| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 4:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Alright, I've been starting to give this AT-AT question some thought.
Aboard the ISD, I'm imagining that the AT-ATs are stowed in such a way that they don't take up much space. In that forward-of-the-secondary-bay storage area, I imagine that they're hung in racks, with their legs fully retracted. Looking at imagery, I imagine that when the legs are retracted, they're only 12m tall. If they are then stowed in those rack, 4 high and 5 wide (nice round number for 20 AT-ATs) with 1m clearance between them.
That means that they can be slotted in that forward area of the storage compartment, with the floor at the TIE-fighter level, without being too low for the hull. So, stacking them four high, with just a little room for clearance means that we can have the spacing between the TIE level and the ceiling of the AT-AT storage area be 52m, which is the equivalent of 13 standard decks.
That puts the ceiling at just about halfway through the main structure of the ship, halfway through the equatorial trench. That seems pretty sublime to me.
Regarding the secondary hangar and the clearance needed for the Lambda to enter the hangar, this requires a fairly tall ceiling for that secondary hangar, but there is room to transfer the AT-ATs over that ceiling and for there to be a rail and carriage-runner system to move the AT-ATs around. I imagine that the AT-ST's would be stored on either side of the transfer hall between the AT-AT storage bays and the internal hangar, just like the Technical Journal says.
It might also be there - just above the ceiling of the secondary hangar, where troops and crews board the AT-ATs before these are loaded into the landers. That would keep troopers from wandering around inside the internal hangar.
There is also enough clearance inside that internal hangar for landers to be lowered down on top of the AT-ATs. From there, the landers can be deployed either through the secondary hangar, or back through the main hangar below.
I hope the drawing below starts to translate what I've written above. In the side image, the red lines represent the exterior walls, regarding the bays and the segment of hull between them. The blue lines represent internal floors and some bulkheads. You can see the crouched AT-AT below a Theta lander, as well as four AT-ATs stacked in the storage area. You can also see how tight that main hangar aperture is.
On the top-down view, you can see roughly the same, with the blue triangle representing the floor at the TIE level, at which the Lambda is landed, and the lowest AT-ATs are stowed. You can see that at that level there's not much room on the sides, but that there's considerable more at higher levels, closer to the trench.
 
Anyway, I hope it all makes sense.
Last edited by Mikael Hasselstein on Thu May 01, 2014 4:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | Now we should give some thoughts as to how AT-ATs are loaded.
We discussed AT-ATs and walker landers earlier in the thread. Crmcneill and I came to the conclusion that the Theta landers and an unnamed lander loosely described in the ImpSB (which Crmcneill is calling the 'Atlas'), are short enough to fit through the short aperture of the main hangar to the main bay. As in they're <17m, with the AT-ATs really crouching inside them.
I really don't like the implication from the image above that the AT-AT's are loaded in the main bay, with the vacuum of space looming below while TIE interceptors swarm around them.
I think we need to consider that maybe AT-ATs are loaded by having the landers lowered on top of them, or that the AT-ATs are loaded into a rear hatch. The latter requires for there to be a rear hatch, whereas the former requires enough internal space for that to happen.
Your thoughts? |
I think how they are loaded would depend on how they are transported. If carried in a large bulk freighter, they could be loaded through the main hangar on a repulsor sled, or even with the artificial gravity turned off. If Theta or Atlas ships are loading them, I think they should load in the reverse of the deployment operation.
I could see AT-AT loading as depicted if they were being taken from a super-massive cargo ship like a Spacetrans XI container ship, or one of them cargo sphere train things whose name I forget... They'd basically have to be delivered via spacewalk, tractor beam, or maybe physically picked from an open cargo bay if that giant clamp in the main bay can reach a lot further than it looks like it can. | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | Alright, I've been starting to give this AT-AT question some thought.
Aboard the ISD, I'm imagining that the AT-ATs are stowed in such a way that they don't take up much space. In that forward-of-the-secondary-bay storage area, I imagine that they're hung in racks, with their legs fully retracted. Looking at imagery, I imagine that when the legs are retracted, they're only 12m tall. If they are then stowed in those rack, 4 high and 5 wide (nice round number for 20 AT-ATs) with 1m clearance between them. |
Unless the legs pop out of joint, they can't fully retract. I used photoshop to rotate the legs at the joints to make them crouch as much as was physically possible and only got them down to 15m, (Using the Saxton estimate for the overall size of the walker.) | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: |
That puts the ceiling at just about halfway through the main structure of the ship, halfway through the equatorial trench. That seems pretty sublime to me. |
Gee, uh... Sorry...
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Unless the legs pop out of joint, they can't fully retract. I used photoshop to rotate the legs at the joints to make them crouch as much as was physically possible and only got them down to 15m, (Using the Saxton estimate for the overall size of the walker.) |
Yes, I found the same to be fairly true, when I did the same (with GIMP). Look at my crouching image on pg. 22 of this thread.
I am indeed assuming that the legs can be stowed in such a way that the knees are basically taken apart, but easily refitted when they're out of the storage compartment. (That's how I'm rationalizing it at any rate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | Unless the legs pop out of joint, they can't fully retract. I used photoshop to rotate the legs at the joints to make them crouch as much as was physically possible and only got them down to 15m, (Using the Saxton estimate for the overall size of the walker.) |
Yes, I found the same to be fairly true, when I did the same (with GIMP). Look at my crouching image on pg. 22 of this thread. |
See, that's what I was talking about. As far as I can tell, if you tried to do that with a physical AT-AT model, the hind legs would intersect with the foreleg hip joints. They are in line with one another.
I was able to get the walker to crouch to 15 meters without the legs intersecting, mostly by deep bending at the knees and ankles.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | Yes, I found the same to be fairly true, when I did the same (with GIMP). Look at my crouching image on pg. 22 of this thread. |
See, that's what I was talking about. As far as I can tell, if you tried to do that with a physical AT-AT model, the hind legs would intersect with the foreleg hip joints. They are in line with one another. |
Indeed. Crmcneill and I were looking closely at that. He argued for the dislocation of the knee joints inside the landers. I argued against that, because I felt that their need to immediately deploy would make that implausible. (Though, maybe not that implausible. Ymmv.) So, I'm reversing myself in regards to the storage areas, where deployment is not immediate. I just figure that they 'fix' the legs prior to being embarked inside the landers.
What are your thoughts? Crmcneill, wanna weigh in on this too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16382
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
My feeling was that that was the only way to resolve the issues of AT-AT height as seen in the films with the height of the bay. Anything else just cuts it too tight. My take was that the knees dislocated laterally to their axis, and only for storage and transport, as any weight bearing in that mode damaged the joint mechanism.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | My feeling was that that was the only way to resolve the issues of AT-AT height as seen in the films with the height of the bay. Anything else just cuts it too tight. |
2m leeway isn't too tight a fit, is it? If they were to pop a joint, though, I would argue for the hip joints. If the hips could simply move the legs laterally a couple meters, the legs could fold—knees up—beside the body, like a dog or cat.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16382
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | If they were to pop a joint, though, I would argue for the hip joints. If the hips could simply move the legs laterally a couple meters, the legs could fold—knees up—beside the body, like a dog or cat. |
I prefer an inclusive approach that incorporates EU evidence wherever possible, and since the shot from the X-Wing comic shows the knee joints bent impossibly tight (i.e. so tight that the knee joints would have to laterally dislocate to be able to bend that far), that's the version I prefer.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | If they were to pop a joint, though, I would argue for the hip joints. If the hips could simply move the legs laterally a couple meters, the legs could fold—knees up—beside the body, like a dog or cat. |
I prefer an inclusive approach that incorporates EU evidence wherever possible, and since the shot from the X-Wing comic shows the knee joints bent impossibly tight (i.e. so tight that the knee joints would have to laterally dislocate to be able to bend that far), that's the version I prefer. |
I'd be inclined to agree with Crmcneill's approach on this one - ie. inclusiveness.
Sorry I've been a little absent. It's finals week, my wife dragged me off to NYC for the weekend, and I'm about to catch the train to Vancouver (BC) to attend a conference. On the way back (on Saturday 5/10), I've got a 2-hour layover in Seattle (King Street Station) between 3:30p-5:30p. Anybody going to be around? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So, has this thread gone completely by the wayside? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rezikai
Cadet
Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Posts: 10
Location: East Columbus, Ohio
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hope not,... Star Destoyer sizes/specs are a addiction of mine, the scaling in this thread seems.. close.
But I always thought the WEG books and even some of the source books undersized them. There's a new StarWars Rebels book that has a large silhouette of a ISD comparitively to the Ghost and Ties and even then it seems undersized in comparison to the compliments of land/space deploying ships/vechicles it should be able to hold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rezikai wrote: | I hope not,... Star Destoyer sizes/specs are a addiction of mine, the scaling in this thread seems.. close.
But I always thought the WEG books and even some of the source books undersized them. There's a new StarWars Rebels book that has a large silhouette of a ISD comparitively to the Ghost and Ties and even then it seems undersized in comparison to the compliments of land/space deploying ships/vechicles it should be able to hold. |
Welcome 
In what way undersized? Is the 1,600m being changed?
I've been hearing about this book, but with the long necks that the ISDs have in Rebels, I would treat any visual material from that show as, een, impressionistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rezikai
Cadet
Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Posts: 10
Location: East Columbus, Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | Rezikai wrote: | I hope not,... Star Destoyer sizes/specs are a addiction of mine, the scaling in this thread seems.. close.
But I always thought the WEG books and even some of the source books undersized them. There's a new StarWars Rebels book that has a large silhouette of a ISD comparitively to the Ghost and Ties and even then it seems undersized in comparison to the compliments of land/space deploying ships/vechicles it should be able to hold. |
Welcome
In what way undersized? Is the 1,600m being changed?
I've been hearing about this book, but with the long necks that the ISDs have in Rebels, I would treat any visual material from that show as, een, impressionistic. |
It's not that, i think the 1600m is still being used it's just that, within the EU that WEG and Starlog used for their schematics (most if not all are posted earlier in this massive thread) had some discrepencies like the 3m or 10m gaps between decks.
During the EU the ISDv1's just seemed "bigger" allowing for things like regular storage of Deep Storage
What's always got me was the internal cut sections that were suppsoed to hold the old Titan vehicles, it'd be a squeeze if possible at all to get them inside the hangar bays. I do wish however there was more defined areas for storage/deep storage that is talked about in the books as well as more maintenance bays for the fighters and land/air vehicles an ISD would need to keep up all that hardware. The previous graphic you made with the "Stacking" ATAT's kind of showed how it may work but it'd be very cramped.
I do the love the cutaway Guide to Vehicles book showing the Tie Racks, the Rebels and other books showing Ties "parked" on their wings apparently think the thin wings are sturdy enough to hold the Tie's cockpit weight.
Something you did come across that I hadn't thought of is that the decks aren't paralelle, that had never occured to me b/c I grew up with the old Star Log tech companion as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2014 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rezikai wrote: | | During the EU the ISDv1's just seemed "bigger" allowing for things like regular storage of Deep Storage ... Titan vehicles, it'd be a squeeze if possible at all to get them inside the hangar bays. |
You're right. In much of the preceding pages it became clear to me that one would have to take liberties with everything that's said in all the different sources to have the ISD be able to encompass all that it had to encompass and make it all work together.
Given how this really came from all kinds of different sources based on a kit-bash movie model, it's actually quite phenomenal that it can be pieced together as well as it can be, even if you have to really abrogate certain sources.
The Titan, however, was never supposed to go into the ISD. Someplace it says so. The AT-AT lander for the ISD primarily has to be the Theta-class AT-AT Barge |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mojomoe
Commander
Joined: 10 Apr 2010
Posts: 442
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2014 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Damn, I need to set notifications on this thread!
It's far from dead. I'm glad to see there's still interest!
As regards the 1600m scale, that's one of our fixed data points - everything from deck count to internal living volume comes from it, so I'd be pretty shaky about changing it now , unless there was a VERY compelling reason |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
