Just bought cheap 2 tiny models (5 parts each) of SW:EP1 Sith Infiltrators.
They're ideal in size and shape for CV's for my Cascadian fleet. It got me
thinking,m and I was wondering what people thought. This is more flavor
than actual game mechanics though:
In the list's opinion, in future carrier ops, would it make sense for the
carrier, when launching fighters for atmospheric flight, to position itself in
orbit with it's launch bays facing the planet, thus allowing it to "Drop" it's
fighters down the well and save some of their fuel load?
2B^2
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 02:34:46PM -0800, Brian Bilderback wrote:
If they're going to be re-entering, and your ship's in orbit, you want
to fire them downwards and backwards more than anything else. With the sort of
thrust FT drives can put out, though, you could hover above most
planets (in the style of the _Aliens_ ship) and genuinely drop off small
craft...
> Roger Burton West wrote:
> If they're going to be re-entering, and your ship's in orbit, you want
Which should be downwards and backwards? Do you mean the fighters? If so, why?
Reentry heat? What about shielded underfuselages?
With the
> sort of thrust FT drives can put out, though, you could hover above
This is the image I had: Large ships orbiting on station, noses pointed
"Down", allowing their fighters/small craft to do a "Controlled fall"
towards the surface. In the Renegade Legion universe, this is how Grav tanks
do hot drops during invasions.
2B^2
The carrier would be pointing backwards and downwards, effectively
decelerating the fighters relative to the carrier. This would have two
effects - it puts them in a lower orbit and slows them down.
Counter-intuitively lower orbits are higher speed. IIRC LEO (Low Earth
Orbit ~200 miles up) is a circle of radius ~4000 miles and satellites at that
orbit transit in 90 minutes. This equals a speed of ~16,800 miles
per hour. Consequently geo-synchronous (one orbit per 24 hours) is
roughly 36,000 miles out giving a speed of ~9,500 miles per hour.
If the object is slower than orbital speed, it falls out of orbit. So by
decreasing speed you drop, by dropping you increase the required orbital speed
and if you don't thrust forward you drop.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 02:47:15PM -0800, Brian Bilderback wrote:
Delta-V. The fighter needs to change its velocity vector from "forwards
round the orbit" to some approximation of "down"; almost certainly it'll want
to reenter at less than orbital speed, because of heating concerns. Firing it
backwards along the orbit pushes it in the appropriate direction.
> This is the image I had: Large ships orbiting on station, noses
> tanks do hot drops during invasions.
I can see two approaches:
(1) environment is safe enough to ship to hover on its tail; fighters will be
moving backwards relative to the ship in order to get to the planet.
(2) ship is orbiting; fighteres need to decelerate relative to ship.
So I'd expect to see carriers optimised for planetary assault with
rear-firing fighter launch tubes.
B Lin rote:
> The carrier would be pointing backwards and downwards, effectively
> effects - it puts them in a lower orbit and slows them down.
Makes sense
> If the object is slower than orbital speed, it falls out of orbit. So
Which is exactly what you want to do if you'ree trying to enter the atmosphere
(referring to the fighters).
2B^2
> Roger Burton West wrote:
> Delta-V. The fighter needs to change its velocity vector from "forwards
Makes sense. How about this (Since my original idea was for CV's, designed
for space ops mostly, but with orbital/atmospheric launch capability):
The
holding/launch/catapult cradle (PSB how you like), for space ops, holds
the fighter facing forward, and when deployed chucks it forward and away from
the carrier as on a modern carrier. when set for atmospheric launch, the CV
orbits with it's belly facing towards it's path of orbit, nose down (But not
quite STRAIGHT down... angles slightly "backward"). The launch cradle rotates
180' so that the fighter has it's butt towards the bay opening, and thus
towards the planet and away from the orbital path. When the cat launches it,
the fighter is accelerated away from it's current velocity,
evffectively decellerating it, allowing it to drop into entry while facing in
the right direction?
> (2) ship is orbiting; fighteres need to decelerate relative to ship.
Actually, for dedicated assault carriers launching drop boats, not fighters,
I'd put the launch tubes on the bottom of the hull, allowing for the launch of
more boats at once.
2B^2
To be more accurate, when you execute a deceleration burn in a circular orbit,
it puts you into an elliptical orbit with the point of your burn at the apogee
(highest point of the orbit). So you lose some altitude, but pick up velocity
as you drop, and at the perigee (lowest point of the orbit) you have too much
velocity for a circular orbit at that altitude. If you don't change anything,
you'll continue on the elliptical orbit and rise back up again to the point
where you originally decelerated. However, at the perigee you can decelerate
again and maintain a lower circular orbit.
To re-enter, you decelerate enough at the apogee so that elliptical
orbit has a higher eccentricity (flatter ellipse) and the perigee is actually
within the atmosphere at which point you can use aero braking to lose the rest
of your excess velocity.
To drop straight down, you need to cut all the forward velocity of your orbit.
In any case, your most efficient use of thrust is pushing you in the opposite
direction of your orbital velocity, rather than thrusting down.
This is actually one of the flaws in orbitally dropped munitions (like Thor
from Renegade Legion). It takes just as much work to drop something from orbit
as it takes to get it up there (aside from the fact that on the way down you
can use atmospheric drag to do some of the work).
Randy Wolfmeyer Dept. of Physics Washington University
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Brian Bilderback wrote:
> B Lin rote:
So by
> >decreasing speed you drop, by dropping you increase the required
> Randy W. Wolfmeyer wrote:
*SNIP*
> To re-enter, you decelerate enough at the apogee so that elliptical
So the suggestion that the list made to me, which I modified a bit, would
work, if I read you right - launch the fighters out of the CV in the
direction opposite the path of the CV's orbit - but launch them with
enough velocity that this acceleration away from the carrier is effectively a
deceleration in regards to the orbit?
> This is actually one of the flaws in orbitally dropped munitions (like
True, it is a lot of work - the question is, do you not still get a
result that justifies the effort?
2B^2
[quoted original message omitted]
> Karl Heinz Wrote:
> Possible, but not strictly neccessary. Not that the Space Shuttle
I was not aware.... thanks....
I guess it depends on what is more of a problem: the
> extra complexity of rotating catapult cradles or the extra fuel aboard
And PSB-wise, that's a matter of which necessitates a cooler-looking
solution.
2B^2