Comments on: The SHIELD Helicarrier.

By: Hentzau

Hentzau — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:52:15 +0000

Well you’d need more than one MANPAD to do it, but yeah it’d be way more vulnerable to air attack than a regular carrier.

By: Smurf

Smurf — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:46:54 +0000

Anti-Gravity machines, duh. Do I have to think of everything? Honestly, and you call yourself a scientist.

By: Hentzau

Hentzau — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:40:42 +0000

Yes, I can: they ran out of budget for the expensive helicarrier CGI.

By: Hentzau

Hentzau — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:39:06 +0000

No. Like, not even a no but or a no with caveats. Just no. It’s too heavy. It’d be too heavy if it was a tenth the size. It’d be too heavy if it were a hundredth the size. There’s simply no getting around gravity in this case.

By: Gap

Gap — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 12:30:16 +0000

Also I imagine that shooting it down would be both super easy and slightly problematic for the organisation that decided to base itself in mid-air rather than under a mountain. But yeah, it turns invisible, so whatever, comicbook logic.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 11:28:36 +0000

Also, I believe it turns invisible at some point. Can your science explain that?!

By: aosher

aosher — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 11:22:56 +0000

I didn’t actually like the Avengers all that much as a film

Huh. Literally the only thing Whedon’s ever done that I liked.

So is there a plausible propulsion method that would allow for a flying Nimitz carrier beyond those detailed here?