5 Most Realistic Star Ships in Star Wars
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Some ships are far more realistic than others and actually have some design features that aren't just there for aesthetics.
Get Generation Tech Gear HERE!: teespring.com/...
Subscribe to Generation Tech: bit.ly/SubGener...
Please help our channel by becoming a Patron: bit.ly/GTPatreon
Follow Generation Tech on Facebook: bit.ly/Generati...
Check out what we're reading and playing:
www.amazon.com...
Watch More Generation Tech:
Latest Videos: bit.ly/LatestGT
Popular Videos: bit.ly/GTPopular
More Star Wars Videos: bit.ly/GTStarWars
Follow our Hosts
ALLEN XIE
RUclips / @thebeardedasianman
INSTAGRAM AXIEFILMS
FACEBOOK / axiefilms
Ben Hedges
RUclips / @thecreditshifu
RUclips
/ benhedgesntd
EQUIPMENT USED
CAMERA: SONY A6300 amzn.to/2q4wN8n
LENS: MITAKON 35MM F0.95 amzn.to/2pUnzz6
TRIPOD: amzn.to/2pUnzz6
MIC: amzn.to/2oWktJF
EDITING SOFTWARE: amzn.to/2pqOcvV
"These may not be the most beautiful looking ships".... Proceeds to show some of the best looking ships in the entire SW universe.
"Only beautiful planes fly well."
-- Andrei Tupolyev
Agreed, the Naboo ship aesthetic is easily my favorite looking ships in the series!
Yep
In the same way Ferrari models happen to look really good, but are primarily designed with aerodynamics in mind.
And after that he called the millennium falcon a frigate
*Lucrehulk* : exists
*Anakin* : "and I took that personally"
4:37
"Why is artificial gravity so important?"
Because good luck using a toilet without one
well astronauts abourd the Apollo craft managed it. But (given the size of the manual) they can be said to be a special breed.
@@karistasogare I agree but it’s definitely something you would rather have than not
Could always take a note out of Knights of Sidonia, just give everyone urethral cathaters and all that.
Also, who needs artificial gravity to go to the loo when you can just use the laws of physics? Just accelerate the ship at 1G or provide centrifugal force. Problem solved.
The ISS has a toilet
Babylon 5's Starfury was about the most realistic small ship for travel in Zero-G anywhere in Sci-Fi.
NASA expressed quite a bit of interest in it's design and was in talks with J. Michael Straczyski about using the design for "loaders" and "forklifts".
I loved the Earth ships from B5. Straczynski was great to think of using physics within his universe. Honestly, not enough Sci-Fi series using physics, it's a little niche that deserves more fun.
No wonder.
There where actual scientists involved in the production of Babylon 5.
The Nubian ships look like what I imagine Carroll Shelby would design if he existed in Star Wars.
except he would sue everyone else who had a similar ship design
@@joshuaszeto Relax. I'm just making an aesthetic observation. Besides, what's this "except" business? Litigious corporate infighting was commonplace in that era. Carroll Shelby's litigious conduct wouldn't have raised many if any eyebrows within the prequel era's corporate sector.
@@UncleMikeDrop oh i know but what's sad is he spent his whole life becoming a legend... all to tarnish a very well respected and legendary reputation at the end of his life with his petty and possessive behavior. But yes, it has a lot of his influence in the ship design. I wouldn't be surprised if the conceptual artists drew inspiration from his works
@@joshuaszeto it's all too common. Walt Disney treated his animators like indentured servants and Steve Jobbs treated his engineers like low rent fraternity pledges so it's best not to lionize iconic figures.
The naboo n-1 looks kind of like the real life me-262 in my opinion
I would like a detailed explanation of Star Wars tech
Sure it’s called “space magic”
Its literally that, space magic.
I find it funny how people accept a medieval fantasy setting but find it hard to accept a high tech fantasy setting.
Rknee Gordon Star Trek is more guilty of this than Star Wars.
Here's some resources for the curious:
Bob Brown's Star Wars Pages (very hard to find)
Star Wars Technical Commentaries on TFN
ST-v-SW, biased in favor of ST but still makes good analyses of SW.
"The Diesel Starship"
@@vampirecount3880 well because tech is tech, you want something that's efficient and it is also a better way to immerse yourself
Actual space warfare would be boring, ships would hit each other with long range beams from huge distances, enemies would almost never come in visual contact.
All of it would just be like a nightmarish trigonometry assignment.
The solar sailer, it's just the performance for the sail area is a _bit_ optimistic.
Don't you know you got your daddy's eyes daddy was a sith lord
not actually a solar sail, it's some sort of Archeotech metamaterial that Dooku got his hands on. even in-canon nobody knows how it actually works.
From what i have Heard its like a force sailer
It surely has nothing in common tech-wise with our real life solar sail ideas. It has to be massive to generate any kind of useful propulsion and I doubt they would provide a fast way for interstellar travel, if any at all.
It looks cool in the movie, though.
@@Itwillbeawastland it is probably connected to hyperspace somehow, like a boat using water nets to let the current pull it along
The J-Type (as well as the N1) would both likely be lifting body aircraft, so they would probably generate quite a bit of lift, even with stubby wings.
Lile tye chasis for the F-15 Eagle
Quite a bit is an overstatement if you ask me. The ship isn't nearly enough shaped like a wing from the looks of it.
@@CS_Mango The J-Type is very similar in shape to the SR-71. I see no reason that it wouldn't be capable of atmospheric flight. And look into some of the lifting body aircraft that were developed in the 1950s and 60s. If those things can fly, the N1 should certainly be able to.
Even without wings or antigravity tech, theoretically, the J type could use a lifting body fuselage.
This is, of course, only relevant to atmospheric flight.
If you modified the hulk to have fighter bays along the outer edge of the curve you could increase defence incredibly also if it's rotating you could get a nice drop boost just like On B5
I agree on the first part, disagree on the second: As was discovered by the US and the Japanese during WW2 naval combat, it is exponentially harder to launch/recover friendly fighters/bombers while the ship is making erratic movements.
@@nadrewod999 well, it wouldn't be erratic...
Later models showed many extra shuttle bays which would probably double as fighter recovery/launch segments. They were in the ring facing towards the core so launch or landing could be trickier with a damaged craft But aren't in open view of ship to ship firing arcs.
You don't need to have additional fighter bays on the hulk as vultures can attach themselves to the outside of it quite reliably.
Engineer here. Burying the bridge deep inside the hull isn't going to improve survivability by any significantly measurable amount in most cases and the bridge tower isn't all that vulnerable.
All that's needed to protect the bridge to the maximum amount would be to add armored shutters to the windows that have the same defensive properties as the hull.
Deckplates and bulkheads will not stop antiship weapons (1), nor are they going to stop interstellar debris if it makes it past all of your other defenses. It's best to just invest in a stronger hull/shields to tank hits and better engines to avoid being hit
The bridge tower's hull is just as thick as the rest of the ship's. If enemy weapons can cut through that, they can bifurcate the entire ship anyway so it wouldn't matter what the design was.
The bridge isn't going to be your primary target. Knocking out the bridge does not guarantee that you'll take the ship out of the fight, your primary target if you want to end the fight is the main reactor. Hit that hard enough and it'll either breach or be taken offline. Either way the entire ship is either killed or mission-killed.
(1) I know what you're thinking, "what about WWII cannon shells? Those were stopped by decollates after they went through the hull." That's a common misconception. Most non-AP cannon shells have fuses and timers in them so that they can detonate inside the hull for maximum damage after penetration. Even then, that's not a guarantee as heavy cannons used against lighter vessels like the Tin Can Destroyers would often completely overpenetrate and detonate in the water instead of the ship.
What you say is true, but putting the bridge deep inside the ship is still the only sane approach. First off, in combat you want every tiny advantage you can get. Second off, having a huge window on the bridge is just a massive invitation for laser beams to bypass all defenses (shields in sci-fi don't stop visible light) and shoot directly on the ship's commanding officer and other people controlling the ship, in other words, putting the bridge inside doesn't provide any bonus to structure itself, but if you don't do it, your ship is disabled the second it enters combat. Even if you don't have a window, the beams can still cut a hole in the unreasonably thin armor and achieve similar result, (sci-fi spaceship crews never bother to put on their spacesuits).
There is simply no excuse for putting the bridge on top of the hull of a military ship.
Putting it deep inside the hull isn't going to help things though. Better to have to closer to the outer hull for easier maintenance and upgrades. That way you can just pull out the entire section and replace it with a new one rather than having to work around all of the ship's internals. Which is preferable on a military ship as it reduces downtime.
"Second off, having a huge window on the bridge is just a massive invitation for laser beams to bypass all defenses"
Which is why I mentioned using an armored shutter in order to get the best of both worlds. Even then, that's not necessary as ideally you'd withdraw from combat to recharge your shields.
"(shields in sci-fi don't stop visible light)"
1) Depends on the setting
2) Visible light is terrible for combat lasers. Gamma and X-Ray are far better
3) Again, if it's getting past the hull you're already screwed
"sci-fi spaceship crews never bother to put on their spacesuits"
Because it's just going to prolong your death by a couple of minutes. With all of the weapon fire flying, you'd be damn lucky to not get hit by a stray shot or cooked in your suit by something passing by.
Or hit with high speed debris.
Plus, unless you've got an insane amount of oxygen or an insanely good O2 recycling system, you'll likely be dead from hypoxia by the time the battle is over and rescue operations begin
Third, suits are pretty damn bulky in most settings. Wearing them at all times would massively reduce your crew's effectiveness which would put them in a position to be spaced.
"There is simply no excuse for putting the bridge on top of the hull of a military ship."
It makes sense when you think of things from a logistical perspective and from the perspective of 'keep the bridge as far away from the main reactor as possible so you don't lose both in one shot'
Especially since, as stated before, the main reactor should always be your primary target as taking it out is the only way to guarantee a mission kill.
Bingo, plus SDs have secondary bridges.
@@redshirt0479 Exposing the bridge just to speed up few modification doesn't sound preferable. If there is nothing left to replace, it was not really worth it.
When we return to lasers, it doesn't matter what kind you use here. You only want to kill unprotected bridge crew, or harm them enough, so that they won't be able to do their jobs, we're not talking about vaporizing the entire ship. Visible light is just last resort here in case the shield would block the deadlier types (again, when was the last time you saw shield blocking light and thus prevent you from seeing the ship it protects?), any kind of laser will do the trick just fine.
Another reason to have the bridge deeper in the hull is inertia. If you lose your inertial dampeners, or don't have any to begin with, you want the vital sections of the ship as close to the center of mass as possible, so you can maintain full manouvrability without disrupting the work of your crew. If you put the bridge as far away from center of mass as possible, you're on a good way to make the ship uncontrollable. Good luck with fighting battles with it.
If the reactor blows up it doesn't matter, where on the ship you are, you're dead (red shirt, or not 😜). Also just because both reactor and bridge are inside the ship doesn't necessarily mean they're right next to each other, that's ship-specific, although yes, my previous point could speak against me in this case). And if you'd argue, about the bridge being in the trajectory of shots aimed at the reactor, that depends on position of attacking ship. Exposed bridge can get in harms way just as easily as internal one and you can always just change the orientation of the ship to get a better position, you know.
And if I may return to spacesuits and penetration of the pressure hull, you can run into these scenarios:
1. Your ship is destroyed/you get hit by something and die, regardless of whether you have a spacesuit or not (although spacesuit can give you small additional protection against objects, that are not cannon shells).
2. Pressure hull in your section is breached, but your bridge crew is prepared for vacuum and therefore manages to finish the battle and than moves to section that wasn't breached, everyone survives and the breach is later sealed,the ship thus maintains full functionality.
3. Pressure hull is breached and the ship is disabled, thus no longer a threat to the enemy and therefore no longer a target. The crew in spacesuits survives the hit that breached the hull and can either move to pressurised section of the vessel, or begin evacuation before external help arrives, if necessary. There is a chance, that the crew won't survive anyways, but you still have at least a small chance of survival, while your everyday sci-fi crew would 100% die.
4. Your ship survives the battle without any hull breach.
Sure, you don't need spacesuits in 4., but this is probably the most unlikely scenario of them all, in 1. it doesn't matter and in 2. and 3. spacesuits are going to save your life (and in 2. also your ship) and therefore, it is worth it to have them on during battle, increased chance of survival is countless times more important than being able to scratch your nose during a battle.
And about the argument of sci-fi spacesuits being impractical for movement... That only means that people responsible for their development and/or mainenance were incompetent people (or tech priests), spacefaring civilizations shouldn't have much trouble with making a practical spacesuit, it's problem with cutting corners, not the concept itself.
That's not a very effective strategy though as that could be defeated today with some automatically tinting glass. Which is something that they should probably have given the amount of weapon fire, explosions, and good old solar radiation.
Can you please do 10 flaws or features with the b wing
The B-Wing is.... FLAWLESS.
Jason CALDWELL The spinning cockpit is very disorienting to the pilot, not to mention the lack of a droid socket.
Flaw 9-1: It is not the K-Wing.
@@t65bx25 Just a filthy casual here, but I thought the fuselage of the B-wing spun around the cockpit, which maintains its orientation for the most part.
Rowan Blaze You’re very right, and the feature was very useful in some situations, but in Legends at least, it became easy to forget where your ship was and hit things. It would also make it difficult with fine roll control. Play a game with the camera’s y-settings inverted and you begin to feel the confusion that the B-wing pilots deal with. Or build legos while only looking at what you’re doing through a mirror.
Dude, I think you switched the word freighter for frigate a lot in this video.
Sci-Fi franchises like slapping the words Frigate and Destroyer on random ships to make them sound cooler. They do the same thing with Corvette as well in SW.
I noticed that too. He called the Falcon a "frigate" and the Lucrehulk as well. I'm 100% sure he meant "freighter", hehe.
Jade Owl thank god I thought I was just mishearing him each time
@@mattheweppley It's British, they used to be the same word.
@@teslashark Not for at least the past 250 years...
An aspect of sci-fi ships that I’ve always liked is that vessels don’t have to be aerodynamic in space.
The droid control ship was an amazing carrier design. If those huge gaps on the inside of the ring are also hangar portals.
Love how all the movie ships have really tall ceilings - compare to the ceiling height in a modern aircraft carrier... 8 to 10 feet
It's a world where there are thousands of sentient species, I imagine the metrics for interior-design are built to accommodate a wider range of heights than just humans. For example Wookies average 7 to 8 feet tall!
Well, that's not entirely true. Most of the ships have ceilings about 7-8 feet, except for certain important rooms
I disagree with the Lucrehulk - why not just turn the entire thing into a sphere, avoiding an unsupported ring (which doesn't provide much protection anyway) entirely?
I think the Mon Calamari ships are good, since they're rounded (good surface area to volume), with banks of thrusters at the back (good thrust but enough for redundancy too).
The Falcon is basicly a flying saucer (Idk how to spell) with extra things so it’s probably the most realistic. A saucer is both has a aerodynamic shape and has the perfect shape for space travel by having some kind of proportion on all sides. Not really like the Falcon but close.
The biggest fault of the Falcon, in my opinion at least, is the position of the cockpit.
If you ever played any spaceship based game, either like Star Citizen or Space Engineers, you'd understand how flying something with the controls so far off the X axis is fucked up.
Ok, maybe "flying" isn't so bad, but if you have to land, fit into the hangar, etc. you'll understand the nightmare.
@@Miestwin Cockpit is right because of role of the ship ( Theboriginal one). The "jaws" in front of ships are made for grab cargo container and pull it. So you must have cockpit on side to see during this operation.
@@tomaskops7119 I know what was the original role of YT-1300f, and it might be fine then when it was slow, and flying straight. Now it's a combat ship that must maneuver like a fighter, and fly close to different structures. Probably the only other ship with a worse position of the cockpit than YT-1300f is the B-Wing.
Also, for a cargo freighter, it could be built in a pull configuration, with the external cameras or simply heaving a slightly different overall form, and heaving cockpit stick above the cargo.
@@tomaskops7119 Wrong! Look at any real life cargo hauling vehicle. The "cockpit" tends to be along the axis or very close to it. The only exception I can think of would be an aircraft carrier, & the offset tower is a matter of accommodating the landing strip & not for "driver's visibility". As for cargo handling, show me one offset forklift/ bulldozer/ tow truck/ tug boat.
The drag coefficient on the N-1 is probably from the engine's being all the way out there and the "wings" no being swept. Sweep them back and thin the profile a bit more and smooth out the astromech socket to flow with the cockpit and it'd possibly be a pretty good design.
Simple Planes Hold my mods
Good video.
What about the Naboo Royal Cruiser, the J type Cruiser that was based on the B-2 Spirit? The one that's destroyed at the beginning of Attack of the Clones.
The round shape of the MC80 (non-winged version) and its cousins has huge advantages in terms of weight, defense, efficiency, and weapons coverage. It still looks like a giant turd, but at least it's practical.
Because it was designed to be used under the seas on Mon Cala. Technically submarines far exceed the seal and structural integrity you would need in space.
In a far far future all starships will be turd shaped.
" they've gone up the ventilation shaft"
Neebs: "That's what she said."
You should watch *The Expanse* !!! You'll love the ships and the entire show in general if you like very realistic sci-fi
Thats because the expanse was written by a “hard” scifi writer, not a fantasy writer.
SHUT UO ABOUT THE EXPANSE
Honestly, the Naboo ships are my favorites. Even as a little kid I thought they had much more of a practical appearance.
Slap some laser guns and a repulsor lift on an f104 and I will choose it over any starfighter. Well in atmosphere at least.
The Naboo N1 Start fighter remains one of my top three Starwars fighters . It's to elegant and beautiful.
I know The Expanse did a decent job of explaining zero gravity effects surrounding injuries. Big thing is doctors cannot control bleeding as the blood will just constantly try to pour out. Body will try to just continuously bleed out, and because of this most surgeries are impossible.
If we are talking about realistic designs, there is actually another set of parameters that I would consider besides aerodynamics.
The way I see it, the engines on an X wing in particular are designed in such a way that the four thrusters can fire both forwards and backwards, which gives the ship the ability to slow down without needing to rotate the ship 180 degrees.
In atmosphere, a thruster must fire continuously to counteract the air resistance. In space, air resistance is not a factor, but the lack of air resistance means that most ships do not have a way to slow themselves down without turning the ship.
The X wing can turn itself in any direction by adjusting the thrust output of each engine. A TIE fighter or star destroyer, on the other hand, does not.
but we know what'd happen to a baby born in space.
they'd become psychic empaths.
A fellow gundam fan, glad to see we are not alone
And then a Red Comet comes...
We prefer the title NEW TYPES ( or coordinators in 00 ) and you wonder why you get colony's dropped on your heads dumb earthbound feddies
@@666styxxx666 I'm sorry, who won the war again?
@@kimarykorlumiose7728 Anaheim electronics ,vist foundation won but just remember some of us zeon / neo zeon remnants are still waiting out there😜 just blending in waiting for the earth federation factions to mess up again😎( how many wars have we had since 0079?) 😁
The Naboo N2 has always been my favorite. I often go back to my PS2 to play that game over and over again.
I think what we all forget when talking about starwars ships is this. Star ship manufacturering has been around for thousands of years. Thousands of species contribute their ideas and needs to this. Look at our own automobile industry to see how much variation can come from one race of people's input for just over 100 years.
Additionally, technology is super advanced compared to ours. Things that would be borderline magical on earth (repulsors) are common enough to be produced in mass for thousands of years.
The starwars universe is at the point where super advanced technology is mundane, technology has become stagnate with most people focused on continuing the status quo, which would result in even more variations on commonly produced things.
The v wing and Darth mauls ship from episode one might fly in real life.
The N1 likely would too, with some minor modifications. The shape of it looks very much like it would have a lifting body.
I doubt the V Wing would due to the strange wing design (the wings are vertical not horizontal so the would be very little lift, and Maul's Sith Interceptor looks extremely back-heavy, with very small wings
The frigate/freighter mixup is interesting.
The requirement for atmospheric entry is high drag and relatively low lift.
Later transition to sustained atmospheric flight is aided by lower angles of attack, with better lift-drag ratios, but the entry problem is one of scrubbing the huge amount of orbital velocity with a shallow angle of entry, but with a definite deceleration without skipping. This requires reasonably precise geometry (descent angle) to manage heat and energy transfers from KE and PE to heat in a manageable way. For a winged body a high AOA (way post stall for aerodynamic control) and a steep bank angle (to prevent climbing back out of the atmosphere), controlled with inertial methods (potentially) or vernier rockets (demonstrated) for pitch, yaw and roll stability. For wingless bodies, a blunt nose for optimal thermal performance and high drag to give a committed entry/descent and to scrub energy before reaching the dense lower atmosphere has been common.
Surprised that the Gozanti wasn’t on the list. It honestly looks more like a Star Citizen vessel than a Star Wars design.
I would combine the best qualities of the Dreadnaught class cruiser with the J-type 327.
The Naboo N1 Starfighter was actually quite well armed. It had a pair of nose mounted laser cannons similar to a TIE fighter(ie pretty powerful) and a payload of proton torpedoes which are much stronger than missiles. They had good shields, great maneuverability, and above average speed. They also had the ability to carry an astromech droid which could make repairs and recharge the shields. They also have a polished heat shield on the nose to assist with atmospheric entry. They were expensive hand-built fighters that didn't make a lot of performance trade-offs in any part of the design.
"lightly armed but extremely manouverable" I heard that bit in the voice from Battle for Naboo's ship select screen
While I'd agree about rotating the ship; in battle that is going to be a very serious drawback. One second your guns are on target; by the time you react to that and fire them you've already missed.
My favorite Star Wars ship is the T-65 T-65 X-Wing .
Not the coolest or the best, but my personal favorites are Boba Fett's ship Slave 1, the Ebon Hawk from KOTOR, and the Sith Warrior/Sith Inquisitor ship from SWTOR the Fury Class Interceptor. It's not technically a starship, but i also LOVE the Mandalorian Basilisk War Droid, it's not super cool looking but it IS very practical and badass since it's basiclly like the ODST drop pods from Halo in that they use them to drop from orbit and fly past enemy defences before crashing into the ground, jumping out, and killing anything that moves.
@@arthas640 true
While I will grant you not having a window feels like a common sense thing, sometimes you have to plan for sensor systems to be f'ed up by radiation storms or combat damage. As for why the bridges tend to be exposed, it might be a technology based idea. Power generation devices, shield generators, sensors, etc. may need placements away from each other. Which means it might not be feasible to put the bridges inside the ships geometry. Also by placing the "obvious" target in a place of prominence means you can generally predict what an opponent is going to do. If you put it on the top, and say 80% of your guns on top...
A spherical design also allows for optimum armor around the ship without adding too much mass since a spherical object has a very low surface area to cover compared to other shapes.
Why do I think gen tech should have at least a couple mill subs
UNSC ships are the ones that looks realistic
*Cackles in battlestar*
Almost forgot, what about The Expanse
Randy Cheow that’s next level realistic although with some poor choices
@@user-gu7yo5yn9g
Ships in Battlestar Galactica are better designed (Realistically) than star wars but it isn't really too realistic compared to halo and especially so compared to the expanse.
Nothing is realistic until we build it, and I believe WW3 will wipe us out before we build our first space yard.
The H2 executive shuttlw , as well as being beautiful looks like it could operate in atmosphere very well.
I wonder what the aerodynamic drag coefficient of an Ewok is at 10,000 feet?
African or European?
I don't know... Aaaaaahh!
the falcon is a light freighter (corvette in military terms perhaps no?) not a frigate.
considering the military grade hardware installed on her, the Falcon could be classified a corvette, but there is no way to reconcile the size difference and the amount of additional weapons the falcon would need to get anywhere close to frigate classification
Great video. This has been something that I have always wondered about.
Star Wars ships use something called repulsor engines for atmospheric flight. This is referenced in the Thrawn Trilogy, dark force rising. The repulsor lifts allow the ship to "Hover" negating the need for aerodynamics. Not saying it wouldn't be important for our technology, but it makes sense why the ships aren't designed with aerodynamics in mind in the star wars universe.
While the bridge set up of the Star Destroyer gets a lot of criticism, I think it just mimics the bridge set up of most warships from the mid to late 1800s to the present day. High up to get a good view forward and also providing a good view from Port to Starboard.
Z-95 Headhunter
Probably the closest SW thing to our own fighter jets.
Corelian CR-90
Lukerhulk has it's bridge on a contower outside the ball, it's right there in the technical manual you showed in the video.
While discussing Naboo starships, you forgot about the one used in the beginning of Ep.3. The quad-engined starship with the very wide wingspan that got blown up almost immediately. That seems like a better candidate than the Naboo star fighter for actual realistic flight capabilities. You all should do a follow up video.
Allen I think its great the way you narrate gen tech . My question wS where do you get your information from . I think its great that you are so informed. Please dont stop doing these videos. Thanks bro .
Given that maximum volume available for minimum surface area and materials used, and aerodynamics matter not one jot - a sphere is the optimal shape for a deep space craft.
The Death Star is pretty much bang on the money.
The idea of the U wings folding wings sound a lot like the idea of the X-02 Wyvern with it canards and forward swept wing along with it vertical stabilizer fold into the aircraft's frame.
Man you are good because I do not have a great interest in Star Wars Universe, hardly know the bases. Came for the engineering and science fiction but stayed and subbed for the overall quality of your videos. I might read the books some days !
Exposed on some strut.
Venator loooks around nervously.
A larger spim section means a lower spin rate and less chance inducing nausea in the crew
What about the Delta 7 or the Snowspeeder? Those seem kinda sleek and aerodynamic as well (the Delta more than the speeder)
A lucrehulk was very convenient for atmospheric travel
these dreadnoughts look a little like BattleStar Pegasus
Good video - If we're going to talk about the space magic keeping TIE fighters going you have to include their propulsion. Ion engines could never provide the ummph needed to allow TIE fighters to do what they do. The amount of thrust generated by ion engines is *extremely* low, making them really only suitable for applications requiring low acceleration but long duration. They are very efficient but produce only a tiny bit of thrust at a time. Lucas stated that when he decided to use the ion engines to power various craft he did so knowing that (in the real world) they wouldn't really be capable of performing in the way TIE fighters and other SW spacecraft using ion engines do in the films. And I absolutely agree about the last craft covered - it is almost certainly based off the SR-71. Its not an exact copy but its very close.
well i trust Lucas understanding science, and thier is a bit of wiggle room in the ships design, if you can nullify the effects of gravity to nothing, on the ships, by removing all their mass... likevirtually all of it... suddenly those ion engines and anti grav plates are alot stronger etc
I was kinda kidding, but yeah, that makes sense. Also, who's to say that they haven't just designed a far more powerful form of ion engine. The description I've been given by a physics professor for the current ion engines is that it provides the same amount of force as a piece of paper produces resting on your hand (so the downward force of the paper b/c of gravity - that's how little power our current ion engines have.) Their saving grace is that they work for a reaaaally long time and can push a craft up to a decent speed if you have a long time to allow for the acceleration. But its just not something we would use for rapid propulsion changes. It essentially ionizes xenon gas particles and shoots them out the back of the engine - hence why it produces so little force in the opposite direction.
I have a funny story that relates to this: One of my friends is a physics professor at a big-ish science/tech oriented university here in the US and he surprised his students (probably second year students b/c it wasn't a huge class) when they were about to start a section on these engines and the NASA space probes that employ them (if I remember right, the Voyager craft use them) by bringing one of them into their lab. I think he said he rolled it in on a rolling table with a sheet over it and pulled the sheet off and told them that he'd brought in a functioning ion engine to show them. And he said something like "I'm going to get it powered up and we'll crank it up to full thrust" And he had it pointed out toward the classroom - and he said as he was setting up the power source the students in the middle of the room, directly in front of the engine, slowly started sliding their chairs or stools or what have you towards the sides of the room and then once he started to turn it on they hopped out of their chairs and all stood up against the walls (surely there were a few people there who knew what would actually happen, but apparently most of them didn't - and he said he was trying really hard to keep a straight face). So finally, he said ok, lets crank it up and he dialed it up to full power and waited - and he said he could see people cringing for a min, and then slowly started looking at each other out of the corner of their eyes. Finally I think he said someone spoke up and said "you were just messing with us, you weren't really going to max it out in here" (these are just approx. quotes, I don't know the exact statements - just giving the gist) And he said, oh no - its maxed out. You can see it glowing. (when powered up it produces a fair amount of light as the gas particles are ionized - but less than like a halogen light bulb would). And he said he walked out right out in front of it (in front of where the particles are forced out) and he heard people gasping. Then of course he explained everything to them, about how it worked, the thrust output etc and everyone got a laugh out of it in the end. I can just picture that image though... (and it totally fits his personality too, so I don't doubt for a min that he really did it lol)
@@zorkwhouse8125 im more amazed someone hasnt said maybe ion engines arent designed right and tried to find a way to generate more force with them :/
@@zorkwhouse8125 i suppose the most likely thing for power will likely be some form of a gravity drive or perhapsif we can create a turbine engine of sorts that rests partly in a different layer of space so that it can basically act for a space ship the way sticking a engine into the water propels a boat except in our case we would be plunging part of the engine into subspace or soemthing... thats been my favorite theory for space engines that are more or less long lasting for recycling energy etc
The prequels we're surprisingly better at coming up with realistic designs. George must have been reading some technical journals in between the trilogies.
The prequels may get a lot of hate, but George put just as much thought into the design of them as he did with the original trilogy. The sets and vehicles in the prequels are really the best part of them. Especially compared to the garbage designs of the new trilogy.
Prequels: Make technology that looks like it should be the precursor to OT tech.
Sequels: Make it look the same to try and keep the fans happy. At least with the FO it kinda can be explained as they're all Imperial fanboys.
The J-Type has a "Lifting-body" design making wings less of an issue for flight. In the thinner air of high altitude this would however be an issue in real world, but real world has no repulsors as you have noted.
Can you do another factions video?
I wonder what the drag on the Naboo royal ship from episode 2 would be? Given it's basically a flying wing it might not even need repulsers to fly...
The heart is also reliant on calcium-dependent inactivation to beat. Calcium deficiency can cause heart trouble, too.
I think making a artificial gravity filter is a must if we want to ships like this
Weird question, is there an equivalent to the AWACS aircraft in Star Wars, I doubt the Empire would waste the credits but early warning and recon craft that isn't a frigate for the rebels would be invaluable.
I think in Legends the Empire did have some recon TIE variants. At the least they had probe droids.
The worst thing about microgravity isn't that it's difficult to do basic medical procedures, that wouldn't be a consideration since blood doesn't clot in microgravity. So any wound is fatal.
To be fair, Star Destroyers have TWO SHIELD GENERATORS guarding the bridge. Only if the enemy focus-fires a whole fleet onto that would it collapse and weaken. Also, you have a very good view of the battlefield.
Realistically, in a true space battle the scale would be so big you would be unlikely to benefit from a view of said battlefield. Star destroyers themselves are kilometers long...
@@carllong8954 But if the enemy knocks out your cameras and scanners, or jams them, you'll be flying blind. Also, viewports on a bridge can have monitors to zoom in on any action.
What about the nubian star ship at the opening of episode 2 it's basicly a flying wing
The Blackbird can barely generate lift on its own. The Nubian may not have drag but that just means it'll drop straight through the atmosphere like a rock.
the millennium falcon is not a frigate, it's a freighter.
So a dreadnaught heavy cruiser looks just like a .... Battlestar. The naboo starfighter proves that old aircraft design rule of thumb - if it looks good it will fly good.
I've always thought the ".Millenium Falcon" woulda made a great trailor design. On the ground shaped the same on the inside, used as a home with lights for a patio from the rear engines.
Lucrehulk FREIGHTERS, not frigates. Other than that, pretty good. o7
Yeah Star Wars ships get away with a lot of things just cause of their anti gravity tech. But then again that's probably why the ships/fighters are so slow in atmosphere compared to the jets we have today, I doubt any of them could survive the drag of breaking the sound barrier without some serious damage. They work in atmosphere cause of the mastery of gravity their creators have but they don't really function all that well in atmosphere, trying to submerse themselves in water would also probably shred most of them at any decent speeds as well. I wonder if their computers actually have safety functions for best speeds when near objects and in atmosphere to keep them from damaging themselves?
In the center of the ship, escape pods would be a longer run.
What about the Q-wing from Robot Chicken?
Lucre = money. The ship's name literally means MoneyHulk or MoneyHauler.
Just because they “look realistic” doesn’t mean they’re realistic
For realism go to the Expanse
Although I do agree with a couple points in this list
I think you meant clunky freighter not frigate for the falcon
Kyle Murphy yeah the falcon and luckrahulk are definitely not frigates like the nebula b 😂
did he call the falcon a frigate? isnt it a smuggler freighter?
I'm pretty sure the Jedi straighter from episode 2 (used by Obiwan for his trip to Camino and Geonosis) is a good design aswel.
I think the drag coefficient would be on the better side aswell (at least for star wars standards).
What would have happened if after Arc Trooper Fives told Anakin and Rex about order 66 and Anakin and Captain Rex went on to have all of the 501st Clone legion remove their chips what would have happened during the execution of Order 66?
There's a current ongoing fanfiction about that. It's called Dominoes, and it's a really interesting read. Basically Domino squad get a second chance to change things, and the main priority is the chips. Not exactly what you're wanting, but an interesting read none the less.
There is no aerodynamics in space, because there is no air. 😂😂😂
The Naboo Royal Yacht was probably based o the Blackbird. Also, no Praetor Mark 2? I'm disappointed, Alan........
0:25 bb8 is my favourite ship in the Star Wars franchise
how was palpatine not enrolled in the jedi order when he was a child
His wealthy family kept that from happening. They kept him from being testing, and later in life, he learned how to hide his massive Force Presence.
Thanks for clearing that up
on Naboo everyone can use the force so they go out of their way to hide the fact they are all force sensitive. including palpatines parents... i mean think about it... darth jar jar, darth sidious, Padme has super strong force sensitive kids, its not just anakin, she too must have a strong connection to the force for the kids to be so talented
im pretty convinced they are all sithe/jedi war survivors who withdrew from the war, even the gungans... and thats why they have a weird stand off truce where they distrust each other but think about it, the gungans have technology, but thier weapons are lightning balls... almost like... sithe sorcery
@@aurorauplinks Don't forget biotech (used in submersibles, for instance) and shielding!
Do a list of unrealistic ships next
I suspect the J Type is modeled after the excellent SR 71 plane, which comes close to the description of a "space plane".
The dreadnaught looks straight out of halo or mass effect
The y-wing and the laat gunship are also fairly well designed in my opinion
The bridge is largely for navigation and needs to have good visibility hence its height above the rest of the ship. Even modern ships have that feature. By and large the Combat information centre id where the ships fighting ability would be controlled from.
@Vladislav LB i agree that for combat they definitely should. Especially given the x wing's tendency to crash into exposed structures. But in reality fo general navigation a glass window bridge would be seen as more reliable than an electronic system that could be prone to failure. Its the same reason that passenger aircraft still have windows and not LCD screens linked to one camera. The cabin crew need to be able to assess the situation outside to guide evacuation. They cant do that if the screens are broken.
in space, distances are measured in thousands of kilometers. unless you are looking for something very big or very close, Mk 1 eyeballs are useless. additionally, navigation is done by velocities, changes in velocity, and gravitational effects not just point and burn. in all these areas, sensors (even ones at risk of failure) are the only option available, which means having an exposed bridge on a combat ship is asking for the senior staff to die when the obvious target is hit.
You should do a star wars space ship and there real life counter parts
Surrounding the manned core with cargo space makes sense, but I've always thought the Lucrehulk design was kind of limited as a carrier.
Oh, it certainly has tons of space for smaller craft, two hatches to launch from, and those launch bays are oriented to minimize the vulnerable openings they show to enemy fire, so points for those, of course... But the hatches are oriented directly towards each other. That must cause a royal mess of a traffic jam when it comes to recovering its launch assets, or even just loading and unloading cargo: no matter what direction the traffic takes entering or exiting a Lucrehulk, it will have to take a precise, low-speed right-angle turn.
That has the potential for disaster in a combat launch: one craft that doesn't get it exactly right could tumble directly into the oncoming traffic from the other launch bay, which then can't be used until the resulting wreckage gets cleared away. And, even if every fighter does get it right, they're still traveling very slowly, which makes them an awfully tempting target for enemy gunners: the launched fighters are full of munitions and high-energy fuel, can't maneuver without running into each other, aren't even moving quickly yet, and likely have dozens or hundreds more flying bombs following right behind. A concentrated salvo at the split in the ring during a combat launch could easily cause secondary explosions that risk crippling or destroying the ship.
Great video but surely the A-wing would be very good for atmospheric flight
Absolutely! I love the Naboo fighter, but nothing feels as sleek as being in the cockpit of an A-wing! :-)
not really, the back ends very abruptly, which causes turbulences, which increases drag.
No wing surface. It'd fly straight fairly well, but it wouldn't be good at turns. And if the engines failed, it'd drop like a rock.
What about the jedi interceptor/ delta 7 it is designed like an arrow head and is triangular similar to the b2 bomber except it's more narrow. I would imagine being more narrow would cut down air resistance.
The Millennium Falcon is a freighter, not a frigate. The Lucrehulks were converted into battleships, not frigates.