Valks On Mars

[ghostryder]

Something I was thinking about after re-watching Bye-Bye Mars - Can a naked un-modded valk fly on Mars? I’m no aerospace engineer, but if you consider that Martian gravity is about 1/3 that of Earth’s and that the atmosphere is only 1% as dense, you’re still having to keep a substantial mass up in the air with only 1% of the lift at a given speed (someone please check my fluid mechanics). Assuming the same Martian factors, I don’t see how normal space fastpacks would work either. Now I see why the Legioss needs a VTOL crotch thruster.

Thankfully, Kakizaki only weighs 100 lbs on Mars !

Edited July 20, 2006 by ghostryder

[JsARCLIGHT]

If Valkyries can fly in space, how is this an issue?

[ghostryder]

If Valkyries can fly in space, how is this an issue? 

417665[/snapback]

There's no gravity in space, thus no need for wing lift. On Mars, a naked valk weighs upwards of 10,000 lbs.

[JsARCLIGHT]

According to the TV show a standard Valkyrie's magical nuclear engines allow it to fly nearly anywhere, even without FAST packs... so I'd imagine they fly just like they do in space using their magical apogee motors to turn rather than with control surfaces.

[ghostryder]

According to the TV show a standard Valkyrie's magical nuclear engines allow it to fly nearly anywhere, even without FAST packs... so I'd imagine they fly just like they do in space using their magical apogee motors to turn rather than with control surfaces.

417668[/snapback]

Yes, I understand that the reaction engines can operate anywhere and that vernier thrusters would allow the valk to maneuver anywhere... but these don't keep a fighter IN the air when there's gravity trying to pull it down (unless those tiny vertical thrusters we see on the Super-O in DYRL are more powerful than I thought).

[JsARCLIGHT]

Yes, I understand that the reaction engines can operate anywhere and that vernier thrusters would allow the valk to maneuver anywhere... but these don't keep a fighter IN the air when there's gravity trying to pull it down (unless those tiny vertical thrusters we see on the Super-O in DYRL are more powerful than I thought).

417669[/snapback]

Then I guess what keeps it "in the air" is suspension of disbelief... which is the same thing that lets them transform into robots.

My real question is if the Zentradi plant "gravity mines" that are so powerful they hold the Macross down, wouldn't those same mines immobilize the smaller defese units as well as the Valkyries?

[ghostryder]

Then I guess what keeps it "in the air" is suspension of disbelief... which is the same thing that lets them transform into robots.  

My real question is if the Zentradi plant "gravity mines" that are so powerful they hold the Macross down, wouldn't those same mines immobilize the smaller defese units as well as the Valkyries?

417671[/snapback]

I'll buy that . If tiny invisible swing bars can survive transformation at Mach 1, I can buy that...

You're right about the gravity mines, unless the gravitational force was in the exact shape of the macross and stopped at the ground surface

I will now stop bashing one of my fav episodes, and shelve my Sara Base II Martian Low-vis 1/48 ideas...

Edited July 20, 2006 by ghostryder

[eugimon]

Yes, I understand that the reaction engines can operate anywhere and that vernier thrusters would allow the valk to maneuver anywhere... but these don't keep a fighter IN the air when there's gravity trying to pull it down (unless those tiny vertical thrusters we see on the Super-O in DYRL are more powerful than I thought).

417669[/snapback]

Then I guess what keeps it "in the air" is suspension of disbelief... which is the same thing that lets them transform into robots.

My real question is if the Zentradi plant "gravity mines" that are so powerful they hold the Macross down, wouldn't those same mines immobilize the smaller defese units as well as the Valkyries?

417671[/snapback]

not necessarily, gravity is a two way street, the oppsing object needs to have sufficient mass as well for stuff to start happening... real world example, the moon and tides. The moon has enough of a gravitational pull to cause high tides on the world and to possibly even affect plate tectonics... yet humans and smaller objects don't get pulled up into space. We simply don't have enough mass where the pull of the moon is going to affect us.

So the gravity mines would work better on larger/denser objects since there's more energy locked up there.

[EXO]

Would that be similar to valk in water? Supposedly valks can maneuver themselves in water. There were drawings from Studio Nue depicting it.

[ghostryder]

Would that be similar to valk in water?  Supposedly valks can maneuver themselves in water.  There were drawings from Studio Nue depicting it.

417700[/snapback]

I find a valk in water slightly more believable than a valk on Mars... wings work under water (eg hydrofoil), and now you have buoyancy to help.

[eugimon]

Would that be similar to valk in water?  Supposedly valks can maneuver themselves in water.  There were drawings from Studio Nue depicting it.

417700[/snapback]

I find a valk in water slightly more believable than a valk on Mars... wings work under water (eg hydrofoil), and now you have buoyancy to help.

417712[/snapback]

but there's pressure to take into consideration. and every hatch/panel etc would have to be watertight to keep from being flooded/electrical shorts.

[GrimlockCW]

Would that be similar to valk in water?  Supposedly valks can maneuver themselves in water.  There were drawings from Studio Nue depicting it.

417700[/snapback]

I find a valk in water slightly more believable than a valk on Mars... wings work under water (eg hydrofoil), and now you have buoyancy to help.

417712[/snapback]

+ with the intakes closed, the valk (even to fly in space) would require to create its own fuel/O2/heat, like a space shuttles engines and fuel.

so its not that odd, i dunno why (i read it somewhere) someone looked at Mac 0 odd cause of the Valk under water...

i mean, normal jet fuels wouldn't have worked on the VF0's to begin with even a AV-8B Harrier jumpjet has to refuel after a vertical takeoff! it burns most of its fuel just jumping!

so i wonder what fuel was used...

Edited July 20, 2006 by GrimlockCW

[JsARCLIGHT]

Reading the musing about Valkyries under water why is my mind buzzing with this classic exchange from Futurama:

Professor Farnsworth: Dear Lord, that's over 150 atmospheres of pressure!

Fry: How many atmospheres can this ship withstand?

Professor Farnsworth: Well it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one.

[GrimlockCW]

Reading the musing about Valkyries under water why is my mind buzzing with this classic exchange from Futurama:

Professor Farnsworth: Dear Lord, that's over 150 atmospheres of pressure!

Fry: How many atmospheres can this ship withstand?

Professor Farnsworth: Well it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one.

417721[/snapback]

yes but that an unarmored transport, the valks are nicely armoured and can take some seriuos pounding, so i doubt a few bits of extra pressure is gonna hurt them

not to mention as i recall, Fry flushed the toilet and resolved that issue, though it wasn't his intention

Edited July 20, 2006 by GrimlockCW

[Zentrandude]

If Valkyries can fly in space, how is this an issue? 

417665[/snapback]

There's no gravity in space, thus no need for wing lift. On Mars, a naked valk weighs upwards of 10,000 lbs.

417666[/snapback]

I was under the impression theres gravity all over in space, just more so and less some in some areas depending mass of objects of matter.

[ghostryder]

I was under the impression theres gravity all over in space, just more so and less some in some areas depending mass of objects of matter.

OK.. what Stephen Hawking is saying is technically true . Let's assume that the sortie is far enough away from a massive celestial body so that there's no significant gravitational pull, and if there was, every mecha within the skirmish would be effected in the same realative way.

I'm gonna let this topic go unless someone has something to contribute to the Mars question.

[Ali Sama]

mars as an Atmosphere.

[ghostryder]

mars as an Atmosphere.

417737[/snapback]

I know, please re-read 1st post.

[eugimon]

mars as an Atmosphere.

417737[/snapback]

I know, please re-read 1st post.

417740[/snapback]

ghostryder's problem with valks on mars is pretty much spot on... the atmosphere is way thin and a valks wings are have insufficient surface area to achieve lift.

IMO, they would be restricted to gerwalk and battroid more moving around.

[ghostryder]

Mars Plane

Apparently, the experts have already thought of this. Now, have Shoji make this thing transform!

... and here's a papercraft!

ARES_paper_model_1_.pdf

[JB0]

If Valkyries can fly in space, how is this an issue? 

417665[/snapback]

There's no gravity in space, thus no need for wing lift. On Mars, a naked valk weighs upwards of 10,000 lbs.

417666[/snapback]

But it establishes signifigant thrust levels, as they can make very tight maneuvers in space, where thrust is the only way to do anything..

Also, asuming DYRL is accurate in this respect, they can do a grounded fighter->GERWALK transformation by hovering on verniers, so the verniers could also be used to augment the wing's meager lift.

But the VF-1 is officially capable of Blackbird-style performance.Well in excess of mach 3 at 30,000 meters. At that altitude, the Earth's atmosphere is thinner than Mars'. So it's not an issue, because we have a real-world plane from the cold war that could fly on Mars, assuming there's oxygen.

Reading the musing about Valkyries under water why is my mind buzzing with this classic exchange from Futurama:

Professor Farnsworth: Dear Lord, that's over 150 atmospheres of pressure!

Fry: How many atmospheres can this ship withstand?

Professor Farnsworth: Well it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one.

417721[/snapback]

yes but that an unarmored transport, the valks are nicely armoured and can take some seriuos pounding, so i doubt a few bits of extra pressure is gonna hurt them

417722[/snapback]

It's still a totally diffrent issue. A submarine is heavily armored and airtight, but I wouldn't count on it lasting 10 seconds in outer space. It's designed for external pressures, not internal ones. That was the point the professor was making, and it's just as valid to a heavily-armed battleship as it is to a naked transport.

And Valks are designed to be light. Most of their armor is via overtech energy fields.We don't really know how those respond to pressure at all.

Edited July 20, 2006 by JB0

[Zentrandude]

If Valkyries can fly in space, how is this an issue? 

417665[/snapback]

There's no gravity in space, thus no need for wing lift. On Mars, a naked valk weighs upwards of 10,000 lbs.

417666[/snapback]

But it establishes signifigant thrust levels, as they can make very tight maneuvers in space, where thrust is the only way to do anything..

Also, asuming DYRL is accurate in this respect, they can do a grounded fighter->GERWALK transformation by hovering on verniers, so the verniers could also be used to augment the wing's meager lift.

But the VF-1 is officially capable of Blackbird-style performance.Well in excess of mach 3 at 30,000 meters. At that altitude, the Earth's atmosphere is thinner than Mars'. So it's not an issue, because we have a real-world plane from the cold war that could fly on Mars, assuming there's oxygen.

Reading the musing about Valkyries under water why is my mind buzzing with this classic exchange from Futurama:

Professor Farnsworth: Dear Lord, that's over 150 atmospheres of pressure!

Fry: How many atmospheres can this ship withstand?

Professor Farnsworth: Well it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one.

417721[/snapback]

yes but that an unarmored transport, the valks are nicely armoured and can take some seriuos pounding, so i doubt a few bits of extra pressure is gonna hurt them

417722[/snapback]

It's still a totally diffrent issue. A submarine is heavily armored and airtight, but I wouldn't count on it lasting 10 seconds in outer space. It's designed for external pressures, not internal ones. That was the point the professor was making, and it's just as valid to a heavily-armed battleship as it is to a naked transport.

And Valks are designed to be light. Most of their armor is via overtech energy fields.We don't really know how those respond to pressure at all.

417756[/snapback]

I don't even think all past space capsuls up to the shuttle had internal pressure in mind when being designed.

Edited July 20, 2006 by Zentrandude

[Ali Sama]

mars as an Atmosphere.

417737[/snapback]

I know, please re-read 1st post.

417740[/snapback]

ghostryder's problem with valks on mars is pretty much spot on... the atmosphere is way thin and a valks wings are have insufficient surface area to achieve lift.

IMO, they would be restricted to gerwalk and battroid more moving around.

417745[/snapback]

all you need is adequate thrust. Which the vfs have plenty of.

[ghostryder]

Seriously, how fast are the valks flying during ACM w/ Zentradi? With their weight and tiny wings, they would stall and drop like a a rock (ok, maybe a pumice stone).

I guess the quick answer is, yes they could maybe fly on Mars with engines full throttle on a straightaway. Thanks all for the responses .

[Nied]

Valks could fly on mars but not very well. JB0's comparison to the blackbird is actually pretty apt. While the blackbird can fly in an extremely thin atmosphere, it has to fly at mach 3 just to stay up in the air, any slower and the thin atmosphere isn't enough to keep it aloft. The fun starts when you try a turn, just like the blackbird a valk would have to make very slow and wide turns, both because it's control surfaces wont have much authority in the rarefied atmosphere (which in the VF-1's case could be mitigated by thrust vectoring and RCS systems), but also because anything but the gentlest of turns would result in a really nasty stall. All of that is manageable when you're cruising in a relatively straight line 90,000 ft above earth, but it would be a nightmare trying to dogfight above Mars at the altitudes they showed in "Bye Bye Mars." What they should have done was shown everyone flying around in GERWALK mode, the downward pointed thrust would have more than compensated for the loss of lift, and the thin atmosphere would have negated most of the drag issues.

[JB0]

I don't even think all past space capsuls up to the shuttle had internal pressure in mind when being designed.

417761[/snapback]

Sure they were.

They're designed to keep 1 atmosphere of pressure inside while in a essentially 0 atmosphere environment.

It's not a LARGE pressure differential, but it's still there.

If nothing else, the contruction of all the vehicle's external seals is shaped around that one assumption.

Re-entry is an interesting inversion of the norm. It's also noteworthy that only one face of the vehicle can take the heat and pressure of re-entry.

...

Hikaru did re-entry in the 1S. I was wrong about SWAG armor having no established pressure effectiveness.

I still have serious doubts about a VF-1's ultimate durability, though. This IS the vehicle that can be torn apart by a bare-handed humanoid. 50-foot or not, Britai is still flesh and blood, and shold've at least cut his hands up pretty bad.

Valks could fly on mars but not very well.  JB0's comparison to the blackbird is actually pretty apt.  While the blackbird can fly in an extremely thin atmosphere, it has to fly at mach 3 just to stay up in the air, any slower and the thin atmosphere isn't enough to keep it aloft. 

Blackbird CAN fly at operating altitude below mach 3. It certainly can't go subsonic at altitude, though.

The U2, of course, can ONLY go subsonic. And an absurdly low subsonic at that.

The fun starts when you try a turn, just like the blackbird a valk would have to make very slow and wide turns, both because it's control surfaces wont have much authority in the rarefied atmosphere (which in the VF-1's case could be mitigated by thrust vectoring and RCS systems), but also because anything but the gentlest of turns would result in a really nasty stall. 

Don't forget the effects of g-forces on the pilots. When you go from mach 3 one direction to mach 3 in another direction, it tends to snap you around.

Again taking a comparable real-world example, blackbird pilots have been known to crack their helmet visors when an engine stalled out and their head hit something in the cockpit. That's not even a full turn, just a rapid swerve.

...

But inertia is one of those things that sci-fi has always had serious trouble with.

All of that is manageable when you're cruising in a relatively straight line 90,000 ft above earth, but it would be a nightmare trying to dogfight above Mars at the altitudes they showed in "Bye Bye Mars."  What they should have done was shown everyone flying around in GERWALK mode,  the downward pointed thrust would have more than compensated for the loss of lift, and the thin atmosphere would have negated most of the drag issues.

Or sketched a lot of vernier thruster fire, though GERWALK is definitely the preferred mode for slow-speed combat in that environment, especially given the limited flight capacity of the regults and glaugs.

Like I said, DYRL claims they can hover on verniers, so full-spread wings plus some vernier fire should've kept them aloft at much slower speeds than just wings. Verniers are also going to be a major part of maneuverability in a thin atmosphere(and IMO, verniers will be the main part of GERWALK maneuverability in ANY atmosphere).

...

But the show was on a tight budget and schedule. So they were pretty limited in what they could do, and you rarely see verniers firing, even in space.

[Skullsixx]

Something I was thinking about after re-watching Bye-Bye Mars - Can a naked un-modded valk fly on Mars?  I’m no aerospace engineer, but if you consider that Martian gravity is about 1/3 that of Earth’s and that the atmosphere is only 1% as dense, you’re still having to keep a substantial mass up in the air with only 1% of the lift at a given speed (someone please check my fluid mechanics). Assuming the same Martian factors, I don’t see how normal space fastpacks would work either. Now I see why the Legioss needs a VTOL crotch thruster.

Thankfully, Kakizaki only weighs 100 lbs on Mars  !

417664[/snapback]

Dude, are you one of those guys at the Star Trek conventions that always points out inconsistencies with fictional technical concepts that William Shatner or the rest of the cast don't care about?

[Nied]

Blackbird CAN fly at operating altitude below mach 3. It certainly can't go subsonic at altitude, though.

The U2, of course, can ONLY go subsonic. And an absurdly low subsonic at that.

Actually once you get up to it's operating altitudes it can't go much slower than Mach 3. Pilots call it the "coffin corner" your speed is maxed out the air's too thin to go any higher and if you let your speed bleed off you stall, the U-2 actually deals with the same thing (even though it's going slow). It's part of the reason they only let the best pilots fly either plane.

All of that is manageable when you're cruising in a relatively straight line 90,000 ft above earth, but it would be a nightmare trying to dogfight above Mars at the altitudes they showed in "Bye Bye Mars."  What they should have done was shown everyone flying around in GERWALK mode,  the downward pointed thrust would have more than compensated for the loss of lift, and the thin atmosphere would have negated most of the drag issues.

Or sketched a lot of vernier thruster fire, though GERWALK is definitely the preferred mode for slow-speed combat in that environment, especially given the limited flight capacity of the regults and glaugs.

Like I said, DYRL claims they can hover on verniers, so full-spread wings plus some vernier fire should've kept them aloft at much slower speeds than just wings. Verniers are also going to be a major part of maneuverability in a thin atmosphere(and IMO, verniers will be the main part of GERWALK maneuverability in ANY atmosphere).

...

But the show was on a tight budget and schedule. So they were pretty limited in what they could do, and you rarely see verniers firing, even in space.

417797[/snapback]

I always got the impression that the verniers Hikaru used to get into GERWALK, were just momentary puffers, and really couldn't provide the type of thrust needed to keep a plane hovering (if they could there'd be no need for a GERWALK mode). I always just chalk it up to artistic license in "Bye bye Mars" and leave it at that.

[JB0]

Blackbird CAN fly at operating altitude below mach 3. It certainly can't go subsonic at altitude, though.

The U2, of course, can ONLY go subsonic. And an absurdly low subsonic at that.

Actually once you get up to it's operating altitudes it can't go much slower than Mach 3. Pilots call it the "coffin corner" your speed is maxed out the air's too thin to go any higher and if you let your speed bleed off you stall, the U-2 actually deals with the same thing (even though it's going slow). It's part of the reason they only let the best pilots fly either plane.

I thought it could fly at altitude down in the high 2s also.

I knew there was LESS wiggle room, but not that there was NO wiggle room.

I always got the impression that the verniers Hikaru used to get into GERWALK, were just momentary puffers, and really couldn't provide the type of thrust needed to keep a plane hovering (if they could there'd be no need for a GERWALK mode).  I always just chalk it up to artistic license in "Bye bye Mars" and leave it at that.

They sustained for a while during that transformation. And would be used for maneuvering in space anyways(their primary purpose, if I had to bet).

But I wasn't thinking just hover on the jets. You'd burn your vernier fuel fast that way.

But you've got an atmosphere, albeit a thin one. It's even thicker at low altitudes(which is where the Bye-Bye Mars combat was landing) than the environment the previously mentioned real-world planes operate in.

It's not like the wings are doing NOTHING, they just aren't doing quite enough in all probability. So augment the lift fron your wings with a light vernier thrust and voila, you can fly.

I'd guess that GERWALK is a lot more effective close to the surface than a jet with vernier assist, but far less effective when airborne(what with GERWALK having basically no aerodynamics).

It's supposed to be a ground-effect mode, after all.

[ghostryder]

Dude, are you one of those guys at the Star Trek conventions that always points out inconsistencies with fictional technical concepts that William Shatner or the rest of the cast don't care about?

Dude, this forum is full of "those guys" that like to talk about this stuff. If you don't care about the topic, don't post .

[JB0]

Dude, are you one of those guys at the Star Trek conventions that always points out inconsistencies with fictional technical concepts that William Shatner or the rest of the cast don't care about?

Dude, this forum is full of "those guys" that like to talk about this stuff. If you don't care about the topic, don't post .

417864[/snapback]

Macross is a fair bit more consistent than Star Trek.

We just poke at the places where the physics diverge from reality.

[GrimlockCW]

Dude, are you one of those guys at the Star Trek conventions that always points out inconsistencies with fictional technical concepts that William Shatner or the rest of the cast don't care about?

Dude, this forum is full of "those guys" that like to talk about this stuff. If you don't care about the topic, don't post .

417864[/snapback]

Macross is a fair bit more consistent than Star Trek.

We just poke at the places where the physics diverge from reality.

417878[/snapback]

i'm biting my lip on that one...

cause honestly their fairly the same

[Zentrandude]

Dude, are you one of those guys at the Star Trek conventions that always points out inconsistencies with fictional technical concepts that William Shatner or the rest of the cast don't care about?

Dude, this forum is full of "those guys" that like to talk about this stuff. If you don't care about the topic, don't post .

417864[/snapback]

Heh while true Jbo can over geeks things up, hes generaly right about things or bs good enough that you don't want to care enough to argue something pointless.

[JB0]

Dude, are you one of those guys at the Star Trek conventions that always points out inconsistencies with fictional technical concepts that William Shatner or the rest of the cast don't care about?

Dude, this forum is full of "those guys" that like to talk about this stuff. If you don't care about the topic, don't post .

417864[/snapback]

Macross is a fair bit more consistent than Star Trek.

We just poke at the places where the physics diverge from reality.

417878[/snapback]

i'm biting my lip on that one...

cause honestly their fairly the same

417890[/snapback]

Trek can't even maintain a cohesive continuity across one series. They contradict themselves every other episode.

As far as consistency of a universe goes, they're towards the bottom of the list.

[Skullsixx]

Dude, are you one of those guys at the Star Trek conventions that always points out inconsistencies with fictional technical concepts that William Shatner or the rest of the cast don't care about?

Dude, this forum is full of "those guys" that like to talk about this stuff. If you don't care about the topic, don't post .

417864[/snapback]

Macross is a fair bit more consistent than Star Trek.

We just poke at the places where the physics diverge from reality.

417878[/snapback]

i'm biting my lip on that one...

cause honestly their fairly the same

417890[/snapback]

Trek can't even maintain a cohesive continuity across one series. They contradict themselves every other episode.

As far as consistency of a universe goes, they're towards the bottom of the list.

417922[/snapback]

I was just being a smartass, remembering that SNL skit with Shatner... that's all.