The Iron Sky -team is looking for your ideas and comments.

Join and show your support for Iron Sky.

EARTH FLEET: USA

This task is closed
Created atNovember 13, 2008
Created byTimo Vuorensola
ClosedNovember 25, 2009
Shots given36
Wreckupations3D Artist, Writer, Graphic Designer
Reference media
Earth_fleet_moodboard01_thumb Earth_fleet_moodboard02_thumb

Thumbs ranking

Oskar Lönnberg Nose art
Poll_bar
8/13%
Pekka Ikonen updated shuttle
Poll_bar
7/11%
Kevin A slight aside
Poll_bar
6/9%
Arttu Seppälä Oversized and bulky, but huge firepow...
Poll_bar
4/6%
Eamon McCarthy Space Seals
Poll_bar
4/6%
Adrià Ribatallada i Torelló The "Space Chimp" Program
Poll_bar
4/6%
Nicholas de Monchaux Truth is always stranger than fiction!
Poll_bar
4/6%

Closing Note

Thanks *everyone* for great shots and comments! We've had so far very good ideas, and will start designing the Earth Fleet ships based on your ideas.

We're going to need further assistance later on, and we'll put more specific tasks as we move along.

Great stuff!

Description

In Iron Sky, the Earth will stand up and defend itself against the Nazi enemy. In 2018, many of the countries have developed their space program - maybe in the shadows, maybe in open - to also be able to engage in a fight in the orbit or in deep space, if necessary.

In this task, we need ideas for what the space ship of the United States of America would look like.

We'd request everything from descriptions to concept drawings, from crude ideas to finalized artwork - whatever is your game.

Few guidelines:

- The film is set in 2018 - so don't get over-excited on tech!
- There's no such thing as "interstellar travel" or "antigravity" invented.
- Be reasonable - try to be functional, and limit your ideas to feasible technologial advancements.
- For ideas, you can look for example the "Venture Star" -program: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_Star
- Also, the ideas can be pretty wacky ones - maybe some huge project a country has been working on is, instead of being what it looks like, a battleship?

We've already discussed the weapons technology in the previous task:

http://www.wreckamovie.com/tasks/show/52

Maybe reading through the thumbed-up -shots (you can sort them in the task) would give some ideas as well.

Included you'll find some concept art of stuff our concept artist Jussi has done. You may use them non-commercially and share them with others, but not claim them your own or charge money from them. Here's more info on the CC-license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/

As the licence in Iron Sky production requires, you need to give all the rights for derivative or original work you do for this task to the Iron Sky team for us being able to use them.

Go for it, people! Let's design the greatest space fleet in the history of film!


This task is closed.

Shots

Order by
Dsci0026_thumb
Eamon McCarthy November 19, 2009 01:59 4 Thumb-ups
Add to Favorites

Space Seals

I think america should try to hurriedly put together some sort of Space Special Forces.
ex. Space Seals, Space Deltas, etc...
They should be trained for boarding ships in space.

Jump to comment form

Comments

Tuomas Perttula November 21, 2009 08:43 Flag

I'd guess that the enemy spaceship has priority defending itself from boarding over maintaining steady course for optimal firing solutions, so the Nazi saucer would simply ram the light boarding craft when it's on the final stage of approach. And there goes your expensive, highly trained boarding force hurdling into space, helpless...

And if you would survive the landing and be able to make an airtight channel and cut a hole to the pressurised hull, the enemy would simply drop the pressure on that part of the ship (as there would surely be airtight compartments), and you would be again in vacuum dieing.

Hand to hand combat isn't going to happen in space before you can get fully flexible bulletproof spacesuits. Otherwise it's just too hazardous to be preferable over just killing the enemy from distance (and then salvaging what can be salvaged).

Boarding spaceship is about as hard as boarding submarine. It's not going to happen

(null) November 21, 2009 01:23 Flag

"BSG explains it visually easily and believably enough for a fiction film: "

Exactly. It doesn't matter if it works in physics, it LOOKS like it works and that's good enough for a film like Iron Sky.

Jani Salomaa November 21, 2009 00:22 Flag

BSG explains it visually easily and believably enough for a fiction film:

In space, large ships have to maintain a steady course to get any kind of a firing solution (or to launch and retrieve fighters, etc.).

So locking on to them and boarding them is rather easy. Just calculate their trajectory, overcome the defensive fire, adjust your course and let the cpu's deal with the fine tuning with landing.

Make an airtight pressurised channel to the hull. Cut a hole in the pressurized hull quickly, enter and enjoy!.

That's why the defending ships have emergency support teams (of red-shirted security guards;) at the ready...

Tuomas Perttula November 20, 2009 23:40 Flag

I'd say that trying to board a spaceship in the middle of combat would be a foolish thing to do. As you would certainly have to do very much damage to the ship during the entry (as the enemy most certainly wouldn't allow you to simply dock on the airlock engage to hand to hand combat), I don't think the ship could be very usable right after the seals have captured it. And because all random pieces of junk left in the orbit will pretty much stay there unharmed until the battle is over (and won), it would make a lot more sense to leave the salvaging to your space pioneers instead of highly trained special combat units...

It's just so much easier to simply kill the crew by shooting the ship and then patch the holes and install some new hardware if needed.

If the Earth fleet is going to finally attack the moon base, I think most of their fleet could be comprised of salvaged Nazi UFO:s. The Space Seals would then try to infiltrate the moon base rather than try to capture individual spaceships.

(null) November 20, 2009 22:12 Flag

Surely the UFOs themselves are bending the laws of physics? I can't see how they could possibly fly in real life.

David Jansson November 20, 2009 21:51 Flag

Kris S: BSG is space opera, a genre that by its nature lets you bend the laws of physics a bit. (Though they do a good job of making it seem to make sense for the layman.) In a dark comedy about Space nazis on the moon, I do not dare give a suggestion on how much they should bend the laws of physics.

Though a drop ship that makes a flyby and drops of seals with big decelerator rocket pods strapped on would look cool. I don't know if you could theoretically balance the needed relative velocity to be able to get through a point defence system and the amount of G you would need to get below for the seals to survive the deceleration. But then, neither would most others.

(null) November 20, 2009 21:13 Flag

Just getting two spacecraft to meet is difficult enough when both are really trying. :)

But the new version of Battlestar Galactica gave quite a good example of how to do it in fiction I think.

Carl Voluntaryist November 20, 2009 20:33 Flag

Well, they could lay some det-chord on the hull, and blast an opening.
That would result in rapid decompression. Next they would enter the vessel, and either take it over, or sabotage it.
Most spacecraft have multiple sealing compartments to protect from decompression. So after fighting their way through a couple, they could even discard their suits.

Erik Niemi November 19, 2009 12:36 Flag

Boarding a spacecraft is propably near impossible. It could be done if the spacecraft that should be boarded would be completely crappy, but I kinda doubt that. Considering that the nazis' have much more experience about building spacecraft than the defenders.

Jani Salomaa November 19, 2009 10:37 Flag

Space Balls?

No-user-picture-set
Kevin Kane November 18, 2009 19:27 2 Thumb-ups
Add to Favorites

Raygun-equipped jet fighter by 2018 - not that crazy!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/17/hellads_phase_iv_contracts/

"One of the deals will see a full-power ground prototype built which will be the final stage prior to America's first raygun-equipped jet fighter."

Jump to comment form

Comments

(null) November 20, 2009 00:49 Flag

Cool... :)

I wonder how it would be best done in a film though? If it's realistic then the laser beam wouldn't be visible, but most cinema audiences expect lasers to look like something from Star Wars.

Kevin Kane November 20, 2009 00:41 Flag
No-user-picture-set
Kevin Kane November 19, 2009 18:49 1 Thumb-up
Add to Favorites

Rolling up a few thoughts

Just thought I'd roll a few ideas for the US fleet. Many of the thoughts in here are just modifications of others on here.

I think it's already been said that there will likely be one large ship per country, so obviously this would need to be an aircraft-carrier type of ship that would launch fighters.

Since we're only talking 2018, the fighters should be based off of current designs. As the F-35 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F35 ) is supposed to be the main workhorse until 2040 or so, it only makes sense to have what is basically an F-35 modified for space (a new type of engine, etc.)

The same could be said for F-22s. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor )

Now getting pilots trained for space is obviously not easy, so you will also need UAVs. Perhaps something like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Avenger . Rather than being completely autonomous, I can see small flights of these (maybe 5-10?) being controlled by a single human pilot in a control-fighter. The second-to-second control would be managed by an artificial intelligence.

Obviously we want to throw everything we have at the Nazis, so we even have a limited number of bleeding-edge fighters (or possibly UAVs) equipped with laser weapons ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/17/hellads_phase_iv_contracts/ ).

Other considerations:
Railguns
Mass driver ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver )

OK, I'll quit rambling now :)

Jump to comment form

Comments

This shot doesn't have comments.

Bild_thumb
Adryan Linden August 08, 2009 16:09 2 Thumb-ups
Add to Favorites

The concept of Unmanned Vehicles ...

One hint for the military tech in the movie...

As we speak, the US military of today are seriously funding the research & development of UAV:s (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles).
My guess is, in 2018 both US-fleet and EU-fleet have/has fully or partially developed the unmanned concept trough out their organization.

So if we aim for reality, my suggestion is that the military in the near future have adopted this policy rather then big bulky battleships in space/earth orbit.

Jump to comment form

Comments

Kevin Kane November 16, 2009 21:08 Flag

To play off of this idea:

I can envision micro-squadrons of maybe 10 semi-autonomous UAVs that would be controlled by a single pilot in a control-fighter.

So you have a pilot who goes up, attended by his Artificial Intelligence controlled micro-squadron. He sits back (or not) and controls the squadron's targets and missions, but the second-to-second piloting and targeting for the UAVs is done by A.I.

Adryan Linden November 16, 2009 14:53 Flag

You can see the windowless concept already in "G.I. Joe - Rise of the cobra". Its kind of nice looking ...

In this clip you can get a view of a windowless troop-transport.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3168645/g_i_joe_the_rise_of_cobra_trailer_2/

Adryan Linden November 10, 2009 20:48 Flag

I find a windowless design be very cool ...

Timo-Heikki Mäkelä October 18, 2009 08:01 Flag

I'm very much for UAVs, because they will be reality sooner or later. And if Earth would be catastrophically threated by nazi UFOs, that'd most certainly be sooner.

Although manned fifth generation fighters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_generation_jet_fighter will still be the most important armament. But the development practically means dog fights are long in the past. The pilots in fifth generation fighters won't but rarely touch the course of their fighter because of fighting. In fact, they don't even need to see visually out of their plane with their own eyes either, because they control electronics and screens providing them much more info than they can see themselves. Therefore they could just as well have no windows in their plane at all - or they could remain back in the airbase altogether!

That's, why send the valuable pilot to a fight, if it only means danger of losing him and he could fight just as well back at home?

BTW... There could be a dramatic joke based on this. If the fighter of a hero in the film were "shot down and killed", but the audience didn't know the pilot was actually only controlling the plane in a simulator room at a base, the pilot could reappear perfectly alive but angry to the room next door in the very next scene uttering something like: "Damn! They caught me! And I so trusted the self-defences!" And his colleagues would just laugh back: "Be thankful you didn't fly a Spitfire or you'd actually be dead now. Now you can just pick another 'movie' (plane) to wreck!"

Charles Anderson August 14, 2009 01:21 Flag

A bit behind the times this research is well under way and has been for the past 15 years. My sources, only go this far back with regard to this, but chances are, it's been going on for a lot longer.

I would like to see the unmanned vehicles develop an aspergers-like mentality. They are not programmed for every situation, and basically apply a rule when something is outside their programming.

For example :

[UAV typing to itself when comming across a pink and green catipillar]
Threat assessment...
Armaments... unknown
Armour... unknown
Known object... unknown
BLATT BLATT BLATT BLATT
[A small scortched crater is all that is left]
Threat neutralised

Regards Charles

No-user-picture-set
Kevin June 04, 2009 08:21 6 Thumb-ups
Add to Favorites

A slight aside

Slightly off task folks, but i think the USA ships should be heavily sponsored, in the vein of a formula one car... This would make a great contrast to the sinister Nazi fleet and gives plenty of scope for satirical comment...

Jump to comment form

Comments

(null) October 17, 2009 11:21 Flag

MajorD, the government would only make money from local companies. If a country was doing badly economically, it might need to seek sponsorship from foreign companies.

This happened with the Russian space programme in the mid-1990s, and they sometimes put foreign sponsors' logos on their rockets, most famously Pizza Hut:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/463041.stm

http://www.chewednews.com/Pictures/pizza_hut.jpg

MajorD October 17, 2009 04:17 Flag

If corporations are making money, then governments are logically making money off taxation of the corporation's profits.

Jack Malinowski October 02, 2009 17:33 Flag

i'm sure the MooNazis might get a thrill out of exploding some of their least favorite corporate ships... or sponsors for that matter -

who knows, perhaps some MooNazis might start an illegal market in effective corporate products that have been pegged as 'evil.'

Timo Vuorensola October 02, 2009 11:21 Flag

Yes, definitively sponsored and like Formula-1 cars. It's quite obvious that given the current state of economy, they won't have anything in Space without heavy support from those who have money - corporations, that is.

Richard Caldwell June 06, 2009 04:53 Flag

Oh hell yes. Commercialism knows no bounds.

Jack Malinowski June 05, 2009 17:09 Flag

good point - especially where there are cruises in / to space, there's advertising...

Daniel Michael O'Connell June 05, 2009 16:34 Flag

That's funny.

Really funny. "Armageddon" was like that. It was subtle, but the seats on the space-ships were Recaros, and there was (for some reason I still cannot fathom) a Victorinox logo inside one of the rovers. Many more than that, of course-- but those ones stand out.

If I were to offer a few suggestions in this vein, I'd opt for American Mercenary Corporations. Fictional ones, of course-- nobody needs to get sued over this, but "Blackliquid Security," and "Hellibarton" might be a good start.

Seppo Hiltunen June 04, 2009 10:59 Flag

not to mention product placement ;)

Stone_thumb
Jyrki Könönen August 06, 2009 11:20 2 Thumb-ups
Add to Favorites

As mentioned before...

...shuttles may still be in some kind of use, from-earth-to-orbit taxis or other kind workhorses, in souped-up versions of course. Not to be as feature vehicles, but maybe in some tiny role with worn, beaten outlook?

Souped-shuttel_thumb

Jump to comment form

Comments

This shot doesn't have comments.

No-user-picture-set
MajorD July 08, 2009 22:04 2 Thumb-ups
Add to Favorites

I know it's 6 months late

but I have to give this a shot as I only like one idea posted here, to use Wernher von Braun's work as inspiration for US space assets.

My thought on the matter of a US fleet is that it should be the only major fleet. Another nation might have a fleet, but I think it would consist of only a handful of ships. Japan might have one super ship, in line with anime or a group of five heroes and their five ships that may or may not combine into a single supership.

A US fleet should launch using nuclear pulse propulsion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion
The US would not have used this method of launch until this point because the EMP from launching using nukes would be sufficient to destroy all non-hardened ground and orbital electronic assets. Not to mention the political 'fallout'. The good thing is that a nuclear pulse rocket can lift millions of tons and could replace every single satellite in one launch. In fact, the heavier you make such a rocket the more efficient it works. There is also something very satisfying in using hundreds of nukes like this, and it makes some sense since the US has lots of nukes.

So, we're in space, what engine do we use? We can have it that each rocket is the ship and that they each use nuclear pulse propulsion. This would be good because the nukes can be used to power bomb pumped X-Ray laser rods, the blast plate can be used defensively, and the nukes can blind sensors so they can work like fighter craft flares. Nuclear pulse propulsion also means the space ship can be millions of tons, that means battleship levels of armor and weapons. Lasers, rail guns, and missiles. The book Footfall by Larry Niven has a ship called Michael, which has a several feet of armor, battleship guns off the Iowa class, and parasite craft. I would dump the parasite craft for missiles and add the above mentioned weapons, but that's all.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=977
http://www.up-ship.com/apr/michael.htm

The fleet can't have just one type of ship, though. There should be a frigate or cruiser to go along with the above battleship. Some of the nuclear pulse propulsion rockets could be purely for lifting smaller ships to space. These smaller ships can be nuclear thermal rockets.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/06/nuclear-dc-x-recent-nuclear-thermal.html
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3c.html
They would just have two or four weapons each, either two laser emitters, two rail gun turrets, or two of each, or a bunch of missiles.

The fleet should also be supported from the air and ground using flying laser platforms and sea ships, maybe even from secretly launched orbital weapon platforms. That's an alternate way to go, use only orbital weapons launched over the decades. You can have it that the Star Wars program was a secret success, and that current research into lasers and rail guns isn't new success but new refinement or a roundabout method of declassification.

Jump to comment form

Comments

MajorD July 17, 2009 01:38 Flag

I didn't really mean it like that. I'm thinking more along the lines of blindness from momentum. It also wouldn't destroy the country but it would slowly kill a lot of people around the world a little faster due to radiation and destroy much of civilization without preparation.

In fact, the latter effect could be considered an ideal side effect. The US could decide to secretly shut within itself everything down before launch in order to protect infrastructure, and tell either its allies to do the same or no one at all. Although, that would be plane stupid, because it would be eliminating huge parts of the world economy which would destroy the US economy, and could conflict too much with whatever the current story is for the movie. Better to have the US tell everyone what is happening and how to protect themselves, ie shutdown, unplug, remove batteries from all electronics.

But I digress; momentum through blindness. I think a reasonable and interesting story would be to have the Project Orion nuclear propulsion project continue past the Nuclear Test Ban treaty. Instead, the US continued research into nuclear pulse propulsion in secret, because the idea had been decided and strongly pushed that only a fleet of ships was the answer to a possible return by the Nazis. In truth, there were other options but they didn't strike a cord with the soul nearly so well as spaceships. It was also argued from other angles, such as nuclear pulse propulsion being the only way to lift enough equipment quickly enough without blowing the secret arms programs to fight the Nazis. They couldn't secretly launch satellites because stuff in space, especially orbit is extremely easy to detect, unless you hide one piece of equipment as another piece of equipment. So, why not hide one satellite as another, well you could but you can make what is supposed to be a glorified camera only so big, and for an unknown threat you want lots of weapons. The other argument that the only way to be safe is to fight the Nazis in deep space so they don't have a chance on a vengeance run, where they buzz Earth orbit and drop nukes without landing or even in prelude to landing.

So, let's say they make huge strides after the 60's. Maybe underground tests are conducted and within another ten years they have all the problems worked out. Then they start on building the ships. If they start in 1975, that gives the US 43 years to build ships, and if one ship were built every five years, then 8 ships could be built by 2018, 9 or 10 if they get efficient. If they're large enough, you only need one for satellite replacement. With five year increments there could be large differences in armament between the oldest and newest spaceship. The oldest might have 16 inch guns off the Iowa class ship, while the new ones would have rail guns. Not just the armament but even the interiors. Cathode ray tubes and computers no more powerful than a wrist watch in the first ones, and modern glass cockpits for the new ones. Although, it's realistic that the old ones would be upgraded as much as possible, but there would be a limit to how much upgrading is practical, but based on the super carriers of the US Navy, and other ships, the modernization might be able to be extensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

I also looked at the concept art above. Of the set on the left, I really like the space plane in the lower left, it looks like a hypersonic ship. Using a combination of scramjet and nuclear rocket, a self launching fighter could be possible. I know what I wrote about fighters in my last post in another shot, that they won't work, but this wouldn't be fighter size, it would be a one man rocket the size of a 747. It could have a turreted laser system and a spinally mounted rail gun that fires Davy Crocket size nuclear shells. The US is going to need secret uranium mines for all these nukes, maybe in Canada. Or, better yet, in combination with the above, all those nukes that have been destroyed for the nuclear disarmament treaty have really saved and repurposed. The US can have more nukes than it has ever had.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

Lynn Kirkconnell July 14, 2009 16:45 Flag

Yup....huge....**overconfident** US Fleet.....

As in *blindly* overconfident.

I've seen Yank politicians like that in the last election season.

Heh. Heh. Heh.

Richard Cullen July 09, 2009 19:14 Flag

I like the idea of a huge, confident US fleet ready to launch using nuclear pulse technology. I could imagine this huge American fleet, lots of big grins, back slapping and patronising "don't worry, we beat them for you last time" type comments to the EU as they get ready to launch. They then ignite the nukes and "Wham!!!" the US vanishes in a big glowing nuclear puff-ball (much to the bemusement of the Nazis who were about to strike against them).

Would tie in quite well with the fact that when the US dropped the first A-bomb half the scientific community thought that the explosion would ignite the planet's atmosphere - so they dropped it anyway! It would also be exceptionally funny to watch and parody the numerous "America saves the world" Sci-Fi movies!!!

Lapdogofsatan_thumb
Pekka Ikonen May 10, 2009 07:05 7 Thumb-ups
Add to Favorites

updated shuttle

2018 is so near that any "futuristic" large vessels aren´t realistic. Updated version of US spaceshuttle, carrying nuclear missiles in cargobay might be most realistic. Also fighters that are lifted into upper atmosphere by bomber and the launched into rocket powered flight would be feasible.

Jump to comment form

Comments

MajorD July 17, 2009 01:03 Flag

Space fighters would be orbit only and wouldn't be able to fight anything like fighters in atmosphere due to fuel constraints, if the space fighters are atmospheric fighter size. They might be okay for intercepting flying saucers as they pass through Earth's obit, but they won't be able to carry much in the way of armament, so their usefulness will be low. The flying saucers, considering their size and range, have no limit on reaction mass, since they don't use reaction mass, so they should be able to out maneuver a Newtonian space fighter to the extent of completely avoiding such fighter's orbitals.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spauiser.htm
http://www.up-ship.com/apr/extras/scruiser1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-20_Dyna-Soar

The same is true of boarding parties, it is extremely unlikely they could even make hull contact in order to carve a hole in a flying saucer's hull. This is because of not just fuel constraints but human constraints on survivable acceleration. You also have to wonder what benefit there is over sending just three marines to a flying saucer large enough to carry dozens of troops, when you could arm the same vehicle with a nuke to completely eliminate the enemy.

Using the Space Shuttle is also not very good. Using it means having a very sensitive launch, rain can kill a Shuttle Launch. It also means hauling into orbit tons of weight you don't need. Better would be to use the replacement rockets NASA is developing, or a secret military rocket, or a future commercial rocket; or even the Shuttle's fuel tank, solid rockets, and its engines in a special booster designed to lift nothing but nuclear rockets.

Carl Voluntaryist July 16, 2009 20:36 Flag

I like the idea! I think I can one-up your nuke in the cargobay:
It should be a simple task for U.S. engineers to retro-fit small battle-modules (housing perhaps up to 3 soldiers each) and transport them into orbit with the shuttles. Say, as a make-shift picket-line, until the real armament is ready to be deployed.
(I imagine this to look like one of those barrel-shaped modules, with small windows, maneuvering nozzles, and guns poking out)
They would either have to be cycled with new ones from behid the lines, or re-supplied from space-stations. This adds a whole new level of logistics. At least until the newer ships arrive.
I think that's what would happen if we would be caught off-guard...

Pekka Ikonen May 21, 2009 09:57 Flag

To Ianmaoshen: Read the Task guidelines:
"- The film is set in 2018 - so don't get over-excited on tech!
- There's no such thing as "interstellar travel" or "antigravity" invented.
- Be reasonable - try to be functional, and limit your ideas to feasible technologial advancements."

It requires certain level of feasibility.

lanmaoshen May 20, 2009 23:43 Flag

Nazis escaped to Moon in 1940s while the rockets are still in the primitive stage, only to come back 70 years later and haunt the freeworld. That sounds realistic enough for you?
Man, this is a sci-fi movie, a work of fiction for crying out loud! It doesn't have to stick to reality, like those documentries do!

Seppo Hiltunen May 10, 2009 08:35 Flag

That is one reasonable thought. I agree to that.

Pose_thumb
Tom Thomssen July 14, 2009 14:54 0 Thumb-ups
Add to Favorites

New VTOL fighters

How about that cool VTOL dropship that the Colonial Marines use in Aliens? Maybe a new light weight material and some new propulsion innovations could make them fly in 2018? They could also be used for civilian tasks as transport vehicles. Nostromo Corporation or Sulaco Ltd. would be an excellent name for the manufacturer of these ships.

It would be cool if the same shape could be used so that everyone knows that it's a tribute to Aliens (maybe some stealth design could be added to avoid a lawsuit)...

Jump to comment form

Comments

David Jansson July 14, 2009 15:04 Flag

The risk of law suite shouldn't be a problem. I have a feeling the Halo dropships would have gotten one if there was a risk.

Besides, the dropship in Aliens is pretty much taken from a modern attack helicopter design, only without rotor blades.

No-user-picture-set
Jokke Kaksonen July 09, 2009 10:40 1 Thumb-up
Add to Favorites

Stealth ship

I'd love to see a US stealth ship.

How about it looking like a ball of wool. It would be transported into orbit by a shuttle, and once it is in space it unfurls into a huge hairy ball with carbon fiber strings tens of meters long stretching in all directions, in order to dampen radar waves and heat detection.

It's propulsion would be tricky, either mass propulsion (throw things out one way and have the ship move the other, maybe some kind of solar sail. or some other tricky way to avoid detection.

This would be armed with a tactical nuclear device and could be sent on a stealth mission to the moon to strike the Nazis headquarter.

Jump to comment form

Comments

Stig-Magnus Gjerald July 09, 2009 11:12 Flag

Sounds odd:-) Problem is, with as much electronic warfare as there seems to be in this little war,visual detection could be a big problem.
And with current tech, i think heat still would be an issue, engine has to be somewhere. Its just 2018 after all:-)