• 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.

Starport safety system

Two thumbs up for aramis's answer.

As to the 'falling like a rock' - sure, and it takes a rock some time to fall if the altitude is high enough. Un-streamlined actually having a potential advantage in atmo - since the only difference in speed is going to be due to resistance - the rate of fall from gravity being essentially identical. Streamlined with control surfaces still crashes in no atmo.

At low enough altitude, this isn't much different than a helicopter losing its primary rotors. Splat... most everyone probably dies.

At altitude, life boats should act like emergency ejection seats for jet fighters. Mostly, that works, though sometimes it doesn't.

Overall, the chances of such should be very low - this is basically synonymous with a jet airliner crashing in the RW. Most folks die and if the plane impacts in a populated area, more folks die. Sadly, it happens - a man-made risk travelers and everyone else takes in a modern world.
 
So, here's another question (tangential to this thread): What is the typical failure mode for an M-drive IYTU?

BytePro has accidentally(?) hit the nail on the head imo and maybe a bit contradictory to his own take for MTU.

Like most modern airliners the starship maneuver drive is not a single engine drive but a multiple. Even for a 1G craft it is typically at least two thrusters with two cross fed power plants. Most failures will be, at least initially, just one of the four with the remaining allowing sufficient maneuver to avoid an outright crash.

Of course as has been noted even airliners do crash, and so too then do starships, but far far less often. And despite general public perception airliner crashes are very rare events.

As for unpowered flight (falling) in MTU:


  • Unstreamlined can't enter atmo in the first place so their configuration is a moot point. And any unpowered flight (falling) in a vacuum (or nearly) is simple falling.


  • Partially/Streamlined in MTU may enter the thinner atmos and includes an emergency function similar to (again a nod to BytePro for the analogy) a helicopter with a failed powerplant or transmission in autorotation. A good pilot can coax an emergency descent out of the craft. This is an antigrav effect so it applies in vacuum also, but is not a feature of Unstreamlined hulls.


  • Streamlined/Airframe in MTU are lifting surfaces and can glide unpowered in thicker atmos. The actual glide ratio will vary with the specific design and load but is supported and backed up by the autorotation like antigrav effect noted above. Landing a "dead" Streamlined/Airframe is easier in a thicker atmo but still possible in thinner atmos or vacuum.

Even a total powerplant and maneuver drive failure won't immediately affect the autorotation like antigrav effect. It is an independent function and can operate off the emergency batteries for a short time which is probably long enough to crash land.

Only deliberate sabotage or extremely (criminally negligent) lax maintenance will see the autorotation like antigrav effect fail.
 
Last edited:
Loss of power (ex: Power Plant failure) would lead to the 'autorotation' type effect IMTU - well, actually its just a falling off of gravitic control as capacitive energy is depleted by the M-Drive.

Again, along the lines of what aramis described.

Catastrophic failure of the M-drive means nearly immediate loss of gravitic control - which means erratic gravitic force or none at all. Well, maybe a second or so while 'fields' die - again along the lines of the prior aramis post.

Overall, I think it would be more common for gravitic vehicles and personal transport devices to fail. Again, loss of power would likely have some built in and natural 'safety' margin.

Since I picture gravitic tech as more along the lines of solid state and multiple redundant, discrete system component architecture (i.e. like far-trader's thruster analogy, though I don't use such in the same fashion IMTU) - catastrophic failures would most likely be the result of physical force or extremes in temperature or the like caused by malicious or extraordinary circumstances.
 
Back
Top