Go Back   Colonial Fleets > BATTLESTAR GALACTICA DISCUSSION AREA > The Last Battlestar......Galactica!
Notices
The Last Battlestar......Galactica! For discussions about the ORIGINAL series
What Dreams May Come!

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 21st, 2005, 06:48 AM   #91
3DMaster
Shuttle Pilot
 
3DMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 89

Exclamation

Hey, Damocles, you read/are reading A Thin Veneer http://www.fanfiction.net/s/1944628/1/ yet? Star Trek/B5 crossover: Kirk & Co, versus the Minbari.
__________________
"I've got something to say; it's better to burn out, than to fade away."

"Gimme some sugar, baby."

3D Master's Story Homepage
3DMaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2005, 09:18 AM   #92
Damocles
Bad Email Address
 
Damocles's Avatar
 
The Last Person


Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,713

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DMaster
Except that the screen isn't a computer read out of a sensor show; it's the readout of a database, and Minbari ships head their stealth OFF on many an occasion.
Database? Then as I said-continuity error. In the original B-5 series bible JMS wrote, the station was supposed to be a kilometer long. OOPS. The CGI was in and the episode filmed before the 5x size amplification was made to scale humans properly to the CGI station goof. Everything else miscaled stems from that one mistake. Fortunately the White Star goofs and the Minbari warcruiser miscales are counted on the fingers of one hand. The data screen cap I will now explain away as bum data generated as a positive target database match from old bum Prometheus IFF generated data from the first contact; sort of like the computer reading the radar returrn from thr B-2, searching its data base and giving you a Cessna turboprop performance readout to go with your signal authentication.

Quote:
A white star is not a minbari war cruiser, the white star is quite a bit faster and more maneuverable. 2381 kilometers per second isn't even a hundrethst of a percent of c, let alone in the tenth range.
That was to show you the relative speeds of two B-5 ships. If you think 2381 kilometers per second is SLOW, let me remind you that Earth's escape velocity is around 115 kps and that the Agamemnon showed an onscreen hustle that was twenty times greater.

Quote:
Against a pathetic vessel it becomes pathetic firepower.
That filmed series of asteroid shots and impacts on the ISD in ESB? Those shots of the Mons actually hulling a couple of ISDs in RotJ? Extrapolate.

Quote:
And to me, I don't care. The picture is just the SFX guy's artist's impression; not what actually happened.
Fundamental disagreement that we will not bridge.

Quote:
Again, I don't care about a single asteroid shot in 6 films. If the firepower range is destroys entire asteroids, and wipes out continents, the battle of Curoscent in RotS would have leveled the planetary city with the ground. Every miss - and there are a lot - would have been giant fire balls vaporizing pieces of the planet with 1000 kilomter radius. They just don't have that kind of power, they don't.
I know a LOT about particle beams and problems called divergence and blooming. Atmospheres are tough media for a particle beam to pierce without massive scattering and blooming effects. Lucas got it wrong(again). You should have seen massive gas boiling, formation of coriolis effects,(instant hurricanes) and ripple splash in the atmosphere where beams hit Coruscant. 1000 kilometer wide explosions aren't in the cards when you discuss energies even high enough to vaporize 300 meter rocks. At most you might get a 5-10 km crater at beam strike explosion if the beam hit the planet's surface.

Best wishes;
Damocles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2005, 09:44 AM   #93
Damocles
Bad Email Address
 
Damocles's Avatar
 
The Last Person


Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,713

Default

Quick skim. 3D, of the story.

I DON'T LIKE crossovers.

First of all; it violates the original artists' intents when they created their standalone universes.

Second; it serves as a haven for the wishfulfillment of certain "my universe is better than your universe" proponents who use what should be a standalone story to justify their own vision of "force ratios". That is not writing. That is fanboyism amok.

Third; it is extremely difficult to get an unbiased story treatment when you try to integrate two entirely different science schemes into one story.

Aside from the different "space Mcguffins" involved you have tyros trying to apply mismatched physics and gonzo science concepts to each other. It doesn't work.

Read this;

http://p211.ezboard.com/fbabylon5tec...picID=96.topic

Its what I would look for in a story. Mind you, it isn't very good, but the author takes a subject and limits himself to it when he writes the fanfic.

I liked it.

Best wishes.
Damocles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2005, 07:12 PM   #94
warhammerdriver
Bad Email Address
 
warhammerdriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Champlain Valley, New York
Posts: 607

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damocles



Track footprint= 1.75 sq. meters per track or 3,5 sq. meters for both tracks.
72,000kg/3.5 sq. meter
Ground pressure= 19,200 kg per sq. meter or 1.92 kg per sq. centimeter!

1. Take your battle mech(2) and calculate ground pressure if you carried a similar mass package.




Now for the ground pressure.(Estimated)

Each foot is calculated to be 10 meters by 10 meters to the corners of the splay toes.

That is 100 sq. meters *50% actual coverage of the square by the observed splayed foot. =50 sq. meters per foot or 100 sq. meters for both feet.
3,375,000 kg/ 100 sq meter= 33,750 kg per sq. meter.
That is 3.375 kg per sq. centimeter.
Now before you say that isn't so much;

Average man= 70kg
Average footprint of man =300 sq centimeter
Two feet on ground = 600 sq. centimeters
Human ground pressure= 0.23 kg per sq. centimeter

Now the actual book-stated ground pressure of the Abrams is 2.03 kg per sq centimeter; so you can se how close my estimates are. It presses into the ground eight and half times times harder than a man, Now understand that this means the Abrams cannot go over ground that won't hold a man. It bogs down big time.

Your mech presses into the ground fouteen and a half times harder than a man or one and a half times harder than the tank.
Published specs* for the mechs illustrated put them at 70 tons (Warhammer) and 75 tons (MadCat). Not sure if that's in metric tons or not. If in metric tons the ground pressure for the MadCat would be (using your foot area estimate):

75,000 kg/100 sq meter = 750 kg/sq meter.

For the Warhammer, it would be approx. 50 kg/sq meter less.

That makes the ground pressure approx. half as much as an M-1 Abrams. In RL, that's probably an impossiblity. Ahh, the joys of ficton.

* Battletech Technical Readout: 3050, FASA Corp., 1990.



BTW, where DID you get that beautiful image, Damocles?
warhammerdriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2005, 07:33 PM   #95
Damocles
Bad Email Address
 
Damocles's Avatar
 
The Last Person


Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,713

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by warhammerdriver
Published specs* for the mechs illustrated put them at 70 tons (Warhammer) and 75 tons (MadCat). Not sure if that's in metric tons or not. If in metric tons the ground pressure for the MadCat would be (using your foot area estimate):

75,000 kg/100 sq meter = 750 kg/sq meter.

For the Warhammer, it would be approx. 50 kg/sq meter less.

That makes the ground pressure approx. half as much as an M-1 Abrams. In RL, that's probably an impossiblity. Ahh, the joys of ficton.

* Battletech Technical Readout: 3050, FASA Corp., 1990.



BTW, where DID you get that beautiful image, Damocles?
All I can say is that those mechs will be wrecked by HMG fire since they will be built to less than HELICOPTER armor standards!

Ground pressure per cubic centimeter at 75,000kg assuming a 100 sq meter footprint for the Madcat. That is 750 kg per sq. meter and 0.075 kg per sq. centimeter. The M-1 presses into the ground 27 times harder than your very light battle mech.

Image sourcing was here, originally;

http://198.144.2.125/3DGraphics/3DGraphics.htm

Cheers!
Damocles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2005, 07:39 PM   #96
warhammerdriver
Bad Email Address
 
warhammerdriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Champlain Valley, New York
Posts: 607

Default

Like I said, the joys of fiction.
warhammerdriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16th, 2005, 12:26 PM   #97
WarMachine
Warrior
 
WarMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Flight Deck
Posts: 484

Default

Here's a couple of new ones:

Viper or Hammerhead(from Space: Above and Beyond)?

Andromeda or Galactica?

Dylan Hunt or Apollo?

Rommie or Cain?

Rev-Bem or Boomer?

Becka or Starbuck?

Tyr Anasazi vs Anyone-on-the-Gator?
__________________
The WarMachine
Fnord
WarMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2005, 01:57 PM   #98
Damocles
Bad Email Address
 
Damocles's Avatar
 
The Last Person


Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,713

Default

Quote:
Here's a couple of new ones:
More than a couple.

Quote:
Viper or Hammerhead(from Space: Above and Beyond)?
Viper.

Quote:
Andromeda or Galactica?
Andromeda in a close fight.

Quote:
Dylan Hunt or Apollo?
With regards to what? Flying? Fisticuffs? Planning? Romance? Morality?

Quote:
Rommie or Cain?
Rommie.

Quote:
Rev-Bem or Boomer?
Always go with Boomer. Never understimate that one.

Quote:
Becka or Starbuck?
Becka lacks common sense. Plus Starbuck; well he's Starbuck and Becka is a woman. No contest.

Quote:
Tyr Anasazi vs Anyone-on-the-Gator?
Like Worf; Tyr looks good in the stats, but end-user testing indicates Colonial Warriors would prefer something of better quality with which to mop the floor.

As always;
Damocles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2005, 02:56 PM   #99
WarMachine
Warrior
 
WarMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Flight Deck
Posts: 484

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damocles
More than a couple.
Well, yeah....

To answer my own:

Quote:
Viper or Hammerhead(from Space: Above and Beyond)?
Hammerhead: they have rear-facing turrets, and the Space-Jars know how to use them....

Quote:
Andromeda or Galactica?
Andromeda -- engages at high speed at all ranges, faster, more maneuverable -- and it repairs itself

Quote:
Dylan Hunt or Apollo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damocles
With regards to what? Flying? Fisticuffs? Planning? Romance? Morality?
Flying: Apollo; Fisticuffs: Hunt; Planning: Draw; Romance: Hunt(he certainly gets enough); Morality: Hmmmmm.....Have to go with Apollo on this one - Hunt is not above dirty tricks....

Quote:
Rommie or Cain?
Rommie, definately: Cain may be good, but he's got image-issues; Rommie just wants to kill stuff - and has the database to do it...all in the name of a good cause, of course Very disconcerting, btw, to watch cute, little Lexa Doig say with a straight face "...but I'm a WARSHIP! Fighting is what I DO!"

Quote:
Rev-Bem or Boomer?
Close in: Rev-Bem...nothing like getting a face full of Magog eggs

Quote:
Becka or Starbuck?
Starbuck....Yeah, he's an image hound, but he has far fewer "personal issues"

Quote:
Tyr Anasazi vs Anyone-on-the-Gator?
Close In, against anyone but Iblis or "John": Tyr -- little thing about bony spikes being driven into your eyes as he breaks your neck.....He's also pretty good at sabotage and assasination; at Long Range: everyone else -- no discipline.
__________________
The WarMachine
Fnord
WarMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2005, 12:39 AM   #100
Senmut
Strike Leader
 
Senmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wenatchee, Soviet of WA., Ex U.S.A.
Posts: 4,491

Default

BSG vs. ISD.
I'm going for the BSG on this one. The Battlestar is more maneuverable than the ISD. As we saw in TESB, the ISDs were about as maneuverable in close-quarter fighting as a pregnant elephant. Two colided, while the third barely got out of the way. Besides, while the Battlestar has two outrigger bays, which are vulnerable to some extent, the ISD has one, built dead center into the lower hull. One good explosion in there...
__________________
Populos stultus viris indignas honores saepe dat. -Horace
----------------------------
Fortuna est caeca. -Cicero
----------------------------
"You know the night before was a tough one when even the sound of the fizz hurts your head." -Mike Hammer.
Senmut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2006, 08:48 PM   #101
Damocles
Bad Email Address
 
Damocles's Avatar
 
The Last Person


Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,713

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senmut
BSG vs. ISD.
I'm going for the BSG on this one. The Battlestar is more maneuverable than the ISD. As we saw in TESB, the ISDs were about as maneuverable in close-quarter fighting as a pregnant elephant. Two colided, while the third barely got out of the way. Besides, while the Battlestar has two outrigger bays, which are vulnerable to some extent, the ISD has one, built dead center into the lower hull. One good explosion in there...

Stardestroyer.net.

After you read Mister Wong, we'll discuss the difference between vaporizing a three hundred meter in diameter rock and a fifty meter Cylon Raider?

As always;
Damocles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2006, 02:52 PM   #102
Bacho
Bad Email Address
 
Bacho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 18

Default Star Destroyer vs. Battlestar

First, let us consider a few basic design differences before we actually discuss the combat.

1) The battlestar is essentially a carrier, its prime weapon is its strike aircraft. I had the firm belief, just by implication that the Viper was not the only fighter/strike craft on the battlestars. Not the absence of long range heavy weapons on the battlestar, every weapon you see is close range triple A style weapons.

2) The Imperial Star Destroyer is essentially a capital ship much like the World War 2 battleship. Designed as a gun platform and to slug it out gun for gun.


Combat:

There would be no close quarter combat, because at range, the battlestar would 'fire' its main battery, its strike ships. The Imperial Star Destroyer is not a carrier and what few fighters it does carry would be quickly overwhelmed.

The two ships would never come within visual of each other.


Strangely enough, carrier style ships in the star wars universe did not show up until chapters 1-3. It would seem that the empire took a giant step backwards.
Bacho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2006, 03:55 PM   #103
martok2112
Colonial Story Teller
 
martok2112's Avatar
 
FORUM STAFFFleet Moderator
Colonial Fleets

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Orleans (Metairie), LA
Posts: 4,785


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacho
First, let us consider a few basic design differences before we actually discuss the combat.

1) The battlestar is essentially a carrier, its prime weapon is its strike aircraft. I had the firm belief, just by implication that the Viper was not the only fighter/strike craft on the battlestars. Not the absence of long range heavy weapons on the battlestar, every weapon you see is close range triple A style weapons.

2) The Imperial Star Destroyer is essentially a capital ship much like the World War 2 battleship. Designed as a gun platform and to slug it out gun for gun.


Combat:

There would be no close quarter combat, because at range, the battlestar would 'fire' its main battery, its strike ships. The Imperial Star Destroyer is not a carrier and what few fighters it does carry would be quickly overwhelmed.

The two ships would never come within visual of each other.


Strangely enough, carrier style ships in the star wars universe did not show up until chapters 1-3. It would seem that the empire took a giant step backwards.

Respectfully, I would have to say that I don't think 72 fighters constitutes few in terms of what a Star Destroyer can carry. And that is just its standard TIE Figher compliment. In addition to that, the ship carries bombers, interceptors, and assault shuttles...just to name a few other types that it carries for space combat.

Now, if a Star Destroyer were to go up against, say, a Cylon basestar, then it's fighter compliment would be outnumbered at about 4:1. (Cylon basestars carry about 300 fighters.)

As for a battlestar, I don't think it's ever been canonically disclosed as to just how many such a ship could carry.

Respectfully,
Martok2112
__________________
Don't be a fan. Don't be a victim!-Martok2112
martok2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2006, 05:14 PM   #104
Bacho
Bad Email Address
 
Bacho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 18

Default Probable Number of Strike craft on the Galactica

Good point on the fighter compliment.

However, I forgot to mention the most glaring design flaw in the Star Destroyer.

If you follow those sweeping lines of that graceful arrowhead design to the aft section of the Star Destroyer, you notice her upperworks. Some brilliant engineer put her C in C section right over her power section and stuck up there like a billboard with a bullseye!

Now, lets assume that the Galactica has at least 2 squadrens of strike ships. Each ship armed with two missle style torpedos. I suspect that the Colonies used total conversion warheads, so we are looking at each warhead having a few megatons.

So, if I were staging the strike, I would have the ships launch at range, with the attack/bombers given priority targeting to the command and control section. The destruction of the upperworks of the Star Destroyer would leave the ship crippled.

Now, the only draw back is that from what I have seen of Imperial tactics, Star Destroyers operate in pairs.


I should never have read this! I now have to find someway to simulate a combat exchange between the Galactica and a pair of Star Destroyers.

Last edited by Bacho; January 13th, 2006 at 05:17 PM.. Reason: Because now I have a major problem
Bacho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2006, 05:57 PM   #105
martok2112
Colonial Story Teller
 
martok2112's Avatar
 
FORUM STAFFFleet Moderator
Colonial Fleets

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Orleans (Metairie), LA
Posts: 4,785


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacho
Good point on the fighter compliment.

However, I forgot to mention the most glaring design flaw in the Star Destroyer.

If you follow those sweeping lines of that graceful arrowhead design to the aft section of the Star Destroyer, you notice her upperworks. Some brilliant engineer put her C in C section right over her power section and stuck up there like a billboard with a bullseye!

Now, lets assume that the Galactica has at least 2 squadrens of strike ships. Each ship armed with two missle style torpedos. I suspect that the Colonies used total conversion warheads, so we are looking at each warhead having a few megatons.

So, if I were staging the strike, I would have the ships launch at range, with the attack/bombers given priority targeting to the command and control section. The destruction of the upperworks of the Star Destroyer would leave the ship crippled.

Now, the only draw back is that from what I have seen of Imperial tactics, Star Destroyers operate in pairs.


I should never have read this! I now have to find someway to simulate a combat exchange between the Galactica and a pair of Star Destroyers.

__________________
Don't be a fan. Don't be a victim!-Martok2112
martok2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2006, 07:43 PM   #106
Damocles
Bad Email Address
 
Damocles's Avatar
 
The Last Person


Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,713

Default Comparing two radically different views....

You have to be careful when you do comparisons.

First of all forget about comparisons between wet navy ships.

The Alligator and the ISD are ROCKETS.

As such, both have DEFECTS. (asymmetry and nose on vulnerability for the ISD, exposed outriggers filled with explosives for the Alligator.)

I restrict my opening comments to film evidence. For this purpose I will not invoke the EU or the CBSG novels.

But in light of that what we do know about these rockets?

The Imperials don't use capital ship missiles. The Colonials do.

The Imperials have short-ranged anti-capital ship weapons measured in the hundreds of kilometers range that can heavily damage an Alligator with kinetic and charge damage.

One capital ship missile from the Alligator can damage (probably destroy an ISD) once the ^shields^ fail. But the key point is that the ^shields^ must fail.

But the fighters in each respective universe can mortally damage each capital ship of its reespective fictional universe.

The Executor kinetically survived, unscathed, a collision with one ISD. Now while that may not seem particularly impressive; it actually is from the baseline figures for an event of that magnitude.

Example collision object....ISD;

Mass 1e12 kg
Velocity 1e3 ms
Newtonian rest mass 1e12kg
Newtonian KE kg*ms 1 e15joule
Relative KE kg*ms 1 e15joule

That collision energy is roughly equivalent to 270 kilotons of TNT.

Further data.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Size.html

I do not agree with Mister Wong's analysis as to the shield interaction in the TESB. To conclude that an ISD was bombarded by rocks for two days is pure supposition.

What I do know is that the ISD on film shows the Minbari defect. If you hit that piece of junk with a piece of junk, in the correct place it will explode.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/cards/wide/rotj128.jpg



http://b5tech.com/science/misc/armor/index.html





You will note that all three ships are totally fouled up in EQUIVALENT events?

It should be said in passing that Imperial point defense is a joke.

Strange now isn't it?

All three ships killed by fighters.

Yet the stepdown physically runs like this;

Imperial spackling trowel. Toughest; despite the faulty bridge tower design.

Alligator next. It took at least five Raiders to take her down.

Sharlin last. Pulse her in the fins. Watch her explode.

http://www.babtech-onthe.net/quicktime/bstar.mov

Now I'll sit back and wait for the discussions.

As always;
Damocles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2006, 08:45 PM   #107
Bacho
Bad Email Address
 
Bacho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 18

Default Wet Navy Comparisons

Actually, I was using the purpose of the ship, i.e a vessel designed to support strike craft as compared to a vessel that is primarily designed as a gun platform.

The comparison ends when you put them into 3 deminsions.


The ISD seems to be an old wet navy ship of the line, IMO, as in the days of sail. Designed to get in close and pound it out with guns, without any consideration given to manuverability.

The battlestar is still primarily a carrier in function.

In my opinion, by using any type of long range strike ships that keep the baseship out of range of the enemy main guns is a better way of fighting.

Personally, I feel that the engineering and design of such ships for movies and tv series are done more to give the 'good guy' side a better chance of survival.

Now, in Battlestar Galactica, the series begins with an overwhelming sneak attack, which in and of itself brings up some questions.
Bacho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2006, 09:58 PM   #108
martok2112
Colonial Story Teller
 
martok2112's Avatar
 
FORUM STAFFFleet Moderator
Colonial Fleets

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Orleans (Metairie), LA
Posts: 4,785


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacho
Actually, I was using the purpose of the ship, i.e a vessel designed to support strike craft as compared to a vessel that is primarily designed as a gun platform.

The comparison ends when you put them into 3 deminsions.


The ISD seems to be an old wet navy ship of the line, IMO, as in the days of sail. Designed to get in close and pound it out with guns, without any consideration given to manuverability.

The battlestar is still primarily a carrier in function.

In my opinion, by using any type of long range strike ships that keep the baseship out of range of the enemy main guns is a better way of fighting.

Personally, I feel that the engineering and design of such ships for movies and tv series are done more to give the 'good guy' side a better chance of survival.

Now, in Battlestar Galactica, the series begins with an overwhelming sneak attack, which in and of itself brings up some questions.


Also, another point of consideration, even though we've never seen Star Destroyers use missiles, they are armed with Concussion Missiles according to everything I've read about them from Lucasfilm Archives

The Star Destroyer is actually a multi-purpose vessel....it is carrier, destroyer, battleship, orbital gun platform, base, troop transport, etc.

Respectfully,
Martok2112
__________________
Don't be a fan. Don't be a victim!-Martok2112
martok2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2006, 10:25 PM   #109
Damocles
Bad Email Address
 
Damocles's Avatar
 
The Last Person


Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,713

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacho
Actually, I was using the purpose of the ship, i.e a vessel designed to support strike craft as compared to a vessel that is primarily designed as a gun platform.

The comparison ends when you put them into 3 deminsions.


The ISD seems to be an old wet navy ship of the line, IMO, as in the days of sail. Designed to get in close and pound it out with guns, without any consideration given to manuverability.

The battlestar is still primarily a carrier in function.

In my opinion, by using any type of long range strike ships that keep the baseship out of range of the enemy main guns is a better way of fighting.

Personally, I feel that the engineering and design of such ships for movies and tv series are done more to give the 'good guy' side a better chance of survival.

Now, in Battlestar Galactica, the series begins with an overwhelming sneak attack, which in and of itself brings up some questions.
Hence your premis thread.

But as to what a heavily armed and armored rocket should look like?

http://www.jiawen.net/peregrine2.html



That is CORRECT. She, the artist, knows what she is doing.

Missiles and particle beams are fired from behind that shield you see on the nose.

Fighters it carries are robot drones.

That is the REALITY as I expect it.

No aircraft carriers or battleships as the model for our battlestar, but the smallest most heavily armed, best-armored and most maneuverable rocket we can build to do the job as a jump capable launch platform. Nearest wet navy equivalent?



That little bird should make mincemeat out of any the previous examples.

As always;
Damocles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2006, 04:02 AM   #110
3DMaster
Shuttle Pilot
 
3DMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 89

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damocles
Hence your premis thread.



That is CORRECT. She, the artist, knows what she is doing.

Missiles and particle beams are fired from behind that shield you see on the nose.

Fighters it carries are robot drones.

That is the REALITY as I expect it.
Of course, the best space battle ships aren't rockets. The best battle ships won't have one main gun either, the best battle ships will have a 360 degrees fire coverage: the best battle ships would be spheres, and just below that cubes; sphere as the added advantage that a curved surface is tougher to crack than a straight surface.

So the ones who build the best battle ships, not to surprisingly, would be the Borg.
__________________
"I've got something to say; it's better to burn out, than to fade away."

"Gimme some sugar, baby."

3D Master's Story Homepage
3DMaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2006, 04:49 AM   #111
Bacho
Bad Email Address
 
Bacho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 18

Default

Democles,
The model may have been the submarine, the function is that of a carrier.



However, IMO, I would say a vessel with turreted mounts for the weapons would be fully capable to deal with just about anything. Hardpoints on the upper and lower sides allows for massive forward firing capability as well as broadside ability.

I still say the Battlestar is the most efficient design of the two. In playing around with varuious 3d designs, and looking at the Anime based vessels, I am at a loss as to the predominate and very obvious CIC structure. While the look is appealing to the eye, the glaring weakness is the fact that the ship would be crippled with the loss of the CIC.

As for design, A sphere? When you consider a drive section, the sphere is out. This is where the wet navy has it over the space craft.

As for the borg, maybe.

However, we are talking humans, and as such, we have the tendency to build something that is functional and aesthitically pleasing to look at. I would venture to say that when humans go to the stars, the most likely designs would be along the battlestar or even klingon ships.

Perhaps a discussion of probable earth based designs would be good to start somewhere?

Anyway, from all the different series and movies, I prefer the battlestar, nice to look at, protected CIC, and functional.
Bacho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2006, 11:10 AM   #112
martok2112
Colonial Story Teller
 
martok2112's Avatar
 
FORUM STAFFFleet Moderator
Colonial Fleets

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Orleans (Metairie), LA
Posts: 4,785


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DMaster
Of course, the best space battle ships aren't rockets. The best battle ships won't have one main gun either, the best battle ships will have a 360 degrees fire coverage: the best battle ships would be spheres, and just below that cubes; sphere as the added advantage that a curved surface is tougher to crack than a straight surface.

So the ones who build the best battle ships, not to surprisingly, would be the Borg.

Ahem...let's not forget....Empire? Death Star? (er.....wait....pesky exhaust ports!) AGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
__________________
Don't be a fan. Don't be a victim!-Martok2112
martok2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2006, 12:47 PM   #113
Damocles
Bad Email Address
 
Damocles's Avatar
 
The Last Person


Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,713

Default

[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacho
Democles,
The model may have been the submarine, the function is that of a carrier.
Here beginneth the lesson;

1. The manned vehicle is the platform. The weapons systems are the heat-loading/charge-loading(kinetic, electromagnetic)) mechanisms that operate from the platform.

2. It was and is the nature of the average TV writer to see space warfare as a form of WW II naval combat. The smallness of the screen also forces some constraints as to how such combat is displayed.

3. It will be a reality that the point defense against long range weapons(missiles with contact/impact discharged EMP effects or contact/impact discharged explosive effects) will be AESA scan arrays( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AESA ) that are powerful MASERs instead of just being a form of radar. At delta vees of 1/10th c and up mechanical track in azimuth and bearing(turrrets) is impossible. Turrets can't track fast enough. In fact turrets can't track fast enough, now, against maneuvering cruise missiles. Why do you think that the USN is going for the RAM missile in place of the Phalanx as the close in weapon system defense for its ships?

As for the use of robot drone fighters in place of manned systems? In the next carrier we plan to field; we want to deploy somerthing like this;



Its a robot aircraft.

a. Acceleration forces that will pulp a human, the robot will shrug off.
b. The smaller plane carries a bigger payload, than its human-crewed equivalent.
c. For its size, it will have more range. Remember that the relatively simple computers of the UCAV and the F-18 mass about the same, and are volumetrically the same. The mass and volume of the human(and his support system) aboard the F-18 is the current limiter to that fighter(giving it notoriously short endurance in the air.)

Translate that into a battlestar. You build 100 robot fighters and one shipload of 100 expendable missiles. You silo the fighters in launch/recovery hangers/silos and tube those missiles in distributed magazines across mky rocket. You install an AESA MASER behind a nice thick electric armor nose-plate. You make the rocket as small as you can; and you automate it as much as you can, to minimize its heat print against background space. What humans you park aboard, as crew, are there for the maintenance of the launch platform, and its weapon systems. You can build five of those for the one or so COLUMBIA class Alligators as I see them on screen; and you can build ten of those for the Cylon double-decker sand-dollars as I see it.

You obtain a smaller ship.

Advantages.
1. Less logistics. The robot drones may have Cylon attrition rates but the replacements, you can fly out from a forward depot. Centurions that get shot up need on-hand machine shops. Colonials need air, food and water, and their Alligators need large logistic fleets to sustain them and their Vipers. Your fleet with its lower manning requiremwents will have a leaner, cheaper and simpler tail to tooth ratio.

2. More homogeneity in the fleet. Your rocket launch platform will be standardized as to form and function, and is interchangeable in roles and means. Small enough and cheap enough to be a standalone patrol unit, and yet when massed in numbers it is able to take down the largest enemy fleets. Remember you designed it to carry an armor package to survive a basestar's particle beam fire and a payload to swarm that basestar's defense on a fifth of the Alligator's mass?

3. Deployability. With homogeneity, numbers, common unit tactics and a lean logistics tail you can distribute your units across space in a patrol circuit, quickly concentrate to meet a local threat, and risk offense as opposed to defense. You have far more numbers to risk.

Quote:
Quantity has a quality all of its own, when you have near technical parity.

Quote:
However, IMO, I would say a vessel with turreted mounts for the weapons would be fully capable to deal with just about anything. Hardpoints on the upper and lower sides allows for massive forward firing capability as well as broadside ability.
You would need super-imposition of firing arcs? You've got to stack those turrets to keep them from fouling each other;



Quote:
I still say the Battlestar is the most efficient design of the two. In playing around with varuious 3d designs, and looking at the Anime based vessels, I am at a loss as to the predominate and very obvious CIC structure. While the look is appealing to the eye, the glaring weakness is the fact that the ship would be crippled with the loss of the CIC.
Agreed as to the ISD. You bury your CIC inside the ship and rely on your radars and passive detection gear. You also distribute the CIC threoughout the ship so that one penetrating hit to your rocket doesn't throw you out of control. Auxillary steering was understood as far back as Constantine.

Quote:
As for design, A sphere? When you consider a drive section, the sphere is out. This is where the wet navy has it over the space craft.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...4209/ch3-4.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/soyuz.htm

The spacecraft shape that is most efficient for mass distribution, MASS BALANCING, and volume distribution is the sphere.

Why is the sphere out?

Primitive version;





Advanced version;



Notice the waist weapon emplacements? There is 180= degree coverage fore and aft. You can't get that on a cube or a cheese wedge.

Quote:
As for the borg, maybe.


Can you bring your side and top and bottom beam weapons to bear? No.

With a SPHERE you could.

Shoot the corner weapon emplacements of that cube off, and you create massive exploitable blind spots. The cube is also a horrible sensor platform or a mass distribution for a rocket. You would prefer a sphere, cone, or cylinder to simplify mass distribution, inertia loading, and the placement of any propulsive mechanism you want to use to rotate on your vector.


Quote:
However, we are talking humans, and as such, we have the tendency to build something that is functional and aesthitically pleasing to look at. I would venture to say that when humans go to the stars, the most likely designs would be along the battlestar or even klingon ships.
It will look more like this.



or like this;



Quote:
Perhaps a discussion of probable earth based designs would be good to start somewhere?
In the art section perhaps?

Quote:
Anyway, from all the different series and movies, I prefer the battlestar, nice to look at, protected CIC, and functional.


1. The Alligator is asymmetric and off mass-balanced.(That means the the thrust vector does not coinicide with the center of mass of that rocket Your battlestar pitches off axis on its vector and loops around its center of mass like a crazy ferris wheel.)

2. The out-riggers add to the Alligator's mass inbalance, create massive blind arcs for the port/starboard point defenses and are invitations for missile and particle beam fire by the enemy for all the volatiles that are so exposed inthe outrigger. Any hanger you have, should be either stuck inside the ship behind a wall of armor; or distributed over the exterior waist of the ship in compartmented segments, so that if one section is blown out, you don't have a loss of ship event.

Main gun.

A spinal weapon from the problems involved with heat loading and use(If its a long-ranged particle beam you don't so much as aim that beam as you SLASH with it-like you would with a giant sword to cut across the targets'[more than one target slashed with each rake] predicted intended motion. For that, rolling, pitching, and yawing your ship on its thrust vector conic(remember the sword analogy) is probably what you should expect. The missiles and drones from your ship you can launch from any orientation; but if you are using a beam weapon to engage at a tenth of a light second range; you are going to be pivoting your rocket on it's baseline vector to aim your MASSIVE kilometer long particle beam projector at the enemy fleet.

Your rocket would be built around that spinal weapon.

As always
Damocles is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




So sez our Muffit!!!

For fans of the Classic Battlestar Galactica series



COPYRIGHT
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:42 PM. Contact the Fleet - Colonial Fleets - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.11, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content and Graphics ©2000-Present Colonial Fleets
The Colonial Fleets Forums are run by Battlestar Galactica fans, paid for by Battlestar Galactica fans, for the enjoyment of fellow Battlestar Galactica fans.



©2000-2008 Colonial Fleets