MinMax Spaz

MinMax-Games.com

The water cooler of outer space
  
It is currently Thu 23 Nov, 2017 12:48 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Working on new bounty hunter ships. Feedback welcome!
PostPosted: Mon 30 Jan, 2012 5:33 am 
Offline
Dart

Joined: Mon 15 Aug, 2011 2:19 pm
Posts: 15
The basic problem with spaceship construction is that thrusters that use conventional technologies don't scale up properly with the size of the ship. Bigger ship means more mass which requires bigger engines which means more mass (both in the engines themselves and in fuel) which means you need more thrust which means bigger engines... etc. Eventually you wind up with a ship that is mostly engine and not all that practical, of course since we're talking about a game none of this technically matters and the designers can do as they like.
But as far as realism goes it's possible to have a ship that is fast and maneuverable despite it's size but it might not be all that useful since as I said it would be mostly engine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Working on new bounty hunter ships. Feedback welcome!
PostPosted: Mon 30 Jan, 2012 10:40 am 
Offline
Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Nov, 2011 10:14 pm
Posts: 328
Location: Weert, the Netherlands.
While its always interesting to see a discussion about real-life use of rocket science, do try to remember that this is a game, not NASA's next project..

Or u could make a topic about it in a new thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Working on new bounty hunter ships. Feedback welcome!
PostPosted: Wed 02 May, 2012 1:49 pm 
Offline
Hatchet

Joined: Sun 04 Mar, 2012 9:22 pm
Posts: 183
You know why all arguments about engine size here are completely wrong?

Because the denizens of the SPAZ universe have learned and proven conclusively that their universe is only a simulation, and have learned to manipulate that simulation (thus their universe) by altering (Hacking) that code. We're still working on proving/disproving that concept.

The "Engines" on their ships are merely cosmetic little lights and flares to make them look good while they fly around.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Working on new bounty hunter ships. Feedback welcome!
PostPosted: Wed 02 May, 2012 6:08 pm 
Offline
Boomerang
User avatar

Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2011 12:00 am
Posts: 255
Location: England
Necro post! Now, since I might as well post something along with this...

There is a game called Kerbal Space Program that is basically a simulator for testing things like this. It might be possible to use it to show why bigger ships might be far more efficient than smaller ones!

Are you trying to say Lurkily that the SPAZ inhabitants are coders themselves and may even have coded their own SPAZ inside SPAZ? Did they possibly call it SPAZception?!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Working on new bounty hunter ships. Feedback welcome!
PostPosted: Thu 03 May, 2012 2:24 am 
Offline
Hatchet

Joined: Sun 04 Mar, 2012 9:22 pm
Posts: 183
They simply know the true nature of their universe, better than we know ours. Knowing that they are in a simulation, (running on my PC,) their ships move by manipulating that physics simulation. (Which aside from being amusing, is also true in the most literal sense of every word.)

And yeah, I necro'd it . . . sorry. It was at the top of my list of posts, and I made an Ass out of U and Mption.

As for efficient? Defined how? Speed-to-consumption ratio? That would require as minimal a mass as possible. In the end, for best speed, you would want a constant burn through the whole trip, turning around halfway through. The particular engine size and fuel payload would all depend on engine technology, since the ratio of fuel consumption to thrust is what matters. Some engines will burn most efficiently (most thrust per pound of fuel) at highest output, some at low output, some at a medium output.

If you're talking about merely making the trip, efficiency would require minimal fuel burned, which means very light mass, very low speeds, and minimal fuel payloads. In most of these cases, the best theoretical solution to date is to use an electromagnetic rail (railguns) to launch a payload out of a gravity well or off a station, all the way to its destination, where it will fall into a stable orbit. This requires an extremely precise launch and complex mathematics to make sure it lands in a stable orbit that a retrieval ship can collect with very little Delta-V. Just firing it at top speed is no good, because then you burn so much fuel matching its' speed that the efficiency in transit is wasted.

Combat maneuvers, now, there's typically nothing efficient about that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Working on new bounty hunter ships. Feedback welcome!
PostPosted: Thu 03 May, 2012 10:18 am 
Offline
Boomerang
User avatar

Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2011 12:00 am
Posts: 255
Location: England
I meant more efficient as a combat vessel, rather than just a point to point transport. That said, if the mass to volume ratio decreases as the ship gets larger (because assuming most of the mass is at the surface area and the inside is less dense, maybe even largely hollow for transporting people), then larger ships would carry more cargo (materials or people) more efficiently because the mass of the vessel compared to the mass of the cargo it is transporting would decrease with a larger ship. If you use the same percentage volume for the engines as you scale up (whether that is bigger engines or additional engines), then you would have more engine power, i.e. more thrust, per mass of the ship (once again, because the volume is increasing faster than the mass) - this means a bigger ship would have a greater acceleration for the same percentage volume used than a smaller ship.

Of course, if you are just transporting cargo from one place in space to another than shooting it directly from A to B might be far more efficient than using a ship. On the other hand, it could easily be intercepted by even non-combat vessels meaning that it would only work for as long as no one else knew about the free loot travelling in space, heh.

Obviously, a probe would be far more efficient the smaller it is simply because its only job is to get from point A to point B, look around and then transmit/travel back. Once the size is large enough to carry the surveillance equipment and the engines there is no need for the probe to be any larger (unless you need it to get there faster).

With a combat vessel the more weapons and other stuff (like shield emitters) for the same acceleration potential the better. Once again, since the mass to volume ratio decreases as the ship gets larger the more stuff you would be able to fit in for the same acceleration potential. Another way of looking at it is that the ratio of the mass of the ship itself (including the armor) to the mass of the cargo/equipment decreases as the ship gets larger, thus you need less percentage of the engines devoted to accelerating the ship compared to accelerating the cargo/equipment. Resource wise, you would also need less armor to protect each unit of equipment because the armor is on the surface area of the vessel and that is shrinking compared to the volume.

Maybe the engines would not scale up efficiently. On the other hand, rather than make the engines bigger you could just use more of them. I don't mean a greater percentage volume of the ship, just more engines to make up the same percentage volume as the ship got larger.

A point that could be made here is that sending a huge ship in to combat with something that a tiny ship would of been able to handle would be inefficient uses of resources - including fuel. In this case a smaller ship would at least be a more efficient use of resources, if not a more efficient ship in general. Another point in a similar vein is that using a huge ship to transport the same amount of cargo that could fit into a tiny ship would once again be making inefficient use of resources (unless the rest of the huge ship is dedicated to keeping the cargo safe and the tiny ship would not have been sufficient to do so).


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group