Space Station Altitude

[rgrove0172]

At what altitude are most orbital facilities perched? If its within the .1G threshold or about 5 x the diameter of the planet, stutterwarp vessels will find it hard to get there and even harder to leave. So does it make sense that most instalations, or at least those servicing starships, would be orbiting outside .1G? If so, isnt that a pretty high orbit? Thats about 63,000 km for earth or about a 6th the way to the moon or double the typical geostationary orbit. The international space station is only 400 or so km up.

If stations are lower down then would it be normal for stutterwarp craft to have to 'coast' on manuevering thrusters for several hours to reach a station from the threshold? Or would they instead remain in high orbit and require shuttles to come and deliver/pick up freight and passengers etc?

What do you think?

 

[shaunhilburn]

At what altitude are most orbital facilities perched?

Outside of the deadzone.

does it make sense that most instalations, or at least those servicing starships, would be orbiting outside .1G?

Yes.

If so, isnt that a pretty high orbit? Thats about 63,000 km for earth or about a 6th the way to the moon or double the typical geostationary orbit.

It's 13,776 km above sea-level.

If stations are lower down then would it be normal for stutterwarp craft to have to 'coast' on manuevering thrusters for several hours to reach a station from the threshold?

Yes, the vessel would rendezvous with the station at the perigee of a highly eccentric orbit. This means a thruster burn of several minutes to match the station's velocity, immediately before the rendezvous. It burns quite a bit of fuel and too much is happening in a short window of time, and requires very careful timing and execution which is why I don't think it would be very popular.

Or would they instead remain in high orbit and require shuttles to come and deliver/pick up freight and passengers etc?

Most likely.

 

[rgrove0172]

Ugghr, your right on the altitude of .1G, I was looking at the STL threshold figure. That makes a big difference but as you say, without a conventional drive, as most interstellar craft are designed, subtle maneuvering is a major pain so they would most likely depend on interface craft of some sort and just remain in a comfy distant orbit.

 

[McPerth]

Personally, I envision at least some of them (mostly cargo terminals) to be just at the 0.1G threshold, so that the time of stuterwarp discharge may be used too to load/unload the ships (see that this must asume the stuterwarp discharge is a safe operation.

As I also agree that docking the ship to the Orbital Terminal by using stutterwarp would be (at least) a diffciult maneuver, has occurred to you the possibility of using tugs for docking, as they are used in RW for sea ships?

 

[atpollard]

Looking at Real Life for some inspiration on Near Term sci-fi ...

... back in the early 1960's, a very big rocket in LEO blasting off for a trip to the Moon (and later a bigger rocket to Mars) was the preferred scenario. It was the simplest way to accomplish the goal.

... almost all of the recent plans to get a human on Mars (and many of the plans to establish a permanent presence on the Moon) involve fuel depots and space tugs and multiple intermediate stops with specialized craft for each leg of a journey.

Applying the latest exploration architectures to 2300AD and the Shutterwarp issue, I suggest that a fairly conventional rocket (large or small) lifts the payload (people, supplies, fuel, etc.) from the surface to LEO and a waiting space station. [as a practical matter, getting to LEO is the hardest part of any interplanetary journey].

From LEO, a space taxi/tug hauls the payloads back and forth between the LEO station and a second station/fuel depot located outside of the 0.1G limit - probably in a small halo orbit around one of the Lagrange Points. THIS is where Shutterwarp ships will dock.

If the system contains more than one major planet with a permanent human presence, then each world will have a surface to orbit system optimized for that world, a Low Orbit station/fuel depot, a taxi/tug, and a Deep Space (0.1G) station/fuel depot. For a world that sees infrequent visits, the stations could be either unmanned or manned with a token presence with all of the in-between transport craft springing to life only when approaching traffic is expected.

Just sharing some thoughts.

 

[McPerth]

I keep thinking that if you have an orbital cargo terminal just at the 0.1G threeshold, ships can use the discharge time (that is considerable) for loading and unloading operations, so speeding the stops and increasing the profit margin of their operations.

That's not to say most of the space stations are there, as sure most are not cargo terminals...

 

[Limburger59]

Having once been a member of the L5 society, I would have assumed highports would be at the Lagrange points. L1 and L2 would make for a longer shuttle rides, but they solve the gravity issues.

 

[SpaceBadger]

Stutterwarps still work at greater than .1G, it is just that their efficiency is reduced so much that they cannot be used for take-off from a planetary surface. IM23U, this means they are slow enough to be useable for orbital maneuvering inside the .1G limit, although fine maneuvering such as docking is done with attitude jets and the like (probably cold-gas thrusters).

This takes care of a whole lot of problems and allows discharge of stutterwarps while docked at a LEO station inside the .1G boundary.

 

[McPerth]

Stutterwarps still work at greater than .1G, it is just that their efficiency is reduced so much that they cannot be used for take-off from a planetary surface. IM23U, this means they are slow enough to be useable for orbital maneuvering inside the .1G limit, although fine maneuvering such as docking is done with attitude jets and the like (probably cold-gas thrusters).

In first edition (T2300) is said that above 0.1G stutterwarp cannot offset the gravity, needing thrusters for maneuvering there.

 

[rgrove0172]

Yes, I agree its pretty established that stutterwarp is next to useless if not altogether inoperable within the wall. But even if you elect to let them operate, how would you make it work. At such low velocities are they jumping only a few meters each time or jumping only a couple times a minute or something? Its just doesnt work at low velocities, better to stick to the original intent and shut them down.

 

[McPerth]

That's why I told about tugs helping those ships to dock, like in RW today they do with sea ships. Of course those tugs would not be stutterwarp ships, due to the problem you say, but thruster driven, so that they can make more precise maneuvers.

 

[rgrove0172]

Logical and I like the image it presents - a nice element when coming into a busy trade planet for business.

 

[SpaceBadger]

The Wall: The Stutterwarp wall is the point at which stutterwarp efficiencies drop to the point where they end up being slower than conventional reaction drives. They are, however, still usable. This occurs within a gravity well of 0.1 G, which is also the minimum gravity well required for discharging a stutterwarp. To determine the FTL wall for any system, use the following formula: R = 0.078 x Squareroot (M).

You can decide exactly what this means IY23U, of course, but don't give me any "well established ... next to useless if not altogether inoperable." That isn't what the book says.

 

[shaunhilburn]

Yes, I agree its pretty established that stutterwarp is next to useless if not altogether inoperable within the wall. But even if you elect to let them operate, how would you make it work. At such low velocities are they jumping only a few meters each time or jumping only a couple times a minute or something? Its just doesnt work at low velocities, better to stick to the original intent and shut them down.

This implies that a vessel without auxiliary propulsion is effectively marooned in the deadzone.



First edition is vague; saying that stutterwarp can "maintain an orbit", while second edition says it can *barely* maintain an orbit at 0.1G. Star Cruiser imposes a one movement point penalty to exit a planetary hex, which hints that a warp-driven vessel can exit orbit without thrusters. Interestingly enough, it also imposes a one-point penalty to enter a planetary hex. This one point penalty is significant since it consumes the entire movement allowance of a WE 0.5 craft.

I suggest that if the device operates at all, then it can climb out of low orbit given enough time (say weeks) with its orbit slowly spiralling outward until it finally reaches the edge of the deadzone.

 

[LemnOc]

In firts edition (T2300) is said that above 0.1G stutterwarp cannot offset the gravity, needing thrusters for maneuvering there.

Offsetting gravity, to me, implies it cannot achieve escape velocity, cannot achieve orbit. Not that it would be useless for maneuvering. That said, I wouldn't think the drive would be appropriate for very delicate docking maneuvers. Sort of like using a jackhammer to threat a needle.

 

[McPerth]

Offsetting gravity, to me, implies it cannot achieve escape velocity, cannot achieve orbit. Not that it would be useless for maneuvering. That said, I wouldn't think the drive would be appropriate for very delicate docking maneuvers. Sort of like using a jackhammer to threat a needle.

I'm afraid I disagree, as there are just those delicate maneuvers I don't see possible with stutterwarp, as I don't see the tunneling so precise for them. When you're using thrusters, you approach the station to dock at a low enough speed as for the collision to just hold you in place without damage for any (neither the station nor the ship), but when tunneling, you appear there, instead of closing to it, so you can easily appear (at least partially) inside the station (something not to recomend to anyone) or too far from it to dock, and, if we asume tunneling into a solid body is not posible (either by appearing at safe distance or by aborting tunneling where there's such a body), you cannot approach closer than a set distance (one tunneling).

And in any case, remember that when warping you keep your initial vector that, unless it matches with the station's, could lead to collision or your ship going away from the station.

 

[whartung]

I'm afraid I disagree, as there are just those delicate maneuvers I don't see possible with stutterwarp, as I don't see the tunneling so precise for them. When you're using thrusters, you approach the station to dock at a low enough speed as for the collision to just hold you in place without damage for any (neither the station nor the ship), but when tunneling, you appear there, instead of closing to it, so you can easily appear (at least partially) inside the station (something not to recomend to anyone) or too far from it to dock, and, if we asume tunneling into a solid body is not posible (either by appearing at safe distance or by aborting tunneling where there's such a body), you cannot approach closer than a set distance (one tunneling).

True but you could SW to within whatever reasonable margin of error is (100 ft/m). But I think the basic point of it all is that beyond the wall you would NOT do that simply because of the fuel costs involved in contrast to using basic thrusters. The way I read it is the premise is that while possible, it's inefficient. But it may well be faster to use SW over thrusters if you're willing/capable of burning the fuel to do it.

Then there's the concept of tugs to maneuver the last mile if you want to have SW capable ships without maneuvering thrusters.

 

[LemnOc]

I'm afraid I disagree, as there are just those delicate maneuvers I don't see possible with stutterwarp...

I believe that is what I also said, and so there is no disagreement.

 

[rgrove0172]

You can decide exactly what this means IY23U, of course, but don't give me any "well established ... next to useless if not altogether inoperable." That isn't what the book says.

By "dont give me" I assume you thought I was being condescending, I assure you that wasnt my intent. I was refering more to the opinions I have read here on this forum as far as establishing stutterwarp efficiency as miniscule within the wall, so much so they can barely maintain orbit and have to use some fancy manuevering to escape it.

 

[McPerth]

I believe that is what I also said, and so there is no disagreement.

Then I readed you wrong, so let me apologize for it.