Just spent a few minutes reading the alleged Rouge One spoiler ship thread.

Here's a spoiler for you: it's all speculation.

Not that speculation is a bad thing. What fan doesn't like to speculate on the goodies to come, and how much more fun is that when you have a community to speculate with. It is one of the reasons the forums exist. I am all for that.

In the breadth of that post someone noted that the proposed Tie Striker was listed as an aerial ship - meaning that it was capable of maneuvering in an atmosphere.

What was interesting was the aroma of a false dichotomy in the thread - the notion that if a ship is an aerial ship, it cannot fly in space.

Hogwash! If you prefer more a more philosophical interjection, I could say, "False Dichotomy!"

You don't need to memorize the formula for shear stress to know that an aerodynamic signature is designed to reduce that stress on a framed associated with atmospheric resistance. In the vacuum of space, most of your shear stress arises out of your own momentum/inertia, since there is no atmosphere to contribute to the stress. That means you can design a space-only ship that would tear itself apart in an atmosphere, but would have no problem in space.

Frankly, a regular tie fighter would tear itself apart in an atmosphere the first time it attempted a hard turn (think of holding onto a sheet of plywood on a windy day, and you get the picture).

So when a vehicle is identified as an aerial striker - we understand that to mean it has been designed to function (aerodynamically) within an atmosphere.

But that doesn't necessarily mean it cannot fly in outer space. It just means that it won't tear itself apart in an atmosphere.

In the case of the striker in question - it has the standard Tie solar panels, suggesting that it can operate just fine outside of an atmosphere, so whatever they intend to say by naming it an aerial striker, there is no (good) reason to assume that this means it cannot fly outside of an atmosphere.

That's what I think at least. It's like a spaceship with dual citizenship - it can fly in space but was designed to fly effectively within an atmosphere (unlike other ships which "could" fly in an atmosphere, but would be severely restricted in their maneuvers due to wind shear, etc.)

TL'DR: Aerial capability doesn't necessarily limited a ship flight within an atmosphere.

Why so mad?

There is no space (vacuum) in Star Wars, everything is in atmosphere.

In space, no one can hear you scream....

...with ships in atmosphere, we are hearing screams.

In space, no one can hear you scream....

...with ships in atmosphere, we are hearing screams.

and laser fire and 'splosions..

Anybody ever read Han Solo at Stars End?

Why so mad?

no anger here.

Just thought the topic deserved it's own post. Some people think aerial means "atmosphere only" and others don't. Rather than clutter another thread with that kind of discussion, I opened this new thread where such concerns can be discussed without interrupting the flow of the other thread.

Anybody ever read Han Solo at Stars End?

Yes. The most egregious disregard of physics in the Star Wars universe. And that's a pretty **** high bar.

SPOILER ALERT.... No nevermind. I'll let Grimmy do it if he feels like it.

In the breadth of that post someone noted that the proposed Tie Striker was listed as an aerial ship - meaning that it was capable of maneuvering in an atmosphere.

What was interesting was the aroma of a false dichotomy in the thread - the notion that if a ship is an aerial ship, it cannot fly in space.

Nobody said anything of the sort. The notion was that the TIE striker was designed with a focus on air combat such that it outperforms more general or space focused fighters in the atmospheric arena. It obviously can operate in space: just look at the big poster.

That being said, if you want an aerial fighter that can't fight in space look no further than the T-47.

NO.... I take it back. The most egregious "we don't need no steenking physics!" in all of Star Wars is the STEAM-POWERED space-faring vessels in Dark Empire II. That was crap. But the "Rocket Launch" in HSaSE was a close second.

I was waiting for a point? Stop smoking Crack.. as it implies ... fiction..

Science fiction... Did you all just start a thread about what does and doesn't work in fiction.. lol.. Good luck with that

NO.... I take it back. The most egregious "we don't need no steenking physics!" in all of Star Wars is the STEAM-POWERED space-faring vessels in Dark Empire II. That was crap. But the "Rocket Launch" in HSaSE was a close second.

I was mostly concerns with the Z-95 Mk 1 vs CSA IRD fighters in space and atmosphere. But yeah, the ending of that story was suspect, but exciting!

In the breadth of that post someone noted that the proposed Tie Striker was listed as an aerial ship - meaning that it was capable of maneuvering in an atmosphere.

What was interesting was the aroma of a false dichotomy in the thread - the notion that if a ship is an aerial ship, it cannot fly in space.

Nobody said anything of the sort. The notion was that the TIE striker was designed with a focus on air combat such that it outperforms more general or space focused fighters in the atmospheric arena. It obviously can operate in space: just look at the big poster.

That being said, if you want an aerial fighter that can't fight in space look no further than the T-47.

I was referring to comments like this from early on in the thread (this was the fifth comment):

TIE Striker Aerial Assault Vehicle.

Sounds like a non-space ship to me (thought the description implies otherwise). And looks like a butterfly. Not bad, but would have been nice to see something not TIE. It's a nice design FWIW.

The U wing looks bitchin though. Kinda makes me think it might be a Rebel Defender analogue - fast punchy, well-shielded, but not able to turn much.

Opinions may vary, but a lot of readers would consider a comment about an Aerial assault vehicle soundling like a non-space vehicle as falling under the broad umbrella of actually saying something of the sort.