Straczyski once said in an interview: “we've received a number of inquiries from folks associated with NASA about the prospect of perhaps someday actually building working Starfuries, mainly as the space industry equivilent [sic] to fork lifts and heavy loaders”. He said he agreed, on the condition that they still be called Starfuries.
They do show a construction pod in a few episodes that looks like it's built on a starfury chassis. Same cockpit, same engine arrangement, just painted construction yellow and with manipulator arms instead of weapons. I'd assume what NASA's conceptual designers are talking about would look very much like that.
@@TheCererean That's what they did in the original Mobile Suit Gundam. It resulted in the RB-79 Ball, a.k.a. the single most outclassed flying coffin in anime history :P. Shame really, since it was one of the few actually sensible designs in that franchise. I mean, I love me some Gundam but holy hell does the tech strain the ol' suspension of disbelief...:P
@@GaldirEonai I just googled that, and it reminds me of the pods from GotG. The one where Rocket flew another ship unsing the little "forklift" pod! That design actually makes a ton of sense for a space utility vehicle. I'm 100% positive that James Gunn took inspiration from Gundam because he's a huge nerd. But it's still cool to see where the idea came from.
I don't miss Babylon 5, I have every B5 episode on dvd including all the feature length films and the terrible spin off, Excalibur that was never given its chance to find its legs and pass that difficult first season. Excalibur had a couple of interesting episodes but felt too star trek in my opinion. I have to agree though B5 was epic story writing and great character development. Classic series.
cledge fenrir Battlestar Galactica (the new version) had realistic physics; despite the insanely poor, aircraft like design of the craft themselves. They would use thrusters to flip the craft and fire as they continued in the direction they had originally been “flying.” I thought they did a good job with the way the craft worked.
@@keirfarnum6811 the BSG ships looked like that because they were used in atmospheric conditions just as much as space. It's only when Galactica made it's exodus that space became the primary battlefield.
lol yeah B5 had hard sci-fi newtonian spaceship battles ... perfectly matched with space magic? Interspecies reincarnation? Plasma pistols smaller than my cell phone? Space vampires? Lets face it, the Aqua Net 5000 the Centauri used in their hair was the hardest sci-fi in the show. A few more decades, and we can prolly have that technology. How many seasons did it take for the show to realize it was actually in the military sci-fi subgenre? The Starfury is a great looking design, but aside from a reasonable cockpit and turning point for zero-g, she has no gas tank, no shielding, limited mission profile, limited range, limited ammo, and no significant independent navigational system. Kick the pilot, make it a drone, scale it down to one half size, give it a modular backmount hardpoint rollbar that can mount mission specific modules like LRS or missile pods, and paint it something other than black, and we may have something useful to work with.
@@the_mighty_bearcat Space Magic? You make it seem like it's an odd thing. Star Wars is obvious with the Force but it is actually in the sub genre of Sci- fantasy. So let's go with Star Trek. First off Q is a god like being that can change reality at anytime, so space magic. Anytime they had something they couldn't explain scientifically they would say something like " forces beyond our comprehension" , so space magic. I don't remember every species in the Star Trek franchise to know if they have a space vampire equivalent; I think Voyager had a species that harvested organs from other creatures, so space zombie/Frankenstein? I don't know why the Plasma Pistol size is an issue in B5, they had rifles and such that where mainly used by SWAT or military personnel not security guards much like in Star Trek though you don't see them that often. Interspecies reincarnation... you got me there I have nothing for that. For Starfury, don't know how popular of an idea drones were from writing perspective, you don't get the same sense of action, that's why Star Trek always went to red alert so much, a sense of action. Show wise the other races had more advance technology so there single manned fighters didn't have many of those issues. Star Trek majority of the races aren't really that good; there one dimensional. Vulcans-robots, Ferengi-capitalist, Klingons-warrior, Borg-hive mind, Romulan.. I don't remember what they did beside be the go to baddies in TNG when nothing particular else was being a threat.
@@cledgefenrir5681 The incarnation between mimbari and humans is a religious viewpoint. The reason why that odd old piece of technology gave them the idea is in fact based on genetic heritage. Manipulating and reading genes by means of technology is pretty scientific. But babylon 5 does not really wanted to be hard sci-fi, it just incorporated some aspects like newtonian physics. It's a mix of drama, mysticism and action in a futuristic setting. It's a great show, but no holy grail of scientific accurate worldbuilding
Babylon 5 has two excuses for needing high close-range manoeuvrability: The Starfuries stationed at Babylon 5 have more of a harbour police role. Babylon 5 is not a military base in the midst of a war, at least for most of the show. They welcome visitors, including strangers. Somebody may unsuspiciously approach the station and then unexpectedly prove hostile and open fire when they are close enough to hide in blind spots of the station's defence weapons. That same excuse works for the fighters defending the hypergate construction site in the opening scene of the 90s Lost in Space feature film, by the way. Also, in one episode an out-of-control vessel came tumbling towards the station and a Starfury was deployed to catch it with a robot arm. To match the tumbling ship's rotation, you need that kind of manoeuvrability, although they could have used a construction fury for that. And for Starfuries used in war, there's hyperspace. While in a hard science fiction setting you would see the approaching enemy from light minutes away, if not light hours, in the Babylon 5 universe the enemy may come out of hyperspace only a few kilometers from you. So it's justified that combat happens over unrealistically short distances.
In fact, jumping on top of an enemy fleet with everyone within spitting distance was as much a weapon as the weapons on each ship, judging by the Earth-Minbari War.
The episode 'the Long Twilight Struggle' in B5 shows a space battle at 'realistic' ranges - only the final (catastrophic!) moments of the battle are at 'knife-fight' range. Mostly though, ships in B5 will be emerging from Hyperspace already firing.
"Knife-Fight" ranges *WOULD* be the norm...because "c". It takes LIGHT a second and a half (give or take) to travel from the Moon to Earth...and that's only 340,000 kilometers. That means if that at comparable ranges, when you fire the enemy has 1.5 seconds to *be somewhere else* (and that's with a weapon moving at the Speed of Light; Kinetics will be even slower because you don't get to bypass "e=mc^2" and go straight to "c" like you do with an energy-based weapon. While one-and-a-half seconds doesn't seem like any time at all, if you're targeting an object moving evasively at hundreds to thousands of meters per second, 1.5 seconds translates translates into anything between a Miss and a Complete and Utter Miss (although the distance doesn't matter, because a Miss is a Miss) so the ONLY two ways to counter this are to either A.) Violate The Universal Speed Limit and somehow invent a form of energy that can travel FASTER than the Speed of Light, or B.) Close range to distances where distance created by evasion is minimized and travel time of your weapon system falls below reaction threshold time.
Up until The Expanse came along Episode 53 “Severed Dreams” of B5 had the best space battle ever committed to film. Almost 3 seasons of buildup to that one un-freaking-believable piece of television. Watching the star fury squadrons do realistic flip and burn manoeuvres while defending the station from the earth battleships (which btw are also an amazing bit of realistic design work) made me realise that the effects team were paying homage to all us space nerds and to this day I’m still grateful to them for the effort they went to on what was probably a pretty limited budget...
You made me want to watch that again, so I did. I had to chuckle at the end; those the two Omega destroyers Delenn sends packing - one was the "Nimrod" rofl
@@Strahan740i Really!? Thats hilarious and I have no doubts entirely intentional! Nimrod was supposedly an ancient Mesopotamian King and so it does fit into the battleship nomenclature for the show but also the modern context of the word makes it doubly brilliant! Thanks for letting me know!
"Only one Human has ever defeated a Minbari Star Cruiser in battle. He is behind me- You are in front of me. If you value your lives, BE SOMEWHERE ELSE!" Best. Threat. Ever!
I'll fanboy B5 with the best of 'em, but New Caprica gives Severed Dreams a run for its money. It should do, being done that much later. I don't know if it tops it, but it definitely rivals. The Expanse finally unseated both RDM BSG and B5 though, I will agree.
@@knghtbrd Agreed. The Battle of New Caprica was for sure the best space battle until The Expanse came up with S5 E10 and it's entire 6th season. "Severd Dreams" was great, but it can't rival BSG. This might be cause of Budget ristrictions and less sophisticated CGI at B5. Don't get me wrong: B5 did a wonderful job, but it is no comparison tothe Battle of New Caprica.
NASA did license the Starfury design, and many a NASA scientist watched the show specifically because of it. I would love to see a Babylon 4 and see some Membari ships following Newtonian flight.
Well he did point out that space fighters are unrealistic, but the biggest reason this is true has to do with whether your sci-fi includes the magic technology of inertial dampeners. Once you have pilots blacking out to g-forces from acceleration you realize any ai guided missile can out perform any pilot. So if you're not in a ship that can stop the missiles from getting to you by other means then dodging or running, the ship design is not viable. Basically shielding or a PDC network is necessary to avoid a permanent and unwinnable race with torpedoes.
Not to mention, constantly burning your engines would build up a helluva lot of heat. Starfighters simply can't afford the radiator area needed to let off that quantity of heat.
Yeah its the perfect fighter and the most realistic hell nasa even mentioned using the starfury design when considering a replacement for the shuttle as its design and flight profile would be great for space operations
I think the Gunstar from Last Starfighter is very solid as well. The movie did a horrible job showing it, but if you look at the ship design, it has maneuvering thrusters, and reverse thrusters as well.
@@TAKIZAWAYAMASHITA The Babylon 5 fan based game controls were looked at by Nasa since they worked so well in the newtonian physics based engine they used.
(2:27) I think that explains why the RCS thrusters on the "wing" tips are not arranged at right angles relative to the central axis of the ship. It all made sense when you said "leverage". If you draw a line from each RCS thruster relative to the axis of the direction of travel, it looks like they are perfectly aligned to take advantage of that leverage. I never noticed it before. I just thought that it was an aesthetic design choice. Thank you for diving into the design of this little ship! :)
The death blossom! I prefer to think of them as fighting evil.... in another dimenson! It probably why I like B5 fighters so much... the gunstar was my first love.
The episode had a little bit of everything that made this show so great... great action, a great story and a solid ending sequence that still gives me chills when I watch it today ("only one human captain has survived combat against the Mimbari... he is behind me, you are in front of me, if you value your lives... be somewhere else"). Just epic.
Starfuries have always been one of my favorite space vehicles, along with the Eagles from Space 1999. Speaking of which it would be awesome to see a video by you dedicated to the Eagle!
Yeah, I also love the Eagles from Space 1999. My favourite fictional spacecraft have been the Eagle, the Starfury Aurora and the MCRN Corvette-class light frigate... And Serenity - not as realistic as the others but she's got charm and style.
Fighters would be pretty shitty in space combat anyway. Point defense at that point is designed to destroy missiles and torpedoes larger than these fighters, which means you're dead as soon as you get in range. Those point defenses are also commanded by an AI, which means you don't stand a chance mentally, because the thing will predict your every move.
@@Eliphaser Yup like in The Expense or other series like Honor Harrington the smallest you can go is frigate, anything smaller is just the equivalent of a ski boat which has no business in war.
@@JRexRegis The most realistic reason I've found to use them in practical Sci-Fi so far is as liaison between the mothership and whatever drones she uses to get data/lock/jamming on the enemy. As fast and precise AIs may look like, the realistic ones can't fully remove human-like thinking from the equation, which surprisingly puts starfighters as squadron leaders for those drones.
One of my absolute favorite ships ever since I watched the Last Starfighter with its Gunstar and then my dad showed me Babylon 5 and saw the starfury design
@@Wingnut00-zero yep the starfury was readily available and in numbers far greater than a gunstar which as far as i recall had its entire flight group wiped out in just one kodan attack.
I love this craft, she ranks right up there with the Gunstars, and I also loved how there was NO sound during battles, unless you were inside the vessel. B5 took many inspirations from the classics, and their innovations in turn inspired more to follow. A True Sci Fi Classic.
modisp many of the actors were fantastic and they absolutely made the show BUT there are many aspects that are dated (outside of sets/graphics) when it comes to things like storytelling and dialogue that could use a good reboot. I do think a bigger problem with a reboot is the world building and history that would need to be completely redone in order to make it interesting. There are great actors today who could step up and give us equally amazing takes on the characters we know. But if the story is the same one we know, how long before interest fades away?
Kind of like the updated version of Star Trek original series where they did update the FX and added CGI ships? Give B5 the Expanse level would look awesome.
@@makomadns4 Another approach would be to simply create another story in the same universe, but after the myth arc with the Vorlons and the Shadows, it's hard to come up with another story that won't seem underwhelming (lower-stakes story) or cliche (yet another galaxy-threatening baddie). That said, JMS made it clear both in flash-forward episodes, spinoffs, and other assorted what not that the galaxy is still a pretty hectic place with plenty of plots and politics and grudges to go around.
Loved B5 from day 1 & much love for the Starfury in all iterations. Would love to see a modern take of the series. Condolences to all the members of the cast that are no longer with us.
I'm glad you touched on the orientation of the pilot in the cockpit. Setting it up so that a direct forward acceleration pushes the pilot back into the acceleration couch, maximising support during heavy gees, is about the best way to maximise survivable acceleration short of using a gimballed cockpit - which would come with its own issues.
Big upvote, just mentioned it in another Post (just yesterday I finished a rewatch of what Show, that btw really would deserve not only a reboot, but also a 2nd season, but please, with very carefull Adaption of modern tech to the Hammerhead (the Viper they totslly ruined in the reboot, the higher versions lost to much of the style)
@Inareth good Points but I was focused on something different. Babylon5 has shiny stuff of high far away technologys for the mimbari and evrn upper Decks on Babylon5 compete with it.... This is fine for Babylon5 The Mark I Viper in 1978 had a iconic presencexand a touch of a war torn Well used Tool, what gave her a special Touch of realism. Those Viper Mark IV things was like fresh from the 3D printer, to Say it sharp. Space above and beyond, this old Show, is in a setting, roughly 100 years from present time, nearly everything still has connection to Real life and still they seem to have grsvity on the carrier and travel to other solar Systems... But their fight ers Look like their predecessors was Jets what startet from an aircarrier, it's all connected to today, only slightly adaptrd to fit into sf, they have the rust and dirt and no shiny stuff, it's very imaginable, very real, with a minimum of Adaption to become scifi. The Saratoga, the Carriership looks like you can Name every thing in it's hull by checking some naval handbooks. For the Show they made some Schale models, there is evrn a unverified report russian seaman tried to sneak on the ship there they was stored to make Fotos.... Thinking it to be a new secret us millitary machine, so real did they look.
B5 always has been, and probably always will be, my favourite television show! It is actual science fiction, where as things like ST and SW are science fantasy. Great care was put into making the technology seem as realistic and believable as possible. From lines about how Earthforce went over to all PPGs for sidearms as you want something that will burn through flesh but not blast a hole in your hull, to the practical designs of the uniforms to make them feel practical and functional. Ships in the B5 universe in particular, at least human ones, are as practical and realistic as I have ever seen shown in a film or series. In one of the commentaries JMS mentions how he wanted things to look believable, something that for the most part we could realistically make with our current level of technology. One of the best bits of writing/world-building advice I ever heard, I can't remember if it was from JMS himself, but it was this: Get the basics right. Make the fundamental parts of your world realistic and believable and it will be easier for your audience to believe the more fantastical elements of your world/universe. As I'm sure others have mentioned in the comments, NASA were so impressed with the design of the Starfurry that they wanted to use the same design for a craft. You know you've done good when real-world scientists are inspired by your work! As far as Sarfurries firing missiles, the only example in the show that springs to mind is when Clarke orders the bombing of civilians on Mars. You get a shot of I think a pair of Thunderbolts flying across the surface of Mars and one fires a missile which blows a hole in a Dome.
I remember seeing an interview where Straczynski basically said (paraphrasing here) "NASA came to me wanting to develop a space craft to use at the ISS and they like the Starfury design. Can we use it?". I remember the answer he gave was "Sure, go ahead. the only requirement i have is that you call it a starfury"
@@asvarien Actually, the Vorlon Battlecrusier has shielding. We see it in action when a Vorlon fleet attacks a Shadow fleet in the season 3 episode Interludes and Examinations. Though we never see it again after that, unless you count the White Stars "not-shields" from War Without End, Part 1.
two things- 1) I think it's Season 3 or 4 (can't access the show via Amazon Prime anymore for some reason) where they use missiles against raiders, and it winds up being shown briefly in the intro cinematic of one of the seasons after that. Been a while since I saw it, and as I said I can't access the show anymore, but I remember being happy to see missiles used. 2) Many ships in B5 have shields, including both the Excalibur and White Star class ships, but they are generally referred to as "skin shields", an EM field that is just above the surface of the hull and ablates and disperses incoming energy fire. The B5 tech manuals get into this a bit more, and Crusade shows it more prominently. Thirdspace is where you see energy shields on some SERIOUS steroids, however, taking a sustained heavy particle beam from a White Star for a good fifteen seconds without buckling.
@@karlfranzemperorofmandefil5547 Indeed. lol I suppose that falls into the rock-paper-scissors combat scenario you see in games like Homeworld; Fighters > Bombers Bombers > Gunship Corvettes Gunship Corvettes > Fighters
I would 100% participate, even if it would have to be on paper for me since I can't 3D-model for shit. Guess I'll resurrect that three-wing design I came up with a while back...
I have the Babylon 5 tabletop RPG and the Starfuy, statwise, is the 4th best fighter in the Babylon 5 universe. Which may sound kinda lame, but, uh, remember, the list goes 1) Shadows 2) Vorlon 3) Mimbari 4) Human
@@Jorjgasm Minbari have a specific set of technological advances we can actually list to describe their advantages. Notably, hull plating that disperses human scanner pulses, making them essentially invisible to anything except the Mk1 eyeball, artificial gravity, and superior power generators. But they're coasting on pure technological brute force - their fighters aren't actually designed better than other races, they just have more advanced systems strapped onto their poorly designed fighter spaceframe.
@@richardkenan2891 Yeah, if you actually HIT a Mimbari fighter, it folds up just as easily as a Starfury (most ships in the B5 RPG are actually quite fragile - battles are decided in one or two salvos. Ships are fragile, guns are devestating - it's a lot more similar to modern naval combat, rather than, say, the Age of Sail.) Meanwhile, a Shadow fighter takes all of the damage from a shot...then QUARTERS it. Then applies its armor value. And then any damage that gets past that goes to it's extra "biomass" health levels. See, most ships have their health listed by components. So the starfury has 5 health levels: 2 engines, 2 weapons, 1 Control (the cockpit.) A shadow fighter is similar...save that it has 10 biomass health levels, which get bumped off before anything that actually matters is damaged. EDIT: What really makes the Earthforce fleet scary isn't just that they have one of the best fighters in the galaxy. THey also are able to throw *so* many of them out. Each capital ship carries 12 at minimum - a G'Quan class heavy cruiser by comparison carries...like...7 Narn heavy fighters. The Omega carries 24. The Olympus carrier carries nearly 120 Starfuries and it's just *unfair*
@@Jorjgasm "Magic" is a relative term. The Shadows can tap directly into hyperspace, drawing power from it and seamlessly phasing out of real space. They also use particle weapons which far exceed anything used by the newer races, and bio-nanotechnology for hull plating and ship systems. Their ships are "alive." Vorlons do much the same, and have dispersion fields for their ships that can disperse incoming particle weapons and their lightning guns are basically pure energy directed at an opponent in massive amounts. They can control gravity fields, and thus use that to propulse themselves rather than using chemical or particle propellant. All "technically" feasible technologies, except for hyperspace as presented, especially if you have basically unlimited power generation like the two races have.
Really agree with a lot of the things you say in this, and great video all around, I love the Starfury. One of the things that's a sticking point for me though that I don't fully agree with is the concept of fighters in SciFi being unrealistic- You only really need to change, allow for, or invent rather minor technologies when considering very advanced universes as a whole to make them viable. Justifying pilots is harder but for fighter style platforms alone you only really need a very reliable way to defeat or protect against modern type weapons while inventing SciFi type weapons that assumedly are only effective at shorter ranges or which are advantageous to deploy simultaneously from many separate platforms. For example if you have a universe where very advanced point defense lasers exist you might conceivably deploy railgun armed drone fighters instead of missiles or torpedoes, thus your enemy may also wish to develop "space superiority" fighters designed to be able to close down yours and eliminate them. Getting people believably in them is tricky, but if you can allow for very powerful jamming and then either distances or technologies that can interrupt or render laser communication impossible or impractical then you can make the case for manned fighters. Sure you could develop completely autonomous drones with kill authority and decision making, but there are a broad spectrum of scenarios where you would naturally want human discretion on issues so it would be very likely that you'd want someone able to make that call themselves. Any universe with shields obviously makes this easy (for the shields to be up no laser comms, radio comms don't pass through and need a small gap to use the radio or do pass through but are jammable, renders modern conventional weapons useless, etc.) , though of course steps away from a more "hard" SciFi setting it can still be extremely believable at least to me, looking at you, Mass Effect.
I really think that the biggest thing that gets in the way of the starfighter fantasy is AI-controlled point defense weaponry. Even modern computers can pretty accurately predict where they would have to point a weapon to hit a moving target at range, the only limit would be how long the ordinance takes to reach it's target. In this case, I do think that the "starfighter" format would actually make for an interesting medium-range weapons platform, it's smaller size and greater maneuverability coupled with a similarly advanced AI focused on avoiding enemy fire allowing it to be *much* closer to the target than a significantly larger and less maneuverable ship. If these kinds of ships became enough of a threat, I could see a line of "Interceptor" type ships to deal with them... which would lead to the starfighter battles we're all imagining in our science fiction.
@@kevingriffith6011 Another justification for fighters is as area denial/movement control weapons, similar to kinetics in Attack Vector Tactical. They'd be far more effective than kinetics though, being able to adjust on the fly. The main threats would be their single-shot heavy ordnance, and the possibility of colliding. And if AI isn't too powerful you can have AI for evasion maneuvers but a pilot for tactical decisions (what to shoot, trajectory plotting etc). As for advantages over missiles, you can simply mount lasers and harass the enemy capital ships, or carry in small missiles with big warheads to save delta-v, or carry kinetic cannons. To counter point defense, recall the square-cube law. Increasing the dimensions by a factor of x increases volume by x cubed, but surface area by x squared. Therefore, it's much easier to armor fighters (armor being related to surface area) for a given armor mass fraction than for missiles, making fighters more survivable... Then again, www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fighter.php
@@gammarailgun5406 area denial is likely the most logical justification for spacefighters. The thing is, 'traditional' space fighters that mimics atmospheric fighters, even from just one aspect is illogical and that include the star fury. Why do I say this? Because the star fury still uses fixed forward weapons (a major trait of atmospheric fighter) that despite its capability to maneuver 3d realistically, forces it to combat like a atmospheric fighters, ie chasing targets in dogfights. Why must spacefighters use fixed forward weapons? When logically turrets would be better as it won't force you to turn the entire ship to target foes, wasting precious fuel or making pilots suffer g-forces to make turns. Turrets also would change everything. Fighters won't dogfight and more jousting, the turrets also give the spacefighters utility in that they can act, like you said area denial platforms by help shooting down missiles, torpedoes, etc etc. Also, if you want to make spacefighters viable, instead of making it's size follow the atmopheric fighters (below 20m), make it larger, above 20 and up to 40m. This would allow it to carry heavier weaponry including single battleship grade cannons that can make it a threat to ships. The idea is that without spacefighters, the only threat comes from one point, your battleship but with spacefighters, the threat comes from many points, making it harder to avoid attacks. This give the spacefighters use even in long range engagements where the spacefighters act as snipers. Of course, this inevitably changes the definition of spacefighters, from small and fast close combat specialists that require skill to use to gunships whose engagement between other gunships depends on who has the better specs. It would be a boring fight to watch but it would be realistic.
@@secondsein7749 The thing about turrets is that they cost several times more mass to mount. Instead, you can just have omnidirectional thrusters. Or, to save on fuel, have internal reaction wheels or gyroscopes to allow quick maneuvering, and keep the omnithrusters to allow the fighter to maneuver quickly. Placing the pilot at the center of the fighter mitigates g-forces. Also, modern-day atmospheric fighters primarily use missiles, which are certainly not spinal weapons as they can easily maneuver.
A couple of things that I noticed in what you said; 1) pilot is in a semi-seated position, 2) the pilot ingress/egress is through the front the "glass" area flips up and the whole cockpit also acts as an escape pod.
I love Babylon 5 and the Starfury. Such a unique look for a star fighter. It's been my personal favourite since the show first aired and introduced the world to this beauty.
Actually the U.S. air force did a experiment during Vietnam to see "if Brick could fly". So they took and created a fighter jet that was very poorly arrow dynamic with one heck of a engine and it flew . So a b5 fighter could go into atmospheric it just couldn't turn on a dime like in space or land but it could fly
Watching Starfuries and the White Star flip to fire whilst carrying through with the momentum they built up was amazing to see as a kid. Babylon 5 was so ahead of it's time, in so many ways.
If you have a gaming laptop (about 1500, you need a laptop with at least a GTX 1070 graphics card) then you can get a Samsung Odyssey VR headset for around 250 dollars. Then you can get a Joystick system for 50 bucks, and buy yourself Elite Dangerous for about 20 bucks. With that you'll be able to walk around very large space ships, fly them, walk around cockpits, dogfight, and just enjoy super cool stuff. Especially with VR. You'd be able to land on planets and drive around in rovers. It might not be the most realistic space video game but it is up there with some of the more realistic genres. Cost of entry isn't cheap. But it's not as crazy as you might think.
@@nikisepps Or wait for Kerbal Space Program 2 with VR support. Fly your own Space Ship and explode because you placed too many engines that became too hot and couldn't cool down.
"Delta Squadron fueled up, ready to go. Scramble scramble!" As much as I am a Babylon 5 fanboi, in fairness the SA-53 Hammerhead fighter from Space: Above and Beyond was also a very cool design that incorporated some Newtonian physics in the design, and in some combat scenes.
@@DrownedInExile I think it's tine slot (Sundays) and the fact it was more "Starship Troopers" and less "Top Gun" in outer space were contributing factors as well.
I think the most interesting part of the Hammerhead was the "coffin" cockpit module. From a functional POV you didn't have to have a big pressurized hanger like they did on BSG. And from the studio side you didn't need to build a big hanger set, or a bunch of mock-ups and other equipment to populate it.
As the Badger was mentioned, but not much elaborated on: In the tabletop games, the Badger was a Starfury frame built as a carrier based bomber. It had missile racks (facing both fore and aft IIRC), but the primary difference was a 2nd cockpit attached to the back of the fusion reactor that controlled a tail gun.
They can't remaster the CG, theres a place on facebook that says why, I think that the skins were simply wraps around the shapes with no definition. Also many of the original files do not exist.
I agree. The way the Starfury's flew was fantastic. Before B5, the closest Sci/Fi show that even tried was Space 1999. The Eagle's had thrusters that were used to "steer" the ship. From JMS had said in a commentary on one of the DVD's, NASA had asked to buy what plans he had for the Starfury. He said that they could have so long as if they built it, they had to call it a Starfury.
I like how in the BSG reboot the Vipers could technically fly in atmosphere, but it required heavy use of ventral thrusters which of course used far more fuel which was already in short supply..
One of my favorite things about the BSG reboot was the response to the US Military's fighter design. The F-16 Fighting Falcon was one of the newest fighters at the time that the original BSG was airing and since this was a show all about fighter pilots, real world pilots naturally watched it. Because of this F-16 pilots began to refer to their planes as the Viper as a nod to the fighters in the show. Flash forward to the re-imagined series and you have two different Viper models, the Mk-II which looks like an upgraded version of the original series Viper, and the Mk-VII which looks much sleeker and has a heavy resemblance to the F-16. It was a subtle little nod back, from one Viper to another.
@@VegetaLF7 True. It was also nice that the reboot BSG fighters treated space like space. They list in Zero-G if not under power and they require RCS thrusters to maneuver. It was interesting to see a more hard sci-fi technology set with fantasy inspired story elements.
4:27 I always thought the front of the pod hinges open, also on the 3d model you are looking at you can see what could be hinges at the top of the pod front
I always loved the Starfury design right from the moment I saw it. Everyone nagged at me for liking this over other fighters like the X Wing and the likes. Main complaint was how restrictive it was like no shields and large design, but I love that realism.
Definitely my fav starfighter - I’ve built three of the plastic kits so far. The realistic take on the design (as well as how they were used in the show) sold me.
The "Badger" was designed for "in the beginning," and was going to be the default fighter for that movie, essentially retconning it as a precursor to the starfury. Unfortunately, a small budget and limited production time prevented them from being able to use it, so they fly starfuries in the film. However official preproduction art for the badger is available online, most notably at the B5 Scrolls website
this was a joy. I allowed me to get a nice, detailed look at the starfury. Through this video I kept trying to figure out how the docking arms held the ship prior to launch. Also there is a heavy duty hinge at the top of the cockpit cupola that looks like the cupola lifted up to allow access.
"This would fall like a brick in the Atmosphere..." I've seen everything from Snoopy's doghouse to lawn mowers fly. Real aircraft like the F104 "Starfighter" and the F117 "Nighthawk" fly with odd shapes and minimal lifting surfaces. With enough speed, and a little Angle of Attack, even bricks will truly fly, if you can keep them stable. I'm pretty sure that with a little modification to the cross section of those struts you could make it fly, as long as you can keep it moving fast enough..
The F-104 had minimal lifting surfaces, but it also had minimal drag. There's a reason one of its nicknames was "The Missile With a Man In It". Skinny body with a jet engine at one end and a pilot at the other. The F-117, meanwhile, used a "lifting body" design, where the fuselage was shaped to provide lift much like a larger wing would. The F-15 Eagle is another aircraft with a lifting-body design.
Strap enough engines to anything and you can get it to fly. Just really hard to control the course of a brick, the golden gate bridge, you get my drift LOL.
I think in the Starfury's case, it's probably just too fragile to withstand the dynamic pressure from going fast enough in an atmosphere to actually generate enough lift. It's also possible their engines don't work at higher external pressures, since they're almost certainly optimized for near-vacuum.
If memory serves, engineers from NASA reached out to JMS and asked if they could use this as the basis for the design of a future "space-tug" type craft. He said only on the condition that they call the design "Starfuries" -- NASA agreed. I really hope that story is true.
I've always been in awe of this little space capable can of whoop-ass !! I wish I could find models to build for my desk... I'm pretty sure there are some, but I never thought of looking before seeing this episode. Thank you, Space Dock
NASA approached the studio and got their ok to design a craft for space maintanence based on the Starfury. Of course it´s not yet produced as far as i know, but we might see this craft at some point in the future. About spacefighters, personally i LOVE them, but i admit such a thing would be impractical. If anything, we would use drones, robotic or remote controlled.
Apparently a lot of the original tapes, which were in 16:9, have been 'misplaced', which doesn't surprise me much given how petty WB are being with the franchise.
Some of the original film was destroyed in storage or lost while on loan to Sierra Entertainment(while B5: Into the Fire was still in production), so the chances are pretty much non-existent aside from up-scaling already existing material.
I've started watching B5 recently thanks to this channel, I've just finished Season 1 and I have to admit I like it a lot. The peculiar CGI of the time reminds me a lot of Red Dwarf, but it looks pretty good for its time. I've also come across this game called Babylon 5: I've found her in one of my old gaming magazines, is that the one you've mentioned? Any chance to see you stream it?
@Ron Lewenberg It's a great episode, visually stunning at the time. But I prefer season 2 "the coming of shadows". It was not as much a spectacle, but a bittersweet drama.
As for entry, I believe the entire front section of the canopy swings up. At the top of the canopy there appears to be a hinge. This would also facilitate entry from a gang plank; simply "step in", retract the walkway, rotate the canopy down...
@Ben Daulton This was a quote from one Centauri prince. In the setting of the show - parallel to RL on earth - these ships are built for fighter vs fighter combat. These ships are sparsely armoured as any weight is detrimental to maneuverability. Bigger ships are armoured. For those, they usually sport a flight of missiles.
@Ben Daulton oh, now I understand, thank you. Well, it depends on the size and the velocity (vector) of the debris. I remember a couple of occasions in the show where debris from the fight was dangerous ( the Narn vs Centauri fight in front of the station, the show down battle against the shadows over Gorash 5). Unless caught by surprise, I believe they just simply evade it in a Starfury
@Ben Daulton Thank you for the link. In fact, I've used that footage (more precisely: the picture) of that impact to argue about debris in an Expanse group. In real life, they pose a danger, and in the Expanse - which likes to portray itself as hard science - it is a possibility. In the B5 setting though. Not so much. 1: The setting is way different, focusing much more on the political / interpersonal conflicts 2: The battles in B5 take place mostly around celestial bodies, with more or less equal velocities. Therefore, debris are not that much of a factor 3: It's set like 300+ years into the future, and people travel faster than light - so I guess they figured out a solution for this problem long ago. In fact there is a solution to this - precisely for the smaller stuff: Two magnetic fields that encompass the craft: one polarises the debris and the second field "bounces" off the debris from the magnetic field. (OK, that helps diddly squat for debris that is non-magnetic, but I haven't found a comparison of the percentage of magnetic / non-magnetic debris in space)
That's some really great, technical, scientific detail on why this is cool. I remember when I was a kid thinking "Hmm they gave a Tie Fighter the Xwings...cool"
B5 only payed lip service to realism for the most part. The Starfury is the big exception. Even the Omage Destroyers pull 180 turns, accelerate and deccelerate while their gravity wheels keep spining which would tear the ships in half.
Earthforce's space navy was until The Expanse came along my favorite Sci-Fi depiction of humanity in the stars. No fantastical shields, no anti gravity, big ion engines, utilitarian designs that at the same time look imposing. Basically extrapolations of technology we can just about produce today on a small scale or we're confident the theory will pan out into usable tech soon(ish) such as fusion reactors & high powered plasma/particle beams. The Star Fury was the icing on the cake especially when you compare it to it's contemporary's such as Death Gliders and Runabout, perhaps only the ill fated Space Above and Beyond had a similarly cool space fighter in the Hammerhead although it was atmospheric too so not as Newtonian.
Other than the fact that the rotating sections of the Earthforce ships would torque the rest of the ship and make for a shit time steering them. To this day I don't get why they just didn't put a second contra-rotating section and have the two sections rotate against each other. At least as cool looking, and far more realistic.
The rotation weight is only an issue if it is fixed to stationary hull and isn't counter weighted by an equal force on the other side. Which is why the Omegas have the twin center piece. As long as those rotating sections are balanced in their own weight, then the only concern is that they be built in a fashion to sustain thrust.
IMO, the badger-class / 'Heavy' SF is possibly a more-optimal starfighter design, because once the rear bomber pod is removed, the thicker design of the cockpit module (now more akin to the 'Heavy' SF) would allow for not only more rad-shielding and rear armor, but also more of a longer-range missile capacity, as well as a better sensors and targeting computer package. Comparatively, it would be comparable to a tie Defender, vs the 'normal tie fighter' likeness of the stock starfury.
The entirety of the imperium vehicles designs are back ward. 1) They use WW1 brithish tank style MBT such as the leman Russ, which has a turret strapped on as a plus, don’t talk about the land raiders, or even the baneblades. Those things are just too heavy to work. 2) they use Human like titans. There is a reason why machines that have legs don’t have human like legs. It is unstable. Plus the titans are extremely heavy and would collapse on their own weight. 3)They have atmospheric capable spacefighters . Wich are bricks. 4)Their space ships are cathedrals. Nuff said. And they are so big you can have civilisations of mutants forming in the forgotten parts of the ships. They also haul the macro shells with HANDS and CHAINS. Talk about inneficient. 5) The mechanicus in general is backward. It honestly wouldn’t surprise me if the lasguns batteries were plus with plus and minus with minus because “ It is the way electricity work, meatbag.” 6) I believe the imperium has a two kilometres long artillery. I think it speaks for itself.
@@manofironthathasntturnedcr9817 Just remember, the original concept of WH40k was that it was supposed to be stupid and ridiculous. There's a reason no-one left alive in the universe really fully understands any of the technology.
i love B5 and the starfury is a hugh part why. the look and the way it moves in space, and the lunch, being dropped out of the station by its rotation, great looking and space saving lunch. i also have 2 of the revell models with Sinclair and Garibaldi nose art, one for look and the other as a memorial to great actors
So good, NASA wants to build one. No, really, NASA asked Babylon 5's creator if the could build one, he said yes but it still needs to be called a Starfury.
As to how they get into the starfurie, the cockpit front opens up and they board from the front. When in the cobra bay, there is a gantry that runs in-front of the starfurie. The gantry pulls away just before the craft is rotated outward (facing the outside wall of the bay where the door is) for drop.
I have a copy of the Babylon 5 security manual which was published in 1997 from Macmillan Publishing London and there is a section showing both the Aurora and Thunderbolt fighters. Access to the Aurora is gained by lifting the front canopy and climbing in...there is an episode of B5 in one of the later seasons where a young Centauri prince wishes to ride in one and Sheridan obliges him. There is a split second shot of Sheridan reaching onto the bottom of the canopy and activating some type of locking clamp.
I wish they would Rebroad cast Babylon 5, I missed most of the show when I was younger,I know I can buy it but it's not the same as watching it on t.v. commercials and all.
Two things I would like to add. 1. They do show the "Thunderbolt" variant firing missiles. It was in season 4 when the Earth Alliance fires them at a dome on Mars. 2. The piolet of a Starfury wares a space suit and is helmeted in the cockpit. So there is no atmosphere in the cockpit. I don't know if oxygen is supplied from the vessel, but it is almost certainly the case considering some of the long trips the Starfuries make.
To be fair The Expense space fight also follows modern warfare style opposed to old era like other shows, most fight are all about spotting the enemy and the winner is the one who land a good hit first, compared to fantasy space show where fights take place at close range.
I have a physical model of a Starfury. However, at the time that I assembled it, I had never seen the show. Just little bits and pieces. That's how cool this fighter is.
but both have a really weird story, i dont know how many time i watched Babylon 5 and i still dont get whats going on ... but i really like how realistic it is for the most parts
Spacedock, about getting into a Starfury. If I remember the scenes shot in the Cobra Bays correctly, the entire canopy of the Starfury levers up to allow the pilots access. You can even see the hinge at the top of the canopy on the 3D model in your video. It's also how they get out of the ejection pod.
Crew ingress/egress is from the front of the cockpit. The froward section swings up to let the pilot get in and out of the fighter. The pilot sits in something like a saddle strapped in, you see in some of the episodes prior to drop/launch the "canopy" swung up.
Now this is timing. I just so happen to be binge watching B5 lately. I just finished the entire B5 series today. Starting "Crusade" tomorrow. Just watched "B5:Thirdspace" only a few minutes ago. Here's a Starfury funny. Who remembers the Starfury meets Teddybear?
The Rylan Gunstar from the movie The Last Starfighter in 1984, is a truly interesting and well thought out design. This ship follows all laws of Newtonian physics with a far better useful weapons load out. The Gunstar can fly in atmosphere and land using reaction thrust like todays Flacon-X used for lifting payloads into space and returning intact. Check out Resurrected Starships video at ruclips.net/video/DQ58NrREGdM/видео.html for a complete break down.
@@SkylerLinux yes they did, but failed to include the Rylan Gunstar. and as to this video they termed the Star Fury "the perfect sci-fi space fighter'. I begged to differ and offered up the Ryan Gunstar witch is a far better hard science space fighter than the Star Fury, which I also love to bits.
@@ditzydoo4378 Sorry I thought that he had. I however can't agree about on the Gunstar. The forward facing thrusters are to small to effectively slow her forward movment, the elongated cockpit would increase the G-forces on the pilot.
@@SkylerLinux the forward thrusters are more for maneuvering at high speed, but do provide front aspect braking. As to quickly slowing, or stopping. One would simply use the reaction thruster to pivot the craft nose to tail then use the main engines to quickly arrest forward momentum. the Gunstar like the Star Fury follows normal Newtonian physics to operate. However the Gunstar has five all aspect laser turrets. It doesn't need to maneuver in order to lock no less than two, and in most cases three of it's five laser guns on any craft approaching from any angle. the Star Fury by contrast has to maneuver in order to bring it front aspect weapons to bear on an opponent. As to G-force the Fury pilot being in a near standing position is far more susceptible to G-lock than the pilot, or gunner of a Gunstar. there is also the added benefit of splitting the duties of pilot and gunner in reducing work load in a combat environment. Please at least go to the link I provided on the Gunstar to see it's full capabilities.
The hatch you point out on top is just above the fusion reactor. I believe it is an inspection & maintenance hatch for the engine. It would make more sense for the pilot to enter via the open canopy while in the launch bay. Strap in, seal the canopy, then launch, easy as pie.
Here's a thing about some of the things you say are "unrealistic" about space warfare. "Space warfare would take place almost exclusively at much greater distances." This is mostly true. However, if you design your vessels with the expectation. You may leave your forces vulnerable to those that would be more willing to "close the gap." It's a similar prejudice that the US military designed the F4 Phantom with. The F4 originally had no gun and only had missiles to defend itself with. They believed that the missiles would eliminate the close quarter combat of traditional dogfights. It turned out to be disastrously incorrect as the missiles would often fail to perform or be deflected by chaff. Although it would be preferred to keep your ships at a distance to slug it out. However, if travel time and mechanical accuracy are factors (which they would most certainly be) getting closer to the enemy would minimized those issues. Hell, I'd argue that ship-to-ship ramming can be useful in space combat. "The whole concept of sci-fi dog-fighting is unrealistic." Now this one you got totally wrong. It's simple really... You need to have massive capital ships (of various sizes and roles) to carry troops, weapons, vehicles, supplies, etc into battle. Or at least to assert power over a situation. Just as in WWII, those same larger ships were routinely harassed and many times destroyed by bomber/torpedo aircraft. The most effective way these large ships can resist those fighter assaults is with aircraft of their own. Thusly, dogfights in space would inevitably happen.
@@Eliphaser I understand your points, but there are some artificial limitations placed in some of your assessments. That can honestly be mitigated or removed through technological development (without reality bending sci-fi tech.) The purpose of the F4 analogy is to show that the battle field is an unpredictable place. Just because the INTENTION is long range, doesn't mean the natural chaos of war is going to lineup with that intention. Such as, why would a soldier carry a knife or a sidearm in the modern battlefield. Just in case you end up in the position where your long gun, light machine gun, or assault rifle is in a compromised state. Even if 99% of engagements are at a distance, that 1% can be exploited if not prepared for. Now, I understand why the conception of a "piloted" starfighter can be seen as silly. Although it's needed for most sci-fi stories to add valuable tension to a scene. Human piloted starfighters are pretty ridiculous, for settings that are so advanced they have mastered FTL travel. lol I think it would be far more like to see fighters that are likely what we see in Guardians of the Galaxy 2. Basically like modern drone combat or similar to a video game, for the person controlling the machine. So the fragile human is removed from the vessel. There you can have a craft that can do body-shattering maneuvers and still be able to hit the inevitable soft/vulnerable parts of large ships.
@@Eliphaser Also, can't forget to mention that Marine General, Paul Van Riper. In a massive wargame, he commanded the woefully lesser Middle Eastern "Iranian" forces against the mighty US military. He defeated the US by using cruse missiles, suicide boats, and guerilla scouting tactics. He ended up "destroying" some 16 vessels. Including an aircraft carrier for goodness sakes. lol
Closing the gap is much less a viable option in realistic space combat because the realistic distances are so extreme that it would take minutes, if not hours, to close those gaps at typical manned spacecraft speed, all the while taking fire from enemy weaponry moving at lightspeed or close to lightspeed, where there is almost never any effective cover to shield you from that enemy fire, or any realistic method of stealth that could hide you and your engines' energy signature from enemy targeting. It is much less akin to the situation of the F4 Phantom and its missiles against other planes, than it would be to a medieval army trying to charge across a 10km field to close to within melee weapon range of a modern army fully equipped with guns, artillery, radio and full air support.
pretty sure the main canopy flips up for the pilot to access the ship. At least, in the model you are showcasing, you can see the hinges across the top of the canopy.
OMG thank you for this one ! Its been my favorite space flight ship ever... Just seem so realistic how space fighter should look like and perform. Even back then watching it , i knew this was done right ! I asked Star Citizen to copy the space maneuverability for its space sim... I vision myself being chased and flipping my ship around using my joystick and thrust control while still flying in same direction , feeling the g force and aiming then firing at my pursuers.... Then flipping a node to activate my underneath thrusters to turn me back around while hitting full throttle to evade more oncoming targets
Very, very late to this party, but wanted to clarify a point: The Aurora was boarded by the entire forward "canopy" swinging up (you can see the pivot hinge on the top of the cockpit model.) There's also a few episodes where you catch the tail end of the canopy glass swinging down and sealing shut after the pilot boards. Fury pilots would suit up, get to their fighter, then back into the harness and strap in while the canopy closed, before being dropped free of the bay.
Straczyski once said in an interview: “we've received a number of inquiries from folks associated with NASA about the prospect of perhaps someday actually building working Starfuries, mainly as the space industry equivilent [sic] to fork lifts and heavy loaders”.
He said he agreed, on the condition that they still be called Starfuries.
They would be the ultimate extension of the MMU using about the same control scheme and fuel source but allow for extended operation
They do show a construction pod in a few episodes that looks like it's built on a starfury chassis. Same cockpit, same engine arrangement, just painted construction yellow and with manipulator arms instead of weapons. I'd assume what NASA's conceptual designers are talking about would look very much like that.
Then, when you need a weaponised spacecrft, just bolt some on to the existing construction pods you have. May I present...
...the Starfury Technical!
@@TheCererean That's what they did in the original Mobile Suit Gundam. It resulted in the RB-79 Ball, a.k.a. the single most outclassed flying coffin in anime history :P.
Shame really, since it was one of the few actually sensible designs in that franchise. I mean, I love me some Gundam but holy hell does the tech strain the ol' suspension of disbelief...:P
@@GaldirEonai I just googled that, and it reminds me of the pods from GotG. The one where Rocket flew another ship unsing the little "forklift" pod!
That design actually makes a ton of sense for a space utility vehicle.
I'm 100% positive that James Gunn took inspiration from Gundam because he's a huge nerd. But it's still cool to see where the idea came from.
I really miss Babylon 5.
Honestly a favorite of mine, the first season drags a bit, but once sherridan shows up it gets better
@@asvarien I have to agree
I don't miss Babylon 5, I have every B5 episode on dvd including all the feature length films and the terrible spin off, Excalibur that was never given its chance to find its legs and pass that difficult first season. Excalibur had a couple of interesting episodes but felt too star trek in my opinion. I have to agree though B5 was epic story writing and great character development. Classic series.
@@milanondrak5564 same here.
Babylon 5 is available on amazon prime video for free with a prime account
Star Trek: space ships move like submarine
Star Wars: space ships move like airplanes
Babylon 5: space ships move like spaceships
cledge fenrir
Battlestar Galactica (the new version) had realistic physics; despite the insanely poor, aircraft like design of the craft themselves. They would use thrusters to flip the craft and fire as they continued in the direction they had originally been “flying.” I thought they did a good job with the way the craft worked.
@@keirfarnum6811 the BSG ships looked like that because they were used in atmospheric conditions just as much as space. It's only when Galactica made it's exodus that space became the primary battlefield.
lol yeah B5 had hard sci-fi newtonian spaceship battles ... perfectly matched with space magic? Interspecies reincarnation? Plasma pistols smaller than my cell phone? Space vampires? Lets face it, the Aqua Net 5000 the Centauri used in their hair was the hardest sci-fi in the show. A few more decades, and we can prolly have that technology. How many seasons did it take for the show to realize it was actually in the military sci-fi subgenre?
The Starfury is a great looking design, but aside from a reasonable cockpit and turning point for zero-g, she has no gas tank, no shielding, limited mission profile, limited range, limited ammo, and no significant independent navigational system. Kick the pilot, make it a drone, scale it down to one half size, give it a modular backmount hardpoint rollbar that can mount mission specific modules like LRS or missile pods, and paint it something other than black, and we may have something useful to work with.
@@the_mighty_bearcat Space Magic? You make it seem like it's an odd thing. Star Wars is obvious with the Force but it is actually in the sub genre of Sci- fantasy.
So let's go with Star Trek. First off Q is a god like being that can change reality at anytime, so space magic. Anytime they had something they couldn't explain scientifically they would say something like " forces beyond our comprehension" , so space magic. I don't remember every species in the Star Trek franchise to know if they have a space vampire equivalent; I think Voyager had a species that harvested organs from other creatures, so space zombie/Frankenstein? I don't know why the Plasma Pistol size is an issue in B5, they had rifles and such that where mainly used by SWAT or military personnel not security guards much like in Star Trek though you don't see them that often. Interspecies reincarnation... you got me there I have nothing for that. For Starfury, don't know how popular of an idea drones were from writing perspective, you don't get the same sense of action, that's why Star Trek always went to red alert so much, a sense of action. Show wise the other races had more advance technology so there single manned fighters didn't have many of those issues.
Star Trek majority of the races aren't really that good; there one dimensional. Vulcans-robots, Ferengi-capitalist, Klingons-warrior, Borg-hive mind, Romulan.. I don't remember what they did beside be the go to baddies in TNG when nothing particular else was being a threat.
@@cledgefenrir5681
The incarnation between mimbari and humans is a religious viewpoint. The reason why that odd old piece of technology gave them the idea is in fact based on genetic heritage.
Manipulating and reading genes by means of technology is pretty scientific. But babylon 5 does not really wanted to be hard sci-fi, it just incorporated some aspects like newtonian physics.
It's a mix of drama, mysticism and action in a futuristic setting. It's a great show, but no holy grail of scientific accurate worldbuilding
Totally agree - the Aurora is an all-time favorite.
PREPARE FOR DROP!
Babylon 5 has two excuses for needing high close-range manoeuvrability:
The Starfuries stationed at Babylon 5 have more of a harbour police role. Babylon 5 is not a military base in the midst of a war, at least for most of the show. They welcome visitors, including strangers. Somebody may unsuspiciously approach the station and then unexpectedly prove hostile and open fire when they are close enough to hide in blind spots of the station's defence weapons. That same excuse works for the fighters defending the hypergate construction site in the opening scene of the 90s Lost in Space feature film, by the way. Also, in one episode an out-of-control vessel came tumbling towards the station and a Starfury was deployed to catch it with a robot arm. To match the tumbling ship's rotation, you need that kind of manoeuvrability, although they could have used a construction fury for that.
And for Starfuries used in war, there's hyperspace. While in a hard science fiction setting you would see the approaching enemy from light minutes away, if not light hours, in the Babylon 5 universe the enemy may come out of hyperspace only a few kilometers from you. So it's justified that combat happens over unrealistically short distances.
In fact, jumping on top of an enemy fleet with everyone within spitting distance was as much a weapon as the weapons on each ship, judging by the Earth-Minbari War.
@@notyou2353 Ye certainly makes for some very interesting tactics in battle.
The episode 'the Long Twilight Struggle' in B5 shows a space battle at 'realistic' ranges - only the final (catastrophic!) moments of the battle are at 'knife-fight' range. Mostly though, ships in B5 will be emerging from Hyperspace already firing.
"Knife-Fight" ranges *WOULD* be the norm...because "c".
It takes LIGHT a second and a half (give or take) to travel from the Moon to Earth...and that's only 340,000 kilometers. That means if that at comparable ranges, when you fire the enemy has 1.5 seconds to *be somewhere else* (and that's with a weapon moving at the Speed of Light; Kinetics will be even slower because you don't get to bypass "e=mc^2" and go straight to "c" like you do with an energy-based weapon.
While one-and-a-half seconds doesn't seem like any time at all, if you're targeting an object moving evasively at hundreds to thousands of meters per second, 1.5 seconds translates translates into anything between a Miss and a Complete and Utter Miss (although the distance doesn't matter, because a Miss is a Miss) so the ONLY two ways to counter this are to either
A.) Violate The Universal Speed Limit and somehow invent a form of energy that can travel FASTER than the Speed of Light, or
B.) Close range to distances where distance created by evasion is minimized and travel time of your weapon system falls below reaction threshold time.
Up until The Expanse came along Episode 53 “Severed Dreams” of B5 had the best space battle ever committed to film. Almost 3 seasons of buildup to that one un-freaking-believable piece of television. Watching the star fury squadrons do realistic flip and burn manoeuvres while defending the station from the earth battleships (which btw are also an amazing bit of realistic design work) made me realise that the effects team were paying homage to all us space nerds and to this day I’m still grateful to them for the effort they went to on what was probably a pretty limited budget...
You made me want to watch that again, so I did. I had to chuckle at the end; those the two Omega destroyers Delenn sends packing - one was the "Nimrod" rofl
@@Strahan740i Really!? Thats hilarious and I have no doubts entirely intentional! Nimrod was supposedly an ancient Mesopotamian King and so it does fit into the battleship nomenclature for the show but also the modern context of the word makes it doubly brilliant! Thanks for letting me know!
"Only one Human has ever defeated a Minbari Star Cruiser in battle. He is behind me- You are in front of me. If you value your lives, BE SOMEWHERE ELSE!" Best. Threat. Ever!
I'll fanboy B5 with the best of 'em, but New Caprica gives Severed Dreams a run for its money. It should do, being done that much later. I don't know if it tops it, but it definitely rivals. The Expanse finally unseated both RDM BSG and B5 though, I will agree.
@@knghtbrd Agreed. The Battle of New Caprica was for sure the best space battle until The Expanse came up with S5 E10 and it's entire 6th season. "Severd Dreams" was great, but it can't rival BSG. This might be cause of Budget ristrictions and less sophisticated CGI at B5. Don't get me wrong: B5 did a wonderful job, but it is no comparison tothe Battle of New Caprica.
Isn't there a exclusion-section in Newtons law that says: "This law does not effect starfighters for stylistic reasons!"? ;P
That would be Newton's Fourth Law, also known as "The Rule of Cool"
@@Seth90 law of raw
Liopleurodon It says “Rule of Cool trumps all other laws”
@@Seth90 Yep. Make it pretty enough it can break physics. Just like that stunningly gorgeous woman that seemingly walks on air.
Say it with me: "etheric rudder"
I remember reading that NASA showed interest in the design of the "Construction Starfury" due to its practical design.
I also remember this.
As I recall NASA asked the show runner if they could borrow the design in the future, he said yes.... provided they kept the name :-)
NASA did license the Starfury design, and many a NASA scientist watched the show specifically because of it. I would love to see a Babylon 4 and see some Membari ships following Newtonian flight.
They have "Construction Starfury" in the show. The movie Thirdspace had one I think.
utility vehicle yes. fighter? lol no.
Me; the perfect sci-fi fighter doesn’t exis....
Spacedock: Hold my blue milk
Well he did point out that space fighters are unrealistic, but the biggest reason this is true has to do with whether your sci-fi includes the magic technology of inertial dampeners.
Once you have pilots blacking out to g-forces from acceleration you realize any ai guided missile can out perform any pilot. So if you're not in a ship that can stop the missiles from getting to you by other means then dodging or running, the ship design is not viable. Basically shielding or a PDC network is necessary to avoid a permanent and unwinnable race with torpedoes.
Not to mention, constantly burning your engines would build up a helluva lot of heat. Starfighters simply can't afford the radiator area needed to let off that quantity of heat.
Yeah its the perfect fighter and the most realistic hell nasa even mentioned using the starfury design when considering a replacement for the shuttle as its design and flight profile would be great for space operations
I think the Gunstar from Last Starfighter is very solid as well. The movie did a horrible job showing it, but if you look at the ship design, it has maneuvering thrusters, and reverse thrusters as well.
@@TAKIZAWAYAMASHITA
The Babylon 5 fan based game controls were looked at by Nasa since they worked so well in the newtonian physics based engine they used.
(2:27) I think that explains why the RCS thrusters on the "wing" tips are not arranged at right angles relative to the central axis of the ship. It all made sense when you said "leverage". If you draw a line from each RCS thruster relative to the axis of the direction of travel, it looks like they are perfectly aligned to take advantage of that leverage. I never noticed it before. I just thought that it was an aesthetic design choice. Thank you for diving into the design of this little ship! :)
Spacedock: Here's my take on the Starfury.
Kosh: Yes.
"Good"
But you will
Zathras: The One... but not The One.
"how will it end?" - "In fire"
A Starfury is a 5 edged sword.
The closest to a great design like this was the Gunstar from The last starfighter. Great video!🤔👍
The death blossom!
I prefer to think of them as fighting evil.... in another dimenson!
It probably why I like B5 fighters so much... the gunstar was my first love.
Does @spacedock have a hate on for the gunstar ? I have searched his video history and never any reviews of the ship
Gunstar was actually an inspiration for the Starfury design.
@@starsiegeplayer - Makes perfect sense to me! 🤔👍
Makes even more sense in that it's a substantial ship.
Now I want to go watch “Severed Dreams”. That episode really brought emotional weight to the space combat.
The episode had a little bit of everything that made this show so great... great action, a great story and a solid ending sequence that still gives me chills when I watch it today ("only one human captain has survived combat against the Mimbari... he is behind me, you are in front of me, if you value your lives... be somewhere else"). Just epic.
Starfuries have always been one of my favorite space vehicles, along with the Eagles from Space 1999. Speaking of which it would be awesome to see a video by you dedicated to the Eagle!
Yeah, I also love the Eagles from Space 1999. My favourite fictional spacecraft have been the Eagle, the Starfury Aurora and the MCRN Corvette-class light frigate...
And Serenity - not as realistic as the others but she's got charm and style.
Spacedock: "The perfect space fighter"
Also Spacedock: "It's pretty fragile, and you have a nuclear reactor 2 inches from the back of your head"
Fighters would be pretty shitty in space combat anyway. Point defense at that point is designed to destroy missiles and torpedoes larger than these fighters, which means you're dead as soon as you get in range. Those point defenses are also commanded by an AI, which means you don't stand a chance mentally, because the thing will predict your every move.
@@Eliphaser Yup like in The Expense or other series like Honor Harrington the smallest you can go is frigate, anything smaller is just the equivalent of a ski boat which has no business in war.
@@JRexRegis The most realistic reason I've found to use them in practical Sci-Fi so far is as liaison between the mothership and whatever drones she uses to get data/lock/jamming on the enemy. As fast and precise AIs may look like, the realistic ones can't fully remove human-like thinking from the equation, which surprisingly puts starfighters as squadron leaders for those drones.
@@lucofparis4819 We did that currently already, frigates with comm buoys and UAV coordinating.
Yeah, but it's precise, fast, easy to use and extremely maneuvrable.
One of my absolute favorite ships ever since I watched the Last Starfighter with its Gunstar and then my dad showed me Babylon 5 and saw the starfury design
Absolutely. The Starfury is a streamlined Gunstar that's also stripped down for true mass production to be sent everywhere.
@@Wingnut00-zero basically a gunstar without the second crew and no death blossom
@@Wingnut00-zero yep the starfury was readily available and in numbers far greater than a gunstar which as far as i recall had its entire flight group wiped out in just one kodan attack.
@@delvinciposterkid yeah.... and thus one kid and his mentor grig kicked the asses of Xur and his forcess
oh yeah the gunstar.
btw folks you can watch the last starfighter totally free on youtube
I've always thought the Starfury looks like the result of a secret Romeo & Juliet-style love affair between an X-Wing and a TIE fighter.
I love this craft, she ranks right up there with the Gunstars, and I also loved how there was NO sound during battles, unless you were inside the vessel. B5 took many inspirations from the classics, and their innovations in turn inspired more to follow. A True Sci Fi Classic.
The only B5 remake which makes sense is just updating 3D graphics but leaving all acting shots same. You cant have B5 with out these great actors.
modisp many of the actors were fantastic and they absolutely made the show BUT there are many aspects that are dated (outside of sets/graphics) when it comes to things like storytelling and dialogue that could use a good reboot.
I do think a bigger problem with a reboot is the world building and history that would need to be completely redone in order to make it interesting. There are great actors today who could step up and give us equally amazing takes on the characters we know. But if the story is the same one we know, how long before interest fades away?
Nick 3 because it wouldnt be as much for us as it would be for our kids?
Kind of like the updated version of Star Trek original series where they did update the FX and added CGI ships? Give B5 the Expanse level would look awesome.
@@makomadns4 Another approach would be to simply create another story in the same universe, but after the myth arc with the Vorlons and the Shadows, it's hard to come up with another story that won't seem underwhelming (lower-stakes story) or cliche (yet another galaxy-threatening baddie).
That said, JMS made it clear both in flash-forward episodes, spinoffs, and other assorted what not that the galaxy is still a pretty hectic place with plenty of plots and politics and grudges to go around.
Do what they did with the remastering of Star Trek.
Loved B5 from day 1 & much love for the Starfury in all iterations. Would love to see a modern take of the series. Condolences to all the members of the cast that are no longer with us.
Indeed. Too many of them has passed away way too soon. :(
@@sleepingbackbone7581 no. a modern take would end up woke and shit.
I really appreciate the amount of B5 love that has happened in the last year or so.
"Ramirez! Ramirez dont you do this to me damn it" - Stephen Franklin
"It's not fair."
"No it's not. Death never is."
One of my favorite ships. I'll be doing a build of the plastic kit soon.
Hey, I have perfect weapon against Aurora.
[slaps atmosphere on a table]
The reason why atmosphere stays close to planets is because it knows an Aurora is out there waiting for it.
@@benwilson1088 lmao
@@benwilson1088 😂
Can’t the thunderbolt fly in atmosphere?
@@mechak.7504 It can, but thunderbold isn`t Aurora tho.
Most of the things you brought up are why my Starfinder setting has an oversized 3 man and 5 man class similar to the starfuries.
I'm glad you touched on the orientation of the pilot in the cockpit. Setting it up so that a direct forward acceleration pushes the pilot back into the acceleration couch, maximising support during heavy gees, is about the best way to maximise survivable acceleration short of using a gimballed cockpit - which would come with its own issues.
I wonder what spacedock's opinion on the SA-43 Hammerhead fighter from Space: Above and Beyond is.
Big upvote, just mentioned it in another Post (just yesterday I finished a rewatch of what Show, that btw really would deserve not only a reboot, but also a 2nd season, but please, with very carefull Adaption of modern tech to the Hammerhead (the Viper they totslly ruined in the reboot, the higher versions lost to much of the style)
Inareth Londo and G’kar were lightning in a bottle, two of the greatest characters and character interactions I’ve ever seen in any media.
@Inareth good Points but I was focused on something different. Babylon5 has shiny stuff of high far away technologys for the mimbari and evrn upper Decks on Babylon5 compete with it.... This is fine for Babylon5
The Mark I Viper in 1978 had a iconic presencexand a touch of a war torn Well used Tool, what gave her a special Touch of realism. Those Viper Mark IV things was like fresh from the 3D printer, to Say it sharp.
Space above and beyond, this old Show, is in a setting, roughly 100 years from present time, nearly everything still has connection to Real life and still they seem to have grsvity on the carrier and travel to other solar Systems... But their fight ers Look like their predecessors was Jets what startet from an aircarrier, it's all connected to today, only slightly adaptrd to fit into sf, they have the rust and dirt and no shiny stuff, it's very imaginable, very real, with a minimum of Adaption to become scifi.
The Saratoga, the Carriership looks like you can Name every thing in it's hull by checking some naval handbooks.
For the Show they made some Schale models, there is evrn a unverified report russian seaman tried to sneak on the ship there they was stored to make Fotos.... Thinking it to be a new secret us millitary machine, so real did they look.
B5 always has been, and probably always will be, my favourite television show! It is actual science fiction, where as things like ST and SW are science fantasy. Great care was put into making the technology seem as realistic and believable as possible. From lines about how Earthforce went over to all PPGs for sidearms as you want something that will burn through flesh but not blast a hole in your hull, to the practical designs of the uniforms to make them feel practical and functional.
Ships in the B5 universe in particular, at least human ones, are as practical and realistic as I have ever seen shown in a film or series. In one of the commentaries JMS mentions how he wanted things to look believable, something that for the most part we could realistically make with our current level of technology. One of the best bits of writing/world-building advice I ever heard, I can't remember if it was from JMS himself, but it was this: Get the basics right. Make the fundamental parts of your world realistic and believable and it will be easier for your audience to believe the more fantastical elements of your world/universe.
As I'm sure others have mentioned in the comments, NASA were so impressed with the design of the Starfurry that they wanted to use the same design for a craft. You know you've done good when real-world scientists are inspired by your work!
As far as Sarfurries firing missiles, the only example in the show that springs to mind is when Clarke orders the bombing of civilians on Mars. You get a shot of I think a pair of Thunderbolts flying across the surface of Mars and one fires a missile which blows a hole in a Dome.
I remember seeing an interview where Straczynski
basically said (paraphrasing here) "NASA came to me wanting to develop a space craft to use at the ISS and they like the Starfury design. Can we use it?". I remember the answer he gave was "Sure, go ahead. the only requirement i have is that you call it a starfury"
You see missiles on the Starfury in the Thirdspace tv movie... Pretty sure it's the only time
@@asvarien Actually, the Vorlon Battlecrusier has shielding. We see it in action when a Vorlon fleet attacks a Shadow fleet in the season 3 episode Interludes and Examinations. Though we never see it again after that, unless you count the White Stars "not-shields" from War Without End, Part 1.
@@veeeks2938 Thanks, was just going to add that...
two things-
1) I think it's Season 3 or 4 (can't access the show via Amazon Prime anymore for some reason) where they use missiles against raiders, and it winds up being shown briefly in the intro cinematic of one of the seasons after that. Been a while since I saw it, and as I said I can't access the show anymore, but I remember being happy to see missiles used.
2) Many ships in B5 have shields, including both the Excalibur and White Star class ships, but they are generally referred to as "skin shields", an EM field that is just above the surface of the hull and ablates and disperses incoming energy fire. The B5 tech manuals get into this a bit more, and Crusade shows it more prominently. Thirdspace is where you see energy shields on some SERIOUS steroids, however, taking a sustained heavy particle beam from a White Star for a good fifteen seconds without buckling.
The dual cockpit Starfury carried aboard the EAS Hyperion in A View From the Wilderness Part II had missiles.
Don't Clarks Thunderbolt Starfuries fire missiles when they "Bomb" Mars?
May we have a competition where we could try to design the perfect Space Fighter? I'd be totally down for that! 😁
Excellent idea
im down
The perfect space fighter is a Gunship
@@karlfranzemperorofmandefil5547 Indeed. lol
I suppose that falls into the rock-paper-scissors combat scenario you see in games like Homeworld;
Fighters > Bombers
Bombers > Gunship Corvettes
Gunship Corvettes > Fighters
I would 100% participate, even if it would have to be on paper for me since I can't 3D-model for shit. Guess I'll resurrect that three-wing design I came up with a while back...
I have the Babylon 5 tabletop RPG and the Starfuy, statwise, is the 4th best fighter in the Babylon 5 universe. Which may sound kinda lame, but, uh, remember, the list goes 1) Shadows 2) Vorlon 3) Mimbari 4) Human
1) magic 2) magic 3) somewhat magic 4) almost realism
@@Jorjgasm Minbari have a specific set of technological advances we can actually list to describe their advantages. Notably, hull plating that disperses human scanner pulses, making them essentially invisible to anything except the Mk1 eyeball, artificial gravity, and superior power generators. But they're coasting on pure technological brute force - their fighters aren't actually designed better than other races, they just have more advanced systems strapped onto their poorly designed fighter spaceframe.
@@Jorjgasm not magic just more advanced technology , higher technology is not magic.
@@richardkenan2891 Yeah, if you actually HIT a Mimbari fighter, it folds up just as easily as a Starfury (most ships in the B5 RPG are actually quite fragile - battles are decided in one or two salvos. Ships are fragile, guns are devestating - it's a lot more similar to modern naval combat, rather than, say, the Age of Sail.)
Meanwhile, a Shadow fighter takes all of the damage from a shot...then QUARTERS it. Then applies its armor value. And then any damage that gets past that goes to it's extra "biomass" health levels. See, most ships have their health listed by components. So the starfury has 5 health levels: 2 engines, 2 weapons, 1 Control (the cockpit.)
A shadow fighter is similar...save that it has 10 biomass health levels, which get bumped off before anything that actually matters is damaged.
EDIT: What really makes the Earthforce fleet scary isn't just that they have one of the best fighters in the galaxy. THey also are able to throw *so* many of them out. Each capital ship carries 12 at minimum - a G'Quan class heavy cruiser by comparison carries...like...7 Narn heavy fighters. The Omega carries 24. The Olympus carrier carries nearly 120 Starfuries and it's just *unfair*
@@Jorjgasm "Magic" is a relative term. The Shadows can tap directly into hyperspace, drawing power from it and seamlessly phasing out of real space. They also use particle weapons which far exceed anything used by the newer races, and bio-nanotechnology for hull plating and ship systems. Their ships are "alive." Vorlons do much the same, and have dispersion fields for their ships that can disperse incoming particle weapons and their lightning guns are basically pure energy directed at an opponent in massive amounts. They can control gravity fields, and thus use that to propulse themselves rather than using chemical or particle propellant. All "technically" feasible technologies, except for hyperspace as presented, especially if you have basically unlimited power generation like the two races have.
Really agree with a lot of the things you say in this, and great video all around, I love the Starfury. One of the things that's a sticking point for me though that I don't fully agree with is the concept of fighters in SciFi being unrealistic- You only really need to change, allow for, or invent rather minor technologies when considering very advanced universes as a whole to make them viable. Justifying pilots is harder but for fighter style platforms alone you only really need a very reliable way to defeat or protect against modern type weapons while inventing SciFi type weapons that assumedly are only effective at shorter ranges or which are advantageous to deploy simultaneously from many separate platforms. For example if you have a universe where very advanced point defense lasers exist you might conceivably deploy railgun armed drone fighters instead of missiles or torpedoes, thus your enemy may also wish to develop "space superiority" fighters designed to be able to close down yours and eliminate them. Getting people believably in them is tricky, but if you can allow for very powerful jamming and then either distances or technologies that can interrupt or render laser communication impossible or impractical then you can make the case for manned fighters. Sure you could develop completely autonomous drones with kill authority and decision making, but there are a broad spectrum of scenarios where you would naturally want human discretion on issues so it would be very likely that you'd want someone able to make that call themselves. Any universe with shields obviously makes this easy (for the shields to be up no laser comms, radio comms don't pass through and need a small gap to use the radio or do pass through but are jammable, renders modern conventional weapons useless, etc.) , though of course steps away from a more "hard" SciFi setting it can still be extremely believable at least to me, looking at you, Mass Effect.
I really think that the biggest thing that gets in the way of the starfighter fantasy is AI-controlled point defense weaponry. Even modern computers can pretty accurately predict where they would have to point a weapon to hit a moving target at range, the only limit would be how long the ordinance takes to reach it's target. In this case, I do think that the "starfighter" format would actually make for an interesting medium-range weapons platform, it's smaller size and greater maneuverability coupled with a similarly advanced AI focused on avoiding enemy fire allowing it to be *much* closer to the target than a significantly larger and less maneuverable ship. If these kinds of ships became enough of a threat, I could see a line of "Interceptor" type ships to deal with them... which would lead to the starfighter battles we're all imagining in our science fiction.
@@kevingriffith6011 Another justification for fighters is as area denial/movement control weapons, similar to kinetics in Attack Vector Tactical. They'd be far more effective than kinetics though, being able to adjust on the fly. The main threats would be their single-shot heavy ordnance, and the possibility of colliding. And if AI isn't too powerful you can have AI for evasion maneuvers but a pilot for tactical decisions (what to shoot, trajectory plotting etc). As for advantages over missiles, you can simply mount lasers and harass the enemy capital ships, or carry in small missiles with big warheads to save delta-v, or carry kinetic cannons. To counter point defense, recall the square-cube law. Increasing the dimensions by a factor of x increases volume by x cubed, but surface area by x squared. Therefore, it's much easier to armor fighters (armor being related to surface area) for a given armor mass fraction than for missiles, making fighters more survivable...
Then again, www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fighter.php
@@gammarailgun5406 area denial is likely the most logical justification for spacefighters. The thing is, 'traditional' space fighters that mimics atmospheric fighters, even from just one aspect is illogical and that include the star fury. Why do I say this? Because the star fury still uses fixed forward weapons (a major trait of atmospheric fighter) that despite its capability to maneuver 3d realistically, forces it to combat like a atmospheric fighters, ie chasing targets in dogfights.
Why must spacefighters use fixed forward weapons? When logically turrets would be better as it won't force you to turn the entire ship to target foes, wasting precious fuel or making pilots suffer g-forces to make turns. Turrets also would change everything. Fighters won't dogfight and more jousting, the turrets also give the spacefighters utility in that they can act, like you said area denial platforms by help shooting down missiles, torpedoes, etc etc.
Also, if you want to make spacefighters viable, instead of making it's size follow the atmopheric fighters (below 20m), make it larger, above 20 and up to 40m. This would allow it to carry heavier weaponry including single battleship grade cannons that can make it a threat to ships. The idea is that without spacefighters, the only threat comes from one point, your battleship but with spacefighters, the threat comes from many points, making it harder to avoid attacks. This give the spacefighters use even in long range engagements where the spacefighters act as snipers.
Of course, this inevitably changes the definition of spacefighters, from small and fast close combat specialists that require skill to use to gunships whose engagement between other gunships depends on who has the better specs. It would be a boring fight to watch but it would be realistic.
@@secondsein7749
The thing about turrets is that they cost several times more mass to mount. Instead, you can just have omnidirectional thrusters. Or, to save on fuel, have internal reaction wheels or gyroscopes to allow quick maneuvering, and keep the omnithrusters to allow the fighter to maneuver quickly. Placing the pilot at the center of the fighter mitigates g-forces.
Also, modern-day atmospheric fighters primarily use missiles, which are certainly not spinal weapons as they can easily maneuver.
A couple of things that I noticed in what you said; 1) pilot is in a semi-seated position, 2) the pilot ingress/egress is through the front the "glass" area flips up and the whole cockpit also acts as an escape pod.
I'd love to see B5 remastered like they did for ST-TOS.
My favourite space fighter of any science fiction programme you can tell so much work went into its creation and it all makes sense
I love Babylon 5 and the Starfury. Such a unique look for a star fighter. It's been my personal favourite since the show first aired and introduced the world to this beauty.
Actually the U.S. air force did a experiment during Vietnam to see "if Brick could fly". So they took and created a fighter jet that was very poorly arrow dynamic with one heck of a engine and it flew . So a b5 fighter could go into atmospheric it just couldn't turn on a dime like in space or land but it could fly
Watching Starfuries and the White Star flip to fire whilst carrying through with the momentum they built up was amazing to see as a kid.
Babylon 5 was so ahead of it's time, in so many ways.
Sometimes I just want to try room scale vr just so I could pretend to walk around these really HQ models. Those phone MR/VR demos are real teasers.
If you have a gaming laptop (about 1500, you need a laptop with at least a GTX 1070 graphics card) then you can get a Samsung Odyssey VR headset for around 250 dollars. Then you can get a Joystick system for 50 bucks, and buy yourself Elite Dangerous for about 20 bucks.
With that you'll be able to walk around very large space ships, fly them, walk around cockpits, dogfight, and just enjoy super cool stuff. Especially with VR. You'd be able to land on planets and drive around in rovers. It might not be the most realistic space video game but it is up there with some of the more realistic genres.
Cost of entry isn't cheap. But it's not as crazy as you might think.
@@nikisepps Or wait for Kerbal Space Program 2 with VR support. Fly your own Space Ship and explode because you placed too many engines that became too hot and couldn't cool down.
"Delta Squadron fueled up, ready to go. Scramble scramble!"
As much as I am a Babylon 5 fanboi, in fairness the SA-53 Hammerhead fighter from Space: Above and Beyond was also a very cool design that incorporated some Newtonian physics in the design, and in some combat scenes.
There's a name I've not heard in a long time. Loved that show.
Yeah, but that show wasnt NEARLY as good. agreed,t he hammerhead was a good design.
@@matt_1984_ True, but who knows what S:AaB might have become, had Fox not killed it.
@@DrownedInExile I think it's tine slot (Sundays) and the fact it was more "Starship Troopers" and less "Top Gun" in outer space were contributing factors as well.
I think the most interesting part of the Hammerhead was the "coffin" cockpit module. From a functional POV you didn't have to have a big pressurized hanger like they did on BSG. And from the studio side you didn't need to build a big hanger set, or a bunch of mock-ups and other equipment to populate it.
As the Badger was mentioned, but not much elaborated on: In the tabletop games, the Badger was a Starfury frame built as a carrier based bomber. It had missile racks (facing both fore and aft IIRC), but the primary difference was a 2nd cockpit attached to the back of the fusion reactor that controlled a tail gun.
I really wish Warner Brothers wasn't so petty concerning B5. I'd love to see a remaster, or a show based on the Dilghar war.
@@asvarien Yup don't mess with perfection.
Or just finish Crusade.
They can't remaster the CG, theres a place on facebook that says why, I think that the skins were simply wraps around the shapes with no definition. Also many of the original files do not exist.
I agree. The way the Starfury's flew was fantastic. Before B5, the closest Sci/Fi show that even tried was Space 1999. The Eagle's had thrusters that were used to "steer" the ship. From JMS had said in a commentary on one of the DVD's, NASA had asked to buy what plans he had for the Starfury. He said that they could have so long as if they built it, they had to call it a Starfury.
I like how in the BSG reboot the Vipers could technically fly in atmosphere, but it required heavy use of ventral thrusters which of course used far more fuel which was already in short supply..
One of my favorite things about the BSG reboot was the response to the US Military's fighter design. The F-16 Fighting Falcon was one of the newest fighters at the time that the original BSG was airing and since this was a show all about fighter pilots, real world pilots naturally watched it. Because of this F-16 pilots began to refer to their planes as the Viper as a nod to the fighters in the show. Flash forward to the re-imagined series and you have two different Viper models, the Mk-II which looks like an upgraded version of the original series Viper, and the Mk-VII which looks much sleeker and has a heavy resemblance to the F-16. It was a subtle little nod back, from one Viper to another.
@@VegetaLF7 True. It was also nice that the reboot BSG fighters treated space like space. They list in Zero-G if not under power and they require RCS thrusters to maneuver. It was interesting to see a more hard sci-fi technology set with fantasy inspired story elements.
4:27 I always thought the front of the pod hinges open, also on the 3d model you are looking at you can see what could be hinges at the top of the pod front
I always loved the Starfury design right from the moment I saw it. Everyone nagged at me for liking this over other fighters like the X Wing and the likes. Main complaint was how restrictive it was like no shields and large design, but I love that realism.
Definitely my fav starfighter - I’ve built three of the plastic kits so far.
The realistic take on the design (as well as how they were used in the show) sold me.
The "Badger" was designed for "in the beginning," and was going to be the default fighter for that movie, essentially retconning it as a precursor to the starfury. Unfortunately, a small budget and limited production time prevented them from being able to use it, so they fly starfuries in the film. However official preproduction art for the badger is available online, most notably at the B5 Scrolls website
this was a joy. I allowed me to get a nice, detailed look at the starfury. Through this video I kept trying to figure out how the docking arms held the ship prior to launch. Also there is a heavy duty hinge at the top of the cockpit cupola that looks like the cupola lifted up to allow access.
"This would fall like a brick in the Atmosphere..."
I've seen everything from Snoopy's doghouse to lawn mowers fly. Real aircraft like the F104 "Starfighter" and the F117 "Nighthawk" fly with odd shapes and minimal lifting surfaces. With enough speed, and a little Angle of Attack, even bricks will truly fly, if you can keep them stable. I'm pretty sure that with a little modification to the cross section of those struts you could make it fly, as long as you can keep it moving fast enough..
The F-104 had minimal lifting surfaces, but it also had minimal drag. There's a reason one of its nicknames was "The Missile With a Man In It". Skinny body with a jet engine at one end and a pilot at the other. The F-117, meanwhile, used a "lifting body" design, where the fuselage was shaped to provide lift much like a larger wing would. The F-15 Eagle is another aircraft with a lifting-body design.
Strap enough engines to anything and you can get it to fly. Just really hard to control the course of a brick, the golden gate bridge, you get my drift LOL.
I think in the Starfury's case, it's probably just too fragile to withstand the dynamic pressure from going fast enough in an atmosphere to actually generate enough lift. It's also possible their engines don't work at higher external pressures, since they're almost certainly optimized for near-vacuum.
I love this channel so much. It’s content like this where we get deeper analysis on different sci-fi properties.
Thank you, i love B5! Starfury is one of the best sci-fi space fighter.
B5 is the ONLY sci-fi TV series where I've watched every single episode... Loved it...
Making an exo-atmospheric craft capable of flying in an atmosphere ticks me off especially with ships like TIE fighters
to be fair, Star Wars is science-fantasy, so handwavium in droves is to be expected, and they use repulsor lift tech to defy gravity in-atmo.
Thumbnail made me smile.
Probably the best SciFi I've ever watched.
Don't forget Space above and beyond - Hammerhead
Gorgeous model, I can feel the heat every time you rotate the engines toward me. It looks like it would make a great quadcopter drone.
If memory serves, engineers from NASA reached out to JMS and asked if they could use this as the basis for the design of a future "space-tug" type craft. He said only on the condition that they call the design "Starfuries" -- NASA agreed. I really hope that story is true.
My favorite space battle tactics take place in the bobiverse series; sneaking, long range tactics, and slingshot uses of ballistic ammunition
The opening battle in the Thirdspace movie The B5 Furies have missiles. 3 underslung on each of the upper wings.
I've always been in awe of this little space capable can of whoop-ass !! I wish I could find models to build for my desk... I'm pretty sure there are some, but I never thought of looking before seeing this episode.
Thank you, Space Dock
Looks very similar to a Star Patrol fighter from NovaLogic's Tachyon: The Fringe.
@@Feroce indeed
NASA approached the studio and got their ok to design a craft for space maintanence based on the Starfury.
Of course it´s not yet produced as far as i know, but we might see this craft at some point in the future.
About spacefighters, personally i LOVE them, but i admit such a thing would be impractical.
If anything, we would use drones, robotic or remote controlled.
B5 Remastered with updated CGI? Take my money!
Apparently a lot of the original tapes, which were in 16:9, have been 'misplaced', which doesn't surprise me much given how petty WB are being with the franchise.
Some of the original film was destroyed in storage or lost while on loan to Sierra Entertainment(while B5: Into the Fire was still in production), so the chances are pretty much non-existent aside from up-scaling already existing material.
Thank you for bring in that up. Babylon 5 is so underrated in technology in the general in these Science Fiction Forums.
Yes! I knew it would be the fighter from B5!
The starfury is one of my favorite starfighters, and I remember seeing somewhere that the variation with the tailgunner was called the badger.
I've started watching B5 recently thanks to this channel, I've just finished Season 1 and I have to admit I like it a lot. The peculiar CGI of the time reminds me a lot of Red Dwarf, but it looks pretty good for its time.
I've also come across this game called Babylon 5: I've found her in one of my old gaming magazines, is that the one you've mentioned? Any chance to see you stream it?
I wrote a couple missions for that game. It was shareware and beyons awesome. Missions I scripted were custom designes apart from the IFH story.
@Ron Lewenberg
It's a great episode, visually stunning at the time. But I prefer season 2 "the coming of shadows". It was not as much a spectacle, but a bittersweet drama.
As for entry, I believe the entire front section of the canopy swings up. At the top of the canopy there appears to be a hinge. This would also facilitate entry from a gang plank; simply "step in", retract the walkway, rotate the canopy down...
"The StarFuries used by Earth are a particular favourite of mine: so simple, so elegant and so *_deadly_* "
@Ben Daulton This was a quote from one Centauri prince.
In the setting of the show - parallel to RL on earth - these ships are built for fighter vs fighter combat. These ships are sparsely armoured as any weight is detrimental to maneuverability.
Bigger ships are armoured. For those, they usually sport a flight of missiles.
@Ben Daulton I believe you forgot some verbs and conjectures there. Either that or I just plain don't understand what you just wrote.
@Ben Daulton StarFuries are second only to the Mimbari Nial fighters and that says a lot about their potential.
@Ben Daulton oh, now I understand, thank you.
Well, it depends on the size and the velocity (vector) of the debris.
I remember a couple of occasions in the show where debris from the fight was dangerous ( the Narn vs Centauri fight in front of the station, the show down battle against the shadows over Gorash 5).
Unless caught by surprise, I believe they just simply evade it in a Starfury
@Ben Daulton Thank you for the link. In fact, I've used that footage (more precisely: the picture) of that impact to argue about debris in an Expanse group. In real life, they pose a danger, and in the Expanse - which likes to portray itself as hard science - it is a possibility.
In the B5 setting though. Not so much.
1: The setting is way different, focusing much more on the political / interpersonal conflicts
2: The battles in B5 take place mostly around celestial bodies, with more or less equal velocities. Therefore, debris are not that much of a factor
3: It's set like 300+ years into the future, and people travel faster than light - so I guess they figured out a solution for this problem long ago.
In fact there is a solution to this - precisely for the smaller stuff: Two magnetic fields that encompass the craft: one polarises the debris and the second field "bounces" off the debris from the magnetic field.
(OK, that helps diddly squat for debris that is non-magnetic, but I haven't found a comparison of the percentage of magnetic / non-magnetic debris in space)
That's some really great, technical, scientific detail on why this is cool. I remember when I was a kid thinking "Hmm they gave a Tie Fighter the Xwings...cool"
B5 only payed lip service to realism for the most part. The Starfury is the big exception. Even the Omage Destroyers pull 180 turns, accelerate and deccelerate while their gravity wheels keep spining which would tear the ships in half.
1. Love your voice
2. Didn’t know there were RPG books for B5
3. This is one of my favorite ships
4. Highly educational
5. B5 > other franchises
Earthforce's space navy was until The Expanse came along my favorite Sci-Fi depiction of humanity in the stars. No fantastical shields, no anti gravity, big ion engines, utilitarian designs that at the same time look imposing. Basically extrapolations of technology we can just about produce today on a small scale or we're confident the theory will pan out into usable tech soon(ish) such as fusion reactors & high powered plasma/particle beams. The Star Fury was the icing on the cake especially when you compare it to it's contemporary's such as Death Gliders and Runabout, perhaps only the ill fated Space Above and Beyond had a similarly cool space fighter in the Hammerhead although it was atmospheric too so not as Newtonian.
Other than the fact that the rotating sections of the Earthforce ships would torque the rest of the ship and make for a shit time steering them. To this day I don't get why they just didn't put a second contra-rotating section and have the two sections rotate against each other. At least as cool looking, and far more realistic.
@@davidjames4915 wonder how the torque effects would work with that
David James A much smaller and denser counter rotating disk could be hidden inside the vessel.
The rotation weight is only an issue if it is fixed to stationary hull and isn't counter weighted by an equal force on the other side. Which is why the Omegas have the twin center piece. As long as those rotating sections are balanced in their own weight, then the only concern is that they be built in a fashion to sustain thrust.
IMO, the badger-class / 'Heavy' SF is possibly a more-optimal starfighter design, because once the rear bomber pod is removed, the thicker design of the cockpit module (now more akin to the 'Heavy' SF) would allow for not only more rad-shielding and rear armor, but also more of a longer-range missile capacity, as well as a better sensors and targeting computer package. Comparatively, it would be comparable to a tie Defender, vs the 'normal tie fighter' likeness of the stock starfury.
flying bricks: a total summary of warhammer 40k space marine gunships
The entirety of the imperium vehicles designs are back ward.
1) They use WW1 brithish tank style MBT such as the leman Russ, which has a turret strapped on as a plus, don’t talk about the land raiders, or even the baneblades. Those things are just too heavy to work.
2) they use Human like titans. There is a reason why machines that have legs don’t have human like legs. It is unstable. Plus the titans are extremely heavy and would collapse on their own weight.
3)They have atmospheric capable spacefighters . Wich are bricks.
4)Their space ships are cathedrals. Nuff said. And they are so big you can have civilisations of mutants forming in the forgotten parts of the ships. They also haul the macro shells with HANDS and CHAINS. Talk about inneficient.
5) The mechanicus in general is backward. It honestly wouldn’t surprise me if the lasguns batteries were plus with plus and minus with minus because “ It is the way electricity work, meatbag.”
6) I believe the imperium has a two kilometres long artillery. I think it speaks for itself.
@@manofironthathasntturnedcr9817 Just remember, the original concept of WH40k was that it was supposed to be stupid and ridiculous. There's a reason no-one left alive in the universe really fully understands any of the technology.
@@KotCR Cawl belisarius. And the Emperor.
i love B5 and the starfury is a hugh part why. the look and the way it moves in space, and the lunch, being dropped out of the station by its rotation, great looking and space saving lunch. i also have 2 of the revell models with Sinclair and Garibaldi nose art, one for look and the other as a memorial to great actors
So good, NASA wants to build one. No, really, NASA asked Babylon 5's creator if the could build one, he said yes but it still needs to be called a Starfury.
As to how they get into the starfurie, the cockpit front opens up and they board from the front. When in the cobra bay, there is a gantry that runs in-front of the starfurie. The gantry pulls away just before the craft is rotated outward (facing the outside wall of the bay where the door is) for drop.
The realism of the human fleet was one of my main draws to that show
I have a copy of the Babylon 5 security manual which was published in 1997 from Macmillan Publishing London and there is a section showing both the Aurora and Thunderbolt fighters. Access to the Aurora is gained by lifting the front canopy and climbing in...there is an episode of B5 in one of the later seasons where a young Centauri prince wishes to ride in one and Sheridan obliges him. There is a split second shot of Sheridan reaching onto the bottom of the canopy and activating some type of locking clamp.
I wish they would Rebroad cast Babylon 5, I missed most of the show when I was younger,I know I can buy it but it's not the same as watching it on t.v. commercials and all.
Amazon Prime has it for free from time to time
Two things I would like to add.
1. They do show the "Thunderbolt" variant firing missiles. It was in season 4 when the Earth Alliance fires them at a dome on Mars.
2. The piolet of a Starfury wares a space suit and is helmeted in the cockpit. So there is no atmosphere in the cockpit. I don't know if oxygen is supplied from the vessel, but it is almost certainly the case considering some of the long trips the Starfuries make.
The perfect realistic sci fi fighter is a Gunship like the MCRN Corvette class
Much love for Roci!
To be fair The Expense space fight also follows modern warfare style opposed to old era like other shows, most fight are all about spotting the enemy and the winner is the one who land a good hit first, compared to fantasy space show where fights take place at close range.
Thats not a fighter
@@moguldamongrel3054 If Fills the nieche sci fi fighters horribly fail at filling. Also in star wars it would be (size wise )
Karl Franz , Emperor of Mankind, chosen of Sigmar argue all you want, its still not a "fighter"
I have a physical model of a Starfury. However, at the time that I assembled it, I had never seen the show. Just little bits and pieces. That's how cool this fighter is.
Babylon 5 & The Expanse: *"The only two sci-fi series the so good because they're more realistic."*
but both have a really weird story, i dont know how many time i watched Babylon 5 and i still dont get whats going on ... but i really like how realistic it is for the most parts
ummm…. I believe you meant to say "Expanse". 0_o
@@ditzydoo4378 Oh shit I didn't realise.
@@ColonelFrontline1152 its cool. ~_^
@@ditzydoo4378 Well it's now fixed.
Spacedock, about getting into a Starfury.
If I remember the scenes shot in the Cobra Bays correctly, the entire canopy of the Starfury levers up to allow the pilots access.
You can even see the hinge at the top of the canopy on the 3D model in your video.
It's also how they get out of the ejection pod.
why doesn't anyone give Space above and Beyond some love. neat fact the Russians tried to steal photos of the full size mock up
because that series hurt us badly with the cliffhanger cancellation, so we all try to move on and pretend that relationship never happened :D
Crew ingress/egress is from the front of the cockpit. The froward section swings up to let the pilot get in and out of the fighter. The pilot sits in something like a saddle strapped in, you see in some of the episodes prior to drop/launch the "canopy" swung up.
So... would you say that the Starfury is an elegant weapon from a more civilized age?
The StarFuries used by earth are a particular favourite of mine: so simple, so elegant, and so *deadly*
Now this is timing. I just so happen to be binge watching B5 lately. I just finished the entire B5 series today. Starting "Crusade" tomorrow. Just watched "B5:Thirdspace" only a few minutes ago.
Here's a Starfury funny. Who remembers the Starfury meets Teddybear?
Can you identify the object? - Control
Sorry control, not on a bet! - Keefer
There is also the Blooper Reel 'Clockwork' StarFury which has always made me LOL
The Rylan Gunstar from the movie The Last Starfighter in 1984, is a truly interesting and well thought out design. This ship follows all laws of Newtonian physics with a far better useful weapons load out. The Gunstar can fly in atmosphere and land using reaction thrust like todays Flacon-X used for lifting payloads into space and returning intact. Check out Resurrected Starships video at ruclips.net/video/DQ58NrREGdM/видео.html for a complete break down.
Space Dock did a top 5 space fighters
@@SkylerLinux yes they did, but failed to include the Rylan Gunstar. and as to this video they termed the Star Fury "the perfect sci-fi space fighter'. I begged to differ and offered up the Ryan Gunstar witch is a far better hard science space fighter than the Star Fury, which I also love to bits.
@@ditzydoo4378 Sorry I thought that he had. I however can't agree about on the Gunstar. The forward facing thrusters are to small to effectively slow her forward movment, the elongated cockpit would increase the G-forces on the pilot.
@@SkylerLinux the forward thrusters are more for maneuvering at high speed, but do provide front aspect braking. As to quickly slowing, or stopping. One would simply use the reaction thruster to pivot the craft nose to tail then use the main engines to quickly arrest forward momentum. the Gunstar like the Star Fury follows normal Newtonian physics to operate. However the Gunstar has five all aspect laser turrets. It doesn't need to maneuver in order to lock no less than two, and in most cases three of it's five laser guns on any craft approaching from any angle. the Star Fury by contrast has to maneuver in order to bring it front aspect weapons to bear on an opponent. As to G-force the Fury pilot being in a near standing position is far more susceptible to G-lock than the pilot, or gunner of a Gunstar. there is also the added benefit of splitting the duties of pilot and gunner in reducing work load in a combat environment. Please at least go to the link I provided on the Gunstar to see it's full capabilities.
@@ditzydoo4378 I did, don't get me started on the death blossom
The hatch you point out on top is just above the fusion reactor. I believe it is an inspection & maintenance hatch for the engine. It would make more sense for the pilot to enter via the open canopy while in the launch bay. Strap in, seal the canopy, then launch, easy as pie.
Here's a thing about some of the things you say are "unrealistic" about space warfare.
"Space warfare would take place almost exclusively at much greater distances."
This is mostly true. However, if you design your vessels with the expectation. You may leave your forces vulnerable to those that would be more willing to "close the gap." It's a similar prejudice that the US military designed the F4 Phantom with. The F4 originally had no gun and only had missiles to defend itself with. They believed that the missiles would eliminate the close quarter combat of traditional dogfights. It turned out to be disastrously incorrect as the missiles would often fail to perform or be deflected by chaff. Although it would be preferred to keep your ships at a distance to slug it out. However, if travel time and mechanical accuracy are factors (which they would most certainly be) getting closer to the enemy would minimized those issues. Hell, I'd argue that ship-to-ship ramming can be useful in space combat.
"The whole concept of sci-fi dog-fighting is unrealistic."
Now this one you got totally wrong. It's simple really... You need to have massive capital ships (of various sizes and roles) to carry troops, weapons, vehicles, supplies, etc into battle. Or at least to assert power over a situation. Just as in WWII, those same larger ships were routinely harassed and many times destroyed by bomber/torpedo aircraft. The most effective way these large ships can resist those fighter assaults is with aircraft of their own. Thusly, dogfights in space would inevitably happen.
@@Eliphaser I understand your points, but there are some artificial limitations placed in some of your assessments. That can honestly be mitigated or removed through technological development (without reality bending sci-fi tech.)
The purpose of the F4 analogy is to show that the battle field is an unpredictable place. Just because the INTENTION is long range, doesn't mean the natural chaos of war is going to lineup with that intention. Such as, why would a soldier carry a knife or a sidearm in the modern battlefield. Just in case you end up in the position where your long gun, light machine gun, or assault rifle is in a compromised state. Even if 99% of engagements are at a distance, that 1% can be exploited if not prepared for.
Now, I understand why the conception of a "piloted" starfighter can be seen as silly. Although it's needed for most sci-fi stories to add valuable tension to a scene. Human piloted starfighters are pretty ridiculous, for settings that are so advanced they have mastered FTL travel. lol
I think it would be far more like to see fighters that are likely what we see in Guardians of the Galaxy 2. Basically like modern drone combat or similar to a video game, for the person controlling the machine. So the fragile human is removed from the vessel. There you can have a craft that can do body-shattering maneuvers and still be able to hit the inevitable soft/vulnerable parts of large ships.
@@Eliphaser Also, can't forget to mention that Marine General, Paul Van Riper. In a massive wargame, he commanded the woefully lesser Middle Eastern "Iranian" forces against the mighty US military. He defeated the US by using cruse missiles, suicide boats, and guerilla scouting tactics. He ended up "destroying" some 16 vessels. Including an aircraft carrier for goodness sakes. lol
Closing the gap is much less a viable option in realistic space combat because the realistic distances are so extreme that it would take minutes, if not hours, to close those gaps at typical manned spacecraft speed, all the while taking fire from enemy weaponry moving at lightspeed or close to lightspeed, where there is almost never any effective cover to shield you from that enemy fire, or any realistic method of stealth that could hide you and your engines' energy signature from enemy targeting. It is much less akin to the situation of the F4 Phantom and its missiles against other planes, than it would be to a medieval army trying to charge across a 10km field to close to within melee weapon range of a modern army fully equipped with guns, artillery, radio and full air support.
pretty sure the main canopy flips up for the pilot to access the ship. At least, in the model you are showcasing, you can see the hinges across the top of the canopy.
I love Babylon 5 the Stations were dirty just like the politics. Vorlons for President and no Shadow Cabinet
@@Feroce Nah i'm voting for Kosh we need a firm hand,
OMG thank you for this one !
Its been my favorite space flight ship ever... Just seem so realistic how space fighter should look like and perform.
Even back then watching it , i knew this was done right !
I asked Star Citizen to copy the space maneuverability for its space sim...
I vision myself being chased and flipping my ship around using my joystick and thrust control while still flying in same direction , feeling the g force and aiming then firing at my pursuers.... Then flipping a node to activate my underneath thrusters to turn me back around while hitting full throttle to evade more oncoming targets
Very, very late to this party, but wanted to clarify a point: The Aurora was boarded by the entire forward "canopy" swinging up (you can see the pivot hinge on the top of the cockpit model.) There's also a few episodes where you catch the tail end of the canopy glass swinging down and sealing shut after the pilot boards. Fury pilots would suit up, get to their fighter, then back into the harness and strap in while the canopy closed, before being dropped free of the bay.
I really appreciate your analysis. Even when you are talking about a ship from a series I have not seen your points are easy to follow.