Vacuum rated cargo haulage

[MasterGwydion]

There are other differences. Station keeping engines and bridges to name two.

Now can a ship be FUNCTIONALLY a station? Sure. The Lab ship is a perfect example. It could easily make one Jump trip (doing multiple jumps) getting to its destination system and never jumping again in its working life.

"Aside from that, there are no real differences between a space station and a ship."

Emphasis mine.

Ships do not require a bridge and nothing says a station can't have real engines. A mining station that moves around an asteroid belt would be an example of a station having real engines.

 

[phavoc]

Seriously? Do you plot courses better when you are spinning or when you are still? Do you shoot a rifle better when you are spinning or still? Why would you think it is easier to plot a course while spinning than while sitting still? Not only that, but now you have to hit the jump at exactly the right time or you may not even be facing the right way anymore.

Are you actually thinking about these posts or just trying to argue?

Ya, seriously. The spin imparts additional speed to the detaching object, flinging it faster away from the hull. It's a pretty basic concept.

I've shot a lot of rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers and long range rockets. Never once tried to spin while doing so. Is that something you've perfected, cause I've never heard of such a stupid thing before.

You do realize that while plotting your course under thrust, if you maintain the same heading that is one less variable that you have to take into account for your running plot? And also, do you realize that you have to drain the drop tank at the moment of jump, and inducing a spin does not cause your ship to make a heading change, thus you can eject the tank away from your ship faster without the need for additional measures? It actually has no effect on your jump plotting since spin is not a factor.

I do think about my replies. Do you?

 

[MarcusIII]

As to the 100D limit the maths works for the tidal affect for a planet...

Yes, I remember a couple decades ago or so Aramis worked out all stuff about this and posted it over on CotI forums

 

[Terry Mixon]

Recoverable drop tanks are a bad idea.

The next step is a powered drop tank that can maneuver away at reaction drive g thrust levels for a few minutes.

The finality would be a long hose to a refueling station, no jump ship would have to carry its own internal jump fuel ever again.

I built one of those.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Yeah, next thing you know Elon is landing his rocket boosters somewhere so that they can be reused! lol. It would be bad for the game though.

I tried the last part. The hoses have to be too long to work. A 50-meter sphere would need 5km of hoses. Couldn't find a way to make it work.

A sufficient UNREP system can make it work in 6 minutes or less. The end will likely be lost but can be replaceable.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Ya, seriously. The spin imparts additional speed to the detaching object, flinging it faster away from the hull. It's a pretty basic concept.

I've shot a lot of rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers and long range rockets. Never once tried to spin while doing so. Is that something you've perfected, cause I've never heard of such a stupid thing before.

You do realize that while plotting your course under thrust, if you maintain the same heading that is one less variable that you have to take into account for your running plot? And also, do you realize that you have to drain the drop tank at the moment of jump, and inducing a spin does not cause your ship to make a heading change, thus you can eject the tank away from your ship faster without the need for additional measures? It actually has no effect on your jump plotting since spin is not a factor.

I do think about my replies. Do you?

So, your facing direction has no bearing on your jump?

 

[MarcusIII]

So, your facing direction has no bearing on your jump?

Not according to any rules of the game

 

[MasterGwydion]

Not according to any rules of the game

So, your ships do not come out of jumpspace facing and travelling the same direction as when they go into jumpspace, or are you saying ships exit jumpspace backwards? I guess you could do it that way, I just don't know why you'd want it to work that way. What is the benefit to the game?

 

[MarcusIII]

So, your ships do not come out of jumpspace facing and travelling the same direction as when they go into jumpspace, or are you saying ships exit jumpspace backwards? I guess you could do it that way, I just don't know why you'd want it to work that way. What is the benefit to the game?

They come out of jump space without any motion except that matching the majority mass within 1/10 of a light year. So basically travelling the same velocity and direction as the star of the system they jumped into. Facing is random. All inertia is lost upon entering J space. There is no backwards or forwards in space

 

[MasterGwydion]

They come out of jump space without any motion except that matching the majority mass within 1/10 of a light year. So basically travelling the same velocity and direction as the star of the system they jumped into. Facing is random. All inertia is lost upon entering J space. There is no backwards or forwards in space

I have heard many others on here say that inertia and facing are conserved when exiting jumpspace. Is that not correct?

 

[MarcusIII]

I have heard many others on here say that inertia and facing are conserved when exiting jumpspace. Is that not correct?

These are my rules. I made them decades ago. I don't pay attention to the every shifting rule of 9 or so editions.

 

[MasterGwydion]

These are my rules. I made them decades ago. I don't pay attention to the every shifting rule of 9 or so editions.

If they are house rules, why are you responding as if they were RAW? House rules are fine, just make sure everyone knows that you are discussing something other than RAW so we can all be on the same page.

 

[MarcusIII]

If they are house rules, why are you responding as if they were RAW?

I wasn't. That was an assumption you made. Remember what happens when one assumes...

 

[MasterGwydion]

I wasn't. That was an assumption you made. Remember what happens when one assumes...

Did you state that you were speaking of house rules? If not, assuming RAW is a reasonable assumption. Unless your goal is simply trolling?

 

[rinku]

Editions have varied a little, but the usual concept is that vector is retained.

However, the realspace vector is not the same as the jumpspace vector. The ship could well be oriented away and moving away from the direction of the destination system in normal space. There is also the consideration of exactly where the ship emerges in relation to the destination. You might be moving away from the target world, but if you jump a little past it and to the side (to miss the jump shadow), you might now be heading towards it from the other side.

TNE, which returned to CT 1977 reaction fuel use, made a point of trying to line up the exit point such that the ship was already moving in the desired direction, to save on fuel.

High Guard (1980):


TNE:

 

[Condottiere]

You're going to hit the wall at a hundred diameters, so even hundred and one is a tad risky.

Also, you can change nose orientation while transitioning, since the jump bubble is basically still Einsteinian.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Editions have varied a little, but the usual concept is that vector is retained.

However, the realspace vector is not the same as the jumpspace vector. The ship could well be oriented away and moving away from the direction of the destination system in normal space. There is also the consideration of exactly where the ship emerges in relation to the destination. You might be moving away from the target world, but if you jump a little past it and to the side (to miss the jump shadow), you might now be heading towards it from the other side.

TNE, which returned to CT 1977 reaction fuel use, made a point of trying to line up the exit point such that the ship was already moving in the desired direction, to save on fuel.

High Guard (1980):
View attachment 6445

TNE:
View attachment 6446

I always knew that vector was maintained, but what about facing? You could be going in one direction, but have spun the ship as @phavoc pointed out above. If you enter jumpspace traveling in reverse, do you exit jumpspace still traveling backwards, or do you come out of jumpspace always facing the direction of travel?

 

[MarcusIII]

Did you state that you were speaking of house rules? If not, assuming RAW is a reasonable assumption. Unless your goal is simply trolling?

There ya go. On ignore for ad hom

 

[MasterGwydion]

There ya go. On ignore for ad hom

Bye troll!

 

[phavoc]

So, your facing direction has no bearing on your jump?

Your course doesn't impact your jump. Through the miracle of jump you retain your heading and velocity going into and out of jump space. That's what you want to try and keep going into jump because (and this is implied via the rules) your navigational system is plotting your jump path as you travel. IF you are maintaining your course and velocity then the calculations are less complicated. The same would be true if you cut thrust and spun your ship along it's axis. Your baseline course remains a constant. If you made your ship tumble and deviated from your baseline course then your navigational computer would have to work harder to correctly calculate your jump to be accurate.

So long as you don't mind be wildly off your planned arrival point (say a few hundred thousand Km's or even an AU or three...), then you could probably do more. Jump mechanics are not well defined, so it's really left up to interpretation on what would constitute variance in your arrival point.

I think I've answered the facing question below.