I've gotten a few submissions as of late that either skirt the definition of "Hard SF" or are actually "Soft SF". Most space fighter designs are for the most part Soft SF. Not all, ones that operate in both atmosphere and NEO or strictly orbital, are possible, but will have major restrictions. However, every space fighter that has appeared in SciFi movies are Soft SF. They are impossibly small, impossibly fast, carry massive firepower, and have a range of operation that would exceed most realistic spacecraft designs.

But instead of me ranting on, let me point you to the Atomic Rockets site:

Rockets Are Not Fighter Planes:
www.projectrho.com/public_html…

If it flies and maneuvers like a WWII fighter plane, it's not a spaceship.
This group is dedicated to depictions of realistically depicted spaceships and spacecraft and not to spaceboats.

What's a spaceboat? Its any spaceship depiction that wouldn't look out of place floating in water and cruising around like a boat. The decks of a spaceboat are parallel to the thrust vector. You can typically tell this when you see portholes in a line. Oh, and that's another indication: portholes. Real spaceships don't have much in the way of portholes, as you can't see much outside other than the blackness of space. Also, they are structural weak points in the hull of the ship. The following is an example of a spaceboat:

Enterprise by 2753Productions

In fact, it sets the tone for spaceboats in most space art for movies and fiction. Too bad this ship didn't lead to more realistic depictions:

Discovery by MotoTsume

All submissions will reviewed and if it doesn't come to standards, a detailed explanation will be provided as to why it it's being turned down.

Journal Writers

Twitter