Runways
- Thread starter Dragon1
- Start date
AKAImBatman
Spaceman
Dragon1 said:
You're close. Star Trek employs a "linear graviton beam" to tractor objects. Note that pretty much all sci-fi tractor beams operate on the same principle. The reason for this is that the graviton is a theoretical particle responsible for gravity. If the theory is correct, it would mean that objects draw near to one another by exchanging particles. If these graviton particles could be controlled, then they could be used to cast massive gravity fields between objects (including artificial gravity). For more on the theory of gravitons, I highly recommend "Elegent Universe" by Brian Green. Also in DVD form.
Is that dweeby enough for everyone?
Death
gh0d (Administrator)
Dragon1 said:
As I recall (don't have WC4N handy at the moment), it wasn't the propulsion mechanism itself, but the magnetic guides that kept the ship to be launched in proper alignment, so it wouldn't get, for example, catapulted into the sides of the bay.
That's from memory, though, so it's entirely possible I'm misremembering things.
Edfilho
Cry some more!
That doesn`t make sense at all. If you fighter is at rest INSIDE the capship, then the capship's velocity is ADDED to it in launching, no matter what tech they used. That is why it was EASIER to launch from a moving carrier than a stopped one, in WW2.
BTW, I really can`t see much logic in all these carrier operations in WCU, apart from the paradigm we had on WCP and WCSO. Homage to WW2 is the only explanation for all those complicated procedures and long runways we have on other games. Even combat landings cannot really explain the need for runways.
AKAImBatman
Spaceman
Edfilho said:
Different from a wet carrier, however, a space carrier will be *accelerating*. If the engines on the fighter flame out before the clearing turn, the carrier will run over over the fighter without a second thought.
Super Wing Commander agrees with you. In that game, the fighter parks itself next to the carrier and waits to be tractored in. WCP and Secret Ops also agree with you thanks to their shorter flight decks.
However, I think the (imaginary) reality may again have to with the fact that the carrier is accelerating. Even with the pilot killing the velocity on his fighter, his momentum vs. the carrier's momentum is going to carry him farther down the flight deck than intended. He'll need to be captured by tractor beams or use his fighter's brakes to overcome the inertia. (Notice that the Midway's and Cerberus's flight decks are mounted toward the rear.)
Other reasons worth considering are:
- The flight deck provides a place to park craft and perform maintenance.
- Having a long, pass-through deck allows for "touch and go" landings.
- More fighters can be lined up for launch on the runway
All good reasons, the pass-through I thought was a great idea since watching the original battlestar Galactica. If someone's coming in hot and knows they're going to break up on the deck they can always abort the landing and keep going.
As for the third reason I always had an idea in my head which may not work, that they should make some kind of elevator system that they could use to rapidly dump the fighters out of the bottom of the ship instead of having to go through the trouble of launching them. I suppose with launching them though the fighters already have momentum and are up to speed and ready for combat but whatever.
Despite it being one of my favorite ships the Confederation class is probably the stupidest design with its big open runways, even more-so than the Bengal. I can understand the ships with thru-decks having long runways, but I always thought it was unnecessary for the Confederation class. I always imagined fighters being blasted off of the deck as they're landing or launching, but it was meant to look like an aircraft carrier so I can forgive its awkward design.
Dragon1
Rear Admiral
These are all good thoughts. Another question; Why does Confederation and Bengal-class ships have runways exposed to the elements of space? The Concordia and Ranger classes with their internal bays make much more sense. In WC2 we saw just how vulnerable the exposed launch/landing runways were on the Confederation-class (even through the phase shielding). Confed would have probably known about this glaring vulnerability, so why design ships in that manner?
AD
Finder of things, Doer of stuff
Dragon1 said:
There's a number of reasons why a flight deack might be out of commision. The Tiger Claw in WCM didnt have an exposed "runway" but a crashed fighter need ed to be cleared off the deck before they could safely launch or land other fighters.
The explosions on the Concordias flight deck didn't happen outside but rather inside. And on other ships without exterior "landing strips" could have their flighdeck out of commission if one well placed torpedo squeaked past the sheilds enough to damage the structure around the landing zone. (debris)
I would prefter to think that the landing strips (while maybe connected to the catapult system) are mainly a visual aid (if systems are down) for fighters to line up for landing in the bays.
Haesslich
Spaceman
AKAImBatman said:
Exactly. Hunter describes this in Freedom Flight, as something that happened to a rookie who didn't make his clearing turn to get clear of the carrier - apparently the guy's scoops stopped him but his engines flamed out. And the Carrier kept on going, and didn't leave much to bury.
AKAImBatman said:
ALS is described in the books and referenced in the game, IIRC - the main need for flight decks is either as a WW2 homage, or to provide landing areas for multiple craft at the same time, such as those we see in the WC1 landing cutscenes, where there are at least two other fighters nearby. The novels do make reference to crashes which close the deck for at least a few minutes however.
The thing is, the carrier decks were a homage to WW2 carriers and to the previous WC games; when they were making the original WC they weren't giving much thought to physics, and so everything thereafter were attempts to make an illogical choice have some sort of logic to it.
A carrier in space is not necessarily accelerating. Keep in mind, the faster it goes, the more incapable of rapid turns and changes in direction it will be. In the games, the cap ships move extremely slow relative to the fighters. And, as with a modern sea-based carrier, any velocity the carrier has will only make the launching fighter already start out at that velocity. More so, because there's no friction from the atmosphere. There are numerous concepts one could work out for the physics of what a carrier should look like, and I think the WC film shows us the results of filmmakers addressing that question. The early games simply didn't put time into that aspect; they were more concerned with making it fun and telling good stories than with making the physics realistic.
Large space craft treating like submarines with radar pings and the like (much like the movie) is perhaps more realistic than the carrier-fighter model, as one is IN space like a sub is in the ocean, not sitting atop it. However, the more you go to the sub model the less exciting you get; you end up with Hunt For Red October instead of Top Gun. And I for one would much rather play in the WC games universe than the WC movie universe.
A carrier in space is not necessarily accelerating. Keep in mind, the faster it goes, the more incapable of rapid turns and changes in direction it will be. In the games, the cap ships move extremely slow relative to the fighters. And, as with a modern sea-based carrier, any velocity the carrier has will only make the launching fighter already start out at that velocity. More so, because there's no friction from the atmosphere. There are numerous concepts one could work out for the physics of what a carrier should look like, and I think the WC film shows us the results of filmmakers addressing that question. The early games simply didn't put time into that aspect; they were more concerned with making it fun and telling good stories than with making the physics realistic.
Large space craft treating like submarines with radar pings and the like (much like the movie) is perhaps more realistic than the carrier-fighter model, as one is IN space like a sub is in the ocean, not sitting atop it. However, the more you go to the sub model the less exciting you get; you end up with Hunt For Red October instead of Top Gun. And I for one would much rather play in the WC games universe than the WC movie universe.
AKAImBatman
Spaceman
Blackfaer said:
Except that in the WC Universe, the ships are supposedly capable of tacking against stellar hydrogen thanks to their monopole hydrogen scoops. Because of those scoops, the ship must constantly accelerate in order to overcome the drag imparted by the stellar hydrogen. Supposedly, a ship can reach a speed where its scoops can collect more fuel than it takes to maintain a fixed velocity. In those cases, the ship's acceleration should have no bearing on launch and recovery operations. *However*, many common launch situations (e.g. A magnum launch immediately after a jump) fall outside of the situation decribed and may actually be the more common case. As such, ships are designed with these reasons in mind.
Perhaps the better question is, "Why do they launch off the forward bow instead of the rear?" This is an interesting question, especially when you consider that catapulting a fighter to the rear would *increase* the speed of the carrier. The catapult is probably still a good idea, because too slow of a launch could result in unfortunate accidents between the hull and the craft.
If I were to hazard a guess as to the reasoning for the forward launches, I would have to say "engine wash". If the carrier is manuvering at all, then the fighter could very easily end up in the wash of the fusion engines and find itself slammed around a bit. If there happened to be something in the way (e.g. another fighter, an Exeter, an asteriod, etc.) then you can kiss the fighter goodbye.
Maj.Striker
Swabbie
Banned
I think the runway is there incase the automated land ever breaks down and a pilot has to come in very very fast. Sure he could slow down, match velocity and coast his way in but sometimes he may be in a hurry and he has to come "screeching" in. Again, as we all know, WC is not based on real newtonian physics (nor is Star Wars or the majority of your favorite shows). Like Brad mentioned, WC is WW2 (Pacific theatre specifically) in space. When they designed the carrier model they wanted soemthing that everyone could recognize as a carrier immediately, especially those that weren't familar with the space sim genre at that time. Again, your question assumes there is a logical rational answer when in fact sometimes things simple exist because they look "cool." Don't believe me? Look at a big city skyline...you'll see several asthetically pleasing buildings that don't make sense from a simple realistic sense. (A huge square building would be the most economical and realistic but not many want to build those).
AKAImBatman
Spaceman
Maj.Striker said:
That's not entirely true. Different shapes distribute loads differently, and thus can have actual engineering purposes. In the case of a cylindrical building, for example, the shape causes certain loads to be evenly distributed across the structure. (e.g. high winds) In addition, the aerodynamic shape provides less resitance to loads from high winds, possibily allowsing the structure to survive something as devestating as a hurricane.
A similar argument can be made for space ships as well. Most people think that a space ship can be any shape we want to make it. Which is partially true. That is, until you start hitting higher percentages of c. As soon as you go beyond a percent or two of light speed, the various stellar gasses begin to become a real problem both in drag and safety of the vehicle. As such, a more aerodynamic hull allows the craft easier travel through the interstellar medium.
Perhaps a runway is just the best way to arrange whatever magnetic/gravitic braking is applied to a fighter as it lands. I know that in a combat situation I'd prefer to be moving as fast as possible until I was safely under a capship's armor, and hanging motionless outside of a landing bay waiting to be tractored in would be unappealing at best. (speaking of which, does anyone have screens/captures of this?)
AKAImBatman
Spaceman
Chernikov said:
LOAF posted them just the other day. Here's the screen cap:
https://cdn.wcnews.com/newestshots/full/johnnyswc9.jpg
And I believe that it can also be found at the end of this video:
http://download.wcnews.com/files/swc/johnny_swc_3DO_mission1.wmv
Last edited by a moderator:
Edfilho
Cry some more!
Now THAT could be a problem. And closed decks like the on in the Ranger are pretty logical. What doesn't make much sense is the very complicated lauch procedure described in the WC4 novel. The game launch in both WC3 and 4 made perfect sense, as did the landing. But the Confederation class was trully strange. At least the Claw had those little launch tubes.
But I still think that the most logical model was the one in WCP.
Dragon1
Rear Admiral
The Waterloo-class Cruiser would appear to have the same launch/landing system as the Terran Confederation-class dreadnoughts, although the cruisers really didn't have much of a runway. This fact may have complicated things even further. The rear bay on the Tallahassee-class cruisers seems far more logical for a ship that isn't a dedicated carrier.