 |
 |
|
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Vader
Community Member
Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 267
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Ah, a little reality check: a hydrogen fuel cell isn't any kind of a propulsion system; it's a technology to generate electricity, no more, no less. Particularly, in a relatively small scale -- it works well from handheld units, up to the scale of vehicles, perhaps single homes, but is not considered a viable technology for building power plants.
It is more proper to think of fuel cells as batteries that you can refill instead of recharge, than as generators or engines.
So, as I mentioned earlier: you're likely find dozens, if not hundreds, of these all around the Nostromo as auxiliary/reserve power supplies for various systems, but they won't be the main power generating system. The technology simply isn't a good fit for that -- not least because they consume a lot more hydrogen and oxygen per watt generated than a fusion plant would.
Agree with BR completely: it would hardly be cost efficient to build more than one atmospheric propulsion system into a ship, unless you actually need both to land. And as we've noted, the antigrav makes the job of the atmospheric drive relatively easy: it "merely" need to budge the inertia of the ship's mass, either in getting it moving or stopping its movement. It will never need to fight the constant downward acceleration of gravity.
I am actually inclined to think that the ship only has one realspace propulsion system at all, period, in or out of atmosphere: the reactionless thrusters we've been postulating all along.
This would mean that the billows of gas emanating from the ship during the landing sequence actually aren't from reaction thrusters, but from the atmospheric cooling systems of the thruster units revving up.
This would make the Nostromo's propulsion systems consist of:- Real/Newtonian space reactionless thrusters
- Antigrav unit
- Hyperspace generator (the "towing rig")
| BR26354 wrote: | | Space Jockey: I do believe, and correct me anybody if I'm wrong in this guess, that the four, MASSIVE clusters of cylinders in pillar form seen in the foreground, as Ripley scrambles in view in the comparitively tiny windows of the Engine Room to avert the self-destruct, are indeed the Fusion Reactors of the Nostromo which are being postulated here. |
More likely that this space is the hyperspace generator, actually.
A tug is basically a hull, built around a vastly oversized propulsion system and systems for handling and fastening towing cables. Everything else, including the crew, is there only to enable these three parts. Anything that does not contribute to enabling these three parts is superfluous, and will never be designed into the vessel to begin with.
A hyperspace tug is likely to be exactly the same, so it would stand to reason that the single most massive and/or voluminous system on board is the thing the entire ship is built around, in this case the hyperspace generator.
And the space that the engineering control room looks out into would certainly seem to fit that bill.
And besides -- a hydrogen power plant needs to be big, but nowhere near that big!
The volume of a sphere, say 15-20m in diameter, ought to be quite sufficient to house the entire power plant -- the fusion bottle itself, the thermoelectric power generation, the primary cooling systems. The secondary cooling systems (where the heat is radiated into space) need to be on the hull for obvious reasons. The tertiary cooling systems (where the heat is dumped into atmospheric gases when not in space) will probably be in the nacelles.
Something will need to transport the heat from the primary to the secondary and tertiary cooling systems, though... Water won't do the job. Unless we can keep it at insane pressures, of course...
_________________
26354 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
BR26354
Community Member
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 135
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vader wrote: |
I am actually inclined to think that the ship only has one realspace propulsion system at all, period, in or out of atmosphere: the reactionless thrusters we've been postulating all along.
This would mean that the billows of gas emanating from the ship during the landing sequence actually aren't from reaction thrusters, but from the atmospheric cooling systems of the thruster units revving up.
This would make the Nostromo's propulsion systems consist of:- Real/Newtonian space reactionless thrusters
- Antigrav unit
- Hyperspace generator (the "towing rig")
| BR26354 wrote: | | Space Jockey: I do believe, and correct me anybody if I'm wrong in this guess, that the four, MASSIVE clusters of cylinders in pillar form seen in the foreground, as Ripley scrambles in view in the comparitively tiny windows of the Engine Room to avert the self-destruct, are indeed the Fusion Reactors of the Nostromo which are being postulated here. |
More likely that this space is the hyperspace generator, actually.
Something will need to transport the heat from the primary to the secondary and tertiary cooling systems, though... Water won't do the job. Unless we can keep it at insane pressures, of course... |
Ok--then if those four pillars are indeed the Hyperdrive units, would each "pillar"/Hyperdrive engine need a separate fusion reactor, with an accompanying cooling unit, to operate? I'm thinking here of the four "nuclear bolts" in the Scuttling Procedure, specifically one "nuclear bolt" per cooling unit, and of course four Hyperdrive generators/engines.
Ripley says to the impassive MUTHR "Mother, turn the cooling units back on," which is where I'm guessing multiple cooling units, one per the massive Hyperdrive generator/engine/cylinders pillar.
Oh here perhaps is an idea that is a good one: what if the Hyperdrive generator/engine/pillar ALSO does double duty as the reactionless Gravity drive. My thinking being that such an impressive piece of technology, at lower outputs, serves as the reactionless drive. At higher outputs, it creates the Hyperspatial bubble around the Nostromo and the gigantic refinery platform--when all four are generating at capacity.
BTW Vader, presuming you are correct about the flaring of gas being merely excess heat that is venting from the reactionless drive system, could that explain the three LONG exhaust tubes running from where the Nostromo is nestled in flight on the refinery, through the middle of the refinery platform?
_________________
Replicants are like any other machine...they're either a benefit, or a hazard. If they're a benefit it's not my problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Vader
Community Member
Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 267
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BR26354 wrote: | Ok--then if those four pillars are indeed the Hyperdrive units, would each "pillar"/Hyperdrive engine need a separate fusion reactor, with an accompanying cooling unit, to operate? I'm thinking here of the four "nuclear bolts" in the Scuttling Procedure, specifically one "nuclear bolt" per cooling unit, and of course four Hyperdrive generators/engines.
Ripley says to the impassive MUTHR "Mother, turn the cooling units back on," which is where I'm guessing multiple cooling units, one per the massive Hyperdrive generator/engine/cylinders pillar. |
We only see the four pillars ... there might be more, out of shot.
I've always interpreted the quadruple "nuclear bolts" as a failsafe: you're forced to repeat the procedure four times just to make sure the sequence isn't activated by mistake. After all, there isn't likely to be a situation where you only blow up one fourth of the ship, so there wouldn't be any need for separate bolts/activation cylinders for individual "scuttling charges".
It makes sense for one sequence to arm everything that is going to be armed, just that the sequence needs to be long and complicated, so as to not ever be activated by anything but full intent.
| BR26354 wrote: | | Oh here perhaps is an idea that is a good one: what if the Hyperdrive generator/engine/pillar ALSO does double duty as the reactionless Gravity drive. My thinking being that such an impressive piece of technology, at lower outputs, serves as the reactionless drive. At higher outputs, it creates the Hyperspatial bubble around the Nostromo and the gigantic refinery platform--when all four are generating at capacity. |
Thing is that since we see the thruster nozzles flaring during boost, we know the reactionless drive isn't nestled inside the ship with the hyperspace generator -- the thrusters are the reactionless drive.
Therefore the reactionless thrusters can't be a "gravity drive", such as in e.g. David Weber's Honor Harrington universe, but must rather be some kind of "thruster plates", as in e.g. the MegaTraveller universe.
| BR26354 wrote: | | BTW Vader, presuming you are correct about the flaring of gas being merely excess heat that is venting from the reactionless drive system, could that explain the three LONG exhaust tubes running from where the Nostromo is nestled in flight on the refinery, through the middle of the refinery platform? |
I think the above point about "thruster plates" could explain it: the reactionless thrusters need to act into open space for their effect to work. You can't direct them into a wall any more than you could a normal reaction drive.
Or, we could reinterpret the refinery, and decide that the three thruster openings at the back don't go through to the tug dock, but are in fact thruster nozzles in their own right.
This would actually be my preference.
_________________
26354 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Space Jockey
Community Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2009
Posts: 559
Location: East Tennessee
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We should probably start to think about editing this down, refining it and coming to a conclusion, unless there are other ideas forthcoming.
I've already begun drafting, and we need to start bulletpointing the ideas here and figuring out what direction we are going to take in respect of the information thus far. That way we can begin to think about other things that affect B and C Deck layouts and keep it rolling.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FenGiddel
Community Member
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 368
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree. The discussion opens many options that could be used to create a "Nostromo Technical Manual" given the degree of detail and knowledge demonstrated.
I've been looking for deckplans or other description of actual VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) crew areas/superstructure since I figure that might be a good jumping off point to figure out what we should flesh out for each deck.
I'm reviewing SJ's technical drawings of the decks at 10 ft intervals to start understanding how much area there is to play with.
And do you guys remember 8th_Passenger, the guy who was working on the 3-D galley? His work was good and is missed. His help would benefit this.
And Starrigger, who did some dynamic 3-D bridge work, both film-depicted and California production-art styles!
And Kremmen, who did an awesome 3-D Nostromo model and closeup landing leg?
And even Mark Sheppard who helped nail down, with help from Jon Sorenson, Ash’s Blister?
If you guys are lingering around out there, please jump in! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Mark Sheppard
Community Member
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 951
Location: In my office playing golf, pouring drinks, making deals.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vader wrote: | Ah, a little reality check: a hydrogen fuel cell isn't any kind of a propulsion system; it's a technology to generate electricity, no more, no less. Particularly, in a relatively small scale -- it works well from handheld units, up to the scale of vehicles, perhaps single homes, but is not considered a viable technology for building power plants.
It is more proper to think of fuel cells as batteries that you can refill instead of recharge, than as generators or engines.
So, as I mentioned earlier: you're likely find dozens, if not hundreds, of these all around the Nostromo as auxiliary/reserve power supplies for various systems, but they won't be the main power generating system. The technology simply isn't a good fit for that -- not least because they consume a lot more hydrogen and oxygen per watt generated than a fusion plant would.
Agree with BR completely: it would hardly be cost efficient to build more than one atmospheric propulsion system into a ship, unless you actually need both to land. And as we've noted, the antigrav makes the job of the atmospheric drive relatively easy: it "merely" need to budge the inertia of the ship's mass, either in getting it moving or stopping its movement. It will never need to fight the constant downward acceleration of gravity.
I am actually inclined to think that the ship only has one realspace propulsion system at all, period, in or out of atmosphere: the reactionless thrusters we've been postulating all along.
This would mean that the billows of gas emanating from the ship during the landing sequence actually aren't from reaction thrusters, but from the atmospheric cooling systems of the thruster units revving up.
This would make the Nostromo's propulsion systems consist of:- Real/Newtonian space reactionless thrusters
- Antigrav unit
- Hyperspace generator (the "towing rig")
| BR26354 wrote: | | Space Jockey: I do believe, and correct me anybody if I'm wrong in this guess, that the four, MASSIVE clusters of cylinders in pillar form seen in the foreground, as Ripley scrambles in view in the comparitively tiny windows of the Engine Room to avert the self-destruct, are indeed the Fusion Reactors of the Nostromo which are being postulated here. |
More likely that this space is the hyperspace generator, actually.
A tug is basically a hull, built around a vastly oversized propulsion system and systems for handling and fastening towing cables. Everything else, including the crew, is there only to enable these three parts. Anything that does not contribute to enabling these three parts is superfluous, and will never be designed into the vessel to begin with.
A hyperspace tug is likely to be exactly the same, so it would stand to reason that the single most massive and/or voluminous system on board is the thing the entire ship is built around, in this case the hyperspace generator.
And the space that the engineering control room looks out into would certainly seem to fit that bill.
And besides -- a hydrogen power plant needs to be big, but nowhere near that big!
The volume of a sphere, say 15-20m in diameter, ought to be quite sufficient to house the entire power plant -- the fusion bottle itself, the thermoelectric power generation, the primary cooling systems. The secondary cooling systems (where the heat is radiated into space) need to be on the hull for obvious reasons. The tertiary cooling systems (where the heat is dumped into atmospheric gases when not in space) will probably be in the nacelles.
Something will need to transport the heat from the primary to the secondary and tertiary cooling systems, though... Water won't do the job. Unless we can keep it at insane pressures, of course... |
Thank you.. even though this is science fiction you are exactly right. There is a FTL system and chemical- Newtonian units on the the upper refinery interlock module and bottom rear hull. pretty much everything you quoted is right on the money. Your analysis of hydrogen fuel as a propulsion system is also correct unless fusion would be perfected, but would most likely not be suitable for FTL.
The hull of the Nostromo is 85% unpressurized, Only living storage spaces, corridors+ ventilation and critical maintenance areas have atmosphere.. the rest of the hull is unpressurized, and the vast engine room where the piles reside.
I have been out of the ALIEN thing for over a year now, but I am working on a master's degree in Astrophysics and will be starting my Ph.D work next year. Mission configurations will be my capstone project, and the Nostromo for all of it's Sci-fi glory is one well thought out machine for theater. In the meanwhile I find myself picking apart sci-fi films for mistakes in physics, facts and nonsense... so it can be frustrating ha ha... But ALIEN and OUTLAND are pretty decent, except people do not exactly "explode" like the film..., there should be much more volcanism and dust on Io, and I still need to figure out how they have managed artificial gravity 
_________________
______________________________________
"Did you really destroy the ENTIRE shipment?"
www.alienthemovie.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
8th_Passenger
Community Member
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 443
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
FenGiddel86, I jumped in on page four.
I have to admit my knowledge of nuclear fission and space propulsion is limited. So I have had nothing to add over these last few pages. Several of you seem to have an excellent grasp of it and I'm happy to go with the general consensus.
I think I'm more interested in the layout of the decks and where things are. I know we will come to all that soon so I'll keep following the thread and contribute when I feel I have something to add, if that's okay.
I haven't done anything on my Galley plans since I posted them on the other thread. But if I get inspired I'll dig them out.
Colin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Vader
Community Member
Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 267
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Sheppard wrote: | | There is a FTL system and chemical- Newtonian units on the the upper refinery interlock module and bottom rear hull. pretty much everything you quoted is right on the money. Your analysis of hydrogen fuel as a propulsion system is also correct unless fusion would be perfected, but would most likely not be suitable for FTL. |
Pretty much the first thing that needs to be nailed down is the mechanics of the realspace thrusters, because that decision will affect everything else.
- Is it a chemical, nuclear or other Newtonian reaction drive system (i.e., "rocket"), with all the reaction mass volume requirements that go with it, as per our discussion a few pages ago?
- Is it a non-Newtonian reactionless drive system, that basically only requires power from the main power plant to provide thrust?
The former requires enormous fuel tankage all over the ship, fuel conduits and pumping systems, and space for some type of combustion camber at the root of each thruster nozzle — a lot of space if the combustion is nuclear in nature, which it would pretty much have to be, somehow. This will affect the space available for everything else.
I still wonder however how the nozzles of the main thruster engines are supposed to work, if they're reaction rockets — those aren't exactly deLaval nozzles...
The latter requires ... pretty much whatever we decide is reasonable.
A minimum of space for systems at the base of the nozzles; power conduits, local cooling systems. That's pretty much it.
This option is obviously much more fiction than science (just like FTL travel and artificial gravity), but has the advantage of being the best fit to what we see on-screen. And besides, it gives us plenty of latitude for fitting everything else in.
But we need to decide, one way or the other.
I believe the FTL drive has no features visible on the exterior hull — it's all internal.
The huge space containing the hyperspace drive system ought to pretty much fill the aft-centre 2/5th's of the main hull, I'm reckoning — more or less the space below the towing interconnect module.
To start paring down the volume of the main hull a bit: the forward 2/5ths crew habitat and auxiliary systems (including main power plant), the next 2/5th's hyperspace generator, and the aft 1/5th further auxiliary systems and the central main thruster.
_________________
26354 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FenGiddel
Community Member
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 368
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:57 pm Post subject: Updated Worksheet |
|
|
I've updated the worksheet and it can be found here.
Last edited by FenGiddel on Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Vader
Community Member
Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 267
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:27 pm Post subject: Re: Updated Worksheet |
|
|
| FenGiddel86 wrote: | | I've updated the worksheet and it can be found here. |
I seem to be having problems opening it... ("Can't open page ... server not responding")
_________________
26354 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Space Jockey
Community Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2009
Posts: 559
Location: East Tennessee
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Strange....it opens up for me okay.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FenGiddel
Community Member
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 368
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 5:49 pm Post subject: Re: Updated Worksheet |
|
|
| Vader wrote: | | FenGiddel86 wrote: | | I've updated the worksheet and it can be found here. |
I seem to be having problems opening it... ("Can't open page ... server not responding") |
I've checked with my ISP, and tried the link myself, and it's working. Maybe just a glitch somewhere in cyberspace.
If you can't open it, let me know if you'd like it emailed to you.l
FG86 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Vader
Community Member
Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 267
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Seems to be a problem with the ISP at my current location; for some reason, it isn't letting me through to that specific address. I expect it should be okay when I'm back home next week.
_________________
26354 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FenGiddel
Community Member
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 368
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've been poring over some of the resource material, looking for anything that might help give us ideas about our internal deckplans. I am really enjoying immersion in Alien now that there is SO MUCH out there. Some things that have me wondering...
Space Jockey: One of the things that’s always intrigued me was to figure out exactly how long a walk it would be --- say from the bridge --- to a nacelle landing leg (I thought of this back when a picture showed a shaft next to the starboard leg that someone later identified as a lighting stand). Is this something you can figure from your scale drawing?
ALL: given the complex arrangement of the nacelle intakes/thrusters, I cannot imagine what the internal configuration of the nacelles must look like. I imagine the vents, both fore/aft angled and facing forward, are used for landing and maneuvering, so I’m unsure where the ‘intakes’ are located, you know, the ones that got fragged from dust in the landing sequence. There must be room in there for the landing gear chamber, thrust vectoring ducts, and probably reaction chambers for the rocket exhausts on the aft end. The vents on the forward edge of the docking module may be the intakes, but seem too small to feed the energy requirements needed to land the leviathan. Maybe someday we can design the nacelle interiors.
The more I think about some of the over-engineering that is having to be considered to rationalize on-screen depictions, I agree we should go with the simplest, real-world method that would be appropriate for the time and tech depicted in the film.
Ohhhhh...and Space Jockey: Let's not forget to put a little 'Easter Egg' in the B Deck plans: remember the white-painted rover you found in the B Deck corridor? Wouldn't it be cool to have it in the deckplans?
Mark Sheppard: your post dated Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:15 pm where it looks like there was a photo posted Jon Sorenson regarding Ash’s Blister and the following: ‘i JUST GOT CONFIRMATION FROM Jon Sorenson regarding Ash's Blister.... We nailed now guys....So Space Jockey can finish his diagrams”. Is that picture available for re-posting?
Also: do we know who to might know about the various starcharts and readouts used on the computer screens? The initial screens when Mother wakes the ship up would be cool to re-create, as well as the logo that rotate/fades in as Dallas talks to Mother. This is on the Blu Ray set, but I'd love to understand the rationale behind it. Such a cool idea.
Another thing: someone once referred to an ALIEN movie photo novel picthat is supposed to show a good side view of Nostromo. If you have this photo and don't mind posting... 
I should have an updated Worksheet up by the weekend.
G'day... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Space Jockey
Community Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2009
Posts: 559
Location: East Tennessee
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FenGiddel86 wrote: | Space Jockey: One of the things that’s always intrigued me was to figure out exactly how long a walk it would be --- say from the bridge --- to a nacelle landing leg (I thought of this back when a picture showed a shaft next to the starboard leg that someone later identified as a lighting stand). Is this something you can figure from your scale drawing?
Ohhhhh...and Space Jockey: Let's not forget to put a little 'Easter Egg' in the B Deck plans: remember the white-painted rover you found in the B Deck corridor? Wouldn't it be cool to have it in the deckplans?
Another thing: someone once referred to an ALIEN movie photo novel picthat is supposed to show a good side view of Nostromo. If you have this photo and don't mind posting... |
Based on the blueprints where I put the length of the ship at 1095ft; if I drew a staright line from the bridge area toward the back of the ship, stopped level with the nacelle landing leg, turned 90 degrees, then another straight line directly to the leg, it works out to be 830ft +/-.
That really spends though on corridor layouts, etc.
Originally I used 800ft for the length, as that was written in some source material, but as I was drafting it became clear to me that using that measurement would mean the Narcissus would be WAY out of scale and nothing like as depicted on the movie, hence the larger measurement.
The white painted rover, I remember. We'll need to develop a route for it. There are probably more airlocks on B Deck than the other two (but that's my guess).
I have a copy of the Alien Movie Novel; a screen capture from the movie (which is essentially what the movie novel is) would probably work better. Unfortunately the computer I have right now doesn't have a decent graphics card and cannot play dvd's however. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Vader
Community Member
Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 267
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, Darrell — now I got it!
| FenGiddel86 wrote: | | ...and probably reaction chambers for the rocket exhausts on the aft end. |
This is what I keep harping on about: is it to be a "rocket engine" of some sort, which consequently will need a reaction chamber (one that somehow handles temperatures in the 1,000's °C), or is it to be a reactionless "thruster plate" design?
We need to make a choice, one way or the other, because that choice will affect everything else down the line — not just the question of if and where to store the fuel, but to know what to do with the space adjacent to each thruster.
One thing: 6.5.1.1.3: Still not sure I buy the OLS. The rock the Nostromo lands on — I seem to recall that it isn't so big that rotating the leg somewhere between 0° and 45° wouldn't have enabled the landing pads to miss it. Yet the pad comes down square on it.
This suggests to me that the landing leg extension sequence entails the leg rotating 45° (or 135°, or 225°, for all we know!) precisely, and in doing so, lock in that position. Perhaps something akin to a bayonet mount?
_________________
26354 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FenGiddel
Community Member
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 368
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| New worksheet is available here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
SKIN JOB 66
Community Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 2724
Location: FRANCE
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I love this topic, great technical knowledge and theories spread all around post after post... Keep' em coming guys, I'm addicted now !
| FenGiddel86 wrote: |
Ohhhhh...and Space Jockey: Let's not forget to put a little 'Easter Egg' in the B Deck plans: remember the white-painted rover you found in the B Deck corridor? Wouldn't it be cool to have it in the deckplans?
|
My theory at the time SJ found it was that the crew would maybe need it to transport then load MUTHUR's hyperflight data. If you consider the size of the room only devoted to MUTHUR, it would be logical to have HUGE memory sticks loaded from deck B.
I also remember that Sir Rid was envisioning tiny "mechanical bugs" patrolling the Nostromo when the crew was in hypersleep. There's even one shown patrolling a corridor in a Ridleygram (it looks a little like an imperial probe droid in ESB). Could it be that they kept the idea of those drones patrolling the ship but turned them into car-sized wheel rovers instead of tiny flying mechanical bugs ?
Fred
_________________
THE FUTURE IS A THING OF THE PAST |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FenGiddel
Community Member
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 368
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Space Jockey: One of the things that’s always intrigued me was to figure out exactly how long a walk it would be --- say from the bridge --- to a nacelle landing leg (I thought of this back when a picture showed a shaft next to the starboard leg that someone later identified as a lighting stand). Is this something you can figure from your scale drawing?
---
Based on the blueprints where I put the length of the ship at 1095ft; if I drew a staright line from the bridge area toward the back of the ship, stopped level with the nacelle landing leg, turned 90 degrees, then another straight line directly to the leg, it works out to be 830ft +/-.
That really spends though on corridor layouts, etc. |
That's a pretty hefty hike, yeah? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FenGiddel
Community Member
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 368
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SKIN JOB 66 wrote: |
My theory at the time SJ found it was that the crew would maybe need it to transport then load MUTHUR's hyperflight data. If you consider the size of the room only devoted to MUTHUR, it would be logical to have HUGE memory sticks loaded from deck B. |
I think this idea is worth pursuing...
| Quote: | I also remember that Sir Rid was envisioning tiny "mechanical bugs" patrolling the Nostromo when the crew was in hypersleep. There's even one shown patrolling a corridor in a Ridleygram (it looks a little like an imperial probe droid in ESB). Could it be that they kept the idea of those drones patrolling the ship but turned them into car-sized wheel rovers instead of tiny flying mechanical bugs ?
Fred |
Not a bad idea, but didn't the rover's wheel-base exceed the hatch clearance?
Keep 'em coming, Fred. Great additions to the mix. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
