Spaceship thread

Post only the best

...

...

...

Bump

...

Most realistic interstellar ship in film.

ACTION STATIONS MOTHERFUCKER

/thread

The most realistic one is also the best looking one. Really stimulates my synapses.

Bump

I love how in the new Star Wars canon everyone is just mind-blown as to how the empire could come up with the idea of wasting resources on something so incredibly stupid and unnecessary

Where's this from?

You wanted the best? You got it!

This is from the tv show Quark, this is a space sanitation ship that eats space baggies by opening the mouth part of the ship

Opening scenes of Avatar.

...

...

>tfw will never be captain of a star destroyer

...

please...

Not a bad rendition, problem is they could look like whatever they want really

I'm still upset he died.

Kino

...

I can't take any spacecraft that doesn't have the decks perpendicular to the direction of thrust seriously anymore.

...

that is cool
what anime?

Evangelion

Greetings Starfighter

dis beltalowa gets it....

i facepalmed heavy when the "dropships" in alien covenant accelerated towards the planet from orbit... somebody should tell the movie makers that you have to burn retrograde to deorbit....

The ISV venture star has folding spin-gravity sections. So when it's under thrust, they are perpendicular. The amount of laser power required for 1g of thrust up to 0.7c is a bit mind boggling, though.

The Expanse probably has the most realistic space travel out of any normie-aimed tv series or movie, that much is true. The fusion drive they're using doesn't make too much sense, however.

acceleration creating gravity is the dumbest idea I have ever heard of about space travel but I suppose It's necessary for the plot. Also checked.

so hot

...

>space fighter
DISCARDED
This is not spam, you retarded filter system. Fighter-scale ships make no fucking sense at all in space. The mass overhead of fuel tanks, engines etc. decreases with the total size of the ship due to the square-cube law (surface area scales quadratically, volume scales cubically - tanks are proportional to surface area, fuel mass is proportional to volume). So small ships are actually going to be "slower" than big ships in space. As in, have less delta v available.

must be an old one to even have a physical hull

nope, such designs are called a torch-ship, just aim for the target and burn halfway then flip 180° and burn again

within a solar system it's the best way to travel
pro:
- no homan transfers need, doing almost direct brachistochrone trajectories, very fast
- constant artifical gravity
con:
you need a superefficent unobtanium drive

It's literally the easiest way of generating "gravity" in space, brainlet. Any propulsion system that can get to other planets or stars in reasonable time frames is going to be acceleration-limited anyways, barring FTL which is even dumber. Fusion has sufficient energy densities to make multi-g brachistochrones theoretically possible, the issue is actually getting fusion to occur in a controlled fashion, and then getting rid of the immense amounts of waste heat without instantly vaporizing your vessel.

...

I got curious and used the Google image lookup option. Fascinating results

...

I am still waiting for any movie or tv show to portray nuclear pulse propulsion, the most likely successful near future engine type

...

...

...

>defiant
>small
>fuel tanks
holy shit you're retarded

kek
Wh40k missed such a gigantic opportunity by making their ships follow the classic scifi trope of "horizontal ships". Could have had Gothic skyscrapers, chose to have u-boats with frills instead.

Fair enough, it's an FTL shitship which means no physics apply to it and it might as well be a flying ship of the line from the age of sail.

Are these the deadliest ships in the thread based on source Canon?

Looks like it could skip across the ocean like a stone across a lake.

The only problem with spinning shit to make artificial gravity is that humans are super extraordinarily sensitive to centripetal forces. To make 9.81g by spinning, while also keeping angular velocities low enough to not have your crew constantly be vomiting or stoking due to the centripetal forces, you would need the radius of your spinning section to be about 1 km long. Which is WAY longer than what most franchises do.

I thought that the Empire built the Death Star to bust through giant planetary shields that normal star destroyers wouldn't be able to handle.

Do you choose artificial gravity and a formidable defense grid or fucking massive long range guns?

Behold the Earth Alliance, if at first you don't succeed just hit it harder.

> not posting the bucket

In canon, a GSV is probably more powerful than an ROU

is the Sleeper Service

>the Sleeper Service made preparations such that it could, on very short notice, fill all its General Bays, a large part of its internal space, with additional engine capacity, making it able to outrun any ship in the Culture, as well as creating a fleet of approximately 112,000 semi-slaved Offensive Units of varying types based on standard Culture models.

Anything in Halo. Including the infinity. But covenant>human

Top speed isn't your only concern in space combat, fool, you also have to take into account your ability to accelerate. If someone shoots a MAC round at you, you had better be able to get the fuck out of the way in time, or you're toast. The smaller, and lighter, the ship, the easier it is to dodge. So your fighters would still be important, as they'd be designed to be light enough to be able to make attempting to hit them with "dead" slugs impractical as they move on approach to the target and dump their payload. No, they wouldn't be able to hit the top speeds of a big guy, but that's why you launch them from a huge mothership in the first place.

this thread is pure autism, do this planet a favor and kill yourselves

Who else /bioship/ here?

Sorry, meant to say something more like "would those ROUs be able to take on anything else in this thread"

No, you would not. Plenty of research has been done on this, and it turns out humans can generally handle about 2rpm without too much disorentation due to coriolis, Do some basic math and you end up with a minmum radius for your spin habitat of about 20m for 1g. Which is totally doable.

Nope, now it is pure autism. Although the real power is not found in ships but pop idols.

yes

What are those two abominations at the bottom of the pic supposed to be? High Charity and ???

...

This is the only ship that matters.

...

Welcome to Sup Forums, and Sup Forums in particular. It seems like you're having a hard time coping with this image board and the topic often discussed here but his is okay, some new users have trouble adjusting to new websites. I suggest you take a break and return to which ever other site you regularly visit and take a break.

Come back when you feel ready.

>1g artificial gravity
Yeah, maybe if you want your people to not have bones and muscles when they land.

9.81g = 224m radius, minimum

>be in space
>0g
>only external acceleration comes from engines thrusting
>have floor oriented in arbitray direction perpendicular to vector of thrust
Literally why
You severely overestimate the amounts of thrust required and severely underestimate the range of combat. A few dozen miligees of jinking is perfectly acceptable to dodge kinetics

I'd always wondered where the bridge of the Defiant was and also what's in that protruding forward section. Makes sense it'd be buried as deep in the center as possible. Thanks for the picture.

t. star fighter

Ebin troled :DDDDDD

>A few dozen miligees of jinking is perfectly acceptable to dodge kinetics
Which is why it's in both parties interests to get as close as possible to the enemy before beginning to shoot. A space fighter wouldn't be like an X-wing, it would be more like a remote-controlled gun platform that's mounted to an engine. It's only purpose is to close distance so that the enemy can't accelerate away fast enough to avoid the shot.

Daily reminder that you can literally go test all your autistic ideas about space combat nowadays

Fuck that, just fire spread weapons or fucking stacks of missiles.

If you really want to hit, use nuclear lances. It's the only way to be sure.

Crewed space fighters make less than 0 sense. What you want are actually missiles. Preferably missiles fired in their thousands or tens of thousands out of coilguns or orbits of vastly differing velocities to make it through the laser dead zone. Said missiles should be carrying nuclear EFPs aka casaba howitzers.

No other guided payload can really stand up to lasers.

Exclude the culture ships from that.

For any physics-without-forcefields spaceships, agreed.

Missiles are expensive, yo, think with your wallet. Also missiles can be defeated by countermeasures, point-defense weaponry, etc. There's no stopping a MAC round. And they're cheap. Regardless, even if you're launching a missile swarm it's still in your best interest to do it closer to the other guy than farther, it gives him less time to react. Hence the need for small zippy craft, they can dodge through the flak and be in position.

The only thing better would be some kind of gamma-ray laser platform that shoots a lance of death at the speed of light, but that's literally impossible to make as far as I know. Gammas don't make coherent beams.

Nobody is talking about crewed fighters. I even said "remote-controlled drone" in my post.

>lasers
Lasers obey the inverse-squared law of power intensity, unless you're shotgunning someone with them they just tickle.

I love these.

>Not this one.

yes, but they would consider killing them rude and propably just reassemble their ships into shuttles to bring thr crew home safe

>when your artillery is so big you aim by turning the ship because it's faster

Only the best you say

Not as much as you think. Try Children of a Dead Earth, and their metagame in the forums. Basically, within roughly real world physics lasers will create a dead zone at least a few thousand miles around any warship. The closer you come the more dangerous the laser gets.

Drones might prove useful for all sorts of limited engagements, but a proper combat fleet will take them out. The real offensive approach of choice is firing a huge amount of miniature "missiles" with NEFPs, and using your own lasers to either intercept enemy missiles or engage enemy ships directly. The rocket engines on the missiles serve as terminal guidance, the acceleration is handled by the launch system, e.g. coilgun. Plus orbital mechanics.

Forgot to mention, for long range high power laser applications, all you really have to do is overwhelm the enemy vessel's heat rejection systems, and essentially slow cook the crew.

But what if you put ultra-reflective coatings around the vessel so that the enemy lasers just bounced off?

How did 5 not go insane from spending all that time alone in space?

pornography and anime

This is the worst bait ever

>I just got BTFO but I don't want to admit it so I'll just call it bait!

1G is the stationary force on the Earth's surface that we all are living with you stupid uneducated underage.

Oh sorry I fucked up the units when I wrote my post. I meant 9.81 m/s^2 = 224 m. I'm still right.

Formula for centripedal acceleration:

a_c = r(\omega)^2

solve for r:

r = a_c/(\omega)^2

In base units, you want your a_c = 9.81 m/s^2. This is Earth's gravity.
An angular velocity of 2 rpm is pi/15 rad/s.

Throw these numbers in:

r = 9.81 / (pi/15)^2 = 223.64 m

To get earth gravity by spinning the ship about a pivot you need to have it be almost 0.5 km diameter.

It likes the aesthetic

>'What course please, Admiral.'

...

Which version of the Enterprise is best?

Always liked the Intrepid Class

Wouldn't their warp drives completely BTFO Earth by gravitational tidal forces if they ever turned them on too close to it?