We on earth have yet to conceive of a ramscoop design that could collect enough material for sustained fusion and actually allow for forward accelleration. What did emerge from those designs were magnetic braking tech that could help with deceleration at a target star for slower than light real world starships.

Of course in Star Wars a Bussard-like scoop could suck up all kinds of particles to power who knows what kinds of reactors and engines. I still doubt that's what the TIE wings are for though.

We're talking about an interstellar ramscoop which has to cope with the abnormally low interstellar gas densities in our region of space (the local bubble) vs. something that could be used in-system, where the solar wind flux is orders of magnitude higher. All the research since Bussard's first proposal that has been done on it is really just Bob Zubrin scribbling on the back of a napkin. As for fast hydrogen fusion, LOL, well that's one hell of a trick which may as well be magic!

Then it's ludicrous to have such a huge part of a star fighter to just act as an ignition switch. I wonder what energies are being collected if they are catalyzing reactions.

The original T.I.E. developed in the Old Republic did not have a separate generator for the lasers and would lose firepower when maneuvering. Shoddy design if you ask me.

Depends. Real world designs use various catalysts - muon (though not for propulsion), antiprotons/positrons, ultracold neutron molecules and of course good old neutrons*. Several types of fusion and at least one fission reaction require proton bombardment. So you could simply suck up high-energy solar protons via the probably-not-a-ramscoop and use it to power the reaction. (Why not use a linac I hear people shouting. Well, that would be too easy). Otherwise, they are scooping magick solarium exotic matter atoms.

*One of the radioactive sources we used at my work actually initiates small numbers of nuclear fission reactions in the target material, and you divine the results with a gamma ray spectrometer...

It is a misconception that technology must advance. Scientific knowledge doesn't automatically become better given time, sometimes one faulty idea is just replaced by another - did Ptolemy's view on astronomy really improve on Plato's view? It is possible that in Star Wars, a certain paradigm, a central theory, had been dominant for centuries and never radically changed. All that could be done was 'fill in the blanks', like a medieval astronomer would calculate the path of a planet and make some corrections based on new observations, without actually changing Ptolemy's basic idea. Clearly, this is not an environment that will lead to a lot of technological innovation.

Such stagnation can even lead to technology becoming worse. I think something like that happened in Chinese mapmaking, where a useful system of coordinates was invented, but then gradually became restrictive as mapmakers filled in the squares rather than use them to draw more precise maps.

Good point. Here's something to think about. Do we currently have the capability to put a human being on the moon? Do we have intercontinental supersonic flight available to the public? Does the United States have the capability to place a human being in orbit?

The answer to all of these is no, and these are largely political and economical. No bucks, no buck rogers. Technology is a living thing, you can't drop a scientist in the wilderness with blueprints for a cellphone and expect a call within a few weeks.

@Lampy: why did you have to remind me that we haven't put any people's on the moon in almost 50 years! I'm gonna go cry in the corner again.

And scientists might not be able to build a cell phone in a week but give McGyver a stick of gum and cardboard and he'll be helping ET phone home.

It is a misconception that technology must advance. Scientific knowledge doesn't automatically become better given time, sometimes one faulty idea is just replaced by another - did Ptolemy's view on astronomy really improve on Plato's view? It is possible that in Star Wars, a certain paradigm, a central theory, had been dominant for centuries and never radically changed. All that could be done was 'fill in the blanks', like a medieval astronomer would calculate the path of a planet and make some corrections based on new observations, without actually changing Ptolemy's basic idea. Clearly, this is not an environment that will lead to a lot of technological innovation.

Such stagnation can even lead to technology becoming worse. I think something like that happened in Chinese mapmaking, where a useful system of coordinates was invented, but then gradually became restrictive as mapmakers filled in the squares rather than use them to draw more precise maps.

Good point. Here's something to think about. Do we currently have the capability to put a human being on the moon? Do we have intercontinental supersonic flight available to the public? Does the United States have the capability to place a human being in orbit?

The answer to all of these is no, and these are largely political and economical. No bucks, no buck rogers. Technology is a living thing, you can't drop a scientist in the wilderness with blueprints for a cellphone and expect a call within a few weeks.

One of the best books I ever read was Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which is about the scientific side of this.

Then it's ludicrous to have such a huge part of a star fighter to just act as an ignition switch. I wonder what energies are being collected if they are catalyzing reactions.

The original T.I.E. developed in the Old Republic did not have a separate generator for the lasers and would lose firepower when maneuvering. Shoddy design if you ask me.

Its also used to protect the cockpit from getting hit from enemy attacks from the side. Also older ties used to not have any targeting computers at all, just an iron sight.

Then it's ludicrous to have such a huge part of a star fighter to just act as an ignition switch. I wonder what energies are being collected if they are catalyzing reactions.

The original T.I.E. developed in the Old Republic did not have a separate generator for the lasers and would lose firepower when maneuvering. Shoddy design if you ask me.

Its also used to protect the cockpit from getting hit from enemy attacks from the side. Also older ties used to not have any targeting computers at all, just an iron sight.

Hope they shot straighter than stormies.

(This is why I just can't believe half he crap in the EU/Legends. There's NO WAY a starfighter can be effective without some kind of targetting computer...unless the Empire had a never ending supply of Force sensative academy pilots. But then, SW is WWII, so, whatever)

Tie's obviously need fuel, because there's a fuel port on the back, it's what people mistake as an engine.

Tie's obviously need fuel, because there's a fuel port on the back, it's what people mistake as an engine.

Isn't that a window on some variants (Interceptor, I think)?

The big round thing with the black hexagon was originally intended to be the primary ingress hatch with a rear viewport. Thanks to the Kenner toy and every comic book appearance with a TIE Pilot boarding his craft the dorsal hatch is now the primary way into a TIE.

And of course the engine exhausts/thrusters are the small conical devices to the right and left of this structure. ANH clearly shows tiny red glowing points where the engines are. The /fo has a vertical orientation for its engines instead of the /ln horizontal engine arrangement.

Tie's obviously need fuel, because there's a fuel port on the back, it's what people mistake as an engine.

Isn't that a window on some variants (Interceptor, I think)?

The only one I know of is the Special forces Tie from the Force Awakens. (the one Finn and Poe take for a spin.)

(The one Finn and Poe take for a spin)

I see what you did there.

(The one Finn and Poe take for a spin)

I see what you did there.

Tie's obviously need fuel, because there's a fuel port on the back, it's what people mistake as an engine.

Isn't that a window on some variants (Interceptor, I think)?

The only one I know of is the Special forces Tie from the Force Awakens. (the one Finn and Poe take for a spin.)

The rear hexagon on the TIE is a window. In the Rebels short film "Property of Ezra Bridger", after Valen Rudor is shot down, Ezra looks through it to check on the pilot. Furthermore, after he opens the top hatch, you can see daylight through the window.

Tie's obviously need fuel, because there's a fuel port on the back, it's what people mistake as an engine.

Isn't that a window on some variants (Interceptor, I think)?

The only one I know of is the Special forces Tie from the Force Awakens. (the one Finn and Poe take for a spin.)

The rear hexagon on the TIE is a window. In the Rebels short film "Property of Ezra Bridger", after Valen Rudor is shot down, Ezra looks through it to check on the pilot. Furthermore, after he opens the top hatch, you can see daylight through the window.

Just rewatched that short, that is werid, maybe it's the new canon?

Why do you think the window is a hexagon? It's so you can check your six!

You know, I'd never really watched those shorts before.

The Baron really gets the business in those.

There is something similar going on here in the Netherlands, on a more modest scale. The government used to have a lot of 'in-house' knowledge about building large water management projects like polders and dikes. Now most projects are outsourced, and the government doesn't even have the knowledge to maintain the dikes. There are commercial experts of course, but they will become less if there is less demand. So the knowledge about one of the Netherlands' specialties has actually been seeping away, although there is demand from abroad. But it is easy to see how development but also maintenance of knowledge is under a lot of influence from culture.

Man, if only there was some way to store knowledge outside of a person...

This thread is an example of what happens when FFG don't give us X-Wing spoilers on a more regular basis. If we knew what was coming up we could be spending our time making/reading "the sky is falling" and "wow, [insert ship name here] is going break the meta" threads instead of trying to be starfighter designers.

On a related note, I think the "because it looks cool" explanation for all of the technical guff we don't understand is still the bestest.

Cheers

Baaa

This thread is an example of what happens when FFG don't give us X-Wing spoilers on a more regular basis. If we knew what was coming up we could be spending our time making/reading "the sky is falling" and "wow, [insert ship name here] is going break the meta" threads instead of trying to be starfighter designers.

On a related note, I think the "because it looks cool" explanation for all of the technical guff we don't understand is still the bestest.

Cheers

Baaa

Yup. In Star Wars, the Rule of Cool trumps all.