_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Okay, Now that Streamlining cost Mass have the requirements of Thrust 4 for
Full and Thrust 6 for Partial, been dropped?
(Sorry if U are seeing this multiple times, I know it Bounced at least twice
from the List)
DOCAGREN
Just a Lurker here on the Digest, But maybe I have a good idea or 2..
:-)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJon T. or anyone
else..
Okay, Now that Streamlining cost Mass have the requirements of Thrust 4 for
Full and Thrust 6 for Partial, been dropped that in More Thrust? Or do
you still need the engine thrust? Thanks for imput on this
DOCAGREN
Just a Lurker here on the Digest, But maybe I have a good idea or 2..
:-)
Doc Agren wrote (in a horribly formatted post that took me a while to get into
a readable format):
> Okay, Now that Streamlining cost Mass have the requirements of Thrust 4
> for Full and Thrust 6 for Partial, been dropped that in More Thrust?
Or
> do you still need the engine thrust? Thanks for imput on this
This has been discussed several times on this list in the past (an archive
search for "streamlining" should find most those threads), but IIRC it pretty
much comes down to how much accel you consider "1 thrust point" to be.
If "1 thrust point" = 1G (a common but by no means universal assumption
among FT players), then even a thrust-1, non-streamlined ship would
theoretically be capable of landing safely on Earth (safely for the ship
itself that is, not necessarily for the rest of the planet) - it'd take
quite a while, and it probably wouldn't be able to take off again without some
external help (it'd need slightly *more* than 1G of thrust for that), but it
*would* be able to "float" down to the ground slowly enough to avoid getting
burned up by the friction. With thrust points this big I'd expect the main
effect of spaceship streamlining to be a limit on how fast a ship
can move and still safely enter an atmosphere - un-streamlined ships
would have to move *very* slowly and rely on raw engine power to lower
themselves essentially vertically, while streamlined ships could enter the
atmosphere
at an angle, "skip-brake" and glide down to the surface much like
today's space shuttles do.
I'm afraid that this answer didn't help you very much, did it...
Later,
I've just realized the 'take quite a while'(sic) could give an out, if you
accept a number of possibly contentious assumptions.
Some of us play relatively short games only, say 4-6 turns. If you also
assume turns of, say, 15 minutes, then an hour to an hour and a half of
continous burn may not be sufficient for a large planet soft landing.
Added to that an assumption that combat thrust, military power, is much more
than a ship could handle for longer periods, and streamlining could be a
requirement again.
Of course, people will say 'why?', and handwaving concerning reaction mass or
componet wear come to mind.
I'm the first to say it's not a lock, and many wouldn't accept the majority of
assumptions, but it seems not unworthy as a fudge factor.
The_Beast
OA wrote on 05/06/2006 06:59:09 AM:
***snippage***
> If "1 thrust point" = 1G (a common but by no means
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated Sat, 06 May 2006 13:59:09 +0200
> From: Oerjan Ariander writes:
> Doc Agren wrote (in a horribly formatted post that took me a while to
That most likely the wonderful side effect the latest upgrade for AOL for Mac.
> >Okay, Now that Streamlining cost Mass have the requirements of Thrust
to
> be.
But Oerjan, it did, it cleared up those threads into 1 simple answer Thank
U...