07-10-2016, 05:59 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
|
[Spaceships] Hull size of Falcon...
Considering the size (38 yards long) and wide/flat dimensions, what size hull do you think would be most appropriate for the Millennium Falcon? 7 seems too small, but 8 seems to big. What do you think?
__________________
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." |
07-10-2016, 06:14 PM | #2 | |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: [Spaceships] Hull size of Falcon...
Quote:
Also, there's "Stubby cylinders, teardrops, saucers, and other more complex shapes average about 50%-75% of this length." (Spaceships, p 9, emphasis added)
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. |
|
07-10-2016, 06:18 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Re: [Spaceships] Hull size of Falcon...
Very good point. I had extrapolated the size chart out to accommodate the Death Star which, being spherical, qualifies for 50% of the measured size it would normally qualify for its diameter.
__________________
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." Last edited by GoblynByte; 07-10-2016 at 06:39 PM. |
07-10-2016, 07:54 PM | #4 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: [Spaceships] Hull size of Falcon...
Quote:
So SM+5 is 30 tons or roughly a maximumally loaded F-15e Strike Eagle and huge amounts of that are external stores that don't compare well to Star Wars fighters that don't use such things. SM+4 is 10 tons and only about 2 tons less than a light-load F-16. If you look at comaprisons of pilots to fighters in photos and models SW fighters are smaller than F-16s. They actually look more like the size of P-51s and other WWII fighters. However, only the lightest WWII fighters (the Zero) come in at or under SM+3 or 3 tons/6000 lbs. So WWII fighters are SM+4 as a general rule and I would make SW fighters that size too. Make very large ones like the B-wing be SM+5 if you like. Go to Spaceships 4 and you'll find SM+4 rules and examples. Now we don't have total mass figures for the Falcon or even the stock YT-1300 but the stock ship is noted sometimes as carrying 100 tons of cargo. SM+6 is 100 tons so the Falcon can't be that but SM+7 is 300 tons. So that's the figure I'd use. SM+8 is for substantially larger vessels i.e. up to 1000 tons. What Traveller calls small ships start as SM+8 but Traveller ships are _huge_. One of their SM+8 100 dTon scout ships would be 500,000 cubic feet or like a 5000 sq,ft house with 10 foot ceilings. Also note that such a vessel would not merely fit inside a rectangle of that volume. It would _fill_ a rectangle of that volume. If the ship wasn't brick-shaped its' external dimensions would be even greater than those of the 5000 sq.ft house. I know some of this may seem odd but whatever a unit of "SM+" is in the rest of Gurps it is not a measure of linear size here. It really, really is a unit of mass in Spaceships. Do not try and figure Spaceships SM from linear size. It will not only drive you crazy it will give you bad answers too. paceships..
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
07-10-2016, 09:54 PM | #5 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Re: [Spaceships] Hull size of Falcon...
Quote:
Beyond that, the only thing that is important is getting roughly the stuff in the design that appears in the movies. If that means I only get 50 tons of cargo instead of 100 tons, I'm okay with that.
__________________
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." |
|
07-10-2016, 10:01 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Re: [Spaceships] Hull size of Falcon...
But, to be fair, I agree with you. Some concessions have to be made beyond simple linear measurement. Which is why I put the Nebulon B frigate at SM+12 and the Star Galleon at SM+14. Both are about 330 yards long, but the Nebulon is a long, spindly design (much of its length being taken up by the boom that goes between the fore and aft structures), and the Star Galleon is a more bulbous design with much of its interior space being dedicated to extremely heavy loads.
__________________
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." |
07-10-2016, 10:19 PM | #7 | |||
Join Date: Mar 2012
|
Re: [Spaceships] Hull size of Falcon...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Full Scale Falcon Project Jason Scott Martin, the numbers that we are using in order to have everything fit (more or less- the builders added more width to the main hold in TFA) are: 114' long 80'6" Wide (docking ring to docking ring) |
|||
07-11-2016, 01:46 AM | #8 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
Re: [Spaceships] Hull size of Falcon...
Star Wars fans like to argue about the size of the Falcon, because its hard to fit the inside sets inside the outside sets. I would just assign it the size which SS says it should have given its apparent dimensions and shape.
Quote:
Whether you think they are interpreting a set of rubber-science movies wisely or not, Curtis Saxton and Mike Wong have done a lot of work to calculate the numbers they use.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature |
|
07-11-2016, 02:31 AM | #9 |
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: On the road again...
|
Re: [Spaceships] Hull size of Falcon...
I use SM +8 for two reasons: 1) that's the size at which you have a four-seat bridge (in the Falcon's case, it's Pilot (Han's seat), Co-Pilot (Chewie's seat), Astrogator (the seat behind Han's), and Comms (the seat behind Chewie's), backed up by the four-man crew Lando had on the Falcon's bridge in RotJ - those weren't just Passenger Seating); and 2) I use SM +5 for X-Wings and Y-Wings, SM +4 for the A-Wings, Delta-7s, and Eta-2s, and SM +6 for the shuttles and B-Wings. The Falcon looks more than a bit larger than the shuttles.
That said, I can see arguments for SM +7, but you have to reconcile the Falcon's four bridge stations with the fact that SM +7 gives you only three stations on the bridge. (I don't believe in Saxon's numbers, as he gives the A-Wing an acceleration number that can have it hitting the speed of light with an hour's straight acceleration.)
__________________
"Life ... is an Oreo cookie." - J'onn J'onzz, 1991 "But mom, I don't wanna go back in the dungeon!" The GURPS Marvel Universe Reboot Project A-G, H-R, and S-Z, and its not-a-wiki-really web adaptation. Ranoc, a Muskets-and-Magery Renaissance Fantasy Setting Last edited by Phantasm; 07-21-2016 at 03:22 PM. |
07-11-2016, 02:33 AM | #10 |
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
|
Re: [Spaceships] Hull size of Falcon...
GURPS Spaceships includes the Dark Horse, which is clearly a reference to the Millenium Falcon, and it's SM +8. In Psi-Wars, my meditation on Star Wars, I go with SM+8.
I can see the case for SM +7, as the Falcon is almost as agile as a fighter. SM+7 ships have the same movement modifiers as SM+8, but they're still as close to fighter-scale as you can get without actually being a fighter.
__________________
My Blog: Mailanka's Musing. Currently Playing: Psi-Wars, a step-by-step exploration of building your own Space Opera setting, inspired by Star Wars. |
Tags |
spaceships, star wars |
|
|