Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 
Want to support this site? Click

Quote of the Week: "History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives." - Abba Eban, Israeli statesman (1915-2002)


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-17 12:36pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2008-02-15 10:36am
Posts: 2319
Those who are interested enough to reply to the thread probably know already what this is about, but in any case, the details can be found in this old thread.

Disclaimer before the eminent debaters of the forum attack: I am, as I have shown before, a Warsie (quite an extreme one, I would think, by certain people's standards). I do not endorse such an idea as is presented in the title and its implications; it was chosen purely for shock value. What I would rather see is a way to explain this.

Due to significant VS debate regarding SW over the last couple of weeks or so, I have been rechecking the SWTC. On Saxton's pages for the literary sources (and specifically, the one analysing the Tales of the Bounty Hunters anthology), I found the following:

p. 60 wrote:
When Boba Fett again refused to answer, IG-88 increased his speed to tolerance levels, narrowing the gap between his ship and the Slave I. He rode tight in the bowshock from Fett's ship. But suddenly, in a remarkable move, Boba Fett activated his inertial damping system, slamming his descent to a halt in the atmosphere of Tattooine. The stress and power required for such a maneuver utterly trashed his hyperdrives. IG-88 zoomed past him, unable to squelch his velocity sufficiently. He brought the IG-2000 to a halt in less than two seconds- directly in the targeting cross of Fett's ship.


This is not the usual function we see from "inertial dampers" that merely protect crew and components from the effects of huge accelerations, but it actually seems to lower the inertia of the ship as such. Taking this at face value, it looks like this does say that some technology that screws with inertial mass (similar to what we see in, say, Stargate SG-1 or the Lensman books) does in fact exist in SW. Does this lend more credibility to Sarli's (still non-canonical) bullshit?

Additionally, something in this passage looked familiar to me, so I did another check, this time on my own collection of old books. And I was right; as it went, it turned out that the KJA anthology is not the oldest sources where this stuff appears. It goes back all the way to the old WEG game and their Galaxy Guide 5: Return of the Jedi supplement. Although in that book, the quote looks a little different:

"Dark Voyage to Tatooine," p. 31, wrote:
At that moment, Fett activated the Slave I's unique inertial dampening system, abruptly halting the craft's speedy descent, though at the cost of destroying the ship's hyperdrive engines. The IG-2000 swept past in an instant, directly into the path of Slave I's weaponry.


Since the original source describes the technology as "unique," one would assume that it is not present on most major warships. Or that would be my conclusion, at any rate. So in any case it would not support the crap that all SW vessels have this.

Any thoughts from anyone else?

(EDIT: Minor corrections in grammar and presentation.)



"But there's no story past Episode VI, there's just no story. It's a certain story about Anakin Skywalker and once Anakin Skywalker dies, that's kind of the end of the story. There is no story about Luke Skywalker, I mean apart from the books."

-George "Evil" Lucas

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-17 01:51pm
Online
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Posts: 13459
Location: Looking for another drawer
Actually, Luke uses pretty much the same maneuver to break a tractor lock in HttE.
HttE, Bantam Spectra paperback, pg 182 wrote:
"Artoo, we're going to try something tricky," he called to the droid. "On my signal, I want you reverse-trigger the acceleration compensator-
full power, and bypass the cutoffs if you have to."
...
"Artoo: now."
And with a scream of horribly stressed electronics, the X-Wing came to a sudden dead stop.

In this instance, too, the hyperdrive was damaged (albeit not to the point of immediate failure, it held together just long enough to strand Luke in the middle of nowhere :D )
No mention of this requiring a special kind of acceleration compensator and I doubt Luke's X-wing (which never described as being in any way special) just happens to use the same 'unique' system Fett's ship did.
I'd say that points to this being something you can do with pretty much every ship.



'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kids with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-17 04:21pm
Offline
Sith Devotee
User avatar

Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Posts: 2822
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!
These are literally the opposite of what Sarli was suggesting. In both cases, the individuals are reversing the inertial compensators and therefore increasing the inertia of their craft. By the principle of Conservation of Momentum, their velocity must therefore decrease as their effective mass increases (it may be an increase in actual mass). What is legitimately interesting is evidence that the hyperdrive is involved in inertial adjustment- perhaps enabling the high-end accelerations to be consistent with their absence in the films- it requires heavy use of the inertial compensators and so damages the hyperdrive significantly and beyond the abilities of field repair.



Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!


I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?

- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-17 04:44pm
Offline
Sith Devotee
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-09 01:09pm
Posts: 3127
Location: The land beyond the forest; Sweden.
Sounds like a techy way of saying they put in the super-reverse. Increasing a ship's inertial mass wouldn't bring it to a "halt" in open space (if it would, there must be some frame of reference from where it would appear to accelerate in the other direction, which would be strange indeed). It especially wouldn't affect any gravitational acceleration the ship was experiencing.


As an hilarious aside, I checked Wookieepedia's page on IG-2000, and it said it could accelerate at 2500 Gs, and it's top speed in an atmosphere was 220 km/h. 0-100 in 0.01 seconds :lol:



Image
"Nippon ichi, bitches! Boing-boing."
Mai smote the demonic fires of heck...

Faker Ninjas invented ninjitsu

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-17 04:58pm
Offline
Sith Devotee
User avatar

Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Posts: 2822
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!
Dooey Jo wrote:
Sounds like a techy way of saying they put in the super-reverse. Increasing a ship's inertial mass wouldn't bring it to a halt in open space (if it would, there must be some frame of reference from where it would appear to accelerate in the other direction, which would be strange indeed). It especially wouldn't affect any gravitational acceleration the ship was experiencing.


As an hilarious aside, I checked Wookieepedia's page on IG-2000, and it said it could accelerate at 2500 Gs, and it's top speed in an atmosphere was 220 km/h. 0-100 in 0.01 seconds :lol:


What would happen to the momentum, then? If you increased the inertial mass without exerting a force on the object, its momentum would have to remain constant and so its velocity would necessarily decrease. For that matter, in the case of Skywalker, the gravitational acceleration is minimal, as the incident took place well away from planets or stars. The Boba Fett incident doesn't suggest that he came to a halt literally, but rather that he was able to cut velocity far more than IG-88 could. After all, if he came to a halt with respect to the planet, his motion would be far more severe than what was described. The frame-of-reference problem isn't really that strange, (for that matter, there is a strong suggestion that there are preferred frames of reference in SW) when you consider the problem of FTL travel, and my suggestion is that the two systems are linked.


I love it when Wookieepedians just mix SWTC-derived stats with roleplaying-game derived stats. It warms the cockles of my heart.



Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!


I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?

- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-17 05:09pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2008-02-15 10:36am
Posts: 2319
Bakustra wrote:
These are literally the opposite of what Sarli was suggesting. In both cases, the individuals are reversing the inertial compensators and therefore increasing the inertia of their craft. By the principle of Conservation of Momentum, their velocity must therefore decrease as their effective mass increases (it may be an increase in actual mass). What is legitimately interesting is evidence that the hyperdrive is involved in inertial adjustment- perhaps enabling the high-end accelerations to be consistent with their absence in the films- it requires heavy use of the inertial compensators and so damages the hyperdrive significantly and beyond the abilities of field repair.


Huh, good point. I initially read it that he reduced inertia to the point where the air friction stopped him dead. (And, yes, I am aware that this violates conservation of momentum. But then, so does pretty much all "mass lightening" technology by default, and I have seen exactly such manoeuvres in fiction elsewhere.) But your explanation makes better sense, in avoiding that.

In either case, of course, it would include an apparent violation of conservation of mass, but that is probably easier to work around.



As for Wookieepedia, that may not necessarily be their "fault," so to speak; if I recall it correctly, the New Essential Guide to Vessels and Vehicles did that straight-faced, listing off thousand-gees accelerations right next to subsonic atmospheric speeds . . .



"But there's no story past Episode VI, there's just no story. It's a certain story about Anakin Skywalker and once Anakin Skywalker dies, that's kind of the end of the story. There is no story about Luke Skywalker, I mean apart from the books."

-George "Evil" Lucas

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-17 05:30pm
Offline
Sith Devotee
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-09 01:09pm
Posts: 3127
Location: The land beyond the forest; Sweden.
Bakustra wrote:
What would happen to the momentum, then? If you increased the inertial mass without exerting a force on the object, its momentum would have to remain constant and so its velocity would necessarily decrease. For that matter, in the case of Skywalker, the gravitational acceleration is minimal, as the incident took place well away from planets or stars. The Boba Fett incident doesn't suggest that he came to a halt literally, but rather that he was able to cut velocity far more than IG-88 could. After all, if he came to a halt with respect to the planet, his motion would be far more severe than what was described. The frame-of-reference problem isn't really that strange, (for that matter, there is a strong suggestion that there are preferred frames of reference in SW) when you consider the problem of FTL travel, and my suggestion is that the two systems are linked.

Well firstly, conserve its momentum relative to whom? In its original inertial frame it would gain both mass and velocity, if it would decelerate relative something else. Secondly, you'll have to break some conservation laws anyway to generate that mass. I mentioned gravity, because in Skywalker's case he was apparently trapped in a tractor beam, which I somehow read as an interdiction field. Doh! But I'm pretty sure there was an Interdictor there somewhere...

I suppose one thing it could do is to lower the ship's inertial mass so that the reverse thrusters or whatever would give a bigger acceleration. Then we only break one conservation law, which is clearly better 8)

Quote:
I love it when Wookieepedians just mix SWTC-derived stats with roleplaying-game derived stats. It warms the cockles of my heart.

Guess the ship must be made out of paper or something if the air drag can kill its 2500 G engines like that...



Image
"Nippon ichi, bitches! Boing-boing."
Mai smote the demonic fires of heck...

Faker Ninjas invented ninjitsu

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-17 05:35pm
Offline
Sith Devotee
User avatar

Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Posts: 2822
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!
Dooey Jo wrote:
Bakustra wrote:
What would happen to the momentum, then? If you increased the inertial mass without exerting a force on the object, its momentum would have to remain constant and so its velocity would necessarily decrease. For that matter, in the case of Skywalker, the gravitational acceleration is minimal, as the incident took place well away from planets or stars. The Boba Fett incident doesn't suggest that he came to a halt literally, but rather that he was able to cut velocity far more than IG-88 could. After all, if he came to a halt with respect to the planet, his motion would be far more severe than what was described. The frame-of-reference problem isn't really that strange, (for that matter, there is a strong suggestion that there are preferred frames of reference in SW) when you consider the problem of FTL travel, and my suggestion is that the two systems are linked.

Well firstly, conserve its momentum relative to whom? In its original inertial frame it would gain both mass and velocity, if it would decelerate relative something else. Secondly, you'll have to break some conservation laws anyway to generate that mass. I mentioned gravity, because in Skywalker's case he was apparently trapped in a tractor beam, which I somehow read as an interdiction field. Doh! But I'm pretty sure there was an Interdictor there somewhere...

I suppose one thing it could do is to lower the ship's inertial mass so that the reverse thrusters or whatever would give a bigger acceleration. Then we only break one conservation law, which is clearly better 8)


That probably works better, but either way conservation of mass works oddly in Star Wars (it can be shifted from positive to negative and imaginary without a major problem, by the ICS) so we already have a stretchy law. The main thing is that he had to decelerate far faster than the ISD's tractor operator could compensate for overshooting. But either method works.

Quote:
Quote:
I love it when Wookieepedians just mix SWTC-derived stats with roleplaying-game derived stats. It warms the cockles of my heart.

Guess the ship must be made out of paper or something if the air drag can kill its 2500 G engines like that...


I have it on imaginary authority that it is made of silk, rainbows, and a little modeling glue. :)



Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!


I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?

- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-17 05:41pm
Offline
Sith Devotee
User avatar

Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Posts: 2822
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!
EDIT: My first double-post! Oh joy!



Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!


I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?

- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-18 11:25pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-26 11:07am
Posts: 1539
Location: Here. Sometimes there.
Darth Hoth wrote:
As for Wookieepedia, that may not necessarily be their "fault," so to speak; if I recall it correctly, the New Essential Guide to Vessels and Vehicles did that straight-faced, listing off thousand-gees accelerations right next to subsonic atmospheric speeds . . .


It's two different engine systems, no contradiction exists. Repulsordrive is barely able to surpass sonic speed, the thousands of g's comes from the ion engines. Then you have hyperdrive for FTL.



Star Trek vs. Star Wars, Extralife style.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-18 11:29pm
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 2008-08-16 09:01pm
Posts: 1116
nightmare wrote:
Darth Hoth wrote:
As for Wookieepedia, that may not necessarily be their "fault," so to speak; if I recall it correctly, the New Essential Guide to Vessels and Vehicles did that straight-faced, listing off thousand-gees accelerations right next to subsonic atmospheric speeds . . .


It's two different engine systems, no contradiction exists. Repulsordrive is barely able to surpass sonic speed, the thousands of g's comes from the ion engines. Then you have hyperdrive for FTL.

The contradiction comes from the use of the hundreds of kph as an absolute maximum airspeed, when it is know for fighters to use Ion engines in atmosphere.



the engines cannae take any more cap'n
warp 9 to shroomland ~Dalton

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-19 12:35am
Offline
Padawan Learner

Joined: 2004-03-27 05:51am
Posts: 425
nightmare wrote:
It's two different engine systems, no contradiction exists. Repulsordrive is barely able to surpass sonic speed, the thousands of g's comes from the ion engines. Then you have hyperdrive for FTL.


Actually there would be a contradiction there regardless due to the numbers given by the AOTC ICS. According to this, starfighters have speeds around 12,000 kph compared to the stated speed of a TIE fighter 1,200 kph. This would mean that the Jedi Starfighter could effortlessly outrun an TIE fighter in atmosphere, something that is patently ridicules. The stated speeds would allow the Jedi Starfighter to travel around the planet in 3.3 hours as opposed to the 33 hours it would take a TIE fighter.

Also looking on Wikipedia it states that shields are required for the higher speeds making the big looser in the atmospheric speed category the TIE fighter and its derivatives.
However in the AOTC ICS the Geonosian starfighter is not mentioned to have shields and is capable of traveling at 20,000 kph.

As a side note does anyone have the the ROTS ICS which gives the numbers for the speed of the Eta-2 Actis, the second model of Jedi Starfighter?

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-19 07:32am
Offline
Youngling

Joined: 2005-05-17 02:27pm
Posts: 98
Location: Somewhere out there
Adamskywalker007 wrote:

As a side note does anyone have the the ROTS ICS which gives the numbers for the speed of the Eta-2 Actis, the second model of Jedi Starfighter?


Max Accel in space 5,200G
Max Speed in atmosphere 15,000KPH
Shields None

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-19 07:49am
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-26 11:07am
Posts: 1539
Location: Here. Sometimes there.
Adamskywalker007 wrote:
Actually there would be a contradiction there regardless due to the numbers given by the AOTC ICS. According to this, starfighters have speeds around 12,000 kph compared to the stated speed of a TIE fighter 1,200 kph. This would mean that the Jedi Starfighter could effortlessly outrun an TIE fighter in atmosphere, something that is patently ridicules. The stated speeds would allow the Jedi Starfighter to travel around the planet in 3.3 hours as opposed to the 33 hours it would take a TIE fighter.


Only if you assume those 12,000 km/h is max effective speed due to repulsordrive. Which isn't found on any craft specifically stated to use it. That makes it no contradiction because we know very well that they can use ion engines within the atmosphere, for example every time the Falcon takes off. I can see why you wouldn't want to go mach 10 dogfighting.

Adamskywalker007 wrote:
Also looking on Wikipedia it states that shields are required for the higher speeds making the big looser in the atmospheric speed category the TIE fighter and its derivatives. However in the AOTC ICS the Geonosian starfighter is not mentioned to have shields and is capable of traveling at 20,000 kph.


Yeah, that makes no sense. TIE/ln and /i have confirmed nav shields. It's reasonable to assume every fighter has at least that. As I recall, shields help in so far that you can adjust your atmospheric shape with them, streamlining an otherwise un-aerodynamic profile.



Star Trek vs. Star Wars, Extralife style.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-19 08:23am
Offline
Sith Devotee
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-09 01:09pm
Posts: 3127
Location: The land beyond the forest; Sweden.
What do repulsorlifts have to do with atmospheres, and why would they be listed as "max atmospheric speed" if the ships can indeed go much faster in an atmosphere, than the speed listed? Besides, there are speeder bikes listed as being able to go more than twice as fast (hell cars go faster, never mind real air planes). And even with that speed, it would take the ship a goddamn half-hour to get clear of the atmosphere. It's just all-round ridiculous for all possible purposes (except explaining mechanics in certain games).


Goddamn rhymes and alliterations sneaking into my posts...



Image
"Nippon ichi, bitches! Boing-boing."
Mai smote the demonic fires of heck...

Faker Ninjas invented ninjitsu

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-19 05:49pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member

Joined: 2006-11-20 07:52am
Posts: 2235
Location: Scotland
Never mind that, what about not deliberately trying to be obtuse?

Most of the really low speeds come directly from West End Games, where it was flat out assumed that repulsors were used for in- atmosphere manoeuvres and ion drive was not or could not be. Look at the sources for the atmospheric speeds quoted on Wookiepedia; the low three/high four digit numbers hung on fighters, I guarantee, every time, it's a west end sourcebook. If it isn't, it's something quoting or carrying over from a west end sourcebook.

Coming from the firm that produced a game where "some really dubious abuses of the Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy" was actually a selling point, how much scientific literacy and attention to detail do you really expect? They also listed, in the old blue book, example times for getting around a solar system that suggest the hyperdrive is not strictly required to go faster than light. Half an hour to Jupiter?

Seriously, you're straining at a gnat here- making heavy going of an an apparent problem that is really not a problem at all. The older sources from which the smaller numbers come didn't even consider atmospheric flight on main interplanetary drive.

The newer sources do, and the huge gulf is because there really are two different mechanisms being described- which there's no obvious reason why the OT craft would not also be capable of, it is simply that our look at the universe hasn't caught up yet, and no-one canonical has bothered to crunch the numbers and figure out what the likes of the TIE/ln and X-Wing are capable of on in-atmosphere ion thrust.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-19 05:59pm
Online
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Posts: 13459
Location: Looking for another drawer
Um-half an hour from Earth to Jupiter is FTL (albeit marginally) even at closest approach.



'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kids with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-19 06:29pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2008-02-15 10:36am
Posts: 2319
That was kind of his point, methinks. WEG used that as an example of sublight travel times . . .



"But there's no story past Episode VI, there's just no story. It's a certain story about Anakin Skywalker and once Anakin Skywalker dies, that's kind of the end of the story. There is no story about Luke Skywalker, I mean apart from the books."

-George "Evil" Lucas

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-19 11:07pm
Offline
Sith Devotee
User avatar

Joined: 2009-12-19 09:27am
Posts: 2755
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Darth Hoth wrote:
That was kind of his point, methinks. WEG used that as an example of sublight travel times . . .


Obviously this means that light speed in SWverse is much faster than elsewhere, once again proving that Wars is superior to puny Treklings. :twisted:



A scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.

At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: 'What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.

The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, 'What is the tortoise standing on?'

'You're very clever, young man, very clever,' said the old lady. 'But it's turtles all the way down.'

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-20 09:20pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-26 11:07am
Posts: 1539
Location: Here. Sometimes there.
Dooey Jo wrote:
What do repulsorlifts have to do with atmospheres, and why would they be listed as "max atmospheric speed" if the ships can indeed go much faster in an atmosphere, than the speed listed?


Nothing per se. But they require being in a gravity well to be useable, which typically means in the vicinity of a planet. Repulsordrives are (understandably due to their many advantages) ubiqtous for propulsion within the atmosphere, and hence also synonymous with it. A few speedercraft have had their max speed boosted with turbofans and the like, due to the limitation of repulsorspeed. But those are rare cases. If you want fast intraplanetary speed, you'll use an orbital jumper like the T-16.

I also recall ion engines to be prohibited for atmospheric use due to the radiation they let out. An escaping smuggler or pursuing military craft may not pay all that much attention to such legal limitations. It may also not be the case everywhere.

Dooey Jo wrote:
Besides, there are speeder bikes listed as being able to go more than twice as fast (hell cars go faster, never mind real air planes).


Name one. Because I've never read of any speederbike surpassing 800 km/h, which is notably slower than what any snubfighter can do in the atmosphere.

Dooey Jo wrote:
And even with that speed, it would take the ship a goddamn half-hour to get clear of the atmosphere. It's just all-round ridiculous for all possible purposes (except explaining mechanics in certain games).


Repeat: they use ion drives for takeoff.



Star Trek vs. Star Wars, Extralife style.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-20 09:38pm
Online
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Posts: 13459
Location: Looking for another drawer
nightmare wrote:
Dooey Jo wrote:
What do repulsorlifts have to do with atmospheres, and why would they be listed as "max atmospheric speed" if the ships can indeed go much faster in an atmosphere, than the speed listed?


Nothing per se. But they require being in a gravity well to be useable, which typically means in the vicinity of a planet. Repulsordrives are (understandably due to their many advantages) ubiqtous for propulsion within the atmosphere, and hence also synonymous with it.

As per what, exactly? Repulsorlift can you get out of and back into a gravity well. I don't recall them ever being used for lateral movement.
Quote:
A few speedercraft have had their max speed boosted with turbofans and the like, due to the limitation of repulsorspeed.

From what I remember all of them do, as repulsorlift can get you up or down, nothing else.
Quote:
But those are rare cases. If you want fast intraplanetary speed, you'll use an orbital jumper like the T-16.

Actually if you want fast intraplanetary speed you need something that can dig really quickly :P
Quote:
Dooey Jo wrote:
Besides, there are speeder bikes listed as being able to go more than twice as fast (hell cars go faster, never mind real air planes).

Name one. Because I've never read of any speederbike surpassing 800 km/h, which is notably slower than what any snubfighter can do in the atmosphere.

I assume this was in response to the stated 220 kph figure for IG-2000 which is patently ridiculous and yes there are modern cars considerably faster than that.
Quote:
Dooey Jo wrote:
And even with that speed, it would take the ship a goddamn half-hour to get clear of the atmosphere. It's just all-round ridiculous for all possible purposes (except explaining mechanics in certain games).

Repeat: they use ion drives for takeoff.

Doesn't make an in-atmosphere speed of 220 kph any less ridiculous. What's to keep them from using low-power ion drive to move around? The ICSes say shielded fighters can move at 40,000 kph in atmosphere but IG-2000 is restricted to les than half a percent of that?



'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kids with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-20 10:09pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-26 11:07am
Posts: 1539
Location: Here. Sometimes there.
Batman wrote:
As per what, exactly? Repulsorlift can you get out of and back into a gravity well. I don't recall them ever being used for lateral movement.


Well, there's only every repulsorcraft we've ever seen, including quite a few droids. Just because some of them also have other engines means nothing.

Batman wrote:
Actually if you want fast intraplanetary speed you need something that can dig really quickly :P


What a joker you are.

Dooey Jo wrote:
I assume this was in response to the stated 220 kph figure for IG-2000 which is patently ridiculous and yes there are modern cars considerably faster than that.


So IG used a crappy repulsordrive on his ship, so what? That was likely not his main concern. His ship has a lot of customization, but none mentions anything special about the repulsordrive.

Dooey Jo wrote:
Doesn't make an in-atmosphere speed of 220 kph any less ridiculous. What's to keep them from using low-power ion drive to move around? The ICSes say shielded fighters can move at 40,000 kph in atmosphere but IG-2000 is restricted to les than half a percent of that?


That may actually not be easy. Ion drives have low thrust and very high exhaust velocity. Quite the opposite of what you'd want to use to maintain just a 'reasonable' speed. IG-2000 has a maximum acceleration of 2,500 g's. So what's the minimum velocity it can maintain on ion drive? We don't know. But I really wouldn't want to be going mach 32 at low altitude. Or any altitude except for takeoff.

You say it's ridiculous... why? For what reason should repulsordrives be comparable to ion drives? If they were, there would be no reason to use a second engine system. Hell, it's practically like saying that because aircraft can reach mach 10, it's ridiculous that car's can't.



Star Trek vs. Star Wars, Extralife style.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-20 10:31pm
Online
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Posts: 13459
Location: Looking for another drawer
nightmare wrote:
Batman wrote:
As per what, exactly? Repulsorlift can you get out of and back into a gravity well. I don't recall them ever being used for lateral movement.

Well, there's only every repulsorcraft we've ever seen, including quite a few droids. Just because some of them also have other engines means nothing.

You have no doubt evidence that every last one of them actually uses repulsorlifts for lateral movement.
Quote:
Batman wrote:
Actually if you want fast intraplanetary speed you need something that can dig really quickly :P

What a joker you are.

It's not my fault you don't know your terminology.
Quote:
Batman wrote:
I assume this was in response to the stated 220 kph figure for IG-2000 which is patently ridiculous and yes there are modern cars considerably faster than that.

So IG used a crappy repulsordrive on his ship, so what? That was likely not his main concern. His ship has a lot of customization, but none mentions anything special about the repulsordrive.

Yep. He shells out a fortune fo a top of the line starship but scrooges out on the repulsorlift. That makes perfect sense. 220 kph is retarded.
Quote:
Batman wrote:
Doesn't make an in-atmosphere speed of 220 kph any less ridiculous. What's to keep them from using low-power ion drive to move around? The ICSes say shielded fighters can move at 40,000 kph in atmosphere but IG-2000 is restricted to les than half a percent of that?

That may actually not be easy. Ion drives have low thrust and very high exhaust velocity. Quite the opposite of what you'd want to use to maintain just a 'reasonable' speed. IG-2000 has a maximum acceleration of 2,500 g's. So what's the minimum velocity it can maintain on ion drive? We don't know. But I really wouldn't want to be going mach 32 at low altitude. Or any altitude except for takeoff.

We know that whateverdrive system they use, shielded fighters can move 40,000 kph in-atmosphere, and unshielded ones can move at 12,000 kph. But IG-2000 is limited to speeds modern day private airplanes laugh at. I don't think so.
Quote:
You say it's ridiculous... why? For what reason should repulsordrives be comparable to ion drives?

Except ion drive means high fractional c and we know Star Wars ships have in atmosphere speeds in the double figure Mach range, not that you have shown Wars to use repulsorlift exclusively for in-atmosphere movement.
Quote:
If they were, there would be no reason to use a second engine system. Hell, it's practically like saying that because aircraft can reach mach 10, it's ridiculous that car's can't.

Not at all. It's like showing that every other aircraft CAN reach Mach 10 but this one, for some arcane reason, can't.



'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kids with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-21 07:35am
Offline
Sith Devotee
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-09 01:09pm
Posts: 3127
Location: The land beyond the forest; Sweden.
Look, the only times we've possibly seen the maximum acceleration in action is during the jumps to hyperspace. The Millennium Falcon also obviously kicked in the ion drives when they escaped from Mos Eisley, without flying away at Mach 70 in one second, so there's ample evidence they don't have to fly at maximum thrust.

I also have to object to calling 2500 G acceleration "low thrust"...

But really, defending both minimalist and maximalist numbers at the same time? That's just weird.



Image
"Nippon ichi, bitches! Boing-boing."
Mai smote the demonic fires of heck...

Faker Ninjas invented ninjitsu

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: "Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all? PostPosted: 2010-09-21 09:00pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Posts: 2288
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.
There might be one thing that explains it.

What if the newer fighter craft have some sort of engine limiter preventing them from flying faster than is safe from a piloting perspective? I mean we have engine limiters on cars now, so it is not that much of a stretch.

I mean, at mach 32, flying in the clear blue sky with no obstructions is going to be suicidal without some extreme computing power. And dogfighting is going to be quite impossible. This goes double for patrolling, reconnaissance and a bunch of other functions that a fighter might be called upon to perform. Not mentioning that a bird strike or some cosmic dust hitting you at those speeds is going to be the equivalent of a nuclear missile hitting your face.

So the maximum listed speeds that are given in the high numbers (Mach 15-20) might be the Maximum capable speed, while the lower ones (like 220kph as abysmally small as it is) might be the limited reasonable speeds that the software actually allows you to fly at under non extraordinary conditions.

And I can clearly see the jedi having the limits laxed somewhat due to their magical reflexes and all.



I am the Purple Cube from beyond. Seek not to understand me for thau shalt fail.

Warning: I am an amateur writer/roleplayer and as such my posts are liable to contain text that would fit better into a work of literature than a conversation. Hence (unless I am in debate mode) be sure to read my posts with care and not take everything I say at face value. It might be (and at times is) full of stylistic exaggeration for the sake of explaining my point. Thank you.

NOTIFICATION: From this point on all my posts are censored by the thought police.


Last edited by Purple on 2010-09-21 09:09pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group