 | | Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Jude Beaudin
|
| | | For the sake of this discusion, all LEGO ships refered too should be minifig scale. What is the minimum length (studs) of a 'capital ship'? Can a 'capital ship' land on a planet? Can it take off again? Does a 'capital ship' have to carry smaller (...) (22 years ago, 29-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Bob Parker
|
| | | | | (...) IMHO: (...) 150 (...) No (...) Not applicable (...) No (...) Aerial bombardment of a planet, troop carrier, fleet defence, solar system defense, fighter/bomber carrier, hospital ship, ground assault ship carrier, deep space exploration (...) (...) (22 years ago, 29-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —John P. Henderson
|
| | | | | | | (...) Problem is, "minifig scale" itself is ill defined and can mean different things to different people. *My* opinion on minifig scale is that it is the "scale and style" of original TLC System sets. At that scale, a car that is 4 studs wide and 8 (...) (22 years ago, 29-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Troy Cefaratti
|
| | | | | | | | "Hendo (John P. Henderson)" <hendo@valyance.com> wrote in message news:H1M8My.ByM@lugnet.com... (...) I got the impression that the intended use of the Death Star was to move around the galaxy destroying planets. If this is actually the case, then (...) (22 years ago, 30-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think it's a "Battle Station." Who are we to argue with the Emperor? (22 years ago, 30-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Troy Cefaratti
|
| | | | | | | | | "Mark Sandlin" <sandlin@nwlink.com> wrote in message news:sandlin-1B239F....net.com... (...) Good Point, Mark! :) (22 years ago, 30-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | | | | (...) A battle station with a hyperdrive, what a crazy concept. (Travels from Alderaan, a core world, to Yavin, a rim world, in a day or two.) -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 1-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Erik Schroer
|
| | | | | | | | Well, from what I know of cap-ships: (...) 60 is what I would call the minimum. (...) Depends on the technology level of the race employing the ship. In my legoverse, a cap-ship can land on a planet and take off in under 10 minutes thanks to the (...) (22 years ago, 1-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I size really depends on the particular universe. It would seem some kind of minimum size like 60 or 100 studs would be reasonable though. (...) Agree. (...) Agree. (...) If by "smaller craft" one means fighters or shuttles, I would say no. (...) (22 years ago, 3-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Markham Carroll
|
| | | | | | "Bob Parker" <cg47@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:H1M6Dy.4y8@lugnet.com... (...) minifig (...) I think you may be wrong on this one. Of the definitions I've read, none have said anything that they can't land. They may need an on-planet dock, (...) (22 years ago, 30-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Duane Hess
|
| | | | | In lugnet.space, Jude Beaudin writes: <snip> (...) Well, since it seems like I hopped on the wrong thread see: (URL) (22 years ago, 29-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Jude Beaudin
|
| | | | | | (...) Jude (22 years ago, 29-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Wayne R. Hussey
|
| | | | | (...) No single number for minimum could be correct. There are three dimensions for a ship. All three must be taken into account. I suggest that perhaps 60 long by 24 wide by 16 tall would fit the smallest capital ship I can think of. (...) Small (...) (22 years ago, 30-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Markham Carroll
|
| | | | | | | "Wayne R Hussey" <eskimo2@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:H1MyJp.7Iv@lugnet.com... (...) I don't care how hard it is do to, I would love to see a minifig-scale star destroyer! What would the scalimg be? 1 lug = 1 sq ft? That would require (...) (22 years ago, 30-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Wayne R. Hussey
|
| | | | | | | | (...) So would I! I've been using one stud = one foot for Minifig scale. A mile (5280 ft) could be well represented by 5000 studs. My calculations show that such a construction would be 1562.5 inches or 130.2 feet! At that size, you could (...) (22 years ago, 2-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Markham Carroll
|
| | | | | | | | "Wayne R Hussey" <eskimo2@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:H1ssov.Mwx@lugnet.com... (...) Wars: (...) star (...) that (...) you (...) Uh... anyone work for LEGO who want to try this? I would go to a LEGo park to just see that! : ) I think (...) (22 years ago, 2-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —George Haberberger
|
| | | | | | (...) the details. Is it still in existence, have you gotten any farther? Thanks, George (22 years ago, 30-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Wayne R. Hussey
|
| | | | | | (...) Thanks, George. Yes, it still exists. Currently it is in need of some minor reconstruction. I plan to show it at NWBrickCon - minus the detailing. That is due to the fact that for the last several months I have been working on my seven foot (...) (22 years ago, 2-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Dan Mattia
|
| | | | | (...) These are all my answers. Some of you may find them wrong, but this is how I work. (...) Mine's 75 studs long, about 30 studs wide, and about 25 studs tall. (...) Not actually land, it hovers above the ground using a special device called a (...) (22 years ago, 30-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Jonathan Mizner
|
| | | | | (...) *dons flame-proof suit* (...) This can depend. Some people may build a vessel 75 studs wide, 30 long, and 15 high, but if it only has a single crewman, only a cockpit, and is designed to attack in the manner of a fighter, then it is not a (...) (22 years ago, 31-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Jordan D. Greer
|
| | | | | (...) Why would you even WANT to set a capital ship down? Assuming a mass of 90,000 (American) tons, you would have to expend roughly 4.91*10^18 joules to get a Nimitz class carrier into space. That's equivalent to about 1.174 megatons of TNT. To (...) (22 years ago, 31-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Jordan D. Greer
|
| | | | | | (...) What I meant to say was 1.174 gigatons (1.174 million kilotons, 1,174 megatons). If my memory serves me correctly, that's more than half of America's nuclear firepower. (22 years ago, 31-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | | (...) One heavy turbolaser bolt on a Star Destoyer has a blast of 200 gigatons. Lets not even get into the insane amount of power required for hyperspace. (Which is far more than would be required to "take off" from a planet.) Or how about this one: (...) (22 years ago, 1-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Trevor Pruden
|
| | | | | (...) I follow the Shipyards (Jon Palmer's) site minimum stud lengh specification of 75-100 studs. Given some of the ships out there, it should probably be over 100 studs at this point, but that would cut a lot of people out of the cap ship building (...) (22 years ago, 31-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Markham Carroll
|
| | | | | | "Trevor Pruden" <trevor_pruden@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:H1oz95.CKr@lugnet.com... (...) specification (...) the (...) effort. (...) In StarWars technology, they use repulsorlifts for planitary travel, and sublight engines for space travel. (...) (22 years ago, 31-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | | (...) I think 80-90 seems about right at minifig scale. I think it would be nice to measure "displaced weight" but I'm not sure how apply it to a spacecraft. I guess all the dimensions should be considered to factor a ship's overall volume. However, (...) (22 years ago, 31-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Travis Kunce
|
| | | | | 2 entries found for capital ship. ---...--- ---- capital ship n. 2 entries found for capital ship. ---...--- capital ship n. A warship of the largest class, such as a battleship or an aircraft carrier. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of (...) (22 years ago, 31-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | Well in my Legoverse, the Galactic Confederation, there are 3 grades of capital ships: A Space Grade cruiser would at least 34 mini-meters in length (102 studs) and capable of planetary landing. This is what all MOCs are in my book. A Star Grade (...) (22 years ago, 1-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Trevor Pruden
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.space, Mike Petrucelli writes: <snip> (...) <snip> Oh, ok, so like a city ship of some sort. Essentially a space city that has the capability to move anywhere it wants within the vicinity of a star, but cannot produce the energy necessary (...) (22 years ago, 1-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | | (...) ever (...) that. Not quite. A giant space ship that only orbits stars and not planets to avoid gravitaional conflicts. The ship itself is designed to hyperspace between galaxies, so hyperjumping to another star in the same galaxy is a peice of (...) (22 years ago, 1-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —William R. Ward
|
| | | | | (...) Couple hundred. (...) No. It would burn up in the atmosphere. (...) N/A (...) Besides escape pods, no. (...) Military command ship. An Admiral's flagship, or any ship suitable for serving as such. Must be military, not civilian. But then, I (...) (22 years ago, 3-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —George Haberberger
|
| | | | | | (...) Be sure to browse castle so you can make cows, pigs and sheep for your colonization ship, you just know things will go wrong, and the people will forget they're on a spaceship. And watch out for muties! George (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —John Henry Kruer
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.space, George Haberberger writes: <snip> (...) Muties? (...) -JHK (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —George Haberberger
|
| | | | | | (...) Mutants, it's not space opera without mutants. George (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) Honestly, I'd say this is kinda the wrong way to go about it-- I'd say size doesn't make the ship, but function. I'd probably suggest that in order to be a capital ship, it needs to: - provide living space for crew (unlike, say, a fighter) - (...) (22 years ago, 3-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —John R. Beck
|
| | | | (...) 100> (...) Yes (...) Yes> (...) Yes, at least escape pods, or fighters, or exploration vessels (...) Galaxy exploration, colonization, protection. (...) 10 (...) Star Destroyer USS Enterprise (...) Under construction as we speak. (...) I think (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
