Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Argo survey mission by ILJackson Argo survey mission by ILJackson
The Argo explores an atmosphere-bearing moon of an ancient, earth-like planet. It has found something that bears a closer look, as well as fighter escort. Despite its 460-meter length, the Argo is fully capable of planetary landings and take-off, although it hovers just feet off the ground instead of actually landing of physical landing gear.

The fighters are the Yumi Mk IV Strike Fighter, well designed for picket duty, patrol and long-range missions.


Enjoy, and let me know what you think.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconterror-and-love:
Terror-and-Love Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2013
Really nice. Lie the ship design.
Reply
:iconthegreatchimp:
thegreatchimp Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2010  Student Digital Artist
Can you post more views of this nice looking beastie?
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
will do. I have a few I haven't posted yet.
Reply
:icondjomally:
djomally Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2010
i was wandering, how do you do your landscapes?
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
I use the landscaping tools in Carrara. You can create large landscapes from scratch, and there are presets for a wide variety of terrain types and textures. Bryce and Vue have similar functions.
Reply
:icondjomally:
djomally Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2010
damn, i tried Carrara once and didnt much care for it. im using Terragen every now and then but not enough to really learn anything lol.
Reply
:icondrmcquark:
DrMcQuark Featured By Owner Oct 13, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Excellent scene!
Reply
:iconmilitant-jester:
Militant-Jester Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2010   General Artist
Can we get some more views of the main ship? Even just plain nontextured ones..
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
will do my best over the next few days.
Reply
:iconmilitant-jester:
Militant-Jester Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2010   General Artist
Why thank you!
Reply
:iconkurubishell:
KurubiShell Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Why no physical gear?
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Sep 16, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
I'd be interested in what others think of this debate. If you read through this thread (apologizing for its length), sound off. And please don't take my side just because you know me. Read both arguments and let us know what you think. I can't speak for DHT, but I'm curious as to how others feel about the arguments presented and the overall question and answers given.
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
The frame isn't built properly. And the mass of the ship would cause most surfaces to give under its weight. Better to float than have a chunk of bedrock collapse into an aquifer or pocket of sand and pitch a few billion dollars worth of starship on its nose in the middle of nowhere.
Reply
:iconkurubishell:
KurubiShell Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
and what happens if the hover device fails. One thing you must do is to think out the function of a vehicle before designing it. I have to say although your vehicle is good looking, you didn't think of how the ship would function.
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
1. Planetary landings are a rarity.
2. Physical struts are more likely to fail than an internal antigravity system. It's not going to be short on power. The ship goes FTL.
3. It's internal and it can't be targeted.

I actually do function design before I do physical, and it's very thorough. A hover system would be more reliable than landing struts in an high-tech society with the power production capabilities able to master the stars.
Reply
:iconkurubishell:
KurubiShell Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
again....What happens if during such a planetary landing the hover system would fail? You need some sort of back up. Landing Struts are the best ones.

Even star wars ships had struts
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
...you're using star wars as the bench mark?
Well, first, you're wrong. Large star wars ships did NOT have struts. The early clone transports had bays built into their landing strips on Coruscant that were actually landing cradles. They...wait for it...hovered over Genosia during the first assault of the Clone Wars. The Gallofree transports in Empire Strikes Back are seen....you guessed it...hovering over the Hoth ice fields. No landing struts.
Jabba's sail barge (which wasn't even a space ship): no landing struts...it hovered near the sarlacc pit. It didn't land on big honkin' metal poles so it could go toppling into the pit, which at the very least would be embarrassing as everyone would spill their drinks.
You can look at the design of an Imperator-class Imperial Star Destroyer and see that landing struts are impossible.
The Nebulon-B Frigate is built with it's mass on top tapering to small points on bottom: No landing struts.
Even the friggin REFUGEE SHIP used by Anakin and Padme in Attack of the Clones hovers at the departure platform: no landing struts.
The only somewhat large ship we see with landing struts is the Corellian Blockade Runner, and here's a little secret: It was originally designed to be the Millenium Falcon. Yep. That's the original Millenium Falcon design, but Lucas changed his mind at lunch one day, took a bite out of a hamburger and told his design guys to make the Millenium Falcon look like that.

Okay, let me break this down for you.
If you, as a society, have developed the ability to have such a massive energy output that you are willing to casually put yourself in a big metal can, chuck it into the hard radiation, icy cold and hard vacuum of space, and then decide that you're going to urinate all over Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, and you trust that technology so much that you use it to convey children and families, how really worried are you about your technology failing, as opposed to say a big honking piece of metal that's:
1. Exposed to enemy fire.
2. Exposed to the elements.
3. Relies on a landing zone that can support your ship's massive weight.
4. Relies on a landing zone that's level
5. Needs physical machinery and moving parts to lower it up and down.
6. Has the exact same amount of opportunity of breaking down that a hover system would.
7. Requires several tons of super-weight supporting material to function that you have to carry around with you constantly on the off-chance that you might land, cutting down on your cargo carrying capacity (and often your profits) and reducing internal space in your vessel.

OR....

You could use the antigravity system that you already have installed and already rely on to GET YOU FROM POINT A TO POINT B that takes up no additional space, is not exposed to enemy fire, is already using the machinery built into your drive system, has ZERO reliance on ground conditions, gravity, level terrain or the weight-bearing capabilities of the surface, and doesn't leave big indentations to everyone on the cosmos saying: "Hey! A big freakin' star ship was landed right here! Right friggin' here!" on every world you visit.

If the gravity system breaks down on your interstellar traveling starship, you have bigger problems than landing. And, just in case there's a glitch in the system and you need a back up, you wouldn't want to rely on landing struts. What if you're over a lava world? What if you're over needle sharp spires? What if you're over an ocean? What if there are nasty, acid-bleeding, doublejawed, biomechanical aliens waiting to swarm up the first shiny piece of metal they can get to?
No. If you're worried about redundancy, your back up system would be....

(drumroll)


another hover system.
Reply
:iconkurubishell:
KurubiShell Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
...you're using star wars as the bench mark?
Well, first, you're wrong. Large star wars ships did NOT have struts. The early clone transports had bays built into their landing strips on Coruscant that were actually landing cradles. They...wait for it...hovered over Genosia during the first assault of the Clone Wars. The Gallofree transports in Empire Strikes Back are seen....you guessed it...hovering over the Hoth ice fields. No landing struts.

Military Helicopter transports sometimes hover of battlefields to drop soldiers on the battlefield. It is a standard and effective tactic used to keep the bird off the ground and out of enemy targeting. Does this mean they don't have landing struts. This however does not mean that it is feasable to use hovering as a means of staying on the ground.

Okay, let me break this down for you.
If you, as a society, have developed the ability to have such a massive energy output that you are willing to casually put yourself in a big metal can, chuck it into the hard radiation, icy cold and hard vacuum of space, and then decide that you're going to urinate all over Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, and you trust that technology so much that you use it to convey children and families, how really worried are you about your technology failing, as opposed to say a big honking piece of metal that's:
1. Exposed to enemy fire.
2. Exposed to the elements.
3. Relies on a landing zone that can support your ship's massive weight.
4. Relies on a landing zone that's level
5. Needs physical machinery and moving parts to lower it up and down.
6. Has the exact same amount of opportunity of breaking down that a hover system would.
7. Requires several tons of super-weight supporting material to function that you have to carry around with you constantly on the off-chance that you might land, cutting down on your cargo carrying capacity (and often your profits) and reducing internal space in your vessel.

Technology no matter the level will still fail at time and another. Snipping category one through 4.

5. If this civilization is so technologically advanced, why would that even be a problem.
6. Only that a hover system requires active technology. Landing struts could use hydraulic system that would be not have to be computer operated but operated by...surprise...HAND CONTROLS.
7. By that logic, 747's and 777 shouldn't fly right? They have the same problems as that craft. Somehow they can keep the same volume and have machines that support the landing gear system.




You could use the antigravity system that you already have installed and already rely on to GET YOU FROM POINT A TO POINT B that takes up no additional space, is not exposed to enemy fire, is already using the machinery built into your drive system, has ZERO reliance on ground conditions, gravity, level terrain or the weight-bearing capabilities of the surface, and doesn't leave big indentations to everyone on the cosmos saying: "Hey! A big freakin' star ship was landed right here! Right friggin' here!" on every world you visit.


again goes back to the same problem. What happens if the system fails for some reason. What happens if the supposed aliens destroy the system. Right? Landing struts need no active systems.


If the gravity system breaks down on your interstellar traveling starship, you have bigger problems than landing. And, just in case there's a glitch in the system and you need a back up, you wouldn't want to rely on landing struts. What if you're over a lava world? What if you're over needle sharp spires? What if you're over an ocean? What if there are nasty, acid-bleeding, doublejawed, biomechanical aliens waiting to swarm up the first shiny piece of metal they can get to?
No. If you're worried about redundancy, your back up system would be....

If you're stupid enough to not scan the surface of the place your going to land on, you deserve to be eaten by acid spitting aliens or land in the ocean and drown. No space faring race would tolerate such stupidity anyways. You would first send a probe down below or use sensors to scan it. This is done in real life all the time, checking the conditions of the landing spots for aircraft. Why wouldn't this space faring species do this.
Reply
:iconiljackson:
ILJackson Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
You haven't described a single advantage of having landing struts over a hover system that holds water.
And why would you assume I was going on the assumption that they didn't scan the planet first? That's called a straw man; making an argument that isn't there. It was you who said they need to have landing struts in case the hover system fails.
I pointed out how a landing strut would have even more limited use than a hover system in that situation. Also, I've seen the full model of the gallofree. There's no landing struts even possible. There are no landing struts on ANY OF THE SHIPS from star wars I listed in the "Incredible Cross Sections" guide, which is canon. They don't have struts because they don't have struts, not because you didn't see them. It's Star Wars gospel.
Also, you err in assuming that a landing strut designed to hold up a ship that is several million tons would take less technology than hovering.
You don't realize that different planets have different gravity and different atmospheric conditions?
What if you landed on a planet with 10 times earth gravity? Then your ship weighs 10 times as much. Do you understand the level of engineering that would go into making struts for holding up a ship like that in multiple levels of gravity, atmosphere and pressure?
You said technology will always fail. You do realize that landing struts for a vessel like that performing missions like that are high technology right? Thus, you just raped your own argument and actually helped me make stronger argument for hover systems. Why?
Did you not know that landing struts require technology?
Have you seen a landing strut?
On, perhaps a plane? You realize that it involved electronics? That it involved hydraulics? That if it's wheeled it involves a brake system? That it involves lots of moving parts? That stuff...it's called technology.
I graduated from an aerospace technical high school in Detroit called B.O. Davis Aerospace Tech. We used to build the hydraulic systems from scratch just to pass a weekly test in our airframe mechanics class. Trust me. They are high technology.
It seems like you're trying to hold on to a position once it's woefully lost just to hold onto a position.
You don't have to do that. There's no points to a winner or loser.
Reply
(2 Replies)
:iconirmax-comix:
irmax-comix Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
wow. this is great. nice work.
Reply
:iconferox04:
Ferox04 Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
Some amazing visuals here! The back of a ship is largely ignored by other designers, almost always simplified... But here, it looks so amazingly polished and detailed, that it could actually be the front of the ship if not for the engines. I'm really loving the sort-of-vents down below.
Reply
:iconangeloventura:
AngeloVentura Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2010
Great work!
Reply
:iconraindropthelf:
Raindropthelf Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
wow awesome piece of work, wonderful!!
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
September 14, 2010
Image Size
418 KB
Resolution
1200×900
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
14,647 (5 today)
Favourites
62 (who?)
Comments
30
Downloads
192