102 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Could be, even if the designers were just making the ship look like it had jet intakes.

[Laughing_Man]

Probably. But I don't see any cheap way to build an antiproton drive with thrust vectoring; might be easier to just build two sets of engines.

 

The Normandy design could conceivably use rotating engine pods, similar to the V-22 Osprey.

[Sartoz]

Not really. In space you can turn the ship any way you like if you're not using your thrusters. It's a logical conclusion that that holds true for FTL travel in Mass Effect as well, and so the ships can turn and decelerate even if traveling faster than light. 

                                                                                     <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>

 

That's the limitations of Newtonian physics, which cannot be applied in FTL.   Einsten's Theory of Relativity enters the picture.

 

What the writers forgot to mention, when talking about FTL speeds, is the time factor.  If one insists on applying real world physics to the discussion, then the concept of time dilation must be put on the table.  Basically, the crew of a ship traveling at speeds faster than light will age more slowly than the population on Earth.  For example: depending on the speed and distance, a spaceship crew can age 6 months while their children on Earth aged 30 years.

 

Here is a link to an excellent article that explains:

http://science.howst...elativity10.htm

 

That is why in sci-fi, good authors just use the concept of FTL  and leave its "effects" out of the story... much simpler that way. In ME:A, the Tempest  could simply use Warp Engines. This allows for front-end entry and exit... which makes sense. In other words, the Newtonian speed the ship traveled at before entering Warp is retained when it exits Warp.  Or, the writers can simply ignore this and have the artists create good looking cut scenes and the hell with "real stuff".

 

It's a game in a sci-fi universe, that takes current science levels and project "futuristic development", for story purposes. The whole thing "callapses" when the writers are inconsistent. Those like me that like hard SCI-FI, instead of fantasy sci-fi, find the novel irksome when the authors are clueless.

[AlanC9]

What the writers forgot to mention, when talking about FTL speeds, is the time factor.  If one insists on applying real world physics to the discussion, then the concept of time dilation must be put on the table.  Basically, the crew of a ship traveling at speeds faster than light will age more slowly than the population on Earth.  For example: depending on the speed and distance, a spaceship crew can age 6 months while their children on Earth aged 30 years.
 

Does that math even work for FTL speeds? At c you reach zero subjective time, right?

[Kabooooom]

How does one turn without thrusters? If there is no thrust the ship would just coast. There is no air friction like when you're in an atmosphere so a rudder-type part won't work.

Given the distance between stars the slightest bit of deviation would result in you completely missing the star system itself. If the distance is far enough you might miss the entire star cluster. Making turning maneuvers at that speed doesn't seem plausible. Even if it was somehow possible the nose of the ship would have to perfectly realign with the destination. There couldn't be so much as 1mm deviation. And as other have pointed out the in-game cutscenes do not show a ship arriving backwards. It's like some writer thought it sounded scientific, but didn't bother to coordinate it with the art and animation teams.

Is there an actual codex entry stating this or is this based solely on that one comment with the salarian sales clerk?

There are in-game dialogue and codex entries that mention the spin, yes.

And you're correct here that the slightest deviation would cause a massive off course trajectory change, but you're incorrect that spinning would do this. If you shut off the forward thrusters, and only applied lateral thrust to impart rotational momentum, there should be no vector sum that results in an angular trajectory change. The ship would simply turn around.

This is exactly why this method is proposed to work to slow down space craft in real life. The writers took the idea from real science, they didn't make it up.

[KaiserShep]

If the Tempest looked like the RDA Venture Star or something, dropping out of FTL ass first wouldn't look so weird, but when your ship looks like a damn airplane it kinda kills the effect.

[ViSeiRa]

The ship itself doesn't need to turn around and decelerate, it just needs to apply acceleration in the opposite direction which can happen in any number of ways (ex. thrust reversers)

 

 

These are thrust reversers deployed on the CFM56 engine of an Airbus A320

 

That's really not the most daunting thing in the ME universe anyway, that would be ship design... you'd design space ships like that only if you plan to fly them in atmo, in space you don't need wings or any kind of fin-shape stuff because there's no kind of aerodynamic force in space because there's nothing to react against.

 

If you need a good example of a quasi-"realistic" space ship, look at the Rocinante from The Expanse novel series or the TV Show

 

[SNascimento]

The ship itself doesn't need to turn around and decelerate, it just needs to apply acceleration in the opposite direction which can happen in any number of ways (ex. thrust reversers)

 

 

That's true, but the problem with this is that when we talk this kind of space travel, we talk about accelerating all the time, and not just keeping a steady speed (like airplanes). So if you accelerate half the trip, you need to decelerate with the same acceleration for the same amount of time. I'm assuming the reverse thrusters of a jet engine cannot produce the same amount of power as the frontal one.

[ViSeiRa]

That's true, but the problem with this is that when we talk this kind of space travel, we talk about accelerating all the time, and not just keeping a steady speed (like airplanes). So if you accelerate half the trip, you need to decelerate with the same acceleration for the same amount of time. I'm assuming the reverse thrusters of a jet engine cannot produce the same amount of power as the frontal one.

 

I wouldn't know the numbers TBH, but we can assume if thrust reversal does not generate enough deceleration for the same period of time that on-board computers can compensate for that by accelerating until reaching optimal speed (you do not keep accelerating for half the journey btw) and starting to decelerate when necessary.. maybe decelerate for 2/3 of the trip?

 

Bear in mind it's never about amount of time, it's about the amount of force needed to reach that speed, you need to apply the same amount of force in the opposite direction to stop.. time doesn't factor into this, you might take 10 mins to accelerate to that speed but 2 hours to decelerate.

[AngryFrozenWater]

That's true, but the problem with this is that when we talk this kind of space travel, we talk about accelerating all the time, and not just keeping a steady speed (like airplanes). So if you accelerate half the trip, you need to decelerate with the same acceleration for the same amount of time. I'm assuming the reverse thrusters of a jet engine cannot produce the same amount of power as the frontal one.

Why not simply point the engines in the opposite direction?

[KaiserShep]

Why not simply point the engines in the opposite direction?

No way am I paying overtime for some goon to install pivot joints.

[capn233]

What the writers forgot to mention, when talking about FTL speeds, is the time factor.

 

They didn't forget this, the codex explains that the mass effect fields result in no time dilation.

 

Does that math even work for FTL speeds? At c you reach zero subjective time, right?

 

If you try to calculate a time factor for a velocity greater than c you get an imaginary number.  For v=c, it is 1/0.

[ddraigcoch123]

So the reason the Normandy and the Tempest (amongst others) look like aircraft rather then space vehicles is because they need to look like really sexy fighters ships for aesthetic reasons  and also because they do land on planets so need to deal with atmo

 

Its true our imagining of 'space ships' is going to include a lot of aesthetics that we want as Sci Fi consumers, but that will probably not be the end shape of any 'real' space vehicle development, think more borg cube or of course huge contraptions that allow for spinning to create gravity

 

I prefer to think about the engine design being possible for 'reverse' as despite the codex I don't want to drop out of FTL arse first its just not a great visual...

 

As for new forms of FTL well we could be looking at the gravity wave engine, the space/time folding 'jump' drive or the space/time folding light wave engine   maybe...

[SNascimento]

Why not simply point the engines in the opposite direction?

I suppose you could. But the thing is, considering only FTL travel, it's so easy to turn the ship in space that why bother doing that?

[Helios969]

So the reason the Normandy and the Tempest (amongst others) look like aircraft rather then space vehicles is because they need to look like really sexy fighters ships for aesthetic reasons  and also because they do land on planets so need to deal with atmo

 

Its true our imagining of 'space ships' is going to include a lot of aesthetics that we want as Sci Fi consumers, but that will probably not be the end shape of any 'real' space vehicle development, think more borg cube or of course huge contraptions that allow for spinning to create gravity

 

I prefer to think about the engine design being possible for 'reverse' as despite the codex I don't want to drop out of FTL arse first its just not a great visual...

 

As for new forms of FTL well we could be looking at the gravity wave engine, the space/time folding 'jump' drive or the space/time folding light wave engine   maybe...

Yes, in reality the most practical approach to building space ships would be to use those large tunnel boring machines to dig out asteroids with suitable composition.  That would be far more efficient than constructing one from the ground up.  But then that wouldn't be very sexy to look at.  It's the rule of cool.  It's the same reason we're getting the Mako.  A sleek ultra-fast driving vehicle is marketable, even though doing that exploration could be done in a fraction of the time deploying in a shuttle.

[SNascimento]

A sleek ultra-fast driving vehicle is marketable, even though doing that exploration could be done in a fraction of the time deploying in a shuttle.

Funny thing, I was just thinking one of these days how unpractical carrying only a Mako is.

I mean, imagine you want to be dropped on a hotzone. With the Mako, you can only do it by land or using the Normandy/Tempest itself, with offers a much bigger target. The whole point of the Kodiak is that it could put Shepard right in the middle of the fight. 

We know there are Kodiaks in Andromeda. Versions that seems more advanced than what we used in the Reaper war. Where they came from we have no idea, but I hope the Tempest has at least one of them with the Mako. Or that the Mako can serve as a shuttle. 

[Wulfram]

Funny thing, I was just thinking one of these days how unpractical carrying only a Mako is.

I mean, imagine you want to be dropped on a hotzone. With the Mako, you can only do it by land or using the Normandy/Tempest itself, with offers a much bigger target. The whole point of the Kodiak is that it could put Shepard in right in the middle of the fight. 

We know there are Kodiaks in Andromeda. Versions that seems more advanced than what we used in the Reaper war. Where the came from we have no idea, but I hope the Tempest has at least one of them with the Mako. Or that the Mako can serve as a shuttle.

Plus there's extraction. Dropping the Mako might not be too bad, but if you're going to get back on board the Normandy needs to land which could be really awkward.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I suppose you could. But the thing is, considering only FTL travel, it's so easy to turn the ship in space that why bother doing that?

I didn't write the OP. Is the answer too simple?

[Laughing_Man]

Yes, in reality the most practical approach to building space ships would be to use those large tunnel boring machines to dig out asteroids with suitable composition.  That would be far more efficient than constructing one from the ground up.  But then that wouldn't be very sexy to look at.  It's the rule of cool.  It's the same reason we're getting the Mako.  A sleek ultra-fast driving vehicle is marketable, even though doing that exploration could be done in a fraction of the time deploying in a shuttle.

 

I'm not sure that using asteroids as space vehicles is such a great idea.

 

When you build yourself a watercraft an aircraft or a space craft, you choose the materials the craft is made of, you know approximately the pressures it can withstand, there are few wasted spaces, etc.

 

An asteroid on the other hand comes "as is", the composition of the materials, the size and shape of the asteroid, and the thickness of the "armor" are

never going to be optimal. All it takes is for you to miss one fault line, and your spacecraft will simply come apart next time you try to jump to FTL.

 

 

It is probably much safer for use as a space station.

 

 

Personally, I believe that the "optimal" shape for a Mass Effect based space craft is something resembling a submarine.

[Kantr]

You have a point there, SNascimento.

 

Our current (real) scientists have investigated at least two methods, which can achieve near light speed. Both have various problems to be solved like using massive amounts of exotic matter.

 

One method is the Krasnikov tube, but that requires a megastructure, which is not visible in the BTS video. It could also be an Alcubierre drive. That one creates a bubble that moves by contracting space in front of it and expanding space behind it. Some scientists argue that one cannot steer the drive, because the ship inside the bubble cannot send signals to the front of the bubble. Others calculated that anything inside the bubble cannot survive due to Hawking radiation.

 

That didn't stop SF writers to use them in stories.

 

Edited for clarity.

There was a recent paper that said that any ship travelling ftl in a warp bubble when said bubble is dropped it would sterilise every system visited due to all the particles caught up on the front of the bubble suddenly flying outwards at Near C

[TurianSpectre]

Probably found new technology

[Catastrophy]

There was a recent paper that said that any ship travelling ftl in a warp bubble when said bubble is dropped it would sterilise every system visited due to all the particles caught up on the front of the bubble suddenly flying outwards at Near C

Weaponizing propulsion tech. I like it.

[Laughing_Man]

Weaponizing propulsion tech. I like it.

 

Yeah... if you really think about the amount of energy involved in FTL, assuming there are no unknown physics laws that prevent it - a shuttle hitting a planet at an FTL velocity would probably be the cause for a cataclysmic event. I don't know if the planet would be destroyed completely, but it will probably be close enough.

 

The idea that every vehicle moving at FTL is more or less a planet-killer, is mind boggling.

If humanity ever manages to develop this technology, serious thought would need to be invested in finding out ways to mitigate this danger.

[Iakus]

I wouldn't know the numbers TBH, but we can assume if thrust reversal does not generate enough deceleration for the same period of time that on-board computers can compensate for that by accelerating until reaching optimal speed (you do not keep accelerating for half the journey btw) and starting to decelerate when necessary.. maybe decelerate for 2/3 of the trip?

 

Bear in mind it's never about amount of time, it's about the amount of force needed to reach that speed, you need to apply the same amount of force in the opposite direction to stop.. time doesn't factor into this, you might take 10 mins to accelerate to that speed but 2 hours to decelerate.

Also with an eezo core, we can make mass and gravity sit down and shut up, at least in a local area.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

As long as it's explained in a way that makes some logical sense (or as much as FTL travel can make logical sense in sci-fi to begin with) in-game, it can use magical pixie dust for all I care.