Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Tarasque Battlecruiser Ortho by ILJackson Tarasque Battlecruiser Ortho by ILJackson
Model: HAI-14 Tarasque
Class: Battlecruiser

Height: 197 feet (58.6 m)
Length: 1,005 feet (306 m)
Width: 729 feet (222 m)

Sublight Speed: 22% speed of light
Maximum FTL Speed: 400C (one light year per 22 hours)
Range: 98 light years

Crew: 48 Officers, 420 enlisted, 30 marines or security personnel, 18 flight officers
Troops or Passengers: 200 max (100 comfortably)

Armaments:
1x Gauss Cannon (firing 1,000 lbs. tungsten carbide rounds)
6 x Forward Anti-ship missile launchers
2 x Rear Anti-ship missile launchers
2 x 60 TeV Particle Beam Cannons
4 x Twin-barrel, 10 Petawatt/milisecond solid state laser turrets (5 PT per barrel)
8 x Twin-barrel 60mm Extended Range Ion Defense Turrets

Armor: 2 cm multiwalled carbon nanotube mesh over 1-foot thick alumina and titanian carbide chobham armor.

Auxillary craft: 6 light or medium fighters (varies with purchaser) or 4 heavy strike fighters.
4 short-range shuttles

Avionics: Digital Optical Telescopes, Long-range Mass Detectors, Long-Range Electromagnetic Field Detectors, LADAR, Radar and Infrared Field Surveyors

(updated to correct two weapon mislabelings)
Add a Comment:
 
:iconhawkbri:
Hawkbri Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2014
I dunno... I LOVE the design of it... but you would think a Battlecruiser would be... bigger maybe? This is more of a 'cruiser' size.
game-craft.com/blog/wp-content… is a good start for ship sizes, as it's more realistic towards having a crew on such a... tiny vessel...? A ship of ONLY 58.6m would probably ONLY need... about 6 specialists, and STILL have room, comfortably, for a decent 5+ security/counter-invasion crew.
A ship of something 8 times the size, would only need a crew of about 40, and still have room, comfortably, for 20+ security/counter-invasion personnel.

And just noticed that I'm about 4 years late... so please pardon me.
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
I use realistic military ship sizes for the most part, just slightly larger. There's no reason for most sci-fi ships to be as big as they are. They are resource wasters, oversized targets and grossly inefficient. Real warships in space would be more like submarines. As for crew that's about half to a third of what would be on a battlecruiser of the same size in the ocean, you have to figure automation clears a lot of the ratings out.
Reply
:iconhawkbri:
Hawkbri Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2014
Technically, you also have to take into consideration the RAW POWER sources needed to use spacecraft capable of FTL, power the weapons and advanced targeting systems, and defensive hardwares, not to mention life-support for the crew. Things are fairly large in size, which is ONE of the reasons why our current SPACESHUTTLES are so large as-is for such small crews as well. We also have to take into consideration armor plating and bulkheads are going to have to be bigger, consistent with 'I want to survive this and kill the other person/group while I'm at it' philosophy. They WILL be like submarines, but it will be on a much larger scale. If you'll notice the craft from the EVE ship size comparision, the Wyvern is HUGE, for it's separate fighter and fighter bomber bays, not including automated drones, shield projector ports, docking ports, crew elevators, because how do you expect a group of engineers to go swiftly from 'bunk to battle readying fighters' in under 5 minutes, or go from bunks to each particular bay, not to mention so much other stuff... It's mind-numbing to think about it all, and what it all comes down to. The power generators in the future are going to vary greatly in size and power in the future from what we have right now, just think of StarTrek as well. The warp-cores, which are, at first, Nuclear power rods... The ones in the newest movies, although I do not like them, I can see that they would need HUGE power cores for such an advanced vessel at the time, and of so much power. I'm QUITE sure someone of your sci-fi knowledge must at least have seen both of the new movies? Elaborate engineering bays that are not ALL posh and pomp, but rather... mostly work and efficiency. It's not ALL about the looks...
You also may wish to view the CCP Games videos, several of the trailers preview a minor look into some of the ships, and another series: CLEAR SKIES, although fan-made, and... using a completely other game(ahem! Half-Life2) to simulate the insides of several ships, it is quite accurate for non-immortal or non-pod fitted vessels. 3 people, minimum on a battleSHIP, with a single remote-controlled robot, far as the entire series goes, and if I might say, the combat is fairly fun(ny) and realistically fun. You'll learn stuff and have fun at the same time!
I hope to spar words with you again soon!
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
I think most of them are too large. They aren't taking account micronization or even efficient control panels. Everything that runs the engine room on the Enterprise can be run from one iPad. Also, for technical reference, the engine room in the new movies is a brewery, not an engine room....and they've admitted that the engine room you see in the movie wouldn't actually fit in the enterprise....and the tarasque is larger than the original enterprise.
Reply
:iconhawkbri:
Hawkbri Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2014
ah, pardon me, I was only seeing ONE of the ship measurements... Comes from being tired before-bed, and from waking up. Yeah... sorry about the whole ranting.You can probably delete the comment prior to this one if you want.
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
LOL...I was really confused there for a minute. No problem. The Tarasque is a bit larger than the original series enterprise and actually contains more volume because, except for the wings, its one solid block instead of a saucer section, spindly neck and spindly engines. By volume it probably has as much interior space as a modern day air craft carrier.
Reply
:iconhawkbri:
Hawkbri Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2014
To be honest... one of the things that made me go 'blind' was the point defense railgun turret. It's a bit large for something of 'point defense' isn't it? I still think the craft from EVE, even the smaller ones, designated as Cruisers, Destroyers, and Frigates, would be able to easily handle these one to one, as they're able to put out more power and deal more turreted damage, as well as put out their own point defense missile system, and drone bays. As for having as much volume in interior space as an aircraft carrier... I doubt it. If they did, they'd be venting atmo, and that's NOT good, haha
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
I meant volume in the mathematical sense. If you closed off the entire thing and made it a big box. As for the point defense turrets. I don't think so. Also, there's going to be variability in design from one ship to another, so you're going to have competing design philosophies. Some of my ships have rail guns for point defense, some have ion turrets, some have lots of turrets and some have advanced fire control. It's going to vary just like it does in the modern world, only moreso because you've got large populations, meaning more design philosophies, some of them not even human.

One of the problems with sci-fi ship debates is that people forget that there's going to be a huge variety and difference in philosophies of design...as many as there are designers...and not all of them will be the best. In fact, they shouldn't be the best. You should never, ever try to design a perfect ship for a sci-fi setting. If you succeed, you've just killed your story. Nobody wants to read about a Mary Sue ship that's perfect. 

Whenever you think to say "would this system be better?" Stop. Then stop thinking like an engineer and start thinking like a writer. Why does the enterprise have that big bubble of a bridge on top for enemies to shoot at? Or those exposed nacelles. Why don't the crew wear spacesuits into battle? Why don't the integrity fields keep people from getting sucked out? Why don't they have automatic transport systems that immediately beam you back on board the moment its detected that you got sucked out? Why use photon torpedoes when, by the show, old style nukes do more damage (Balance of Terror). 
Why not get the Millenium Falcon overhauled by a professional rebel engineering team? 
Why not put point defense turrets around the docking bays of the battlestar galactica since the favorite cylon tactic is to ram it?
You never, ever want a perfect ship. Its bad writing.
Also, Eve ships better be able to take out mine. They're a few thousand years more advanced. My ships are 400 or so years into the future. They should be about competitive with maybe battlestar galactica in tech. They use energy weapons, but they also use a lot of bullets. And if you notice, there are no shields. None. Only a couple alien races have them. Any firefight is hell. Its destructive. Your ship gets screwed up. Everyone wears a spacesuit into battle with a tracker so the rescue shuttles can get them. 
My ships shouldn't even be able to handle federation ships. Because that's not the story I'm writing them for.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconhawkbri:
Hawkbri Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2014
Which enterprise? The U.S. Naval Carrier or the StarTrek one for the series Enterprise, or the Enterprise that Kirk flew? And yes, I know, a lot of the new movies' views of the engine rooms were just too damn large to have fit into such small vessels, although they were realistic in size. What you're not taking into account is the requirements for JUST the engines, which are MASSIVE amounts of energy.
Also: here's a StarTrek ship-scale page I found a minute ago: www.phan.org/sto/pics/ShipChar… which is closer to what the previous 40 years of StarTrek before the newest movies came out are like. I'd say just about the whole of the size comparisons for the engine rooms were very decent, and no, your tarasque is NOT 'larger than the original enterprise'... Please do your studying. The Enterprise BEFORE Kirk was 225m, captained by Jonathan Archer.
In any case, I could see a Griffin from EVE Online, a Frigate of some barely 63m from top to bottom, and hardly 10m large, and maybe 20m wide from port to starboard; would wipe the floor with your Tarasque, not due to it's size, but it's capabilities and although lacking any REAL gunnery, outside of a railgun or missile launcher, will shut down your Tarasque using Electronic Warfare, and in fact, I have used one to shutdown vessels of 200m and larger, forcing them to remove themselves from the field, or if they're really unlucky, they'll be completely unable to flee with a Warp-field disruption device, a localized one-ship target hardware which fits easily under the hull of the ship and simply requires one of the relays on either side of the vessel to be used... to continue, if there are more than just this vessel on the field, your Tarasque will swiftly be a dot of dust in the cosmos. Now... as for Battlecruiser class of vessels, the Drake-class Battlecruiser, known for it's HEAVY Missile launch bays, is huge BECAUSE of ALL the THOUSANDS of missiles it is meant to carry AND launch in a SINGLE deployment, and with 7 or 8 launchers depending on the 'is it a Navy or is it a Standard' edition vessel, can launch between 36 and 40 missiles per launcher, per rack of missiles, depending on the launcher and class of launcher, but most crews and captains tend to have the highest value launchers, with 7 or 8 launchers per vessel. That is a LOT of damage. The Drake is a 513meter long battlecruiser, able to hit FTL of 2.5AU/s at Warp, where it's tank, although usually a passive, instead of active as the Star Trek series vessels are, is almost ALWAYS very tough and takes MANY lightly armed, or still-several vessels heavily armed to take it down. Your Tarasque is a footnote as a Frigate-class. 

I also forgot to mention: Drake crew compliment, pre-capsuleer, is about 500, and that number can be lowered by a fair bit with a Capsuleer on-board to control the vessel.

It's not about the size, it's about the realization of realism. You can't fit that many crew in such a tiny vessel and be effective, and it's not truly a 'battlecruiser'. If a Drake, a vessel of 500+ meters(513exactly), only has about 500, how do you fit the same amount of crew AND 100-200 passengers 'comfortably' aboard a ship of... 58.6m... Make the Tarasque 10 times larger THEN you add in the crew and passengers, as you could hold over 300 extra passengers and the 500 crew compliment in the drake, easily, with room to spare for the missiles.
Reply
:iconxvampir3:
Xvampir3 Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
the design is great but people needs to let go the Elite model.... 
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
what's the "elite model"?
Reply
:iconxvampir3:
Xvampir3 Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
same way of designing ships since Elite... one of the first space sim games
Reply
:iconmegadolon013:
megadolon013 Featured By Owner Oct 11, 2013
gauss cannon reach out and kill someone.  Overkill against corvettes.  HELL YEAH!!!!!
Reply
:iconrealmwright:
Realmwright Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2013  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
You nailed all the details right down to crew and passengers. Nice work!
Reply
:iconfrostyfabrications:
FrostyFabrications Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2013  Student Digital Artist
I really like this design. It's sleek, fast and menacing. I love the whole blue print layout. Very suited to your style, it seems like. I tried one of these too for a school project. Stole some inspiration from old C & C Red Alert
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
I've bounced around a lot on deciding what blueprint style to use. This one seems to have been the most popular.
Reply
:iconacidalium:
Acidalium Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
I do like the overall design, but those wings.  Granted they are for waste heat (assuming emissions) collection, but there are other ways to go about it.  As for flight maneuvers....not so much.  Its neat but the wings themselves just look like they were put on last second instead of a ship being designed around atmospheric flight (case in point klingon or romulan bird of preys, the whole ship was basically a wing).  Not to mention a ship that can produce enough power for a  single shot at 5PT per barrel let alone multiple shots would have probably figured out how to fly without wings, and as far as i can tell since you have no rotating parts on the ship to simulate gravity the mastery of gravity has already been accomplished.

I do have on question about the ship though... where the hell is the gauss cannon? i can see or understand where the others are but there is no mention of the gauss on the picture.  The best place i could see would be at the very center of the bow.
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Bottom center, about one third back from the bow. It's not marked on there and didn't realize it until you brought it up. There's not a really good shot of it in those images...

As for waste heat, of course there are other ways to go about it, but if everyone chose the most efficient design and never looked toward aesthetics or accounted for the costs of materials, or design factors or even human randomness, every ship would look the same and have the same exact stats and functions. I worked on capitol hill for several years. Trust me, in government and corporations, price, favoritism and connections have more impact on the design of military equipment than function and efficiency ever have. It's not even a close contest. I don't see that changing in the future. Also, remember that this ship missed the mark for military duty and is being sold to paramilitary groups and mercs. It's a second-string vessel.
Even if I could design a perfectly efficient ship, I never, ever would. It's terrible writing and world-building. It's why a lot of science nerds can't understand exploding panels of death and warp core breaches in star trek. Of course they should have circuit breakers, and that warp core design never should have left the drawing board (seriously, was there NO stress testing on any federation starship power core?), but its there for writing purposes and aesthetics. I try not to be that bad. For example, crewmen on my ships wear spacesuits into battle (and have locator beacons on their belts in case they get spaced), and panels don't blow up in their faces, but I do leave inefficient things in there. If you look at many of my military ships, the bridge is hanging all out and open. In a perfect world, they would be inside the middle of the ship safe and sound, but I like the drama of having them exposed. I came up with some excuse regarding having them need to be away from the superstructure due to EM interference, but its really because sometimes I want to see a bridge get wallops by a stream of rail gun rounds and see people get sucked into space and the ship lunge wildly out of control into another ship (which shouldn't even be that close in a space battle anyway).
And just remember, every ship in existence was most likely designed by the lowest bidder, and in most cases had their budget cut halfway through the design phase.
Reply
:iconacidalium:
Acidalium Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2013
LOL, touche on all points especially the warpcore stress test. 

I do have to apologize though, i didn't understand the background pretext under which you made this.  Nor did i know it was a second stringer, I thought this was being built as a 'real world' thing not a fanfiction addition or part of a book so i looked at it from an engineering standpoint towit those wings are useless.

And i still stand by my statement of solid projectiles in space.  They may be inaccurate as sin because targets move and evade, however that one counterpoint to the devastation of a single round hitting means nothing, at the very least it could be an anti station or orbital bombardment weapon.
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
you have to sacrifice a lot (sometimes painfully) for storytelling, esp. in space science fiction. In reality, you'd make a bunch of robot suicide drone missiles that would hit enemy ships at FTL speed as soon as they were detected. The battles would be all from beyond any physical range, and conducted from planetside underground bunkers. You'd either have to build more ships than the enemy had drones or vice versa to hope to win. Once you got in close you'd snag a few meteors and chuck them at the enemy planet while the enemy ran for it, unless you wanted to actually live on that planet. Then you'd just send down drones with short-lived biological weaponry to poison the water supply, blockade the planet, then after a month or two send down the cleanup crews to clean the water and the bodies.
Space warfare would be incredibly lethal, incredibly boring, and would remove most human elements.
Reply
:iconjigokuaisatsu:
JigokuAisatsu Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2012
So it can generate petawatts of energy but it needs wings and carries a gauss cannon? I don't think something that can generate that much power needs to worry about lift forces, that's like a fusion bomb powered rocket. The gauss gun would be ridiculously obsolete. It uses Carbon nanotube inter-meshed armor AND Chobham?? Why? Chobham and Carbides is much less hard than a diamondoid, they are also less resistant to heat.
Reply
:iconacidalium:
Acidalium Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
sorry, i dont care how well a material dissipates kinetic energy, Sir Isaac Newton is the most dangerous mofo in space.  Even if you could negate the physical aspect of kinetic energy of something moving at even mach1, there is the problem of diverting or storing all that energy as something be it heat, usable energy, light, w/e.  Cause if you dont problems happen.  This is why kinetic weapons will probably always be used to some effect.  I mean think about it, something the size of a vw bug or a mini (solid) moving at mach 5 and then hitting something, that's deadly no mater how you slice it.   Top it off with even a small amount of antimatter as was stated here and you got something far worse.
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
once you get into the tens or hundreds of thousands of miles, most projectiles can't move fast enough to hit an evasive target. One degree of course change and that shot is off by thousands of miles...and its easy to track and detect or shoot down (if its a missile). An energy weapon, in most cases, is detected at the same time it hits you. Gauss cannons and rail guns are great for medium to short-range brawls, especially if you can pepper space with them. But, as you said, Newton is the most dangerous mofo in space. Every miss leaves a dangerous deadly projectile going and going and going.
Imagine this: You're defending a vital asset and the enemy parks himself between you and, say, a city on the planet you are defending...or a refinery...or military base knowing you've got nothing but projectile weapons. He has ECMs blaring across the spectrum, making guided technology useless. Every gauss cannon shot you take, there's a chance that you just blasted your own assets to powder.
OR imagine trying to defend a shipping lane with weapons like that. You might win the battle, but how long is that lane shut down and how many civilian or other military vehicles are at risk due to the dozens or even thousands of rounds fired in the middle of a heated battle?
OR you've got an enemy who has developed an inertia dampening field (very possible if you've developed FTL technology) that they can deploy as a defense. All you've got is kinetic weapons. You're pants are not down and around your ankles, and he doesn't look like he's going to be firing lube out of those weapon ports.
Kinetic kill weapons are very efficient and very deadly, but there's something to be said for having variety and options at your fingertips.
Reply
:iconacidalium:
Acidalium Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2013
true, all points true, but if you have a battle of any kind in space, debris from that battle become kinetic kill weapons.  SO while i concede to your point of trying to retake your own assets being a pain with just kinetics, the battle in a shipping lane will cause as shut down anyway while the debris is taken care of.
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
very true and a good point.
Reply
:iconacidalium:
Acidalium Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2013
case in point watch the anime 'Planets'

Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
Oh and the particle beam cannon energy output isn't a direct result of the reactor output. They basically cause a fusion explosion, contain it, and then channel it through electrostatic lenses to create the particle beam blasts, so that energy is a burst of power from that reaction, which isn't quite suitable for a constant output reactor (otherwise they'd be doing that for a power source).
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
The wings are actually for waste heat collection for the most part, and the gauss cannon has tiny anti-matter core in a magnetic bottle. It pierces the armor of the enemy ship and the bottle fails, turning it into hundreds of pounds of depleted uranium shrapnel that ricochets inside the enemy ship. Better than an energy weapon for causing damage. Also, there are a couple species with energy weapon defense technology. The compound armor is also for max flexibility against different types of weaponry that behaves differently. People quickly develop armor penetrating weaponry historically, and armor piercing technology generally outpaces armor technology itself. You have to assume that military truth remains constant, so having the chobam is kind of like having a couple extra inches of steel plating. It's also a kinetic weapon defense. I'm not too brushed up on how well carbon nanotube dissipates kinetic energy. Yes, it's unlikely to be pierced, but will the energy transfer through to the structure underneath anyway? Not sure what the data is on that.
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
oops, tungsten carbide, not depleted uranium. Thinking of another ship.
Reply
:iconimachrismoose:
imachrismoose Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Tarasque? WE'RE ALL FUCKED. But seriously, did you really name that ship after a monster from D&D?
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
oh, and the D&D creature has two Rs in its name. Tarrasque.
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
No. D&D stole the name from actual medieval legend. You know the story of Beauty and the Beast? The Beast was the Tarasque. The Beauty was Saint Martha. There's an entire region of France named after the thing. [link]
Funny how everyone knows the words Beauty and the Beast and what it means, yet nobody remembers the beast itself...
Reply
:iconxxvectorzeroxx:
xxVectorZeroxx Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
detailed ship design stats? hell yeah.
Reply
:iconthe-white-tiger:
THE-WHITE-TIGER Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2011  Professional General Artist
I LIKE IT!!!
Reply
:iconsoler7:
soler7 Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2010
Absolute bad ass !!
Reply
:iconhellstorm888:
Hellstorm888 Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
Nice, though a tad small for a full out battlecruiser xD
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
My ships range smaller than a lot of sci-fi. I scale up slightly from modern-day oceangoing equivalents.
Reply
:iconhellstorm888:
Hellstorm888 Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
True enough. I've probably faved about 50+ different ships today. Shape inspiration.
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
I do exactly the same thing! Check my favs for the ships and vehicles stuff. Might be some things you can use there. I fav them for both quality and interesting aesthetics and design originality.
Reply
:iconhellstorm888:
Hellstorm888 Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
I fav those myself, but most of my hunts are for aesthetics. as long as the aesthetic is obvious, and the design... makes sense, I can imagine the quality I need.
Reply
:iconziggurattheeternal:
ZigguratTheEternal Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2010
What race produces and flys these?
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
they're made by a human corporation and sold to anyone who can afford them, mostly other corps and large mercenary organizations.
Reply
:iconarianabedi:
Arianabedi Featured By Owner Oct 7, 2010  Student Photographer
I wrote a very long wall of text for you on the physical problems it could face but then i realized two thing, firstly that this is meant for space travel not atmosphere, and secondly its a sci-fi model....so my points wont really survive in the scy-fy world :P

how ever its a great model!
Reply
:iconmegadolon013:
megadolon013 Featured By Owner Sep 29, 2010
Love the Hangar position, protection all the way. And the fighters means that while the ship engages from one direction the fighters attack from the other. Sorry for the target.
Reply
:iconharoldpotter:
HaroldPotter Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2010  Hobbyist Writer
Yay! Cooling surfaces! Oh, it's so rare to see those on space ships. A very efficient design, I like it.

Though part of me wonders about the effectiveness of having the radiators so close to being parallel, I think I'd have designed them a bit like X-Wing wings and open into more of an X-shape outside of combat. But still, it's nice to see them at all. Good job.
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
Well the thing about waste heat collectors in a space setting is that they can't really shed the heat they collect very well until you get into atmosphere or are at a low activity level and can let the heat circulate slowly back into the ship, so their position doesn't really matter as long as they are away from the body. You can't even refrigerate them with freon or the like, because it just releases the heat into the air, and since space is a vacuum it's just stuck in your collectors unless you can eject them.
I have an idea for a solution, but I don't know how it would work. I'm thinking that you could solve problem by painting the heat collectors on your ship in a special paint that collects the heat and then flakes off at a certain temperature in small amounts, taking excess heat with the flakes.

IIRC, the X-wings actually split because it helped with the use of the wingtip lasers in space combat.
Reply
:iconharoldpotter:
HaroldPotter Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2010  Hobbyist Writer
Yes, ablative heating mechanisms. I've seen ships in fiction that use evaporation of liquids to cool themselves down, but I think that the most realistic method is to use absolutely massive solar sail-like mechanisms, so that you have this huge radiating surface to compensate for slow heat radiation in a vacuum. The problem with any sort of ablative cooling mechanism is that once you run out of material, you're in trouble. And the problem with a solar sail cooling mechanism is that it would be incredibly fragile and unsuited for military vehicles. The realistic solution is that you'd have about a half dozen or so different cooling mechanisms to be used by different ships in different situations, because no one solution is the best option for everyone.

The Mass Effect wiki has a nice little section on the heat dispersal problem and how they cover it in-universe. It's a nice read.
[link]

And yes, that's what the strike foils are for. I was just using it as an example. I believe that the ARC starfighter and the Jedi Starfighter in Episode III do use strike foils to expose cooling surfaces in battle, which is a surprisingly realistic feature for a big science fiction production. Though, realistically, any society as advanced as the one in Star Wars would have long since solved the problem of cooling their ships.
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
I think the good thing about an ablative paint is that you can slap a new coat on in spacedock. I remember reading about the Mass Effect ships cooling and atmospheric discharges in the Codex in the first game. Man, I must have read every entry in that first one.

Star Wars sometimes surprises you with the science. One moment it's total fantasy and the next they hit you with something that's probably workable that you doesn't didnt think about before or expect to be there.
Reply
:iconmadmanmike:
MADMANMIKE Featured By Owner Aug 31, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
I think your spaceships have arrived!
Reply
:iconreisomana:
reisomana Featured By Owner Aug 31, 2010
Cool design.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
August 30, 2010
Image Size
473 KB
Resolution
2048×1536
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
18,278 (3 today)
Favourites
206 (who?)
Comments
65
Downloads
1,199
×