Star Wars Advent Calendar - Day 13

I really need to work up a list of relative scale of Advent Calendar mini-model builds. This is slightly too small to scale with the Jedi Starfighters in 75146 and 75213. Argh.

Here is today's ranking (in my opinion):
6. Disney
5. Star Wars
4. Friends
3. Harry Potter
2. City
1. Spider-Man

The city theme won this one!

"Moreover, I wish the wings were able to rotate around the fuselage as we see onscreen, but I understand simplifying the design, given the scale." And here I was all ready to make a "Wings do not rotate. 0/10." joke.

@Binnekamp said:
"A decent effort. And one of the few Clone Wars era minibuilds (the others were minifigs and yesterday's Eta-class shuttle, I believe) so that's nice. I also appreciate that it has the original color scheme and not just the recent one's."

Not Eta-class, Theta-class. https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Theta-class_T-2c_shuttle And "from a certain point of view," you could consider the minikit a Clone Wars-era build, as it originated in a game that retold the story of the prequels.

Didn't like this one that much, maybe also because of the subject matter. But it makes sense to have this happen on Friday the 13th.

I’m kinda curious how much it would impact the pilot to have the wings oriented vertically rather than horizontally. Seems like it would get real annoying to have a giant wing mounted right above your head like that.

Interesting choice. Saw this model on the box art and thought for sure it was the Crimson Firehawk — glad that it wasn't.

I'm looking forward to seeing what they choose going forward in the rest of this calendar, as the early 2010's were when I first started getting into LEGO's!

@PurpleDave said:
"I’m kinda curious how much it would impact the pilot to have the wings oriented vertically rather than horizontally. Seems like it would get real annoying to have a giant wing mounted right above your head like that."

I'd assume it might feel a little akin to having a sail like on a boat... and thats only been annoying for me before having to duck under the boom.

I don't know how they could have done it, but seeing as though this is a advent Callender, and 2011 was the first year of them I'm surprised they didn't try and do something. Maybe an advent gonk Droid somehow? Yoda Claus again?

@GrizBe said:
" @PurpleDave said:
"I’m kinda curious how much it would impact the pilot to have the wings oriented vertically rather than horizontally. Seems like it would get real annoying to have a giant wing mounted right above your head like that."

I'd assume it might feel a little akin to having a sail like on a boat... and thats only been annoying for me before having to duck under the boom."

Well, except when you’re sailing, you’re generally only trying to navigate in two dimensions. Unless you’re really drunk, that is. In a spaceship, up is usually the next most important direction after forwards in terms of maintaining an unobstructed view. This is even more true when you have to worry about being shot at on top of just running into stuff.

Also, the boom is really only an issue when changing tack. That’s why they call it a “boom”.

@Binnekamp said:
"In space up and down are relative."

In the cockpit, not so much. Down is what you sit on, and up is where your hat goes. And regardless of how your spacecraft is oriented, these directions don’t change, so it’s still best not to needlessly block the directions that your face can easily point during flight.

I must really brush up on my Star Wars knowledge as I had no idea what this was (sigh......)

@PurpleDave said:
" @Binnekamp said:
"In space up and down are relative."

In the cockpit, not so much. Down is what you sit on, and up is where your hat goes. And regardless of how your spacecraft is oriented, these directions don’t change, so it’s still best not to needlessly block the directions that your face can easily point during flight."

I really doubt that these highly sophisticated spacecraft rely only on optical vision. They should also have technical aids like cameras, radar and gadgets we even don’t know!

@UProbeck said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @Binnekamp said:
"In space up and down are relative."

In the cockpit, not so much. Down is what you sit on, and up is where your hat goes. And regardless of how your spacecraft is oriented, these directions don’t change, so it’s still best not to needlessly block the directions that your face can easily point during flight."

I really doubt that these highly sophisticated spacecraft rely only on optical vision. They should also have technical aids like cameras, radar and gadgets we even don’t know!"

Spacecraft, sure. But I don’t remember Han plugging a cable into his head. Pilots still rely mostly on their eyes, plus their ears to monitor warning klaxons.

@PurpleDave said:
" @UProbeck said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @Binnekamp said:
"In space up and down are relative."

In the cockpit, not so much. Down is what you sit on, and up is where your hat goes. And regardless of how your spacecraft is oriented, these directions don’t change, so it’s still best not to needlessly block the directions that your face can easily point during flight."

I really doubt that these highly sophisticated spacecraft rely only on optical vision. They should also have technical aids like cameras, radar and gadgets we even don’t know!"

Spacecraft, sure. But I don’t remember Han plugging a cable into his head. Pilots still rely mostly on their eyes, plus their ears to monitor warning klaxons."

Humans are just wired to 3-d-orientation through sensing gravity.

@jkb said:
"2011 was the first year with a SWAC. I kinda wish they had referenced THAT ;-)"

The only two ways that I can think of would be by duplicating a minifig or model from that first calendar, or doing a weapon rack.

@jkb:
Funny how evolution works, isn’t it? And the crazy thing about space exploration is you can have the 100% best astronaut candidate on paper, and their first trip on the Vomit Comet is enough to basically kill their career before it even starts. Of course, most sci-fi films and TV series handwave that issue away with artificial gravity. Saves on the SFX budget, for one thing, and it’s easier for the actors.

@PurpleDave said:
" @jkb:
Funny how evolution works, isn’t it? And the crazy thing about space exploration is you can have the 100% best astronaut candidate on paper, and their first trip on the Vomit Comet is enough to basically kill their career before it even starts. Of course, most sci-fi films and TV series handwave that issue away with artificial gravity. Saves on the SFX budget, for one thing, and it’s easier for the actors."

I know that some parts of Apollo 13 were filmed in a Vomit Comet, because (obviously) that particular handwave wasn't available. I'm unaware of any other real-world space movies that did so.

@TheOtherMike said:
"I know that some parts of Apollo 13 were filmed in a Vomit Comet, because (obviously) that particular handwave wasn't available. I'm unaware of any other real-world space movies that did so."

I hadn’t actually heard that. Looks like they did film quite a bit, and got to use one of the actual Vomit Comet planes operated by NASA (funny how that worked out, given the subject matter). Other productions that are listed on Wikipedia include OK Go filming choreography designed for zero-g to use in a music video, an adult film that was only budgeted for getting a single 20-second clip, and an episode of Mythbusters that used a different flight profile to recreate Moon-equivalent gravity so they could recreate Armstrong’s distinctive moon-gait to prove the Apollo 11 footage wasn’t forged (personally, I’d be okay with Aldrin continuing to prove it his very special way, except the man’s going to eventually shatter his wrist if he does that on a regular basis at his advanced age).

But that does broach an interesting topic. NASA has done underwater training in a large pool. This allows them to simulate spacewalks without having to figure out how to mock things up so they’ll fit on the plane. Problem is…the _spacesuit_ is neutrally buoyant. The _astronaut_ continues to experience the full effects of gravity. So imagine you’re geared up in a 300 pound spacesuit (which requires someone load you into the pool on a special platform, because you can’t take two steps on dry land without collapsing in a pile). And the task you’re training to perform requires you to be inverted. Spacesuit floats where you put it, because it’s neutrally buoyant. You, on the other hand, are stuck resting the full weight of your body on your shoulders, upside-down, for maybe an hour, because that’s how you’ll need to be positioned in actual zero-g.

So then there’s Ironman. Suit flies, Stark does not. Suit flies, and Stark is left laying on his chest inside of the suit.

@PurpleDave: I'd seen the Mythbusters episode, yeah. And yeah, all rebuttals should be left to Aldrin.