It surely has nothing in common tech-wise with our real life solar sail ideas. It has to be massive to generate any kind of useful propulsion and I doubt they would provide a fast way for interstellar travel, if any at all. It looks cool in the movie, though.
Could always take a note out of Knights of Sidonia, just give everyone urethral cathaters and all that. Also, who needs artificial gravity to go to the loo when you can just use the laws of physics? Just accelerate the ship at 1G or provide centrifugal force. Problem solved.
Babylon 5's Starfury was about the most realistic small ship for travel in Zero-G anywhere in Sci-Fi. NASA expressed quite a bit of interest in it's design and was in talks with J. Michael Straczyski about using the design for "loaders" and "forklifts".
I loved the Earth ships from B5. Straczynski was great to think of using physics within his universe. Honestly, not enough Sci-Fi series using physics, it's a little niche that deserves more fun.
@@joshuaszeto Relax. I'm just making an aesthetic observation. Besides, what's this "except" business? Litigious corporate infighting was commonplace in that era. Carroll Shelby's litigious conduct wouldn't have raised many if any eyebrows within the prequel era's corporate sector.
@@UncleMikeDrop oh i know but what's sad is he spent his whole life becoming a legend... all to tarnish a very well respected and legendary reputation at the end of his life with his petty and possessive behavior. But yes, it has a lot of his influence in the ship design. I wouldn't be surprised if the conceptual artists drew inspiration from his works
@@joshuaszeto it's all too common. Walt Disney treated his animators like indentured servants and Steve Jobbs treated his engineers like low rent fraternity pledges so it's best not to lionize iconic figures.
Here's some resources for the curious: Bob Brown's Star Wars Pages (very hard to find) Star Wars Technical Commentaries on TFN ST-v-SW, biased in favor of ST but still makes good analyses of SW. "The Diesel Starship"
Actual space warfare would be boring, ships would hit each other with long range beams from huge distances, enemies would almost never come in visual contact. All of it would just be like a nightmarish trigonometry assignment.
The J-Type (as well as the N1) would both likely be lifting body aircraft, so they would probably generate quite a bit of lift, even with stubby wings.
@@CS_Mango The J-Type is very similar in shape to the SR-71. I see no reason that it wouldn't be capable of atmospheric flight. And look into some of the lifting body aircraft that were developed in the 1950s and 60s. If those things can fly, the N1 should certainly be able to.
ive always felt the lucrehulk was a good looking spaceship, the design makes sense. i also think the tie-fighter is a very viable space fighter design, like it or not (with some modifications). both vessels look like they were built with space in mind and i appreciate that aspect. Y-wing is also really, really good imo. just put reverse thrusters on the engines (like the starfury) and you've got a near perfect starfighter design imo
@@jonumine6250 Yeah... the TIE is good, until it hits a stiff breeze. The lengths the Empire had to go to in order to make the TIE viable as anything other than a flying coffin should tell you why it wasn't a good fighter.
I thought of that as well. Then starfighters and landing craft could launch from the bays even while the Lucrehulk itself is taking heavy fire, without exposing the vulnerable interior to the fire.
If you modified the hulk to have fighter bays along the outer edge of the curve you could increase defence incredibly also if it's rotating you could get a nice drop boost just like On B5
I agree on the first part, disagree on the second: As was discovered by the US and the Japanese during WW2 naval combat, it is exponentially harder to launch/recover friendly fighters/bombers while the ship is making erratic movements.
Later models showed many extra shuttle bays which would probably double as fighter recovery/launch segments. They were in the ring facing towards the core so launch or landing could be trickier with a damaged craft But aren't in open view of ship to ship firing arcs.
@@t65bx25 Just a filthy casual here, but I thought the fuselage of the B-wing spun around the cockpit, which maintains its orientation for the most part.
Rowan Blaze You’re very right, and the feature was very useful in some situations, but in Legends at least, it became easy to forget where your ship was and hit things. It would also make it difficult with fine roll control. Play a game with the camera’s y-settings inverted and you begin to feel the confusion that the B-wing pilots deal with. Or build legos while only looking at what you’re doing through a mirror.
Sci-Fi franchises like slapping the words Frigate and Destroyer on random ships to make them sound cooler. They do the same thing with Corvette as well in SW.
I would say that there is a second ship made for Naboo that you didn't mention, but the ship was so short lived. The ship which Senator Amidala came with on Coruscent during the event preceding the clone wars. It has an interesting design that I would believe to be similar to a nuclear bomber used by the USA.
Engineer here. Burying the bridge deep inside the hull isn't going to improve survivability by any significantly measurable amount in most cases and the bridge tower isn't all that vulnerable. All that's needed to protect the bridge to the maximum amount would be to add armored shutters to the windows that have the same defensive properties as the hull. Deckplates and bulkheads will not stop antiship weapons (1), nor are they going to stop interstellar debris if it makes it past all of your other defenses. It's best to just invest in a stronger hull/shields to tank hits and better engines to avoid being hit The bridge tower's hull is just as thick as the rest of the ship's. If enemy weapons can cut through that, they can bifurcate the entire ship anyway so it wouldn't matter what the design was. The bridge isn't going to be your primary target. Knocking out the bridge does not guarantee that you'll take the ship out of the fight, your primary target if you want to end the fight is the main reactor. Hit that hard enough and it'll either breach or be taken offline. Either way the entire ship is either killed or mission-killed. (1) I know what you're thinking, "what about WWII cannon shells? Those were stopped by decollates after they went through the hull." That's a common misconception. Most non-AP cannon shells have fuses and timers in them so that they can detonate inside the hull for maximum damage after penetration. Even then, that's not a guarantee as heavy cannons used against lighter vessels like the Tin Can Destroyers would often completely overpenetrate and detonate in the water instead of the ship.
What you say is true, but putting the bridge deep inside the ship is still the only sane approach. First off, in combat you want every tiny advantage you can get. Second off, having a huge window on the bridge is just a massive invitation for laser beams to bypass all defenses (shields in sci-fi don't stop visible light) and shoot directly on the ship's commanding officer and other people controlling the ship, in other words, putting the bridge inside doesn't provide any bonus to structure itself, but if you don't do it, your ship is disabled the second it enters combat. Even if you don't have a window, the beams can still cut a hole in the unreasonably thin armor and achieve similar result, (sci-fi spaceship crews never bother to put on their spacesuits). There is simply no excuse for putting the bridge on top of the hull of a military ship.
Putting it deep inside the hull isn't going to help things though. Better to have to closer to the outer hull for easier maintenance and upgrades. That way you can just pull out the entire section and replace it with a new one rather than having to work around all of the ship's internals. Which is preferable on a military ship as it reduces downtime. "Second off, having a huge window on the bridge is just a massive invitation for laser beams to bypass all defenses" Which is why I mentioned using an armored shutter in order to get the best of both worlds. Even then, that's not necessary as ideally you'd withdraw from combat to recharge your shields. "(shields in sci-fi don't stop visible light)" 1) Depends on the setting 2) Visible light is terrible for combat lasers. Gamma and X-Ray are far better 3) Again, if it's getting past the hull you're already screwed "sci-fi spaceship crews never bother to put on their spacesuits" Because it's just going to prolong your death by a couple of minutes. With all of the weapon fire flying, you'd be damn lucky to not get hit by a stray shot or cooked in your suit by something passing by. Or hit with high speed debris. Plus, unless you've got an insane amount of oxygen or an insanely good O2 recycling system, you'll likely be dead from hypoxia by the time the battle is over and rescue operations begin Third, suits are pretty damn bulky in most settings. Wearing them at all times would massively reduce your crew's effectiveness which would put them in a position to be spaced. "There is simply no excuse for putting the bridge on top of the hull of a military ship." It makes sense when you think of things from a logistical perspective and from the perspective of 'keep the bridge as far away from the main reactor as possible so you don't lose both in one shot' Especially since, as stated before, the main reactor should always be your primary target as taking it out is the only way to guarantee a mission kill.
@@redshirt0479 Exposing the bridge just to speed up few modification doesn't sound preferable. If there is nothing left to replace, it was not really worth it. When we return to lasers, it doesn't matter what kind you use here. You only want to kill unprotected bridge crew, or harm them enough, so that they won't be able to do their jobs, we're not talking about vaporizing the entire ship. Visible light is just last resort here in case the shield would block the deadlier types (again, when was the last time you saw shield blocking light and thus prevent you from seeing the ship it protects?), any kind of laser will do the trick just fine. Another reason to have the bridge deeper in the hull is inertia. If you lose your inertial dampeners, or don't have any to begin with, you want the vital sections of the ship as close to the center of mass as possible, so you can maintain full manouvrability without disrupting the work of your crew. If you put the bridge as far away from center of mass as possible, you're on a good way to make the ship uncontrollable. Good luck with fighting battles with it. If the reactor blows up it doesn't matter, where on the ship you are, you're dead (red shirt, or not 😜). Also just because both reactor and bridge are inside the ship doesn't necessarily mean they're right next to each other, that's ship-specific, although yes, my previous point could speak against me in this case). And if you'd argue, about the bridge being in the trajectory of shots aimed at the reactor, that depends on position of attacking ship. Exposed bridge can get in harms way just as easily as internal one and you can always just change the orientation of the ship to get a better position, you know. And if I may return to spacesuits and penetration of the pressure hull, you can run into these scenarios: 1. Your ship is destroyed/you get hit by something and die, regardless of whether you have a spacesuit or not (although spacesuit can give you small additional protection against objects, that are not cannon shells). 2. Pressure hull in your section is breached, but your bridge crew is prepared for vacuum and therefore manages to finish the battle and than moves to section that wasn't breached, everyone survives and the breach is later sealed,the ship thus maintains full functionality. 3. Pressure hull is breached and the ship is disabled, thus no longer a threat to the enemy and therefore no longer a target. The crew in spacesuits survives the hit that breached the hull and can either move to pressurised section of the vessel, or begin evacuation before external help arrives, if necessary. There is a chance, that the crew won't survive anyways, but you still have at least a small chance of survival, while your everyday sci-fi crew would 100% die. 4. Your ship survives the battle without any hull breach. Sure, you don't need spacesuits in 4., but this is probably the most unlikely scenario of them all, in 1. it doesn't matter and in 2. and 3. spacesuits are going to save your life (and in 2. also your ship) and therefore, it is worth it to have them on during battle, increased chance of survival is countless times more important than being able to scratch your nose during a battle. And about the argument of sci-fi spacesuits being impractical for movement... That only means that people responsible for their development and/or mainenance were incompetent people (or tech priests), spacefaring civilizations shouldn't have much trouble with making a practical spacesuit, it's problem with cutting corners, not the concept itself.
That's not a very effective strategy though as that could be defeated today with some automatically tinting glass. Which is something that they should probably have given the amount of weapon fire, explosions, and good old solar radiation.
i think tie fighters make the most sense as ship designs go in vaccum. You have a central pod surrounded by many small thrusters that can pivot the ship in any direction (like cold gas propulsion systems). Then you link the outcropping thusters with panels for stability and solar panels and you get a tie fighter
Bramble451 a sphere would’ve been far better though. It reduces the hull strength needed for keeping the air inside, and it decreases the overall quantity of material necessary.
@@nathanjora7627 Fair points. I was thinking about the fact that we walk on flat surfaces and we don't need to worry about aerodynamics. But you're absolutely right about structural integrity and material necessary.
Bramble451 well, if you have gravity generators (which would be needed in order to optimize the use of levels allowing flat surfaces to walk on in a cube), then a sphere would still be a good choice, or at least a not too bad one. You just need a bigger sphere. At least a sphere big enough so that most of its inhabited levels are relatively flat. And if you generate gravity by rotation, then a cylinder is optimal and a cube... is no far off from the worst possible shape, I would say. Structurally speaking, it would be good, good enough, but in terms of livable areas ? It would be really bad. Or it would be a cube where levels are organized into concentric cylinders, so just a cylinder with an outward cubic shell, which would be a weird design choice. So depending on your method for generating gravity, and thrust, the ideal shape is probably never a cube, but more probably something like a cone, a cylinder, a sphere, etc.
You have to think of firing arcs. With a cube you can point at most 50% of your guns at your enemy. The general shape of the empires star destroyers is actually really good in this regard, because you can aim ALL of your guns at something in front of the ship.
Riesenfriese that is indeed a really good feature. Though technically speaking with a cube you can face the weapons of five of the six faces in a given direction if their altitude can be altered even a bit, or if they aren’t obstructing their respective lines of sight. So that would be 83% maximum, but the target should be bigger than said cube. So yeah, a rather shitty design in that regard ^^
It's a world where there are thousands of sentient species, I imagine the metrics for interior-design are built to accommodate a wider range of heights than just humans. For example Wookies average 7 to 8 feet tall!
I know The Expanse did a decent job of explaining zero gravity effects surrounding injuries. Big thing is doctors cannot control bleeding as the blood will just constantly try to pour out. Body will try to just continuously bleed out, and because of this most surgeries are impossible.
I think what we all forget when talking about starwars ships is this. Star ship manufacturering has been around for thousands of years. Thousands of species contribute their ideas and needs to this. Look at our own automobile industry to see how much variation can come from one race of people's input for just over 100 years. Additionally, technology is super advanced compared to ours. Things that would be borderline magical on earth (repulsors) are common enough to be produced in mass for thousands of years. The starwars universe is at the point where super advanced technology is mundane, technology has become stagnate with most people focused on continuing the status quo, which would result in even more variations on commonly produced things.
If we are talking about realistic designs, there is actually another set of parameters that I would consider besides aerodynamics. The way I see it, the engines on an X wing in particular are designed in such a way that the four thrusters can fire both forwards and backwards, which gives the ship the ability to slow down without needing to rotate the ship 180 degrees. In atmosphere, a thruster must fire continuously to counteract the air resistance. In space, air resistance is not a factor, but the lack of air resistance means that most ships do not have a way to slow themselves down without turning the ship. The X wing can turn itself in any direction by adjusting the thrust output of each engine. A TIE fighter or star destroyer, on the other hand, does not.
Good video. What about the Naboo Royal Cruiser, the J type Cruiser that was based on the B-2 Spirit? The one that's destroyed at the beginning of Attack of the Clones.
Well, it might have looked bad for the Empire to start using the same ships to "keep the peace" that had just a little while ago been used to subjugate and conquer the same people they're now "protecting". Also, and I know this is more Legends then official cannon, a large number of them were stripped of most of their weapon systems and sold off as frontier defense forces to groups like the Corporate Sector Authority.
actually you could argue that the lucre hulks and the battle dragons of the Hapes cluster share a core design that could possibly be linked to a key source in thier history of development, but the battle dragons look different, but both are so similar you could argue they are both based off the same ancient design that both versions evolved up two different paths of usage
you know what would have been an interesting element for the force awakens, the new death star has its superlaser malfunction and blow up the first time they try to use it because of sabotage, and so the entire second half of the film is a practical series of fleets and starships chasing it down trying to destroy the third death star when it runs into a new space station the new republic had confiscated and turned into a planetary defense system from one of the starship manufacturers, so we could see in essence two death stars without super lasers doing a weird battle against each other as fleets from the new republic and the empire are also attacking each other etc in a really weird standoff until one or both are destroyed and both fleets just end up staring for a moment before scattering as they don't want to risk any more losses once they don't have to worry about either side having a functional death star etc
The Falcon is basicly a flying saucer (Idk how to spell) with extra things so it’s probably the most realistic. A saucer is both has a aerodynamic shape and has the perfect shape for space travel by having some kind of proportion on all sides. Not really like the Falcon but close.
The biggest fault of the Falcon, in my opinion at least, is the position of the cockpit. If you ever played any spaceship based game, either like Star Citizen or Space Engineers, you'd understand how flying something with the controls so far off the X axis is fucked up. Ok, maybe "flying" isn't so bad, but if you have to land, fit into the hangar, etc. you'll understand the nightmare.
@@Miestwin Cockpit is right because of role of the ship ( Theboriginal one). The "jaws" in front of ships are made for grab cargo container and pull it. So you must have cockpit on side to see during this operation.
@@tomaskops7119 I know what was the original role of YT-1300f, and it might be fine then when it was slow, and flying straight. Now it's a combat ship that must maneuver like a fighter, and fly close to different structures. Probably the only other ship with a worse position of the cockpit than YT-1300f is the B-Wing. Also, for a cargo freighter, it could be built in a pull configuration, with the external cameras or simply heaving a slightly different overall form, and heaving cockpit stick above the cargo.
@@tomaskops7119 Wrong! Look at any real life cargo hauling vehicle. The "cockpit" tends to be along the axis or very close to it. The only exception I can think of would be an aircraft carrier, & the offset tower is a matter of accommodating the landing strip & not for "driver's visibility". As for cargo handling, show me one offset forklift/ bulldozer/ tow truck/ tug boat.
@@kimarykorlumiose7728 Anaheim electronics ,vist foundation won but just remember some of us zeon / neo zeon remnants are still waiting out there😜 just blending in waiting for the earth federation factions to mess up again😎( how many wars have we had since 0079?) 😁
4:28 Regarding the circular arrangement of the dreadnaughts in Outbound Flight, you stated it would be useful in generating centrifugal force. Shouldn’t they be aligned with their tops in toward the center? The arrangement as shown would have the crew walking on the ceiling!
I disagree with the Lucrehulk - why not just turn the entire thing into a sphere, avoiding an unsupported ring (which doesn't provide much protection anyway) entirely? I think the Mon Calamari ships are good, since they're rounded (good surface area to volume), with banks of thrusters at the back (good thrust but enough for redundancy too).
The drag coefficient on the N-1 is probably from the engine's being all the way out there and the "wings" no being swept. Sweep them back and thin the profile a bit more and smooth out the astromech socket to flow with the cockpit and it'd possibly be a pretty good design.
maybe the engine and energy system in those ships are just so powerful they could accept a worse aerodynamic drag coefficient. also they are fighting/flying in both space and in atmosphere
The round shape of the MC80 (non-winged version) and its cousins has huge advantages in terms of weight, defense, efficiency, and weapons coverage. It still looks like a giant turd, but at least it's practical.
Because it was designed to be used under the seas on Mon Cala. Technically submarines far exceed the seal and structural integrity you would need in space.
Us drawing Star-Fighters is like Leonardo Da Vinci drawing tanks. You know, Leonardo was EXACTLY right. I mean, our tanks have rapid fire, they move real good, and really there's all types. But his tanks had wooden gears, because metal just didn't work that way. Our metal is so different from his metal. the metal back then was soft, couldn't make flat things (they had to lumpy and round to hold their shape at all), It was so heavy that leonardo couldn't see a tank being metal. Basically, the same applies to ships people draw. Assuming they're completely wrong in every way, they actually get it exactly right!! Our favorite star-ships,,,, are very realistic.
Actually no. We have a far easier time predicting at least early space ships and how they would behave considering our understanding of the world is much deeper than Leonardo Da Vincis, even though he actually managed to get a bunch of things right enough. His tank also was capable of rapid fire(Thanks to multiple guns) 360° field of fire and more. And there is a distinct difference between us imagining space ships and him imagening tanks. He created something that was completly operational with the methods of his time.
soft and lumpy? Thats nonsense, there were elegant blades of hardened spring steel in Leonardos time. The problems were more that : 1: making something that big out of decent steel would have been astronomically expensive. 2: without combustion engines there wouldnt have been no way to move so much steel.
Dude what are you talking about? When Leonardo was alive swords were being made from spring steel which is generally accepted as the first modern quality steel. They had also built gears out of metal so you're way off. Riesen is on point that the primary reason is about the weight of a steel tank without combustion engines or even treads.
maul's scimitar would be an interesting one to see in the wind tunnel tests, especially if its wings fold down flat for atmospheric flight. the racers from the resistance series would be cool to examine too, since they spend so much time operating on the surface of castilon.
I doubt the V Wing would due to the strange wing design (the wings are vertical not horizontal so the would be very little lift, and Maul's Sith Interceptor looks extremely back-heavy, with very small wings
The Naboo N1 Starfighter was actually quite well armed. It had a pair of nose mounted laser cannons similar to a TIE fighter(ie pretty powerful) and a payload of proton torpedoes which are much stronger than missiles. They had good shields, great maneuverability, and above average speed. They also had the ability to carry an astromech droid which could make repairs and recharge the shields. They also have a polished heat shield on the nose to assist with atmospheric entry. They were expensive hand-built fighters that didn't make a lot of performance trade-offs in any part of the design.
The requirement for atmospheric entry is high drag and relatively low lift. Later transition to sustained atmospheric flight is aided by lower angles of attack, with better lift-drag ratios, but the entry problem is one of scrubbing the huge amount of orbital velocity with a shallow angle of entry, but with a definite deceleration without skipping. This requires reasonably precise geometry (descent angle) to manage heat and energy transfers from KE and PE to heat in a manageable way. For a winged body a high AOA (way post stall for aerodynamic control) and a steep bank angle (to prevent climbing back out of the atmosphere), controlled with inertial methods (potentially) or vernier rockets (demonstrated) for pitch, yaw and roll stability. For wingless bodies, a blunt nose for optimal thermal performance and high drag to give a committed entry/descent and to scrub energy before reaching the dense lower atmosphere has been common.
Man you are good because I do not have a great interest in Star Wars Universe, hardly know the bases. Came for the engineering and science fiction but stayed and subbed for the overall quality of your videos. I might read the books some days !
@@thorshammer7883 The Old Ones are much more akin to the Precursors: they both were constantly creating life, they had higher understandings of metaphysics (psychic power in 40k), and they were both ultimately destroyed in a war against ultraviolent usurpers. Not to mention that in the present day in both universes, the Necrons and Forerunners are both reawakening to at least some extent to challenge Humanity.
@@zachchartier570 But the Precursors didn't fight back against the Forerunners though unlike the Old Ones who actually did try to win against the Necrons.
@@thorshammer7883 simply because there us far more canon information known about the Necrons than the Old Ones, and since there is quite a lot of information available on the Forerunners (mainly from books), and there are similar aspects to their tech and lots of examples of how both waged war, it's far more practical to guess and anticipate their conflicts and strategies and interactions.
the SmashGamer I guess it was from a technical standpoint is where they put everything that can’t be put on The main Tube or what ever like stabilizers an probably to spread out weapons or landing gears or Extra Armor Or the fact that a sphere and a long tube aren’t good Thing to watch battle in space also having a dorky ship isn’t gonna Help with morale since they will feel like they have been give something as Useful As a Barf bag in space
@@luigimrlgaming9484 A tube or a sphere would be far more structurally sound than anything else, really. With no extra bits sticking out, or inconsistencies in integrity, a round ship like the mon calamari's would be able to take hits better. You can hide sensitive equipment inside it. The only thing that would be more effective would be sloped/angled armour. I think a properly made ship would be more daunting and impressive, even though there wouldn't be too much difference between variants.
I was really hoping for a sepratist ship not just the control ship. The cargo one is one of my favourites. The one grievous uses in the space battle on salucami. Recusant class. It's called. I'd have that for a ship with a few modifications to the structure design.
A spherical design also allows for optimum armor around the ship without adding too much mass since a spherical object has a very low surface area to cover compared to other shapes.
I like the way the DCHC looks. It makes sense. The ship looks like a naval vessel, not a commercial one. Its stark, angular appearance makes it more imposing. I think the ISD would look better, too, if they got rid of that ridiculous bridge and slapped on about 20 point defence arrays. I find it funny that battleships in WW2 had secondary helms inside the ship, but no one in SW had that figured out.
The YT-1300 is actually a really good design for a small freighter. It has decent storage space and the modular design gives it greater utility than most other freighters of it's size
My only problem is what the cockpit does to her center of mass. This can be compensated for by the engines, but if that is done incorrectly, the ship ends up spinning rather than flying
@@trinalgalaxy5943 unless she has a decent amount of counter weight on the other side, like a nice, large com dish. We don't know what all is inside these ships, the hyperdrive could be off to the side to balance the ship out
@@user-gu7yo5yn9g Ships in Battlestar Galactica are better designed (Realistically) than star wars but it isn't really too realistic compared to halo and especially so compared to the expanse.
Not the coolest or the best, but my personal favorites are Boba Fett's ship Slave 1, the Ebon Hawk from KOTOR, and the Sith Warrior/Sith Inquisitor ship from SWTOR the Fury Class Interceptor. It's not technically a starship, but i also LOVE the Mandalorian Basilisk War Droid, it's not super cool looking but it IS very practical and badass since it's basiclly like the ODST drop pods from Halo in that they use them to drop from orbit and fly past enemy defences before crashing into the ground, jumping out, and killing anything that moves.
While discussing Naboo starships, you forgot about the one used in the beginning of Ep.3. The quad-engined starship with the very wide wingspan that got blown up almost immediately. That seems like a better candidate than the Naboo star fighter for actual realistic flight capabilities. You all should do a follow up video.
Allen I think its great the way you narrate gen tech . My question wS where do you get your information from . I think its great that you are so informed. Please dont stop doing these videos. Thanks bro .
A star destroyer type ship is the most likely Star Wars ship to be used by the military. A triangular design increases armour effectiveness and aerodynamics, whilst also allowing almost all main guns on target.
Star Wars ships use something called repulsor engines for atmospheric flight. This is referenced in the Thrawn Trilogy, dark force rising. The repulsor lifts allow the ship to "Hover" negating the need for aerodynamics. Not saying it wouldn't be important for our technology, but it makes sense why the ships aren't designed with aerodynamics in mind in the star wars universe.
I dont have a problem with an exposed bridge in space combat, in actuality you would never even be within eyesight range because in space, the ranges would be incredible. Like thousands of miles. There is no stealth in space.
Have you tried what EC Henry did except taking into account the engines? I suggest doing so after The Acolyte has concluded, since we need an in-depth look at the jedi vector starfighters used in that show.
The idea of the U wings folding wings sound a lot like the idea of the X-02 Wyvern with it canards and forward swept wing along with it vertical stabilizer fold into the aircraft's frame.
Lucerhulks and Corellian YTs (like the Millennium Falcon) were freighters, not frigates. Lucerhulks wouldn't need to reorient the floor because brass plates were installed beneath the decking.
The Blackbird can barely generate lift on its own. The Nubian may not have drag but that just means it'll drop straight through the atmosphere like a rock.
Remember that ships in Star Wars have repulsors for use near planets. They also are used for air and landspeeders. So aerodynamics aren't as much of an issue as nothing flies in the conventional sense using airfoils.
on Naboo everyone can use the force so they go out of their way to hide the fact they are all force sensitive. including palpatines parents... i mean think about it... darth jar jar, darth sidious, Padme has super strong force sensitive kids, its not just anakin, she too must have a strong connection to the force for the kids to be so talented im pretty convinced they are all sithe/jedi war survivors who withdrew from the war, even the gungans... and thats why they have a weird stand off truce where they distrust each other but think about it, the gungans have technology, but thier weapons are lightning balls... almost like... sithe sorcery
the J-type 327 looks like a partially lifting body design. it wouldn't need big wings, it would generate lift with its fuselage shape. of course it doesn't look right, but it's pretty similar.
"These may not be the most beautiful looking ships".... Proceeds to show some of the best looking ships in the entire SW universe.
"Only beautiful planes fly well."
-- Andrei Tupolyev
Agreed, the Naboo ship aesthetic is easily my favorite looking ships in the series!
Yep
In the same way Ferrari models happen to look really good, but are primarily designed with aerodynamics in mind.
And after that he called the millennium falcon a frigate
*Lucrehulk* : exists
*Anakin* : "and I took that personally"
The solar sailer, it's just the performance for the sail area is a _bit_ optimistic.
Don't you know you got your daddy's eyes daddy was a sith lord
not actually a solar sail, it's some sort of Archeotech metamaterial that Dooku got his hands on. even in-canon nobody knows how it actually works.
From what i have Heard its like a force sailer
It surely has nothing in common tech-wise with our real life solar sail ideas. It has to be massive to generate any kind of useful propulsion and I doubt they would provide a fast way for interstellar travel, if any at all.
It looks cool in the movie, though.
@@Itwillbeawastland it is probably connected to hyperspace somehow, like a boat using water nets to let the current pull it along
4:37
"Why is artificial gravity so important?"
Because good luck using a toilet without one
well astronauts abourd the Apollo craft managed it. But (given the size of the manual) they can be said to be a special breed.
@@karistasogare I agree but it’s definitely something you would rather have than not
Could always take a note out of Knights of Sidonia, just give everyone urethral cathaters and all that.
Also, who needs artificial gravity to go to the loo when you can just use the laws of physics? Just accelerate the ship at 1G or provide centrifugal force. Problem solved.
The ISS has a toilet
Babylon 5's Starfury was about the most realistic small ship for travel in Zero-G anywhere in Sci-Fi.
NASA expressed quite a bit of interest in it's design and was in talks with J. Michael Straczyski about using the design for "loaders" and "forklifts".
I loved the Earth ships from B5. Straczynski was great to think of using physics within his universe. Honestly, not enough Sci-Fi series using physics, it's a little niche that deserves more fun.
No wonder.
There where actual scientists involved in the production of Babylon 5.
Someone once said, that the stardestroyer bridges are so high above the fuselage is meant to tell everybody: "we are so good, we fear noone"
With each videos the v-neck grows longer
Apparently, he's so busy researching, he has no time to go out and buy a new one... :-D
Soon he wont be wearing one🤤
The Nubian ships look like what I imagine Carroll Shelby would design if he existed in Star Wars.
except he would sue everyone else who had a similar ship design
@@joshuaszeto Relax. I'm just making an aesthetic observation. Besides, what's this "except" business? Litigious corporate infighting was commonplace in that era. Carroll Shelby's litigious conduct wouldn't have raised many if any eyebrows within the prequel era's corporate sector.
@@UncleMikeDrop oh i know but what's sad is he spent his whole life becoming a legend... all to tarnish a very well respected and legendary reputation at the end of his life with his petty and possessive behavior. But yes, it has a lot of his influence in the ship design. I wouldn't be surprised if the conceptual artists drew inspiration from his works
@@joshuaszeto it's all too common. Walt Disney treated his animators like indentured servants and Steve Jobbs treated his engineers like low rent fraternity pledges so it's best not to lionize iconic figures.
The naboo n-1 looks kind of like the real life me-262 in my opinion
I would like a detailed explanation of Star Wars tech
Sure it’s called “space magic”
Its literally that, space magic.
I find it funny how people accept a medieval fantasy setting but find it hard to accept a high tech fantasy setting.
Rknee Gordon Star Trek is more guilty of this than Star Wars.
Here's some resources for the curious:
Bob Brown's Star Wars Pages (very hard to find)
Star Wars Technical Commentaries on TFN
ST-v-SW, biased in favor of ST but still makes good analyses of SW.
"The Diesel Starship"
@@vampirecount3880 well because tech is tech, you want something that's efficient and it is also a better way to immerse yourself
Actual space warfare would be boring, ships would hit each other with long range beams from huge distances, enemies would almost never come in visual contact.
All of it would just be like a nightmarish trigonometry assignment.
The J-Type (as well as the N1) would both likely be lifting body aircraft, so they would probably generate quite a bit of lift, even with stubby wings.
Lile tye chasis for the F-15 Eagle
Quite a bit is an overstatement if you ask me. The ship isn't nearly enough shaped like a wing from the looks of it.
@@CS_Mango The J-Type is very similar in shape to the SR-71. I see no reason that it wouldn't be capable of atmospheric flight. And look into some of the lifting body aircraft that were developed in the 1950s and 60s. If those things can fly, the N1 should certainly be able to.
ive always felt the lucrehulk was a good looking spaceship, the design makes sense. i also think the tie-fighter is a very viable space fighter design, like it or not (with some modifications). both vessels look like they were built with space in mind and i appreciate that aspect. Y-wing is also really, really good imo. just put reverse thrusters on the engines (like the starfury) and you've got a near perfect starfighter design imo
Starfurry. The one thing ds9 didnt rip off
@@jonumine6250 Yeah... the TIE is good, until it hits a stiff breeze. The lengths the Empire had to go to in order to make the TIE viable as anything other than a flying coffin should tell you why it wasn't a good fighter.
@@CallanElliott There's wind in Space now?
@@jonumine6250 you knows that it's side profile is huge so good luck dogfighting with it in not saying the x-wing is any better but the tie is shit
@@melecon5092 It's an expression, means that it's going to die as soon as it meets a small amount of resistance.
The droid control ship was an amazing carrier design. If those huge gaps on the inside of the ring are also hangar portals.
I thought of that as well. Then starfighters and landing craft could launch from the bays even while the Lucrehulk itself is taking heavy fire, without exposing the vulnerable interior to the fire.
If you modified the hulk to have fighter bays along the outer edge of the curve you could increase defence incredibly also if it's rotating you could get a nice drop boost just like On B5
I agree on the first part, disagree on the second: As was discovered by the US and the Japanese during WW2 naval combat, it is exponentially harder to launch/recover friendly fighters/bombers while the ship is making erratic movements.
@@nadrewod999 well, it wouldn't be erratic...
Later models showed many extra shuttle bays which would probably double as fighter recovery/launch segments. They were in the ring facing towards the core so launch or landing could be trickier with a damaged craft But aren't in open view of ship to ship firing arcs.
You don't need to have additional fighter bays on the hulk as vultures can attach themselves to the outside of it quite reliably.
i see the fact that the droid control ship is on it and automatically like-prequels for the win
Even without wings or antigravity tech, theoretically, the J type could use a lifting body fuselage.
This is, of course, only relevant to atmospheric flight.
The Naboo royal ship might also make use of "lifting body" effects and therefore might not need large wings to fly.
An aspect of sci-fi ships that I’ve always liked is that vessels don’t have to be aerodynamic in space.
Can you please do 10 flaws or features with the b wing
The B-Wing is.... FLAWLESS.
Jason CALDWELL The spinning cockpit is very disorienting to the pilot, not to mention the lack of a droid socket.
Flaw 9-1: It is not the K-Wing.
@@t65bx25 Just a filthy casual here, but I thought the fuselage of the B-wing spun around the cockpit, which maintains its orientation for the most part.
Rowan Blaze You’re very right, and the feature was very useful in some situations, but in Legends at least, it became easy to forget where your ship was and hit things. It would also make it difficult with fine roll control. Play a game with the camera’s y-settings inverted and you begin to feel the confusion that the B-wing pilots deal with. Or build legos while only looking at what you’re doing through a mirror.
Dude, I think you switched the word freighter for frigate a lot in this video.
Sci-Fi franchises like slapping the words Frigate and Destroyer on random ships to make them sound cooler. They do the same thing with Corvette as well in SW.
I noticed that too. He called the Falcon a "frigate" and the Lucrehulk as well. I'm 100% sure he meant "freighter", hehe.
Jade Owl thank god I thought I was just mishearing him each time
@@mattheweppley It's British, they used to be the same word.
@@teslashark Not for at least the past 250 years...
I would say that there is a second ship made for Naboo that you didn't mention, but the ship was so short lived. The ship which Senator Amidala came with on Coruscent during the event preceding the clone wars. It has an interesting design that I would believe to be similar to a nuclear bomber used by the USA.
Engineer here. Burying the bridge deep inside the hull isn't going to improve survivability by any significantly measurable amount in most cases and the bridge tower isn't all that vulnerable.
All that's needed to protect the bridge to the maximum amount would be to add armored shutters to the windows that have the same defensive properties as the hull.
Deckplates and bulkheads will not stop antiship weapons (1), nor are they going to stop interstellar debris if it makes it past all of your other defenses. It's best to just invest in a stronger hull/shields to tank hits and better engines to avoid being hit
The bridge tower's hull is just as thick as the rest of the ship's. If enemy weapons can cut through that, they can bifurcate the entire ship anyway so it wouldn't matter what the design was.
The bridge isn't going to be your primary target. Knocking out the bridge does not guarantee that you'll take the ship out of the fight, your primary target if you want to end the fight is the main reactor. Hit that hard enough and it'll either breach or be taken offline. Either way the entire ship is either killed or mission-killed.
(1) I know what you're thinking, "what about WWII cannon shells? Those were stopped by decollates after they went through the hull." That's a common misconception. Most non-AP cannon shells have fuses and timers in them so that they can detonate inside the hull for maximum damage after penetration. Even then, that's not a guarantee as heavy cannons used against lighter vessels like the Tin Can Destroyers would often completely overpenetrate and detonate in the water instead of the ship.
What you say is true, but putting the bridge deep inside the ship is still the only sane approach. First off, in combat you want every tiny advantage you can get. Second off, having a huge window on the bridge is just a massive invitation for laser beams to bypass all defenses (shields in sci-fi don't stop visible light) and shoot directly on the ship's commanding officer and other people controlling the ship, in other words, putting the bridge inside doesn't provide any bonus to structure itself, but if you don't do it, your ship is disabled the second it enters combat. Even if you don't have a window, the beams can still cut a hole in the unreasonably thin armor and achieve similar result, (sci-fi spaceship crews never bother to put on their spacesuits).
There is simply no excuse for putting the bridge on top of the hull of a military ship.
Putting it deep inside the hull isn't going to help things though. Better to have to closer to the outer hull for easier maintenance and upgrades. That way you can just pull out the entire section and replace it with a new one rather than having to work around all of the ship's internals. Which is preferable on a military ship as it reduces downtime.
"Second off, having a huge window on the bridge is just a massive invitation for laser beams to bypass all defenses"
Which is why I mentioned using an armored shutter in order to get the best of both worlds. Even then, that's not necessary as ideally you'd withdraw from combat to recharge your shields.
"(shields in sci-fi don't stop visible light)"
1) Depends on the setting
2) Visible light is terrible for combat lasers. Gamma and X-Ray are far better
3) Again, if it's getting past the hull you're already screwed
"sci-fi spaceship crews never bother to put on their spacesuits"
Because it's just going to prolong your death by a couple of minutes. With all of the weapon fire flying, you'd be damn lucky to not get hit by a stray shot or cooked in your suit by something passing by.
Or hit with high speed debris.
Plus, unless you've got an insane amount of oxygen or an insanely good O2 recycling system, you'll likely be dead from hypoxia by the time the battle is over and rescue operations begin
Third, suits are pretty damn bulky in most settings. Wearing them at all times would massively reduce your crew's effectiveness which would put them in a position to be spaced.
"There is simply no excuse for putting the bridge on top of the hull of a military ship."
It makes sense when you think of things from a logistical perspective and from the perspective of 'keep the bridge as far away from the main reactor as possible so you don't lose both in one shot'
Especially since, as stated before, the main reactor should always be your primary target as taking it out is the only way to guarantee a mission kill.
Bingo, plus SDs have secondary bridges.
@@redshirt0479 Exposing the bridge just to speed up few modification doesn't sound preferable. If there is nothing left to replace, it was not really worth it.
When we return to lasers, it doesn't matter what kind you use here. You only want to kill unprotected bridge crew, or harm them enough, so that they won't be able to do their jobs, we're not talking about vaporizing the entire ship. Visible light is just last resort here in case the shield would block the deadlier types (again, when was the last time you saw shield blocking light and thus prevent you from seeing the ship it protects?), any kind of laser will do the trick just fine.
Another reason to have the bridge deeper in the hull is inertia. If you lose your inertial dampeners, or don't have any to begin with, you want the vital sections of the ship as close to the center of mass as possible, so you can maintain full manouvrability without disrupting the work of your crew. If you put the bridge as far away from center of mass as possible, you're on a good way to make the ship uncontrollable. Good luck with fighting battles with it.
If the reactor blows up it doesn't matter, where on the ship you are, you're dead (red shirt, or not 😜). Also just because both reactor and bridge are inside the ship doesn't necessarily mean they're right next to each other, that's ship-specific, although yes, my previous point could speak against me in this case). And if you'd argue, about the bridge being in the trajectory of shots aimed at the reactor, that depends on position of attacking ship. Exposed bridge can get in harms way just as easily as internal one and you can always just change the orientation of the ship to get a better position, you know.
And if I may return to spacesuits and penetration of the pressure hull, you can run into these scenarios:
1. Your ship is destroyed/you get hit by something and die, regardless of whether you have a spacesuit or not (although spacesuit can give you small additional protection against objects, that are not cannon shells).
2. Pressure hull in your section is breached, but your bridge crew is prepared for vacuum and therefore manages to finish the battle and than moves to section that wasn't breached, everyone survives and the breach is later sealed,the ship thus maintains full functionality.
3. Pressure hull is breached and the ship is disabled, thus no longer a threat to the enemy and therefore no longer a target. The crew in spacesuits survives the hit that breached the hull and can either move to pressurised section of the vessel, or begin evacuation before external help arrives, if necessary. There is a chance, that the crew won't survive anyways, but you still have at least a small chance of survival, while your everyday sci-fi crew would 100% die.
4. Your ship survives the battle without any hull breach.
Sure, you don't need spacesuits in 4., but this is probably the most unlikely scenario of them all, in 1. it doesn't matter and in 2. and 3. spacesuits are going to save your life (and in 2. also your ship) and therefore, it is worth it to have them on during battle, increased chance of survival is countless times more important than being able to scratch your nose during a battle.
And about the argument of sci-fi spacesuits being impractical for movement... That only means that people responsible for their development and/or mainenance were incompetent people (or tech priests), spacefaring civilizations shouldn't have much trouble with making a practical spacesuit, it's problem with cutting corners, not the concept itself.
That's not a very effective strategy though as that could be defeated today with some automatically tinting glass. Which is something that they should probably have given the amount of weapon fire, explosions, and good old solar radiation.
i think tie fighters make the most sense as ship designs go in vaccum. You have a central pod surrounded by many small thrusters that can pivot the ship in any direction (like cold gas propulsion systems). Then you link the outcropping thusters with panels for stability and solar panels and you get a tie fighter
" they've gone up the ventilation shaft"
Neebs: "That's what she said."
I think for a space-only ship, the best would be a Borg cube. Oh, sorry, wrong universe!
Bramble451 a sphere would’ve been far better though. It reduces the hull strength needed for keeping the air inside, and it decreases the overall quantity of material necessary.
@@nathanjora7627 Fair points. I was thinking about the fact that we walk on flat surfaces and we don't need to worry about aerodynamics. But you're absolutely right about structural integrity and material necessary.
Bramble451 well, if you have gravity generators (which would be needed in order to optimize the use of levels allowing flat surfaces to walk on in a cube), then a sphere would still be a good choice, or at least a not too bad one. You just need a bigger sphere. At least a sphere big enough so that most of its inhabited levels are relatively flat.
And if you generate gravity by rotation, then a cylinder is optimal and a cube... is no far off from the worst possible shape, I would say. Structurally speaking, it would be good, good enough, but in terms of livable areas ? It would be really bad. Or it would be a cube where levels are organized into concentric cylinders, so just a cylinder with an outward cubic shell, which would be a weird design choice.
So depending on your method for generating gravity, and thrust, the ideal shape is probably never a cube, but more probably something like a cone, a cylinder, a sphere, etc.
You have to think of firing arcs. With a cube you can point at most 50% of your guns at your enemy. The general shape of the empires star destroyers is actually really good in this regard, because you can aim ALL of your guns at something in front of the ship.
Riesenfriese that is indeed a really good feature.
Though technically speaking with a cube you can face the weapons of five of the six faces in a given direction if their altitude can be altered even a bit, or if they aren’t obstructing their respective lines of sight. So that would be 83% maximum, but the target should be bigger than said cube.
So yeah, a rather shitty design in that regard ^^
Love how all the movie ships have really tall ceilings - compare to the ceiling height in a modern aircraft carrier... 8 to 10 feet
It's a world where there are thousands of sentient species, I imagine the metrics for interior-design are built to accommodate a wider range of heights than just humans. For example Wookies average 7 to 8 feet tall!
Well, that's not entirely true. Most of the ships have ceilings about 7-8 feet, except for certain important rooms
I know The Expanse did a decent job of explaining zero gravity effects surrounding injuries. Big thing is doctors cannot control bleeding as the blood will just constantly try to pour out. Body will try to just continuously bleed out, and because of this most surgeries are impossible.
Will we see more clone wars history soon?
I think what we all forget when talking about starwars ships is this. Star ship manufacturering has been around for thousands of years. Thousands of species contribute their ideas and needs to this. Look at our own automobile industry to see how much variation can come from one race of people's input for just over 100 years.
Additionally, technology is super advanced compared to ours. Things that would be borderline magical on earth (repulsors) are common enough to be produced in mass for thousands of years.
The starwars universe is at the point where super advanced technology is mundane, technology has become stagnate with most people focused on continuing the status quo, which would result in even more variations on commonly produced things.
If we are talking about realistic designs, there is actually another set of parameters that I would consider besides aerodynamics.
The way I see it, the engines on an X wing in particular are designed in such a way that the four thrusters can fire both forwards and backwards, which gives the ship the ability to slow down without needing to rotate the ship 180 degrees.
In atmosphere, a thruster must fire continuously to counteract the air resistance. In space, air resistance is not a factor, but the lack of air resistance means that most ships do not have a way to slow themselves down without turning the ship.
The X wing can turn itself in any direction by adjusting the thrust output of each engine. A TIE fighter or star destroyer, on the other hand, does not.
Dreadnaught heavy cruisers were my favorite.
Good video.
What about the Naboo Royal Cruiser, the J type Cruiser that was based on the B-2 Spirit? The one that's destroyed at the beginning of Attack of the Clones.
Surprised that the Gozanti wasn’t on the list. It honestly looks more like a Star Citizen vessel than a Star Wars design.
I still don't understand why the Empire didn't use the Lucerhulk after CTW, it's seems like it would be very useful to them.
Because it made sense... which was against the Tarkin doctrine
Well, it might have looked bad for the Empire to start using the same ships to "keep the peace" that had just a little while ago been used to subjugate and conquer the same people they're now "protecting".
Also, and I know this is more Legends then official cannon, a large number of them were stripped of most of their weapon systems and sold off as frontier defense forces to groups like the Corporate Sector Authority.
actually you could argue that the lucre hulks and the battle dragons of the Hapes cluster share a core design that could possibly be linked to a key source in thier history of development, but the battle dragons look different, but both are so similar you could argue they are both based off the same ancient design that both versions evolved up two different paths of usage
The only time a capital ship attacked the Death Star was a lucerhulk. It ended badly for them.
you know what would have been an interesting element for the force awakens, the new death star has its superlaser malfunction and blow up the first time they try to use it because of sabotage, and so the entire second half of the film is a practical series of fleets and starships chasing it down trying to destroy the third death star when it runs into a new space station the new republic had confiscated and turned into a planetary defense system from one of the starship manufacturers, so we could see in essence two death stars without super lasers doing a weird battle against each other as fleets from the new republic and the empire are also attacking each other etc in a really weird standoff until one or both are destroyed and both fleets just end up staring for a moment before scattering as they don't want to risk any more losses once they don't have to worry about either side having a functional death star etc
The frigate/freighter mixup is interesting.
The Falcon is basicly a flying saucer (Idk how to spell) with extra things so it’s probably the most realistic. A saucer is both has a aerodynamic shape and has the perfect shape for space travel by having some kind of proportion on all sides. Not really like the Falcon but close.
The biggest fault of the Falcon, in my opinion at least, is the position of the cockpit.
If you ever played any spaceship based game, either like Star Citizen or Space Engineers, you'd understand how flying something with the controls so far off the X axis is fucked up.
Ok, maybe "flying" isn't so bad, but if you have to land, fit into the hangar, etc. you'll understand the nightmare.
@@Miestwin Cockpit is right because of role of the ship ( Theboriginal one). The "jaws" in front of ships are made for grab cargo container and pull it. So you must have cockpit on side to see during this operation.
@@tomaskops7119 I know what was the original role of YT-1300f, and it might be fine then when it was slow, and flying straight. Now it's a combat ship that must maneuver like a fighter, and fly close to different structures. Probably the only other ship with a worse position of the cockpit than YT-1300f is the B-Wing.
Also, for a cargo freighter, it could be built in a pull configuration, with the external cameras or simply heaving a slightly different overall form, and heaving cockpit stick above the cargo.
@@tomaskops7119 Wrong! Look at any real life cargo hauling vehicle. The "cockpit" tends to be along the axis or very close to it. The only exception I can think of would be an aircraft carrier, & the offset tower is a matter of accommodating the landing strip & not for "driver's visibility". As for cargo handling, show me one offset forklift/ bulldozer/ tow truck/ tug boat.
Speaking of EC Henry, have you seen the more aerodynamic TIE that he designed for atmospheric flight?
You got a link for that?
Honestly, the Naboo ships are my favorites. Even as a little kid I thought they had much more of a practical appearance.
Slap some laser guns and a repulsor lift on an f104 and I will choose it over any starfighter. Well in atmosphere at least.
You should watch *The Expanse* !!! You'll love the ships and the entire show in general if you like very realistic sci-fi
Thats because the expanse was written by a “hard” scifi writer, not a fantasy writer.
SHUT UO ABOUT THE EXPANSE
The Naboo N1 Start fighter remains one of my top three Starwars fighters . It's to elegant and beautiful.
but we know what'd happen to a baby born in space.
they'd become psychic empaths.
A fellow gundam fan, glad to see we are not alone
And then a Red Comet comes...
We prefer the title NEW TYPES ( or coordinators in 00 ) and you wonder why you get colony's dropped on your heads dumb earthbound feddies
@@666styxxx666 I'm sorry, who won the war again?
@@kimarykorlumiose7728 Anaheim electronics ,vist foundation won but just remember some of us zeon / neo zeon remnants are still waiting out there😜 just blending in waiting for the earth federation factions to mess up again😎( how many wars have we had since 0079?) 😁
4:28 Regarding the circular arrangement of the dreadnaughts in Outbound Flight, you stated it would be useful in generating centrifugal force. Shouldn’t they be aligned with their tops in toward the center? The arrangement as shown would have the crew walking on the ceiling!
The Naboo N2 has always been my favorite. I often go back to my PS2 to play that game over and over again.
I disagree with the Lucrehulk - why not just turn the entire thing into a sphere, avoiding an unsupported ring (which doesn't provide much protection anyway) entirely?
I think the Mon Calamari ships are good, since they're rounded (good surface area to volume), with banks of thrusters at the back (good thrust but enough for redundancy too).
The drag coefficient on the N-1 is probably from the engine's being all the way out there and the "wings" no being swept. Sweep them back and thin the profile a bit more and smooth out the astromech socket to flow with the cockpit and it'd possibly be a pretty good design.
Simple Planes Hold my mods
maybe the engine and energy system in those ships are just so powerful
they could accept a worse aerodynamic drag coefficient.
also they are fighting/flying in both space and in atmosphere
The round shape of the MC80 (non-winged version) and its cousins has huge advantages in terms of weight, defense, efficiency, and weapons coverage. It still looks like a giant turd, but at least it's practical.
Because it was designed to be used under the seas on Mon Cala. Technically submarines far exceed the seal and structural integrity you would need in space.
In a far far future all starships will be turd shaped.
To be fair, aerodynamics matter far less when your primary environment is space.
Us drawing Star-Fighters is like Leonardo Da Vinci drawing tanks. You know, Leonardo was EXACTLY right. I mean, our tanks have rapid fire, they move real good, and really there's all types. But his tanks had wooden gears, because metal just didn't work that way. Our metal is so different from his metal. the metal back then was soft, couldn't make flat things (they had to lumpy and round to hold their shape at all), It was so heavy that leonardo couldn't see a tank being metal. Basically, the same applies to ships people draw. Assuming they're completely wrong in every way, they actually get it exactly right!! Our favorite star-ships,,,, are very realistic.
Actually no. We have a far easier time predicting at least early space ships and how they would behave considering our understanding of the world is much deeper than Leonardo Da Vincis, even though he actually managed to get a bunch of things right enough. His tank also was capable of rapid fire(Thanks to multiple guns) 360° field of fire and more. And there is a distinct difference between us imagining space ships and him imagening tanks.
He created something that was completly operational with the methods of his time.
tsmspace lol, when I saw this I read Leonardo DiCaprio, and was suuuuuuper confused. Lel
soft and lumpy? Thats nonsense, there were elegant blades of hardened spring steel in Leonardos time. The problems were more that :
1: making something that big out of decent steel would have been astronomically expensive.
2: without combustion engines there wouldnt have been no way to move so much steel.
Dude what are you talking about? When Leonardo was alive swords were being made from spring steel which is generally accepted as the first modern quality steel. They had also built gears out of metal so you're way off. Riesen is on point that the primary reason is about the weight of a steel tank without combustion engines or even treads.
Your basic premise is correct, however your examples are not
maul's scimitar would be an interesting one to see in the wind tunnel tests, especially if its wings fold down flat for atmospheric flight. the racers from the resistance series would be cool to examine too, since they spend so much time operating on the surface of castilon.
It would be hilarious to see the drag coefficient of something like the snowspeeder that was used on hoth to drop the At-At's
The v wing and Darth mauls ship from episode one might fly in real life.
The N1 likely would too, with some minor modifications. The shape of it looks very much like it would have a lifting body.
I doubt the V Wing would due to the strange wing design (the wings are vertical not horizontal so the would be very little lift, and Maul's Sith Interceptor looks extremely back-heavy, with very small wings
The Naboo N1 Starfighter was actually quite well armed. It had a pair of nose mounted laser cannons similar to a TIE fighter(ie pretty powerful) and a payload of proton torpedoes which are much stronger than missiles. They had good shields, great maneuverability, and above average speed. They also had the ability to carry an astromech droid which could make repairs and recharge the shields. They also have a polished heat shield on the nose to assist with atmospheric entry. They were expensive hand-built fighters that didn't make a lot of performance trade-offs in any part of the design.
The requirement for atmospheric entry is high drag and relatively low lift.
Later transition to sustained atmospheric flight is aided by lower angles of attack, with better lift-drag ratios, but the entry problem is one of scrubbing the huge amount of orbital velocity with a shallow angle of entry, but with a definite deceleration without skipping. This requires reasonably precise geometry (descent angle) to manage heat and energy transfers from KE and PE to heat in a manageable way. For a winged body a high AOA (way post stall for aerodynamic control) and a steep bank angle (to prevent climbing back out of the atmosphere), controlled with inertial methods (potentially) or vernier rockets (demonstrated) for pitch, yaw and roll stability. For wingless bodies, a blunt nose for optimal thermal performance and high drag to give a committed entry/descent and to scrub energy before reaching the dense lower atmosphere has been common.
Why do I think gen tech should have at least a couple mill subs
"lightly armed but extremely manouverable" I heard that bit in the voice from Battle for Naboo's ship select screen
Man you are good because I do not have a great interest in Star Wars Universe, hardly know the bases. Came for the engineering and science fiction but stayed and subbed for the overall quality of your videos. I might read the books some days !
There is no aerodynamics in space, because there is no air. 😂😂😂
3:37 also a smaller ring has to spin faster to create 1G where as a larger ring could spin slower
these dreadnoughts look a little like BattleStar Pegasus
Great video. This has been something that I have always wondered about.
It’s always nice when things make sense
The Forerunners (Halo) vs the Old Ones (Warhammer 40k).
Forerunners vs Necrons would be better.
@@fadelsukoco3092
Why?
@@thorshammer7883 The Old Ones are much more akin to the Precursors: they both were constantly creating life, they had higher understandings of metaphysics (psychic power in 40k), and they were both ultimately destroyed in a war against ultraviolent usurpers. Not to mention that in the present day in both universes, the Necrons and Forerunners are both reawakening to at least some extent to challenge Humanity.
@@zachchartier570
But the Precursors didn't fight back against the Forerunners though unlike the Old Ones who actually did try to win against the Necrons.
@@thorshammer7883 simply because there us far more canon information known about the Necrons than the Old Ones, and since there is quite a lot of information available on the Forerunners (mainly from books), and there are similar aspects to their tech and lots of examples of how both waged war, it's far more practical to guess and anticipate their conflicts and strategies and interactions.
The wings of tie fighter's and x wings are not very important in atmosphere because of repulsor drive
Yeah but they're to radiate heat away from the ship, not as a wing
And the tie wing has solar panels on it.
the SmashGamer I guess it was from a technical standpoint is where they put everything that can’t be put on The main Tube or what ever like stabilizers an probably to spread out weapons or landing gears or Extra Armor Or the fact that a sphere and a long tube aren’t good Thing to watch battle in space also having a dorky ship isn’t gonna Help with morale since they will feel like they have been give something as Useful As a Barf bag in space
@@luigimrlgaming9484 A tube or a sphere would be far more structurally sound than anything else, really. With no extra bits sticking out, or inconsistencies in integrity, a round ship like the mon calamari's would be able to take hits better. You can hide sensitive equipment inside it. The only thing that would be more effective would be sloped/angled armour. I think a properly made ship would be more daunting and impressive, even though there wouldn't be too much difference between variants.
They are not “wings” they are radiators (or solar panels on the tie) opening the wings exposes more radiant surface
I was really hoping for a sepratist ship not just the control ship. The cargo one is one of my favourites. The one grievous uses in the space battle on salucami. Recusant class. It's called. I'd have that for a ship with a few modifications to the structure design.
A spherical design also allows for optimum armor around the ship without adding too much mass since a spherical object has a very low surface area to cover compared to other shapes.
the millennium falcon is not a frigate, it's a freighter.
I like the way the DCHC looks. It makes sense. The ship looks like a naval vessel, not a commercial one. Its stark, angular appearance makes it more imposing. I think the ISD would look better, too, if they got rid of that ridiculous bridge and slapped on about 20 point defence arrays. I find it funny that battleships in WW2 had secondary helms inside the ship, but no one in SW had that figured out.
The H2 executive shuttlw , as well as being beautiful looks like it could operate in atmosphere very well.
0:25 bb8 is my favourite ship in the Star Wars franchise
The YT-1300 is actually a really good design for a small freighter. It has decent storage space and the modular design gives it greater utility than most other freighters of it's size
My only problem is what the cockpit does to her center of mass. This can be compensated for by the engines, but if that is done incorrectly, the ship ends up spinning rather than flying
@@trinalgalaxy5943 unless she has a decent amount of counter weight on the other side, like a nice, large com dish. We don't know what all is inside these ships, the hyperdrive could be off to the side to balance the ship out
Do the A wings, they have a really thin fuselage and look really close to most modern aircraft
UNSC ships are the ones that looks realistic
*Cackles in battlestar*
Almost forgot, what about The Expanse
Randy Cheow that’s next level realistic although with some poor choices
@@user-gu7yo5yn9g
Ships in Battlestar Galactica are better designed (Realistically) than star wars but it isn't really too realistic compared to halo and especially so compared to the expanse.
Nothing is realistic until we build it, and I believe WW3 will wipe us out before we build our first space yard.
My favorite Star Wars ship is the T-65 T-65 X-Wing .
Not the coolest or the best, but my personal favorites are Boba Fett's ship Slave 1, the Ebon Hawk from KOTOR, and the Sith Warrior/Sith Inquisitor ship from SWTOR the Fury Class Interceptor. It's not technically a starship, but i also LOVE the Mandalorian Basilisk War Droid, it's not super cool looking but it IS very practical and badass since it's basiclly like the ODST drop pods from Halo in that they use them to drop from orbit and fly past enemy defences before crashing into the ground, jumping out, and killing anything that moves.
@@arthas640 true
I think making a artificial gravity filter is a must if we want to ships like this
I would combine the best qualities of the Dreadnaught class cruiser with the J-type 327.
Exposed on some strut.
Venator loooks around nervously.
While discussing Naboo starships, you forgot about the one used in the beginning of Ep.3. The quad-engined starship with the very wide wingspan that got blown up almost immediately. That seems like a better candidate than the Naboo star fighter for actual realistic flight capabilities. You all should do a follow up video.
this channel is in serious need of more star trek and warhammer 40k vids.
Allen I think its great the way you narrate gen tech . My question wS where do you get your information from . I think its great that you are so informed. Please dont stop doing these videos. Thanks bro .
A star destroyer type ship is the most likely Star Wars ship to be used by the military.
A triangular design increases armour effectiveness and aerodynamics, whilst also allowing almost all main guns on target.
Star Wars ships use something called repulsor engines for atmospheric flight. This is referenced in the Thrawn Trilogy, dark force rising. The repulsor lifts allow the ship to "Hover" negating the need for aerodynamics. Not saying it wouldn't be important for our technology, but it makes sense why the ships aren't designed with aerodynamics in mind in the star wars universe.
He says "frigate" instead of "freighter". It's funny.
Dreadnaughts look like Battlestars almost.
Z-95 Headhunter
Probably the closest SW thing to our own fighter jets.
Corelian CR-90
I dont have a problem with an exposed bridge in space combat, in actuality you would never even be within eyesight range because in space, the ranges would be incredible. Like thousands of miles. There is no stealth in space.
Have you tried what EC Henry did except taking into account the engines? I suggest doing so after The Acolyte has concluded, since we need an in-depth look at the jedi vector starfighters used in that show.
Excellent video/review 👍☯️👍
Lukerhulk has it's bridge on a contower outside the ball, it's right there in the technical manual you showed in the video.
The idea of the U wings folding wings sound a lot like the idea of the X-02 Wyvern with it canards and forward swept wing along with it vertical stabilizer fold into the aircraft's frame.
Lucerhulks and Corellian YTs (like the Millennium Falcon) were freighters, not frigates.
Lucerhulks wouldn't need to reorient the floor because brass plates were installed beneath the decking.
The dreadnaught looks straight out of halo or mass effect
The Blackbird can barely generate lift on its own. The Nubian may not have drag but that just means it'll drop straight through the atmosphere like a rock.
What about the J-type diplomatic barge? It basically has an aircraft wing at the front of it.
Remember that ships in Star Wars have repulsors for use near planets. They also are used for air and landspeeders. So aerodynamics aren't as much of an issue as nothing flies in the conventional sense using airfoils.
The ship at the beginning of attack of the clones is probably one of the best
I’ve always enjoyed realistic cylindrical designs, but that’s probably because I’m a hard sci fi nerd.
how was palpatine not enrolled in the jedi order when he was a child
His wealthy family kept that from happening. They kept him from being testing, and later in life, he learned how to hide his massive Force Presence.
Thanks for clearing that up
on Naboo everyone can use the force so they go out of their way to hide the fact they are all force sensitive. including palpatines parents... i mean think about it... darth jar jar, darth sidious, Padme has super strong force sensitive kids, its not just anakin, she too must have a strong connection to the force for the kids to be so talented
im pretty convinced they are all sithe/jedi war survivors who withdrew from the war, even the gungans... and thats why they have a weird stand off truce where they distrust each other but think about it, the gungans have technology, but thier weapons are lightning balls... almost like... sithe sorcery
@@aurorauplinks Don't forget biotech (used in submersibles, for instance) and shielding!
the J-type 327 looks like a partially lifting body design. it wouldn't need big wings, it would generate lift with its fuselage shape. of course it doesn't look right, but it's pretty similar.
A lucrehulk was very convenient for atmospheric travel
Correct me if I'm wrong, I heard you call the Falcon a frigate. It's a freighter.