Worst ship design?

[jegs2]

The Imperator class star destroyers, they're just stupid. And ugly. I mean why the..ack..ack..ack....


Just kidding. The fighters from the Lost in Space film were obviously designed to look "cool" only, which they don't. An obvious B-wing ripoff. And sorry, I kind of like the Star Ship Scrotum from battle beyond the stars.

I almost had to launch into you, but forunately I saw the continuation of your post after that first traitorous line...

[Frank Hipper]

The Imperator class star destroyers, they're just stupid. And ugly. I mean why the..ack..ack..ack....


Just kidding. The fighters from the Lost in Space film were obviously designed to look "cool" only, which they don't. An obvious B-wing ripoff. And sorry, I kind of like the Star Ship Scrotum from battle beyond the stars.

I almost had to launch into you, but forunately I saw the continuation of your post after that first traitorous line...

Did you realise that the ack..ack..ackkis me being force choked?

[Sea Skimmer]

The Imperator class star destroyers, they're just stupid. And ugly. I mean why the..ack..ack..ack....


Just kidding. The fighters from the Lost in Space film were obviously designed to look "cool" only, which they don't. An obvious B-wing ripoff. And sorry, I kind of like the Star Ship Scrotum from battle beyond the stars.

I almost had to launch into you, but forunately I saw the continuation of your post after that first traitorous line...

Did you realise that the ack..ack..ackkis me being force choked?

T-21 down your throat is more the style here.

[fgalkin]

Actually ISDs are badly designed.
when compared to GSV's

have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Peregrin Toker]

That ship from Battle Beyond The Stars actually looks an awful lot like a LAAT.

The Starfleet's Galaxy-class Battleship from ST:TNG is both poorly designed and I neither like the appearance - to me, it's successor, the Sovereign-class, is far more graceful.

Another ship that always struck me as ugly is the Sword-class Frigate from Battlefleet Gothic. It might be a sturdy, well-functioning ship but I always its prow disproportionally big.

And then there's all the Mon Calamari warships. They might be beautiful, but aerodynamic shapes are useless in the vacuum of space. The only use is if they also are used for atmospheric combat, and we have seen capital-scale starships used in planetary combats in SW (ie, the Acclamators in AOTC)....

[Patrick Degan]

Actually, one of the worst warship designs to be fielded in SF would have to be the Omega-class destroyer from Babylon 5. The ship may look cool, but the design of its modular rotational section causes numerous problems not only from the standpoint of torsional stress and stability (as well as wasting energy) due to angular-momentum transfer to the central spaceframe, but also in terms of very bad combat design. The modules of the rotational section make it impossible for the ship to have full coverage of its firing arcs. No matter which angle you train the guns, part of the arc will be blocked by the ship's own structure, and the entire midsection of the vessel effectively becomes a large open target at least twice during the rotational cycle in which attacking fightercraft may approach close without facing overlapping fields of defensive fire from the destroyer.

Just on those grounds alone, the Omega is idiotic designing at its worst.

[The Dark]

The Ebiiru-class Cargo Hauler from Jovian Chronicles.
The Hachiman-class Destroyer from Jovian Chronicles.
The Whipsnake Space Plane from Heavy Gear.

Just a few from a series of games I otherwise really like. Unfortunately, semi-hard sci-fi ships tend to not look all that elegant.

[fgalkin]

Actually, one of the worst warship designs to be fielded in SF would have to be the Omega-class destroyer from Babylon 5. The ship may look cool, but the design of its modular rotational section causes numerous problems not only from the standpoint of torsional stress and stability (as well as wasting energy) due to angular-momentum transfer to the central spaceframe, but also in terms of very bad combat design. The modules of the rotational section make it impossible for the ship to have full coverage of its firing arcs. No matter which angle you train the guns, part of the arc will be blocked by the ship's own structure, and the entire midsection of the vessel effectively becomes a large open target at least twice during the rotational cycle in which attacking fightercraft may approach close without facing overlapping fields of defensive fire from the destroyer.

Just on those grounds alone, the Omega is idiotic designing at its worst.

Actually, doesn't the Omega have guns on the rotating section? Or at least interceptors?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Typhonis 1]

The origional Godsfire class Battleship from JC all of its heavy weapons were mounted in one external pod

[The Dark]

Actually, one of the worst warship designs to be fielded in SF would have to be the Omega-class destroyer from Babylon 5. The ship may look cool, but the design of its modular rotational section causes numerous problems not only from the standpoint of torsional stress and stability (as well as wasting energy) due to angular-momentum transfer to the central spaceframe, <snip>

Wouldn't a counter-rotating gyro cancel the torsional effects?

[The Dark]

The origional Godsfire class Battleship from JC all of its heavy weapons were mounted in one external pod

Yeah, and I still love how the Beautiful Dreamer had TWO of the railguns in it. A modified cargo ship carries two of the big gun a battleship has one of? That's one heck of a privateer.

And out of curiosity, what is the point of the S-Foils on the X-Wing? It would seem that the loss of flexibility due to the requirement to spread and contract them would exceed the gain in likelihood of hitting. Is there a technical reason for it that I'm unaware of, or did Incom just make an unnecessary complication?

[Typhonis 1]

However the origional JC ships had one thing going for em they had no spinning middle tar...I mean section to make gravity

[Renewed_Valour1]

In my opinion it would be any ship that mounts the CIC or bridge on top of it or in any other prominent location for it to be fired upon.

[Patrick Degan]

Actually, one of the worst warship designs to be fielded in SF would have to be the Omega-class destroyer from Babylon 5. The ship may look cool, but the design of its modular rotational section causes numerous problems not only from the standpoint of torsional stress and stability (as well as wasting energy) due to angular-momentum transfer to the central spaceframe, <snip>

Wouldn't a counter-rotating gyro cancel the torsional effects?

You would have to have one for any craft with a rotating section. Certainly the Omega must employ such a flywheel device, but having two large angular masses swinging around the spaceframe (with both extending quite a distance from the central axis) instead of a simple cyllinder considerably magnifies the engineering problems in the design.

In answer to another question from another poster —no, there is no evident gunnery or interceptor missiles mounted on the rotational section. We certainly do not see any firing coming from the modules in any battle depicted on Babylon 5 involving this class warship.

[Exonerate]

Z-91 headhunter. Not enough shields to protect it, and too much shields to decrease it's maneuverability. I'd rather fly a Tie Fighter instead of a headhunter.

[Stormbringer]

Galaxy, the worst collection of design flaws and stupid idea ever to cruise space.

[Darth Wong]

Wouldn't a counter-rotating gyro cancel the torsional effects?

You would have to have one for any craft with a rotating section. Certainly the Omega must employ such a flywheel device, but having two large angular masses swinging around the spaceframe (with both extending quite a distance from the central axis) instead of a simple cyllinder considerably magnifies the engineering problems in the design.

It would be OK if the ship never has to move

[Sea Skimmer]

Wouldn't a counter-rotating gyro cancel the torsional effects?

You would have to have one for any craft with a rotating section. Certainly the Omega must employ such a flywheel device, but having two large angular masses swinging around the spaceframe (with both extending quite a distance from the central axis) instead of a simple cyllinder considerably magnifies the engineering problems in the design.

It would be OK if the ship never has to move

Thus defeating the "Ship" aspect of the design

[Guest]

basically any feddy ship untill Defiant was built, the saucer and engineering section is a huge target and every thing is too east to target.
the bridge is was too vunerable, a flaw in most scifi ships. but it is painfuly vunerable in the feddy ships. plus in the starward universe u can knock out ALL weapons on it by hitting the so called "Weapons aray" what a fucking dumb concept.

[Mike_6002]

Actually, one of the worst warship designs to be fielded in SF would have to be the Omega-class destroyer from Babylon 5. The ship may look cool, but the design of its modular rotational section causes numerous problems not only from the standpoint of torsional stress and stability (as well as wasting energy) due to angular-momentum transfer to the central spaceframe, but also in terms of very bad combat design. The modules of the rotational section make it impossible for the ship to have full coverage of its firing arcs. No matter which angle you train the guns, part of the arc will be blocked by the ship's own structure, and the entire midsection of the vessel effectively becomes a large open target at least twice during the rotational cycle in which attacking fightercraft may approach close without facing overlapping fields of defensive fire from the destroyer.

Just on those grounds alone, the Omega is idiotic designing at its worst.

It is still a cool ship

Yup thats it weakness, seen at opening battle during "Severed Dreams"

Major Ryan" One more hit mid-ship we will go zero-g"

The Clarkstown blast nailed the rotating sections almost made them go zero-G

Bad design overall, but cool looking

[Sea Skimmer]

Actually, one of the worst warship designs to be fielded in SF would have to be the Omega-class destroyer from Babylon 5. The ship may look cool, but the design of its modular rotational section causes numerous problems not only from the standpoint of torsional stress and stability (as well as wasting energy) due to angular-momentum transfer to the central spaceframe, but also in terms of very bad combat design. The modules of the rotational section make it impossible for the ship to have full coverage of its firing arcs. No matter which angle you train the guns, part of the arc will be blocked by the ship's own structure, and the entire midsection of the vessel effectively becomes a large open target at least twice during the rotational cycle in which attacking fightercraft may approach close without facing overlapping fields of defensive fire from the destroyer.

Just on those grounds alone, the Omega is idiotic designing at its worst.

It is still a cool ship

Yup thats it weakness, seen at opening battle during "Severed Dreams"

Major Ryan" One more hit mid-ship we will go zero-g"

The Clarkstown blast nailed the rotating sections almost made them go zero-G

Bad design overall, but cool looking

Functional technology is cool. Fuck form over function.

[Howedar]

Nebula. By all accounts, it seems to lack STL propulsion

[Vendetta]

FYI: Battle Beyond the Stars is a sci-fi B-ish movie from 1980.

It's also a Sci Fi remake of Seven Samurai/The Magnificent Seven.

(though more Magnificent Seven, it even has Robert Vaughn playing the exact same role)

Three years later, another film, Space Raiders, reused ALL of the FX shots from Battle Beyond the Stars. Every single minute.

Both were produced by Roger Corman. Of course.

[Raptor 597]

A Nebula, one fucked up piece of shit.

[The Dark]

You would have to have one for any craft with a rotating section. Certainly the Omega must employ such a flywheel device, but having two large angular masses swinging around the spaceframe (with both extending quite a distance from the central axis) instead of a simple cyllinder considerably magnifies the engineering problems in the design.

It would be OK if the ship never has to move

Thus defeating the "Ship" aspect of the design

True, but you could accelerate up to the velocity you desire without the section spinning (since the acceleration would cause a gravitational effect), then spin the habitat scetion while coasting.