"Neat" Pictures

[Greywind]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

Too spread out to *not* be a giant shperoid? o.O But the thing that made me think spheroid (Union/Overlord) instead of aerodyne (Leopard) was the windows on the far right of the picture show some curveature. I kinda always thought of the bridge on a Leopard as being more "flat" windowed.

 

But with vehicles of that (any dropship) size, the bridge is a tiny portion of the whole thing. So now I feel a little silly trying to deduce the overall exteriour of the ship from one tiny fragment.

My impression has always been that DropShips tend to crowded except for the 'Mech bays.

[SteveZilla]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

My impression has always been that DropShips tend to crowded except for the 'Mech bays.

 

The (early) literature implies (or outright says) that. But I figure that is a "holdover" from the way submarines are (and were, especially in WWII). But imo at some point of vehicle size, continuing to make the crew areas tiny, cramped, and difficult to get around in is just a sign of a sadistic designer.

 

But I thought from your first comment that you had the impression of an Aerodyne dropship?

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

The (early) literature implies (or outright says) that. But I figure that is a "holdover" from the way submarines are (and were, especially in WWII). But imo at some point of vehicle size, continuing to make the crew areas tiny, cramped, and difficult to get around in is just a sign of a sadistic designer.

 

On the other hand, weren't the various Enterprises a bit spacious for military ships?

 

Then again, not being a Navy veteran I have no idea whether, for example, one of the Navy's supercarriers has a lot of space for things that help the crew pass their downtime but don't necessarily contribute directly to combat applications. Things like movie screening rooms for the crew (in WWII having movies on the ships was, IIRC, quite a big deal for the crews: Douglas Fairbanks Jr., a movie star who served on combat ships as an officer during the war, tells the story of how the crew ruthlessly heckled one of his own movies when it was shown to them -- something he found extremely embarrassing.)

[SteveZilla]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

On the other hand, weren't the various Enterprises a bit spacious for military ships?

 

Then again, not being a Navy veteran I have no idea whether, for example, one of the Navy's supercarriers has a lot of space for things that help the crew pass their downtime but don't necessarily contribute directly to combat applications. Things like movie screening rooms for the crew (in WWII having movies on the ships was, IIRC, quite a big deal for the crews: Douglas Fairbanks Jr., a movie star who served on combat ships as an officer during the war, tells the story of how the crew ruthlessly heckled one of his own movies when it was shown to them -- something he found extremely embarrassing.)

 

Well, none of the Enterprises* (iirc) were submersibles, which imo have a little closer "connection" to spacecraft than sufrace vessles.

 

*Real-world, military, and from a time when there are movies.

[Susano]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

Well, none of the Enterprises* (iirc) were submersibles, which imo have a little closer "connection" to spacecraft than sufrace vessles.

 

*Real-world, military, and from a time when there are movies.

 

The has never been a submarine named Enterprise. I'm not 100% on the linage, but aside from the two carriers, the previous ships included a sloop (of war) and... a frigate (I think.)

[Zeropoint]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

Submarines HAVE to be cramped, because they have to be able to sink, which means they need an average density of about 1 g/cm^3. Surface ships have no such limitation, and are more spacious. A Nimitz class carrier has "lounges" where the crew can watch TV or movies or whatever, and also a library and an "internet cafe". And a gym or two, but what kind of masochist would consider that "recreation" is beyond me.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

On the other hand, weren't the various Enterprises a bit spacious for military ships?

 

Then again, not being a Navy veteran I have no idea whether, for example, one of the Navy's supercarriers has a lot of space for things that help the crew pass their downtime but don't necessarily contribute directly to combat applications. Things like movie screening rooms for the crew (in WWII having movies on the ships was, IIRC, quite a big deal for the crews: Douglas Fairbanks Jr., a movie star who served on combat ships as an officer during the war, tells the story of how the crew ruthlessly heckled one of his own movies when it was shown to them -- something he found extremely embarrassing.)

 

Aircraft Carriers are honking big ships, and do waste space on libraries, lounges, computer rooms and such. Showing a movie usually takes place on the mess decks (a multi use space: cafeteria, lounge, chapel, lecture hall, movie theatre, triage, wounded ward... not at the same time, of course.).

 

Spaceships would be more like submarines, at least at first. As time and tech march on, I imagine they'll get more comfortable, just as warships have. But warships will be less comfortable than passenger ships, 'needs of the service' always comes before crew comfort. Drop Ships, being short range assault vessels probably wouldn't have much for comfort. Built for both zero-G and high G manuevering, most of the space would go to fuel, engine, cargo (mechs), not always in that order. WW2 Submarine crews slept on thier torpedoes, the more they fired the more space they had... modern submarines the junior enlisted men "Hot Bunk", meaning that you have it from noon to midnight, and Joe has it from midnight to noon and you pray that Joe doesn't sweat too much.

[Bazza]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

Spoilered for partial nudity (cleavage)

 

chicky babe

 

[SteveZilla]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

Spoilered for partial nudity (cleavage)

 

chicky babe

 

Does that count as chick-on-chick action?

[SteveZilla]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

Submarines HAVE to be cramped' date=' because they have to be able to [i']sink[/i], which means they need an average density of about 1 g/cm^3. Surface ships have no such limitation, and are more spacious. A Nimitz class carrier has "lounges" where the crew can watch TV or movies or whatever, and also a library and an "internet cafe". And a gym or two, but what kind of masochist would consider that "recreation" is beyond me.

 

I would put forth that the limiting factor (in today's world) is the cost of the sub, and not purely it's volume. I think it is entirely possible to make a sub where every person has their own (small) bunk. Just add a "balast" like big lead weights to offset the extra air volume, if needed.

 

Yes, it will cost a little more, but when it costs many Billions to build normally, adding a couple million to the tag for "spacious" quarters is imo an unnoticeable change in price that would only help troop morale/efficiency.

 

Spaceships would be more like submarines' date=' at least at first.[/quote']

 

Except that it would be mass instead of density that is the "restricting" factor. I say "restricting" because building heavier is usually quite doable, it just costs more.

 

As time and tech march on' date=' I imagine they'll get more comfortable, just as warships have. But warships will be less comfortable than passenger ships, 'needs of the service' always comes before crew comfort. Drop Ships, being short range assault vessels probably wouldn't have much for comfort.[/quote']

 

Battletech Dropships aren't quite as "short range" as most might think. They transit between the target planet and the Jumpship (which must stay at the Jump Point). Distance out from the Sun (for example) for a safe jump is about 10.2 AU.

 

Built for both zero-G and high G manuevering' date=' most of the space would go to fuel, engine, cargo (mechs), not always in that order.[/quote']

 

When a Dropship is already massing 9,700 tons, a few tons more can make for a more rested, and thus more battle-ready crew IMO at minimal change in overall cost or flight characteristics.

[Bazza]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

Does that count as chick-on-chick action?

 

*chuckle*

[teh bunneh]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36753[/ATTACH]

 

I originally come from the plains of Hedonism, just south of Depravity. Although we summered in the Abomination mountains, not too far from Wrath.

[Cancer]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

They have Houston entirely in the wrong place, unless it's in several different places and I only found one.

 

Committing suicide in Houston is redundant.

[Escafarc]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

A prop for Shogun Assassin in the 21st Century?

 

[Greywind]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

The (early) literature implies (or outright says) that. But I figure that is a "holdover" from the way submarines are (and were, especially in WWII). But imo at some point of vehicle size, continuing to make the crew areas tiny, cramped, and difficult to get around in is just a sign of a sadistic designer.

 

But I thought from your first comment that you had the impression of an Aerodyne dropship?

The picture is long, like it might be most of upper deck of an aerodyne.

[Greywind]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

On the other hand, weren't the various Enterprises a bit spacious for military ships?

 

Then again, not being a Navy veteran I have no idea whether, for example, one of the Navy's supercarriers has a lot of space for things that help the crew pass their downtime but don't necessarily contribute directly to combat applications. Things like movie screening rooms for the crew (in WWII having movies on the ships was, IIRC, quite a big deal for the crews: Douglas Fairbanks Jr., a movie star who served on combat ships as an officer during the war, tells the story of how the crew ruthlessly heckled one of his own movies when it was shown to them -- something he found extremely embarrassing.)

The Star Trek Enterprise had wide corridors for the camera dolly. This was rectified in the later movies, when narrower corridors were shown.

[Susano]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

The picture is long' date=' like it might be most of upper deck of an aerodyne.[/quote']

 

But I already said what it's a picture of! I.... never mind....

[teh bunneh]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

My new avatar...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36870[/ATTACH]

[Hermit]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

My new avatar...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36870[/ATTACH]

 

Rage Bunneh? NOOOO!

[Bazza]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

Rage Bunneh? NOOOO!

Fluffy bunneh

[L. Marcus]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

Bunneh fluffer.

[Bazza]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

Bunneh fluffer.

 

I was being tactful.

[L. Marcus]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

...You can do that?! ^^

[Guest Celt]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

Does that count as chick-on-chick action?

 

Uh... isn't that a hamster?

[yamamura]

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

Uh... isn't that a hamster?

 

I was wondering the same thing. Good I am not that crazy yet.