Discussion in 'Fan Art' started by aridas sofia, Mar 3, 2008.
Gee, I actually remember the BSOD - but then, I'm hideously old.
gets better and better...
I actually saw a BSOD as recently as a week ago, so you don't have to be old to remember them.
"Abort, Retry, Fail?"
I remember that in DOS, and I also remember its cousin "Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?"
I was actually going to make a 2001 joke, but decided against it. Y'know,
"Open the pod bay door, Vek."
You want a scale reference? How about this?
Christ, that's awesome!
Next, on Twilight Zone: "Geezer At 20,000 Feet," starring William Shatner.
Those missiles are very, very large.
I think I mentioned that before.
That's very cool ... but aren't they standing the wrong way?
Well, you haven't seen what they're supposed to blow up.
Technically, yes, but they're not puffing up like overfed ticks with their eyes bugging out from vacuum exposure either, so let's hear it for creative license!
But not without precedent. These missiles are 6 meters long by 0.8 meters in diameter, which puts them in a similar class with many real-world anti-ship missiles (that's essentially what these are in an outer space context). These are probably a little bulkier on average, but they are required to operate in an airless environment where they must provide all of their own propulsion for both thrust and maneuvering, often over vast distances. Also, these are intended for use against much larger ships, so the warheads are probably bigger.
Though probably not as big as the crew would like.
Duncan would like them much, much bigger and dirtier.
Curses! I'll get you next time, Vektor!
for what it's worth, that's around the same size as the Pershing missiles deployed by the US which were 1.02 meters in diameter, and 10.5 meters long.
Actually, it is probably a good thing that they aren't any bigger, since the bigger they are, the easier they are to hit.
What are they supposed to be, small thermonuclear warheads? I'm no engineer, but I'd imagine that if they get hit while in their silos, that wouldn't be a good thing. I'm almost a little surprised that they don't have any hatches to conceal them now that I think of it...
If Polaris had been built as a warship, they probably would have, but you make do with what you have when the chips are down.
Even present day nuclear warheads are designed in such a way that a "one-point detonation" is pretty-much impossible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swan_(nuclear_explosive)#One-point_Safe ) (and) by whatever time-period Polaris takes place, there are probably even better safety measures in place). You would possibly destroy the weapon, but you would not get a full-yield from the wepoan's warhead. Getting a full nuclear yield from a warhead requires a precise set of events to occur in a precise sequence. Most likely, you could hit the conventional explosive component of the warhead and cause the nuclear pit to shatter, spreading plutonium (or whatver fissile material they use in the 24th and a half century) all over the place.
Now, you might still have to go out and decon the hull of your starship. but you'd still have a hull to decon.
^If it stood up to the blast from all the conventional explosives in the warheads. Remember, if one goes off, all of the others are going to cookoff as well. That would still be a pretty big yield even without it going nuclear.
Separate names with a comma.