LAC on LAC warfare

Retraction

Cthia wrote:Use the grab method to kill acceleration first before making the turn. The turning radius should be a lot smaller then.

Should have been . . .

"Use the grab method "and" kill acceleration first..."

I'm not sure negative acceleration is possible while grabbing at the Alpha Wall, considering the proposed orientation.

tlb wrote:I do not agree, but why do you say this is "friction-induced"? Certainly you would flip the ship to make effective use of the gravity plates, but anything done to slow the ship's forward velocity is negative acceleration.

In context, I must distinguish between deceleration as a result of a closed system, the ship flipped and accelerating in the opposite direction. As opposed to the ship operating in an open system, by grabbing at something OUTSIDE of its closed environment.

Consider how much faster a dragster could decelerate if it can pull a 180 and continue its acceleration in the opposite direction, "in conjunction" with its parachute.

In engineering and the real world, you must rise above basic mathematics and concepts. You must consider what EACH object is doing, separately, in its own closed system, then apply that outside its system. Or you'll end up with collapsed bridges because you didn't consider what is going on outside the environment of the design.

cthia wrote:That is applied to the traditional method of slowing down. Jonathan's method could utilize both negative acceleration and "dropping the anchor" by pulling at the Alpha Wall. A Dragsters parachute.

I made the point long ago that we keep making the mistake of trying to pigeonhole MA inventiveness and solutions to fit with traditional technology. It isn't, it can't be, and we shouldn't bank on it. MA technology is a completely different paradigm, and their solutions go in completely different directions by necessity. It is their traditionally, centuries long, misaligned thinking which delivered the Spider Drive to them in the first place.

Doesn't matter how you slow down because the acceleration limit is based on what the crew can survive; not what the ship can do. The current spider ships are limited to about 250g at emergency power with the crew mostly in acceleration chairs. Even if the spider projectors could survive the mechanical or electrical strain of "dropping the anchor" the crew would be killed by the jolt of the stop. (And I seriously doubt the projectors themselves could take the strain of a hard stop from even as slow a 1 km/s - the momentum of a >9 mton ship, at even a speed that glacial for the honorverse, is vast)

And if you "dropped the anchor" while still pointed in your direction of travel you'd kill the crew at even lower speeds as you threw them violently against the ceiling!! (It's not the fall that kills you; it's the abrupt stop at the end)

It doesn't matter if your velocity is reduced by using the engine to accelerate back the other way or by applying "brakes" - either way there's an acceleration force (the same one that throws you against your seat belt when you slam your car's brakes at speed. Doesn't mater than it's a friction-induced force it's still acceleration throwing you around) And exceed about 250 gees acceleration towards the floor of the spider ship, from any combination of mechanisms, and the crew starts getting injured or killed.


Before I ran the numbers I mistakenly though that you could get around that by making a more gentle U-turn without killing your velocity. But you can't without vastly exceeding the force either ship or crew could survive.

There may well be some speed low enough that you can U-turn faster than you can cancel your accel and boost back the other way; but if so it's probably pretty low velocity. (Maybe if I get a chance this weekend I'll try to do up a spreadsheet where I can play with that and see if I ever find such a speed)

cthia wrote:Consider how much faster a dragster could decelerate if it can pull a 180 and continue its acceleration in the opposite direction, "in conjunction" with its parachute.

Well if the wheels retained their grip you'd stall the engine in an instant (assuming the transmission didn't blow up) they're not designed to fight the torque of the wheels spinning very rapidly the other way.

And I believe, like almost every other wheeled vehicle in existence, a dragster's brakes are stronger than its engine. So brakes + parachute is a harder stop than engine + parachute.

However in theoretical physic land, at velocities high enough that maximum braking force isn't enough to match the wheels' friction, if you could somehow add engine torque within in conjunction with the brakes you would slow down that little bit faster.

(But it's not an analogy for what a Lenny Det would be doing because the braking limit of the dragster would still be well short of what the driver could survive - hardly the case in a large spider ship)

cthia wrote:Retraction

Cthia wrote:Use the grab method to kill acceleration first before making the turn. The turning radius should be a lot smaller then.

Should have been . . .

"Use the grab method "and" kill acceleration first..."

I'm not sure negative acceleration is possible while grabbing at the Alpha Wall, considering the proposed orientation.

It all depends on whether the spider drive tractor beams can push as well as pull. But even if they can only pull, it could still work by reaching behind the ship to pull back.

tlb wrote:I do not agree, but why do you say this is "friction-induced"? Certainly you would flip the ship to make effective use of the gravity plates, but anything done to slow the ship's forward velocity is negative acceleration.

cthia wrote:In context, I must distinguish between deceleration as a result of a closed system, the ship flipped and accelerating in the opposite direction. As opposed to the ship operating in an open system, by grabbing at something OUTSIDE of its closed environment.

Why are you making an artificial distinction between a closed system (which you say results in deceleration) and an open system (which results in acceleration)? In either acceleration or deceleration, the tractor beams reach out from the ship and grab onto the alpha wall. Why do you think that there is a difference? Do you think that there is something inside the ship that can be grabbed to result in deceleration?

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:That is applied to the traditional method of slowing down. Jonathan's method could utilize both negative acceleration and "dropping the anchor" by pulling at the Alpha Wall. A Dragsters parachute.

I made the point long ago that we keep making the mistake of trying to pigeonhole MA inventiveness and solutions to fit with traditional technology. It isn't, it can't be, and we shouldn't bank on it. MA technology is a completely different paradigm, and their solutions go in completely different directions by necessity. It is their traditionally, centuries long, misaligned thinking which delivered the Spider Drive to them in the first place.

Doesn't matter how you slow down because the acceleration limit is based on what the crew can survive; not what the ship can do. The current spider ships are limited to about 250g at emergency power with the crew mostly in acceleration chairs. Even if the spider projectors could survive the mechanical or electrical strain of "dropping the anchor" the crew would be killed by the jolt of the stop. (And I seriously doubt the projectors themselves could take the strain of a hard stop from even as slow a 1 km/s - the momentum of a >9 mton ship, at even a speed that glacial for the honorverse, is vast)

And if you "dropped the anchor" while still pointed in your direction of travel you'd kill the crew at even lower speeds as you threw them violently against the ceiling!! (It's not the fall that kills you; it's the abrupt stop at the end)

It doesn't matter if your velocity is reduced by using the engine to accelerate back the other way or by applying "brakes" - either way there's an acceleration force (the same one that throws you against your seat belt when you slam your car's brakes at speed. Doesn't mater than it's a friction-induced force it's still acceleration throwing you around) And exceed about 250 gees acceleration towards the floor of the spider ship, from any combination of mechanisms, and the crew starts getting injured or killed.


Before I ran the numbers I mistakenly though that you could get around that by making a more gentle U-turn without killing your velocity. But you can't without vastly exceeding the force either ship or crew could survive.

There may well be some speed low enough that you can U-turn faster than you can cancel your accel and boost back the other way; but if so it's probably pretty low velocity. (Maybe if I get a chance this weekend I'll try to do up a spreadsheet where I can play with that and see if I ever find such a speed)

I was thinking more of a controlled grab. Meted. Pulsed. Akin to pumping your brakes.

cthia wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Doesn't matter how you slow down because the acceleration limit is based on what the crew can survive; not what the ship can do. The current spider ships are limited to about 250g at emergency power with the crew mostly in acceleration chairs. Even if the spider projectors could survive the mechanical or electrical strain of "dropping the anchor" the crew would be killed by the jolt of the stop. (And I seriously doubt the projectors themselves could take the strain of a hard stop from even as slow a 1 km/s - the momentum of a >9 mton ship, at even a speed that glacial for the honorverse, is vast)

And if you "dropped the anchor" while still pointed in your direction of travel you'd kill the crew at even lower speeds as you threw them violently against the ceiling!! (It's not the fall that kills you; it's the abrupt stop at the end)

It doesn't matter if your velocity is reduced by using the engine to accelerate back the other way or by applying "brakes" - either way there's an acceleration force (the same one that throws you against your seat belt when you slam your car's brakes at speed. Doesn't mater than it's a friction-induced force it's still acceleration throwing you around) And exceed about 250 gees acceleration towards the floor of the spider ship, from any combination of mechanisms, and the crew starts getting injured or killed.


Before I ran the numbers I mistakenly though that you could get around that by making a more gentle U-turn without killing your velocity. But you can't without vastly exceeding the force either ship or crew could survive.

There may well be some speed low enough that you can U-turn faster than you can cancel your accel and boost back the other way; but if so it's probably pretty low velocity. (Maybe if I get a chance this weekend I'll try to do up a spreadsheet where I can play with that and see if I ever find such a speed)

I was thinking more of a controlled grab. Meted. Pulsed. Akin to pumping your brakes.

Doesn't much matter. We're told that highest safe accel for the crew is (IIRC) 250 gees. And the ship can produce that all day long with normal usage of the spider drive.

So doing anything else is irrelevant as it can already accelerate (whether with, across, or against the current vector) at least as hard as the crew can take; using it's normal mechanisms. (I suspect it probably has at least 15-25% redundancy in propulsion; to delay losing acceleration in the face of battle damage or other unexpected failures. So I suspect in undamaged condition it can already accelerate harder than the 250g the crew can take)



Now of course the MAlign may, and presumably will, continue to improve their grav plate technology; which would permit higher ship acceleration for the same crew experienced accel. And they might look into even more capable acceleration couches or the like or even, as your earlier post speculated, further improvements in the heavy grav genome so the crews can take more gees.

All of those would of course improve the ship's usable accel. But none of them would seem to produce the need for a special braking mode.

tlb wrote:Why are you making an artificial distinction between a closed system (which you say results in deceleration) and an open system (which results in acceleration)? In either acceleration or deceleration, the tractor beams reach out from the ship and grab onto the alpha wall. Why do you think that there is a difference? Do you think that there is something inside the ship that can be grabbed to result in deceleration?

Fair enough question. The bottom line may be my inoperable ballast tanks.

My logic is based on certain assumptions. The main assumption is, just like traditional warships the Spider Drive's propulsion system is much more capable than its grav plates, and just like traditional warships, can theoretically attain velocities much greater than can be "compensated."

Impeller ships kill velocity by flipping the ship and accelerating in the opposite direction. Which uses an equal and opposite reaction to decelerate. But I characterize that as a different method apart from acceleration, since it involves flipping the ship.

Again, I assume Spider ships have to temper their acceleration as well, much lower than what they are capable of. In decelerating, I also assume they must use a variation of what is used to accelerate. My guess would be taking limited advantages of the Spider's legs. I would assume there are either smaller legs which are used for braking, or the legs protruding out to the side are used for braking. The legs protruding from the sides may not grab (reach) as far into the Alpha Wall as the larger legs extending forward. Or vice versa, shrug.

So, when decelerating, I am positing that all spires (legs) are not used. Like the brake and the accelerator on a car aren't normally used simultaneously. And both type warships' safe acceleration is always computer governed. The computer can also handle the radical maneuvers of a Spider.

Hence, my ballast tanks may be off-kilter because of my total lack of understanding Spider Drive technology.

If we consider the eight legs of an arachnid, they have varying functions. Their front legs are longer than the rear legs, but they use the rear ones to jump. The front legs are used for "grasping" their prey.

If you shoot a grappling hook which is attached to a massive rubber band a mile ahead of you, it's going to snap you forward far faster than one extending only half a mile.

cthia wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Doesn't matter how you slow down because the acceleration limit is based on what the crew can survive; not what the ship can do. The current spider ships are limited to about 250g at emergency power with the crew mostly in acceleration chairs. Even if the spider projectors could survive the mechanical or electrical strain of "dropping the anchor" the crew would be killed by the jolt of the stop. (And I seriously doubt the projectors themselves could take the strain of a hard stop from even as slow a 1 km/s - the momentum of a >9 mton ship, at even a speed that glacial for the honorverse, is vast)

And if you "dropped the anchor" while still pointed in your direction of travel you'd kill the crew at even lower speeds as you threw them violently against the ceiling!! (It's not the fall that kills you; it's the abrupt stop at the end)

It doesn't matter if your velocity is reduced by using the engine to accelerate back the other way or by applying "brakes" - either way there's an acceleration force (the same one that throws you against your seat belt when you slam your car's brakes at speed. Doesn't mater than it's a friction-induced force it's still acceleration throwing you around) And exceed about 250 gees acceleration towards the floor of the spider ship, from any combination of mechanisms, and the crew starts getting injured or killed.


Before I ran the numbers I mistakenly though that you could get around that by making a more gentle U-turn without killing your velocity. But you can't without vastly exceeding the force either ship or crew could survive.

There may well be some speed low enough that you can U-turn faster than you can cancel your accel and boost back the other way; but if so it's probably pretty low velocity. (Maybe if I get a chance this weekend I'll try to do up a spreadsheet where I can play with that and see if I ever find such a speed)

I was thinking more of a controlled grab. Meted. Pulsed. Akin to pumping your brakes.

Jonathan_S wrote:Doesn't much matter. We're told that highest safe accel for the crew is (IIRC) 250 gees. And the ship can produce that all day long with normal usage of the spider drive.

So doing anything else is irrelevant as it can already accelerate (whether with, across, or against the current vector) at least as hard as the crew can take; using it's normal mechanisms. (I suspect it probably has at least 15-25% redundancy in propulsion; to delay losing acceleration in the face of battle damage or other unexpected failures. So I suspect in undamaged condition it can already accelerate harder than the 250g the crew can take)



Now of course the MAlign may, and presumably will, continue to improve their grav plate technology; which would permit higher ship acceleration for the same crew experienced accel. And they might look into even more capable acceleration couches or the like or even, as your earlier post speculated, further improvements in the heavy grav genome so the crews can take more gees.

All of those would of course improve the ship's usable accel. But none of them would seem to produce the need for a special braking mode.

I actually meant to bring that up Jonathan, since in my previous post I touched on the very fact that so much deceleration is held in reserve, that either propulsion method shouldn't need any different mechanism to brake. However, at low speeds from a standing start, the grab method may hold an advantage, as far as cornering like its on rails.

tlb wrote:Why are you making an artificial distinction between a closed system (which you say results in deceleration) and an open system (which results in acceleration)? In either acceleration or deceleration, the tractor beams reach out from the ship and grab onto the alpha wall. Why do you think that there is a difference? Do you think that there is something inside the ship that can be grabbed to result in deceleration?

cthia wrote:Fair enough question. The bottom line may be my inoperable ballast tanks.

My logic is based on certain assumptions. The main assumption is, just like traditional warships the Spider Drive's propulsion system is much more capable than its grav plates, and just like traditional warships, can theoretically attain velocities much greater than can be "compensated."

Impeller ships kill velocity by flipping the ship and accelerating in the opposite direction. Which uses an equal and opposite reaction to decelerate. But I characterize that as a different method apart from acceleration, since it involves flipping the ship.

Again, I assume Spider ships have to temper their acceleration as well, much lower than what they are capable of. In decelerating, I also assume they must use a variation of what is used to accelerate. My guess would be taking limited advantages of the Spider's legs. I would assume there are either smaller legs which are used for braking, or the legs protruding out to the side are used for braking. The legs protruding from the sides may not grab (reach) as far into the Alpha Wall as the larger legs extending forward. Or vice versa, shrug.

So, when decelerating, I am positing that all spires (legs) are not used. Like the brake and the accelerator on a car aren't normally used simultaneously. And both type warships' safe acceleration is always computer governed. The computer can also handle the radical maneuvers of a Spider.

Hence, my ballast tanks may be off-kilter because of my total lack of understanding Spider Drive technology.

If we consider the eight legs of an arachnid, they have varying functions. Their front legs are longer than the rear legs, but they use the rear ones to jump. The front legs are used for "grasping" their prey.

If you shoot a grappling hook which is attached to a massive rubber band a mile ahead of you, it's going to snap you forward far faster than one extending only half a mile.

We have been told specifically by the author how much acceleration the spider drive can provide and it is more than gravity plates can reduce to survivable by a normal crew (however still less than a wedge and compensator). But it is acceleration that must be "compensated", not velocity; the maximum velocity is set by particle shielding at .8c in normal space.

The only difference between accelerating and decelerating is which way the tractors are pulling compared to the velocity. That is similar to the way a ship equipped with a wedge decelerates, in both cases the ship flips over and the drive produces acceleration the normal way; but now it is in opposition to the current velocity, so the ship slows. As an aside, it bugs me that a ship with a wedge has to flip to slow down; because that was not true of square rigged ships which could back sails ("Old Ironsides" did this in the midst of a battle to get an advantage). Whatever; it is not a different mechanism, because the drive is working exactly the same as it does when accelerating, the only difference is the direction that the ship is facing. There is no need for different size tractor beams on the spider drive ship, just as there are not different wedges used to decelerate rather than accelerate.

Forget about arachnid motion and elastic bands, the acceleration imparted is based on the power fed to the tractor beams.