Timeline for Why does Millennium Falcon bank when turning in vacuum?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
41 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 2018 at 4:03 | answer | added | David Jensen | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 8:21 | history | edited | Gallifreyan |
edited tags
|
|
| Jul 21, 2016 at 16:10 | answer | added | Dennis Sharpe Jr | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 21, 2016 at 16:00 | answer | added | Dennis Sharpe Jr | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 29, 2016 at 3:57 | answer | added | Brian Yeh | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 14:37 | answer | added | The Mathematician | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 12:00 | comment | added | Luaan | @Liesmith Yeah, this is one core of the argument - anything a human fighter can do, an autonomous drone or a missile should be able to do, and better and cheaper at that. You only need to get the missile there - the fighter also has to have power to come back. | |
| Jan 9, 2015 at 23:32 | comment | added | Liesmith | In regards to the usefulness of fighters in space: what can they achieve? Shooting down other fighters? Maybe performing a bombing run? In a realistic situation, anything a space fighter could do, could be done better with an unmanned drone, or just by firing a [very long-range missile (or re-directing an asteroid to destroy an entire planet). There's just not much a person in a tin can can do which is terribly useful in an interplanetary/interstellar war. That said, I love space dogfights, and I hope they never change. | |
| Jan 9, 2015 at 23:15 | answer | added | Doresoom | timeline score: 2 | |
| S Oct 18, 2014 at 23:00 | history | suggested | Damian Yerrick | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Wikipedia != "Wiki" (when capitalized on its own means Ward's Wiki); put image which is taller than a text line on its own line; spelling
|
| Oct 18, 2014 at 22:46 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 18, 2014 at 23:00 | |||||
| Apr 12, 2013 at 9:20 | comment | added | user8719 | It's obvious - it's all in order to be able to make the Kessel run in 12 parsecs! | |
| Nov 27, 2012 at 21:47 | vote | accept | DVK-on-Ahch-To | ||
| Dec 5, 2011 at 21:17 | answer | added | Trisped | timeline score: 81 | |
| Dec 4, 2011 at 7:46 | comment | added | hafichuk | Actually, it's the camera that's banking! | |
| S Dec 2, 2011 at 10:46 | history | suggested | Graham Borland | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed spelling of Millennium
|
| Dec 2, 2011 at 10:33 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 2, 2011 at 10:46 | |||||
| Dec 2, 2011 at 2:53 | comment | added | HorusKol | @jwenting - a small space fighter would have less mass, and therefore less momentum than a bigger ship, and so would be more manuevrable | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 22:30 | answer | added | zzzzBov | timeline score: 76 | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 19:02 | answer | added | Chad | timeline score: 7 | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 17:36 | comment | added | Michael Haren | So they can see where they're going...? | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 16:44 | answer | added | KeithS | timeline score: 10 | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 15:00 | comment | added | erdiede | Does kind of raise a fun question with new film technology: How much vomit would coat theaters if a movie of fighters from RDM Battlestar Galactica or Babylon 5 were done in 3D IMAX? | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 14:24 | comment | added | Beofett | +1 for the diagrams (although you should have used hand-drawn circles!) | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 14:22 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSciFi/status/142247315573456897 | ||
| Dec 1, 2011 at 13:59 | answer | added | BBlake | timeline score: 41 | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 13:31 | comment | added | thedaian | @DVK For a source, how about this: projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunexotic.php#fighters | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 10:30 | comment | added | DVK-on-Ahch-To | @jwenting - cite, or I'm making that a new question!! :) Seriously, this sounds SLIGHTLY suspicious - there are other advantages to small size (harder to hit, especially with energy weapons, better acceleration due to low mass, less of a resource loss when destroyed just off the top of my head). | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 9:57 | comment | added | jwenting | can't remember right now. The idea is that the volume isn't enough for a small ship to be self sustained, and there's no real benefit to having a small ship in the first place (with aircraft, you have at least a speed benefit and at altitude can see over the horizon, 2 things that don't matter in space, but raw firepower would and a large ship can hold larger weapons) | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 9:21 | comment | added | Chad Levy | @jwenting "many experts hold that space fighters are the worst way to fight a war in space" - got any sources? I'm curious to learn more. | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 6:29 | comment | added | jwenting | to continue on thedalan's argument: many experts hold that space fighters are the worst way to fight a war in space, yet they are everywhere in Science Fiction from the 1940s on (so from the moment the aircraft carrier took over from the battleship as the main strike force of the fleet on our earth's oceans). | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 5:17 | answer | added | Kevin | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 4:54 | answer | added | Xantec | timeline score: 17 | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 4:28 | comment | added | Tango | Maybe engines in the SW galaxy are based on something that interacts with quantum foam or something else along that line, so they are banking not against space, but against the foam or ether that makes up space. | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 3:49 | history | edited | DVK-on-Ahch-To | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 50 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2011 at 3:46 | comment | added | PearsonArtPhoto | Could be pilot instinct? As they fly in the atmosphere, it would be good to practice this to a degree even without it? | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 3:43 | answer | added | Eideann | timeline score: 20 | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 3:38 | history | edited | DVK-on-Ahch-To | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 139 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2011 at 3:35 | comment | added | thedaian | Same reason TIE Fighters and X-Wings bank. It looks cool, even though Space Does Not Work That Way | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 3:28 | comment | added | Tango | I was going to suggest it might be an issue with inertial dampers, that maybe it was easier or took less energy to keep the passengers from sliding along the floor like this, but any ship that can go above lightspeed has to have such awesome dampers anyway it wouldn't make a difference. | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 3:19 | history | asked | DVK-on-Ahch-To | CC BY-SA 3.0 |