150 réponses à ce sujet

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

I'm pretty sure movement on the space maps isn't meant to be to-scale and in real time.

Anyway, if Einstein was right about gravity, seems to me the ability to manipulate it might give you the ability to turn a space ship with the thrusters all in the back. You just need your gravity whahoozits to bend the space in front of you and you have your invisible roller coaster drive. Simple.

[Xarathox]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

I'm pretty sure movement on the space maps isn't meant to be to-scale and in real time.

Anyway, if Einstein was right about gravity, seems to me the ability to manipulate it might give you the ability to turn a space ship with the thrusters all in the back. You just need your gravity whahoozits to bend the space in front of you and you have your invisible roller coaster drive. Simple.

He wasn't. Modern physicists have concluded that Einsteins theory of relativity has more holes than an afghan sweater.

[streamlock]

Skirata129 wrote...

In ME2, when you're doing the whole galactic exploration and strip mining thing, your ship will accelerate when you push forward and will slow down and stop when you don't, taking up fuel the entire time you're moving. All well and good except for one thing.

Space doesn't have friction.

why does the Normandy stop and why do we need fuel to continue moving forward after we hit top speed? we only need it to accelerate and deccelerate.

Just because I'm stuck at home bored out of my mind.....

Assuming for the moment you can go FTL, and your have not turned your vessel into a huge particle collider rendering every little thing you hit into a deadly subatomic soup....

For a fast moving object, frictional drag can be calculated by the following- fdrag=-1/2CpAv^2
Where C is the drag coefficient, A is the cross sectional area, v velocity and p density.
And the power to overcome that drag P=fdrag*velocity
Work that in, and we get P=1/2CpAv^3

-Lets say the Normandy is fairly aerodynamic, with a drag coefficient somewhere around that of a Lier Jet C=.022
-Conservtively, the cross sectional area around 24.6 m^2
Don't want to take forever to get anywhere, so lets say your velocity is 10 times c (speed of light), so 2,997,924,580 meter s^-1
-Oh wait, space is not a total vacuum you say? This is variable, but on averege space has 1 molecule/atom per every square centimeter.  Given that the most abundent thing out there-hydrogen, has a mass of 1.00764 g/mole, hydrogen is diatomic, so every molecule of hydrogen 2.01528 g/mole.  One million molecules per cubic meter, 6.022*10^23 molecules per mole, some math, convert to SI units, and your average density should be around 3.346*10^-21 kg/m^3

And we have [(1/2)*(0.022)*(24.6m^2)*(3.346 kg/m^3)*(299,792,458 m s^-1 * 10)^3)] that works out to.....

If I have my units correct, 24,395,843 watts or roughly 24 megawatts of power just to maintain that velocity.

Long story short, space is not empty, there is little friction, but the power needed to overcome that little bit of friction increases as the cube of velocity, and the (fictional) velocities your refering to are pretty darn large.

And I have to much time on my hands and paid to much attention in class

Check my units, Mathcad and all my groovy software is at work.

[Rollsplitt]

Inutaisho7996 wrote...

It would be too confusing for people if the Normandy suddenly switched directions in the middle of flight. Just imagine that's what's happening and deal with it.

I always assumed that the "clawlike" ? things at the front of the wings of the Normandys (and the other military alliance vessels) were vectorizeable retro-exhaust of the thrusters . So the Normandy doesn't really have to turn when deceleration at peak-performance is not needed. 
Maybe this artifical "mass concentration" of the Tantalus drive is even pivotable in its direction of projection.

As for the map, I never assumed that it represented more than an abstraction of the normandys actual travel with a cool representation. I'd take the ME1 map back anyday. If I want newtonian space exploration I just go back to Star Control.

[SandTrout]

@streamlock

I bow to you, sir.

[Praetor Knight]

streamlock wrote...

Just because I'm stuck at home bored out of my mind.....

Assuming for the moment you can go FTL, and your have not turned your vessel into a huge particle collider rendering every little thing you hit into a deadly subatomic soup....

For a fast moving object, frictional drag can be calculated by the following- fdrag=-1/2CpAv^2
Where C is the drag coefficient, A is the cross sectional area, v velocity and p density.
And the power to overcome that drag P=fdrag*velocity
Work that in, and we get P=1/2CpAv^3

-Lets say the Normandy is fairly aerodynamic, with a drag coefficient somewhere around that of a Lier Jet C=.022
-Conservtively, the cross sectional area around 24.6 m^2
Don't want to take forever to get anywhere, so lets say your velocity is 10 times c (speed of light), so 2,997,924,580 meter s^-1
-Oh wait, space is not a total vacuum you say? This is variable, but on averege space has 1 molecule/atom per every square centimeter.  Given that the most abundent thing out there-hydrogen, has a mass of 1.00764 g/mole, hydrogen is diatomic, so every molecule of hydrogen 2.01528 g/mole.  One million molecules per cubic meter, 6.022*10^23 molecules per mole, some math, convert to SI units, and your average density should be around 3.346*10^-21 kg/m^3

And we have [(1/2)*(0.022)*(24.6m^2)*(3.346 kg/m^3)*(299,792,458 m s^-1 * 10)^3)] that works out to.....

If I have my units correct, 24,395,843 watts or roughly 24 megawatts of power just to maintain that velocity.

Long story short, space is not empty, there is little friction, but the power needed to overcome that little bit of friction increases as the cube of velocity, and the (fictional) velocities your refering to are pretty darn large.

And I have to much time on my hands and paid to much attention in class

Check my units, Mathcad and all my groovy software is at work.

Awesome, so 24 megawatts minimum.

That should be easy for tech in 2180's to produce more than enough power then. And we know fuel cells are involved with Ships.

So nuclear power is not necessarily required either, but it could be another source all the same for commercial vessels if fuel cells are expensive in the ME universe.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

At first I was like wha....then I was like wha...

[Xarathox]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

streamlock wrote...

Just because I'm stuck at home bored out of my mind.....

Assuming for the moment you can go FTL, and your have not turned your vessel into a huge particle collider rendering every little thing you hit into a deadly subatomic soup....

For a fast moving object, frictional drag can be calculated by the following- fdrag=-1/2CpAv^2
Where C is the drag coefficient, A is the cross sectional area, v velocity and p density.
And the power to overcome that drag P=fdrag*velocity
Work that in, and we get P=1/2CpAv^3

-Lets say the Normandy is fairly aerodynamic, with a drag coefficient somewhere around that of a Lier Jet C=.022
-Conservtively, the cross sectional area around 24.6 m^2
Don't want to take forever to get anywhere, so lets say your velocity is 10 times c (speed of light), so 2,997,924,580 meter s^-1
-Oh wait, space is not a total vacuum you say? This is variable, but on averege space has 1 molecule/atom per every square centimeter.  Given that the most abundent thing out there-hydrogen, has a mass of 1.00764 g/mole, hydrogen is diatomic, so every molecule of hydrogen 2.01528 g/mole.  One million molecules per cubic meter, 6.022*10^23 molecules per mole, some math, convert to SI units, and your average density should be around 3.346*10^-21 kg/m^3

And we have [(1/2)*(0.022)*(24.6m^2)*(3.346 kg/m^3)*(299,792,458 m s^-1 * 10)^3)] that works out to.....

If I have my units correct, 24,395,843 watts or roughly 24 megawatts of power just to maintain that velocity.

Long story short, space is not empty, there is little friction, but the power needed to overcome that little bit of friction increases as the cube of velocity, and the (fictional) velocities your refering to are pretty darn large.

And I have to much time on my hands and paid to much attention in class

Check my units, Mathcad and all my groovy software is at work.

Awesome, so 24 megawatts minimum.

That should be easy for tech in 2180's to produce more than enough power then. And we know fuel cells are involved with Ships.

So nuclear power is not necessarily required either, but it could be another source all the same for commercial vessels if fuel cells are expensive in the ME universe.

A nuclear power plant (even a tiny one) would be the most efficient form of power generation. Due simply to the fact that refueling isn't required as often as traditional fuels. The cost might be prohibitive for commercial and/or privately owned ships, but any military would be stupid to pass it up for the long term commisioned ships.

[Praetor Knight]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

At first I was like wha....then I was like wha...

I feel the urge to look for a yo dawg joke, but I won't :innocent:

[Fiery Phoenix]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

I'm pretty sure movement on the space maps isn't meant to be to-scale and in real time.

Anyway, if Einstein was right about gravity, seems to me the ability to manipulate it might give you the ability to turn a space ship with the thrusters all in the back. You just need your gravity whahoozits to bend the space in front of you and you have your invisible roller coaster drive. Simple.

Eistein's relativity does explain how gravity works but fails to explain what gravity is. Theoretically, manipulation and instantaneous travel could be done by "folding" or "wrapping" spacetime, which is mathematically possible through what we call wormholes. I emphasize mathematically, as creating an actual wormhole would require unrealistic amounts of energy.

[elearon1]

 Of course, this argument is made even harder by the following FACT 

[SandTrout]

Xarathox wrote...

A nuclear power plant (even a tiny one) would be the most efficient form of power generation. Due simply to the fact that refueling isn't required as often as traditional fuels. The cost might be prohibitive for commercial and/or privately owned ships, but any military would be stupid to pass it up for the long term commisioned ships.

Actually, certain missions imply that nuclear is actually the preferred means of propulsion for commercial vessels, due to the fact that their actual performance requirements are low enough that a fission power plant can be run at safe energy levels.

Military vessels, on the other hand, utilize high-performance anti-proton drives that can provide massive ammounts of energy in a short period of time, but are expensive to fule due to the expense in creating anti-protons.

[Praetor Knight]

Xarathox wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Awesome, so 24 megawatts minimum.

That should be easy for tech in 2180's to produce more than enough power then. And we know fuel cells are involved with Ships.

So nuclear power is not necessarily required either, but it could be another source all the same for commercial vessels if fuel cells are expensive in the ME universe.

A nuclear power plant (even a tiny one) would be the most efficient form of power generation. Due simply to the fact that refueling isn't required as often as traditional fuels. The cost might be prohibitive for commercial and/or privately owned ships, but any military would be stupid to pass it up for the long term commisioned ships.

That's true, I was just wondering how the energy can be captured. I'm aware that most nuclear power plants use steam turbines and I was wondering how that would work in space,
but I forgot that we can use Mass Effect fields for gravity!



and I also found another system that can use radioactive material: Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator


Edit: I did a bit of googling and I found these three snippets, the TOPAZ nuclear reactor, SNAP-10A and the SAFE-400

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 31 juillet 2011 - 09:51 .

[Xarathox]

SandTrout wrote...

Xarathox wrote...

A nuclear power plant (even a tiny one) would be the most efficient form of power generation. Due simply to the fact that refueling isn't required as often as traditional fuels. The cost might be prohibitive for commercial and/or privately owned ships, but any military would be stupid to pass it up for the long term commisioned ships.

Actually, certain missions imply that nuclear is actually the preferred means of propulsion for commercial vessels, due to the fact that their actual performance requirements are low enough that a fission power plant can be run at safe energy levels.

Military vessels, on the other hand, utilize high-performance anti-proton drives that can provide massive ammounts of energy in a short period of time, but are expensive to fule due to the expense in creating anti-protons.

For maneuvering and flight, yeah, anti-proton drives would be prefered. However, generating simple electricity like I intended my post to convey (I failed obviously) would be preferable to any type of power production using traditional means (like burning fuels) as using steam is far cheaper and more efficient. A single Uranium fuel rod lasts years, and the only element you would require to to keep generating steam is water (obviously). That's a substance seemingly abundant in the ME 'verse.

Sorry for the confusion though.

[didymos1120]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

 I'm aware that most nuclear power plants use steam turbines and I was wondering how that would work in space, but I forgot that we can use Mass Effect fields for gravity!

That doesn't really matter anyway.  All you have to do is create pressure which gets channeled directionally.

[SandTrout]

You make a valid point, Xarathox, I was just illustrating the details of the topic in the ME context.

[marshalleck]

I am the very model of a scientist salarian...

[Bazedragon]

Here we go again...

More amusing song spoofs in ME3, I hope.

Although, how would we mix rewriting lyrics and rewriting physics? ... wait, I don't want to know, it probably involves an army of Salarians and a single Hanar.

[Whatever42]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

The relays create a zero mass tunnel. If you have zero mass, you cannot interact with matter or energy. Just look at neutrinos.

That makes even less sense to me. Then the crew should phase through the ship or not be able to interact with anyone or anything during FTL.

Bah, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt, since I'm more than likely overthinking it.

Well... if you want the real answer to all of this... it's magic.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

 my post got ignored

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 01 août 2011 - 01:42 .

[TwistedComplex]

Skirata129 wrote...

In ME2, when you're doing the whole galactic exploration and strip mining thing, your ship will accelerate when you push forward and will slow down and stop when you don't, taking up fuel the entire time you're moving. All well and good except for one thing.

Space doesn't have friction.

why does the Normandy stop and why do we need fuel to continue moving forward after we hit top speed? we only need it to accelerate and deccelerate.

Because video games

Modifié par TwistedComplex, 01 août 2011 - 02:10 .

[mrklean007]

Any long-duration interstellar flight consists of two phases: acceleration and deceleration. Starships accelerate to the half-way point of their journey, then flip 180 degrees and apply thrust on the opposite vector, decelerating as they finish the trip. The engines are always operating, and peak speed is attained at the middle of the flight.

There's your answer. Someone already posted this on here, but it was buried in a bunch of text so I thought I'd put it out there to stand out by itself.

[AlanC9]

Regrettably, the cinematics show the Normandy and other ships coming out of FTL facing forward, not backward to decelerate.

[GlobalStrike]

Skirata129 wrote...

In ME2, when you're doing the whole galactic exploration and strip mining thing, your ship will accelerate when you push forward and will slow down and stop when you don't, taking up fuel the entire time you're moving. All well and good except for one thing.

Space doesn't have friction.

why does the Normandy stop and why do we need fuel to continue moving forward after we hit top speed? we only need it to accelerate and deccelerate.

Hey, it's bioware, they can do ANYTHING!