News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[lazyboy97o]

Thanks for the response. But...

An airplane while offering more flat surface area does so along a single "plane" and is rendered as smooth as possible. The Star-Blaster, while smaller, exists on several planes and it's fuselage especially has many non-aerodynamic elements/detals. I guess my main issue is saying this craft poses even less problems when to me that's akin to saying that a plane with its landing gear down and all flaps deployed somehow poses less of a dynamic risk.

Not trying to be combative, just trying to understand. I will also add that the base does seem far larger than I'd imagine the need, no matter the forces at play. One other thing I might add is the area in which it's placed. The Star-Blaster reaches up fifty feet which I assume is considerably higher than most mounted jets. This is higher than some of the buildings and trees around it. Honestly, I'd love it if Imagineering could show off the wind tests for this.

The aircraft only has that “single plane” when in forward motion and even then it’s not truly singular. Look up Kittinger Park. The F-4 is positioned at an angle, with its big broad belly lifted up for Central Florida hurricane winds to hit. The top is also a big wide surface for wind to hit. The sides are pretty wide as well. It wasn’t placed in some weird spot where the wind only blows directly at its nose, every side gets hit with wind. All of those surfaces on the Star Blaster are smaller and allow wind to move around it.

There’s not thing really exciting to show off. It’d be calculations by the structural engineer.

 

[Master Yoda]

Thanks for the response. But...

An airplane while offering more flat surface area does so along a single "plane" and is rendered as smooth as possible. The Star-Blaster, while smaller, exists on several planes and it's fuselage especially has many non-aerodynamic elements/detals. I guess my main issue is saying this craft poses even less problems when to me that's akin to saying that a plane with its landing gear down and all flaps deployed somehow poses less of a dynamic risk.

Not trying to be combative, just trying to understand. I will also add that the base does seem far larger than I'd imagine the need, no matter the forces at play. One other thing I might add is the area in which it's placed. The Star-Blaster reaches up fifty feet which I assume is considerably higher than most mounted jets. This is higher than some of the buildings and trees around it. Honestly, I'd love it if Imagineering could show off the wind tests for this.

You design for the worst-case scenario. In the case of a static mounted plane, a wind blowing at 90 degrees to that flat surface is your worst-case scenario. For the Star Blaster, that worst-case would probably be the side or rear profile. If the area of the plane worst-case is more than the Star Blaster then the stand would most likely need to be more robust for the plane.

As to size, most US fighter jets are 50' or more in length and we have several examples of them being mounted in action positions that expose thair flat surface areas to the wind and they have much less obtrusive stands.

Where the Star Blaster is unique is in its weird shape. This could potentially make it harder to model in a computer without very specialized software that Disney simply might not have or be willing to pay for. For this reason, it would not surprise me if they just did some ultra-conservative brute force calculations and designed a stand that is orders of magnitude stronger than it needs to be. The reality is that the average guest is not going to give 2 milliseconds of thought to this stand and they went with function over form.

 

[Incomudro]

Thanks for the response. But...

An airplane while offering more flat surface area does so along a single "plane" and is rendered as smooth as possible. The Star-Blaster, while smaller, exists on several planes and it's fuselage especially has many non-aerodynamic elements/detals. I guess my main issue is saying this craft poses even less problems when to me that's akin to saying that a plane with its landing gear down and all flaps deployed somehow poses less of a dynamic risk.

Not trying to be combative, just trying to understand. I will also add that the base does seem far larger than I'd imagine the need, no matter the forces at play. One other thing I might add is the area in which it's placed. The Star-Blaster reaches up fifty feet which I assume is considerably higher than most mounted jets. This is higher than some of the buildings and trees around it. Honestly, I'd love it if Imagineering could show off the wind tests for this.

Good point on the height of the mount.
That certainly adds to leverage.

 

[DCBaker]

 

[James Alucobond]

Looks like the ship should be complete in a few days. They were putting up the final panels on the underside of the overhang too, so the entire exterior should be essentially done aside from landscaping and finishing in short order. Can't wait for this and Connections to launch and bring some sense of normalcy back to this side of the park.

 

[flynnibus]

Don't know why they didn't synergize... they could have done this:
View attachment 621808

just think of the story!!!

Harmonius was actually a gift from the xandarians!

 

[techgeek]

Is the mount ‘done’ enough that we can laugh at it now?

 

[DCBaker]

 

[larryz]

Is the mount ‘done’ enough that we can laugh at it now?

Hey, it's not nice to laugh at a structure that had no hand in designing itself.

 

[No Name]

Looks like a giant Pez dispenser

That’s not very nice to Pez dispensers.

 

[DisneyCane]

This actually looks more impressive in the picture than it did in person when I was there the other day. In walking by I just noticed it and my reaction was meh. I didn't feel the need to slow down and look at it or snap a photo.

 

[Rob562]

Looks like the ship should be complete in a few days. They were putting up the final panels on the underside of the overhang too, so the entire exterior should be essentially done aside from landscaping and finishing in short order. Can't wait for this and Connections to launch and bring some sense of normalcy back to this side of the park.

Are we expecting them to try and get the walkway past the eastern side of SSE done before Guardians opens? I'd think they wouldn't want to be routing all crowds right past the brand new thing in the park.

-Rob

 

[Dan Deesnee]

My problem with the column is not that it's there, and it's huge.

The real problem is that Disney should have made it part of the theming. It should look like it's docked or something as part of a larger structure. Instead it's blatantly obvious why that pole is sticking up out of the ground and why the ship is sitting on it. It's simply to keep it from falling over.

Part of Disney's magic is them using incredible theming and artistry so that you don't even know why things are shaped the way they are or how they're being held up, or structured, etc. This is rudimentary and low effort to say the least. Imagine the Pandora floating islands being held up by huge metal beams that they simply slap that corporation logo onto to call it themed.

Looks awful because of the stand it's sitting on. No one's going to look at that and think, oh cool a spaceship, they're going to look at it I think, oh neat, a big statue.

 

[No Name]

My problem with the column is not that it's there, and it's huge.

The real problem is that Disney should have made it part of the theming. It should look like it's docked or something as part of a larger structure. Instead it's blatantly obvious why that pole is sticking up out of the ground and why the ship is sitting on it. It's simply to keep it from falling over.

Part of Disney's magic is them using incredible theming and artistry so that you don't even know why things are shaped the way they are or how they're being held up, or structured, etc. This is rudimentary and low effort to say the least. Imagine the Pandora floating islands being held up by huge metal beams that they simply slap that corporation logo onto to call it themed.

Looks awful because of the stand it's sitting on. No one's going to look at that and think, oh cool a spaceship, they're going to look at it I think, oh neat, a big statue.

Well story-wise it’s on supposed to be on display in front of the pavilion, I’m pretty sure. I don’t like how it looks but I think it works fine with the story.

 

[Dan Deesnee]

Well story-wise it’s on supposed to be on display in front of the pavilion, I’m pretty sure. I don’t like how it looks but I think it works fine with the story.

Ah. Still seems like they're making story decisions that allow them to save money as opposed to actually making things look thematic and interesting.

 

[_caleb]

Why is it that people with the least insight and information always seem to have the strongest opinions?

 

[ctrlaltdel]

 

[Mac Tonight]

Why is it that people with the least insight and information always seem to have the strongest opinions?

Because that's how Al Gore created the Innernette to work.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Why is it that people with the least insight and information always seem to have the strongest opinions?

And shout the loudest at those with differing opinions.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Well story-wise it’s on supposed to be on display in front of the pavilion, I’m pretty sure. I don’t like how it looks but I think it works fine with the story.

Yeah, that's how I feel. That it looks like it is on display in front of the pavilion is entirely appropriate, it's just that the support seems to completely overwhelm the ship and is anything but sleek and elegant.