A Question Of Maneuverability

[Bamax]

In video games like Elite dangerous, all vessels can do pitch, yaw, roll, forward, backward, up and down and even lateral thrust.



I am of the opinion that IRL spaceships often get by with less for the simple reason that they do not need full maneuverability.



I honestly think pitch, yaw, roll, up and down and forwards with side thrust is good enough.

Reverse thrusters would likely be weaker than main engines, and I suppose the main reason to or have them is if your main engine is poor st throttling down it's thrust (rather true with any rocket of good thrust nowadays).



On the other hand, if you have a scifi drive with both hight thrust and great throttling, I argue that you do not need reverse thrusters at all. You can maneuver like players do in the Asteroids game just fine, and if doing doing rendezvous just fly above or below to slow on aproach to avoid blasting rendezvous ship or station with exhaust. Afterward use up and down thrusters to line up, use side thrust if needed, and and let a docking port extend to attach. Done.



What do you think?



Both for scifi and real ife?


I am going to assume most spacefaring vessels in Outsider use full maeneuverabilty... right?

Can do pitch, roll, reverse, forward, backward, up and down, and sideward thrust. Obviously with forward having the main engine thrust and thus the most power.

[Arioch]

Some small spacecraft like satellites can control attitude using gyros, but most manned spacecraft use maneuvering thrusters/reaction control thrusters, which can also be used for minor velocity adjustments, such as when docking. Most spacecraft have no need for "reverse thrusters" when they can just rotate and use the main drives.

The only reason that a spacecraft would need "reverse thrusters" is if it needs to maintain attitude during the maneuver, or if the vessel is so large that it is slow to rotate. Some Loroi vessels do have reverse drives for both of these reasons.

[Bamax]

Some small spacecraft like satellites can control attitude using gyros, but most manned spacecraft use maneuvering thrusters/reaction control thrusters, which can also be used for minor velocity adjustments, such as when docking. Most spacecraft have no need for "reverse thrusters" when they can just rotate and use the main drives.

The only reason that a spacecraft would need "reverse thrusters" is if it needs to maintain attitude during the maneuver, or if the vessel is so large that it is slow to rotate. Some Loroi vessels do have reverse drives for both of these reasons.

What about the Tempest (Stillstorm's command vessel). Her ship is certainly not small, but am not sure if it has retro-thrust ability or not.

I presume the fighters might though (Talon and Spiral), purely for extra maneuverability.

[Arioch]

What about the Tempest (Stillstorm's command vessel). Her ship is certainly not small, but am not sure if it has retro-thrust ability or not.

I presume the fighters might though (Talon and Spiral), purely for extra maneuverability.

Tempest doesn't have dedicated retro-thrusters, but most of the newer Loroi heavies do. This is an adaptation for stand-and-fight warfare (so they can accelerate rearward while still firing forward) which is mostly a post-Semoset doctrine.

In addition to maneuvering thrusters, Loroi ships have twin main engines set out on pylons, so they can all rotate fairly quickly through differential thrust; the Floater vanes can also pivot to vector thrust. Smaller ships can rotate much more quickly than larger ones even if they have the same proportional thrust (the moment of inertia increases with the square of the distance from the center of rotation), and most fighter weapons have a wide field of fire, so fighters have no need of dedicated retro thrusters.

[Demarquis]

Insofar as combat is concerned, I would think that it depends on how the main weapons function. Self aiming systems like missiles can be fired forward and then orient themselves whichever direction they need to go. Lasers typically make use of mirrors that are gimballed like a turret. But any very large weapon that is kinetic in nature, like a coilgun, would need to be oriented along with the ship. In that case, a "reverse thruster" might be useful.

There is one type of drive, the so-called "ramscoop" starship, that wouldn't need one, since the EM field it uses to collect the interstellar particles it uses as reaction mass can be as easily used (some say, more easily used, but this is science fiction) as a brake. Just don't let the particles it collects leave out the rear of the ship, and they will build up in front like a bow wave.

I can imagine a type of drive that uses a series of small nozzles as the propellant outlet, rather than one or a couple of larger ones, as is typically depicted in artwork. If you arranged these nozzles around the perimeter of the ship, it would be easy to pivot them in the other direction, providing a braking thrust. By pivoting them independently, they could provide a way of implementing a variety of different maneuvers. I could a fusion drive making use of such a design.

[Keklas Rekobah]

Tempest doesn't have dedicated retro-thrusters, but most of the newer Loroi heavies do. This is an adaptation for stand-and-fight warfare (so they can accelerate rearward while still firing forward) which is mostly a post-Semoset doctrine.

In addition to maneuvering thrusters, Loroi ships have twin main engines set out on pylons, so they can all rotate fairly quickly through differential thrust; the Floater vanes can also pivot to vector thrust. Smaller ships can rotate much more quickly than larger ones even if they have the same proportional thrust (the moment of inertia increases with the square of the distance from the center of rotation), and most fighter weapons have a wide field of fire, so fighters have no need of dedicated retro thrusters.

How do the known Historian vessels compare in this respect to Loroi vessels of equivalent size/mass?

I assume their drives would be more efficient (requiring less fuel for a given degree of acceleration), as would be their DE weapons (requiring less fuel for a given degree of damage).

[Arioch]

How do the known Historian vessels compare in this respect to Loroi vessels of equivalent size/mass?

Car and Driver: "The Historians declined to submit a unit for test drive or even a list of technical specifications, so we will not be reviewing any Historian models in this year's roundup."

[Bamax]

Tempest doesn't have dedicated retro-thrusters, but most of the newer Loroi heavies do. This is an adaptation for stand-and-fight warfare (so they can accelerate rearward while still firing forward) which is mostly a post-Semoset doctrine.

In addition to maneuvering thrusters, Loroi ships have twin main engines set out on pylons, so they can all rotate fairly quickly through differential thrust; the Floater vanes can also pivot to vector thrust. Smaller ships can rotate much more quickly than larger ones even if they have the same proportional thrust (the moment of inertia increases with the square of the distance from the center of rotation), and most fighter weapons have a wide field of fire, so fighters have no need of dedicated retro thrusters.

How do the known Historian vessels compare in this respect to Loroi vessels of equivalent size/mass?

I assume their drives would be more efficient (requiring less fuel for a given degree of acceleration), as would be their DE weapons (requiring less fuel for a given degree of damage).

All you realky need to know is that for all the brillance of the Historians, the less advanced Hierarchy still took a world from them.

And I am betting in a fight Umiak vessels can even win against Historians.

Not saying it's easy... but far from impossible.

[Keklas Rekobah]

A Zerg rush will defeat almost anything.

Even then, I have reason to believe the Historians are better at snipe-and-run tactics than they are at adjusting strategy for sustained combat.

[Keklas Rekobah]

How do the known Historian vessels compare in this respect to Loroi vessels of equivalent size/mass?

Car and Driver: "The Historians declined to submit a unit for test drive or even a list of technical specifications, so we will not be reviewing any Historian models in this year's roundup."

You mean to say that no one has ever measured the radiated thermal energy for any change in velocity of a 300-meter Historian vessel? Did our favorite listel fall asleep on the job, again?

I am shocked!

Shocked, I say!

[Arioch]

You mean to say that no one has ever measured the radiated thermal energy for any change in velocity of a 300-meter Historian vessel? Did our favorite listel fall asleep on the job, again?

There is no radiated thermal energy to measure. The Historian vessels have reactionless drives.

[AlB]

It’s worth noting that essentially all maneuvering in space is orbital. Orbiting a planet or a moon or a star - whatever. And orbital maneuvers are not very intuitive for people who are accustomed to the rules on a planet. Forward is up, back is down, etc. For activities like docking, at least some lateral control can be very handy.

[Keklas Rekobah]

You mean to say that no one has ever measured the radiated thermal energy for any change in velocity of a 300-meter Historian vessel? Did our favorite listel fall asleep on the job, again?

There is no radiated thermal energy to measure. The Historian vessels have reactionless drives.

So their vessels would be difficult to detect, especially when the sensor op's attention is directed elsewhere.

Anyway ... sorry for the derail.

[gaerzi]

The Historians, in today's parlance, are mad sus.

[spacewhale]

You'd think you could use torpedoes/missiles themselves to improve your mobility, if they were racked in such a way that they could be turned on and off and used as temporary thrusters for the ship proper temporarily until being released at closer range to deliver the remainder of their payload.

[GeoModder]

You'd need a symmetric setup with this method though, not to mention the ability to regulatie their acceleration rate. Imagine only 'thruster racks' on the central part of the hull. Slowly but steadily the ship should move off-course if not for the ship's own laterale turnsters.

[Cthulhu]

You'd think you could use torpedoes/missiles themselves to improve your mobility, if they were racked in such a way that they could be turned on and off and used as temporary thrusters for the ship proper temporarily until being released at closer range to deliver the remainder of their payload.

Doing that would be utterly foolish:
1. The fuel is also the payload, which means that using them this way will decrease their strength significantly.
2. Given the size and mass difference between the torpedoes and the ships, the additional thrust should be negligible.
3. The torpedoes are obviously single-use only, I doubt that they have the mechanisms to shut down their reactors and then reignite them again.
4. The racks must be extended as not to burn the hull, but still fire the torpedoes forwards. However, they also need to be covered by the shields, and that would be a very problematic configuration.

[Keklas Rekobah]

3. The torpedoes are obviously single-use only, I doubt that they have the mechanisms to shut down their reactors and then reignite them again.

"When designing software for a smart missile, it is not necessary to include an 'Exit' subroutine." -- Anonymous military programmer

[spacewhale]

Doing that would be utterly foolish:
1. The fuel is also the payload, which means that using them this way will decrease their strength significantly.

Assuming you burn all the torpedoes to get speed, but if you're burning a subset, I'd see it as no different than using stages in a multistage rocket.

2. Given the size and mass difference between the torpedoes and the ships, the additional thrust should be negligible.

Depends on the size of the torpedoes and torpedo boat. You could presumably have outsized, heavy hitting munitions on a small vessel.

3. The torpedoes are obviously single-use only, I doubt that they have the mechanisms to shut down their reactors and then reignite them again.

I don't see why you couldn't turn them on and off, they are after all, just fusion drives. No rule stating you couldn't have them coast closer to an enemy, change attitude, and re-ignite later.

4. The racks must be extended as not to burn the hull, but still fire the torpedoes forwards. However, they also need to be covered by the shields, and that would be a very problematic configuration.

Pretty sure a single shot against a flying bundle of fusion fuel would be fatal either way, the goal behind using missiles as boosters would be to close the distance faster to fight in close range while still being able to deliver missiles on target. Once the missiles are free, no reason to worry about the racks extending outwards or not, they have no further payload, and could be jettisoned if necessary.

[Demarquis]

It's an interesting question, because the delta-v that is dedicated to missile thrust is added as payload to the mothership, so there is obviously a trade-off involved. By using the missiles as additional, one use thrusters for the mother ship, you are essentially maximizing maneuverability at the expense of offensive capacity. That might be handy while trying to escape, just don't expect to be as useful in any counter-attack after that.

As for the idea of the mothership thrusting toward the target, and letting the missiles close range with less delta-v, there is no principled reason why that wouldn't work, provided that the missiles and the launching craft are using the same type drive (that's not always the case, even in fiction).

This is the reason why "smart bombs" might be useful in space. The thrusting mothership uses it's own delta-v to create forward acceleration, the essentially throws the munitions out a bomb-bay door, before maneuvering away. The bomb has sufficient lateral thrust to home in on the target even if it tries to evade, but this still represents a lot less delta-v than a typical missile. This idea represents the closest I have ever seen to a realistic space "bomber" design (in this case, a dive bomber).