Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Commission - Perry Rhodan by Shimmering-Sword Commission - Perry Rhodan by Shimmering-Sword
Another commission for :iconmihoshik: *MihoshiK over at the SpaceBattles forum. This time a space combat scene from the Perry Rhodan universe.

Firstly, InB4 "dat borg ships" :noes: Cube and sphere ships are very common in retro and even some modern art. Make all the fun you want, but you can't argue that spheres and cubes are probably the most efficient shapes you can use for varying reasons.

There is one error in my scene though as I was only enlightened about this tactic after I was far into the process. I have the cubes flying face forward, but they are meant to fly corner forward. With decent firing arcs on the ships innumerable weapons (something like 100 emplacements per face) it can fire 50% of all it's weaponry at a single target at any time, not just 16%. That said even one face is going to give you a bad day.

The ships make heavy use of hyperspace technology. Their shield are blankets of hyperspace, sending incoming fire to another dimension in a crack of lightning, making small openings for their own fire.
There is also heavy use of hyperspace weapons to teleport nuclear weapons onto the enemy. The "airbursts" are similar enemy nukes.
Then there's the hyperspace shunt field weapon, which projects a spherical rift onto an enemy ship, sending that portion into hyperspace.
Of course you also have to deal with the standard fare of disintegrators, plasma beams, shockwave cannons, you know, the usual :D
Add a Comment:
Cornflakes1991 Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2015
i like that picture :D

i should continue reading at some point... im like 4 years behind....
Quitschi Featured By Owner Edited Dec 3, 2014
The cube ships are kind of Posbis ships. While technically they are QUASAR-class battleships from the League of Free Terrans, they were build by the posbis. This explains why they don't have the fragment design typical to the posbis.  

The conglomerate of cubes in the bottom left seem to be the leftovers of the PRAETORIA flagship. Considering the heavyily damaged state of said flagship I conclude this is picture shows a scene from the battle where the terrans attacked the solar system on May 27. 1333 NGZ (=A.D. 4920) with about 60000 ships to retake it from Gon-Orbhon and the Kybb-Titans.
NikitaTarsov Featured By Owner Sep 5, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
So, this is an Posbis ship? 
For your struggle for correctness - the Posbis battleships have a describtion what in modern times would sound like "quite brainfucking". So they are called cube ships(or more correct: fragmented spaceships), but in real they are everything but cubic. More like a flying scrapyard, cause the robot race doesn´t have a sense for symetry(you don´t want to see the drawing at the last page of the book). And the hull isen´t nessecary for them through ther total trust in ther shield technology. 
An interesting thematic is the perfect hull constructions you mentioned. But spheres and cubes are not very good chooses. Cubes have a strongly limited fire arc, as well as a problem if kinetic energy hits the hull. The energy would damage the whole hull intigrity, longe and spread designs could take a pircing shoot and good. And spheres have a quite limited engine efficiency, whatever the tech level may be, its as good as every form, or disadvantaged. Cubes have similar problems, like the spheres atmospheric flights are a question of shields. But beneth all this - this ship constructions are perfect for the most stupid commander, cause ther direction has no tactical benefits or disvantages. But all commanders over all times always want to make an difference in the balance of combat through ther tactical skills. An attack running ship(the best expectable position to the enemy) has to have a small shape, as well as most of ther weapons fire ready. For speed beeing another big point, the acceleratable object should perfectly have a long form(a spear is better to accelerat than a bouwling ball(mass/kinetic)). So a lot of constructions make sense, but not these. 
But to not blame PR - it´s, like you sayed, a very tradtional form of the space ships ideas of that age. 
Cornflakes1991 Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
Err... acceleration is only determined by the mass and the force thats applied to the object.

Rotational acceleration is dependent on form.
As you are a perry reader i assume you can read german, google "trägheitsmoment"
And a sphere has the smallest moment of inertia for a given mass, the sphere can rotate the fastest for a given force and mass (averaged over all axes, a cylinder has lower inertial moment for mass than a sphere, but only parallel to its long axis, so it can roll fast, but you cant change your course with that ^^)
sphere ships with equatorial engines also can use their main engines for rotation, so they save mass by needing less steering thrusters and have more force available for rotation.

This effect is exponential the longer the needle gets.
As torque is a linear multiplication of force times lever lenght but the moment rises with lever lenght squared.
So your rotational acceleration gets lower with 1/r for a given force.
a sphere has the lowest average lever lenght over all rotational axes, so it turns faster on average.

I agree that while a sphere can also only accelerate in one direction dependent on the placement of its engines, that direction is decoupled from the facing it must have for maximum firepower on a target.
And that is independent from your computers :P

Also every bit of stability is important, even if you can cancel it.
Because to cancel it you need to expend energy, energy you need to put it into your target.

While it is true that you armor the weakest spots the most, if you generally have to spend less mass on armor for the same average thickness you have more mass to spend on important parts.
Or have a ship that has the same amount of armor than the needle ship, but is lighter and thus can accelerate faster.

You have a point though with the maximum firepower applicable to a single target.
A slightly conical needle ship could focus almost 100% of its firepower on a single target.
in this point sphere vs needle gets very situational.
If you dont have rapid taget changes or can afford having a much more predictable course (you likely tend to accelerate towards your target) a needle is likely to be the better.

If you have many targets and cannot afford to be a predictable target (you can accelerate and target independently) a sphere ship likely ends up being the better choice.

And i like to have a random internet discussion not instantly devolving into a flamewar. :)

An afterthought:
Depending on shots getting though to have them doing minimal damage strongly depends on the ratio of weapon vs armor strenght.
If the enemy has to work to get through your armor first, a shot going "harmlessly" through your ship is not likely.
More likely is that the projectile ends up fragmenting/riocheting off your other other sides armor and maybe ending up doing more damage than if it were to expend its energy in a straight line through your ship.
NikitaTarsov Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
Mmhh, tricky to explain but...the object has a delay depending on shape. If you accelerate an object on 100% f it´s opposite of direction side, you just have the moment of inertia-delay through material what "be compressed"(what on too much acceleration would mean that your but drives through your cockpit). But here you have at last around 99% of used energy, and 1% of waste through inertia(beside the mass acceleration, what all objects have equal). If you accelerate the object just on 50%, you have the same inertia delay, and the lever delay of the not accelerated vectors. So you loose 1% inertia in "front direction" and another, for example, 5% right and left the thrust giving engine each. Here a sphere have much more of this "but", so it´s can´t use the thrust (that) efficinent. 

Yep, but i thought PR was allready translated in english, isne´t it? o.O

A sphere has the smallest moment of inertia for a given mass in all directions. So the sphere is mathematically the most perfect form, not the best to get an specific result. 
Okay here we have an precedent - if on high speed, both forms can change ther nose´ direction and let ther engine burn to create a second acceleration vector. And while saying that the main engines are the most relevant to make such manouvers, it´s all depending on how many stress the structure can take. The sphere on such manouvers would be more stabile if the was moved irregular(enemy fire, asteroides etc.), but without that happenings, the spear is faster to tip, and so faster on acceleration(what is another point we´re still in discusion, but i must rely on my arguments - they unfortunaly build up on each other). 

About the rotation. Form and force here find a relation. if i accelerate an 1m sphere on each side to let it rotate, i had less efficiency as on a 10m pole, what is accelerated with the same power on the opposite sites ends. So here is no dis- or advantage, even the amount of usable firepower would be again 45%/75%. 
But i don´t say that spears don´t have disvantages, really, if i could choose what shape i want under my feet to cross space, i would want the sphere. It say that the constructors think they don´t need to fear pentration, and is more stabile on each single point(I`m a single point xD). Spears are always economise damage, and it for sure it needs less energy to kill a specific target on the ship. Here it´s the questions of relation aiming computers/weapon speed/general use of speed and manouvers. If we rely on a good balance of ECM/ECCM, and a fair need of guner skill versus manouvers(much better to wirte SciFi storys:giggle:), the chance to get hit that precise vulnerable points is low. And in space you have a unestimatable amount of enemys and technologys, so for example the Posbis(above) - ther weapns kill shield instanly and hit with the power of a fat nuclear weapon. This weapons kill everything under the fat battleships-class with one hit, and just need a second for that 1500m-monsters. On a spear this weapon just had punched through a random point(gunner skill versus manouver skill), this damage could kill also, but the chance to survive is much higher. 
And for ships, designed for bigger warfare, suviving is important, and no designer would waste much thoughts for the single crewman or even the commander - at last the ship should drive and fight on. 

Btw. if i say spear, i think of a relation between a long shape and thickness. Depending on equipment, armor technology and such stuff. 

Hm, i would say all energy what is needet to make manouvers, including speed, is energy what could ba used the same way as for shields, so offensive and defensive use  of eenrgy are always in relation to the other. Ship will use 100%, partition depending on incoming damage needs to reduced or if ther is time to make some new suns. 

For sure in a military it would have both types with less or more armor than a spheric ship, to fit in combat situations and be more flexible(as a whole combat group) as the same-build sphere ships PR has(with just armor thickens up with more size). 

That conic(like Star Destroyers of Star Wars)shape has some benefits, but is also basing on a feeling of superiority. In real eye -evel comabts, noonoe would let the ass undefended. So ther is a hole in the defense parameter i would fix. For sure...not if you´re a freggin old guy with megalomania and blue lightnings xD

But you´re right with a balancing what weapon aim in which direction is relevant. Assault weapons are aiming in front, while ship-combat weapons and defense will aim in all directions, with focus on those the tacticans think it would be the best position to the enemy what is exspectable. 

Firearcs. Don´t think so, even i understand the point. A weapon on a spheric construction may be much better protected from aimed fire as on a spear ship. Here again we would need a relation how important/balanced aiming and bombers are. Maybe it´s depending on ship general size if those things become an option. But beside this, the four weapon lines of a spear ship can rotate on turrets, so get an 360° arc with 100% high and maybe about 20-30% down(till the ships body is in the way). So they can focus and defocus it´s firearcs much better, and kill swarm tactics previously. The sphere has always a limited fire arc, even less if the range increases. Otherwise they would extend turrets to rise firearc to around 55%, but loose the hull protection for the weapons. Again i think depending on ships size. Most powerfull weapons would remain in the body(Turrets in halls of the sphere ships, like in PR shown, i don´t really like as idea). 

xD Yes, indeed. I´m also suprise...positivly suprised^^ I really like discussions at all, but most time those topics are popular used to declare social status instead of exchanging ideas and test own mind constructions. But i tend to get too overhanging if in writing rage=P
Sorry for that^^

Da afterthought:
Yes, absolute. It´s a point we can´t finaly fix on, cause it would need psychological and tactical information we don´t have. Basing of the PR-universe it´s quite eay to say, where the spheric ships make the most of the military after so many ships are forged/stolen/copyd from the Arkoniden(who are....i still told it - are not the smart middle of the universe...). So Perry not even could change the main ship design of it´s fleet even if he want. Too many enemys and to often situations, where even the whole fleet is much too small noumbered to make an result. So every little shuttle is needet, and every screwdriver what can build ships(and the automised industy would take the same amount of money and time to get exchanged). And in addition, an chance wouldn´t be more prepared for new and strange enemys from somewhere. So he´s: Keep maximised, keep economically, keep not tear too much for a thousend lost ships while a way is searched to hit bacl an new freakin´ enemy. 
And even this sounds heartless Perry in basic not is, he think like a military. Always searching the holy wonder weapon, but rely on the mass of sacrificially members of the (not-as-good-as-they-could-be)fleet.

Often i see people(not you) making the mistake transfering our earth warfare into different situations like aliens and such. Here we know our enemy, we use most of the same weapons, use the same books to educate our officers and want the same ressources. All this can be obsolet in space(or SciFi at all). To be honest, we can´t do very much expect triend to reach most efficient economically, and decide as a race, how much moral and humanity we are willing to sacrifice to increase this amount of firepower we will have, if the big enemy approaches. 

I´m writing my own story to get all this thoughts out my head(unfortunally just in german, like you may have mentioned on my gramar xD), and really loving to show all the self-deception we humans(and for sure all similar aliens) like to have. Even today we can see how likely we accept the idea that the evil red enemy from behind the iron curtain don´t have technology over the AK74 and want to eat up the world, while we like to see military documentation about american technology. It´s not just about a media prejudice, we really want to hear the one side, but not the other. And i think this would be mark even the society of the future and/or of aliens. So ship designs will be most and first based on what we want to think what is most efficent, not what it really is. 
conservation of impulse says no :P

as long as your spaceship doesnt rotate after the application of thrust you [emphasis]must[/emphasis] be moving with the same velocity independent of the accelerated object.
the only thing that matters in that regard is mass, not form.

you may have some compressive shockwaves travelling though the stucture of your ship, but those would be neglectibe compared to your engine power
and would even out over a short time as they get absorbed by dampening effects
leading to the same impulse vector you'd have without the compressive effects.

again, as conservation of impulse must stay statisfied.

your pole is harder to rotate than the sphere
at least when using the formulas on this page…

a pole with 10 metres lenght (and 36.5cm radius, for having the same mass as the sphere) has 62.5 as much inertial moment than a 1 metre sphere when both have the same density (= material)

the torque you gain from the 10 times longer lever is only 10 times as large as the sphere has for the same thrust applied on its equator
so the sphere turns about 6 times faster than the pole using the same engine

also: using 5cm thick armor on both ships (5% of the sphere seems adequate to me)
the sphere uses  ~15% of its mass (volume) for armor
your spear ship uses ~27% of its mass for armor
edit: derp, 27 instead of 72

if you dont armor your back side, you dont gain much as your back side is very small compared to your total surface
i havent done the math on this, though

i know what i'd use for a military starship :P

and on that firing arcs: set the same parameters for both kinds of ships, if the sphere cant turn its turrets down a little, the spear can neither! :P
so for side firing the spear had 50% at max, while 0% on the back and 100% on the front (again, using the slightly conical ship as base)

but theres a bit preference again, can you afford to have a conical section to your back where you cant shoot?

also für mich wären deine deutschen texte kein großes problem :P

your grammar is fine, have seen worse things :)

also: if you like regular techno discussion without flamewars maybe you can come to the forum im regulary attending
its actually for a game in development, but the off topic section has many discussions, and the on topic section too, when we are discussing "what is more realistic"
NikitaTarsov Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2015  Hobbyist Artist

Mhm, würde nicht sagen das du falsch liegst, aber die Masseverzögerung in einem Beschleunigungsvorgang zu minimieren wirkt sich defakto in einer effektiveren Beschleunigung aus. Jetzt haben wir eine etwas unkluge Montierung der Triebwerke bei Rhodans Kugelschiffen, den die Haupttriebwerke hätte man bestimmt(auch mit etwas Leistungsverlust) leicht schwenkbar angebracht, wenn sie schon an der Ringwulst moniert sind. Damit könnte man mit den Haupttriebwerken auch steuern, anstatt sich hier auf die deutlich schwächeren Steuerdüsen zu verlassen, aber gut - war halt ´82 =P
Ab hier stehen uns tausend Varianten offen, selbst wenn wir von großen, in Konstruktionsrichtung schubgebenden Triebwerken ausgehen. Z.B. schwenkbare Gondeln oder Schubumlenkplatten. 

Es läuft, wie in so vielen tatsächlichen Konstruktionen, darauf hinaus das Material ausbaden zu lassen, was man schneller oder besser an Kraft aufgewand haben möchte. Hier ist eine Sphärenform zwar besser, leistet aber jede auftretende Kraft wieder in den Schiffskörper. Bei anderen Konstruktionen können alle auftretenden Kräfte mehr oder weniger abgeleitet werden, Streben können brechen, Decks abgeschottet werden und doch kann das Ganze weiter funktionieren. Eine Kugel bekommt praktisch immer maximalen Effekt zu spüren, sowohl von Treffern als auch von auftretenden Kräften(wenn auch die längliche Form in nicht-ausgeglichenen Brems-/Beschleunigungssituationen mehr auszuhalten hat). Trotzdem - ein Treffer und keine Hangarbucht geht mehr auf...

Wie gesagt, beim Rotieren muss ich mich ganz auf den Energieverlust verlassen, den eine Kugel auf kleiner Fläche, eine längliche Form aber auf voller Breite(in die es auch schnell rollen kann, womit jeder Vektor abgedeckt wäre, eine sinnvolle Kugelform hätte damit ja auch keine Probleme). 

Natürlich kann man jetzt nicht Faktoren abgleichen wie die Notwendigkeit gewisser Körper in einem Schiff, z.B. weil sich der Hauptreaktor(Meiler:giggle:) nur fett und rund gestalten lässt. 

Ja, die Panzerungsverteilung wäre ein Punkt. Möglicherweise würde die längliche Konstruktion mit weniger Panzerung auskommen müssen. bei der Schaden-per-Durchschlag-Wertung allerdings würde es weit besser abschneiden. Hier würde es stark auf die genaue Opposition und deren Waffentechnik ankommen welches System den Vorzug hätte, die Kugel wäre aber in der militärischen Statistik nicht die zu bevorzugende Variante, denn es ist immer mit gleichwertiger oder besserer Feindbewaffnung zu rechnen(außer man is Ami). Hinzu kommt das im Angriffsvektor die Kugel, wie in jeder anderen Situation, immer die volle Angriffsfläche bietet, was einer(ordentlich geführten) länglichen Form nicht gegeben ist, selbst aus der schlechtest möglichen Perspektive ist es von weit geringerer Fläche. 

Zum Feuerwinkel: Naja, Rhodans Schiffe haben ja ein paar Mankos die nicht hätten sein müssen, deshalb gehen wir mal von Türmen aus die relativ warzenartig aus der Kugelform herausstehen, und somit einen Neigungswinkel abhängig von dem Sphärenkörper haben - also nicht viel. Trotzdem ist bei 50% Feuerkraft in eine Richtung Schluss(und sich in eine feindliche Flotte zu stellen nur um seine ganze Feuerkraft geltend zu machen ist auch nicht so smart). Das längliche Schiff kann oben, unten, rechts und links Türme besitzen, die jeweils die äußersten Punkte bilden(womit die Frontansicht eines auf maximal überlappende Feuerwinkel getrimmtes Schiff X-förmig wäre). Die könnten dann die Geschütze bis zu 45° neigen. Zum Beschuss eines Punktes würde sich das Schiff leicht nach vorne neigen und alle Geschütze links, rechts und oben könnten das Ziel beschießen, aber auch zur Seite(also eher nach oben gerollt)Könnten sich die seitlichen Türme drehen und die oberen aufstellen = 75% Feuerkraft. 

Als Basis würde ich etwas stark konisches nach vorne, und leicht konisch nach hinter bevorzugen. Somit könnte man mit einem nach vorne kippen immer noch 75% Feuerkraft auf ein Ziel ausrichten, aber auch das Heck schützen. Genau wie bei der Sphäre fällt die Feuerkraft also nie auf 0, auch wenn es natürlich bevorzugte Positionen gibt in denen das Potenzial optimal genutzt werden kann. 

xD Der Fall Der Blauen Sonne - Prolog/Teil 1
Ich halt´ dich von nix ab, aber sieh´ es nicht als Aufforderung(mich würde sowas nerven, also..).

Aber auch ein riesen Thema in SciFi/Military: Psychologie. Und nicht immer ist das ein Vorteil. Viele Staaten, Rassen, Völker etc. haben verschiedene Herangehensweisen, Traditionen und Vorstellungen von Krieg. Die beeinträchtigt auch die Konstruktion die, von aller Logik her, eigentlich komplett auf Statistik und Taktik aufgebaut sein sollte. Das z.B. hat das Perry Rhodan Universum sehr gut beleuchtet wie ich finde(auch wenn sie technisch hinter her hinkten, was wohl auch kaum anders möglich war als alles anfing. Und ich halte ihnen echt zugute das sie sich sehr oft sehr viel Gedanken um irgendetwas gemacht haben, wie z.B. Atmosphären, Beschleunigungskräfte und solche Dinge(Der zeitliche Konkurrent Kirk war dagegen ja wohl ein Witz...das war er auch schon gegenüber Raumpatrouille Orion, und das war Schwarz-Weis-.-)). 
Die Psychologie vergleiche ich immer gerne mit der Jetztzeit, weil die am plastischsten ist. 
Die Amis(die immer als Negativbeispiel herhalten müssen, weil sie sich so beflissen freiwillig melden xD) haben Drohnen eingekauft wie die Blöden und ihre ganzen richtig teuren Fahrzeuge mit einem Kontrollnetzwerk ausgestattet das ständig Daten abgleicht. Das wurde beschlossen als es bereits feldtaugliche EMP-Waffen verfügbar waren(wobei auch einige Funkpanzer auf höchster Leistung ausreichen=P). Und natürlich durften wir im Zuge der Ukraine-Kriese Zeuge der Totalblamage werden, als ein amerikanischer Raketenkreuzer mit Säbelrasselauftrag von einer unbewaffneten SU24 per Knopfdruck lahmgelegt wurde. Alles, weil man nie davon ausging einem Gegner auf Augennivou begegnen zu müssen. 

Insofern würde ich jeder weltraumfahrenden Streitmacht anraten sich auf Improvisationen einzustellen, den der Feind wird völlig anders kämpfen, und völlig anderes material einsetzen, als man selbst für grund logisch gehalten hätte. 

Wegen dem Forum - erstmal danke der Einladung - melde ich mich per Note.

Cornflakes1991 Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2015
"Mhm, würde nicht sagen das du falsch liegst, aber die Masseverzögerung in einem Beschleunigungsvorgang zu minimieren wirkt sich defakto in einer effektiveren Beschleunigung aus."

wherever you got that from, but its not from a physics book :P

fighting inertia with force IS accelerating, so you say accelerating causes acceleration to be less efficient :P

if you impart some momentum on propellant, your ship gets the same momentum with negative velocity vector.
regardless of form or magnitude or direction of that momentum transfer.

i'll continue calling you bullshit on the claim that spears accelerate faster than same-massed spheres using the same thrust until you can come up with some mathematical proof on that. :P

also: the way you expressed that is agnostic to the form of your ship too, so the sphere and the rod would be on equal footing again.

which energy loss has the sphere when rotating?
your sentence looks incomplete to me.

you also dont need thrust vectoring to steer your ship with equatorial engines.
throttle some down and there you have your rotation.

(and iirc perry rhodan impulse engines and derivatives are able to do thrust vectoring using the compression and steering fields that are already necessary for a functioning impulse engine)

also: pr started anno 61, not 82 :P

a sphere is much much better in absorbing shock and stress than any can construction is.
try to compress an egg or a tin can, see what fares better for all directions of impact :P

as any stress that gets applied on one point on the hull gets distributed around the sphere and cancels itself at the other side

your tincan has the same problems with deformed hangar bays as the sphere, even more as it is not as good in distributing stress through its whole structure as a rod / (armored)tincan
put a bit of pressure against the side wall of an empty can and see how much it deforms
put the same kind of pressure on an (approximately spherical) egg and see how much that deforms

you can also build your ship in a way that alleviates such effects, modularised constuctions, independently buffered sections, etc...
that not every shock directly applies to all your elements, but only to the structural elements of your ship

(im assuming the same example ships as in the last post and i neglect the effects the slight conical slant would have on exposed area)

your rod ship has in worst case situations double the effective area than the sphere ship.

the sphere ship has always around 3m² (pi*(1m)²)exposed area
your rodship has an area between 0.4m² (pi*(0.35m)² (front) and 7m² (10m*2*0.35m) (side) effective area
your effective area also increases rapidly with the angle at which your enemy engages you.
cos(a)*0.4 + sin(a)*7 = exposed area.

you have the same exposed area as the sphere at around 28° deflection to your target, and it only increases with increasing angles.

Zum Feuerwinkel: Naja, Rhodans Schiffe haben ja ein paar Mankos die nicht hätten sein müssen, deshalb gehen wir mal von Türmen aus die relativ warzenartig aus der Kugelform herausstehen, und somit einen Neigungswinkel abhängig von dem Sphärenkörper haben - also nicht viel. Trotzdem ist bei 50% Feuerkraft in eine Richtung Schluss(und sich in eine feindliche Flotte zu stellen nur um seine ganze Feuerkraft geltend zu machen ist auch nicht so smart). Das längliche Schiff kann oben, unten, rechts und links Türme besitzen, die jeweils die äußersten Punkte bilden(womit die Frontansicht eines auf maximal überlappende Feuerwinkel getrimmtes Schiff X-förmig wäre). Die könnten dann die Geschütze bis zu 45° neigen. Zum Beschuss eines Punktes würde sich das Schiff leicht nach vorne neigen und alle Geschütze links, rechts und oben könnten das Ziel beschießen, aber auch zur Seite(also eher nach oben gerollt)Könnten sich die seitlichen Türme drehen und die oberen aufstellen = 75% Feuerkraft. "

special case is special, if that target moves a fraction of a degree normal to your long axis 1/3 of that turrets cannot target it anymore
the same argumentation could be made with a spherical ship

1 turret per "cubic side" (left, right, up, down, front back)  a target perfectly in front of the ship can be targetted by 5/6 turrets, 83% firepower
same argument applies for any other direction, firepower varies between the minimum of 50% (for when the target is on the "corner" side of the "cubic directions", target in the front, up and left direction for example) and my outlined 83%

for a conical ship the same scenarios amount to firepower between 83% (the backward turret cannot fire) and 17% firepower (only the backward turret can fire)
the 83% also are limited to a very small arc (which is dependent on the conical slant) in front of your ship, and not available in multiple directions as with the sphere ship

so for a low amount of turrets the sphere ship has higher average firepower too

using the same turret placement as in your example, with up/down/left/right turrets the sphere has a minimum of 50% (diagonal attack) and a maximum of 100% (front/back) firepower
small deflections from the perfect front/back direction have the same effect as on the rod ship, with the difference that the sphere can cancel the deflections easier due to the 6x higher rotation speed.

sitting in the middle of the enemy fleet might not be that smart, but the sphere can maneuver at will without sacrificing firepower, the rod has to stay static (or accelerate towards its target) to apply its firepower most effectively, which is even less smart than to be in the center of the enemy fleet, as you are literally a sitting duck.

where do you want to shunt your stresses to in vacuum with your rodship?
you dont have any other body to transfer that stress to
everything has to be absorbed in your ship in some form or another.

you have a better suggestion for turret emplacements than wart forms?
long spindly spires which are very hard to armor and are a relatively easy target for example?
especially for perry rhodan ships which are kilometres in size is not much to gain in terms of firing arc for elevated turret emplacements
approximated example:
1km radius disk, a turret hundred metres elevated from the surface, mounted in the middle of the disk gets about 9° extra of firing arc, 1/20 of what it already had.
with the big drawback that you now have a spire a hundred metres in lenght with your weapon on top of it.
you could as well just ignite self destruct charges on that turret, has the same effect.

also: 360°*180° firing arc is "not much"?
what is then much? 

yeah, your ship would  maybe have less damage in case of breached armor from a sideward attack, but as you likely tend to focus your small side on the target, the side with the most material behind it (your whole rod-form interior) you'll likely end up completely gutted when you have an armor breach.
as the breaching shot goes through all the lenght of your ship.

a sphere ship also has the advantage that its almost impossible to hit it "dead on" as almost every shot will hit the armor at an angle "slanted armor"

with your conical ship this gets an order of magnitude easier, as the armor is only slanted in one direction, not two

NikitaTarsov Featured By Owner 6 days ago  Hobbyist Artist
Wir scheinen etwas aneinander vorbeizureden. Wenn du einen Stab parallel seiner Achse beschleunigst, geht die Energie in den Stab. Er staucht sich, bis die Energie den Widerstand bis zu seinem Anfang überwunden hat(was bedeutet, dass ein Schiff, dass zu schnell beschleunigt, also zuviel Energie in seine Beschleunigung steckt, seinen Antrieb durch´s Cockpit getrieben bekommt.
Diese Schubenergie ist nicht verloren(also solange das Schiff nicht wie im letzten beispiel zerstört wird), sondern verteilt sich ohne negative Effekte(außer einer Materialbelastung) im Schiffskörper. Die Energie wirkt der Beschleunigung nicht entgegen. 
Wird ein Stab aber um 90° gedreht und an seiner Seite beschleunigt um in Richtung der anderen Seite zu fliegen, verteilt sich die Energie ebenfalls im Stab. An den Enden kommt die Energie erst verzögert an, und so lange, bis diese Energie dort vollkommen angekommen ist, wirkt sich die Trägheit der Enden vollständig gegen die beschleunigte Mitte aus. Durch die Energieübertragungsgeschwindigkeit entsteht eine Verzögerung(ganz neben der starken Materialbelastung). Und das steht in Physikbüchern, nur sind Formeln eine Momentaufnahme des möglichst kleinsten Vorgangs, was sie greifbar macht. Die konkrete Abwicklung dessen umfasst aber mehr als eine, mehr als zehn Formeln, womit ich keine Angabe darüber machen kann, wie sie sich errechnet. Denn dafür bekomme ich irgendwie zu wenig Geld =P

Der Energieverlust ist der gleiche den man aus dem Text oberhalb ablesen kann, wenn du das nicht glaubst, kannst du mir auch hier keinen Glauben schenken. Da es aber einzig darauf fußt, kann ich dir keine bessere Erklärung geben als bereits getan. Die Funktionen bleiben ja die gleichen. 

PR hatte diese Funktionen nicht bis zu dem Punkt an dem ich mit Lesen bin, also Buch 22(alte Buchserie, also zur Zeit des Crest II Flagschiffes).

Jupp, hatte einen Zahlendreher, weil meine Bücher 82 gedruckt worden waren. Mein Fehler.

Trefferkompensation: Ja, eine perfekte Kugel kann Energie besser ableiten als alle anderen Formen. Ein Raumschiff ist aber keine perfekte Form. Sie hat Verbundstellen, Hangars, Türme und Hohlräume. Sie hat Schwachstellen und unterschiedliche Masseverteilungen in ihrem Inneren. Damit läuft diese Regel in´s Leere. Jeder Treffer, der von der Panzerung abgehalten wird, wird sich maximal als Stress fortsetzen, denn die Kugel kann nicht nachgeben(maximale Masse in jede Richtung). Eine Lanzenform mag von den meisten Richtungen her schlechtere Panzerung aufweisen(wegen der größeren Oberfläche), diese aber wird flexibler sein, die kinetische Energie an zahlreichen Ecken und Kanten  ableiten können, und selbst bei einem Durchschlag(zumindest statistisch) weniger Schaden erleiden. Auch wird sie durch einen Treffer mit weniger kinetischer Energie aufgeladen und ist somit stabiler gegen Erschütterungen. Wenn du all diese Punkte einfach von der Hand weist kann ich dagegen wenig tun. Denn ich meine zumindest in diesem Punkt keine neuen Argumente gehört zu haben. 

Bessere Struktur: Ja klar, man kann Extraschalen bauen usw. Aber genau so kann man bei einer Lanzenform ablative Panzerungsschichten auf teilflexiblen Trägern anbringen(was in der Bauweise deutlich weniger Teile benötigt die nur auf eine einzige Stelle passen). Diese würden auch von ihrer Form Nutzen ziehen kinetische Energie an den Kanten abzugeben, statt sie auf den gesamten Panzerungskörper zu übertragen. Eine Kugel aber würde durch eine entkoppelte Panzerung den Nutzen einer geschlossenen sphärischen Panzerung verlieren(also die Ableitfähigkeit um den Äquator herum, den ich ohnehin nur gegen nicht durchschlagende Waffen für hilfreich befinde). 

Feuerkraftanordnung: Ja, unabhängig weiterer Faktoren ist die Sphäre als Waffenträger besser oder gleich gut geeignet. Aber ich berechne hierbei Geschwindigkeit und Manövrierfähigkeit(was du mir nicht glaubst/was bei nicht-nach-Rhodan-Art-konstruierten Schiffen auch wahr sein kann) mit ein, und wichtiger, Angriffsfläche für den Gegner. Kampfprozeduren sind hier etwas schwierig zu berechnen, da wir keine festen Anhaltspunkte über Verhältnismäßigkeit haben. Also limitiere ich mich auf die grundsätzlichsten Annahmen = maximalen schaden anrichten, so früh im Gefecht wie möglich. In einem engen Korridor sind fast alle Waffen einsatzbereit wenn das Schiff parallel zum Gegner "in Angriffsposition" steht. Dann kommt die Bewegung als Schutz zum Tragen, in dem ich davon ausgehe das ein möglichst schnelles einfliegen möglichst langen Beschuss bei maximaler Geschwindigkeit ermöglicht. In Phase zwei fliegt man durch die Aufstellung des Gegners(oder daran vorbei) und ist am empfindlichsten, während man (meist) alle Waffen einsetzen kann. In Phase drei lässt man den Feind hinter sich und neigt das Schiff leicht, womit 83% Feuerbereich in einem kegelförmigen Vektor einsetzbar sind. Endresultat ist maximal angerichteter Schaden, bei zeitlich minimierter Trefferfläche die dem Feind angeboten wird, und abschließender Rückzug, da Warten, bis der Feind sich eingeschossen oder seine Taktik angeglichen hat(oder im Optimalfall auch nur volle Gefechtsbereitschaft hergestellt hat) eine ziemlich blöde Idee ist. 
Dabei ist berücksichtigt das alle Waffensysteme am besten geeignet sind um Angriffe auszuführen, erst dann, sich zu verteidigen. Denn es ist davon auszugehen, das man eine Waffe auch geschickt einsetzt, und nicht blöd im Raum rumsteht und den Gegner ein Treffpunkt für eine Auseinandersetzung mailt. 

Stressableitung: Beispiel einer flachen Panzerplatte unter Beschuss. Der Treffer(kinetisches Beispiel) erzeugt Hitze, Deformation und eine kinetische Welle, die sich zu allererst parallel zum Aufschagswinkel fortsetzt, aber dann, wenn das Material dabei nicht durchstoßen wird, über die Fläche abgeleitet wird und schließlich in den enden ausläuft. man kann dies testen indem man Beschussplatten lakiert und sieht, wo der Lack abplatzt. An den Kanten entsteht der größte Schock nach der direkten Aufschlagsfläche. Je nach dem wo man nun die Aufhängung für solche Platten befestigt(also die Verbindung zum zu schützenden Körper), kann man den übertragenen kinetischen Impuls minimieren. Der Schaden kann so weiter reduziert werden als wenn man einfach Panzerplatten auf das zu schützende Objekt aufschweist. 
Ich weis sehr wohl dass ich den Stress nicht vom Körper trennen kann, aber ich kann den Stress dort hin leiten, wo er am wenigsten Schaden anrichten kann;)

Geschütze von PR: die Warzenform hat einen miserablen Feuerwinkel von ca 30° oder weniger(so wie in der Schemazeichnung angegeben). Einige Waffen haben einen Feuerwinkel von 5° oder sind sogar starr verbaut. Frei bewegliche Türme sind zwar wieder strukturelle Schwachstellen, können sich aber praktisch in alle Richtungen drehen und die Geschütze auch über Kopf schwenken und nach unten(also oberhalb ihrer eigenen Erhöhung) winkeln. 
Natürlich sind Türme leichtere Ziele als die Hüllenpanzerung, aber das ist alles, was dazu gedacht ist, mit der Umwelt zu interagieren. Türme tragen eben Panzerung in Relation zu ihrer Schlagkraft und Größe. Damit ist es statistisch ziemlich unklug die einzelnen Türme anzugreifen statt sich auf die vitalen Stellen des Schiffes zu konzentrieren. Jeder Schuss der auf einen Turm verschwendet wird, fehlt, wenn die Panzerung, und damit das Schiff selbst zerstört werden soll. Ein ordentlicher Durchschlag wird alle Feuerkraft des Schiffes ausschalten, was wesentlich ökonomischer ist. Türme greife ich nur dann an, wenn ich die Panzerung nicht durchschlagen kann, und dem Feindschiff an Geschwindigkeit unterlegen bin - ergo die letzte taktische Option. 
(Und es ist okay wenn bei großen Schiffen Jäger daran vergeudet werden, in meiner Flack-Zone irgendwelche Geschütze bombardieren zu wollen - immer ausgehend von gleicher oder ähnlicher verfügbarer Feuerkraft bei allen Parteien).

Verwundbarkeit: Wenn ein Lanzenschiff durch eine derart mächtige Waffe bedroht ist, ist die erst Frage, ob sich ein Angriff lohnt, und ob die Verluste sich rentieren, wenn dabei diese Superwaffe ausgeschaltet werden kann. Wenn ja, bietet jedes angreifende Schiff der Waffe die kleinst mögliche Angriffsfläche und in Angriffsphase zwei die höchste Geschwindigkeit um ihr zu entgehen. Während die eigene Schlagkraft zu 75% immer auf das Ziel ausgerichtet ist. Und es bedarf eines genau parallelen Treffers um diesen von dir genanten maximalen Schaden zu verursachen. Im Endeffekt ist es immer ein taktisches Abwägen, wobei Shärenschiffe immer fette Zielscheiben abgeben würden, bei etwas höherer Feuerkraft von 83%.
Und Sphärenschiffe haben durchaus Schwachstellen - Triebwerke, Waffen, Energieleitungen(nicht das ich die Risszeichnugen für besonders klug halten würde), Hangars usw.. 

Sorry for the delay, was busy.
Cornflakes1991 Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2015
a spear has exactly no advantage to a sphere in terms of "acceleratability" in vacuum.

it has only drawbacks.

for example a pretty low stability, a small perturbation can lead to big changes in course 
as you are applying your accelerating force far away from the center of mass (asssuming your engine is at the back of your ship)
engine far away from the center of mass -> small rotation -> big rotational torque when you try to accelerate in the same direction as before.

you also have a low maneuverability in general, as your mass is spread out instead of clumped together as close as possible.

a sphere ship with equatorial engines has the exact opposites of that.

engines far away from the center of mass, so you can apply big torque for rotation but the average "thrust point" where the force of your engines gets applied is right in the center of mass, so you have high stability under all circumstances.
a sphere ship with equatorial engines and thrust vectoring can accelerate "diagonally" without getting unwanted torque, in contrast to a needle ship, which would start to rotate if it tried that, or would have to use energy for rotational thrusters which contribute nothing to forward acceleration, thus you'd be wasting energy.

a sphere ship also has the highest volume to surface ratio of all possible forms, so you can mount thicker armor plating without having more mass than a needle ship.
because of that it also has the lowest average cross section, so you are a smaller target than a needle ship for your tonnage and thus firepower.

a sphere ship can also always train 50% of its weapons on a target without having to rotate in a certain way.
thus it can accelerate in whichever direction it wants while applying maximum firepower at all times.
which is important as hell in 3d space where you want to be accelerating at all times, in all directions to be as hard a target you can be
NikitaTarsov Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
How acceleration work on mass are bound to the moment of inertia the shape allow, so - for sure it does. This may sound marginal, but in relation to similar tech on enemy ships, it has a point. And than, every ship has the chance to operate more or less close to gravitation objects, and than it is much more relevant;)

Btw.: I´ll sorry for my weak english, hope you get my arguments netherless^^

And PR ships has most time ther engines at the ring around the sphere or on the rare, this and the general tendency of SciFi-ship designs make me choose this point of argumentation. 

A tricky manouverable design will be favorised by commanders rather than just most immobles(Perry just stole the ship design from an extrem lazy and unflexible race of spacetravelers...). Disvantages can be bypassed by good skills and manouvers, but just a status quo design with most easy handling will loose against an risky design(exept ther commanders are all idiots..what isen´t to expect). 
Perturbation shouldn´t be a problem expect to newbies on the controls/Amiga computers. These are things we can controle even today, and i don´t think a space traveling society would loose this skills. Even more - you can use this effects of gravimetrical points to make or enhance manouvers. And in case of equal technology, someone will use this minimum of more manouverability. 

In my idea the acceleration force is in a line with the center of mass, just long-drawn, not at one point(where you would need to spred the accelearation force over the whole half of the sphere to not have delay through the kinetic energy transmitting material(what the PR earth and arkonide ships don´t have). I agree that it is a problem to turn the ship, but what you loose on way to rotate, you gain back even more through the higher lever you have while your thruster fire on the end points of the spear-ship(if worked out perfect you not even have material stress, but that - again - is timing and skill). And a spear-shape must use much less power to stop rotating than the clumsy mass of a spheric construction. 

Equatorial engines have the mass acceleration deficite on the spheres ass=P

A spear also can make right small thruster actions to correct its flight direction. A perfect all-direction-action shere can always use just around 45% of its engines, weapons and whatevers in one single direction, restricted through its own curvature, while spears have much more potential in one direction. If i reduce a spear-ship to four lines of weapons for example - up, down, right, left - it can light tipp the angle and fire with 75% off all weapons in one direction while having just a bit more than it´s nose attackable for the enemy. 
"In case of combat, i want to show just my fattest armor and barrels to the enemy - nothing else".

Where i must agree is, that spheres have more mass at one point to prevent damage, here we would be forced to decide for a fix example of weapon technology and working(quite impossible, even in one fictional universe). For us, and PR btw, this is impossible, so we can´t build a theory on this basement. We must think of minimal damage even physical armor get´s pierced(if we say shields protect everywhere with the same value, what get along with PR and the most popular field theorys). On a sphere, each hit get into the ships body very deep and bring maximum damage while the shock of the impact run around the hull and even stress and/or warp the material on the opposite side of the strike. On a spear-form it can also harm vital systems, but after a short way of destruction, the attack breack out the hull and waste into space. 
So in special cases, spheric constructions may be better to stand fire, but tactical/economical a spear can(not must) stand more damage while it takes less and deals more. But for sure a sphere can have more armor per ton. But on realistic military designs we see that vital systems get more armor and get-cope-with-it systems have less. This is economically, so we would find a bit less armor per ton, but not much. And i don´t think it would balance my other argumet-values. 
(Battleships like of the WW2 have lost ther efficiency through more smart weapon system what search for ther weak points(torpedos from planes, subs or T-boats - the death of the Bismark was bee stings) and the extrem waste of money and material through an single pircing hit(like the Hood in combat with the Bismark as example in return).

Weapon aim is depending on the idea that a military construction can´t waste the time of bombardment while not yet in close combat with different spreading targets. It´s important to bring all - or at last as much as possible - firepower to the wanted direction, ahead or around. 
Ah nope, it can´t accelerate in any way, cause ther engines are also just directed in one way. For sure it can rotate and than kick the engines, but therfor it must turn and stop turn, both against 100% of ships mass.
And 3D combat is important, yes, but depending on the balance between aiming computers, projectile/energy speed and the so the worth of speed acceleration comes in one direction(for this acceleration in PR is named with s/2(what speed is doubled in one second). This is bound to heavy g(if you can´t compensate them anyhow) in accelerating, as well as in breaking(with the same engine, the same material stress and the same time). Flying in curves would exponentially rises this stress(and the effectivness of damage through weapon fire in the meanwhile), and without this, combat would be only able on drive-by attacks or low speed, more a hanging around in space and fire. If it could compensated the g fully, you don´t need weapons anymore, cause you can fly through all objects, and can finally even skip the lightspeed border(without the normal resistance). This ideas end up with driving through objects without harm them(diffuse through the particle pattern). 
Way tricky to play with that for an SciFi-writer:giggle:

So most time ther is just an fly-faster-than-light-in-some-regulations and a combat speed where g is reduced as much as the ship/tech can give. And it´s the only option to this hell-boring just-hang-around-in-space and fire at the enemy.....

Funny that PR still serves for Geek-battles(what absolutly includes myself) xD

So far in all short...:ashamed:
MolaritheNarn Featured By Owner 2 days ago
Wow. And all of this discussion about apce ships in Perry Rhodan- a series were technology exists that can cancel out and reshape all laws of physics. Like the argument how the guy with the flamthrower can`t burn down the forrest because I don`t even have a match to do it.  :)
NikitaTarsov Featured By Owner 22 hours ago  Hobbyist Artist
Yep. But as hint, it´s not about "my fictional thing is bigger than your" than about mindgames. Playing with the given facts and mind about relation to actual problems and solutions. And we not really go into the materia of PR than of physical laws. Some of them get maliciously raped by the authors, others was implemented much better than on most SciFi-series - this, i think, makes the succsess or the Rhodan storys(even the laws was aged a little bit till now...). The easy people consumed StarTrek, and the others has ther corners too=P

Btw.: Like on the fallen tree noone has mentioned, ther is an difference between rhetoric and philosophy - one of those i also really like the same way as talking about SciFi-theroy;)
SeDevri Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2014
Anyone know where you might be able to find the English translation of the series?  this sounds really interesting.
Shimmering-Sword Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
I have no idea if it even exists, or where it could be found if it was. My understanding is that it's a very extensive set of books ( magazine release style), so a pretty daunting task for anyone to translate.
MihoshiK Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2014
I'm afraid that there really isn't one: A few attempts were made, but all petered out after a few numbers. And frankly the old stories are reflections of their time, and don't allways hold up well nowadays.
SeDevri Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2014
well that's unfortunate but thanks for the heads up.
IsoGraph60XYZ Featured By Owner Jul 9, 2013
Modular ships-cool.Perry rhodan?A British Sci fi comic series from the 1960s or 70s?
MolaritheNarn Featured By Owner Jul 9, 2013
A german novel series with a weekly outlet. It started around 1961 and is still ongoing somewehere around issue 2700+. The current year in the series is the year 5050.
IsoGraph60XYZ Featured By Owner Jul 10, 2013
Ahh-cool.[Those would make quick to build card kits!Haha
tonystardreamer Featured By Owner May 11, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
The final battle between the Cubes and the Spheres. :D
AresXVIII Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Fire the Transform guns.... Great piece of work here!
stratomunchkin Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Friggin' awesome. And the Posbis were always the trumpcard of the universe. Need a reliable ally? Posbis. Need nearly unlimited firepower and construction speed? Posbis. Need comic relief? Posbis (well, Matten-Willys).

And commenting on what "anniqw" said earlier, the powerlevels of the Rhodanverse is so absurdly high. Example? How about a hyperspace shield encompassing all of the Sol System that even a fleet of a hundred thousand dreadnoughts throwing Rhodanverse firepower couldn't crack under continuous weeklong fire. Extra kicker? The whole shield constantly places the whole solar system 2 seconds in the future.

And that was more than a thousand years in-series before I stopped reading fifteen years ago. By now the writers have had to artificially reset the rules of the universe (probably some Cosmocrat shenanigans, I'm really no longer up to date^^) to rein in on the power creep.
Shimmering-Sword Featured By Owner Mar 28, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Judging by the stats I read while doing this commission I got that impression. Everyone has world ending power, yet everyone also has impenetrable defense. An ultimate escalation of forces for no gain.
MolaritheNarn Featured By Owner Jul 10, 2013
The gain is easy. Its creation versus entrophy in a battle over billions of years and with the existence of entire universes in the balance.In the end neither force can win or loose. The Cosmocrats would choke creation with ever bursting live while the Chaotarchs would like for everything to run down like a clock unwinding until it stops, turning into nothingness were they exists.
Oh and wait till you see the Cosmic Factorys and their Chaos opponents. They don`t even have "weapons" in the common sense, manipulating the laws of nature instead. :)

The overall complexity of the story allows no further information. Sorry. :(
stratomunchkin Featured By Owner Mar 29, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The series even started out that way. While anti-ship weaponry was strangely conventional (impuls cannons - which are basically plasma lasers - and desintegrators) the Arkonids (first alien species humankind meets) already possessed something called the "Arkon Bomb": a handgrenade-sized weapon that can cause an unstoppable fusion reaction on a planet...
Colossu3s Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2013
It's like gambling but your destined to lose on the roll of the dice
SneedVonThay Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
very good. well done.
MarkWilder Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012
:iconborgplz::iconsays3plz:"I am Locutus of Borg. I approve of this design."
tonystardreamer Featured By Owner Apr 6, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
True, but when you go headlong into battle you always seem to charge face first instead of corner first. At least from what I've seen.
tonystardreamer Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Ha, ha, Awesome. :XD:

I wonder why the borg never flew their cubes corner first?
MarkWilder Featured By Owner Apr 5, 2013
:iconlocutusplz::iconsays3plz:"There was no specific need for diagonal propulsion. We rotated instead."
tonystardreamer Featured By Owner Apr 6, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
True, but when you go headlong into battle you always seem to charge face first instead of corner first. At least from what I've seen.
MarkWilder Featured By Owner Apr 7, 2013
:iconborgplz::iconsays3plz: "Your information is incorrect."

tonystardreamer Featured By Owner May 11, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
When I said Corner first I meant Vertex first.
tonystardreamer Featured By Owner Apr 7, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Ah, there you have it. :) I loved that two-partner.
MarkWilder Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2013
:iconlocutusplz::iconsays3plz:"...It is inevitable, that one would experience love when watching this episode."
tonystardreamer Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Yep :altermind:
Boomerang098 Featured By Owner Oct 7, 2012
anniqw Featured By Owner Sep 9, 2012
Greetings from Germany
nice pictures. And itīs nice too see that some people reading Perry Rhodan.
Itīs funny, the borg cube are Pospis ships.
Pospis are robots with biological parts so they could handel out of there program.
The technical difference too other series is high.
Old man could defeat the whole empire from Star Wars.
If in german forums the standard diskusion Star Wars vs. Star Treck is coming up some people writing that Marko Polo could destroy the deathstar with some single blast.
But the technology is over 60000 years old and some are older. Here a link to the germean wiki . If you look there around you will find some technicle pictures from the ships. There are a lot of them.
Shimmering-Sword Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
I haven't actually read any of it myself, but I did my best to be familiar with these ships for this commission. Was fun to work on something in this style.
KnytGrey Featured By Owner Aug 16, 2012
This is where the good stuff was.
Angryspacecrab Featured By Owner Jun 30, 2012
And just then the triangleiods showed up in thier pyramid ships to declare war on the cubes and shperes because of thier inability to see that pythagoras theorem is the one true geometrical theorems that governs life, the universe and everything. For they must punish the unbelievers for thier geometrical heresy ....

Long live the triangle's
Alpha1ance Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2012
It seems you do not know the power of the hexagon!! haha
Angryspacecrab Featured By Owner Jul 13, 2012
Heresy, the holy trinity os Scalene, Isoscleles and Equilateral are the only ture parf to geometrical enlightenment.

These are the true pennants of the Triangle

•Scalene triangle: A triangle with no congruent sides
•Isosceles triangle: A triangle with at least two congruent sides
•Equilateral triangle: A triangle with three congruent sides

through these three turths all the universe can be explained
tonystardreamer Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Awesomw, just awesome. :XD:
Angryspacecrab Featured By Owner Apr 4, 2013
yes the Holy path of the triangel is the only true path to enlightenment
tonystardreamer Featured By Owner Apr 4, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
What about the squared Cube?
Angryspacecrab Featured By Owner Apr 4, 2013
their star ships are sinful apperision's of their Heresy and unwillingness to accept the Triangle as the one geometric truth
tonystardreamer Featured By Owner Apr 4, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
What are you blabbering about dear fellow? I speak of the Great squared, squared square. The Ships of the Fourth Dimension. Whose ships are as tiny as a elephants yet as large as suns inside.
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment:


Submitted on
March 14, 2012
Image Size
387 KB
Submitted with


19,242 (7 today)
448 (who?)