?

penny wrote:A spider-drive’s available coefficient of friction will always be high enough to rip a hole in the ship, as well as rip out the tractors from the beginning of applying the brakes to the end. I don't think the exchange with the hyperwall would or could ever result in brake fade. Short of a malfunction in the system.

Actually, a spider-drive can stop on a dime (part of it anyway). Just not safely. Providing the brakes don't burn out. But the coefficient of friction of a spider-drive will always greatly exceed any need. The trick is to squeeze the most performance out of the brakes as possible. Pardon the pun.

All that an LD, certainly a g-torp, has to do is pull the emergency brake.

I do not think the analogy of brakes and friction is useful and have already explained what I think happens:

If the spider drive just grabs a single purchase point and tries to stop, two things happen:
1) there is a sudden jerk that may exceed human limits.
2) As the distance to the purchase point increases (as the ship or missile moves past), then the grip weakens until it can no longer hold on. In order to come to a stop, then you have to continually grab at new points.

Obviously a missile is not affected by point one as much as a manned ship, but the second point means that the rates of acceleration or deceleration would be roughly the same.

That is why the process of either decelerating or accelerating is the same: grab, tug and repeat until the proper speed is obtained (either zero or max).

penny wrote:
An automobile is never in danger of being overcome by the coefficient of friction. Slamming on the brakes even with oversized Bembo brakes and very wide tires will never result in damaging the vehicle.

(Pardon the long tangential ramble)

Though it can damage the tires. Lock them up at a high enough speed, and keep them locked, and you can wear a flat spot in the tires. They won't ride or handle right after that.



Though I do recall a performance driving instructor giving an interesting demonstration on the main straight of the track we were at. Swept around onto the straight at speed; locked up the tires, then with the brakes fully depressed proceeded to spin the steering wheel all the way over to right-hand lock, wait a moment, then spin it all the way back over to left-hand lock -- all the while we're still sliding in a straight line down the track. Then straightens it out and finally lets off the brakes.

An extremely vivid demonstration of how you have near zero control if you lock up the brakes.



(Later, after we got descent at the various threshold braking drills they also had us experience how ABS, good as it is, isn't a panacea. It was fun sliding sideways right off the track when attempting to use even ABS brakes in a max performance turn Wouldn't want it to happen on a road; but fun on a safe bit of racetrack)

Brigade XO wrote:The description of what the G-torps did at Manticore with the Hesperus sounded like they came in relatively slow (vs the various pod based weapons) and were almost hanging nearby when they opened fire and hosed the grazers around for 3 seconds.

Slow compared to modern MDMs, sure. But the text said that at least the g-torp that sliced Hephaestus's control platform was moving a 70,000 KPS (which is about 0.23c) -- I'd hardly call that "hanging nearby"

penny wrote:I really missed that fact. Thanks for the textev. But where would that data or chronometer have come from? Everything in the g-torp's range was completely destroyed. Somehow I was under the impression that the RMN only knew that something very powerful was let loose on the system. But I didn't think they knew that it was a result of a longer duration firing weapon as opposed to a more powerful weapon. Who or what ship was close enough to see the weapon firing? Recall that text during the Byng incident stated that any energy weapon would not have been seen? Or is that, would have been seen?

The stations and yards the g-torps attack were pretty shredded (and some of what was left of them then hit the planets) so you're probably not going to get much sensor data from them. OTOH those are hardly your primary space surveillance or defense platforms -- so there should be lots of Manticoran Navy sensors that survived Oyster Bay.

Just to start with the attack didn't go after any of Home Fleet's ships (other than a few who might have been at a targeted yard or station and become collateral damage) -- many of whom should have been in Manticore and/or Sphynx orbit -- so they'd get a nice close-up view of some of the attacks.

Jonathan_S wrote:

penny wrote:I really missed that fact. Thanks for the textev. But where would that data or chronometer have come from? Everything in the g-torp's range was completely destroyed. Somehow I was under the impression that the RMN only knew that something very powerful was let loose on the system. But I didn't think they knew that it was a result of a longer duration firing weapon as opposed to a more powerful weapon. Who or what ship was close enough to see the weapon firing? Recall that text during the Byng incident stated that any energy weapon would not have been seen? Or is that, would have been seen?

The stations and yards the g-torps attack were pretty shredded (and some of what was left of them then hit the planets) so you're probably not going to get much sensor data from them. OTOH those are hardly your primary space surveillance or defense platforms -- so there should be lots of Manticoran Navy sensors that survived Oyster Bay.

Just to start with the attack didn't go after any of Home Fleet's ships (other than a few who might have been at a targeted yard or station and become collateral damage) -- many of whom should have been in Manticore and/or Sphynx orbit -- so they'd get a nice close-up view of some of the attacks.

That makes sense, I suppose. I just didn't think even the firing of a ship's energy weapons could be seen, let alone seeing the energy release of missiles, from the discussion in the aftermath of the Byng incident in the Pequod System(?) after the space station Giselle was destroyed. As then, I assumed the only indication would be the bright-red explosions of the stations. Even from orbit and from aboard any nearby ships. Remember, I don't think the three destroyers involved in the Byng incident expected to see any energy weapons firing either. And everyone knew they detected no missile launch. But I'll take your word for it, as textev clearly states the longer firing duration is known. I suppose if sensors were trained on the station at the time, instead of out into space, they might detect an energy release.

I'll assume I misremember the discussion in the aftermath of the Byng incident.

Jonathan_S wrote:The stations and yards the g-torps attack were pretty shredded (and some of what was left of them then hit the planets) so you're probably not going to get much sensor data from them. OTOH those are hardly your primary space surveillance or defense platforms -- so there should be lots of Manticoran Navy sensors that survived Oyster Bay.

Just to start with the attack didn't go after any of Home Fleet's ships (other than a few who might have been at a targeted yard or station and become collateral damage) -- many of whom should have been in Manticore and/or Sphynx orbit -- so they'd get a nice close-up view of some of the attacks.

penny wrote:That makes sense, I suppose. I just didn't think even the firing of a ship's energy weapons could be seen, let alone seeing the energy release of missiles, from the discussion in the aftermath of the Byng incident in the Pequod System(?) after the space station Giselle was destroyed. As then, I assumed the only indication would be the bright-red explosions of the stations. Even from orbit and from aboard any nearby ships. Remember, I don't think the three destroyers involved in the Byng incident expected to see any energy weapons firing either. And everyone knew they detected no missile launch. But I'll take your word for it, as textev clearly states the longer firing duration is known. I suppose if sensors were trained on the station at the time, instead of out into space, they might detect an energy release.

I tried to give answer before, but you must have missed it:

All that is needed is for one of tugs (or any other ship in the vicinity) to record the beam slicing the length of an arm of a space station and that will measure the lapsed time of the slicing from beginning to end. The beam may not be seen, but the damage that it is doing certainly will be.

penny wrote:A spider-drive’s available coefficient of friction will always be high enough to rip a hole in the ship, as well as rip out the tractors from the beginning of applying the brakes to the end. I don't think the exchange with the hyperwall would or could ever result in brake fade. Short of a malfunction in the system.

Actually, a spider-drive can stop on a dime (part of it anyway). Just not safely. Providing the brakes don't burn out. But the coefficient of friction of a spider-drive will always greatly exceed any need. The trick is to squeeze the most performance out of the brakes as possible. Pardon the pun.

All that an LD, certainly a g-torp, has to do is pull the emergency brake.

tlb wrote:I do not think the analogy of brakes and friction is useful and have already explained what I think happens:

I was responding to the analogy which is first used by Thinksmarkedly. And it does have merit as he is correct that friction would cause heat. Heat can be seen. But I do not believe the operation of the braking system on a spider-drive creates any heat that can be seen, because a spider-drive has to utilize the principle to slow down and change vectors anyway. And we are not told that maneuvering compromises stealth.

tlb wrote:If the spider drive just grabs a single purchase point and tries to stop, two things happen:
1) there is a sudden jerk that may exceed human limits.

I think that is a moot point because the same thing happens when altering the vector in an emergency evasive maneuver. So the ability is already metered.

tlb wrote:2) As the distance to the purchase point increases (as the ship or missile moves past), then the grip weakens until it can no longer hold on. In order to come to a stop, then you have to continually grab at new points.

Neither of the two notions happen.

1. The distance to the purchase point is never increasing when decelerating. Visualize sliding your hand down the rail coming down the stairs in your home. The distance from you and your hand to the railing never increases. When accelerating, by necessity the purchase points are always further ahead. (Possibly as long a stride as possible). When decelerating, the tractors can simply grab the rails (hyperwall) that are closest to it. I'm simply proposing that since the mechanics are different and the efficiency of the process is different, then it might be possible to eke out more performance from the braking system. Completely new technology opens up completely new possibilities.

2. The connection will never weaken. You failed to grasp the gravity of the implication of an infinite coefficient of friction. There will never be any danger of brake fade. Short of a malfunction in the high performance braking system.

tlb wrote:Obviously a missile is not affected by point one as much as a manned ship, but the second point means that the rates of acceleration or deceleration would be roughly the same.

Not necessarily if my notion holds gravity, er, water. Since the tractors do not have to constantly reach out very far ahead of the ship after each microburst and can simply grab the nearest purchase point, then it might be possible to fine-tune braking with respect to grav plate limitations with a very low margin of safety. As in redlining the ability of the grav plates akin to redlining the RPMs when road racing.

tlb wrote:That is why the process of either decelerating or accelerating is the same: grab, tug and repeat until the proper speed is obtained (either zero or max).

But it isn't the same. You left out a stage. When accelerating it is: reach out very far, grab, tug and repeat.

When decelerating it simply becomes: grab, tug, repeat. Even the repeat stage might be eliminated if the initial grab can be varied without letting go. Akin to finding the pressure point of the braking system. Varying the grab simulates cadence braking on automobiles. Pulse -- anti-lock -- braking.

I am not saying any of my speculation is possible. I am simply cautioning the complacency caused from a made in Manticore mantra. I am still atop that soap box. We simply cannot throw the traditional book of Strategy and Tactics at what is possible with MAlign technology. I am simply pointing out what may be possible. That is what this thread is about.

Late edit: If applicable, I think any heat caused from the brake pads would be dispersed in hyper.

tlb wrote:If the spider drive just grabs a single purchase point and tries to stop, two things happen:
1) there is a sudden jerk that may exceed human limits.
2) As the distance to the purchase point increases (as the ship or missile moves past), then the grip weakens until it can no longer hold on. In order to come to a stop, then you have to continually grab at new points.

penny wrote:Neither of the two notions happen.

1. The distance to the purchase point is never increasing when decelerating. Visualize sliding your hand down the rail coming down the stairs in your home. The distance from you and your hand to the railing never increases. When accelerating, by necessity the purchase points are always further ahead. (Possibly as long a stride as possible). When decelerating, the tractors can simply grab the rails (hyperwall) that are closest to it. I'm simply proposing that since the mechanics are different and the efficiency of the process is different, then it might be possible to eke out more performance from the braking system. Completely new technology opens up completely new possibilities.

2. The connection will never weaken. You failed to grasp the gravity of the implication of an infinite coefficient of friction. There will never be any danger of brake fade. Short of a malfunction in the high performance braking system.

tlb wrote:That is why the process of either decelerating or accelerating is the same: grab, tug and repeat until the proper speed is obtained (either zero or max).

But it isn't the same. You left out a stage. When accelerating it is: reach out very far, grab, tug and repeat.

When decelerating it simply becomes: grab, tug, repeat.

Sliding my hand on a railing has NOTHING to do with the process of braking; if the spider's tractor does not grab the alpha wall then nothing happens. There is NO friction and that is why the analogy with a car braking is bad. If I grab the railing as I go down stairs then the distance from me to the grab point does increase, until I have to let go.

The mechanics and efficiency are NOT different. When accelerating there is no need nor indication that the tractor must reach FAR OUT.

But go ahead, believe whatever you want, since we do not have a detailed explanation from the author.

penny wrote:That makes sense, I suppose. I just didn't think even the firing of a ship's energy weapons could be seen, let alone seeing the energy release of missiles, from the discussion in the aftermath of the Byng incident in the Pequod System(?) after the space station Giselle was destroyed. As then, I assumed the only indication would be the bright-red explosions of the stations. Even from orbit and from aboard any nearby ships. Remember, I don't think the three destroyers involved in the Byng incident expected to see any energy weapons firing either. And everyone knew they detected no missile launch. But I'll take your word for it, as textev clearly states the longer firing duration is known. I suppose if sensors were trained on the station at the time, instead of out into space, they might detect an energy release.

Even if the graser itself was undetectable, it's described as slicing along the station -- the sensors would easily be able to see that continuous slice. And after the first instant the gasified bits of station structure would make that end of the beam visible to sensors as well.

However going back and looking at the Byng incident the remote platform that Tristram had left had a good enough view that Mike was able to confidently state that the three DD were destroyed "at pointblank range, by the massed energy fire of seventeen Solarian battlecruisers and eight destroyers" -- so presumably it showed enough info to determine that all of them had fired and it wasn't just Byng's flagship that killed them.
(Don't know whether it could see the beams, could see discharge or energy readings from the laser/graser mounts themselves, or just see the differing angles of impact on the DD and their debris -- but whatever the case that same level or detection at Manticore would be able to easily tell that the g-torp's graser beam lasted far, far, longer than normal.

And backtracking slightly Byng's captain knew that the station had been destroyed by a 200 k-ton nuclear blast -- not energy fire; so we don't know whether or not the SLN sensors could have detected energy fire. Even if they could he wouldn't have started off saying no energy fire was detected from the RMN ships because he knew the destruction was nuclear (and then Byng jumps to his lethally incorrect conclusions before allowing the Captain to make any further case that it couldn't have been the RMN ships)

penny wrote:

tlb wrote:2) As the distance to the purchase point increases (as the ship or missile moves past), then the grip weakens until it can no longer hold on. In order to come to a stop, then you have to continually grab at new points.

Neither of the two notions happen.

1. The distance to the purchase point is never increasing when decelerating. Visualize sliding your hand down the rail coming down the stairs in your home. The distance from you and your hand to the railing never increases. When accelerating, by necessity the purchase points are always further ahead. (Possibly as long a stride as possible). When decelerating, the tractors can simply grab the rails (hyperwall) that are closest to it. I'm simply proposing that since the mechanics are different and the efficiency of the process is different, then it might be possible to eke out more performance from the braking system. Completely new technology opens up completely new possibilities.

But that requires a) your hand to be able to slip along the rail and b) your arm to be able to work in compression as you push against the rail.

It's not at all clear that when the spider drive grabs against the hyper wall that that grab point can slip. That may be why each projector has to cycle so frequently, releasing one grab point and grabbing another further out. And it's also not at all clear that a drive built like an over-powered tractor beam is capable of pressing. Trying to slow down by grabbing a point ahead of you might be like trying to slow yourself by pushing on a rope -- doesn't work because the rope effectively only transmits tension, not compression.

Tlb seemed to be assuming that the spider only works in tension (which I also tend to assume). So to slow down you'd have to grab a point behind you, and apply force by pulling on it as the tractor beam stretch while you moved away from the grab point. (You'd then, presumably, need to quickly release and grab a new point closer to you and repeat the process -- each grab from each drive projector implying a brief force that collectively works to cancel out your base velocity)