Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Krakenup:
It would take huge engines to maneuver effectively (dogfight) in space.

Right, not to mention that by any process of propulsion that we can even theorize about it would take a tremendous amount of fuel to do the things they do in all these shows. Star Wars, BSG, B5, SAAB. They are all guilty of that "little fudge".

The Apollo space craft that went to the mooon and back travelled for several days, but all together the engines fired for what, maybe twenty minutes total? Including the launch from earth probably around twenty minutes. The rest was just inertia.

But space fighters are just so darn cool.

Geoschmo

[Baron Munchausen]

Yeah, we prefer to see what we understand, even if it's incorrect. Fighting in space will probably be unlike anything we're familiar with now if it occurs.

What's funny is that even now 'dog fights' hardly occur anymore. We've reached the point where long-range radars can spot incoming planes and missiles can be fired before there is any hope of direct engagement. Maybe when non-US airforces clash there are still dogfights, but right now we've got such an advantage over every other airforce in the world that I don't think our pilots have done anything but training dogfights for decades.

[ June 26, 2002, 22:08: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Baron Munchausen]

[quote]Originally posted by Krakenup:

It's not a big difference, it's a HUGE difference. For example, an F-16 can perform a 9-G turn (until the pilot blacks out) using aerodynamic forces. Its thrust-weight ratio, however, is generally less than one so its acceleration using just the engine is less than 1 G.

Well, I know that both the F-15 and the F-16 can fly straight up for a considerable distance. I clearly recall that the F-15 can reach 50,000 feet faster than the Apollo moon rockets could. Is the difference really all attributable to the very slow vertical lift-off of the Apollo rockets? I'd have thought that the F-15 and F-16 would have a better thrust-weight ratio than "slightly" more than 1-1. They are suppose to be able to make a start down the runway & then flip the thing into vertical before they would have reached horizontal take-off speed.

[disabled]

DS9, sadly, won't be picked up by many networks mainly because it went into a gray area of character development where good guy abd bad guy got mixed. While more realistic, it requires story arcs and such that dropped Ratings.

Voyager was supposed to fix that by have all episodes unrelated. That did even worse since all the characters were made to fit the writer's wet dreams.

What I'm hoping for is Berman to be reduced in power... ALOT so that trek can grow a bit. DS9 and TNG did well because Berman kinda stayed out of it, just handling the studio affairs and supervisor top level crap. He went nitty-gritty on Voyager for season 1-5 and that series went to crap, he totally abandoned Voyager for Enterprise in seasons 6 & 7 and that really sent it to the crapper.

Lesson to be learned- Berman is interested in money.

[Baron Munchausen]

Bwahahaha... what do you think any studio is interested in? Trek went into the trash bin when Rodenberry died. Paramount was left in sole control of it. Berman may or may not be dumber than the average studio exec, but it'll be incredibly lucky to find one willing to let Trek be a SciFi show with real attempts at exploration and experimentation. It's just another cash cow with a formula to follow as far as the suits are concerned.

The only reason DS9 had any quality at all was that it was a rip-off of Babylon 5, designed to 'block' it's success. Strasczinsky (sp?) had pitched it to Paramount before being accepted at WB, and so they had the outline of the story arc to work with.

[ June 27, 2002, 14:22: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Puke]

now you guys have me aching for a good space combat sim. bastards.

the Last tabletop one i played was aerotech/battlespace, i always wanted to take a stab at silent death or full thrust. SFB was always too complicated to be enjoyable. like ASL, you know? the paratrooper modules for ASL were fun, but when you have a stack of rulebooks 3 feet high, its not a beer and pretzels game anymore.

a on-off-topic question for you aviation experts out there though: regarding flight ceilings on aircraft (aforementioned bit about our fighters being able to hit 50,000 feet by flying vertically, and such). why the limit? is it because the plane uses aerodynamics to translate forward momentum into vertical momentum, and then maintains it with its thrust until gravity overcomes the thrust its putting out? or is it because the atmosphere is thinner and the engines are not able to operate as efficiently and they are not achieving the right fuel air mixture and combustion is not working right?

its sure as heck not because gravity is getting stronger the further you are from the earth, and its sure as heck not because the atmosphere is thicker and harder to penetrate at higher elevations.

[Phoenix-D]

A few things: the engines don't work as well, and the wings don't generate as much lift since the air is thinner.

Phoenix-D