Jonathan_S wrote:cthia wrote:The outbound transit lane?
All examples that are given are all single ship transits, and not at all like anything with the potential to become as messy as stacked mass transits. I simply do not see a wedge as being a finely-controlled method of nuanced propulsion. One minute separation when stacking for a mass transit doesn't seem to leave enough margin for error. Even when ACS has to stack 'em and rack 'em upon exit.
In Theemile's example at the toll booth, do note the constant stop and start action, controlled by the brake and the impulse power of the engines. The ship ahead of you is always unpredictable. The universe supplies lots of imperfect variables. Further hindered by the fact that no single ship can prematurely cross a certain threshold, lest it initiate a single transit.
Also note that the impulse power of a car's engine and the brake are a perfect combination. Impulse power does not overpower the capability of the brake in this stop and go environment. Much like what would happen descending a steep mountain if the driver is inexperienced. A wedge would seem to overpower the ability of the thrusters in a nuanced situation.
And again, each ship stacked for a mass transit is sitting in varying turbulence caused by grav waves heading into the junction. I can imagine mass transits being amongst the top situations which burn the most fuel where thrusters are constantly firing.
At any rate, it would be a sick joke to have a "no tailgating" sign on whatever passes for a bumper.
Couple things.
First, 1 minute separation isn't a mass transit. That's ACS's normal traffic minimum separation. If a mass transit is the Blue Angels making a formation take-off the one minute interval is the delay ATC imposes between airliner take-offs on a single runway (with a longer interval if you're taking off after a 747 or A380).
Second, whether the wedge (or sails) would overpower the thrusters would depend on what power setting the wedge (or sails) were set for. Remember that a warship's thrusters are capable of at least 150g (though you burn fuel like crazy at that thrust), as we saw at Cerberus. That's more than enough delta-v to correct minor deviations in velocity or position when the wedge (or sails) are set for low accelerations. (And again, when we saw Fearless do this she was accelerating at 20 g; 13% of what her thrusters alone could provide).
Third, the final alignment would happen under sail. It seems like ships departing from the Junction transition to sail minutes before transit (since they've got to accelerate down that final 90,000 km under sail). As mentioned before we're not sure if sails have better station keeping capabilities than wedges.
Still, for a mass transit you probably use even lower accelerations than a single ship, to give time to get everybody into whatever alignment is required. And that means your thrusters are even more capable of braking (or sidestepping) against the sail; given its minimal power settings.
And as for the risk of crowding and causing a mass transit; I don't think that's a concern under ACS's normal rules. We saw smaller warships hitting 10 seconds intervals without triggering a mass transit. I suspect you'd need to be much closer and triggering your hyper generator within fractions of a second in order to mass transit. So the normal 60 second interval leave vast amounts of safety margin against minor errors in position and velocity. (And most civilian ships going through would be large enough, over 2.5 mtons, to force a longer interval since their transit will lock the Junction down over 60 seconds anyway; so ACS will have them at a larger interval. Dispatch boats, yachts, or liners are smaller, but even most small freighters seem to be in the 3 - 4 mton range)
Every explanation is appreciated, but in every explanation something seems off. Something very important appears to be missing.
Each single translation is instantaneous as we've discussed before. There must be a point where the transit can be initiated - which is the point where the transit lane begins to "bite" upstream. Yet, how can this happen simultaneously for each ship in a mass transit. And if it doesn't happen for each ship simultaneously, then how can each ship be part of the mass transit. Think of a 100 meter dash in the Olympics. It seems that all of the runners must cross the finish line in a "photo finish" to be a part of the mass transit.
It seems obvious that the "bite" will occur for the leading ships in the formation before the ships bringing up the rear. Which means the forward ships will be "riding the bite." (I can't shake the image of riding the clutch on a manual shift auto, thus experiencing more wear and tear. You can destroy your clutch if you ride it too long before shifting.)
One possible explanation is that once the lead ships trigger the transit, all ships in the lane will be considered as one transit even though each ship is significantly farther apart than the time it takes for a single ship to actually transit, i.e., each ship somehow holds the door open? Seems weird.
A second explanation which is more likely is that after each ship is accelerating down the transit lane, each one has to initiate it's hyper drive within micro-milliseconds of each other. I can accept that that is possible and that time isn't being screwed with by the WH at that point. But there will still be some ship's that will have to "ride the clutch."
Back to Theemile's toll-booth. I can't shake real world specifics. First off, I realize it isn't a perfect analogy. Believe me, I have a lot of experience with imperfect analogies. I realize it is simply meant to get us all on the same page and right track. In that same manner, it also works just fine to illustrate my own concerns.
As in a toll booth situation there are "incidents." Let's say a ship's sail fails (akin to an engine failing in traffic), then what? All ships are launched down the transit lane and suddenly there's a failure in some ship's sails. Depending on where that ship is located in this stacked mess, there's going to be a pileup. Ships running into each other is a real concern for ACS. We've only heard about ACS's concerns specifically upon exiting, but there seems to be just as much of a possibility upon transit. Malfunctions will be out of ACS's control.
Consider the transit lane is the runway of a carrier which is 90k kilometers long and wide enough to stack a massive launch. The point that the lane bites for the runway is when the jets reach the correct speed. But, when there is a malfunction on a carrier, oftentimes the jet has to ditch into the ocean. Technology simply isn't always accommodating where it will fail at convenient times. There WILL be failures while in the transit lane. But where and how will the ship "ditch" without causing a massive pileup. Similar to exiting a formation after being hit with a missile in the middle of a battle and causing domino collisions. Do note, I did not say "abort" - but "ditch" - formation. Abort and ditch are two separate things. One cannot be achieved without the other. Turning off your hyper generator MUST be followed by ditching. But ditch where, and how, amidst this stacked mess?
It appears as it an attacker only has to target the leading ships even if they are only screening elements. Their debris could cause a massive pileup, especially if none of the ships have reached the "bite.
