| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:02 pm Post subject: Speeds of spacecraft: Canon v.s. Movies |
 |
|
I copypasted this (with a little modification) from a tangential comment in another thread"
| I wrote: | Wookiepedia lists the acceleration of an X-wing at 3,700 G which is a figure I flatly reject. Here's why:
3,700 G works out to 118,400 feet (22.4242 miles) per second per second. The first Death Star is listed at 160 km in diameter, or approximately 100 miles. This means that if When Luke announced they were "going in full throttle" even if he only meant full throttle for 1 second and then coasting with only enough downward thrust to keep him in orbit, the trench run would last 14 seconds for an entire circuit of the Death Star. Much less if they left their engines on full throttle for more than a second. Or if he was moving beforehand.
Considering the fact that Star Wars pilots use their eyes in combat and actually sight their weapons visually, I think an acceleration in the 1-10 G range is much more appropriate. And don't be mistaken, that'll get you going plenty fast awful soon. |
I'm in the process of trying to rework space flight speed rules, but I want a baseline of what we see in the movies, so I can calibrate my ruleset to match. So, rather than discussing game mechanics per se, I was wondering if we could apply our considerable combined talents to determining how fast the ships we see in the movies are likely capable of accelerating.
I've made the case for 1-10 G range acceleration, and now it's your turn to try and poke some holes in it!
After we're done here, I'll write up whatever rules I come up with in the "House Rules" section, and we can do the same thing to them. 
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Honestly, I think it's a mistake to apply realistic space flight rules to the action we see in the SWU. Attempting to convert units to kilometers or explain why ships can travel from a planet to its nearest moon in a matter of minutes, yet dogfight under manual control at distances of under a kilometer. Space units may be an abstract number, but they work well for what they are, and preserve the "space opera" feel. In the past, I have tried to combine cinematic action with realistic action, and it is well-nigh impossible.
Ideally, I'd like to do away with range #'s altogether and revert back to 1E ranging rules of range brackets.
_________________
"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: Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Honestly, I think it's a mistake to apply realistic space flight rules to the action we see in the SWU. |
I agree 99.99% with this statement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | Honestly, I think it's a mistake to apply realistic space flight rules to the action we see in the SWU. |
I agree 99.99% with this statement. |
It's the comma you take issue with, isn't it?
I understand that if you poke at this too much it may all fall apart, but I thought that about blasters until I came up with the system I posted earlier. I think with a solid amature knowledge of physics, tenacity, and creativity, I may just be able to explain it. It's worth a shot at least.
Also, converting "space units" into real distance measurements isn't really the point behind this thread. It wouldn't surprise me if it were a byproduct, though.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think it will definitely be a byproduct.
Also, I'm not quite sure what you meant by the title of this thread, since in the SWU, the movies are the canon. Did you mean that you want to generate numbers that are consistent with real world acceleration? That gets very complicated very quickly. WEG has some baseline rules in the core books for how long it would normally take a starship to travel within a star system:
-30 minutes to fly from a planet to one of its moons
-2 to 6 hours to fly from a planet to a neighboring planet (2 hours from Earth to Venus, 6 hours from Earth to Jupiter or Saturn)
-15 hours to fly from a planet to the outer reaches of its solar system.
At these speeds, ships are achieving FTL velocities without entering hyperspace. However, WEG isn't just pulling numbers out of the air; in ESB, the Millennium Falcon flew out of the Hoth system, flew all the way across the Anoat system, and into the Bespin system, not to mention the distances involved in interstellar space between the system. At realistic acceleration speeds, it would take decades for a ship with a maximum of 10G acceleration to make it out of the solar system. NASA's calculations for a manned mission to Mars estimate something in the area of two years round trip.
Ultimately, you are trying to apply realism to something that is fundamentally unrealistic. Space flight and combat in the SWU bears almost no resemblance to reality, and if it did, it would be a very different place. It's entirely up to you if you want to try it, but IMO, even if you did succeed, the feel of the game would be very very different.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | I think it will definitely be a byproduct.
Also, I'm not quite sure what you meant by the title of this thread, since in the SWU, the movies are the canon. Did you mean that you want to generate numbers that are consistent with real world acceleration? That gets very complicated very quickly. |
Yeah, what I meant by "canon" was commonly accepted non-movie canon, but that's awful long to put in a title. | crmcneill wrote: | WEG has some baseline rules in the core books for how long it would normally take a starship to travel within a star system:
-30 minutes to fly from a planet to one of its moons
-2 to 6 hours to fly from a planet to a neighboring planet (2 hours from Earth to Venus, 6 hours from Earth to Jupiter or Saturn)
-15 hours to fly from a planet to the outer reaches of its solar system.
At these speeds, ships are achieving FTL velocities without entering hyperspace.
|
Exactly. I don't use those guidelines. I just make anything breaking planetary orbit a hyperjump, or a long journey. | crmcneill wrote: |
However, WEG isn't just pulling numbers out of the air; in ESB, the Millennium Falcon flew out of the Hoth system, flew all the way across the Anoat system, and into the Bespin system, not to mention the distances involved in interstellar space between the system. At realistic acceleration speeds, it would take decades for a ship with a maximum of 10G acceleration to make it out of the solar system. NASA's calculations for a manned mission to Mars estimate something in the area of two years round trip.
|
The best explanation I've heard for the Hoth-Bespin trip in ESB was backup hyperdrive, as a matter of fact, I've heard that's exactly why WEG came up with the backup hyperdrive.
At 10G, by my calculation, you reach lightspeed in a little over 35 days, not allowing for relativity. At that rate, you'd could make the Sol-Proxima Centauri trip in 9 months, and the Sol-Sirius run in slightly more than a year. I know relativity is a factor, but you can get going very very fast at a sustained 10G of acceleration. | crmcneill wrote: |
Ultimately, you are trying to apply realism to something that is fundamentally unrealistic. Space flight and combat in the SWU bears almost no resemblance to reality, and if it did, it would be a very different place. It's entirely up to you if you want to try it, but IMO, even if you did succeed, the feel of the game would be very very different. |
Well, If it's impossible, that should show shortly in the criticisms of my idea. If they don't show, I'd guess that that's because I've got it right.
I won't be dissuaded before the fact.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Yeah, what I meant by "canon" was commonly accepted non-movie canon, but that's awful long to put in a title. |
"Canon vs. Reality", perhaps?
| Quote: | | The best explanation I've heard for the Hoth-Bespin trip in ESB was backup hyperdrive, as a matter of fact, I've heard that's exactly why WEG came up with the backup hyperdrive. |
It's a good explanation on the surface, but it ignores a crucial bit of dialogue in ESB.
Han: "Then we have to find a safe port somewhere. Any ideas?"
Leia: "Well, where are we?"
Han: "The Anoat system."
Leia "The Anoat system. There's not much there."
In the course of their run from Hoth, the Falcon managed to completely exit the Hoth system and cross over into a completely different star system. If the SWU functioned on realistic concepts for acceleration and star travel, they never would've left the Hoth system, and Leia wouldn't have needed to ask. It's entirely unrealistic, and yet it is in the films.
| Quote: | Well, If it's impossible, that should show shortly in the criticisms of my idea. If they don't show, I'd guess that that's because I've got it right.
I won't be dissuaded before the fact. |
Well, good luck to you, then.
_________________
"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 Jul 22, 2011 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Determining how fast the ships are capable of accelerating is easy. 1G is about 9.81 meters per second per second. So you can round off to 10 meters per second per second. The essential guide to spacecraft lists the ACC ratings for many craft.
The thing about the G ratings is that they arwe very, vergy high. Typucally in the 2-4000G range. This actually makes sense, as they ships would need to be able to do that in order to turn like they do at those speeds.In the real world, the G forces in a turn are dermined by the turn radius and the sqaure of the speed. So a starfighter that is travelling at 10 times the speed of a fighter jet is going to pull 100 times the Gs if it tries to match the same turn.
Abut a year or so ago I did some work trying to find a correlation between the offical G ratings, the offical MGLT ratings, and the RPG Space Ratings. Turns out there is a correlation. it's a power function. I can dig up the table in the old thread if you want.
So basically you could treat the Space rating as acceleration if you wanted to.
Personally,I'd be against the 1-10G idea. For one thing, it is too low in comparison to the official values. For another it is too low in companion to real world spacecraft. A modern Space Shuttle lreaches 3-4Gs during list off, and Saturn Rocket 5-6Gs. So using the space rating as Gs would make the Star Wars ships pretty poor performers in comparison to modern spacecraft.
Now you could do something like use 1/1000th the G rating for acceleration. This would slow the vehicles down a bit. if you used 1 per 500G, you'd get move rates fairly close to the RAW, but some ships would be off a bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10402
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Quote: | | The best explanation I've heard for the Hoth-Bespin trip in ESB was backup hyperdrive, as a matter of fact, I've heard that's exactly why WEG came up with the backup hyperdrive. |
It's a good explanation on the surface, but it ignores a crucial bit of dialogue in ESB.
Han: "Then we have to find a safe port somewhere. Any ideas?"
Leia: "Well, where are we?"
Han: "The Anoat system."
Leia: "The Anoat system. There's not much there."
In the course of their run from Hoth, the Falcon managed to completely exit the Hoth system and cross over into a completely different star system. If the SWU functioned on realistic concepts for acceleration and star travel, they never would've left the Hoth system, and Leia wouldn't have needed to ask. It's entirely unrealistic, and yet it is in the films. |
That depends on how you interpret the film. I do not interpret the asteroid field to be in Anoat system because I don't interpret Leia's question to be completely literal for one reason: Leia then says "There's not much there." If they were already in the Anoal system, wouldn't Leia have said "There's not much here" instead of there? Leia saying "there" means to me that they are not actually there. A more literal way for Leia to ask her question would have been, "What's nearby here?" I think that Han knew what she meant that because without using hyperdrive, she is not stupid enough to think they had left the Hoth system so she knows where she is. So Han answer was answering the implied more literal question of what is nearby here, which is the other systems of the Ison Corridor (Anoat, Bespin).
It is not beyond reason that in the short time the Rebels had been at the Hoth base, Leia had not bothered to learn the names of the nearby systems, because she never took any hyperspace journeys to nearby systems. Any of her travels in and out of the Hoth system were likely to father away systems and Leia was probably not the astrogator for those journeys. But she could of have heard about the Anoat system before, thus explaining her reply, "There's not much there."
Also, earlier dialogue in the film from both Rebels and Imperials establish there is a desnse asteroid field in the Hoth system. Could there just happen to be one in the Anoat system as well? Sure, but it makes the multiple previous references to the Hoth's asteroid field pointless in the script. To me, it is obvious from the film that the asteroid field the Falcon is chased through is meant to be the Hoth asteroid field.
The back-up hyperdrive doesn't become a necessary explanation until the offscreen jump to Bespin...
And if anyone cares, Wookieepedia confirms that according to official canon, the asteroid field shown in the movie is in the Hoth system, but it provides a different explanation for Leia's dialogue than mine. It speaks as if the Hoth and Anoat systems are such close in proximity that Hoth asteroid field is also called the Anoat asteroid belt because it is in the outermost edge of the Hoth system which touches the outer edge of the Anoat system. The only way two star systems could be so close like in the real world would be if the two stars were a part of a binary star system with the stars far enough away from each other that they each have their own planets orbiting around them (unlike Tatooine which orbits around both of its suns, which orbit each other closely). In a binary star system where each star has its own planetary orbits, it is actually very realistic that gravimetric forces between the two sub-systems would chew up any planets forming (especially with some large gas giants on the two systems' outer edges) thus creating an outer asteroid field (perhaps even an outer asteroid fields for each star - a possible explaination for how dense the field was in the film - they were in the intersection of the two sub-system's outer asteroid fields).
That technically works too with the dialogue, if they were on the edge of both stars' sub-systems which were a part of a larger binary system. But all other EU sources portray Hoth and Anoat as separate star systems, and I think my simpler explanation works a little better so I'm sticking with that. But I thought I would offer mine and official canon's, and of course it is still up to each of you to decide whatever works best for you.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Last edited by Whill on Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | Honestly, I think it's a mistake to apply realistic space flight rules to the action we see in the SWU. |
I agree 99.99% with this statement. |
It's the comma you take issue with, isn't it? |
No, the comma is just fine.  I do see some value in trying to better reconcile SWU space movement with real physics, hence the .01%. But I very strongly suspect it is ultimately a futile quest, hence the 99.99%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | I do see some value in trying to better reconcile SWU space movement with real physics, hence the .01%. But I very strongly suspect it is ultimately a futile quest, hence the 99.99%. |
Having put some thought into it several years ago, I would be willing to state categorically that it is ultimately futile. To me, a more fulfilling approach would be to come up with high-tech reasons why ships fly as they do and do not appear to behave according to physics as we understand them. Put simply, it is easier to invent a techno-babble rational for why a ship does what it does than it is to attempt to divine how sci-fi grade technology conforms to the accepted norms of physics. Considering how rapidly our knowledge base has been expanding here in on Earth, it could easily be argued that their understanding of the entire universe is orders of magnitude above ours, and the capabilities of their technology would reflect that.
For example, pilots in the SWU rely a great deal on visual scanning, even though the distances involved in space combat would seem to make visual scanning impossible. But suppose the viewports on the cockpit double as a Heads-Up Display, projecting magnified views of the space around the ship, allowing for visual scanning, even across distances of thousands of kilometers? What if the reason starships seem to bank and turn like atmospheric craft, even though that defies conventional wisdom for how spacecraft should perform in a vacuum, is because the ship uses a gravity based maneuvering system to bank the ship onto its new course, rather than using thrusters? What if the reason pilots can hear other ships flying past is that part of SWU sensor interface systems for the ship's pilot includes a "surround sound" audio system that allows the pilot to be aware of where other ships are by being able to "hear" what direction they are.
But ultimately, even that approach won't cover everything. Rational analysis presupposes that what occurs in the films is rational, which is never something one can rely on.
That being said, good luck to you, Fallon, because I have some experience with the path you are exploring, and it is a very challenging one.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | Personally,I'd be against the 1-10G idea. For one thing, it is too low in comparison to the official values. For another it is too low in companion to real world spacecraft. A modern Space Shuttle lreaches 3-4Gs during list off, and Saturn Rocket 5-6Gs. So using the space rating as Gs would make the Star Wars ships pretty poor performers in comparison to modern spacecraft.
Now you could do something like use 1/1000th the G rating for acceleration. This would slow the vehicles down a bit. if you used 1 per 500G, you'd get move rates fairly close to the RAW, but some ships would be off a bit. |
Well, I tossed the official values out the window at the start of this thread, so I'm willling to work without them. At 1-10 G, I am using 1 per less than 500, (500-5000G range, with the 2000-4000G range you mentioned sitting comfortably in the middle). Do you mean 1 per 50?
Also, Saturn V and Space Shuttle rockets do have pretty high G loading, as they take off, but I think one of those Gs in each instance is earth's gravity, and I'd also point out that they are ballistic for most of their flights, rather than under sustained power like the Star Wars ships.
I could even reasonably see moving the maximum up to about 20G, but remember that Star Wars ships shouldn't need be too much faster than modern spacecraft because the orbital velocities don't suddenly go up in Star Wars.
If you feel like digging up that power function, I would greatly apppreciate it. Thanks for posting!
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: |
Well, I tossed the official values out the window at the start of this thread, so I'm willing to work without them. At 1-10 G, I am using 1 per less than 500, (500-5000G range, with the 2000-4000G range you mentioned sitting comfortably in the middle). Do you mean 1 per 50? |
No, I meant 1 SPACE per 500G. So an X-Wing that has an ACC of 4000G would have a SPACE of 8. 1 SPACE per 400G might be a closer match to the RAW, but then the X-Wings will be as fast as the TIE fighters.
| Quote: |
Also, Saturn V and Space Shuttle rockets do have pretty high G loading, as they take off, |
Yes, they are. And for good reasons. If a rocket doesn't move at faster than 1G, it won't be able to escape gravity. Also, higher the accelerate the faster the rocket can make it into orbit and the less fuel it will need. We simply can't make a rocket that could carry enough fuel to break orbit at 1.1G. Remember this is acceleration and V=at, and S=1/2at2, so a higher acceleration makes a huge difference in terms of time and fuel consumption.
| Quote: |
but I think one of those Gs in each instance is earth's gravity, |
Yup, since Earth is the planet they are escaping from. I'd suggest using a similar standard for Star Wars, since most habitable planets will have a gravity similar to Earth and Coruscant.
In the real world large planets typically have their gravities expressed in terms of Earth eqivlants (0.7G, or 12G, etc) rather than determining a separate G for each planet. It is easier that way too. So I7d suggest using Corscant as the standard.
| Quote: |
and I'd also point out that they are ballistic for most of their flights, rather than under sustained power like the Star Wars ships. |
But they are under power for thier takeoffs. The big restriction in the real world is fuel. A real spacecraft isabout 90-95% fuel, most of which is expended ust getting into orbit. Leaving them very litle fuel to maneuver.
Where Star Wars, and most other Sci-Fi settings come out ahead is with the fuel situation. In Star Wars, they have repulsorlift technology, which allows them to negate gravity. At least up to a point. So a ship could get into orbit at a slow, constant speed rather than having to overcome gravity.
| Quote: |
I could even reasonably see moving the maximum up to about 20G, but remember that Star Wars ships shouldn't need be too much faster than modern spacecraft because the orbital velocities don't suddenly go up in Star Wars. |
Except that the ships don7t seem to orbit. Star Wars ships seem to hot rod it, and the high G ratings would be needed to pull those high speed turns.
Reverse engineering this, since a WWII fighter can pull around 6Gs, and if starfighters in Star Wars turn like WWII fighters, and can pull around 3000Gs, they should be able to move around 22 times as fast (saure root of G ratios). If a typical WWII fighter flie at 560kph, , that gives us a typical speed of around 12000kph fopr a fighter. That would take about 20 minutes at 1G to reach,or 1 minute @ 20 Gs.
[/qute]
If you feel like digging up that power function, I would greatly apppreciate it. Thanks for posting![/quote]
Sure, I dug it out from the thread.
MGLT= (G-rating^0.75)/5
SPACE= MGLT/10, round to the nearest.
Most spaceships work out the same as the RAW, and those that don7t are usually only off by 1 point or so. The only real discrancies are when there is a difference as to if a given ship is faster than another. Such as the TIE fighter and X-Wing, or the Delta-7 and the A-Wing.
Here is a table tat gives you the SPACE rating for a given range of G ratings.
SPACE G Range
20 9668.06 - 10334.71
19 9012.72 - 9668.06
18 8369.07 - 9012.72
17 7737.58 - 8369.07
16 7118.73 - 7737.58
15 6513.04 - 7118.73
14 5921.14 - 6513.04
13 5343.67 - 5921.14
12 4781.42 - 5343.67
11 4235.25 - 4781.42
10 3706.17 - 4235.25
9 3195.35 - 3706.17
8 2704.22 - 3195.35
7 2234.49 - 2704.22
6 1788.31 - 2234.49
5 1368.5 - 1788.31
4 978.85 - 1368.5
3 625 - 978.85
2 316.29 - 625
This was all part of a starship construction tool I was/am working on. It is generally on the back burner as it is a low priority. Last thing I was doing was incorporating sata from the X-Wing computer games, using Thrust/mass ratio for Gs and treating the KTU engine ratings at "Kilotons Thrust Units". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimace
Captain
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 729
Location: Montana; Big Sky Country
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: |
Also, Saturn V and Space Shuttle rockets do have pretty high G loading, as they take off, but I think one of those Gs in each instance is earth's gravity, and I'd also point out that they are ballistic for most of their flights, rather than under sustained power like the Star Wars ships.
I could even reasonably see moving the maximum up to about 20G, but remember that Star Wars ships shouldn't need be too much faster than modern spacecraft because the orbital velocities don't suddenly go up in Star Wars.
|
What?! You don't think Star Wars ships should be much faster than modern spacecraft?
Are you talking about our shuttle during powered flight into orbit, where it attains speeds of up to 28,000 kilometers per hour. Considering it's 384,403 kilometers to the moon, it would take the shuttle, under POWERED flight, almost 14 hours to reach the moon. That's quite a lengthy amount of time. Unless time is very different in Star Wars, its safe to say that Star Wars fighters went MUCH faster to move from the moon of Yavin to the Death Star that was orbiting Yavin at maximum velocity.
Even the fastest we've propelled something towards the moon, the New Horizons mission to Pluto (which only passed by the moon, didn't enter it's orbit) was done 8 hours and 35 minutes and travelled at 58,000 kilometers an hour.
So if you're going to be somewhere on par with what Star Wars seems to demonstrate, you're going to have to have speeds a whole lot more than current modern spacecraft.
Also, I'll point out that Star Wars ships seem to be able to accomplish faster than light speed without hyperdrive usage. What was Han Solo's line in Star Wars? "She'll make .5 past light speed." Somehow I don't think he was bragging that it had a hyperdrive. Lots of ships had hyperdrives. I think he was indicating that the Falcon could actually attain light speed and beyond with just its regular engines. Not something you probably want to do often, as it likely uses up a lot of fuel, but considering how fast the Millenium Falcon was supposed to be, I don't doubt that ships like that could attain near or faster than light speeds without hyperdrives. In the Return of the Jedi novelization, it mentions that Wedge's X-wing came out of the Death Star at "barely sublight speed" and arced around the forest moon. I take that to mean he was nearly at light speed with just his engines, while coming out of the inner workings of the Death Star. I don't assume that meant he was using his hyperdrive, just that he was pushing his regular engines as much as he could to get out of there as fast as he could.
So I've always kind of assumed that Star Wars ships could go up to and beyond light speed using their regular engines. If they wanted to many multiples of the speed of light and not use as much fuel doing it, they used hyperdrives.
Last edited by Grimace on Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10402
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimace wrote: | What?! You don't think Star Wars ships should be much faster than modern spacecraft?
Are you talking about our shuttle during powered flight into orbit, where it attains speeds of up to 28,000 kilometers per hour. Considering it's 384,403 kilometers to the moon, it would take the shuttle, under POWERED flight, almost 14 hours to reach the moon. That's quite a lengthy amount of time. Unless time is very different in Star Wars, its safe to say that Star Wars fighters went MUCH faster to move from the moon of Yavin to the Death Star that was orbiting Yavin at maximum velocity.
Even the fastest we've propelled something towards the moon, the New Horizons mission to Pluto (which only passed by the moon, didn't enter it's orbit) was done 8 hours and 35 minutes and travelled at 58,000 kilometers an hour.
So if you're going to be somewhere on par with what Star Wars seems to demonstrate, you're going to have to have speeds a whole lot more than current modern spacecraft.
Also, I'll point out that Star Wars ships seem to be able to accomplish faster than light speed without hyperdrive usage. What was Han Solo's line in Star Wars? "She'll make .5 past light speed." Somehow I don't think he was bragging that it had a hyperdrive. Lots of ships had hyperdrives. I think he was indicating that the Falcon could actually attain light speed and beyond with just its regular engines. Not something you probably want to do often, as it likely uses up a lot of fuel, but considering how fast the Millenium Falcon was supposed to be, I don't doubt that ships like that could attain near or faster than light speeds without hyperdrives. In the Return of the Jedi novelization, it mentions that Wedge's X-wing came out of the Death Star at "barely sublight speed" and arced around the forest moon. I take that to mean he was nearly at light speed with just his engines, while coming out of the inner workings of the Death Star. I don't assume that meant he was using his hyperdrive, just that he was pushing his regular engines as much as he could to get out of there as fast as he could.
So I've always kind of assumed that Star Wars ships could go up to and beyond light speed using their regular engines. If they wanted to many multiples of the speed of light and not use as much fuel doing it, they used hyperdrives. |
This is an awsome post! Thanks for posting all of that!
I totally agree that ".5 past light speed" and the wording used in the novelizations could represent a valid interpretation of possibly intended velocities. But I also think Lucas wanted to keep things vague to allow multiple interpretations. He blew it with the distance reference used for time as it was. Thank the Force that Kevin Anderson was good for one thing (reasonably explaining the usage of parsecs in the Kessel Run if you add that the goal is to travel the shortest possible distance through entire region dense with black holes - now that's space opera).
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
