Star Wars, Star Trek and other Sci-Fi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Was a bit distracted back then, probably why I missed or overlooked this at the time:
www.hollywoodreporter.com

‘Blade Runner 2049’ Studio Sues Automaker for Not Living Up to Flying Car Deal

Alcon says the Ryan Gosling film would have grossed more but for $30 million less in promised advertising support from Peugeot.
www.hollywoodreporter.com www.hollywoodreporter.com

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Alcon’s Lawsuit Over Failed ‘Blade Runner 2049’ Peugeot Partnership Criticized as “Rambling”

A California federal judge has dismissed Alcon Entertainment's lawsuit against Peugeot over a failed promotional partnership for 'Blade Runner 2049' and is giving them two weeks to amend the "confusing, rambling" complaint.
www.hollywoodreporter.com www.hollywoodreporter.com
 
Last edited:
Here's a new trailer for Macross Delta: Absolute Live which will be coming out this fall.
 
I know a lot of people don't like (to put it mildly) Battlestar Galactica's turn to the mystical. I do, personally, just because it upset so many assumptions, but what i loved to see was the revelation that this mighty space warship's magical jump drive was a massive, clunky machine and that an ordinary mechanic like Tyrol could disable it by pulling out one critical component.
gallery_326_9777.jpg

I have to say that the Galactica is my favourite fictional starship, not only because it's a tough old beast, but because it also has a pub and toilets (sorry, the Lexx's facilities are just too gross). I see that the re-entry technique for Musk's Starship is called 'the Adama Manoevrer'.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone here read much of Stanislaw Lem? The Invincible, Fiasco and Peace on Earth would be of great interest to people interested in military technology and the strategies and doctrines that arise from it, while His Master's Voice and Memoirs Found in a Bathtub would at least amuse those interested in the political basis of technological development. I'm currently grinding my way through his Summa Technologiae in its English translation (delayed due the the fact that few translators could cope with his mulitidisciplinary scope and neologisms). On the centenary of flight, Aviation Week listed HG Wells as one of the 100 greatest contributors to the history of flight (apparently because of his prediction of the influence of air power and nuclear weapons, but he also deserved a place for DEWs, transnational organisations, the tank, the 'ecological' nature of war and wargaming). Lem certainly deserves a place for his anticipation of the importance of VR, cybernetics, swarming drones, and the balance of terror.
 
Last edited:
Interesting conclusion and quite appropriate imho. I liked to think that going to Trek related events like this would interest me but honestly why. All the squealing and shrieking would get right up my sinus cavity and I would leave minutes after I got there. Sad really but blimey they go on. This from a TREKKIE!
 
I have grown up with Dr Who. I was nearly 8 when the first episode was shown in November 1963.
It was shown on Saturday evenings at a time when families in Britain settled down to spend an evening in front of a black and white television.
The Daleks naturally made an impact on me. Toy Daleks abounded. I had four little plastic ones which moved around on ball bearings and faced down my Airfix Infantry Combat group. By 1965 the Daleks could be seen every week in colour in TV21 comic without the Doctor and in a more interesting future world created from the Gerry Anderson TV series.
To be truthful the only Dr Who fan in my house was my middle aged father as the assistants got younger and their skirts shorter.
The Anderson shows and US imports like Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea had more interesting vehicles. I was a nerdy kid and already loved gadgets.
Dr Who evolved into a national institution with its cardboard sets and quarrys standing in for strange planets. The Daleks reappeared from time to time looking more and more battered as they were repainted.
Years later in the 80s the BBC called time and the series lived on in fanzines and videos.
Fast forward and I found myself back in my old home with my old Mum watching a new snazzy Dr Who in glorious colour with CGI and trying to be cool for a new generation.
It was not long before swarms of CGI invulnerable Daleks appeared. As in the 60s and 70s Dr Who changed from time to time as the actors got bored and moved on to real stuff.
Then they decided the Doctor should be a woman. This became the stuff of Dr Who fandom. Lengthy and tedious arguments were rolled out on both sides.
For me it was already too late. I had never been a fan even in the so called good old days. The reboot filled a slot on a Saturday afternoon but once Mum went into a home the ritual of Saturday evening TV went with her.
Have not seen a single episode of Ms W's Dr.
But my ball bearing Daleks are still part of the TV21 Golden Dalek Emperor's invasion fleet heading to Earth in 2068.
As for Star Trek. The Original Series recalls the wonder years of the 60s. The later ones belong to the 80s and 90s and like those decades are best forgotten.
 
Was going to post this isn the new CV-22B thread but it's too off-topic. Can someone please fill me in on why they don't use turbojets (or turbofans) in applications like the V-22 Osprey? Do turbojets produce vortex ring states in those configurations? Or is it that turbojet's can't throttle quickly and accurately enough to easily balance thrust?

The question occurred to me as I was reading the CV-22B thread after re-watching Terminator: Dark Fate last night and being quite taken with this bad-boy:

1627963627087.png

1627963670608.png

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA8F3T6TTQY
 
jeffb said:
Was going to post this isn the new CV-22B thread but it's too off-topic. Can someone please fill me in on why they don't use turbojets (or turbofans) in applications like the V-22 Osprey? Do turbojets produce vortex ring states in those configurations? Or is it that turbojet's can't throttle quickly and accurately enough to easily balance thrust?
Click to expand...

Because:
1: Turbojets, compared to turbo-prop-rotors, are fuel hogs
2: Because the exhaust jets will dig a deep hole through the tarmac, never mind sand.

The question occurred to me as I was reading the CV-22B thread after re-watching Terminator: Dark Fate last night and being quite taken with this bad-boy:
Click to expand...

Like everything else TDF-related, that design is ridiculous, ill-conceived and stultifyingly dumb.
 
Orionblamblam said:
jeffb said:
Was going to post this isn the new CV-22B thread but it's too off-topic. Can someone please fill me in on why they don't use turbojets (or turbofans) in applications like the V-22 Osprey? Do turbojets produce vortex ring states in those configurations? Or is it that turbojet's can't throttle quickly and accurately enough to easily balance thrust?
Click to expand...

Because:
1: Turbojets, compared to turbo-prop-rotors, are fuel hogs
2: Because the exhaust jets will dig a deep hole through the tarmac, never mind sand.

The question occurred to me as I was reading the CV-22B thread after re-watching Terminator: Dark Fate last night and being quite taken with this bad-boy:
Click to expand...

Like everything else TDF-related, that design is ridiculous, ill-conceived and stultifyingly dumb.
Click to expand...

LOL. You're much too shy Orion, you should tell us what you really think!

It's all handwavium anyway, are you just getting upset about the aesthetic?
 
jeffb said:
LOL. You're much too shy Orion, you should tell us what you really think!
Click to expand...

I'd get banned. There are report-happy weenies who'd get all upset over the choice of colorful metaphors I'd use.

It's all handwavium anyway, are you just getting upset about the aesthetic?
Click to expand...

TDF was garbage, well beyond the design of the tech. But this design is nonsensical. From a franchise that gave use the Flying HK and the Tank HK, both of which married an interesting aesthetic with practical realism, *this* thing doesn't make a lick of damn sense. Note, for instance, how the exhaust would end up *inches* from the ground. It would throw fist-sized bits of rubble every which way, including directly at the passenger compartment. Note the very heavy "arms" that serve no good purpose. Note the compete lack of any actual aerodynamics, meaning that the slightest burp in thrust would send this thing tumbling.
 
Orionblamblam said:
jeffb said:
LOL. You're much too shy Orion, you should tell us what you really think!
Click to expand...

I'd get banned. There are report-happy weenies who'd get all upset over the choice of colorful metaphors I'd use.

It's all handwavium anyway, are you just getting upset about the aesthetic?
Click to expand...

TDF was garbage, well beyond the design of the tech. But this design is nonsensical. From a franchise that gave use the Flying HK and the Tank HK, both of which married an interesting aesthetic with practical realism, *this* thing doesn't make a lick of damn sense. Note, for instance, how the exhaust would end up *inches* from the ground. It would throw fist-sized bits of rubble every which way, including directly at the passenger compartment. Note the very heavy "arms" that serve no good purpose. Note the compete lack of any actual aerodynamics, meaning that the slightest burp in thrust would send this thing tumbling.
Click to expand...
Garbage is a bit strong. You're right though, it isn't great. There's just something about the cast/direction that doesn't quite gel, the whole thing ends up feeling a bit odd and half made. That said, it has its moments.

All excellent points as regards the HKs, my counter argument would be just because they're designed by an AI doesn't mean they're good designs. AIs can be dumb too.

With the "Dragonfly" design, I'm always willing to assume that in the context of the movie's setting all the design choices make sense. So obviously the engines are either ridiculously reliable or the combat lifespan is significantly shorter than the mean time between failures number. Given how nicely it detonates at the end of the clip above, probably the latter. The heavy legs are effectively control actuators, landing gear and heavy shock absorbers for combat landings combined into single units. Probably fuel tanks as well although, like most sci-fi, small super efficient power sources seem to be a given.

More importantly, it's very cool.
:D:cool:

EDIT: Good points re fuel usage on turbojets versus props. The way they would throw debris would be amanageable tradeoff versus its greater speed as long as debris didn't blow back and damage the craft itself.
 
Last edited:
jeffb said:
The heavy legs are effectively control actuators, landing gear and heavy shock absorbers for combat landings combined into single units.
Click to expand...

The weight of the vehicle rests on legs that stick out *sideways.* Take a look at the wide, wide world of actual aircraft and see if you can spot any aircraft *ever* that had articulated landing gear that projected any distance *sideways.*

Why don't you see that? For the same reason you can stand on your legs without complaint, but for some reason it's considered a war crime to make your prisoners hang in an "Iron Cross" pose above your pool full of sharks with fricken' laser beams on their foreheads.

Example2ofironcross.jpg


More importantly, it's very cool.
Click to expand...

It's no USCMC UD-4 Cheyenne.
 
Orionblamblam said:
The weight of the vehicle rests on legs that stick out *sideways.* Take a look at the wide, wide world of actual aircraft and see if you can spot any aircraft *ever* that had articulated landing gear that projected any distance *sideways.*
Click to expand...
istrebitel-mig-23-sovetskogo-proizvodstva-sbili-v-efiopii-wkt5a2gv-1606735621.t.jpg

;) :D :eek:

cheers,
Robin.
 
Hornet gear are like that too. Same with the Mirage F-1. These are cases where it's "shady gear or NO gear".
 
Hornet and Mirage aren't as extreme as the MiG, though. I once read an article by the Great Gunston in which reckoned that the MiG-23 main gear had 'escaped from a portable bridge' . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
Orionblamblam said:
jeffb said:
The heavy legs are effectively control actuators, landing gear and heavy shock absorbers for combat landings combined into single units.
Click to expand...

The weight of the vehicle rests on legs that stick out *sideways.* Take a look at the wide, wide world of actual aircraft and see if you can spot any aircraft *ever* that had articulated landing gear that projected any distance *sideways.*

Why don't you see that? For the same reason you can stand on your legs without complaint, but for some reason it's considered a war crime to make your prisoners hang in an "Iron Cross" pose above your pool full of sharks with fricken' laser beams on their foreheads.

Example2ofironcross.jpg


More importantly, it's very cool.
Click to expand...

It's no USCMC UD-4 Cheyenne.
Click to expand...
1628029472755.png

1628029497067.png

1628029542942.png


<cough>

The Aliens drop-ship is pretty cool, the overhead swing out rocket magazine/launchers are an "interesting" design choice but it's cool.
 
And I always wondered about the "air flow" of the center engine on a Viper:

414MvnJ4xSL._AC_.jpg
 
jeffb said:
Orionblamblam said:
jeffb said:
The heavy legs are effectively control actuators, landing gear and heavy shock absorbers for combat landings combined into single units.
Click to expand...

The weight of the vehicle rests on legs that stick out *sideways.* Take a look at the wide, wide world of actual aircraft and see if you can spot any aircraft *ever* that had articulated landing gear that projected any distance *sideways.*
Click to expand...
View attachment 661983



View attachment 661985


<cough>
Click to expand...
Ahem:

1627963627087-png.661931


One of these is not like the others. Those Cessnas have *fixed,* not articulated, gear, and the legs don't stick out sideways so much as at an angle. The "Dragonfly" not only has the landing gear cantilevered out sideways, they are on at least *three* hinge points.
 
Last edited:
You can google "Hyundai New Horizons Studio" or "Hyundai Elevate" I remember seeing the principle proposed for helicopter landing gear (for landing on uneven, unstable rocky terrain), but can't remember exactly where. You can see why Hyundai bought Boston Dynamics.
 

Attachments

  • 960x0.jpg
    960x0.jpg
    40.5 KB · Views: 6
  • HYUNDAI-ELEVATE-1.jpg
    HYUNDAI-ELEVATE-1.jpg
    246.5 KB · Views: 6
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom