Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"You aren't actually trying to move the ship against it's forward inertia, just turning it and flying straight in another direction."

Umm, WHAT? You kind of need to cancel the velocity from the first vector before/while doing another, otherwise you'll keep going that way. So if you turn around, point straight 'up' and just use the rear engine, you'll end up going diagnally forward.

Come to think of it, that sort of thing might be good to 'fake out' inexperienced pilots.

Phoenix-D

No. That is only true if you fire your retro and cut your rear engine. If you fire your retro and fire your rear engine that will push you in the new direction.

Vipers are like the Appolo command module we used to get to the moon. They only fly one direction. straight ahead. To change course you fire a retro and rotate the ship. You are still aiming and flying straight ahead, it's just straight ahead is a different direction.

Your forward inertia does continue to carry you in your original direction until your main engine has canclled that completely and you are on your new course. That is the reason you can't change directions in sharp angles. It's inertia.

Geo

[Repo Man]

Anyone want to venture a guess as to why the air didn't leak out of the BSG's landing bays? They were wide open. Maybe a special force field?

The biggest problem with BSG is they didn't have the time or the backing to work out a few kinks and get their science straight. Moons floating around in space.... entering a new galaxy after traveling a few weeks at sublight speeds. And why in the world was there a gambling ship which would put Vegas to shame while there were shiploads of civilians living in squalor?

Despite its flaws, BSG still was a great show, and I hope the new series captures the magic of the original series.

BSG 1980 OTOH, was just horrid, but not horrid enough to make it funny. It was just baaaad.

[disabled]

If I recall a small news article from back in the days..

BattleStar Galactica was one of the most expensive series ever produced, episodes were produced near the cost of the most expensive tv show pilot (about 600,000) known at the time - The Original Star Trek Pilot.
600k x 26 episodes a seasons... Expensive as hell...

But they pulled Ratings both in first airings and syndications.... Networks like that.

but there was a far greater evil... far far greater... and it was from a galaxy far, far, far, very damn far away...

Yes, Mighty Emperor George Lucas felt BSG was a direct rip-off of the Star Wars. And he sued them up one side and down the other with not 10, not 12, but 11 over-payed, high priced, foreign lawyers until the studios questioned the series seriously.

While BSG did eventully win the law battle... changes is the writer staff sent the writing quality to the crapper. Anyone remember the episode where they switch the lines for Apollo and Starbuck so that one could have the funny lines of a change.....

Those things really piss off fans (like in the case of Star Trek TNG & DS9 fans that watched Voyager and Enterprise) and the Ratings dropped and dropped.

Then the execs at the studio said "Kill them all...."

And George Lucas smelled the sweet sent of the burnt remains competition was pleased...

If I recall right, isn't Ron Moore of StarTrek TNG taking over for some of the writing team on the new BSG.

Also, Glen Larson has been fighting the studios for years to let him produce a series of movies. That is way Hatch hasn't got his series yet, Glen as bigger plans....

Now to physics, Star Trek pulled that banking in space crap too during DS9's Dominion War -With a GALAXY CLASS STARSHIP!

[Krakenup]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
In fact, an aircraft in an atmosphere theoretically could turn at a sharper angle because it can change the angle of attack of it's wings and bank into the turn. This will add the wings lift to the thrust of the engines in changing vectors. It's not a big difference, and it takes a lot of skill and a really well designed aircraft. But a viper in a vacuum would have no such assistance. It would have only it's engines for forward thrust and some kind of reaction jets or moveable thrust cowling for direction changes.

(Btw, I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I play one on T.V. )

Geo

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.

[Cylapse]

Those things really piss off fans (like in the case of Star Trek TNG & DS9 fans that watched Voyager and Enterprise) and the Ratings dropped and dropped.

LOL, What happened with Enterprise? DS9 was my favorite, and I couldnt stand that god damn Voyager. But Ent Im actually half interested in. Not to mention its the only fooken thing on these days, someone needs to pick up and air DS9.

[geoschmo]

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.

Heh, I was pretty much talking out my behind there wasn't I?

Aircraft almost exclusivly change directions by use of aerodynamic forces. I didn't mean engine thrust there at all. Or if I did I was nuts. I was trying to differentiate in my mind between the amount of vector change that is a result of manipulating the control sufraces, and the amount of vector change that is a result of banking so that the lift of the wing surface is pushing the aircraft in the direction you want to turn. But it's all so interrelated you would need to know a whole lot more about it than I do to separate those two elements.

I was trying to contrast that to a space ship in a vacuum where the "control surface" is a retro, and there is no lift. Got my self a little tied up. Thanks for pointing that out Krak.

Geo

[Krakenup]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Aircraft almost exclusivly change directions by use of aerodynamic forces. I didn't mean engine thrust there at all. Or if I did I was nuts. I was trying to differentiate in my mind between the amount of vector change that is a result of manipulating the control sufraces, and the amount of vector change that is a result of banking so that the lift of the wing surface is pushing the aircraft in the direction you want to turn. But it's all so interrelated you would need to know a whole lot more about it than I do to separate those two elements.

I was trying to contrast that to a space ship in a vacuum where the "control surface" is a retro, and there is no lift. Got my self a little tied up. Thanks for pointing that out Krak.

Geo

The main wing control surfaces, the leading- and trailing-edge flaps, are used at low speed (takeoff and landing) to increase the wing's effective camber (curvature) to increase the lift. The other control surfaces are used to control the direction of the aircraft. At speed, vector change is accomplished by using the control surfaces to reorient the aircraft so that the wing lift provides the required force. In space, you would just use thrusters to reorient the main engine thrust vector and fire. It would take huge engines to maneuver effectively (dogfight) in space.