Anteros
Go to group page
Spacecraft design - what works?
I'm no expert when it comes to spacecraft design. I've designed a handful over the years, but personally, I prefer to retain aerodynamic qualities in them. We know aerodynamics has little bearing in outer space, and ships like the Borg Cubes for example, are just as imposing as a giant wedge-shaped Imperial Star Destroyer.
So what are your thoughts/preferences/rules about creating ships?
Discussion started by kangazang , on 22 March 08:38 AM
Wall
You will need to be a member of this group first before you can post a reply.
SHOUT OUT TO ALL ANIMATORS ON ANTEROS!!!!! OPPERTUNITY TO WORK ON WEB SERIES, CHECK IT OUT ON ANTEROS COMMUNITY PAGE!!!!!
Sunday, 15 April 2012 10:40
as long as it looks cool and functional, it's all that counts, it's sci-fi anyways so it can be made to fit the story that is being told
Monday, 21 March 2011 19:15
Imagine of modular ship built of lego brick like components, each brick forming a part of the self assembling ship. The ship may take on any shape, contingent on the environment it has to work in. The size of the ship can be arbitrarily large as the bricks can form the columns and other engineering requirements for large spaces. Say each brick being 1/2 metre ^ 3 in size.
A brick has the following characteristics.
1. Projects a small localized force-field
2. Has computation systems
3. Has signal projectors
4. Has nano-scale diode like antennae for local energy creation
5. Each brick is a laminate of solid state devices (much like a silicon chip)
When joined together, the ships systems is controlled by massively parallel computations, each processor of the super-computer being one of the bricks. There are no moving parts.
Technical information....
Forcefield technology: Based on concept of zeptosecond width photons http://mykaitan.blogspot.com/2009/06/propellantless-propulsion.html, http://mykaitan.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeptosecond-pulses-crossing-line-into.html (has various links to academia), http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
Artificial gravity:
1. Based on forcefield technology: Field pushes objects towards floor or
2. Alternatively use Einsteins continuously accelerating elevator concept ie. The ship accelerates forward at 1g than turns around and deccelerates at 1 g.
3. Some kind of control over gravity which science today has no concept whatsoever.
Advanced computation: Obviously massively parallel computation which can be done today.
Energy: Massively redundant systems. From plain old fission/fusion systems, to electromechanical dynamos, to attotechnology: Imagine a diode with an antennae able to extract energy from the fluctuating electromagnetic fields around it. By the way, energy needs to propel the ship and power its advanced technology is tiny compared to what one would expect using today's ideas. You could probably power a ship using a small dynamo. Reason: read this http://mykaitan.blogspot.com/2009/06/propellantless-propulsion.html. Only the older technology systems require large amounts of energy.
Signal projectors: The whole idea of using lasers is quaint and old fashion. Read this for a discussion http://mykaitan.blogspot.com/2011/02/on-complex-signals-and-potential-new.html . New applications in signal technologies provide for tricorders, incisionless medicine, advanced passive sensors, disruptors and other even more lethal weaponry, holodecks.
Landing craft etc: Want a landing craft? The ship remodels part of itself and pinches a part off.
What current technology does not provide for now is how to go faster than light. When that is resolved, there will probably be even more advanced concepts than the above because we will likely have control of gravity.
A brick has the following characteristics.
1. Projects a small localized force-field
2. Has computation systems
3. Has signal projectors
4. Has nano-scale diode like antennae for local energy creation
5. Each brick is a laminate of solid state devices (much like a silicon chip)
When joined together, the ships systems is controlled by massively parallel computations, each processor of the super-computer being one of the bricks. There are no moving parts.
Technical information....
Forcefield technology: Based on concept of zeptosecond width photons http://mykaitan.blogspot.com/2009/06/propellantless-propulsion.html, http://mykaitan.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeptosecond-pulses-crossing-line-into.html (has various links to academia), http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
Artificial gravity:
1. Based on forcefield technology: Field pushes objects towards floor or
2. Alternatively use Einsteins continuously accelerating elevator concept ie. The ship accelerates forward at 1g than turns around and deccelerates at 1 g.
3. Some kind of control over gravity which science today has no concept whatsoever.
Advanced computation: Obviously massively parallel computation which can be done today.
Energy: Massively redundant systems. From plain old fission/fusion systems, to electromechanical dynamos, to attotechnology: Imagine a diode with an antennae able to extract energy from the fluctuating electromagnetic fields around it. By the way, energy needs to propel the ship and power its advanced technology is tiny compared to what one would expect using today's ideas. You could probably power a ship using a small dynamo. Reason: read this http://mykaitan.blogspot.com/2009/06/propellantless-propulsion.html. Only the older technology systems require large amounts of energy.
Signal projectors: The whole idea of using lasers is quaint and old fashion. Read this for a discussion http://mykaitan.blogspot.com/2011/02/on-complex-signals-and-potential-new.html . New applications in signal technologies provide for tricorders, incisionless medicine, advanced passive sensors, disruptors and other even more lethal weaponry, holodecks.
Landing craft etc: Want a landing craft? The ship remodels part of itself and pinches a part off.
What current technology does not provide for now is how to go faster than light. When that is resolved, there will probably be even more advanced concepts than the above because we will likely have control of gravity.
Monday, 07 March 2011 19:34
I like to think of the ship as a character, i.e serenity (Firefly), various versions of the enterprise had some charisma, Voyager was half alive, DS9, destiny (SGU). The bigger and emptier, the better, lots of room for drama and exploration without going anywhere.
BTW, there's an album for ship designs for the Zenoids animated series. Ideas are welcome, as well as discussion on the Zenoids Family Vehicle Designs discussion
BTW, there's an album for ship designs for the Zenoids animated series. Ideas are welcome, as well as discussion on the Zenoids Family Vehicle Designs discussion
Monday, 21 February 2011 09:25
If I may bridge over from Creatia for a bit -
I have a hell of a time with tech design as well. I tend to lean towards the sleeker-looking ships as well, or at least ones I think would look pleasing to the eye ("Oh wow! That looks erally cool!") for the protagonists. Clean lines, lighter shades to emphasize the "white hat" aspect. The villains - most of the time the same with a clean, crisp look, but more into daker shades without blending into the black, starry background of space. That'd be sinister as heck, but goofy when you think about practicality.
Neutral ships, yeah. Other races from from fantastic worlds, just go NUTS! organic ships, broken down jalopies, insectoid, sleek, avian,yeah, I go a bit crazy there. Of course you can choose any of those for the pro/antagonists, it's all to preference.
One thing that has REALLY worked well for me, is to take a couple of geometrical shapes, put them together, and play with it from there. I think that worked so well that that is the basic use of all the ships for the work I'm engrossed in. It helps to signify that all of the battleships have the same basic shape you know who they re fighting for a la Star Wars, Star Trek, BSG, B5.
Of course, it's all what flavor YOU prefer...main thing is to enjoy what you're doing. :)
I have a hell of a time with tech design as well. I tend to lean towards the sleeker-looking ships as well, or at least ones I think would look pleasing to the eye ("Oh wow! That looks erally cool!") for the protagonists. Clean lines, lighter shades to emphasize the "white hat" aspect. The villains - most of the time the same with a clean, crisp look, but more into daker shades without blending into the black, starry background of space. That'd be sinister as heck, but goofy when you think about practicality.
Neutral ships, yeah. Other races from from fantastic worlds, just go NUTS! organic ships, broken down jalopies, insectoid, sleek, avian,yeah, I go a bit crazy there. Of course you can choose any of those for the pro/antagonists, it's all to preference.
One thing that has REALLY worked well for me, is to take a couple of geometrical shapes, put them together, and play with it from there. I think that worked so well that that is the basic use of all the ships for the work I'm engrossed in. It helps to signify that all of the battleships have the same basic shape you know who they re fighting for a la Star Wars, Star Trek, BSG, B5.
Of course, it's all what flavor YOU prefer...main thing is to enjoy what you're doing. :)
Tuesday, 08 February 2011 01:23
@kangazang - I tend to agree, some idea of 'flight' is needed for the design of spacecraft even if that's formulaic. The Borg Cubes were a bit incongruous, and that might have been the strength of them, but imho they felt like a designer had sat down to work out 'something different' to such an extent I didn't think they worked all that well. By 'flight', I'd like to suggest something capable of movement and the more powerful that movement, maybe the better. I suppose that's where aerodynamic shapes are strongest.
Monday, 11 October 2010 00:46
Ship design and, indeed, all design must speak to the heart of the human condition. For example:
http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/movie/heavy-metal/
http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/movie/heavy-metal/
Saturday, 09 October 2010 22:30
I'm partial to modular design that allows for quick abandonment of damaged sections of the ship or multiple uses of the spaceframe. I usually try to start with a basic chassis and add parts as I go. The end result is usually a bit like a train or flatbed truck.
Thursday, 16 September 2010 01:25
If you want a really good technical discussion of spaceships go to this site: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/
Covers all aspects of propulsion, life support, power, combat, etc. And take a look at http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/home.php for Orbiter, the best space flight simulator out there. (and free!)
Covers all aspects of propulsion, life support, power, combat, etc. And take a look at http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/home.php for Orbiter, the best space flight simulator out there. (and free!)
Saturday, 11 September 2010 13:25
Though I like space ships that are designed loosely after aircrafts. I saw an insect type space craft design in the old Flash Gordon movie. I thought it look pretty cool. I guess I like the fantastic as well as the practicality in space craft design.
I saw this really nice looking space ship design in this old Japanese cartoon I can't remember the name.
I saw this really nice looking space ship design in this old Japanese cartoon I can't remember the name.
Tuesday, 27 July 2010 08:43