| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | I read recently that Ion engines are 'mildly' radioactive when used in the atmosphere. Dont remember where though...most likely WookieP.
Ah, here it is.. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ion_drive |
From the linked article
| Quote: | | Ion engines were known to emit mildly radioactive byproducts, requiring onboard technicians to wear protective gear. |
Two thoughts:
(i) I don't recall anyone on the Millenium Falcon wearing any protective gear.
(ii) Radioactive byproducts = super powers. 8) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And Wookieepedia probably got their source from the opening chapter of the Star Wars Sourcebook (pg. 8, column 1, paragraph 4)
| Bren wrote: | Two thoughts:
(i) I don't recall anyone on the Millenium Falcon wearing any protective gear. |
See the above. The mild radiation is only dangerous at "extremely close range." Presumably, this means someone standing behind the engine exhaust without wearing any sunscreen. And the interior of the ship is likely shielded against any radiation (which is in turn vented and focused out the exhausts).
| Quote: | | (ii) Radioactive byproducts = super powers. 8) |
The Force is finally explained!!!! :D
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Bren wrote: | Two thoughts:
(i) I don't recall anyone on the Millenium Falcon wearing any protective gear. |
See the above. The mild radiation is only dangerous at "extremely close range." Presumably, this means someone standing behind the engine exhaust without wearing any sunscreen. And the interior of the ship is likely shielded against any radiation (which is in turn vented and focused out the exhausts). |
I'm just going with the linked article which mentioned "requiring onboard technicians to wear protective gear" not just people outside of the ship and behind the engines.
Now maybe the article should have said "Ion engines were known to emit mildly radioactive byproducts, requiring onboard technicians to wear protective gear when working on the engines while they are operating," but I'm just working with what I was given. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 5:57 pm Post subject: Re: Sublight vs. Atmospheric Drive |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | Just had an idle thought. What happens if a starship uses its sublight drive while still in atmosphere? IIRC, it has been mentioned once or twice in the EU, and it certainly brings to mind the final scenes of the pilot episode of Firefly. Ideally, I'd like some idea of a good baseline for increased difficulty, so that a skilled pilot could pull this off, but not just anyone fresh from pilot training.
EDIT: Also for the kinds of atmospheric effects that might occur to other nearby vessels when this happens... |
I actually thought this was something similar to a Kolvoord Starburst where the Firefly crew were igniting incompletely burned fuel left in their wake with their engines rather than just the side effect of using a sublight drive in atmosphere.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good point. But I in turn refer to the "extremely close range" part. Extremely close, IMO, means closer than most girls usually go on the first date. Since we never even see the ion drive inside the Falcon, we can only guess at how close one would have to get to it to be in danger of radiation poisoning.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I find your last comment...disturbing.
Extremely close sounds like closer than point blank, like say within 1 unit in space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Extremely close, IMO, means closer than most girls usually go on the first date. |
 What does that mean?
Is it dirty? 
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | Extremely close, IMO, means closer than most girls usually go on the first date. |
What does that mean?
Is it dirty? |
LOL. When I work on my car, I have to open the hood and get my hands down inside to do what needs to be done. I spend a lot of time in close physical contact with that car's innards. You may infer whatever you wish from that statement.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Extremely close sounds like closer than point blank, like say within 1 unit in space. |
Which is still pretty far away by atmospheric standards.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
You're addressing the problem from a modern physics standpoint and ignoring the fact that we are playing in a sci-fi universe which has technobabble fixes for this stuff: navigation shielding (aerodynamics and protection from friction) and acceleration compensators (protects the frame from stress too, not just the pilot. |
I am also addressing it from the standpoint that it was not done in the RPG nor the films. If it could be done it would open up another can of worms. Those fleeing a planet would do it habitually.
| Quote: |
And just saying No and ignoring it ignores at least one instance in the EU where it has actually happened |
Yes, an that is a good thing. The authors of EU fiction often have thier own take on things that doesn't match up with official info, or even with other parts of the EU. So I think ignoring it is best.
If you really want to do this, and are assuming the ship can take the stresses, then I would look at the ratio between Space and kph, and treateach point of Space movement as several steps up on the speed table. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | I am also addressing it from the standpoint that it was not done in the RPG nor the films. If it could be done it would open up another can of worms. Those fleeing a planet would do it habitually. |
Unless it is so amazingly hazardous / difficult that only a Jedi or an exceptionally skilled pilot could pull it off. Since the only quotable example I can find involved Luke, that is the direction I'm leaning. It might even be the sort of maneuver that has acquired its own nickname, like "The Wroonian Firework" (which is what your ship resembles to spectators who happen to see you attempt this maneuver and fail spectacularly). I'm not looking for something that everyone can do habitually; I'm looking for something that is a last-ditch, spend a Force Point and break out your lucky D6 type maneuver that is only used when you absolutely, positively have to get the F off Tatooine in 30 seconds or less...
| Quote: | | If you really want to do this, and are assuming the ship can take the stresses, then I would look at the ratio between Space and kph, and treateach point of Space movement as several steps up on the speed table. |
Which brings up another point. Is there a RAW for how long it takes for a ship to go from liftoff to orbit?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I remember a benchmark in one rule book that it was 50 space units to clear hyperspace...
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
Which brings up another point. Is there a RAW for how long it takes for a ship to go from liftoff to orbit? |
No, I don't think so, but it wouldn't be too long. The Space Shuttle used to do it in under 10 minutes (low orbit).
Actual time would depend on how fast the ship can travel, how strong a planet's gravity is, and the ship can cacnel with repulsorlift.
Since Low Earth Orbit is considered to begin about 160km (100 miles) up, you could get a benchmark figure by dividing 160km by the ships atmospheric speed, in kph.So a T-65 X-Wing that can travel at 1050 kph could reach low orbit in about 9 minutes and 9 seconds.
For other planets you could use 160 times the gravity of the planet.
You might also want to reduce this time a bit, since the X-Wing might travel faster that 1050kph as it goty higher in the atmosphere. Ultimately it would end up moving at SPACE 8.
But, according to the acceleration ratings given for the ships, they could reach orbit in under a second assuming the ship can take it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | But, according to the acceleration ratings given for the ships, they could reach orbit in under a second assuming the ship can take it. |
Dont get me started on those.. 
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IMO, a simpler method would be to base time from atmosphere to orbit on the ship's Space value, since Atmosphere is generally a direct conversion. Start with a base number, such as 20, then subtract the ship's Space value from that number. The resulting number is the number of rounds needed for the ship to go from lift-off to orbit. For example, a stock YT-1300 would need 16 rounds (20 minus Space 4), while an A-Wing would only need 8 rounds (20 minus Space 12). The speed multipliers (Cautious, Cruise, Full and All-Out) could then be applied inversely to the number of rounds required, so that an A-Wing flying at Cruise would require the full 8 rounds to get into Space, but would only require 2 rounds if flying at All-Out, with fractions rounded up.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
