| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16174
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
You’re mistaking mass for weight. Mass at rest will still require thrust (energy) to accelerate or decelerate, as well as to bend a straight-line course as we see ships do in the SWU. Mass and weight are measured by the same units (tons, in this case), but weight is a function of mass times gravity.
Space Units have no set distance value, but if one is looking for a real science interpretation, then it is likely that SUs insofar as ship speed are a measurement of acceleration.
_________________
"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 |
|
 |
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mamatried wrote: | If we are going to fully Nerd out about this topic then I would say that cargo does not in any way affect performance at all.
It is no difference in space if I push a sattelite of 30 tons with a light push or if I give a baseball the same push in space, there is no resistance, there is no actual weight and both the asttelite and the baseball will now move until they meet any resistance.
So a ship loaded with 100 tons or 1 ton would not have any differences in effect, however the cargo space and where the cargo is stored in a ship can in some cases of overloadeg have negative effects, if crates are stored in hallways and the like it will lessen the combat effectiveness over all, but not more than that and not by much.
We have even seen this sort of in Rouge One with the hammerhead
if we used the earth physics on space travel that would be impossible to do, ergo earth physics is not applied, and thus they should not be applied on cargo.
Now there are aspects of take of weight and that, but is that also true in a star wars tech? |
Once a given mass is accelerated, it's momentum determines how much energy is needed to stop it or change its direction. Likewise, if a golf ball traveling at 1 mph bumps into an asteroid that is traveling at 1 mph on the same line in opposite directions, your assertion implies that the two objects will exert equal force on each other and thus "stop" each other once contact is made.
Rather, if the golf ball had enough speed and the asteroid had enough density so as not to be penetrated or shattered by the golf ball's impact, then, as long as you could accelerate the golf ball to sufficient speed, it would "stop" the asteroid if it impacted with an equal amount of momentum (or something like that... I'm sure someone more physics savvy can explain it better). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | It makes sense to me if there is always a trade-off between speed, agility, and cargo capacity. Even for Han Solo's ship. I see it as similar to how capital ships should have to trade off between offense, defense, and speed. A very fast, very agile ship that can also haul more cargo than a larger, slower, less agile ship seems wrong to me. |
And yet the Falcon always had the same cargo capacity as a stock YT-1300, but with double the speed, due to it being highly modified. I'm not making the Facon any more special than it already was, just phrasing it differently. |
For what its worth, in real life, speed and agility can be improved without cutting into cargo capacity.
With modern technology, you can make double, triple, even quadruple the horsepower without any impact on the vehicle's physical dimensions.
The Nissan Skyline, for example can make over 1000 horsepower using the stock short block (including internals). Thats on a 2.6L engine. The mkIV Supra does the same with a 3.0L.
The LS1 by GM is another well known engine that can make lots of power reliably and relatively simply.
Suspension, tires and chassis can all be modified without compromise to cargo capacity.
I don't particularly see why a starship would be required to cut into its cargo capacity (necessarily) in order to be faster or more agile.
That being said, for absolute maximum performance, there is a reason why something like a Lamborghini has such limited cargo space: it's mass is engineered to prioritize performance at the expense of practicality, so I can see imposng a cieling on performance upgrades that cannot be surpassed without cutting into cargo capacity.
Last edited by Naaman on Sun Oct 20, 2019 8:25 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16174
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | For what its worth, in real life, speed and agility can be improved without cutting into cargo capacity.
With modern technology, you can make double, triple, even quadruple the horsepower without any impact on the vehicle's physical dimensions. |
It sounds like you're conflating two parallel routes for increasing power. All other things being equal, a V8 is more powerful than a V6 is more powerful than an I4, and replacing one engine with another, more powerful one, will take up more room in the engine bay. Modifying a smaller engine in order to gain more power is absolutely an option, but the more power you try to eke out of it, the greater the engineering challenges will be, especially if you want it to be high performance and reliable.
GG6 makes the distinction between the two by offering both the Modification and Replacement Engine options, each with their own set of drawbacks. The high difficulties involved in getting better performance from stock engines are somewhat analogous to getting real world performance upgrades done in a specialty shop as opposed to your own back yard; professionals who do this stuff for a living - and have the skills, tools and other equipment needed to do the job right - have better odds of getting it just right than talented amateurs tinkering in their spare time.
_________________
"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: 16174
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Incidentally, my concept of having acceleration compensators create drag works well with this, too. I once heard a (over?)simplified version of E=MC^2 to the effect of "the faster you go, the heavier you get." The bare-bones theory here is that, the more mass the acc-comp has to protect from acceleration (which includes carried cargo), and the faster the ship is traveling, the more "massive" it gets. As such, as speed and mass increases, the drag effect from the acc-comp will cause the ship's straight-line speed to plateau out. The only way around it is to decrease mass and/or increase engine power, and this is why the fastest ships in the galaxy are tiny, and mostly engine, with incremental increases in acc-comp efficiency and engine power allowing starfighter speed to creep ahead bits at a time.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1829
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | Mamatried wrote: | If we are going to fully Nerd out about this topic then I would say that cargo does not in any way affect performance at all.
It is no difference in space if I push a sattelite of 30 tons with a light push or if I give a baseball the same push in space, there is no resistance, there is no actual weight and both the asttelite and the baseball will now move until they meet any resistance.
So a ship loaded with 100 tons or 1 ton would not have any differences in effect, however the cargo space and where the cargo is stored in a ship can in some cases of overloadeg have negative effects, if crates are stored in hallways and the like it will lessen the combat effectiveness over all, but not more than that and not by much.
We have even seen this sort of in Rouge One with the hammerhead
if we used the earth physics on space travel that would be impossible to do, ergo earth physics is not applied, and thus they should not be applied on cargo.
Now there are aspects of take of weight and that, but is that also true in a star wars tech? |
Once a given mass is accelerated, it's momentum determines how much energy is needed to stop it or change its direction. Likewise, if a golf ball traveling at 1 mph bumps into an asteroid that is traveling at 1 mph on the same line in opposite directions, your assertion implies that the two objects will exert equal force on each other and thus "stop" each other once contact is made.
Rather, if the golf ball had enough speed and the asteroid had enough density so as not to be penetrated or shattered by the golf ball's impact, then, as long as you could accelerate the golf ball to sufficient speed, it would "stop" the asteroid if it impacted with an equal amount of momentum (or something like that... I'm sure someone more physics savvy can explain it better). |
not in zero gravity.
In space as an astronut I can actually grab hold of a 1000000000000000tn satellinte and pull it intot the airless and gravityfree cargo hold.
As long as we are taking zero gravity weight has no real impact on speed, there is no resistance.
this is why a hammer and a feather will fall equally fast on the moon and hit the ground at the same time, and I will argue the hammer having signifcantly more mass and weight than the feather.
iso the laws of gravity needs to play in, and while a ship will internally have issues with weight the space and the zero gravity arounf them will not.
so in zero gravity weight do not matter for speed.
if you push a tennisball to 1mph it will continue this way unless something alters the sped such as the influence of gravity, like a "slingshot" maneuver et.
Now since neither the tenis ball or the 1 mile rock has any weight at all in space, I can with the same energy push the rock to 1 mph and this will then continue until the speed is altered like above.
but in star wars space has other physics and yes then differnt laws will apply, but the feather and the hammer should be evidence that weight in spce do not matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My response was prompted by the discussion on the Millennium Falcon vs a stock YT1300.
Without regard to difficulty, I was only offering a "justification" for how a ship could theoretically achieve great amounts of speed without losing capacity.
Your mention of engine bays and engine sizes is also quite apt.
The displacement of an engine is the primary factor in determining its potential, however, the configuration also makes a significant difference. Inline engines (such as those found in tractors/heavy duty trucks) respond better to forced induction and generate a disproportionately large amount of torque (the "muscle power" of the engine).
"All things being equal" is a bit of a misapplication in this case: V8s are great for making a good balance of power and torque. If you designed a V10 or V12 by merely adding two or four cylinders to an existing V8 design, the geometry of the rotating mass becomes less efficient, and so the displacement to power ratio is negatively affected, for example. I would imagine that SWU engines have at least a similar level of nuance with respect to their design possibilities. Ultimately, a V8 is a V8, a V10 is a V10, an I-4 is an I-4, etc.
Of course you can swap engines, but THAT is a far more involved process than modifying the existing one: not only are there engineering problems to overcome, but there are design problems to overcome.
Engine mounts, physical dimensions, not to mention that the engine control module has to be swapped and reprogrammed, wiring becomes an issue, etc.
Not to take away from your suggestion that a bigger engine will use more space in the engine bay: the engine bay has its own volumetric capacity and has no impact on "trunck space" once the vehicle is assembled.
Of course, we could rule that a character could expand the engine bay at the expense of cargo capacity, but then you are fundamentally redesigning the ship, which is basically creating a new model altogether (even if there were no other complications, the structural integrity/rigidity of the ship becomes an at BEST an unknown value: adding power at this point could literally tear the ship apart on initial acceleration).
The "easiest," simplest and most affordable way to achieve power increases in the real world is to work with the engine that is already in the vehicle. It seems logical to me that this would hold true in SW as well.
You hinted at this yourself, but seemed to be focused on a different point: smaller vehicles do have smaller engines. But since its a dimentionally smaller craft, it's cargo capacity will be inherently smaller to begin with. Nevertheless, you could still increase speed without rducing cargo capacity in such a ship. Furthermore, the more power an engine makes, the greater it's theoretical carrying capacity, even if such capacity comes at the expense of maneuverability (which is appropriate).
Your solution concerning the acceleration compensators is actuly quite impressive. Good thinking, man.
Last edited by Naaman on Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:28 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1829
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with this.
I was mostly thinking that even cramping 30 people and several added tons on cargo stored in the halls and even in the cockpit would as long as it is in the ship then imo due to zero gravity space, this should not in any way impact speed.
However with cargo everwhere and in their pockets, the ship is no not operationally effective, meaning it will be harder for the gunners to get to their stations, but the engines will not really push that much more.
it is also much like what happens inside the hull of a cargo plane loaded with birds if all the bird begin to fly, technically nothing is loaded in the plane, but still the plane weighs the same.
now with ships adding cargo pods, and in this way adds extra cargo would do hull and shape and such have changes than will and can impact the perfomance, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16174
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
That gets into the discussion of cargo mass vs. cargo volume, obviously, a larger engine will take up more volume. While the engine itself can't be split up into different compartments (unless it's a distributed design ala an X-Wing), it may necessitate other systems be relocated into other areas of the ship. And the engines are only going to get bigger by small increments, like 10-20% to go up to the next Space value.
A real life example that comes to mind is the Mercedes Benz 500E, where the battery had to be placed in the trunk as part of making room for a 5.0 V8 under the hood.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | That gets into the discussion of cargo mass vs. cargo volume, obviously, a larger engine will take up more volume. While the engine itself can't be split up into different compartments (unless it's a distributed design ala an X-Wing), it may necessitate other systems be relocated into other areas of the ship. And the engines are only going to get bigger by small increments, like 10-20% to go up to the next Space value.
A real life example that comes to mind is the Mercedes Benz 500E, where the battery had to be placed in the trunk as part of making room for a 5.0 V8 under the hood. |
Certain other manufacurers do similar things. I know that Jaguar has done this, for example.
I do wonder, though, why a 5.0 is too big to fit with a battery... unless the engine is being installed into a chassis that was designed around a smaller vehicle concept (I believe the E class is the mid size sedan) which might have been intended for a V6 or a 4 cyl.
My car's engine, for example is 5.7L, and the battery fits up front with room to spare, despite the fact that the base model is the 3.8L V6 version.
Are you certain the "move" was to make room? It's also possible that the decision to place the battery in the back was for weight distribution purposes, making the car more balanced in its handling performance. Moving 40 pounds from the front to the back can have a meaningful (not drastic) effect on the vehicle's handling dynamics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16174
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
It had more to do with the fact that the engine bay of that model was sized for a 3.0 I-6. Other changes were necessitated, as well, but the battery was under the hood for the I-6 version.
_________________
"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: 16174
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But even then, it’s not like the dimensions of the engine compartment are hard limits, either. Look at the number of YT-1300 variants in the EU with bulked out or obviously customized engine set-ups. The best explanation I’ve heard for SWU ships is that their physical hulls serve as a framework, waveguide and backup to the various energy fields (tensor, acc-comp, hyperdrive, stasis, etc) that make what they do possible without throwing physics out the window. As such, modifying the engine compartment is much easier on a SW space craft than it would be on a real world ship.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 910
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mamatried wrote: | | Naaman wrote: | | Mamatried wrote: | If we are going to fully Nerd out about this topic then I would say that cargo does not in any way affect performance at all.
It is no difference in space if I push a sattelite of 30 tons with a light push or if I give a baseball the same push in space, there is no resistance, there is no actual weight and both the asttelite and the baseball will now move until they meet any resistance.
So a ship loaded with 100 tons or 1 ton would not have any differences in effect, however the cargo space and where the cargo is stored in a ship can in some cases of overloadeg have negative effects, if crates are stored in hallways and the like it will lessen the combat effectiveness over all, but not more than that and not by much.
We have even seen this sort of in Rouge One with the hammerhead
if we used the earth physics on space travel that would be impossible to do, ergo earth physics is not applied, and thus they should not be applied on cargo.
Now there are aspects of take of weight and that, but is that also true in a star wars tech? |
Once a given mass is accelerated, it's momentum determines how much energy is needed to stop it or change its direction. Likewise, if a golf ball traveling at 1 mph bumps into an asteroid that is traveling at 1 mph on the same line in opposite directions, your assertion implies that the two objects will exert equal force on each other and thus "stop" each other once contact is made.
Rather, if the golf ball had enough speed and the asteroid had enough density so as not to be penetrated or shattered by the golf ball's impact, then, as long as you could accelerate the golf ball to sufficient speed, it would "stop" the asteroid if it impacted with an equal amount of momentum (or something like that... I'm sure someone more physics savvy can explain it better). |
not in zero gravity.
In space as an astronut I can actually grab hold of a 1000000000000000tn satellinte and pull it intot the airless and gravityfree cargo hold.
As long as we are taking zero gravity weight has no real impact on speed, there is no resistance.
this is why a hammer and a feather will fall equally fast on the moon and hit the ground at the same time, and I will argue the hammer having signifcantly more mass and weight than the feather.
iso the laws of gravity needs to play in, and while a ship will internally have issues with weight the space and the zero gravity arounf them will not.
so in zero gravity weight do not matter for speed.
if you push a tennisball to 1mph it will continue this way unless something alters the sped such as the influence of gravity, like a "slingshot" maneuver et.
Now since neither the tenis ball or the 1 mile rock has any weight at all in space, I can with the same energy push the rock to 1 mph and this will then continue until the speed is altered like above.
but in star wars space has other physics and yes then differnt laws will apply, but the feather and the hammer should be evidence that weight in spce do not matter. |
Sorry my friend.
You are confusing gravity with Newtons laws of motion.
If it were the way you wee describing it, once something was in orbit and experiencing the effect of 'weightlessness' due to being in a 'freefall' state, one could simply give the international space station a tiny little shove to shift it into a higher orbit or send it tumbling off into space.
This is simply not accurate.
Things in space maintain their mass.
Newton's third law states: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Equal being the most important word.
If you push off the space station, you are simply pushing yourself away from it because it has far more mass.
In your example...an astronaut, with a grip on his shuttle or space station, who grabs hold of a satellite that has 10 times his own mass (not even 1000000000000000tn), that means he would have to exert at least 10 times his own mass worth of force to get it to move...because that satellite, according to Newton's first law would resist any attempts to move it.
And this assumes astronaut, satellite and space station are all travelling along in orbit at the same relative velocity.
The only thing you aren't having to contend with is the pull of gravity, which is something completely separate from the 3 laws of motion.
This is why we would not see guys in jet packs parking a Star Destroyer at a space dock. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | For what its worth, in real life, speed and agility can be improved without cutting into cargo capacity. |
Not indefinitely and not at all without an improvement in engine technology and/or materials. And improved technology and materials are more expensive (in development cost, if nothing else) than existing tech.
In life there are always going to be trade offs. Any well designed ship construction system will reflect the need for some kind of trade offs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not sure what you really mean.
My car is heavily modified in basically every area (it has 115 more horsepower than stock, a racecar-worthy transmission, the best shocks and springs money can buy, chassis reinforcements, suspension upgrades, brake upgrades, etc...) and it gives up not one cubic milimeter of cargo capacity.
And fuel economy is the same as stock, too.
FWIW, I even get less wear and tear on my engine as evidenced by the fact that no shavings come out with the oil during an oil change (mostly due to the oil I use, but this, despite all the extra combustion happening that makes all that power).
As for trade-offs in a game, there is always the "super expensive" option (having your cake and eating it, too.. so to speak).
Its like the X-Wing 2.0 (whatever they actually call it). Its better in literally every way with no trade off other than cost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
