Skip

"The reason they joined the Navy was because Starfleet Command wasn't hiring."
September 29, 2012 4:24 AM   Subscribe

Aircraft Carriers in Space: Naval analyst Chris Weuve talks to Foreign Policy about what Battlestar Galactica gets right about space warfare.
posted by the man of twists and turns (63 comments total) 38 users marked this as a favorite

 
Because if the there's one thing the navy knows, it's space warfare.
posted by delmoi at 5:02 AM on September 29, 2012


As far as I know, bot the air force and navy are taking the lead in getting the US into militarized space. The army and marines are centered on human, ground based warfare, whereas the other two branches tend to be centered on machinery - ships, planes, real mobile warfare platforms. I wouldn't discount an analyst's take on space solely because he is in the navy.
posted by efalk at 5:23 AM on September 29, 2012 [1 favorite]


Hmm...
But one thing that drives me crazy is that on Star Trek, you're either on watch or off duty, when a real naval officer has a whole other job, such as being a department or division head. So he's constantly doing paperwork. Most shows don't get that right at all.
I think they implied that the various crew members had management responsibilities as well, but A) a lot of 'paperwork' could be handled by the computer and B) even if that stuff was happening in the fictional world, it wouldn't necessarily make it on screen anyway, as you only need to show the interesting parts.
Another issue is that modern naval warfare is very much tied to a logistics. There is a lifeline to the shore, and on top of that, there is this support network across the world, such as satellite, meteorological support, and land-based aircraft. Air campaigns are planned ashore. This idea that Captain Kirk leaves on a five-year mission? We go to sea for six or nine months at a time, with continuous logistical support, and when we come back, the ships are pretty beaten up. They need refit. It's hard to imagine these spaceships going out alone and unafraid without any sort of support.
I think this is where he's really extrapolating too much from the sea. You can only go so far in a boat on a sphere before you end up back on land. But in space you can travel indefinitely. And more importantly, getting on and off the ground is a major energy expense. Right now most space probes head out into space, and pretty much just stay there, or land and never come back. The ISS has been in space for years and will probably stay for many more. The voyager space probes are still in operation.

And of course, floating around in zero-G is going to cause a lot less wear and tear then floating around in the ocean in general.

One thing I think he gets right is the idea that any kind of battle in space is going to be won by whoever gets the first shot, probably from a long way away. Interesting, the first manned space station actually had a machine gun mounted on it. It was mounted in a fixed position, so in order to fire at a target, you would need to rotate the entire station.

In the future, any space combat will probably be carried out by robots anyway, but it would be interesting to think about what it would be like if computer technology got stuck at 1970s levels for some reason.
posted by delmoi at 5:25 AM on September 29, 2012 [6 favorites]


This is interesting, but actual space battles are likely to be even more boring, at least in our lifetime. Something like expending small amounts of thrust over a period of weeks until you run out of fuel and the satellite comes up and spray paints black over your solar panels.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:14 AM on September 29, 2012 [4 favorites]


And then you die a slow, cold death?

Yeah. Anyhow, I was interested to hear that someone might be assessing the reality of events that have yet to occur.
posted by mr. digits at 6:23 AM on September 29, 2012


he's constantly doing paperwork

I have memories of Yeoman Rand bringing Kirk a wedge-shaped clipboard with stuff for him to sign.
posted by Egg Shen at 6:34 AM on September 29, 2012 [3 favorites]


One thing I really liked about BSG is that while they had magic space drives and FTL, the armaments and shields -- nukes and ordinary matter -- were pretty much our own state of the art, and they ran with that.
posted by localroger at 6:36 AM on September 29, 2012 [2 favorites]


The ISS has been in space for years

...with continuous logistical support.
posted by adamdschneider at 6:52 AM on September 29, 2012 [5 favorites]




If I click on this link, and Space: Above and Beyond doesn't get a shoutout.... there will be sulking.
posted by Mezentian at 7:04 AM on September 29, 2012 [5 favorites]


"But one thing that drives me crazy is that on Star Trek, you're either on watch or off duty, when a real naval officer has a whole other job, such as being a department or division head. So he's constantly doing paperwork. Most shows don't get that right at all. "

Brilliant. Now I want to see a Catch-22 set in space.
posted by daniel_charms at 7:20 AM on September 29, 2012 [3 favorites]


This idea that Captain Kirk leaves on a five-year mission? We go to sea for six or nine months at a time, with continuous logistical support, and when we come back, the ships are pretty beaten up. They need refit. It's hard to imagine these spaceships going out alone and unafraid without any sort of support.

From what I recall, Kirk & Co. kept in regular contact with Starfleet and there were plenty of other starships that could reach the Enterprise in a couple of days. Couple that with the idea that planets had been mapped and analyzed but not visited, along with matter replicators and the logistics might not have to exist. Or at least not the degree it does today.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:32 AM on September 29, 2012




One of the things I liked about Enterprise (I know, bear with me) is that the ship kept getting beaten to hell so badly that it couldn't be repaired in one episode, and in many cases couldn't be repaired at all without going into a dock. Fuel and food constantly needed to be replenished. If a hole got punched in the ship then the entire section would be depressurized and crew members would be lost. The grittiness made it worth putting up with Scott Bacula.
posted by 1adam12 at 7:47 AM on September 29, 2012 [4 favorites]


All the best parts of Voyager were where that would happen for an episode or two. Never lasted long though.
posted by Artw at 7:50 AM on September 29, 2012


Right now most space probes head out into space, and pretty much just stay there, or land and never come back.

A) They also don't do much. Other devices boost them to their stations. Onboard, they rarely maneuver. Almost all of them have dealt with mechanical failures, such as Galielo's faulty high gain antenna. Sitting in an orbit is easy, and that's what they do 99.99% of the time.

B) Many of them failed and never even started their missions.

C) They don't have humans aboard, which is why they can afford to go slow, and why they rarely maneuver.


The ISS has been in space for years and will probably stay for many more.

With constant manned repair and constant supply flights, and even then, it's looking a little rough for the wear.

The one reusable manned spacecraft we had needed refit after every flgiht? All the others, after one voyage, were considered no long fit to fly.

And then there's the boosters. The most reusable one, again, would dissasemble, refill, and rebuild one set of engines (the SSRBs) and would do a tear-down rebuild on the other sets (SSME, OMS) after a total run time under 20 minutes. It would also throw away the largest part of the booster (the ET). Most others space systems throw away 90% of the craft after one use.

So, yeah, going out on a five year mission without stopping every 6-9 months for resupply and refit? That's a stretch. Note that the newer Battlestar Galactica series gets this right -- the escape fleet is constantly dealing with mechanical and supply issues, and indeed the titular ship itself basically falls apart by the end of the series.
posted by eriko at 8:03 AM on September 29, 2012 [2 favorites]


Already discussed in-depth by TvTropes.

In fact the wording and structure are so similar I'd be unsurprised if it was unacknowledged "inspiration" for this article.
posted by clarknova at 8:10 AM on September 29, 2012


Well, a lot of it falls into the category "things that are apparent if you think about this stuff for any length of time".
posted by Artw at 8:13 AM on September 29, 2012


New BSG basically peaked with 33, everything after that was a letdown. Hell of a peak though.
posted by Artw at 8:14 AM on September 29, 2012 [7 favorites]


Fun read.. But why the hating on the X-wing?
posted by cacofonie at 8:16 AM on September 29, 2012


Fun read.. But why the hating on the X-wing?
I wouldn't say hate, but pretty much any scifi nerd would classify Star Wars and all its stuff as fantasy.

If I click on this link, and Space: Above and Beyond doesn't get a shoutout.... there will be sulking.
S:AAB was one of my favorite shows, too. I like how the Hammerheads still looked like planes but they explained that easily enough by making the space fighters actually atmosphere-capable, just as a Marine fighter should.
posted by linux at 8:28 AM on September 29, 2012 [1 favorite]


I wouldn't say hate, but pretty much any scifi nerd would classify Star Wars and all its stuff as fantasy.

Dude, when it comes to air or naval combat extrapolated into space it's ALL fantasy.
posted by Artw at 8:31 AM on September 29, 2012


No S:AAB love, unfortunately. Which is a cryin' shame because that show was far too short, and produced .. I don't want to say "far too early," exactly, but BSG Remake-level funding and production values would've helped I think. I re-watched part of it a few years back. It held up OK, for the most part.
posted by Alterscape at 8:32 AM on September 29, 2012


I always thought that Niven & Pournelle did a good job with their Mote in God's Eye and The Gripping Hand versions of Navies In Spaaaaaaace......
posted by mikelieman at 8:38 AM on September 29, 2012 [3 favorites]


New BSG basically peaked with 33, everything after that was a letdown. Hell of a peak though.

No, it peaked with shooting Adama. Everything after that was downhill, though not always quickly and with many nice stops along the way.

It's hard for blatantly commercial fiction to get better after one major character shoots another.

The one reusable manned spacecraft we had needed refit after every flgiht?

And it looked a bit beat up at the end. Compare the shuttle Discovery, which spent a culmative year in space over 25 years or so, to the Enterprise, which never went into space. Discovery looks like retirement came not a moment too soon.

Thinking about this a bit more, it sounds like a starship would need iron or steel facilities with it, which are used to fabricate outer hulls. Hell, the design might even call for building new hulls on the interior, then shedding the old hulls as time goes on, sort of like a snake shedding skin.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:39 AM on September 29, 2012 [2 favorites]


One reason I thought the Battlestar idea made some sense, was indeed physics.

The big thing in a space battle would appear to be "delta-v", acceleration, the ability to change speed. By Newton's second law, accelerations is how much force can be generated by the engines divided by the mass of the ship.

That can be argued to favour small fighters. they have small mass, they can turn and evade more easily than the big "capital" ships. Very much like the fighter planes of today, a bunch of small, maneuverable ships could swarm and take down a bigger, slower to respond craft.

The problem for small craft is that they're not practical for the long-term. Volume scales as the cube of size, so fighters don't have a lot of room for things like fuel, pilot comfort or complicated sensor systems. They're good at short-range, but very limited away from the carrier, the battlestar that supports them and houses their pilots.

This makes a bunch of assumptions about how starcraft engines work, how big and effective laser guns are and so on, but for a certain set of reasonable assumptions based in Newton's laws and scaling laws, the fighter/tender models used by Star Wars and BSG make sense.

If big engines work better than small engines, then universes like Star Trek are the result: the bigger you are, the faster you are. this requires a fair bit of new physics though---it's the opposite of mechanics we understand for starcraft right now.
posted by bonehead at 8:41 AM on September 29, 2012 [1 favorite]


I realize it's on the opposite end of the technology spectrum, but I love one of the conceits of Charles Stross' _Iron Sunrise_. If you figured out FTL you could basically time travel in a way that one space navy could launch an attack on another and they would never even realize that they'd been annihliated.
posted by bardic at 8:53 AM on September 29, 2012


s/fighters/guided missiles/g
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:54 AM on September 29, 2012


One of the major ISS problems we had to deal with recently: the EVA handrails keep getting hit with micrometeorites (space dust, really) which makes for very sharp edges that damage the outer suit gloves. It is basically melting, all the time.
posted by BeeDo at 9:10 AM on September 29, 2012 [4 favorites]




When I was about 6? 8? years old I had a dream about a space navy consisting of millions of very small ships, all either automated or controlled by a single operator. It felt utterly right when I woke up. Still kinda does - Scott Westerfeld's space opera had a take on this, which I appreciated.

Thinking of radiation and scale, this discussion seems to be heading towards the asteroid-as-spaceship concept.
posted by doctornemo at 9:30 AM on September 29, 2012


I found this a lot more realistic than domesticpolicy.com's recent article about what Three's Company gets right about a single guy living with two women.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:31 AM on September 29, 2012 [2 favorites]


in Spanish within the Latino community that emergency rooms are killing patients in order to harvest their organs for transplants

And no one sits down and says "Hey, perhaps we shouldn't behave in such a way where this is not seen as a plausible reality?"
posted by rough ashlar at 9:40 AM on September 29, 2012


Much love to the Space: Above and Beyond fans in here. I used to watch that and then go play Wing Commander III for the rest of the night. Time well spent.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 9:52 AM on September 29, 2012


eriko: So, yeah, going out on a five year mission without stopping every 6-9 months for resupply and refit? That's a stretch. Note that the newer Battlestar Galactica series gets this right -- the escape fleet is constantly dealing with mechanical and supply issues, and indeed the titular ship itself basically falls apart by the end of the series.

Well, that's true in our world, and in the world of BSG, because neither of us have shields. Once you have shields, and the massive amounts of energy presumably required to project them (and, of course, to travel faster-than-light), then a lot of the wear of space would just disappear. And if you also have replicators and a closed ecosystem, then your ability to travel becomes limited primarily by energy and battle damage, more than just routine wear. You can replicate any part you need, and all your food, and all your entertainment items, so all you need at that point is insane, ridiculous amounts of energy.

The only time you'd really need to pull into a starbase is if you took significant hull damage that you couldn't replicate your way out of, or if you were low on gas.

And regenerating hulls would not be much of a stretch, if you grant replicators -- which might mean that all that all a Federation ship would need would be, every five years, enough energy loaded into their systems to drive the 20th century Earth for a few thousand years.
posted by Malor at 10:15 AM on September 29, 2012


Ok, I enjoyed Space: Above and Beyond too, but was no one else bugged by the fact that the same group of characters were apparently kick-ass pilots or kick-ass marines leading the invasion or kick-ass whatever else was needed for that week? Always drove me a little nuts.
posted by never used baby shoes at 10:23 AM on September 29, 2012 [2 favorites]


If you're interested in more of this kind of thing:
  • Winchell Chung's Atomic Rockets website has tons of discussion about how realistic space combat would work.
  • The Yahoo SFCONSIM-L is a list for discussion of realistic space combat simulation (i.e., mostly games that include space combat) and Chris is a member.
posted by jiawen at 11:13 AM on September 29, 2012 [3 favorites]


Technically, Kirk's five year mission should be closer to the early maritime captains who went off sailing and of they were lucky, lived to return a couple years later. Also, wasn't there an episode where the bridge officers on TNG gripe about crew evaluations?
posted by Atreides at 11:53 AM on September 29, 2012


Now that a (small but noticeable) fraction of space operas use the no-sound concept, the next irksome issue to tackle is inertia and thrust, for sure.

Also: that was a great article. Commentary from an intelligent naval expert who knows sci-fi? I'd could read 10x as much.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 12:14 PM on September 29, 2012 [1 favorite]


Also, wasn't there an episode where the bridge officers on TNG gripe about crew evaluations?

Two: Man of the People and Lower Decks.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:20 PM on September 29, 2012


Weuve's personal website is sadly dormant these days, but still a great read for sci-fi fans. His book section has turned me on to several great reads that I'd have missed otherwise.
posted by Zonker at 2:05 PM on September 29, 2012 [1 favorite]


If you do a fairly simple extrapolation of current technology, what you end up with is space combat as sort of ponderous ballet with shots fired at long distance at fairly fragile targets where you have to predict where the target is going to be.

This is a good time to bring up Polyus (more), or perhaps the Almaz.
posted by KokuRyu at 2:56 PM on September 29, 2012 [1 favorite]


Hell, the design might even call for building new hulls on the interior, then shedding the old hulls as time goes on, sort of like a snake shedding skin.
In conclusion, gentlemen, Star Blazers is the most realistic TV show set in space. Thank you.


Anyway, re logistics, I think it's as Atreides says— in ST:TOS at least, the Enterprise is doing the Cook / Vancouver / Magellan thing and pushing the limits of how far they can go from their support. In TNG, the ship's mission is usually less exploratory, but it still seems to be designed for fairly long duration unsupported activity, maybe because the TOS era was only a generation previous and ship design isn't changing that fast. (It seems like a modern aircraft carrier is never more than a few days to a week from a port anyway; pretty sure that systems in Trek are often farther apart than that.)
posted by hattifattener at 3:47 PM on September 29, 2012


Slight derail but that Small Wars Journal mentioned in the article is a pretty fascinating if dry look at conflicts around the globe without being overly-jingoistic.
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 4:18 PM on September 29, 2012 [1 favorite]


How on earth did this interview not even mention Yamato? Seriously?
posted by trackofalljades at 4:28 PM on September 29, 2012 [2 favorites]


Because Yamato is completely improbably. That's why.

(Oh, and ST:TNG is now 25 years old.)
posted by Mezentian at 4:57 PM on September 29, 2012


I always like it when sci-fi shows actually find creative ways to use real stuff. And as often as the Star Trek franchises have failed at this, there are one or two moments, including an example of the "FTL surprise attack" trick mentioned here (I seem to recall once that TNG abused that to give an enemy the impression of two ships when really there was only one).

And yes, BSG gets major points for this, especially for the wear and tear on the ship as the series went on -- they didn't have a base to go back to, so if they took some damage in a battle, well, they had to live with it from then on.
posted by ubernostrum at 5:13 PM on September 29, 2012


I love attempts to make scifi space battles more realistic and enjoyed the interview and the links above, but the first book I thought of while reading them was M. John Harrison's Light, which has just a couple of battles/pursuits between ships, but the ships are so far advanced that the battles take milliseconds with all sorts of quantum whatsis involved:

There was a vague ringing in the hull. Out in the flat grey void beyond, a huge actinic flare erupted. In an attempt to protect its client hardware, the White Cat's massive array shut down for a nanosecond and a half. By this time, the ordnance had already cooked off at the higher wavelengths. X-rays briefly raised the temperature in local space to 25,000 degrees Kelvin, while the other particles blinded every kind of sensor, and temporary sub-spaces boiled away from the weapons-grade singularity as fractal dimensions. Shockwaves sang through the dynaflow medium like the voices of angels, the way the first music resonated through the viscous substrate of the early universe before proton and electron recombined. Under cover of this moment—less of grace than of raw insanity and literal metaphysics -- Seria Mau cut the drivers and dropped her ship out into ordinary space. The White Cat flickered back into existence ten light years from anywhere. She was alone.

I'm not sure why, but that kind of scifi space battle has always seemed more interesting to me than the attempts at "realistic" military fighting (note: I'm not totally endorsing Light; I occasionally found it a bit exasperating, but it's well worth reading and the stuff about Seria Mau's ship is incredible).

Also, I wonder where Iain Banks' Culture books fit into this discussion. I've only read the first one so far, which doesn't have much space battling, but surely with all the hubbub about Banks' spaceship names there's something to be said about that universe's way of dealing with warfare? Or is that kind of space warfare description not a noticeable part of the Culture books?
posted by mediareport at 5:33 PM on September 29, 2012


I seem to recall once that TNG abused that to give an enemy the impression of two ships when really there was only one

This was the infamous Picard Maneuver.
posted by vibrotronica at 6:07 PM on September 29, 2012 [1 favorite]


I've only read the first one so far

Oops, I meant the 2nd one. Maybe the first has more space battles, but I read Player of Games.
posted by mediareport at 6:16 PM on September 29, 2012


Also, I wonder where Iain Banks' Culture books fit into this discussion.

The Culture is at the level where their tech might as well be magic, and so are pretty much anybody it bothers to have conflicts with.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:39 PM on September 29, 2012 [2 favorites]


Also, I wonder where Iain Banks' Culture books fit into this discussion.

Hundreds (thousands?) of pre-computed attacks, responses, counter-responses and so on played out in less than a second, planned by superintelligent computers - so, a few generations beyond "aircraft carriers in space"
posted by thedaniel at 7:35 PM on September 29, 2012 [1 favorite]


Also, I wonder where Iain Banks' Culture books fit into this discussion. I've only read the first one so far, which doesn't have much space battling, but surely with all the hubbub about Banks' spaceship names there's something to be said about that universe's way of dealing with warfare? Or is that kind of space warfare description not a noticeable part of the Culture books?

The Culture tends to avoid overt conflict in favor of more subtle influence and manipulation. Of course the only reason they have the luxury of that choice is that their tech is usually significantly superior. When they do have to pull out the warships, you know things are really bad. If you want to read about Culture-style ship warfare, the best examples I've read are in Excession. (I haven't kept up with his more recent books, so there might be something in them or there might not.) There are interactions much like the one you describe where conflicts occur in small slices of time far beyond what humans can manage.
posted by Nioate at 7:37 PM on September 29, 2012 [1 favorite]


Besides subsecond battles, Culture warships are equiped for cyberwarfare. Compromise your opponent ship via a buffer overflow or SQL injection and you have won.
posted by Nioate at 7:46 PM on September 29, 2012


If they're using SQL then the Culture is less of a utopia than I'd imagined.
posted by eruonna at 8:51 PM on September 29, 2012 [3 favorites]


It's not clear that spacefaring civilizations would really wage war in the sense that we understand it. Once you have one galaxy then you really ought not to need another unless you're just being obnoxious. Space is fantastically big and there's plenty enough for everybody. And within a galaxy true space warfare would likely be far too dangerous with each side quickly arming themselves with all the latest and greatest planet-busting weapons.

And a truly spacefaring civilization would be mobile and flexible in a way that people cannot comprehend. His ideas that ships would need constant planetary-based refitting and refueling is the silly "Humans in Space"-type thinking that is ridiculous. True space travel would not support complex biological automation in the way that we understand it and nobody with half a clue would actually try to spend enormous wealth trying to make empty bio-friendly. You would not have monkeys or any other humanoid tooling around enormous metal 'ships'. There must be easier ways to move intelligence and automation around if space travel is to be practical in any way.

And when you consider how cheap and easy kinetic weapons are then it ought to be clear that staying in one place, investing lots of effort in fixed assets, is a losing strategy. Without fantastically powerful and expensive defense grids you're just asking for any trouble maker to pop off a few grams of depleted uranium and knock out your major cities.

None of it makes sense. The simple truth is that war on Earth or any planet is ultimately cheap and easy and that's why it happens so often and why it always will happen so often. If a few trillion dollars of paper money and a few million humans die it's no big deal. That's all easily replaced. But at galactic and intergalactic scales war no longer becomes cheap or easy and in fact it'd be fantastically foolish given the type of civilizations that would even be capable of waging it. At that point hostile entities would have to resort to far more sophisticated weapons than crude force. For example it's often far, far, far more effective to loan your enemy a bunch of money, drown him in debt and then sit back and laugh as he firesales all his assets and resources while imposing severe austerity on his fixed populations than it ever is to actually put a bunch of troops on the ground and try to take stuff by force. These are the sorts of tactics I might imagine hostile spacefaring intelligences would employ against each other if they even bothered sticking around long enough to attack one another.
posted by nixerman at 9:57 PM on September 29, 2012 [3 favorites]


It's funny that this article comes when it does because I have recently been undergoing trials in a rigorously validated simulation of future space war called FTL. The main thing the author fails to address is upgrading your ship doors to blast doors quickly, because that way you can open up the airlock and have your foes choke out pretty bad before they reach weapon systems. I will be writing a letter to the editor in the morning, and will be sending a letter daily to make sure he has received my letter. It is in this way that I hope to both receive a quick response and also a correction published in the next edition of the internet.
posted by passerby at 11:49 PM on September 29, 2012 [2 favorites]


mediareport, Banks' Surface Detail has a nice little battle between one Culture warship and a squadron of pursuers, and Banks goes into the details of tactics and sensor information.

When the mind-bogglingly advanced warship is named Falling Outside The Normal Moral Constraints, you may not care to engage it in battle.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:03 AM on September 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


IMHO, Greg Egan's Amalgam is the only viable Galactic-scale "civilization" I've encountered. Start with the short story then check out the novel. Big, huge, gigantic thinking with the utmost reverence for all known physical laws.
posted by whuppy at 12:41 PM on October 1, 2012


Also, I wonder where Iain Banks' Culture books fit into this discussion. I've only read the first one so far, which doesn't have much space battling, but surely with all the hubbub about Banks' spaceship names there's something to be said about that universe's way of dealing with warfare?

Excession is his most space-war-wonky Culture book and the go-to place for perspective on GSV's. Consider Phlebas has some space battling but is mostly from the perspective of a person who doesn't understand it, and Use of Weapons is almost entirely retro form the standpoint of the Culture.
posted by localroger at 1:21 PM on October 1, 2012


Also, re: Banks, The Algebraist is a really clever space war book where the constraints are pretty unusual -- FTL is only possible through black hole portals which have to be engaged and then separated at STL speeds, and relativistic STL travel is cheap.
posted by localroger at 1:23 PM on October 1, 2012


s/fighters/guided missiles/g

In general, absolutely. Turning accelerations and all that.

In BSG, however, where IT security is paramount and the Cylons are so much better at it than the humans, a biological in the cockpit makes the most sense.
posted by bonehead at 1:24 PM on October 1, 2012 [1 favorite]


Another strong idea from the miniseries and first series that degraded over time.
posted by Artw at 1:29 PM on October 1, 2012


« Older Ancient stream bed on Mars   |   Rags to Riches to President:... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post