• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Movement at M4 across the galaxy...

I would also consider an alternate power source for the coast/drift phase.
yes, but this was not an STL starship design, it was an accident.

Interesting scenario: the scout's J drive failed and they were limping back on M drive.

So you use the maneuver drive, jump into the low berth suspended animation coffins, and hope you wake up in twenty years.

The adventurers who find the scout have to deal with the problem of intercepting an object moving at 0.15c, and having enough fuel to slow back down to a halt.
 
True, I was doing a first order analysis.

1) drag of the interstellar medium
I wasn't about to open this can of worms. In reality the ship would need some kind of Bussard-esque magnetic shield to divert the medium from the hull or the ship will erode away to atoms a few years after the crew dies hideously from radiation. Such shields are not canon in the Traveller universe.
Check Beltstrike - the m drive deflects ionising radiation from stars so it should be able to cope.
My own pet theory is some kind of plasma bubble... there was a link a long time ago.

2) Gravity.
Solar escape velocity is about 42.1 kilometers per second. So the M4 ship will have to accelerate about an extra 17 minutes to escape the primary sun, and decelerate an extra 17 minutes if there is a sun at the destination.
I don't know about you but an extra 38 minutes added to an acceleration duration of 3.72 years didn't seem important. Give drives capable of 4 gs of acceleration for prolonged periods of time, gravity is not a significant factor.
Very true.

And what about the gravity of the galactic core - or the stars in the direction of travel etc. etc.

Best bet is to ignore such complications - or next you'll be computing energy states jumping coreward or rimward ;)
 
And what about the gravity of the galactic core - or the stars in the direction of travel etc. etc.

Best bet is to ignore such complications - or next you'll be computing energy states jumping coreward or rimward ;)
Initially I was ignoring such complications, I was trying to accommodate somebody else who complained that I was not considering the effect of gravity.
In any event, the gravitational effects of the galactic core and other stars will be negligible.
 
Well, the back of my envelope says that the mission will look like this:

Accelerate at 4g for 2 weeks. Ship will then have traveled 0.0009 parsec and have a velocity of 0.157c.

Ship drifts for 20.7 years, traveling a further 0.9982 parsec

Ship decelerates at 4 g for 2 weeks. Ship will travel remaining 0.0009 parsec and have braked to a halt. All fuel has been expended.

Bottom line: 20.8 years to travel 1 parsec.

Care to show us that envelope, Nyrath? Worked examples of rearranging the formulae can be as informative as the formulae themselves for us struggling maths students. :)
 
Care to show us that envelope, Nyrath? Worked examples of rearranging the formulae can be as informative as the formulae themselves for us struggling maths students. :)
Certainly!

From http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3aj.html#relativity

v = c * Tanh[a*T/c]
where
v = final velocity in planet's frame of reference (1.0 = lightspeed)
c = speed of light (= 1.0)
a = acceleration (1g = 1.03, 4g = 4.12)
T = duration of acceleration in crew's frame of reference (years)
Tanh[x] = hyperbolic tangent of x (in Windows calculator, check the "hyp" box and use Tan key)
{to make things simpler, the speed of light is set equal to 1, time is in units of years, and acceleration is in terms of light-years per year per year (ly/yr^2)}

Scout has four weeks worth of fuel. So it will use two weeks accelerating, coast to the destination, then use two weeks of deceleration to brake to a halt.

Two weeks = 0.03846 years

v = c * Tanh[a*T/c]
v = 1 * Tanh[4.12 * 0.03846 / 1]
v = Tanh[4.12 * 0.03846]
v = Tanh[0.1584552]
v = 0.157 c

How far did the ship travel in those two weeks?

d = (c^2/a) * (Cosh[a*T/c] - 1)
where
d = distance in light years (3.26 light years = 1.0 parsec)
Cosh[x] = hyperbolic cosine of x

d = (c^2/a) * (Cosh[a*T/c] - 1)
d = (1^2 / 4.12) * (Cosh[4.12 * 0.03846 / 1] - 1)
d = (1 / 4.12) * (Cosh[4.12 * 0.03846] - 1)
d = 0.243 * (Cosh[0.1584552] - 1)
d = 0.243 * (1.0125803 - 1)
d = 0.243 * 0.0125803
d = 0.003 light-years = 0.0009 parsec

So ship burns half its fuel, accelerates at 4g for two weeks, travels 0.0009 parsec, and has an ending velocity of 0.157 c.

Now, at the destination, it will require another 0.0009 parsecs and another two weeks to brake to a halt. This means the coasting distance is 1.0 parsec - (0.0009 + 0.0009) = 0.9982 parsec.

How long will the coast phase be?
0.9982 parsec = 3.254132 light-years
Ship's coast speed is 0.157c
3.254132 / 0.157 = 20.7 years

So the mission is:
Accelerate at 4g for 2 weeks. Ship will then have traveled 0.0009 parsec and have a velocity of 0.157c.

Ship drifts for 20.7 years, traveling a further 0.9982 parsec

Ship decelerates at 4 g for 2 weeks. Ship will travel remaining 0.0009 parsec and have braked to a halt. All fuel has been expended.

Bottom line: 20.8 years to travel 1 parsec.
 
Thanks Andrew. 'Struggling' is a relative term (groan).

I'm happy with Newton's equations, it was just the relativistic ones that bug me. So far, I've only been able to handle relativity at constant speed.
Hopefully, now I have Nyrath's examples and link filed away, I'll be able to find some quiet time in the not too distant future and get my head around them properly, so I can figure how long it takes anything to get anywhere at any speed or acceleration and rearrange to solve for any unknown, just as I can with Newton.

Thanks Nyrath. :)
 
Isn't the real issue how much space it would take for enough power plant fuel to run the life support on the low births for that long? You could design a ship with enough but most (all?) of the standard designs can't do it.
 
Isn't the real issue how much space it would take for enough power plant fuel to run the life support on the low births for that long? You could design a ship with enough but most (all?) of the standard designs can't do it.

A fission PP could do it.
 
A fission PP could do it.

Which rules out all the standard designs.

Fission PP under many of the rulesets are bigger and not significantly less expensive; this means the cargo space lost to the larger drive and fuel isn't made up for in reduced fuel space/cost. Therefore, unless you're in an ATU that lacks fusion*, very few merchants will even consider a fission PP.

* It could be done in an ATU by either making fusion not work during FTL, or by not permitting fusion, or by adjusting fission price down considerably (Keeing in mind that a cargo ton lost is approximately KCr120,000 in loan-life losses on freight; spec can easily be 5-10 times that.)
 
Back
Top