If Loroi Rocket Drives Were Real This Is How Exhaust Plumes Would Look

[Bamax]

Arioch takes great pains to use real science where it does not conflict with the fiction.

One of the things I like most about scifi is when it answers 'what if'. What if this were real? What would it be like?

So it is no surprise that I wonder the same about the long glowy rocket plumes I see so common in scifi media, not just here. Also in Elite Dangerous and just about every popular space sim nowadays.

Loroi rockets are so efficient they are arguably TOO efficient to justify the long glowy plumes seen behind them.

Why? Mass flow decides how glowy and visible out the nozzle an exhaust plume looks. With low mass (hydrogen for example or H2O) you won't see much of anything but a nozzle glow and perhaps a wispy transparent plume near the nozzle. Higher mass flow out the nozzle does tend to glow more.

Here is a video demonstration:

https://youtu.be/aB8knRvUywo


For example, let's say we use the uber-efficient Loroi engines....how much glow you really see depends on mass flow, annd in order to have high mass flow enough to see it then you need a LOT of propellant to burn at 30g in 100 hours.

Let's say you have a thousand tons of this super propellant (same as IRL Spacex starship) that would take up a lot more space inside vessels than depicted, unless the stuff is dense as liquid uranium or perhaps even more dense than liquid uranium.

Even then, if one does the math and divides a thousand tons by 100 hours one will see that these super engines only burn ten tons of this super fuel every hour.

Which means when looking at the nozzle anything you see coming out would be a lot less than ten tons. The answer I received from a calculator after dividing ten tons by sixty minutes was 0.1666666667.....whatever that means per minute is coming out the exhaust. If you viewed it from nearby you would see the mass flow per second, which would be even less.

Even the shuttles have the long glowy plumes, and I would like to think they lack the super-efficiency of the ships but I doubt that since torpedoes also use the same drives as ships to hit them.


Pointy rocket plumes in space seem strange due to a lack of atmosphere to pinch them, but then again I suppose with thrust this insane that may not matter, you can get pointy plumes even in vacuum if exhaust is going out high enough. Same reason plasma beams are a thing.....exhaust would just be much shorter range than the weaponized ones that focus plasma more.


At best. I think....wispy blue plumes may be in order, barely visible and throughly transparent.

No...maybe purple since it's fuel must be superdense, but still transparent.


I thought ironically that Babylon 5 did torchdrive plumes correct when Sheridan says 'ramming speed' during the battle for Earth. The nozzle glows but the plume itself is wispy and short. Looks more like a flashlight glow actually...only the barely visible plume indicates otherwise.

https://youtu.be/MXkIuVLnsFE

Missiles and shuttles both would look akin to flashlight glow out the nozzle due to high efficiency but low mass flow....no visible plume to speak of.

What if you are like, shut up Bamax! This could still look as it does in the story!

Well...yes, there are exceptions that physics WOULD allow for, but it would require other modications to the story like:

1. Loroi vessels and any other blowing long glowy plumes with uber efficiency must be much larger. You need a high mass flow rate to get the long plume glow, and since Loroi ships are too efficient as is, the only way to increase mass flow is to increase the amount of mass going out, which you do by increasing the size of the ship's fuel/propellant tanks and therefore it's overall size/mass. In other words, if they had a lot more than a thousand tons of superfuel, then likewise more mass flow would go through the nozzle and be visible as a long glowy plume. Something as massive as the Star Wars Deathstar would unquestionably generate a glowy and obvious plume if propelled via rocketry....even if Loroi rocketry.

2. Missiles and shuttlecraft are a hopeless case for long glowy plumes due to to low mass to begin with if they are using the torchship drive. Lightbulb look is the best they can do.

3. Still want long glowy rocket plumes on everything? There may be a possible exception that physics could allow for! Assuming superdense liquids are possible anyway. You would need super dense liquid fuel, denser than any known to man....even liquid uranium. Likewise you would need metal stronger than any known to man material to hold such a superdense material without breaking or leaking. Such a superdense fuel would allow for the way everything looks in Outsider without changing the appearance of anything as is. Only performance would be effected UNLESS RCS thrusters also use the same drive, because otherwise ships and missiles would be too mass heavy and take too long to thrust to justify using traditional cold gas thrusters or any comparatively weak IRL thrusters used IRL. You would need the same uber drive to run the RCS to keep all as seen in the comic.

Disclaimer: I am not suggesting Arioch change his illustrations, as I still like his comic since it actually does answer 'what if' in other ways...notably with Loroi culture.

I simply like to answer 'what if it were real'!

[dragoongfa]

I think that you are overthinking things a little; Arioch has made plenty of effort to make the setting as plausible as possible but it is still a fictional setting that never pretended to be a hard-sci-fi one. Furthermore, it being a comic means that the author has to take great lengths to 'show' events unfold, rather than tell. The drive plums are a great way to show movement and acceleration without clogging the page with needless clutter/exposition.

Otherwise, it's neat to see how some technologies presented in the comic would look like in real life.

[Bamax]

I think that you are overthinking things a little; Arioch has made plenty of effort to make the setting as plausible as possible but it is still a fictional setting that never pretended to be a hard-sci-fi one. Furthermore, it being a comic means that the author has to take great lengths to 'show' events unfold, rather than tell. The drive plums are a great way to show movement and acceleration without clogging the page with needless clutter/exposition.

Otherwise, it's neat to see how some technologies presented in the comic would look like in real life.

I do not think I am overthinking it, since by comparison the math I have done is simple compared to a lot more math Arioch has already done and displayed online.

It is just a common trope...influenced in large part by the way our much less IRL efficient chemical rockets look. Big on mass flow....also big on inefficiency.

Futuristic torchship uber-efficient rockets would not be so mass flow inefficient.

All I did was apply my knowledge of physics to the rocket plumes as depicted.

Even so I totally ignored thermodynamics....since that would change the comic beyond recognition. I just assume ships can take it, otherwise they would not exist. The easiest suspension of disbelief is when it is necessary to enjoy the story...like Superman for example.


I know fiction is necessary and even desirable. I don't have a problem with it. I was just curious.

That said, given the uber thrust Loroi vessels put out, you DO NOT want to be behind one as it is thrusting.

Low mass or not that exhaust will burn bad. It's likely going at relativistic speeds if real physics is applied.


What is evident.....as I worldbuild myself, is that Arioch obviously put much though into his worldbuilding.

As is, neither faction is weak, they would give virtually all the races in Babylon 5 serious problems in combat, the Shadows particularly would have serious issues because the Loroi are like Minbari on steroids for telepathy.

Even Star Trek would be challenged, only somewhat less, due to such nifty stuff like cloaking devices and Star Trek technobabble that can do whatever when you need it to just about.

SW should get totally wasted as a setting UNLESS neither the Loroi or Umiak could destroy the deathstar...which I highly doubt given imperial imcompetence.

[Krulle]

you are overthinking it.
Yes, the plume may be too long, but this is a visual media, and long plumes show that the engine is active.

Regarding the "being compressed together again": the plume is hot, and may emit energy signatures (Infrared).
The outer layers cool off faster (being dissipated first, and not receiving radiation from outside), thus only the centre remains visible as being hot enough.
Which returns the visible plume into the shown plume again.

There are other potential explanations....
It doesn't matter, as this is a comic, and people expect certain visible cues, and they are given those cues in an artistic way which clearly conveys the message of active engine exhaust/rocket engines...


Also, it is never a good idea to be behind a rocket when it is active.
Or in front of it, when the rocket is used to decelerate...
Because whatever matter is expelled to create the delta-V for the rocket will be zipping through the nothingness of space, until it hits something. And if you're in the path, it will hit you. And due to the very nature of the engine, that will be some high energy particles!

[Bamax]

you are overthinking it.
Yes, the plume may be too long, but this is a visual media, and long plumes show that the engine is active.

Regarding the "being compressed together again": the plume is hot, and may emit energy signatures (Infrared).
The outer layers cool off faster (being dissipated first, and not receiving radiation from outside), thus only the centre remains visible as being hot enough.
Which returns the visible plume into the shown plume again.

There are other potential explanations....
It doesn't matter, as this is a comic, and people expect certain visible cues, and they are given those cues in an artistic way which clearly conveys the message of active engine exhaust/rocket engines...


Also, it is never a good idea to be behind a rocket when it is active.
Or in front of it, when the rocket is used to decelerate...
Because whatever matter is expelled to create the delta-V for the rocket will be zipping through the nothingness of space, until it hits something. And if you're in the path, it will hit you. And due to the very nature of the engine, that will be some high energy particles!

For what it is worth Krulle, the Loroi ships obviously have wayyy over the amount of thrust needed to be an SSTO vehicle (single stage to orbit).

The engines inside atmosphere would indeed show a visible plume, but in space it would be less pronounced.

To be sure, for atmospheric operations the engine would have to lower it's efficiency on purpose.

Why? Super high efficiency at 30g will kill you via atmospheric friction, plus I am rather certain the exhaust would be be part death ray laser and part plasma, scorching everything behind it for a few kilometers.

You do not want to do that to the launch site.

Same reason why the most insane drives man has come up with (project orion and NSWR rocket by Zubrin) both are chiefly recommended for spaceflight only.

Obviously Loroi rockets can throttle down, but big mass requires high thrust no matter what, so the irony is that atmospheric flight burns more propellant than spaceflight as they have to trade efficiency for thrust.

Even as we do in real life. Yes a nuclear bomb blast via pusher plate is more efficient, but it is too dangerous, so we still rely on staging rockets which are less efficient but still have enough thrust.

The good news is often on planets you can refuel, so it is not a total loss if they do. Hydrogen and helium are common enough if you know where to look. Loroi just use super-science (fiction) to make them the super-fuel they actually use.


Regarding superdense liquid fuel...that may not be an option, as liquid uranium is molten hot liquid metal. Any denser liquid fuel as would be necessary for a Loroi drive using it would be hotter still.

So better left unexplained or via any other process you may figure, some of which options I discussed already.

[Krulle]

You do not want to do that to the launch site.

I agree!

Same reason why the most insane drives man has come up with (project orion and NSWR rocket by Zubrin) both are chiefly recommended for spaceflight only.

Since recently, whenever I hear "Orion drive", I'm thinking of this comic:

SpoilerShow

fc03596[1].png (65.53 KiB) Viewed 3466 times

source: http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3600/fc03596.htm, 21 May 2021

Obviously Loroi rockets can throttle down, but big mass requires high thrust no matter what, so the irony is that atmospheric flight burns more propellant than spaceflight as they have to trade efficiency for thrust.

Even as we do in real life. Yes a nuclear bomb blast via pusher plate is more efficient, but it is too dangerous, so we still rely on staging rockets which are less efficient but still have enough thrust.

I wonder if that's true, as most of the blast will go in directions where you cannot harness the blast energy. In space, the blast doesn't even have an atmosphere to push back against...

[Bamax]

You do not want to do that to the launch site.

I agree!

Same reason why the most insane drives man has come up with (project orion and NSWR rocket by Zubrin) both are chiefly recommended for spaceflight only.

Since recently, whenever I hear "Orion drive", I'm thinking of this comic:

SpoilerShow

fc03596[1].png
source: http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3600/fc03596.htm, 21 May 2021

Obviously Loroi rockets can throttle down, but big mass requires high thrust no matter what, so the irony is that atmospheric flight burns more propellant than spaceflight as they have to trade efficiency for thrust.

Even as we do in real life. Yes a nuclear bomb blast via pusher plate is more efficient, but it is too dangerous, so we still rely on staging rockets which are less efficient but still have enough thrust.

I wonder if that's true, as most of the blast will go in directions where you cannot harness the blast energy. In space, the blast doesn't even have an atmosphere to push back against...

No need to wonder. It's online. The knowledge.

Shaped explosive nukes. Puts a large part of the blast in one direction.

They can and know how to make them. Decades ago.

Project Orion is old cold war tech from decades ago.

[Krulle]

And yet never been put into use.
Not only because of the dangers....

The only advantage is the (impulse/weight of fuel), even regarding specific impulse there are better fuels.
Oh, second advantage: the stockpile of "old nukes" which can be used this way and thus reduce the stock.
At the price of new nukes being manufactured.
Which I think will not be an honest topic we want. I want a technology which is not based on a purely military tech....

And then you need a dampening mechanism, and this alone makes the minimum viable ship size >50t...

[Jagged]

And yet never been put into use.
Not only because of the dangers....

I seem to remember a quote from one of the designers who worked out approximately how many people would die from cancer due to the extra radiation in the environment from each launch, and decided it wasn't a good idea.

[Krulle]

The wikipage for the Orion drive refers to quite a few elements of the different studies...

But the main unsolved problem for a launch from the surface of the Earth was thought to be nuclear fallout. Freeman Dyson, group leader on the project, estimated back in the 1960s that with conventional nuclear weapons each launch would statistically cause on average between 0.1 and 1 fatal cancers from the fallout.

[...]
The vehicle's propulsion system and its test program would violate the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963, as currently written, which prohibits all nuclear detonations except those conducted underground as an attempt to slow the arms race and to limit the amount of radiation in the atmosphere caused by nuclear detonations. There was an effort by the US government to put an exception into the 1963 treaty to allow for the use of nuclear propulsion for spaceflight but Soviet fears about military applications kept the exception out of the treaty. This limitation would affect only the US, Russia, and the United Kingdom. It would also violate the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty which has been signed by the United States and China as well as the de facto moratorium on nuclear testing that the declared nuclear powers have imposed since the 1990s.

And that's just the "fatal cancer" cases. Fo every fatal one, there'll be ten non-fatal ones.
Modern treatments may result in a lower evaluation anyway.
But it's just an estimate, and coming from someone trying to sell the idea to get a test vehicle approved.


The article is, IMHO, very positive about the whole idea, and while negative aspects are mentioned, the article fails that today many things are evaluated differently, and thus the outcome of any evaluation may be very different that the 60's "technology, yeah!" approach.

And the negative elements are in the article "easily and cheaply" overcome by speculative technology (e.g. the electrodynamic tethers to limit the EMP effects; Lofstrom launch loop, or space elevator for first start elements to shift the "early fallout" from low nuclear explosion into the higher atmosphere).

The launch of such an Orion nuclear bomb rocket from the ground or low Earth orbit would generate an electromagnetic pulse that could cause significant damage to computers and satellites as well as flooding the van Allen belts with high-energy radiation. Since the EMP footprint would be a few hundred miles wide, this problem might be solved by launching from very remote areas. A few relatively small space-based electrodynamic tethers could be deployed to quickly eject the energetic particles from the capture angles of the Van Allen belts.

An Orion spacecraft could be boosted by non-nuclear means to a safer distance only activating its drive well away from Earth and its satellites. The Lofstrom launch loop or a space elevator hypothetically provide excellent solutions; in the case of the space elevator, existing carbon nanotubes composites, with the possible exception of Colossal carbon tubes, do not yet have sufficient tensile strength. All chemical rocket designs are extremely inefficient and expensive when launching large mass into orbit but could be employed if the result were cost effective.

Yet the article is negative enough for me.
On top, I don't want an industry mass-manufacturing nuclear bombs in any way...
Too easily misused for military purposes.
Hence I am happy the test ban treaties implicitly forbid the use of this technology.

[icekatze]

hi hi

If anything, the exhaust plumes are a little bit short, rather than long, since the exhaust velocity is near the speed of light.

Of course there are going to be concessions for viewer readability. Lasers are fired in glowing bolts, rather than being invisible to the naked eye, and engine plumes show motion in a similar fashion.

But the super science engines of the Loroi and the Umiak have a couple of things that contemporary rockets don't have.
1: A high powered, invisible energy field is interacting with the exhaust plume even after it leaves the nozzle. This excites the particles to an even higher energy state and also directs the flow.
2: The exhaust is caused by an annihilation reaction. It is quite possible that the glow we see is the elementary particles decaying further and releasing ionizing radiation.

[Bamax]

hi hi

If anything, the exhaust plumes are a little bit short, rather than long, since the exhaust velocity is near the speed of light.

Of course there are going to be concessions for viewer readability. Lasers are fired in glowing bolts, rather than being invisible to the naked eye, and engine plumes show motion in a similar fashion.

But the super science engines of the Loroi and the Umiak have a couple of things that contemporary rockets don't have.
1: A high powered, invisible energy field is interacting with the exhaust plume even after it leaves the nozzle. This excites the particles to an even higher energy state and also directs the flow.
2: The exhaust is caused by an annihilation reaction. It is quite possible that the glow we see is the elementary particles decaying further and releasing ionizing radiation.

As I stated before, whether you see much plume or not indicates just how much exaust is leaving the nozzle. Loroi drives are so uber efficient that the only way you are going to see much exhaust in space no less IRL is if they carry more than a 1000 tons of fuel/propellant. Since with only a thousand tons they only burn ten tons every hour, and if you viewed it you would be seeing a lot less...since that is ten tons divided by the second....and there are 3600 seconds in an hour.

So that is 0.00277777777 of ten tons you see every second. What that means I have no clue, but it will be a lot less than ten tons.

The less you see the more efficient the rocket is. A car for example, out the tail pipe you barely see anything and usually only on a cold day. Yet a car can take you to a city 80 miles away and back on a single tank.


A rocket is by nature a less efficient device as it trades efficiency for max performance as seen with IRL rockets.

To do the same thing with a rocket is more difficult without rocket staging (dropping used or empty rockets as you go), but rockets can reach much higher top speeds than cars.

[icekatze]

hi hi

As I stated before, whether you see much plume or not indicates just how much exaust is leaving the nozzle.

As I stated before, this is not correct.

Look at ion thrusters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thrus ... orking.jpg

.00027~ tons of mass every second is still six orders of magnitude greater than an ion engine's mass throughput. And the super science thrusters in Outsider are many, many orders of magnitude more energetic.

Edit: It should be noted that while the SSME has a combustion chamber temperature of ~3050K, after going through the nozzle with an expansion ratio of 69:1, the temperature drops to ~685K. That's not even hot enough to make iron glow red.

[Arioch]

If Outsider was meant to be a realistic simulation rather than a story, the beams and exhaust trails probably wouldn't be visible at all, and you'd never see more than one ship in a frame due to the extreme distances between them.

It's not.

[Bamax]

hi hi

As I stated before, whether you see much plume or not indicates just how much exaust is leaving the nozzle.

As I stated before, this is not correct.

Look at ion thrusters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thrus ... orking.jpg

.00027~ tons of mass every second is still six orders of magnitude greater than an ion engine's mass throughput. And the super science thrusters in Outsider are many, many orders of magnitude more energetic.

Edit: It should be noted that while the SSME has a combustion chamber temperature of ~3050K, after going through the nozzle with an expansion ratio of 69:1, the temperature drops to ~685K. That's not even hot enough to make iron glow red.

You are correct. I was not aware that ion rockets produced any plume at all....yet I saw a pic of a test in a vacuum chamber with a pointy plume no less.

Where the fiction begins is thermdynamics.

All plans I have seen for using antimatter rocketry produce end performance on par with nuclear thermal because to get both high thrust/high efficiency your engibe must tolerate impossible heat loads.

I say impossible because no known material to man can survive the temperatures needed for even a pure metallic hydrogwn rocket, let alone an antimatter one.

In all practical cases the AM is mixed in small amounts with a normal propellant, with efficiency similar to nuclear thermal rocketry.

So this can be ignored or forgotten, or we may assume Loroi have unobtantium alloys that can take that heat.

Better just ignored though....since the answer tends to ruin all of popular scifi as it leads to other worse assumptions and questions that only further break the setting and sudpension of disbelief given what I know about lasers and how much just about any directed energy wespon generates.

So I ignore it....since no story exists otherwise.

[Bamax]

If Outsider was meant to be a realistic simulation rather than a story, the beams and exhaust trails probably wouldn't be visible at all, and you'd never see more than one ship in a frame due to the extreme distances between them.

It's not.

I know it is. Nor do I wish it were totally realistic, as it would upend the entire story a great deal.

I hope you do not think I am pressuring you for that. I simply enjoy knowing what Loroi were capable of if they were real....it enhances the immersion factor for me.


As per what you said though:

Plasma beams would not be visible unless showing them as they fired or while they are hitting something, and the panel would show frozen in time images anyway.



Particle beams would be totally invisible other than a splash on the shield and a muzzle flash if looking ditectly at the particle cannon.

No such thing as a plasma beam 50,000 kilometers long, since it would travel at as best bolts before spreading out anyway,but too fast to see anyway unless a frozen image.

I reckon a ship would run out of plasma long before they sctually managed to fire enough plasma continuously to show a 50,000 kilometer beam.

As for weapon effects on hull that depends on lot on energy deposited on target.

If it is high enough to blow a hole clean through the hull but not enough to shoot directly through the other end of the hull, you could easily induce spin rotatation on a target ship, which does wonders for evasion....but in a bad way.

Watch it spin....and get shot to shrapnel. Like a galaxy of spinning debris.

[Bamax]

Interestingly, the closest IRL equivalent to a Loroi drive is the nuclear saltwater rocket designed by Zubrin.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear ... ter_rocket

If all went according to the proposed design and it works as Zubrin proposed it would, the main reaction that causes the high thrust/high delta v would happen OUTSIDE the rocket engine, likely in the nozzle area as it exits.

Thus his NSWR rocket achieves higher energies because it is ejecting reaction mass that does higher reaction heat than it could survive outside the vehicle instead of inside it like normal chemical reaction powered rockets.

Loroi rockets may be fiction, but in theory one could use the same principles as the NSWR with the type-A fuel.

To be sure one could actually get by using small amounts of type A fuel mixed with massive amounts of any chemical propellant you like. Hydrogen provides the most efficiency but not the most thrust. Higher density propellants provide higher thrust with lower efficiency.

While this obviously may not be as thrusty as pure type A used as both fuel and propellant, it is still a viable option if type A reserves are low.


Besides, if inertial dampeners actually reduce the inertia, in other words they reduce the resistance to a change in FORWARD motion to levels it would not have normally, you could actually STILL get 30g acceleration with less type A fuel mixed with larger amounts of helium or hydrogen.

All you need is advanced inertial dampeners and you could make our prmitive chemical rockets do 30g for a good while....since to the rocket, it's mass...or inertia whuch are virtually the same, would be less, and as all rocketry nerds know, light mass stuff can go faster and longer. Making a 5000 ton ship move like it is only 500 tons makes quite a difference in acceleration profiles and engine outputs

For what it is worth, during the cold war Sprint missiles were designed that did 100g....not for long, but just putting that out there. They designed successors that had even higher acceleration but were never flown. They were meant to be ICBM killers.

So sure, Loroi drives are fiction, but we can surpass them in some ways, and even have close equivalents in technology.

Combine Loroi scifi tech with any realistic design and the results should be kind of uber I think.

[GeoModder]

All you need is advanced inertial dampeners and you could make our prmitive chemical rockets do 30g for a good while....since to the rocket, it's mass...or inertia whuch are virtually the same, would be less, and as all rocketry nerds know, light mass stuff can go faster and longer. Making a 5000 ton ship move like it is only 500 tons makes quite a difference in acceleration profiles and engine outputs

So sure, Loroi drives are fiction, but we can surpass them in some ways, and even have close equivalents in technology.

Combine Loroi scifi tech with any realistic design and the results should be kind of uber I think.

All well and good, but said rockets will only sustain this 30 g acceleration while their fuel lasts... in other words, in less then 15 minutes they sail out into the universe, never to be seen again.
In comparison, the standard Loroi cruiser is supposed to handle 30 g for 3,5 days...

[Bamax]

All you need is advanced inertial dampeners and you could make our prmitive chemical rockets do 30g for a good while....since to the rocket, it's mass...or inertia whuch are virtually the same, would be less, and as all rocketry nerds know, light mass stuff can go faster and longer. Making a 5000 ton ship move like it is only 500 tons makes quite a difference in acceleration profiles and engine outputs

So sure, Loroi drives are fiction, but we can surpass them in some ways, and even have close equivalents in technology.

Combine Loroi scifi tech with any realistic design and the results should be kind of uber I think.

All well and good, but said rockets will only sustain this 30 g acceleration while their fuel lasts... in other words, in less then 15 minutes they sail out into the universe, never to be seen again.
In comparison, the standard Loroi cruiser is supposed to handle 30 g for 3,5 days...

Well yeah...unless the inertial reductors/dampeners are uber.

In such a case you could do pulse fire exhaust with chemical rockets and get 100g acceleration on a single pulse burn.

Still won't last as long as Loroi, but it kind of rivals them for max speed output.

The common fly can survive waay over the amount of g-force a human can take, all because it's mass/inertia is so low. It takes about 300g to kill a housefly, which is equal to the force of a housefly being crushed by a fly swatter.

So if inertial reductors could reduce the inertial mass by that much, then spaceships so equippef could similarly accelerate as if on steroids.

Notice how fast insects are relative to their size? How much ground an ant can run over despite being tiny and you know you cannot do the same if scales were equalized?

Same reason. Inertial mass reduction matters.

Granted, even Loroi do not have inertial mass reductors that good....bit if anyone did, you would not necessarily need a Loroi drive. Any prmitive rocket would do, but obviously the more advanced the rocket the less work/wear and tear the inertial mass reductors would have to put up with.

EDIT: If you put an inertial mass reduction field around a railgun as it fires, you can chuck metal rounds at Loroi beam weapon speed-high subluminal, relativistic even.

I do not have to tell you that a metal round moving at RKV speed is going to pack a lot more of a punch than low density hot plasma or even lasers. Since once the round is clear of the railgun it's normal, heavier inertial mass would return.

Think like dumb fire unguided Umiak missiles, only at relativistic beam speeds. The Loroi would freak out the moment it hits their shields, since it would do heavier damage at range than their more common beam weapons.

Of course the same uber tech could be used to shoot plasma at 99% lightspeed since plasma is already low mass and inertial reductors would only amplify that.

Neverending arms race, since the plasma could take out the RKV slugs.

Missiles be obsolete at this point LOL. Since you are chucking slugs at so high a speed that retroburning or even maneuvering a railgun launched inertial mass reducted RKV missile would be impractical as it would take too long. If it misses just fire another slug and done.


At least I may have discovered how scifi plasma beam weapons work by accident LOL.

Inertial mass reductors have oh so many uses.

[MBehave]

Outsider enegines can't be considered in "real" sense...
The amount of energy to create 30g of thrust for a 1200kt ship is absurd...(Loroi Vortex Mk.2)
~1.3megatons of energy being beamed out per second, this is far more energy then all the weapons each ship carries can consume.(based on outsider numbers to damage using terran 200kg kinetic slugs at 400km/s as the base comparison)

This assumes 100% matter to energy efficiency and 0 angle diffusion of thrust...
If the diffusion angle increases the energy output has to increase to compensate so either you have a pin point beamer or a aoe weapon.