Safe Speeds [FT]

4 posts ยท Dec 13 1999 to Dec 14 1999

From: Tom B <kaladorn@g...>

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:29:30 -0500

Subject: Safe Speeds [FT]

Just a general comment on FT speeds:

People like Oerjan are incredible (no, don't blush!) - flies fast, and
measures distances like 0.2 mus when an MU is a cm... (that's be 2
mm - a tough call). But what are reasonable speed limitations?

Here is an answer for all you captains who wish to avoid courts of inquiry
followed by flogging...

Assume we have the formula
S(t) = Vo*t + 0.5 * A * t^2  where S is distance, t is time, Vo is
initial velocity, and A is acceleration - a very standard Newtonian
thing. This describes the movment of a ship from some initial value of time,
based on velocity at that point, plus acceleration.

So how does this relate to safe speed - by sensor horizon! You want to
know the maximum safe speed at which point you can decelerate to zero after
spotting something you absolutely can't avoid by altering your vector and
which you don't want to hit. (Yes, you might pass this limit, but it seems
like a reasonable way to define acceptable speeds... beyond that, you're
taking your crews life in your hands).

So, if we assume sensor horizon is defined by the point at which, with
a 95-99% certainty, you can lock up any object of dangerous size, then
we'll just call this distance Rs.

So we then get
Rs = Vo*t + 0.5 * A * t^2 (and keep in mind, A will be negative since
you'll be decelerating) We also know
0 = Vo + A*t    (A being negative) (the time it takes to stop)
which is t = -Vo/A

So, we want to solve for the unknown, Vo.

So we combine the eq'n....

Rs = Vo * (-Vo/A) + 0.5 * A * (-Vo/A)^2

Solving this mess leads to
Vo = sqrt( 2 * -Rs * A)   which seems like a bad idea until you
realize, A is negative. So if we replace our negative A with the term Tdecel
(deceleration thrust), we're left with

Vsafe = sqrt (2 * Rs * Tdecel)

So the maximum safe speed (by my def'n) would be the squareroot of (twice your
sensor horizon multiplied by your thrust rating).

So, let's plug in some numbers I vaguely recall, but might not be right. I
seem to recall seeing sensor ranges of 54" and 72". And
thrusts are typically 2/4/6.

So, if we assume 54"
Th-2 Vmaxsafe = 14
Th-4 Vmaxsafe = 20
Th-6 Vmaxsafe = 25

If we assume 72"
Th-2 Vmaxsafe = 16
Th-4 Vmaxsafe = 24
Th-6 Vmaxsafe = 41

Hmmm. We begin to get an appreciation for high thrust, superior sensor
vessels. We also get some idea what ludicrious speeds might be given the level
of sensor technology present.

Last point: I picked my definition for max safe speed. It isn't entirely
correct: many times you could dodge an object without needing to stop, so you
could go faster. Conversely, an object with its own velocity cuts your
reaction time dramatically. So my value was a compromise. And it makes good
sensors something you really want as a tech advantage as it lets you cook
along faster... with far less risk to your crew. And less chance of a
flogging.

Of course, that's just my opinion. Other views are welcome.

From: Robert Makowsky <rmakowsky@y...>

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 17:57:48 -0500

Subject: Re: Safe Speeds [FT]

Thomas,

Great stuff there. We do a similar thing in flying with poor visibility.
Though we base ours on the ability to turn at least 90 degrees to avoid the
obstacle. Seems like your calculations could use that instead (I know you
mention it I am just wondering what that would do to Vmax for Vector and
Cinematic.

Magic

[quoted original message omitted]

From: RWHofrich@a...

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 21:31:29 EST

Subject: Re: Safe Speeds [FT]

In a message dated 12/13/99 12:32:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca writes:

> So the maximum safe speed (by my def'n) would be the squareroot of

Actually, since planet-sized objects are the only one's you'd have to
"stop" for, the sensor range that you use for your initial assumption is VERY
suspect. As for dodging, even against something with a velocity vector toward
you, please remember that even if two vessels come within 1 MU of each other
they don't hit unless one is trying to ram (and maybe not even then). I'd say
that maximum "safe" speed is much greater than that shown.

On the other hand, it is refereshing to see someone trying to work this stuff
out by using factors other than the assumed maximum thrust capabilities of the
engines (I used to have to do these kind of equations all the time, but
factor in reaction time and the like--I'm in highway design and safety).

Rob

From: Brian Bell <bkb@b...>

Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 06:58:41 -0500

Subject: RE: Safe Speeds [FT]

Also, this is making the assumption that 52 is the maximum range of the
scanners (FT p.21). I would assert that 52tu is the maximum range of the
scanners for _identifying_ ship sized objects. Detecting that there is a
ship sized object out there (without being able to define what it is) extends
far beyond this range. A 8' table provides 96tu if using inches and about
240tu if using cm and provides bogey markers even if the ships are
unidentified. And larger objects would show up at longer ranges.

At the ranges for FT (1000km/tu) and turn length (15 minutes), slower
than light sensors should not provide that much of a difference. If using FTL
sensors (gravitic, sub-space, insert-your-PSB-here), it would make no
difference.

-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----

> -----Original Message-----
[snip]

> > So, let's plug in some numbers I vaguely recall, but might not be