According to information from these two articles: "Stutterwarp Technology in 2300" by Rob Caswell and Timothy B. Brown and "Stutterwarp Revisited" by Lester W. Smith, it is best to turn down your speed in the asteroid belt to avoid impacts you can't avoid (won't see the astroid before you hit it because your sensors don't work in FTL...). This then leads to questions about the oort cloud, that's up to a light year out and has the same dangers as the asteroid belt. How do all of you address this question?
Stutterwarp Question
- Thread starter nerdvana
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The Oort cloud - if it exists - would be so low density I wouldn't think they worry about it.
Depending on the trafic in a system youd be more likely to run into another ship.
Depending on the trafic in a system youd be more likely to run into another ship.
Grim Nefari
SOC-8
Just my two pennies to throw down, perhaps a little extra clarity for the topic and OP. Take from it what you will, including nothing 
The asteroid belt and Oort cloud are indeed very low density in all reality (this being in the Sol system; other systems may experience a difference in densities). The asteroid field/belt as depicted in The Empire Strikes Back is grossly inaccurate when using it as a comparison/visual reference for real asteroid fields. Remember, as always, space is a truly immense place that is nigh impossible to properly comprehend (or respect, IMO )
The asteroid belt and Oort cloud are indeed very low density in all reality (this being in the Sol system; other systems may experience a difference in densities). The asteroid field/belt as depicted in The Empire Strikes Back is grossly inaccurate when using it as a comparison/visual reference for real asteroid fields. Remember, as always, space is a truly immense place that is nigh impossible to properly comprehend (or respect, IMO
)I read somewhere that the mission controllers on the first probes to cross the asteroid belt were worried about collisions. (Check: just found the reference on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt#Collisions )
I guess they also had the empire-strikes-back idea in mind! (Edit: a decade before the film)
Goes to show what a little direct observation is worth...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt#Collisions )
I guess they also had the empire-strikes-back idea in mind! (Edit: a decade before the film)
Goes to show what a little direct observation is worth...
the belts
We really don't know. Statistically scientist can estimate that our asteroid belt is the norm but since we're really in the dark I think its just a safety factor Smith/Brown we're suggesting.
No reason to assume that there are "no" star wars asteroid belts only that they're not frequent.
We really don't know. Statistically scientist can estimate that our asteroid belt is the norm but since we're really in the dark I think its just a safety factor Smith/Brown we're suggesting.
No reason to assume that there are "no" star wars asteroid belts only that they're not frequent.
asteroid belts
You bring up a good point in a black and white scenario. How about belts where the asteroids have not completely encircled the star? Or extremely fast belts asteroids perhaps closer than ours to the star. I'm just saying we have a lot of assumptions occuring ...
You bring up a good point in a black and white scenario. How about belts where the asteroids have not completely encircled the star? Or extremely fast belts asteroids perhaps closer than ours to the star. I'm just saying we have a lot of assumptions occuring ...
Something I added in my 2300AD games is the "Castling Effect;" when a stutterwarp drive cycles, the space jumped into trades with the space jumped out of. It avoids pesky problems involving micrometeorites materializing within the ship or it's crew.
I've been wondering how a stutterwarp-driven spacecraft is supposed to match velocities or go into orbit at its destination, since most have no maneuver drive other than minor stuff for docking. It is my understanding that stutterwarp movement is purely a pseudo-velocity that does not leave any change in momentum from what the craft had prior to moving by stutterwarp.
How do y'all deal with this in your 2300 games? Do you just ignore it and let stutterwarp ships magically match vectors or go into orbit as desired at the destination?
How do y'all deal with this in your 2300 games? Do you just ignore it and let stutterwarp ships magically match vectors or go into orbit as desired at the destination?
See this link for one possible (and excellent) explanation:
http://www.aleph.se/Nada/Game/2300AD/Interstellar velocity Adjustment.pdf
http://www.aleph.se/Nada/Game/2300AD/Interstellar velocity Adjustment.pdf
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The need to match orbital vectors is actually a much better reason to limit the range of stutter warp ships.
It also explain the time spent in a gravity well after each interstellar hop - you are actually adjusting your velocity rather than the pseudo-scientific gravitic discharge in the rules as written.
Go too far without adjusting your 'real' vector and you will find you are now incapable of matching velocity with anything.
You always have the options of:
attaching a monster rocket booster (atomic preferably)
spending time falling towards a gas giant or star to reset your orbital vector.
It also explain the time spent in a gravity well after each interstellar hop - you are actually adjusting your velocity rather than the pseudo-scientific gravitic discharge in the rules as written.
Go too far without adjusting your 'real' vector and you will find you are now incapable of matching velocity with anything.
You always have the options of:
attaching a monster rocket booster (atomic preferably)
spending time falling towards a gas giant or star to reset your orbital vector.
Thanks for the info, both of you.
Do y'all require ships to follow one or more of these procedures in your games, or handwave it as a bother?
Do y'all require ships to follow one or more of these procedures in your games, or handwave it as a bother?
epicenter00
SOC-13
Both.
I have it factored in as a generic extra time that is spent to match your velocity and so on. What's really happening is that you're using your Stutterwarp to position yourself exactly in relation to a large local gravity mass (usually a local gas giant or star) and falling towards it at a vector, only using your Stutterwarp to make corrections to your final vector. Then you Stutter over your final destination once your speed is adjusted. After all, you can essentially "typewriter carriage return" with a Stutterwarp. Find a nice gravity vector, fall, then reset yourself at the top of it before you fall into the Gas Giant/get burnt to a crisp in the star, fall and keep doing it, without ever losing your momentum (at least until you hit terminal velocity).
I don't make people make piloting rolls to do this; it's just three hours added on to their trip to "match vectors."
I also use both. Generally I just embed the velocity adjustment in the overall stutterwarp discharge time. But some stars have extremely high radial velocities. They're just a pain in the neck to get to, and I will reflect this in increased travel times.
Barnard's Star, for example, is just a big waste of time to get to. Most ships just burn off their drives and keep moving through.
Cool, I like the added detail of this. Where do you look up info on the relative vectors of different stars like that? Is there a good source for real world figures, or do you generate that randomly when you generate system details?