Time to Procure a Valkyrie
Posted by MikeD
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2010 10:18PM by Runaphen.
MSW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Old, I know...Just have to correct some
> misconceptions.
> The backdrop of space is about 3 or 4 Kelvin
> (about -455F). Everything made of matter is in
> high contrast to that...no matter the color it is
> painted, or its shape. There is ZERO possibility
> of stealth in space. Most everything we detect in
> space is through passive radio telescope
> observation...This radiation cannot be masked, no
> radar involved or even needed. With the technology
> we have now a burst from the Space Shuttle's
> Maneuvering system while in Earth orbit could be
> detected from an observation post way out in the
> asteroid belt.
Sure, fine. But why do the spaceship/jet-plane/robot things use see-through canopies in space? As you established, you don't need to "see" anything in space because very basic instruments will do that for you. You can't hide matter in space. Yet there they are, rocketing around with windshields. What exactly do they need to see? Well, maybe they need the windshields when doing atmospheric stuff, though that doesn't explain why they use them in space. So maybe the white coloration on the places is just the result of an unpainted or raw composite material. Except they have squad markings and coloration. For what purpose if visual conformation is a moot point? Psychological or morale effects? So those little colored strips are the best they could come up with?
Their design rationale seems to be the following.
P1. Nothing in space is invisible; the enemy will always be able to see us in space or against the backdrop of space using instrumentation.
P2. Despite operating in space there are still things which require direct visual confirmation; we need windshields in case we need to "see" something that does not appear on instrumentation.
P3. The enemy does not follow P2; we do not need to consider the possibility that our ships will be visually discerned at any time.
P4. Only we follow P2; any treatment of the ships' exterior is for our purposes alone.
So there's no such thing as low-vis in space, but human pilots still apparently need visualization in space AND humans are the only ones who will be looking at their ships. That's a mess. Is there any basic scientific or engineering rationale behind propositions two through four?
And, while we're at it - no one has yet explained why they're using 1960s aerodynamics at a time when they had access to FTL technology. Or why they would try to sandwich two distinct environmental functions on one craft. Even if you stick with the confines of the narrative there's not a lot of internal logic there. Your tech either magically defies physics or it is subject to it. The middle ground stuff is bullshit.
As someone who enjoys robotized smash'em up cartoons I'm not taking issue with the need to use handwavium in the genre. Hard-science is a hard sell for audiences and it's obvious that most designers were never engineers. Fine. But what's irritating is when people try to bust out the no-prize theories for why sometimes exists a particular way within a work of fiction. That stuff is either random because no one thought about it or it's deliberate because they thought about it enough to push the story forward. Neither of those is science.
Why are Valkyries basically white transforming F-14s with color stripes that shoots both lasers and missiles? Because at the time they were created it was a synthesis of cool visuals with some practical constraints in the medium. The white coloration is cheap and contrasts the ships well against multiple backgrounds - especially space. The coloration, squad markings, and clear canopies are there for the benefit of the audience and allow them to differentiate the central cast. The F-14 was the pinnacle of cool aircraft at the time and transforming into a robot was, too. And so on.
Trying to jam hard-science into soft-core sci-fi robot porn is lame. My original retort to the complaints about the gray coloration of the rib-flaps on the robots seems to have been misconstrued. They're gray because they're gray. They don't need to be white. I was arguing against the need for any rationale behind the color choice.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2011 11:15AM by Gcrush.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Old, I know...Just have to correct some
> misconceptions.
> The backdrop of space is about 3 or 4 Kelvin
> (about -455F). Everything made of matter is in
> high contrast to that...no matter the color it is
> painted, or its shape. There is ZERO possibility
> of stealth in space. Most everything we detect in
> space is through passive radio telescope
> observation...This radiation cannot be masked, no
> radar involved or even needed. With the technology
> we have now a burst from the Space Shuttle's
> Maneuvering system while in Earth orbit could be
> detected from an observation post way out in the
> asteroid belt.
Sure, fine. But why do the spaceship/jet-plane/robot things use see-through canopies in space? As you established, you don't need to "see" anything in space because very basic instruments will do that for you. You can't hide matter in space. Yet there they are, rocketing around with windshields. What exactly do they need to see? Well, maybe they need the windshields when doing atmospheric stuff, though that doesn't explain why they use them in space. So maybe the white coloration on the places is just the result of an unpainted or raw composite material. Except they have squad markings and coloration. For what purpose if visual conformation is a moot point? Psychological or morale effects? So those little colored strips are the best they could come up with?
Their design rationale seems to be the following.
P1. Nothing in space is invisible; the enemy will always be able to see us in space or against the backdrop of space using instrumentation.
P2. Despite operating in space there are still things which require direct visual confirmation; we need windshields in case we need to "see" something that does not appear on instrumentation.
P3. The enemy does not follow P2; we do not need to consider the possibility that our ships will be visually discerned at any time.
P4. Only we follow P2; any treatment of the ships' exterior is for our purposes alone.
So there's no such thing as low-vis in space, but human pilots still apparently need visualization in space AND humans are the only ones who will be looking at their ships. That's a mess. Is there any basic scientific or engineering rationale behind propositions two through four?
And, while we're at it - no one has yet explained why they're using 1960s aerodynamics at a time when they had access to FTL technology. Or why they would try to sandwich two distinct environmental functions on one craft. Even if you stick with the confines of the narrative there's not a lot of internal logic there. Your tech either magically defies physics or it is subject to it. The middle ground stuff is bullshit.
As someone who enjoys robotized smash'em up cartoons I'm not taking issue with the need to use handwavium in the genre. Hard-science is a hard sell for audiences and it's obvious that most designers were never engineers. Fine. But what's irritating is when people try to bust out the no-prize theories for why sometimes exists a particular way within a work of fiction. That stuff is either random because no one thought about it or it's deliberate because they thought about it enough to push the story forward. Neither of those is science.
Why are Valkyries basically white transforming F-14s with color stripes that shoots both lasers and missiles? Because at the time they were created it was a synthesis of cool visuals with some practical constraints in the medium. The white coloration is cheap and contrasts the ships well against multiple backgrounds - especially space. The coloration, squad markings, and clear canopies are there for the benefit of the audience and allow them to differentiate the central cast. The F-14 was the pinnacle of cool aircraft at the time and transforming into a robot was, too. And so on.
Trying to jam hard-science into soft-core sci-fi robot porn is lame. My original retort to the complaints about the gray coloration of the rib-flaps on the robots seems to have been misconstrued. They're gray because they're gray. They don't need to be white. I was arguing against the need for any rationale behind the color choice.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2011 11:15AM by Gcrush.
Gcrush Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought the same thing at first, then I started
> thinking about the different color. If you think
> about it, the surface area of the plane is going
> to be different from the robot - especially around
> the center mass since the damn thing is basically
> folding itself inside-out to make the limbs. So
> as the plane transforms the surface separates and
> reveals the mechanical guts inside. Which would
> look different because they're not primed and
> painted like the skin of the plane. Right?
Here's a better explanation of what I was talking about. I think Sanjeev is the only one that got it. Because the robot mode of the Valk has a different surface area than when it is a plane that extra bit needs to come from somewhere else. That extra bit is represented by the gray torso inserts that appear to show expanded panels. In the image below, those panels are yellow and blue with the surface area of the plane being green. When it's all planed-up they're sandwiched together. When it's all roboted-up they're folded out. But in sandwich/plane mode those surfaces are in contact with one another. If they're coated with something it's going to get abraded by the mechanical action of the vibrations in the structure causing the surfaces to move against each other because they're sandwiched together. That's an even bigger mess if you get space dust or other particles trapped in between them.
Looking at that, there should be a lot more exposed/unpainted/different-material surfaces between robot and plane modes. Basically anywhere you have surfaces in contact with one another. Like around the joints. Unless the whole damn thing is made from the same stuff and none of it needs surfacing. In which case you wouldn't have any intrinsically, differently colored bits. For example, why paint the intake covers gray if they're made from the same composite material as the shell? Unless they're not. But if they're not, why assume that any of the surfaces should be the same color? And so on.
Ignoring the fact that these are still F-14 Robots zooming about in space, it's a huge mess. You either like the way the inserts look or you don't. Personally, I'd rather have them in place to fill out the ugly gaps in the robot than not have them at all.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2011 12:18PM by Gcrush.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought the same thing at first, then I started
> thinking about the different color. If you think
> about it, the surface area of the plane is going
> to be different from the robot - especially around
> the center mass since the damn thing is basically
> folding itself inside-out to make the limbs. So
> as the plane transforms the surface separates and
> reveals the mechanical guts inside. Which would
> look different because they're not primed and
> painted like the skin of the plane. Right?
Here's a better explanation of what I was talking about. I think Sanjeev is the only one that got it. Because the robot mode of the Valk has a different surface area than when it is a plane that extra bit needs to come from somewhere else. That extra bit is represented by the gray torso inserts that appear to show expanded panels. In the image below, those panels are yellow and blue with the surface area of the plane being green. When it's all planed-up they're sandwiched together. When it's all roboted-up they're folded out. But in sandwich/plane mode those surfaces are in contact with one another. If they're coated with something it's going to get abraded by the mechanical action of the vibrations in the structure causing the surfaces to move against each other because they're sandwiched together. That's an even bigger mess if you get space dust or other particles trapped in between them.
Looking at that, there should be a lot more exposed/unpainted/different-material surfaces between robot and plane modes. Basically anywhere you have surfaces in contact with one another. Like around the joints. Unless the whole damn thing is made from the same stuff and none of it needs surfacing. In which case you wouldn't have any intrinsically, differently colored bits. For example, why paint the intake covers gray if they're made from the same composite material as the shell? Unless they're not. But if they're not, why assume that any of the surfaces should be the same color? And so on.
Ignoring the fact that these are still F-14 Robots zooming about in space, it's a huge mess. You either like the way the inserts look or you don't. Personally, I'd rather have them in place to fill out the ugly gaps in the robot than not have them at all.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2011 12:18PM by Gcrush.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
