Jump to content

Why are so many Star Wars vehicles and spaceships so badly designed?


raandomname

Recommended Posts

Some examples:

 

Nebulon-B Frigatte and Recuscant Destroyer: one proton torpedo into that thin central section and the whole ship breaks apart.

 

AT-TE: the cockpit, ammunition storage and main gunner's seat are 100% exposed to enemy fire, large blind spots especially on the sides and 'underbelly', large gaps in the side armor for no reason

 

AT-AT: extremely slow and unmaneuverable, guns with firing angles of like 20 degrees that can neither rotate to the sides nor up and down, has legs that are so unnecesarilly long it is really easy to off-balance, vulnerable 'neck'

 

Imperial Star Destroyer: exposed and unarmored shield generators and bridge sitting right on the most noticable location, no point defense canons

 

Death Star: ventilation shaft, nuff said

 

TIE Fighter: large target from the sides, no peripheral vision, because it is blocked by the wings and the viewing panel does not cover the sides of the cockpit, terrible structural integrity, because the large wings are only connected to the cockpit by two thin metal bars

 

B-Wing: I dont even ...

 

Seriously, who designed this bs and how did these designs ever enter production?

Share your thoughts and add your own examples there still are plenty more.

Edited by raandomname
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say that if you read the X-wing series of books your arguments against the TIE and X-wing falls apart.

 

I mean the X-wing's cannons are angled to intersect at a specific distance. They aren't aimed straight ahead...

 

Ok on the X-Wing, but what about the TIEs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok on the X-Wing, but what about the TIEs?

Agility. In space (note I'm not a physicist) the TIE's frame is credited with making it more maneuverable and it is lighter and nimbler than an X-wing. Also the design is meant to be for intimidation. Also the panels serve an actual function which I can't remember right now.

Edited by StarSquirrel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agility. In space (note I'm not a physicist) the TIE's frame is credited with making it more maneuverable and it is lighter and nimbler than an X-wing. Also the design is meant to be for intimidation. Also the panels serve an actual function which I can't remember right now.

 

Weren't they supposed to be solar panels?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple answer: Science Fiction vs Future Fantasy. Star Wars is Future Fantasy not Science Fiction. The difference is that Sci-Fi has some basis in current scientific fact. FF OTOH leans on suspension of disbelief - the why something works or is designed the way it is, is not important; it works because "it's...um...technology." (

 

Since the EU too much of Star Wars technology has been explained poorly. Ignore it all and just accept, "it's...um...technology" and you are much better off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, yes. They are solar array wings.

 

This for the TIE fighter..

 

X-wing....the same thing they did with WWII aircraft that had machine guns or canons in the wings....the pilot tells his ground crew at what range he wants to rounds to converge on.

 

The Nebulon B-Frigate...that's kinda a multipoint bit. They try to avoid the central bit due to it being a ship initially designed for the Empire to deal with defense against Rebel fighters (they weren't swiming in Capital ships in the beginning.) I believe the design was inspired by something else though...the Discovery 1 from 2001 A Space Odyssey. The idea was that the rear section is exclusive propulsion/engineering space. All the living, work space, hangers etc are in the front section. The engine was powered by a Nuclear reactor in a way similar to this....NERVA In the event things went pear shaped you could detatch the engine/reactor modual. The Discovery's design was actually based in real science...the only thing omitted from the final design were wings that were intended to radiate heat from the thermonuclear propulsion system but Kubrik was afraid people would get confused and think the ship was designed to fly in an atmosphere.

 

In all reality the Nebulon-B is probably one of the few ships whose design actually appears to be based in real science.

 

As for the rest...yeah "its sci-fi.". Tbh this is probably the one purpose built star fighter from Sci-fi that makes sense to me from a combat AND science concept...starfury. The engines are on the ends of each which and can provide thrust both forward and back. As there is no air resistance in space this allows for rapid 180 degree pivots in all directions on the central axis. To minimize the effect of G's on the pilot they are the axis. The craft can't fly in an atmosphere, but the wings are still swept to provide peripheral vision. The only limit to the design is being able to look behind but the sensons of the time make that far less of an issue than it would be IRL.

Edited by Ghisallo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just Star Wars have you seen the enterprise? It's a giant pizza cutter.

 

Which one? The NX-01 has SOME sense to it. The warp nacelles on the "outside" to create the warp bubble...then a disk. I never understood the NCC-1701 design though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.