>spaceship has wings
>what are the space shuttles
What is re-entry? What is atmospheric fighting?
Why wouldn't it OP? Even just for rolling thrusters having wings means you can rotate the ship faster if maneuvering thrusters are father from center.
What about planetary landings, OP?
You're right. Who needs wings?
space shuttles in real life have fucking wings you moron
>b-but muh sci-fi
shut the fuck up
>spaceship flies thru space like it flies through atmosphere
>OP is a psuedointellectual retard
>>335723934
>Implying they never land or take off in a planet
you are a retard sir
>>335723934
>spaceship has cockpit
>all these retards complaining about atmosphere when its a SPACE SHIP, not space shuttle
>spaceship is an ancient evil
>>335725260
>spaceship has cock
No, no, no.
It's >an ancient evil has awakened
Get it right. You're supposed to make the same threads over and over again so people get bored and start shitposting.
>spaceship is a planet and we're on one
>Spaceship can go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
>>335723934
>spaceship isn't always spinning in combat
Not
>an ancient evil awakens
Bunch of newfags
>>335723934
Wings add to your hardpoints for armament
>>335725062
Lots of fictional space ships never enter the atmosphere and instead use shuttles, the Enterprise being an obvious one.
For such a ship, wings would serve no function.
>spaceSHIP doesn't even have sails
>>335725480
>spaceship has cock and vagina
>flying spaceship in space
>let go of go fast button
>ship slows down to a stop
??????????????????
>>335724126
>what are the space shuttles
dysfunctional, expensive trash that got cancelled
>space friction
>engines have to always be on to be moving
>Space battles take place on 2-dimensional planes
>Newtonian physics aren't simulated
>Ballistics have a limited range
>>335723934
>spaceship is actually a submarine
>Spaceship doesn't use directional thrusters all over its hull to change its course
>It just turns and spins in space as if it were a plane
>>335727685
>he doesn't just bounce off the fucking walls
I call them "Nature's brakes".
>>335725685
Stuff goes faster than light anyway, why is it suddenly impossible that a vacuum will make this impossible?
>>335727939
lithobraking is a perfectly respectable technique
>>335725965
>fuel storage
>cargo
>crew cabins
>thruster placement
>you're a fucking retard
>thruster placement
>>335727685
>what is a flywheel
>>335728572
Name one thing other than neutrinos, which was a pretty recent discovery
>>335727098
>tfw no season 4
>>335729727
Bait
>>335729727
If even one thing can do it, that proves it's not impossible.
>spaceship is an ancient evil
>space battle
>broadsides like it's fucking Napoleonic times
>>335729457
You forgot
>looks cool
Really, no other reason is necessary.
>>335723934
>spaceship looks like a boat
>>335729727
Neutrinos do not go FTL.
That was a mistake in the experiment
Nothing goes faster than c because otherwise they'd arrive at their destination before they departed.
>>335727458
>aircraft carrier can also submerge
>>335730305
Wrong. Nothing can go faster than light in a VACUUM. But lots of things go faster than light in non-vacuum spaces.
The Big Bang is faster than light.
Quantum Entangling is faster than light.
Negative Matter.
The EmDrive is also possibly "Faster than Light". But nobody knows why it's currently like that.
>>335724126
Flying bricks with wings attached to them.
>>335730610
Spacial expansion doesn't count because it isn't any "thing" going faster than c. It's just existence expanding.
Quantum "spooky action at a distance" doesn't count because it's instantaneous and without a vehicle.
Negative matter? Doesn't exist.
And the EM Drive is likely just a glitch in the readings. Like the FTL neutrinos.
>spaceship is an a bird that looks like an ancient evil awakens bird spaceship
>>335726630
fun gameplay > realism
>>335724282
how does being farther from the center speed up spin? it would only increase the distance the thrusters would have to travel.
>>335730971
Why does it not count?
So it has to be a vehicle? How is light a vehicle?
Negative matter doesn't exist? Interesting. There is no proof either way, it is theorised to exist, just like the Higgs Boson. Guess that didn't exist either :^)))))))
As for the EM Drive, the British guy invented it. Tested it. It was faster. Then the Chinese stole it, tested it. It was faster. Then NASA stole it, tested it. It was faster. It was faster a few months ago.
They've been discussing it regularly as they don't why it's doing what it's doing. It's been tested so many times that it's got the stage where malfunctions and glitches should be ruled out.
>>335730235
>you have to fight a demonic mobster kingpin on the space boat
>>335731892
>So it has to be a vehicle? How is light a vehicle?
I mean a vehicle as in a particle that communicates. Like there is for EM radiation, gravity, magnetism, etc.
If there is no proof of something, it doesn't exist. Just like that.
The Higgs boson didn't exist until there was evidence for it.
>It's been tested so many times that it's got the stage where malfunctions and glitches should be ruled out.
Not true at all. It'll take years to sort it all out. Remember that the EM Drive produces less thrust than the weight of a feather. So many places for contanimation
>>335731397
Laws of moments.
>>335725965
The Enterprise lands on planets several times. In Voyager they went one step further and landed the ship under water on an alien planet.
>>335732268
My point was, some Brit in a shed built one. It worked. Chinese Government sponsored scientists built one. It worked. USA built one. It worked. Brits built one (a non-shed built one) and it worked.
You're correct it could be other stuff. But at the moment, they have to explain how multiple different EM Drives are producing a result which it shouldn't be doing.
McCulloch's paper on it theorises it works using the 'Unruh effect'. Of course, it's controversial, while it is, of course, based on actual physics, it's still a theory.
Either way, it's interesting. Who knows.
>>335732662
They never do that in Voyager. Are you thinking of Into Darkness?
There's an episode of Voyager with a water planet and they specifically modify one of their shuttles for it.
The Enterprise never lands either.
>>335730235
>spaceship looks like a train
>>335726134
>two spaceships with cocks and vaginas engage in aerial refueling
>>335733192
Is that a Yugioh monster
>>335732980
>>335732662
- USS Enterprise (TOS) never lands, and it's not within spec to.
- USS Enterprise-A (ST 4/5/6) never lands, and it's not within spec to.
- USS Enterprise-B (ST 7) is never shown landing, and it's unlikely to be within spec.
- USS Enterprise-C (TNG: Yesterday's Enterprise) is never shown landing, and it's unlikely to be within spec.
- USS Enterprise-D (TNG) is never shown landing, though it did crash twice IIRC. It's not within spec for the entire ship to land, but I think it might have been within spec for the saucer section to do so alone. Either way, it's definitely never shown doing it.
- USS Enterprise-E (ST 8/9/10) is never shown landing. I don't know if it's actually in spec to do so, but I doubt it.
All of the above ships were built in spacedock, free of gravity, and they're unlikely to be atmosphere-rated. That's probably also the reason they don't have any aerodynamics in their design at all, either.
Voyager, on the other hand, WAS shown landing several times. It has retractable landing gear and was constructed as a science vessel in order to be able to land on distant planets and explore them. I think >>335732662 mmmight be thinking of the episode Dragon's Teeth? But I don't remember Voyager well enough.
>>335729860
>tfw no season 4
