Quote:

---

ABOUT THE DESIGN

The Eagle Transporter was the workhorse vehicle of "Space: 1999's" Moonbase Alpha. Featuring a purely utilitarian, non-aerodynamic form designed to function in the hard vacuum of space, the Eagle could serve as a personnel transporter, cargo carrier, flying infirmary or mobile laboratory, all depending on the customizable service module snapped into its central position.

Heavily influenced by the designs of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and built by special effects whiz Brian Johnson (who had worked -- uncredited -- on that 1968 Stanley Kubrick epic), the Eagle was a credible lunar utility vehicle. But although it was clearly designed to work in a vacuum and the low gravity of the Moon, Eagles were often shown flying through planetary atmospheres and taking off from high gravity worlds -- something only possible through the magic of special effects.

---

Quote:

---

Nevertheless, Kubrick’s Discovery is more realistic than Star Trek’s USS Enterprise, a needlessly aerodynamic spaceship since vessels only need to be aerodynamic when they enter the earth’s atmosphere, which Enterprise never does.

---

Quote:

---

WHAT'S YOUR THINKING ON SCIENCE FICTION HARDWARE DESIGN?

Frankly, I'm tired of unbelievable space ships. Look at those Vipers from BSG, with their square, flat-front wings that are too short to support the extend nose. And that nose intake? What does it feed,... the pilot's feet? And don't even get me started on the 'Flying Sub'! 'Dark Star' was made for a total budget of $60,000. It had a nice exterior shape but it was a comedy. People laughed when they saw the cockpit because it was UNbelievable. The rest of the rooms were rectangular, not addressing the exterior shape at all.

As much as I love the series 'Firefly', do I think that Serenity is a good design? Not especially, but it is a "fun" design. Then again, studying an interior diagram of the ship, I very much like the way the rooms & other spaces are all laid out. What I really like about the Firefly series, however, is the people and the way they interact along with the stories they play out. The one visual thing that I love about Serenity interior is it's dining-kitchen-common area and the funny wonderful little personal touches provided by Kaylee, her flower-vines painted on the walls and the way she dressed up the entry to her quarters. As visually interesting as I think the ship is, overall, I don't believe that silly whirly engine generates the power a Firefly would need, I don't believe the way they use a ladder/hatch to enter & exit their quarters, and there's no way in Hell that that Firefly shape could ever make it through an atmosphere in one unmelted piece.

That was my major problem with the girder-truss design Eagle "space" ships on the TV series: "Space: 1999",... the way they landed and took off from full atmosphered planets. How? Everyone's good wishes? In Alien, the Nostromo cockpit was fairly believable but the exterior drove me crazy because of all those antenna sticking out all over, which would have been burned off before landing. And, while the "Aliens" ship didn't land, their "drop ship" would have ripped it's wings off, the moment they unwrapped... and during that process, they would have sent the thing into a fatal spin,... with it's one wing coming out at a time like they did.

Now, while I'm a big (original) Star Wars fan, the square-front wings on the X-Wing fighters not being true airfoils made me wonder how they flew, but then again, there were those 'Y'-wings,... making me wonder what got them in and out of an atmosphere? And then there's Lucas's pod racers with their insanely huge engines... where the Hell does he think they would store all the FUEL to feed those things???

Step back, now, and compare all of that to "2001: A Space Odyssey",... TOTALLY believable in it's hardware. The Pan-Am passenger shuttle actually looked like an atmosphere flyer. While the wings seemed a bit undersized, to me, they had an airfoil shape contributing to a graceful overall shape,... not a bunch of box-shapes all stuck together. The Aries Moon Transport looked like it should have, from it's 'reaction control nozzles' through it's common window seating area, presuming that sleeping quarters would be available on another deck. The lunar surface transport, along with every other piece of human-occupied hardware, is still the benchmark of optimistic technology.

Therefore, in my opinion, what provides good Science Fiction is believability. If you can believe what you're seeing could really do what it's supposed to, then you're on your way. Consistency is right behind that,... all held together with interesting characters and great stories.

What I hope I'm known for is providing concepts which are fairly believable. My thinking is that if I can approach a design as a real product, then the results should feel real, because I do take all the necessary elements into account. I consider the command/control spaces, their electronics, life support systems, supplies, food, sleep, waist, hygiene, rest, recreation, lighting, entry/exit, emergency-exiting. And that doesn't even cover weapons or auxiliary craft like shuttles & their storage-fuel-supplies-servicing, etc. And if all this is for a film, then other matters come into focus like how people interact with each other, their head levels, the lighting, and, especially, the geography of the space, so audiences will quickly understand what direction they're looking, or what room they're in.

If I think of it as real, the audience will think of it as real.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cruithne3753:
Actually, the Shuttle's tiles aren't ablative, they soak up the heat which is radiated away after landing. Ablative heat shields remove heat by being worn away in the process of re-entry, and are used only once. Old-school style capsules such as Soyuz and Shenzhou use ablative shields and are used only once. The Orion capsule currently in development will have a detachable heat shield replaced for each flight.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cljohnston108:
And as for ablative surfaces, I rather liked how the Reavers' Trans-U flopped on its back to present the streamlined aeroshell into the airstream!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...entering an unrealistically high atmosphere.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cljohnston108:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...entering an unrealistically high atmosphere.

---

Anyone who can use the word "inviscid" in a sentence is way smarter than me, but don't you think the "ion cloud" resided somewhere above what we generally consider the "atmosphere"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
Well Fin, may I call you Fin?, anyhow, as you say, it is an Ion cloud, which means that the cloud is electrically charged. Now, consider for a moment, just hypothetically, if the equipment that Mr. Universe has is all based on electromagnetic radiation, could it possibly be the cause for the Ion Cloud?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
Or maybe the Ion cloud was artificially put there by Mr. Universe to act as a more effective radio antenna ((Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere.)) Of course, there is still the issue of density as compared to propogation of sound, and this density decelerating a ship ((Fast enough to rattle it apart)). Though, the loudest part of that scene is the music, so possibly we are just underestimating the power of the sounds emitted. For example, the guns with the blue tracers I think were rapid fire railguns ((Of course this means huge amounts of power and seperate capacitor banks for the same rails to facilitate rapid fire)) and they would be very loud. I've built a tiny ((12v)) railgun on my own time and it is fairly loud, and as I said, it is EXTREMELY small. So, possibly, the atmosphere of the Ion Cloud is less dense than we would suspect.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cljohnston108:


Here's what happens when the Enterprise-A is exposed to hypersonic airflow!

Pulsed Laser Imaging @ UQ
http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/lp/lasdiag/enterp.php

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
Are they lifting body?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I think there is strong evidence to suggest that the 'gravity drive' in the Firefly verse does more than provide gravity aboard ships.

I think that some of the effects of gravity upon a ship can be negated somehow, perhaps allowing for much slower/softer re-entries than otherwise possible.

Otherwise there's no way to reconcile the ability of these ships to navigate an atmosphere without becoming a fireball

---

Quote:

---

I think there is strong evidence to suggest that the 'gravity drive' in the Firefly verse does more than provide gravity aboard ships.

I think that some of the effects of gravity upon a ship can be negated somehow,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Otherwise there's no way to reconcile the ability of these ships to navigate an atmosphere without becoming a fireball.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Serenity doesn't have that problem. It can slow itself and reenter the atmosphere at a much lower velocity, less friction, less heat. No need for gravity drives.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It can, but it doesn't. We've seen the re-entry, and it is not a process where the ship or engines are turned and firing away to slow their descent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cybersnark:
(I woulda' fired them a bit before, personally, but I'm not Wash).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cybersnark:
(I woulda' fired them a bit before, personally, but I'm not Wash).

---

Clearly, you're not interested in an "interesting" landing.

---