[Snail]

Well I was certainly not involved in any homicide, at least not in this thread.

[karajorma]

Let's look at the shuttle. The shuttle is about 40x25x20m across and is used to take loads into space. The Satis is about 60x45x110m in size and I feel it's reasonable from the destruction of Vasuda Prime CBani to say it can do the same thing. Let's compare them then.

In order to put itself in space the Shuttle has to burn 106,261kg of H₂ in 629,340kg of O₂ + whatever it gets from the solid fuel boosters to get to escape velocity. Once in orbit it's engines are IIRC basically useless and it it only has a few minutes of burn time on the thrusters it uses in orbit.

The Satis on the other hand doesn't need any external help and can manoeuvre as long as it likes even though it undoubtedly has more mass. So how does it do that? Well we know it's fusion powered so it could be that it works simply by fusing hydrogen and squirting the exhaust out the back to provide thrust. Or it could be that it uses the fusion plant to power some kind of reactionless drive (We know that the GTVA has the capability to generate gravitational fields so let's go with that as an alternative).

Now take the Orion. How much does it weigh? Well going from this page a Star Wars Star Destroyer weighs 25 million tonnes. An Orion is bigger so let's say 30 million. How much power are you going to need to push that at even a small acceleration using reaction drives? If it takes more than half a million kg of fuel to get power the Shuttle needs to get up to orbital speed how much is it going to take to get an Orion up to the same speed as the Shuttle or Apollo? Bearing in mind that the shuttle could land in the hanger bay of the Orion.

If someone wants to do the calcs they're more than welcome but for now I still think that we're just as likely to be dealing with a reactionless drive. And if we are then all the stuff about interplanetary runs without using subspace quickly goes out of the window.

[Koth]

Yep, that's why I'am always annoyed when people complain about how slow the ships are. I'm sure most FreeSpace ships could move very fast but they couldn't do it for long before they run out of fuel.

[TrashMan]

I don't think an Orion launches from a planet...ergo, it doesn't have to fight a planets gravity.


IIRC, you could use the most basic rocket to push a Orion.. But it would take, like - forever - for it to get up to any speed.

The Orion has big honking engines so by leaving them on a ship should theoreticly accelerate for as long as the engines are on (until it reaches some maximum speed)
Given that FS and physics don't really like eachother too much, I fail to see the importance of this discovery.

[Snail]

I like the theory that guy said just now about the speeds being relative to the gamespace, though all the ships are actually moving thousands of times faster. Who was that?

[karajorma]

I don't think an Orion launches from a planet...ergo, it doesn't have to fight a planets gravity.


IIRC, you could use the most basic rocket to push a Orion.. But it would take, like - forever - for it to get up to any speed.

The Orion has big honking engines so by leaving them on a ship should theoreticly accelerate for as long as the engines are on (until it reaches some maximum speed)
Given that FS and physics don't really like eachother too much, I fail to see the importance of this discovery.

1) You've completely missed my point about the drives possibly being reactionless. They can leave them on for centuries and it might not make a difference depending on how the system worked.

2) Regardless of whether or not it launches from a planet it still has to accelerate its own mass.

[peterc10]

 Jeez, I really can't believe that merely yesterday that this thought occurred to me: I've played freespace since I was like . . . 9 . . .

I know how you feel! 

[FreeSpaceFreak]

I like the theory that guy said just now about the speeds being relative to the gamespace, though all the ships are actually moving thousands of times faster. Who was that?

Me. Thanks, you're the first one who actually replies to it. I was beginning to think it was a stupid theory...

[Dark Hunter]

Me. Thanks, you're the first one who actually replies to it. I was beginning to think it was a stupid theory...

Actually, that might be a good thing: no one finds anything to criticize. 

[FreeSpaceFreak]

Me. Thanks, you're the first one who actually replies to it. I was beginning to think it was a stupid theory...

Actually, that might be a good thing: no one finds anything to criticize. 

YIPPEEE! I'M A GENIUS! I FOUND SOMETHING EVEN KARA AND TMAN CAN'T CRITICIZE!
If you don't understand, please ask me

[Polpolion]

I like the theory that guy said just now about the speeds being relative to the gamespace, though all the ships are actually moving thousands of times faster. Who was that?

Me. Thanks, you're the first one who actually replies to it. I was beginning to think it was a stupid theory...

That would mean that the ships are hundreds of kilometers long. And the people piloting the fighters would be huge, too.

[Snail]

Why?

[FreeSpaceFreak]

That would mean that the ships are hundreds of kilometers long. And the people piloting the fighters would be huge, too.

Ah, someone who doesn't understand. Let me explain.

To remain in a continuous orbit, your speed must be more or less continuous, depending of the radius of the orbit. If you go too slow, you fall closer to the star; if you go too fast, you will go away from it. As long as your speed doesn't differ from the standard orbit speed too much, the effects are within acceptable margins. That is basic physics.
Now, the asteroids in FS are definitely in orbit. All asteroids are in orbit. Their speeds are comparable with those of FS ships (i.e. they don't move at several clicks per second), so the ships are in orbit as well.
Now indicating ACTUAL speeds (i.e. several clicks per sec), would be way too complicated and nearly impossible to program. It would take the fun out of the game, too. So what we see are RELATIVE speeds. There is the standard orbit speed on these coordinates, and the indicated speed is how much you or anything else differs from it.

It's not that difficult to understand, I think...

[Hades]

That would mean that the ships are hundreds of kilometers long. And the people piloting the fighters would be huge, too.

Ah, someone who doesn't understand. Let me explain.

To remain in a continuous orbit, your speed must be more or less continuous, depending of the radius of the orbit. If you go too slow, you fall closer to the star; if you go too fast, you will go away from it. As long as your speed doesn't differ from the standard orbit speed too much, the effects are within acceptable margins. That is basic physics.
Now, the asteroids in FS are definitely in orbit. All asteroids are in orbit. Their speeds are comparable with those of FS ships (i.e. they don't move at several clicks per second), so the ships are in orbit as well.
Now indicating ACTUAL speeds (i.e. several clicks per sec), would be way too complicated and nearly impossible to program. It would take the fun out of the game, too. So what we see are RELATIVE speeds. There is the standard orbit speed on these coordinates, and the indicated speed is how much you or anything else differs from it.

It's not that difficult to understand, I think...

Good theory in fact I have been thinking the same thing for a while....

[karajorma]

That speeds are relative is something I've thought so obvious that I've never mentioned it. You have missions where planets are in the background and yet they don't zoom off at orbital speeds. It's fairly obvious the ship must therefore being keeping pace with the planet.

However (and it is a big however) we've got no proof that the ships engines could get a Freespace ship to that speed. Ships come out of subspace matching the speed of everything else around them. The only explanation I can think of is that they can some how match speeds with everything around them when they come out of subspace.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

That speeds are relative is something I've thought so obvious that I've never mentioned it. You have missions where planets are in the background and yet they don't zoom off at orbital speeds. It's fairly obvious the ship must therefore being keeping pace with the planet.

However (and it is a big however) we've got no proof that the ships engines could get a Freespace ship to that speed. Ships come out of subspace matching the speed of everything else around them. The only explanation I can think of is that they can some how match speeds with everything around them when they come out of subspace.

Well, there was a discussion about it, so I thought I should explain it.
About the 'ships coming out of subspace': the nodes are in orbit too, as are the warp holes. The same goes for in-system jumps.

[TrashMan]

That would mean that the ships are hundreds of kilometers long. And the people piloting the fighters would be huge, too.

Not really...that only means the space is scaled down and nothing else.

Ever play Sword of the Stars? Master of Orion 3? Conquest: Fronteer war?

The planets there are only several times bigger than the warships (which are all all 300-1000m ) Does that mean that planets are miniscule? Or that the ships are humongous? It doesn't mean anything really..
ABSTRACTION.. What you see in game doesn't have to correlate to the "game universe fluff" for gameplay purposes. How fun would it be to fay for an hour or shoot at ships way beyond visual range?

[Polpolion]

Conquest: Fronteer war?

My God! Again!

I've played Conquest: Frontier Wars, but no, never Conquest Fronteer War.


And trashman, there is a fine line between gameplay purposes, and general stupidness. I really pity you if you never really think about this stuff when playing games.

[TrashMan]

Then pity away..

I really like realism in games, but I also realise that realism and fun don't always mix together.

[Polpolion]

realism and fun don't always mix together.

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day!

EDIT: Think about it w/o context.