I like the fact the hangar is arranged logically for acceleration, rather than the way most science fiction shows and movies do it. Also, I really enjoy the space/atmospheric fighter design and your attention to detail, such as wingtip RCS and the variety of service trolleys.
I like this design too, but you must realise that acceleration due to gravity is moot in space, unless in atmosphere. Also, the orientation of the landing pads relative to the horizontal axis of the ship could become problematic to rookie pilots. And also, how come the fighter design seems to rely on control surfaces when there is no air in space, rather than directional thrusters?
Obviously, but I think it's clear that if the lifts/pads are arranged this way it's only because all the decks are as well, and those are pressurized and are the ones that matter, anyway...
I think you're wrong, you're still thinking in terms of conventional flight. I am pretty sure docking in space is much, much easier than landing on an aircraft carrier in atmosphere, no matter the orientation of the landing pad - you only need to match speed with the spaceship outside of the bay, then use your thrusters to swivel round so that your nose points towards the bay (or your tail, or sideways, really doesn't matter as long as your belly is parallel with the pad). Since this is space, you will still be going the same way and with the same speed, no matter which way you're facing (in essence remaining motionless relative to the carrier), so now you only need a gentle push towards the bay with the thrusters, then a quick burst the other way to slow down again, and you're home free.
And yet, I was just commenting on the fact the RCS (Reaction Control System, i.e., thrusters) is highly conspicuous if you know what to look for. Just look at the wingtips, in between the two tails and on the nose, below and in front of the cockpit - see those suspicious small oblong things? Those are the thruster ports.
This is obviously a dual space/atmosphere design ("spaceplane", colloquially) like the real life Lockheed NF-104A, the Space Shuttle, Buran, Boeing X-37, etc. so it has to have conventional controls as well. it's just that those are a lot more visible than the thrusters.
On the other hand, I am just noticing a minor goof - why is there a red light on the starboard wingtip? It should have been green...
To quote this excellent website, because of Newton's laws of motion, "under acceleration the ship will seem like it is landed, sitting on its tail fins with the nose pointed straight up" because your inertia will try to keep you still while the spaceship wants to move out from under you, so arranging the decks like floors in a skyscraper rather than the decks of an ocean liner is the best idea. Unfortunately, a lot of sci-fi shows get this wrong, either because they don't care or because it looks "too outlandish". Either that or they just hand wave the issue by having "artificial gravity".
And also, now that I think about it, it doesn't matter wherever you have atmosphere around you or if you're in a stark vacuum, as long as you are inside the ship, you will feel the ship's acceleration as "gravity" pulling your body in the direction of exhaust, that is to say exactly away from where the ship is heading as it is accelerating. At the end of the trip, when it'll be decelerating, the ship will be turned around, pointing it's engines in the direction it's going, so you will still feel "down" is towards the stern of the ship.