WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by icekatze »

hi hi

I think that if there is a living crew onboard, and the lifespan of the crew is somehow a concern regardless of the length of the voyage, that having a booster stage would be preferable to building a second spaceship that can overtake and match velocities with the primary ship in order to deliver the crew to the primary ship at a later point in its voyage.

I would accept as an axiom that once a ship has reached escape velocity, thrust becomes vastly less important than efficiency, but while a spacecraft is still in orbit of Earth, having enough thrust to break away in a reasonable number of orbits can still be important. If not because of time considerations, then at least because of the probabilities of hitting space junk. Also, if a ship has an optimal escape window, then it is possible that spending a more significant amount of thrust during that window would be a good idea.

User avatar
Mr.Tucker
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:45 pm

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by Mr.Tucker »

I will shamelesly quote myself from an earlier disscussion, since I'm a lazy-ass :
Every drive has a potential niche. What space systems would look like in case of near-term human expansion and space exploration is a menagerie of electrical and other propulsion concepts : simple stuff like arcjets for stationkeeping, multi-use systems like VASIMR or NTR for orbital tugs, high Isp for long voyages,etc. My expectation would be that cargo craft would use different types of sail designs (being propelantless is a big advantage), and that very long range mission probes (like, say, to the solar focal point) would use a combination of such drives (launch with whatever, accelerate with electric, slow down with magsail. Just an example). Fusion is still some time away in my opinion (could be wrong).


FTL is, in my humble opinion, probably possible. How it would be possible is however, hard to gleam at our present tech level. I remember reading somewhere that the ratio between a journey to Mars and a journey to Proxima is the same as between Columbus' journey to america and a journey to Mars (80 milion to one about). So a journey to proxima is as difficult to us as a journey to Mars would be to Columbus. Doesn't mean it's impossible,just that we may simply not be advanced enough.
Non-FTL methods we can envision are drives that rely on beamed power. Like Robert Forward's Starwhisp. The only non-beamed power realistic concepts I've encountered so far (that have an actual shot at working IMHO) are the Daedalus probe, Peregrino's ''Valkyrie'' antimatter starship (that inspired the ISV ''Venture Star'' from Avatar) and the clever concept called the ''Firefly'' that came out of a study group under the Icarus Project.

User avatar
Mjolnir
Posts: 452
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:24 pm

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by Mjolnir »

icekatze wrote:hi hi

I think that if there is a living crew onboard, and the lifespan of the crew is somehow a concern regardless of the length of the voyage, that having a booster stage would be preferable to building a second spaceship that can overtake and match velocities with the primary ship in order to deliver the crew to the primary ship at a later point in its voyage.
What are you going to save? A few months? Years? At a hundredth of a g average acceleration, it would only take 5 years to reach 5% c. When you've got a century or two of travel ahead of you, do you really care?

I am assuming the burns will be a small fraction of the overall trip duration. Otherwise is wasteful...delta-v applied toward the middle of the mission makes relatively little difference in trip duration. You want your average velocity close to your peak velocity, or you're just wasting costly delta-v in getting to that peak, only to start shedding it soon after. Long burns also extend the amount of time equipment has to be active.

icekatze wrote:I would accept as an axiom that once a ship has reached escape velocity, thrust becomes vastly less important than efficiency, but while a spacecraft is still in orbit of Earth, having enough thrust to break away in a reasonable number of orbits can still be important. If not because of time considerations, then at least because of the probabilities of hitting space junk. Also, if a ship has an optimal escape window, then it is possible that spending a more significant amount of thrust during that window would be a good idea.
I doubt debris would really be a serious problem. If outgoing trajectories from LEO aren't safe, build it in higher orbit, perhaps at a Lagrangian point.

As for optimal windows, you've got a mission delta-v of several percent of c at least. Earth orbits the sun at 0.0001c, the orbital mechanics are lost in rounding error.

Absalom
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:33 am

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by Absalom »

Krulle wrote:
Absalom wrote:
Krulle wrote:For long travel distances, if no FTL shortcut is found, photon drives will be the only viable solution. But they have a terrible low output, but by far the best propulsion/energy ratio.
Fusion is supposed to be decent if we can ever get a net-positive fusion reactor. There's also the old Orion Drive proposal, some variations of which are actually plasma/fusion drives themselves (MicroMagOrion, or something like that).
The problem is that the mass of the fuel is lost afterwards, and that we therefore need to put tremendous amounts of fuel on the ship. The distance (without FTL) is prohibitively large, the amount of fuel needed therefore tremendous, so much even, that most calculations I've seen so far suggest starting the ship, and sending the crew to it more than 10 years later, to catch up with the ship when it is somewhere near Jupiter for the first sling shot (or even catch it between Jupiter and the Sun for the big slingshot).
The amount of fuel will make the non-FTL interstellar ship so massive, that the acceleration will be near non-existant when it still has enough fuel to brake with 1g when the ship has reached one of our closest neighbours.
If I was trying to launch an interstellar colonization mission with technology that we can currently be confident is possible, then I'd have two contrasting systems:

1) Near-cee probes. They'd be a solar sail, with a probe body contained at their center. I'd likely build a mirror array around Mercury to provide higher acceleration, but I haven't studied the subject enough to know if I would go all the way for a laser array in Mercury orbit. The first few would just go streaking through at full speed, but later ones might slow down, possibly even enough to stay in-system.

2) Assuming a colonization effort, I'd send a Daedalus. Maybe it would have Orion boosters, maybe it wouldn't. Assuming that the acceleration from everything else was going to be small enough, I would have the largest solar sail ever created by humanity connected as well. The ship, it should be noted, would be meaningfully larger than the actual Daedalus proposal: the ship would include a sufficiently large habitat structure to maintain a decently large biosphere. The actual drive would somewhat be separate from the habitat. The drive, sufficient support systems, and a worksite for the rest of the structure would be initially launched. After it had achieved sufficient speed, a separate Orion propelled ship would carry the crew & additional materials to the ship: due to the differing design criteria (indefinite sustenance for the Daedalus, though with a Daedalus's speed limitations presumable 100+ years, a few years max for the Orion) the crew vehicle should have a much higher acceleration, and thus the capability to catch up. Whether the Orion could make it back is a side issue: the entirety of it's crew can be the Daedalus crew if needed. Upon reaching the destination, the Daedalus will initially turn off the drive while leaving the Bussard scope on: it will act as a magnetic sail, thus slowing the ship better than should be expected from a solar sail (which doesn't mean that you shouldn't use one to slow down).

2b) If it's found to be appropriate, a second, unmanned Daedalus will be sent ahead of the first: one of the big hurdles of a Daedalus is that gathering the interstellar wind itself slows the ship, and most won't cross the path of the ship until it has long-since passed. By having a lower-mass ship perform the majority of the gathering action, a slightly higher maximum speed should be possible.

Mjolnir wrote:
Krulle wrote:The problem is that the mass of the fuel is lost afterwards, and that we therefore need to put tremendous amounts of fuel on the ship. The distance (without FTL) is prohibitively large, the amount of fuel needed therefore tremendous, so much even, that most calculations I've seen so far suggest starting the ship, and sending the crew to it more than 10 years later, to catch up with the ship when it is somewhere near Jupiter for the first sling shot (or even catch it between Jupiter and the Sun for the big slingshot).
The amount of fuel will make the non-FTL interstellar ship so massive, that the acceleration will be near non-existant when it still has enough fuel to brake with 1g when the ship has reached one of our closest neighbours.
A Jupiter slingshot will add nothing significant to a ship on an interstellar trip...at most 13 km/s. Rendezvous with an outbound starship is probably not practical...the ship leaving later will need much more delta-v to catch up and then stop when it reaches the first ship.
I conditionally disagree. If the outbound ship has comparable specs to the crew ship then certainly it wouldn't be practical, but probably the ships will be fairly different. Both might use similar engines, but the crew transport is likely to be less the world trade center of the interstellar ship, and more a one or two story bungalow. The accelerations are likely to be very different, for the same reason that identical engines pushing 1 pound vs 10 pound loads will experience different accelerations.

Of course, in the case of my example, the weights would likely be more dissimilar, and the engines would likely be adjusted as well.
Mjolnir wrote:Unless you have the ability to convert most of your fuel to energy, the fact that the mass of expended fuel is ejected is a good thing.You don't want to keep hauling the end products of fusion around, and you may as well use the mass to produce thrust as you dump it overboard. This is the major problem with photon drives, there's no good way to fit the required energy aboard, apart from hauling huge amounts of antimatter around. Unless we work out a way to convert normal matter directly to energy with high efficiency, photon drives will require antimatter (or be limited to niche uses, such as things like fine positioning of components of an orbital interferometer).
Ultra-distant tech: black-hole photon drives. Theoretically 100% mass-to-energy conversion. I propose the name "Hawking drive".
Mjolnir wrote:The most practical form of photon propulsion is really the laser sail, which produces twice the thrust for a given amount of power, but more importantly, doesn't have to haul the power plant around. A high efficiency fusion drive would also have the performance required to reach nearby stars within a century or two. A combination using photon sail propulsion for departure and fusion for braking might be the most practical approach.
Or just a mag-sail, if you decided to use some or all of the fusion fuel in the acceleration stage.

Mjolnir wrote:
icekatze wrote:Having a poor starting thrust is what staging is for. You have a booster stage at the start, and it decouples once it is spent.
That is the answer for most rockets. For an interstellar journey, you don't gain much...you're not really in a hurry to finish your burn, since you'll likely spend most of your time coasting anyway. The slow start might be unimpressive, but it's still momentum gained.

You might still need staging of some sort, but more for shedding excess structural mass that's no longer needed for carrying propellant and for shedding worn-out drive equipment, if you need anything that can't be repaired/rebuilt/recycled mid-flight.
Hmm. Maybe store the fuel as a hydrogen-heavy hydro-carbon, preferably solid & stable enough to be stored 'exposed', using the waste carbon from hydrogen removal as both propellant mass & ablative engine material? Probably not hydrogen-dense enough, though.

icekatze wrote:I would accept as an axiom that once a ship has reached escape velocity, thrust becomes vastly less important than efficiency, but while a spacecraft is still in orbit of Earth, having enough thrust to break away in a reasonable number of orbits can still be important. If not because of time considerations, then at least because of the probabilities of hitting space junk. Also, if a ship has an optimal escape window, then it is possible that spending a more significant amount of thrust during that window would be a good idea.
The Oberth effect is unlikely to be meaningfully helpful for this type of mission.

Mr.Tucker wrote:FTL is, in my humble opinion, probably possible. How it would be possible is however, hard to gleam at our present tech level.
I don't think that literal FTL is likely to be possible (unless we find a way to massively interfere with probability fields), but I expect it to be possible to "cheat" around it. After all, the very expansion of the universe + a thought experiment (supposing that you place two masses near each other, with a third connected to one of the initial two with a cable that won't snap & a generator, and the third is distant enough from the other two to measure cosmic inflation, will the generator produce energy?), suggests that inflation may have an involvement with energy, thus pointing to the possibility that spatial manipulation via energy field might be possible.
Mr.Tucker wrote:The only non-beamed power realistic concepts I've encountered so far (that have an actual shot at working IMHO) are the Daedalus probe, Peregrino's ''Valkyrie'' antimatter starship (that inspired the ISV ''Venture Star'' from Avatar) and the clever concept called the ''Firefly'' that came out of a study group under the Icarus Project.
I wouldn't want to actually use an anti-matter system if I could avoid it: seems to have anomalously high risk of failure to me (most fuels don't explode upon contact with their containers).

Firefly sounds interesting, but it might be best to be wary of where you point the X-Ray cannon that you've mistaken for an engine.

Mjolnir wrote:
icekatze wrote:I would accept as an axiom that once a ship has reached escape velocity, thrust becomes vastly less important than efficiency, but while a spacecraft is still in orbit of Earth, having enough thrust to break away in a reasonable number of orbits can still be important. If not because of time considerations, then at least because of the probabilities of hitting space junk. Also, if a ship has an optimal escape window, then it is possible that spending a more significant amount of thrust during that window would be a good idea.
I doubt debris would really be a serious problem. If outgoing trajectories from LEO aren't safe, build it in higher orbit, perhaps at a Lagrangian point.
You probably should anyways. Materials from the Moon might be used in such a project, but I think it better to use lunar ores to construct asteroid mining equipment, and certainly you shouldn't use bulk materials from the Earth (at least, unless you're panicky and trying to evacuate the Earth).
Mjolnir wrote:As for optimal windows, you've got a mission delta-v of several percent of c at least. Earth orbits the sun at 0.0001c, the orbital mechanics are lost in rounding error.
If you use a Firefly then depending on the focus of the X-Ray beam, you might want to start from the L5 while Earth is moving towards Alpha Centauri so that you can increase your distance from the Earth when it first comes back into your exhaust cone.

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by icekatze »

hi hi
Mjolnir wrote:What are you going to save? A few months? Years? At a hundredth of a g average acceleration, it would only take 5 years to reach 5% c. When you've got a century or two of travel ahead of you, do you really care.
I think you missed the point I was trying to make. My response was entirely in regards to the hypothetical situation already outlined, of needing to send the crew to the ship while it was already en route. If you have a century or two of travel ahead of you, then completing the mission within the lifespans of the crew will not be possible, and once they board the ship, they're not coming back.
Mjolnir wrote:I doubt debris would really be a serious problem. If outgoing trajectories from LEO aren't safe, build it in higher orbit, perhaps at a Lagrangian point.
Building the ship in a higher orbit is not substantially different than using boosters. Conceptually speaking, it is using boosters, as each and every one of the construction vehicles is going apply Delta V to a piece of the ship and then detach itself.
Absalom wrote:The Oberth effect is unlikely to be meaningfully helpful for this type of mission.
The Oberth effect has nothing to do with my point. My point was this: If you are starting with a roughly circular orbit of about 400 kilometers (orbital speed about 7.7 km/s), you'll need to add about 3.5 km/s of velocity in order to reach escape velocity. But you can't just point your ship's nose in the direction you want to go and start accelerating non-stop, unless you have enough thrust to escape before your perigee intersects the atmosphere. You'd have to stop thrusting for large portions of the orbit in order to prevent lowering the perigee dangerously, unless you've got something massive to keep changing the ship's trajectory for days at a time.

The original vessel being described in the thought experiment had a starting acceleration of, at most, .00098 meter's per second per second. That is going to take at least 41 days and some change to reach escape velocity if it is thrusting constantly. If you have to wait to thrust until the ship is approaching the prograde part of its orbit, then it could take significantly longer. Which could be an issue if you are concerned about the lifespan of the crew.

User avatar
Mjolnir
Posts: 452
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:24 pm

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by Mjolnir »

Absalom wrote:
Mjolnir wrote:
Krulle wrote:The problem is that the mass of the fuel is lost afterwards, and that we therefore need to put tremendous amounts of fuel on the ship. The distance (without FTL) is prohibitively large, the amount of fuel needed therefore tremendous, so much even, that most calculations I've seen so far suggest starting the ship, and sending the crew to it more than 10 years later, to catch up with the ship when it is somewhere near Jupiter for the first sling shot (or even catch it between Jupiter and the Sun for the big slingshot).
The amount of fuel will make the non-FTL interstellar ship so massive, that the acceleration will be near non-existant when it still has enough fuel to brake with 1g when the ship has reached one of our closest neighbours.
A Jupiter slingshot will add nothing significant to a ship on an interstellar trip...at most 13 km/s. Rendezvous with an outbound starship is probably not practical...the ship leaving later will need much more delta-v to catch up and then stop when it reaches the first ship.
I conditionally disagree. If the outbound ship has comparable specs to the crew ship then certainly it wouldn't be practical, but probably the ships will be fairly different. Both might use similar engines, but the crew transport is likely to be less the world trade center of the interstellar ship, and more a one or two story bungalow. The accelerations are likely to be very different, for the same reason that identical engines pushing 1 pound vs 10 pound loads will experience different accelerations.
I see nothing at all to gain here. The chasing ship is going to have to support the crew comfortably for years. They could just spend a couple more years on the ship itself, in greater comfort and with the opportunity to actually do something with the place they're going to be spending the rest of their lives. Sending the crew afterward seems completely pointless, and only adds another vehicle and more propellant that ends up not actually speeding up the interstellar trip by even the slightest amount.

Absalom wrote:
Mjolnir wrote:Unless you have the ability to convert most of your fuel to energy, the fact that the mass of expended fuel is ejected is a good thing.You don't want to keep hauling the end products of fusion around, and you may as well use the mass to produce thrust as you dump it overboard. This is the major problem with photon drives, there's no good way to fit the required energy aboard, apart from hauling huge amounts of antimatter around. Unless we work out a way to convert normal matter directly to energy with high efficiency, photon drives will require antimatter (or be limited to niche uses, such as things like fine positioning of components of an orbital interferometer).
Ultra-distant tech: black-hole photon drives. Theoretically 100% mass-to-energy conversion. I propose the name "Hawking drive".
Just don't drop a singularity...

Absalom wrote:
Mjolnir wrote:The most practical form of photon propulsion is really the laser sail, which produces twice the thrust for a given amount of power, but more importantly, doesn't have to haul the power plant around. A high efficiency fusion drive would also have the performance required to reach nearby stars within a century or two. A combination using photon sail propulsion for departure and fusion for braking might be the most practical approach.
Or just a mag-sail, if you decided to use some or all of the fusion fuel in the acceleration stage.
Braking against the solar wind of the star? That could help, but seems unlikely to get you all the way down to orbital velocities without requiring deceleration to start so far out you end up adding lifetimes to the trip time.

Now, if you send a minimal automated mining and construction package ahead of you to set up a magbeam braking system...

Absalom wrote:Hmm. Maybe store the fuel as a hydrogen-heavy hydro-carbon, preferably solid & stable enough to be stored 'exposed', using the waste carbon from hydrogen removal as both propellant mass & ablative engine material? Probably not hydrogen-dense enough, though.
The most hydrogen-rich hydrocarbon is methane, which is 3/4 carbon by mass.

The densest way to store hydrogen for this kind of purpose is probably cryogenic liquid or solid. The cooling systems aren't going to have to work very hard when you're out in interstellar space.

User avatar
Mjolnir
Posts: 452
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:24 pm

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by Mjolnir »

icekatze wrote:hi hi
Mjolnir wrote:What are you going to save? A few months? Years? At a hundredth of a g average acceleration, it would only take 5 years to reach 5% c. When you've got a century or two of travel ahead of you, do you really care.
I think you missed the point I was trying to make. My response was entirely in regards to the hypothetical situation already outlined, of needing to send the crew to the ship while it was already en route. If you have a century or two of travel ahead of you, then completing the mission within the lifespans of the crew will not be possible, and once they board the ship, they're not coming back.
How would sending another ship chasing after the first, accelerating to a higher speed to catch up and then decelerating early to rendezvous with it, ever change this?

icekatze wrote:
Mjolnir wrote:I doubt debris would really be a serious problem. If outgoing trajectories from LEO aren't safe, build it in higher orbit, perhaps at a Lagrangian point.
Building the ship in a higher orbit is not substantially different than using boosters. Conceptually speaking, it is using boosters, as each and every one of the construction vehicles is going apply Delta V to a piece of the ship and then detach itself.
No, it's nothing like using boosters. The problem brought up was orbital debris, not the delta-v involved in departure from LEO, and components and raw materials being pushed around by transport craft can be navigated around orbital debris more readily and with less risk than an interstellar starship using its main drives.

icekatze wrote:
Absalom wrote:The Oberth effect is unlikely to be meaningfully helpful for this type of mission.
The Oberth effect has nothing to do with my point. My point was this: If you are starting with a roughly circular orbit of about 400 kilometers (orbital speed about 7.7 km/s), you'll need to add about 3.5 km/s of velocity in order to reach escape velocity. But you can't just point your ship's nose in the direction you want to go and start accelerating non-stop, unless you have enough thrust to escape before your perigee intersects the atmosphere. You'd have to stop thrusting for large portions of the orbit in order to prevent lowering the perigee dangerously, unless you've got something massive to keep changing the ship's trajectory for days at a time.

The original vessel being described in the thought experiment had a starting acceleration of, at most, .00098 meter's per second per second. That is going to take at least 41 days and some change to reach escape velocity if it is thrusting constantly. If you have to wait to thrust until the ship is approaching the prograde part of its orbit, then it could take significantly longer. Which could be an issue if you are concerned about the lifespan of the crew.
First, why would the ship ever have to stop thrusting? You seem to be assuming it can't alter the direction of its thrust for some reason.
Second, really, who cares about 41 days on an interstellar trip? Who cares about an extra year? What difference could it possibly make? I'm not seeing anything at all to motivate the additional cost, risk, and complexity of a chaser craft that only exists to deliver a crew that could just as well have been on the spacecraft from the start.

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by icekatze »

hi hi
Mjolnir wrote:How would sending another ship chasing after the first, accelerating to a higher speed to catch up and then decelerating early to rendezvous with it, ever change this? ...who cares about 41 days on an interstellar trip? Who cares about an extra year? What difference could it possibly make?
I don't know, you tell me. I was attempting to examine the conclusions of the premises as stated without accepting the premises themselves. In discussion and argumentation, this is often called "for the sake of argument," because sometimes it is useful to address one issue at a time. And I suggest again that you have actually missed the point I was trying to make, in spite of my efforts to clarify.
Mjolnir wrote:You seem to be assuming it can't alter the direction of its thrust for some reason.
There is a difference between being unable to do something, and being unable to do something without devoting any additional mass to the action.

Krulle
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:14 am

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by Krulle »

It's more a psychological issue.
How would you feel being on a spaceship that has started to accelerate away from earth, and you're still nowhere near Jupiter after some years?

You would have preferred to stay those years on Earth.
Compared to the total mission cost, the extra start of a chaser ship is negligible.
And depending on the sling shots to leave the solar system, it may well be suitable to start from Earth in the direction the interstellar ship is flying, and let it catch you (you fly ahead, while it comes from slingshot sun past earth).
You could even refuel the ship, exchange crew (which would have to leave the interstellar ship after slingshot from Sun passing Earth), and you have an additional set of things you missed as spare parts and found out you'll need while doing the sling shots, while the mounting crew did the shakedown flight of the ship (which became the slingshot) and finalised last elements.

You have to think of the astronauts on board of the ship, for them the first years close to Earth will matter whether aboard or still on Earth preparing there.

Anyway, for now it is a very theoretical discussion.
Thanks for humouring me. :)
Vote for Outsider on TWC: Image
charred steppes, borders of territories: page 59,
jump-map of local stars: page 121, larger map in Loroi: page 118,
System view Leido Crossroads: page 123, after the battle page 195

Absalom
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:33 am

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by Absalom »

There's also the possibility of starting from the far side of the solar system, or starting the engine before construction begins on the habitat section. Maybe you decide to change out all of the electronics at the same time, or decide to only introduce some biosphere elements at that time because they can't be sustained earlier, or something else yet. You can come up with any number of reasons if you try.

User avatar
dragoongfa
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:26 pm
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by dragoongfa »

Image

...

Insert clever caption function has crashed, please play legacy of the void to correct


...

User avatar
Razor One
Moderator
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 3:38 pm

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by Razor One »

CUTENESS OVERWHELMING!

Excuse me. Checking myself in for diabetes.
Image
SpoilerShow
This is my Mod voice. If you see this in a thread, it means that the time for gentle reminders has passed.

User avatar
sunphoenix
Posts: 1164
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:46 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by sunphoenix »

Yes... very cute! They seem a happy couple.. lol!
PbP:
[IC] Deep Strike 'Lt' Kamielle Lynn
[IC] Cydonia Rising/Tempest Sonnidezi Stormrage
[IC] Incursion Maiannon Golden Hair
[IC] TdSmR Athen Rourke

"...you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is Kill him."

NOMAD
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:34 am

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by NOMAD »

Razor One wrote:CUTENESS OVERWHELMING!

Excuse me. Checking myself in for diabetes.
Razor you mean cutecitis, a sudden, overwhelming onset of cuteness due to visual image with a cuteness factor of 1000 to 1,000,000. I'd recommend I join you, I think I got it too :mrgreen: .

oh I can't wait to read the text bubbles on this scene.
I am a wander, going from place to place without a home I am a NOMAD

User avatar
RedDwarfIV
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:22 am

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by RedDwarfIV »

I'm sorry, but to me Beryl looks like a man in that picture.

... comes from seeing too many sci-fi Anime shows (despite only having watched a select few of them) with effeminate men in them.
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.

User avatar
dragoongfa
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:26 pm
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by dragoongfa »

Seen plenty of women with such a chin to be honest.

User avatar
RedDwarfIV
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:22 am

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by RedDwarfIV »

dragoongfa wrote:Seen plenty of women with such a chin to be honest.
It's not just that, it's the hair. And again, that it not a hairstyle I would have considered man-like if I hadn't seen it in Anime sci-fi.
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.

Krulle
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:14 am

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by Krulle »

Arioch wrote:Sorry for the delay on pages 111-113. I'm still futzing with the 3D cockpit elements.
Image
Yay! New pages coming up!

Also, new character, or is she "just" the pilot of the shuttle?

Stay tuned and find out on the next episode of....
Outsider!
Vote for Outsider on TWC: Image
charred steppes, borders of territories: page 59,
jump-map of local stars: page 121, larger map in Loroi: page 118,
System view Leido Crossroads: page 123, after the battle page 195

Turrosh Mak
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:14 pm

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by Turrosh Mak »

Krulle wrote:Also, new character, or is she "just" the pilot of the shuttle?

Stay tuned and find out on the next episode of....
Outsider!
This is Talon. She appeared during the long walk to the bridge and the double page battle scene.

User avatar
Mr Bojangles
Posts: 283
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:12 am

Re: WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

Post by Mr Bojangles »

Krulle wrote:
Arioch wrote:Sorry for the delay on pages 111-113. I'm still futzing with the 3D cockpit elements.
SpoilerShow
Image
Yay! New pages coming up!

Also, new character, or is she "just" the pilot of the shuttle?

Stay tuned and find out on the next episode of....
Outsider!
That's Talon. You see her in passing waaaaay back in the beginning of Chapter 1. She's actually listed in the Dramatis Personae in the Insider. She is a shuttle/fighter pilot, but not a new character.

[edit] Ninja'd by Turrosh.
RedDwarfIV wrote:I'm sorry, but to me Beryl looks like a man in that picture.

... comes from seeing too many sci-fi Anime shows (despite only having watched a select few of them) with effeminate men in them.
Not so much like a man, but her jaw and chin in profile are much heavier than a direct view of her face would suggest.

Post Reply