does it only apply to old-school hard sci fi like 2001? Can it extend to designs that assume tech that is unknown or "impossible" like FTL, artificial gravity, etc?

Does it still apply at all to something like Star Wars where the only rules are what was previously shown? Maybe this will be interesting, maybe not; it's what I have for now.

The thing almost everyone falls down on is the rocket equation, or, you might say, conservation of momentum. To get your ship of some mass moving at a velocity, you have to have something(s) else moving at a velocity, or sum of velocities that matches
in the other direction. To a first approximation, the ship should be dominated by its propulsion system.

So... make up some "space drive"? Most do, by default. Fan theories, in various states of official publication come out, but I don't think any were paid attention to by the producers, and I wouldn't be surprised if the portrayals aren't consistent, or
maybe there are several types of space drive in that universe!

--
-Jack

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 5:49:37 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:

Have been meaning to get back into this group, here's my big project besides an actual book, the blog version of a rant on the most/ closest to realistic Star Wars ships, including the saga of the original design of the Millennium Falcon.
https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2023/07/unidentified-found-objects-revisited.html

And, here's the video that I started with, showcasing my Action Fleet collection and other semi-random artifacts.
https://youtu.be/3zBRKJWRaWA

If there's a question to discuss, I suppose it would be, what even counts as "realism"? Does it only apply to old-school hard sci fi like 2001? Can it extend to designs that assume tech that is unknown or "impossible" like FTL, artificial gravity, etc?

Does it still apply at all to something like Star Wars where the only rules are what was previously shown? Maybe this will be interesting, maybe not; it's what I have for now.

David N. Brown
Mesa, Arizona

There's an odd bit of realism in _Revenge of the Sith_ , the third of the prequels.

Recall the opening sequence where the enemy ships are hovering above Coruscant. Not orbiting, that's important, but hovering, using the vast delta-V they possess to hold station above the planet, and not very far above from the appearing of the scenes,
probably just above the atmosphere.

Well, at one point a ship tilts 90 degrees so that the stern faces toward Corusant...and Anakin, Obi-Wan, and their droid immediately fall toward the stern.

_Which is totally realistic._

That is, if you assume that the ships had turned off the artificial gravity system that led them be laid out the way they are, which is believable because otherwise they'd be feeling both the pull of the ship's gravity system _and_ the gravitational pull
of Coruscant below them. So the easy thing to do, since they are hovering, is turn off the ship's gravity and let nature do the work.

A ship in low orbit is in free fall _because_ it is in orbit, velocity balances the pull of gravity. Absent that velocity, a ship hovering over one point would feel the pull of gravity normally. At the altitude the ships appear to be hovering at, the
gravity of an Earth-like world like Coruscant would still be 80 or 90% of surface value, so if they left the onboard gravity system on, the crew would feel a pull of 1.8 or 1.9 g. So the easy thing to do is turn it off while they hover.

But doing that means that if the ship turns vertical, the stern becomes the ground and things will fall that way .

I don't know if that was intentional or accidental, but in that situation the scene was quite realistic.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jul 16, 2023, David Brown wrote
(in article<9017b043-78f2-47fc-9b3d-e38977cee2edn@googlegroups.com>):

Have been meaning to get back into this group, here's my big project besides an actual book, the blog version of a rant on the most/ closest to realistic Star Wars ships, including the saga of the original design of the Millennium Falcon. https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2023/07/unidentified-found-objects-revisite
d.html

And, here's the video that I started with, showcasing my Action Fleet collection and other semi-random artifacts.
https://youtu.be/3zBRKJWRaWA

If there's a question to discuss, I suppose it would be, what even counts as "realism"? Does it only apply to old-school hard sci fi like 2001? Can it extend to designs that assume tech that is unknown or "impossible" like FTL, artificial gravity, etc? Does it still apply at all to something like Star Wars where the only rules are what was previously shown? Maybe this will be interesting, maybe not; it's what I have for now.

David N. Brown
Mesa, Arizona

There are no, none, zero, Star Wars (or Trek, or BSG) ships that are remotely in contact with anything approaching reality. They all have two major
problems, plus several minor ones, but the two big boys dominate.

1. They have the airplane/surface ship problem. A realistic spacecraft would
be rigged to that down is aft when the sip is under acceleration. These ships all have down being perpendicular to the accretion, mostly due to
‘artificial gravity’ magic tech. Worse, as most of the time the ships
would NOT be under acceleration, they would need to spin to have simulated gravity... and not one of them has anything which would work for that. Note that the Earth Force ships in Babylon 5 do NOT have this problem. (Minbari
and Centuri ships have _lots_ of magic tech, which, as Minbari are Space
Elves, replacing Vulcans, and Centuri are Space Goblins, replacing Ferengi, only makes sense. Sorta. Let’s not mention Shadows and Vorlons.)

2. Where is the space for the honking great motors, and vast stores of
reation mass, required to make spaceflights to any significant distance? Even fusion rockets, even _photon_ rockets, are going to need a _lot_ of reation mass. (Someone at Trek noticed that; in several Trek episodes, notably including The Doomesday Machine from TOS, there was talk about how much ‘fuel’ there was for the ‘impulse’ motors.) Again, B5 was better, though still far from perfect; where _did_ StarFuries keep their reaction
mass, anyway? Space:1999 had (an infinte number of) Eagles, with nice motors, and not nearly enough reaction mass. UFO had... interesting... designs, my
favs being the Earth-Moon shuttles and the Interceptors. Again, nice engines, not much space for reaction mass.

Among the problems virtually all SF ships have is they have FTL capability, which is utterly impossible, yet utterly required for story purposes. Note
that Star Wars FTL makes even less sense than Trek or BSG FTL. Actually, if you’re going to have magic tech, BSG and B5 FTL are more acceptable than
Trek FTL and far more than Star Wars FTL. This counts as a minor problem, compared to the biggies.

It’s possible to design ships with an eye to realism; B5 did it, the
Expanse did it, even Space:1999 managed. The guys behind most SF ship designs just don’t bother.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 1:50:02 PM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:

On Jul 16, 2023, David Brown wrote
(in article<9017b043-78f2-47fc...@googlegroups.com>):

Have been meaning to get back into this group, here's my big project besides
an actual book, the blog version of a rant on the most/ closest to realistic
Star Wars ships, including the saga of the original design of the Millennium
Falcon. https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2023/07/unidentified-found-objects-revisite
d.html

And, here's the video that I started with, showcasing my Action Fleet collection and other semi-random artifacts.
https://youtu.be/3zBRKJWRaWA

If there's a question to discuss, I suppose it would be, what even counts as
"realism"? Does it only apply to old-school hard sci fi like 2001? Can it extend to designs that assume tech that is unknown or "impossible" like FTL,
artificial gravity, etc? Does it still apply at all to something like Star Wars where the only rules are what was previously shown? Maybe this will be
interesting, maybe not; it's what I have for now.

David N. Brown
Mesa, Arizona

There are no, none, zero, Star Wars (or Trek, or BSG) ships that are remotely
in contact with anything approaching reality. They all have two major problems, plus several minor ones, but the two big boys dominate.

Among the problems virtually all SF ships have is they have FTL capability, which is utterly impossible,

As far as we know currently. WIthout that qualifier, the above statement is utterly unscientific.

It’s possible to design ships with an eye to realism; B5 did it, the Expanse did it, even Space:1999 managed. The guys behind most SF ship designs
just don’t bother.

1999? With Eagles that had artificial gravity, .15c delta-V, etc?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)