Question on Thunderbolt StarFurys and pilot seating.
D.K.Barnes
I was wondering if someone out there could answer the following
question. Do Thunderbolt StarFury Pilots stand up in their seat like
Starfury MK I pilots or do they have traditional fighter pilot seats?
Thanks
D.K.Barnes
Andrew Swallow
news:bqo4pt$ecp$1...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu...
standing up but once launched the pilots would be lying on
their backs. This is a very comfortable position to fly from.
Andrew Swallow
John W. Kennedy
They seemed to be sitting in one scene.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Jeffrey Kaplan
; I was wondering if someone out there could answer the following
; question. Do Thunderbolt StarFury Pilots stand up in their seat like
; Starfury MK I pilots or do they have traditional fighter pilot seats?
The Starfury Mk1 pilots don't really stand as there is no gravity. It
would be more accurate to say that they are flat on their backs due to
thrust induced inertia. :)
To answer you question, it looks like the Thunderbolt variant does
indeed have seats. This is probably due to the fact that the unlike
the standard Mk1, the Thunderbolts are designed to handle atmospheric
flight. Form following function, by elongating the cockpit section for
better aerodynamics, the pilot accommodations have to be altered to
match the new geometry. Ie, a seated position.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan <*> www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled <*> Send personal mail to gordol
"What are you afraid of?" "Nothing. Well, spiders." (Amb. Delenn and
Marcus Cole, B5 "Ceremonies of Light and Darkness")
Dirk A. Loedding
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@eatspam.btinternet.com> wrote:
>> I was wondering if someone out there could answer the following
>> question. Do Thunderbolt StarFury Pilots stand up in their seat like
>> Starfury MK I pilots or do they have traditional fighter pilot seats?
>>
>Just a minor technical point. The actors in StarFurys may be
>standing up but once launched the pilots would be lying on
>their backs. This is a very comfortable position to fly from.
Another point: Unless they're accelerating in a direction
perpendicular to the angle of their repose, they won't *feel* like
they're lying on their backs. Depending on the angle of thrust, they
could feel like they're on their sides, hanging from the straps,
standing up, hanging upside down, or various combinations of those
positions. Which, of course, requires them to be well strapped-in.
--
Thought for the day:
Klingon prompt: Strike any user when ready.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dirk A. Loedding <*> ju...@america.net |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Matt Ion
"Jeffrey Kaplan" <ras...@gordol.org> wrote in message
news:n6b0tvse91rop7868...@news20.forteinc.com...
> To answer you question, it looks like the Thunderbolt variant does
> indeed have seats. This is probably due to the fact that the unlike
> the standard Mk1, the Thunderbolts are designed to handle atmospheric
> flight. Form following function, by elongating the cockpit section for
> better aerodynamics, the pilot accommodations have to be altered to
> match the new geometry. Ie, a seated position.
Not to mention, to counter the effects of gravity when operating inside an
atmosphere...a standing position would become quite tiresome.
Den
news:jyOAb.598548$9l5.132857@pd7tw2no:
> Not to mention, to counter the effects of gravity when operating
> inside an atmosphere...a standing position would become quite
> tiresome.
Gravity has nothing to do with being inside an atmosphere. Barring
aerodynamics and drag, there is no difference between flying such a ship a
mile above the ground in the air or a mile above the ground in a vacuum.
Assuming mass remains constant, the ship and the pilot will experience the
same gravity.
Matt Ion
"Den" <etran...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns944AA9F66F...@216.168.3.44...
The presence of an atmosphere requires the presence of gravity, does it not?
So if you're operating inside an atmoshpere, there will necessarily also be
significant gravity - a planet with an atmosphere similar to Earth's will
likely have similar gravity, and there will be a constant downward force of
up to 1G at steady, level flight. Even at one mile altitude on earth,
gravity is close enough to 1G that the effective difference on the human
body is negligible. In fact, try flying on your every-day commercial jet -
average altitidue 5-6 miles, airspeed around 600 knots - and tell me that
sitting isn't significantly more comfortable than standing for extended
periods (lack of headroom notwithstanding).
Andrew Swallow
>
> Gravity has nothing to do with being inside an atmosphere. Barring
> aerodynamics and drag, there is no difference between flying such a ship a
> mile above the ground in the air or a mile above the ground in a vacuum.
> Assuming mass remains constant, the ship and the pilot will experience the
> same gravity.
>
orbit. When in orbit you appear weightless.
Andrew Swallow
Matt Ion
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@eatspam.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:br1ple$rps$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
In GEOSYCHRONOUS orbit, you are effectively weightless (relative to object
you're orbiting). Anything below that, the effects of gravity are
measurable, if not noticeable.
If you're inside an atmosphere, you're necessarily also inside a planet's
gravity well, and the thicker the atmosphere, the greater the effect of the
gravity.
Pat Galea
> In GEOSYCHRONOUS orbit, you are effectively weightless (relative to object
> you're orbiting). Anything below that, the effects of gravity are
> measurable, if not noticeable.
Geosynchronous orbit has nothing to do with it. That's just an orbit
whose period matches the rotation of the Earth below. If the Earth were
spinning faster, then the geosynchronous orbit would be lower. If it
were spinning slower, then the geosynchronous orbit would be higher. The
gravitational field at various altitudes would be unaffected.
pg
Matt Ion
"Pat Galea" <p...@dudegalea.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vt9g7gf...@news.supernews.com...
I stand corrected...
Den
$rps$1...@hercules.btinternet.com:
> There is a big difference between in in orbit and not being in
> orbit. When in orbit you appear weightless.
yes, "appear" being the operative word. :o)
Kathryn Huxtable
Actually, you *are* weightless when in orbit, or "free fall" to give a
more technical and all-inclusive term. You are not, however, massless.
Weight is the sensation of resistance to acceleration. There is no
resistance in free fall and so there is no weight.
-K
Den
news:ekvfro...@kathrynhuxtable.org:
> Actually, you *are* weightless when in orbit, or "free fall" to give a
> more technical and all-inclusive term. You are not, however, massless.
>
> Weight is the sensation of resistance to acceleration. There is no
> resistance in free fall and so there is no weight.
So those that have higher readings on a scale really are just more prone to
resist. I can live with that.
Kathryn Huxtable
Yep. It's called inertial mass. General relativity says that inertial
mass is equivalent to gravitational mass.
-K
Den
> Yep. It's called inertial mass. General relativity says that inertial
> mass is equivalent to gravitational mass.
So it has nothing to do with how much I resist temptation or things like
that?
Laura Appelbaum
news:bqpq5c$f05$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
lying or standing flat would be the *worst* of all possible positions vis a
vis dealing with high G-forces and not passing out. You'd want to have your
legs bent up way high for circulatory reasons, etc.
LMA
Jeffrey Kaplan
; Not to mention, to counter the effects of gravity when operating inside an
; atmosphere...a standing position would become quite tiresome.
You don't suddenly get gravity when entering an atmosphere. You start
to feel the effects of gravity when you are no longer countering it
with enough speed perpendicular to "down".
--
Jeffrey Kaplan <*> www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled <*> Send personal mail to gordol
"There are two castes of Minbari: the warrior caste and the religious
caste. The warrior caste would not understand. It is not their way."
"So we will not tell them and spare them the confusion." (Lennier and
Amb. Delenn to Aldous, B5 "Grail")
Jeffrey Kaplan
; The presence of an atmosphere requires the presence of gravity, does it not?
Probably.
; So if you're operating inside an atmoshpere, there will necessarily also be
; significant gravity - a planet with an atmosphere similar to Earth's will
; likely have similar gravity, and there will be a constant downward force of
; up to 1G at steady, level flight. Even at one mile altitude on earth,
Go to orbit and kill your speed perpendicular to "down". What happens?
You fall. But wait... you're not in an atmosphere, so how can you
fall?
Gravity.
The reason why you'd feel the effects of gravity in an atmosphere is
only because if you were going fast enough to maintain orbital
velocity, you'd burn up from the friction.
; body is negligible. In fact, try flying on your every-day commercial jet -
; average altitidue 5-6 miles, airspeed around 600 knots - and tell me that
; sitting isn't significantly more comfortable than standing for extended
; periods (lack of headroom notwithstanding).
The reason why the crew on board the ISS don't feel gravity is because
the space station is moving at orbital velocity. The centrifugal force
exerted towards the outside of their orbit pretty much exactly counters
the effects of gravity. You want to test this? Take a small bucket on
a rope. Fill the bucket about halfway with water and start spinning it
around yourself. Note that you are not spilling any of the water, even
though you have it going fast enough to be sideways to the ground.
This is because the centrifugal force exerted towards the outside of
its orbit (around you) is strong enough to counter gravity.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan <*> www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled <*> Send personal mail to gordol
"Nobody's ever been to the Vorlon Homeworld and come back again yet she
goes, comes back like she took just took a trip to the corner and now
she's working for Kosh. Is anybody else as creeped out about this as I
am?" [Sheridan, Ivanova, and Franklin all raise hands.] (Mr. Garibaldi,
B5 "Passing Through Gethsemane")
Kathryn Huxtable
Not that I've heard. ;-)
-K
Christophe Bachmann
"Matt Ion" <sou...@moltenimage.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:HX1Bb.603936$6C4.151042@pd7tw1no...
>
> "Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@eatspam.btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:br1ple$rps$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "Den" <etran...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns944AA9F66F...@216.168.3.44...
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > Gravity has nothing to do with being inside an atmosphere. Barring
> > > aerodynamics and drag, there is no difference between flying such a
ship
> > > a mile above the ground in the air or a mile above the ground in a
vacuum.
> > > Assuming mass remains constant, the ship and the pilot will
experience
> > >the same gravity.
Yes
> > There is a big difference between in in orbit and not being in
> > orbit. When in orbit you appear weightless.
No, orbit is just a particular case of free-fall. When in free-fall you
appear weightless. See below.
> In GEOSYCHRONOUS orbit, you are effectively weightless (relative to
object
> you're orbiting). Anything below that, the effects of gravity are
> measurable, if not noticeable.
>
> If you're inside an atmosphere, you're necessarily also inside a planet's
> gravity well, and the thicker the atmosphere, the greater the effect of
the
> gravity.
Once again no ! Gravity has nothing to do with atmosphere (except hold it
togather.)
The gravity well of any object goes on forever, becoming more and more
tenuous, and once you get far enough it can be disregarded (but is still
there).
Geosynchronous or not when you're in true orbit, you're falling just as
fast down as you're flying forwards, and thus you're circling the body.
(More precise info available on request) Barring air drag, this goes on
forever. And as you and your vehicle are both in free fall you don't feel
gravity any more, just as in any free fall. So whatever orbit, (once again
barring any other force like air drag) is effectively a freefall and thus
weightlessness. However, inside an atmosphere you just can't go fast enough
to be in orbit. But you can achieve weightlessness inside atmosphere as the
astronauts know who tested just that on board a special plane. See :
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/fluid/zero-g.plane.htm
And yes, the thicker the atmosphere the greater the effect of gravity, but
just because atmosphere is subject to gravity as is everything else and air
falls towards the center of gravity. So a better formulation would be : the
greater the effect of gravity, the thicker the atmosphere, cause before
consequence.
Hope this clears up some mis-understandings about physics.
--
Salutations, greetings,
Guiraud Belissen, Chāteau du Ciel, Drachenwald
Chris CII, Rennes, France
Matt Ion
"Christophe Bachmann" <Chri...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:br2nft$v8v$1...@news-reader4.wanadoo.fr...
>
> Hope this clears up some mis-understandings about physics.
Sure, except it has nothing to do with my original point, which was simply
that sitting would be a more comfortable position than standing for piloting
a Thunderbolt Fury, when operating within a planet's gravity well (which
INCIDENTALLY means you're PROBABLY operating inside an atmosphere, which is
where the confusion came in).
Matt Ion
> Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Matt Ion said:
>
> ; Not to mention, to counter the effects of gravity when operating inside
an
> ; atmosphere...a standing position would become quite tiresome.
>
> You don't suddenly get gravity when entering an atmosphere. You start
> to feel the effects of gravity when you are no longer countering it
> with enough speed perpendicular to "down".
True.
But the point is, we see lots of instances of the Thunderbolts operating
similar to jet fighters, parallel (or concentrically, if you want to get
picky) to the planet's surface at relatively low altitudes (particularly
when bombing Marsie domes). One would expect this would constitute the bulk
of atmospheric manouevers, and thus a seated position for the pilots would
be the most comfortable during most of their atmospheric flying.
I doubt you'd see transatmospheric fighters wasting a lot of their
dogfighting abilities within the atmosphere and most of that action would
probably be taken to space, and actual transitional time would also be
relatively limited, so we can likely assume that 95% of the pilot's time in
the ship in either in open space, or close to a planet and in the noticeable
influence of a gravity well.
BTW, one thing that I DON'T get, is why they fold up the extra little
atmospheric stabilizers when they head into space... it's not like they're
actually going to affect anything either way in a vaccuum, might as well
just leave them deployed.
Pelzo63
atmospheric stabilizers when they head into space... it's not like they're
actually going to affect anything either way in a vaccuum, might as well
smaller target?
i know i know, it's like 1 inch...
...Chris
Andrew Swallow
news:_XvBb.628005$pl3.379858@pd7tw3no...
>
[snip]
>
> BTW, one thing that I DON'T get, is why they fold up the extra little
> atmospheric stabilizers when they head into space... it's not like they're
> actually going to affect anything either way in a vaccuum, might as well
> just leave them deployed.
>
>
only apply when they land in a destroyer but getting into the
habit avoids mistakes. Real world, it also gives the CGI people
something to do.
Andrew Swallow
Wesley Struebing
Something to do with moment of inertia, perhaps? Can someone say for
sure whether there is less "resistance" to a turn since there is less
mass far away from the center of mass? Since extended, the wingtip
would need to circumscribe a larger arc than would the "fins" with the
winglets folded...
(don't know, just a guess. I'm not a physicist nor do I ever play
one...)
Den
> Guess - having to fit down a StarFury launch tube? This would
> only apply when they land in a destroyer but getting into the
> habit avoids mistakes. Real world, it also gives the CGI people
> something to do.
I wish it were that way. If there is nothing to do one is just as likely to
be "let go". All this fancy CGI stuff nowdays, yet nobody is hiring.
Advertising yes... hiring no.
Pelzo63
>only apply when they land in a destroyer but getting into the
did we ever see starfuries landing at b5?
...chris
Matt Ion
Yeah, I think that's the best answer all-around ;)
Matt Ion
"Pelzo63" <pel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031210220331...@mb-m14.aol.com...
Yes... er... funny, I'm sure we have, although off the top of my head, I
can't point to a specific incident. Seems to me that they enter through the
main cargo doors on the station's axis. I would guess there's some sort of
conveyor system from there to the Cobra Bays...
Aubrey W. Adkins
Aubrey
Matt Ion
"Aubrey W. Adkins" <xazq...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3FD8FFA9...@cox.net...
> >
> > did we ever see starfuries landing at b5?
>
> No, all we ever saw was them flying into the front of the station.
> Aubrey
That would explain all the dents... ;)
Andrew Swallow
in the CGI field. <g>
With luck, Warner Brothers may even keep back up copies of its
high cost intellectual property in different places. Alaska sounds
a nice cool place for the backup.
Andrew Swallow
Andy Shepard
> Go to orbit and kill your speed perpendicular to "down". What happens?
> You fall. But wait... you're not in an atmosphere, so how can you
> fall?
>
> Gravity.
You would fall because of gravity, but you still wouldn't feel it, because
it would pull uniformly on every part of your body [1]. You only feel
anything when you accelerate away from a geodesic world line, with the
requisite force applied at the surface of your body and producing compression,
as on the surface of a planet or falling in an atmosphere at terminal velocity.
[1] Modulo "tidal forces" that drop off according to an inverse cube law and
are too weak to feel under any normal gravitational field (For example, I'm
1.75 meters tall and about 0.4 wide. At the surface of the earth, I will
experience a head to toe stretching of about 5.4 * 10^-6 N and a side to side
compression of about 1.5 * 10^-6 N.). In Newtonian theory this comes from
the variation of the gravitational field over my body (the tidal forces are
the partial derivatives of the gravitational field in various directions times
the size of the object under consideration in that direction). In general
relativity the tidal forces are the components of the Riemann curvature tensor,
which is the only aspect of gravitation you can measure locally. The tidal
forces are what would eventually kill you when falling into a black hole.
--
Andy Shepard
<andy+...@andyshepard.org>
GAT d+ s-:- a20 C++++ ULI++++ P+ L+++ E W-(--) N++ o? K w--- O? M-- V PS+++
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@* 5+++ X R tv-- b++(+++) DI+ D+(++) G+++ e>++ h+ !r--- !y+
John W. Kennedy
> Yep. It's called inertial mass. General relativity says that inertial
> mass is equivalent to gravitational mass.
So does Newtonian physics. The innovation of GR was the idea that
inertial mass _is_ gravitational mass.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Pelzo63
so we did see them ENTER the front of the station? i don't recall anything like
that, but if so, that's good enough to what i was asking for.
...Chris
Kathryn Huxtable
> Kathryn Huxtable wrote:
>> Yep. It's called inertial mass. General relativity says that inertial
>> mass is equivalent to gravitational mass.
>
> So does Newtonian physics. The innovation of GR was the idea that
> inertial mass _is_ gravitational mass.
Yes.
-K
Andrew Swallow
the new Thunderbolt when Bester turned up in a StarFury.
Andrew Swallow
Richard
news:vt24hij...@corp.supernews.com:
Whether or not you are in an atmosphere has zero effect. You will
experience G forces no matter whether in an atmosphere or not when the
craft changes direction.
--
Richard
Jeffrey Kaplan
; On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 12:29:04 +0000 (UTC) in <<1b08tvg26v17bqhah...@news20.forteinc.com>>, Jeffrey Kaplan <ras...@gordol.org> wrote:
; > Go to orbit and kill your speed perpendicular to "down". What happens?
; > You fall. But wait... you're not in an atmosphere, so how can you
; > fall?
; >
; > Gravity.
;
; You would fall because of gravity, but you still wouldn't feel it, because
; it would pull uniformly on every part of your body [1]. You only feel
Which in no way contradicts what I wrote.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan <*> www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled <*> Send personal mail to gordol
"Thank you for your time Delenn. Since you aren't able to help me I'll
just continue making inquiries on my own. Eventually I will figure it
out." [She walks away and he mutters.] "I'll let you know what I
find." (G'Kar, B5 "Voices Of Authority")
Jeffrey Kaplan
; I doubt you'd see transatmospheric fighters wasting a lot of their
; dogfighting abilities within the atmosphere and most of that action would
; probably be taken to space, and actual transitional time would also be
Depends on the mission, of course.
; BTW, one thing that I DON'T get, is why they fold up the extra little
; atmospheric stabilizers when they head into space... it's not like they're
; actually going to affect anything either way in a vaccuum, might as well
; just leave them deployed.
There are a couple of reasons. The further out from the center of mass
something is, the more it effects the angular momentum. This is why
the Starfuries have their engines out at the tips of the X-foils to
begin with. This is more important in an vacuum than in an atmosphere.
So, in the vacuum of space, where conservation of mass and momentum is
important in a high performance vehicle, you want to have as much of
your mass within the perimeter of the engines as possible.
Plus, by having them always stick out, they can be damaged more easily.
If you don't need to use 'em, you may as well put them away. Also,
hanger space is usually at a premium so the wings would fold for that
purpose anyway.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan <*> www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled <*> Send personal mail to gordol
"You know, you're demented." (Mr. Garibaldi, B5 "TKO")
Jeffrey Kaplan
; did we ever see starfuries landing at b5?
Yes. Well, sort of. We've seen them enter the station through the
main docking port more than once. I think we may have seen a Starfury
on a landing cradle once, but I don't recall ever seeing one in transit
from the landing bay(s) to the launch bay. I think we've seen a
Starfury launch once from the main docking bay (Bester, at the end of
"Ship of Tears").
--
Jeffrey Kaplan <*> www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled <*> Send personal mail to gordol
"It's the same pattern they used a thousand years ago. It keeps the
major powers off guard, never knowing when to expect an attack." (Amb.
Delenn, B5 "Interludes and Examinations")
Vorlonagent
> > atmospheric stabilizers when they head into space... it's not like
they're
> > actually going to affect anything either way in a vaccuum, might as well
> > just leave them deployed.
> >
> >
> Guess - having to fit down a StarFury launch tube? This would
> only apply when they land in a destroyer but getting into the
> habit avoids mistakes. Real world, it also gives the CGI people
> something to do.
That would be my guess. A good habit to get into.
--
Vorlonagent
"Methane martini.
Shaken, not sitrred."
Vorlonagent
Yes. They landed through the main entrance, same as what freighters and
transports use.
The cobra bays are launch-only.
Vorlonagent
> main docking port more than once. I think we may have seen a Starfury
> on a landing cradle once, but I don't recall ever seeing one in transit
> from the landing bay(s) to the launch bay.
I have a possibly false memory trace of 2 starfuries on a flatbed...
Jeffrey Kaplan
; > Yes. Well, sort of. We've seen them enter the station through the
; > main docking port more than once. I think we may have seen a Starfury
; > on a landing cradle once, but I don't recall ever seeing one in transit
; > from the landing bay(s) to the launch bay.
;
; I have a possibly false memory trace of 2 starfuries on a flatbed...
I have a similar memory. That would be the "landing cradle", I guess.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan <*> www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled <*> Send personal mail to gordol
"Zog." "Zog? What do you mean zog? Zog what? Zog yes, Zog no?"
(Walkers at Sigma 957 and Cmdr. Ivanova, B5 "Voices Of Authority")
Andrew Swallow
dated 10 December and people commented on it several days ago.
It looks like one of the routers is being very slow in forwarding the
messages.
Andrew Swallow
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@eatspam.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:br7ctn$bv0$1...@titan.btinternet.com...