Attempt to explain propulsion as it exists in Elite

[tresch]

So, there's a huge discussion going on in the gameplay forums about newtonian physics in space flight, with different people arguing about the 'speed limit' and things like that in the game, based on their various gameplay vs. realism vs. technology reasoning.

I know that Elite is not going to be perfectly newtonian, and I'm okay with that. So, what I like to do, is to attempt to describe valid reasoning for systems that are in place. I think this is a fun thing that isn't explored much in video games, which is to think of a gameplay need, then invent some physics that allows it to exist, and then simulating those physics. You get the nuance of physically simulated systems without necessarily having to adhere to normal reality

Also, it's just fun to think about technobabble.

I made this post in that other thread, and then after thinking about it some more, realizing I really liked the idea, and also realizing that it would be completely lost in that other thread, I decided the crew in this forum might be a little more interested in hearing the idea. Heck, maybe Frontier will like it and make it canon to hush all the arguing for good. WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE

SO HERE WE GO

How Thrusters Work in Elite (maybe)

Why not just newtonian?

Using standard combustion rocket engines to travel in space is very inefficient. There's no way that the ships of the sizes and masses that exist in Elite could possibly fly around with what we consider to be conventional "thrusters" that move the ship around purely by expelling gas in different directions. The types of accelerations we're talking about, and the ability to sustain them, would require fuels that burn with energy that is many orders of magnitude better than anything we can even currently theorize.

It just can't work like this. It's got to be some other mechanism.

Okay, so what then?

the engines in Elite then, perhaps, operate on different levels of physics, somewhat in the same vein as the Frame Shift Drive itself. These engine operate by pushing against a medium of particles that is otherwise intangible to us, in the universe.

In a sense, the ships are somewhat like submarines.

Boats?

Yeah boats, floating on, or submerging in, a four-dimensional ocean.

It might be easier to understand in a three dimensional analog. imagine a vessel, free from gravity, floating over an ocean. There is no air above the ocean, just empty space. You could float over this ocean all day without expending any energy, and if you wanted to change your velocity, you could just reach down to the water and 'paddle.'

The upshot is that it is very efficient to accelerate the ship by pressing against this unseen medium. This means we can get around for a long time, almost indefinitely, on a very small amount of fuel. The downside of it is that the parts of the ship that are energized in a way to interact with it, or 'submerged' in it, also suffer the opposite effect, which is a significant amount of drag. At a certain point the drag outweighs the thrust, and you can't go any faster just by paddling.

Okay, but what about the fact that everything is moving super fast relative to other things?

Okay, now imagine that this ocean is infinitely deep, and there are currents in it at different depths, running in an infinite number of directions, running an infinite number of speeds. If you could "dive" down to the depth that just happened to be going in the direction you wanted at the speed you wanted, you could just ride along like you were sitting still while the universe zipped past you.

So, this quantum 4-dimensional ocean has currents flowing in every direction at every speed, and which one you interact with changes based on how you observe it, in a sense. The frame shift drive exploits this behavior to allow the ship to travel quickly through the system, by essentially "submerging" the entire ship within the medium, and then 'diving' to a different reference frame, at which point they are magically being carried away in the currents of the dark-matter-soup. (alternatively, imagine a hot-air balloon rising up to meet different wind currents to carry it in a desired direction)

and then you come back to the surface to dock!

Right. Once you've arrived at your destination, the frame shift drive brings the ship back out of the ocean, the ship is free from the sludge and floating through space as frictionless as normal. Except, now you're floating above the ocean again, and you can't change your velocity, without "dipping" your engines back into the water.

The end result being very efficient operation, but that it also requires a constant amount of force to be applied to keep the ship at speed relative to your current frame of reference.

And with flight-assist-off?

When the thrusters /aren't/ firing, they are not affected by the drag, and can coast through space. In a sense, when you turn Flight Assist off and set your throttle to neutral, you are now completely out of the 'water' and floating like a normal space ship. However, the instant you try to apply thrust, you have to stick your engine "in the water," so no amount of extra thrusting can exceed its top speed.

Once you're paddling as fast as the water is moving by you, you can't go any faster by way of paddling. You're just wasting energy.

Why not just tap into those currents?

Well, here's where fuel and energy comes into play. "Diving" to different frames of reference requires a HUGE amount of energy, and the small engines that delicately shove your ship around in space aren't capable of that sort of output. This is what the Frame Shift Drive is for, but even then, it's a highly specialized device that requires a long charging time, not to mention the transition between reference frames is rather abrupt. Not something you can just casually do.

Okay, why not just use regular thrusters to go faster again?

Go into Kerbal Space Program, and make a ship that has the same mass as a Cobra Mk. VIII. Then, build some rockets to move around. Then, let me know how massive that rocket was, and how long it lasted. I'm actually kinda curious.

 

[Corium]

This is probably one of the most indepth things I've read about propulsion systems that is more or less "readable" to the average person.


This indeed explains what could be a completely believable propulsion method within the Elite universe, Hell... even OUR universe ( as we get closer to a "warp" Engine due to NASA research, the explaination given here is relatively closer to an explaination about sub luminal and super luminal speeds than one thinks) this could eventually have a system such as this.


Enjoy the rep, wish I could give you more.

 

[MikeGreg]

This is probably one of the most indepth things I've read about propulsion systems that is more or less "readable" to the average person.


This indeed explains what could be a completely believable propulsion method within the Elite universe, Hell... even OUR universe ( as we get closer to a "warp" Engine due to NASA research, the explaination given here is relatively closer to an explaination about sub luminal and super luminal speeds than one thinks) this could eventually have a system such as this.


Enjoy the rep, wish I could give you more.

Hi

Download The FREE space sim ORBITOR it will giveyou an indepth insite to real space flight, its very good, and you can design/build your own ships and see how it works
there is also included in the download a comlete manual many pages long that explane everything, but be prepared to be submurged into complex mathamatical theorys

try it nothing to lose

MikeGreg

 

[Hydrino]

Interesting ideas, but I think FD like to stick as close to known science as possible.

Local thrusters should most appropriately be thought of as super-powerful future ion thrusters - after all they run on Hydrogen and a power-plant. We don't carry O2 to burn the Hydrogen. They could be pressurized gas being released but the flame-like appearance aligns with how an ion thruster would most likely appear - the electrons are stripped from the protons by electricity (power-plant) and forced out of the thruster nozzle by electro-magnetism (again, electricity from the power-plant is needed, plus hydrogen fuel). But the electrons from this process have to be vented to keep from building up charge and damaging systems in the ship. This venting results in recombination with the protons outside the thruster, giving the characteristic blue glow of this type of real thruster.

The speed limit is just because of gameplay and networking code. It would be silly to try to have combat with two ships going 10,000 KM/S in opposite directions. Just accept it, maybe as a safety measure. There is no valid reason in physics for it. We could alternately decide all thrust was from the FSD in some space-time ocean as you suggest, but then we wouldn't have cool exhaust plumes.

Thinking about it now, shields could be an FSD effect, in essence protecting the ship and possibly directing incoming matter around the ship by contracting and expanding space in small amounts.

FSD is already canonized in comments (don't know if it is official) as an alcubierre drive (Google it). It compresses space in front of the ship and like crunching up a rug on your floor, it means you can cross the same amount of rug in less time - and with no inertial effects. One step across your scrunched-up rug takes you over 6 feet of normally spaced out rug but you maintain your stately 1G attraction to Earth with no abnormal effects. The space behind you gets re-stretched when you pass it, like the scrunched up rug being pulled flat again and showing the true distance travelled.

The way we will chase players going into Hyperspace or the less powerful but same mechanism FSD, is by observing and watching the wake or the rubber-banding of space as it relaxes back to normal in our location.

Of course IRL this is not practical, although theoretically possible. The energy to shrink space would be equivalent to the energy of the universe itself and the rubber-banding effect would likely destroy everything in a good area around the ship.

For some more technical and far-out ideas:

there is a new formulation for gravity that I like for potential future drive types, non-inertial drive possibilities as well: g=tau*c^2, where tau is the time dilation gradient. This is remarkable, especially as it's proportional to c^2. This could also go along with the idea of one classical physics grand unified theory wherin electrons as flat 2d discs of charge (instead of the commonly held quantum mystical interpretation of "intelligent point-particle probability waves", whatever those non-physical entities are) can be made hyperbolic and thus a repulsive force against normal electrons/bodies

http://www.iseti.us

http://physicsessays.org/browse-jou...ation-without-mass-and-noninertia-fields.html

This formula has been tested and verified to be correct in the gravitational fields of the nine planetary bodies in our Solar System and the Sun: mechanical acceleration, and electromagnetic fields. Thus leading to the inference that g = τc2 is the generic formula for all non-nuclear force fields. The true power of this definition of gravitational acceleration lies in the fact that it now lends itself to a portable technology, as mass is no longer required to derive acceleration. This new relationship for acceleration describes how an electron moving in a magnetic field causes a force on the electron and explains why the electron velocity, magnetic field, and resulting force relationship is orthogonal."

 

[beelbeebub]

So my explanation

The Frame Shift Drive (FSD) is based on using exotic matter loops to warp local space. When an exotic matter loop is moved through a gravity gradient it generates an electric current, in a similar fashion to a conductor moving through a magnetic field. Similarly, if an electric current if applied to an exotic matter loop it will move through a gradient or if constrained from moving will alter the gravity gradient and hence warp space.

A FSD has a number of exotic matter loops rotating in a complex three dimensional pattern which cancels out the distortion effects of each loop on local space. By carefully adjusting the pattern of movement a FSD can be deliberately put "out of balance" and warp space for Super Cruise travel. By further manipulating the paths the FSD can warp space enough to tear it and enable a hyperspace jump.

However, the presence of these moving exotic matter loop has several effects on ship handling.

The first effect is the interaction of the loops with the local gravity field. As before the movement of these loops through a gravity gradient (caused by nearby large masses such as planets and stations) creates large electric currents and therefore heat. The faster the FSD (and it's exotic matter loops) move with respect to the local field the greater the heat generation. This means that for any given region of space, all ships equipped with a FSD, must travel at a similar velocity to each other and thus appear stationary to each other, like ships all caught in the same fast current.

The practical limits with current FSD designs mean the maximum deviation from the 'stationary' speed is about 500m/s (the record currently held by the Viper Mk3). This is the infamous "Speed Cap" that prevents ships from accelerating constantly.

The second handling quirk the FSD causes is related to the rotation of the ship. The exotic matter loops must be very precisely positioned with respect to each other and this makes them extremely sensitive to excessively high rotational speeds. Curiously, it is possible to optimise the rotational stability of any two axes at the expense of the third (this process was discovered by Dr Wolfgang von Nerf). This has led to drives with good rotational stability, and hence high rotation rates, around two axes, with the third axis "Nerfed" to prevent damage to the FSD.

It is convention that the "Nerfed" axis is the yaw axis, however from time to time experimental ships with alternative flight models are produced (the famously expensive models produced by the RSI shipyards all have unorthodox handling and inspire heated debate amongst pilots)​

 

[Mike Evans]

I like the OP's idea. Been trying to think of how to justify speed limits and ftl in a science fiction setting for a while and had similar ideas about finding a way to treat space as something to push against like air or water. Good job.

 

[Winterwalker]

I like the OP's idea. Been trying to think of how to justify speed limits and ftl in a science fiction setting for a while and had similar ideas about finding a way to treat space as something to push against like air or water. Good job.

There is a phonemenon known as Quantum Foam which is essentially a teeny tiny (sub sub atomic scale) uncertainty factor which can be explained by another phenomenon know colloquially as Vacuum Energy.

An electromagnetic substrate, with a miniscule wavelength (at the Planck Length, 1.6E-35 m) some think of this as electromagnetic interference from the "radio signal" emitted by individual atoms (electron- moving in relation to proton+ nucleus) and multiplied by the number of atoms, everywhere, with their magnetic effects all interfering with each other.

Either a result of something holding atoms apart (electrons- should attract protons+) or a self generating effect (and potentially an explanation for dark energy), the energy permeating the vacuum is potentially huge (although locally it appears to nett at near zero and we don't have a frame of reference outside our Universe by which to measure it properly!)

Richard Feynman (and others) pointed out that energy transiting ione cubic centimetre of the vacuum at any given time, on a conservative estimate, is equivalent of the energy required to vertically lift 100,000 billion tonnes, a distance of 1000 kilometers through a gravitational field as strong as that at the earth’s surface.

In another example: Consider a light bulb rated 150 Watts. By comparison to this, our sun radiates energy at the rate of 3.8E+20 Watts and in our galaxy there are in excess of 100 billion stars. If assumed that each star radiates energy at roughly the same rate as our own sun, the total energy expended by the whole galaxy of stars shining for one million years is roughly equivalent to the energy transiting one cubic centimeter of space, per second.

Although gaining an effect from this "slightly rough surface" deep down in the vacuum of space looks tricky, even if engaged in a deeply inefficient way, this offers scope for powerful accelerations.

 

[Iskariot]

I like the OP's idea. Been trying to think of how to justify speed limits and ftl in a science fiction setting for a while and had similar ideas about finding a way to treat space as something to push against like air or water. Good job.

If this is going to belong to the fluff, please add it to the manual or the fluff book or whatever there is going to be. I would love that.

 

[Kid Firestorm]

i'm a little confused. does this theory require the Frame Shift Drive to run the thrusters in normal space? if so, it can't work because FD has said that it's possible to modify some ships and remove their FSD so they couldn't jump but serve better combat purposes. under the theory that this requires the Frame Shift Drive, the ships without them couldn't move at all. But again, i'm not sure if the theory needs the drive in order to work.

 

[tresch]

i'm a little confused. does this theory require the Frame Shift Drive to run the thrusters in normal space? if so, it can't work because FD has said that it's possible to modify some ships and remove their FSD so they couldn't jump but serve better combat purposes. under the theory that this requires the Frame Shift Drive, the ships without them couldn't move at all. But again, i'm not sure if the theory needs the drive in order to work.

I don't think so. They operate on the same principal, and the thrusters and FSD on a drive so equipped would probably share components, but a thruster-only setup could be imagined that is designed merely to interface with the existing reference frame, lacking the huge power output requirements to actually shift reference frames. It would be a much simpler and lighter weight device.

So, relating back to the analogy of floating over the ocean... (i love analogies, a weakness of mine, perhaps)

In this case, you'd just be paddling along, without the ability to actually submerge yourself and find those other currents. You're now just a boat. A much simpler device than a submarine, even though you're still operating on the same basic physics.

 

[wstephenson]

Based on the OP's theory, it would be possible encounter craft moving at relativistic speeds having used archaic chemical rockets, solar sails or ion thrusters to reach those velocities, but it would be impossible to match velocity with them in normal space using contemporary drive technology. Would this allow for encounters with Generation Ships without the predictable "hurr, hurr, let's shoot up the primitives" interaction?

@OP Any suggestions how interdiction might be rationalised in your model?

 

[tresch]

Based on the OP's theory, it would be possible encounter craft moving at relativistic speeds having used archaic chemical rockets, solar sails or ion thrusters to reach those velocities, but it would be impossible to match velocity with them in normal space using contemporary drive technology. Would this allow for encounters with Generation Ships without the predictable "hurr, hurr, let's shoot up the primitives" interaction?

Well, There kinda two questions here, one is matching speed with another craft, the second is matching the other craft to your speed.

As far as matching speed with something travelling in conventional space, while you wouldn't be able to math speed using standard thrusters, you would be able to match speed with the frame shift drive. Remember, the thrusters operate based on your current frame of reference. So a quick supercruise to alter your frame of reference to match the other ship would get you in sync, then you drop back to normal space, and now you can maneuver about that other ship.

Of course, if the other ship is actively accelerating, after awhile it would exceed your maximum velocity given your reference frame, at while point you'd have to make another supercruise 'jump' to sync back up with it again. possible, but awkward! Fortunately, conventional rockets can't carry enough fuel for continuous acceleration, so it's easier to wait until they stop burning and then sync up while they're coasting.

@OP Any suggestions how interdiction might be rationalised in your model?

I'm not really sure how the mechanic of interdiction is going to work in ED, so it's hard to make something up for it. Can someone clear this up for me? I can think of two scenarios. One where a ship in normal space sets up a 'net' in which ships passing by in supercruise are caught, pulling them out into normal space. The other scenario would be two ships in super cruise, one closes range and matches speed with the other, and then drags them both out to normal space.

I imagine it would be more like the latter, in which case I just assume either some energy field is projected that 'drags' the other ship back to normal space with you. Or something fancy like that.

 

[RobFisher]

It really does have to be some sort of exotic physics, and OP's attempt is as good as any I have read here. It's a little more nuanced than the "frame shift drive causes drag" idea that someone else suggested.

This or something close is likely the answer.

 

[Guy DudeBroMan]

My thoughts, in-universe, as to the existence of 'speed limits' and such, is for ease of flight. Bear in mind that when you are in orbit, your speed would be several kilometers PER SECOND in addition to the speed listed on your throttle, or perhaps even NEGATIVE several kilometers per second compared to what direction you are facing. People in modern cars have--and die from--head-on collisions several orders of magnitude slower than this, AND they are only operating a vehicle on what is essentially a 2-dimensional plane. Airplane pilots have much higher speeds and a third dimension of space to worry about, but they ALSO have an extensive external 'air traffic control' network helping to keep them from running into each other.

So instead of making sure that every pilot in known space is a physicist--and inundating them with an incredibly complex navigational system to match--in-universe, the navigational systems are far more standardized so as to take a huge amount of the burden off of the pilot. By automatically adjusting throttle inputs and 'maximum (relative) velocities' in any particular area of space, you greatly reduce the issues involved with, say, ending up on an unavoidable collision course with another ship that is 10 kilometers away or more a second or two before impact. It is attempting to simplify the process down to a point where a human can still make decisions, whereas, if you were to go full-newtonian with, with as many spacecraft are in the air and all doing their own things, you'd have to have 100% automated flight to keep accidents to an acceptable level.

The evidence I offer in support of this stance is that you never have to calculate a speed or vector when entering an orbit, you just automatically 'slot in' no matter where you are or what you are orbiting. This can be explained by the navigational computer *knowing* what your speed should be around any given body at any given altitude (not a hard calculation), but also assigning an orbital vector based on where you drop out of supercruise and factoring that specific velocity into its 'exit speed,' the speed that it spits you back out into freespace (consider it being inertia for all intents and purposes). It's also likely that there are standard orbital lanes in a modern space-faring society, so, for example, a flight computer might automatically place ships in prograde orbits (with the rotation of the planet) to prevent anyone from entering retrograde and inviting head-on-collisions at orbital velocities.

 

[tresch]

I don't buy that, though.

Say I'm a pirate. I hunt people for a living. I have little regard for personal property. I kill people if I have to.

Why would I care about some silly arbitrary speed limit on my flight system computer? By modifying that and removing the limit, I would be at a massive advantage over my opponents. I could catch up to any unmodified ship, no matter how powerful its thrusters. It wouldn't even be that much more difficult to pilot.

Of course, as soon as one person removed that 'governor' from their ship, every other freelancer in the universe would as well, because it would be a death sentence not to.

 

[Guy DudeBroMan]

I don't buy that, though.

Say I'm a pirate. I hunt people for a living. I have little regard for personal property. I kill people if I have to.

Why would I care about some silly arbitrary speed limit on my flight system computer? By modifying that and removing the limit, I would be at a massive advantage over my opponents. I could catch up to any unmodified ship, no matter how powerful its thrusters. It wouldn't even be that much more difficult to pilot.

Of course, as soon as one person removed that 'governor' from their ship, every other freelancer in the universe would as well, because it would be a death sentence not to.

Well, consider two things--one, you live in a universe where piracy is illegal in many parts of known space. And since the vast majority of major starship manufacturers are located in civilized space where this law holds true, then they are beholden to that law not to make it *terribly* easy to override those design limitations or risk being shut down by the powers-that-be. A real-world corellary is street racing--it is illegal in most places here in the US, and while it is certainly possible to override, say, the fuel curves built into a car's ECU, it is a non-sanctioned modification to the car's design that, in most cases, instantly voids any warrantee you may still have. And with the talk that OBD III may include a nark-system to tattle on you, via GPS, when you are speeding and such, this system will become harder to circumvent. Harder, but not impossible, you are correct. Further, we don't really have warrantees on our ships in Elite, but we DO have insurance, and there are several companies currently experimenting with those same kinds of nark systems to tattle on you whenever you drive recklessly or disobey the speed limit. It is highly logical that a future-version of modern society would go to lengths to place safeguards like that in place. The fact that such safeguards might be in place is a separate issue to whether they should be circumventable.

The second thing to consider is that that sword cuts both ways--If you override your flight computer to catch up to your prey, but you miscalculate and end up smacking into them instead, you are *both* dead. Death sentence either way. I played plenty of i-War 2, and you had the best of both worlds there, and yeah, this happened *plenty.*

Whether you 'buy' it or not is entirely your decision, because it is what it is either way. The reality is that it is completely and wholly a gameplay decision, but if framed in such a way, doesn't become an immersion-breaking one to me. Hell, I'm almost to the point where I want self-driving cars because of the huge moron-per-capita on the streets where I live, it takes zero suspension of disbelief on my part to imagine a universe in the future where starships are made to be virtually idiot-proof. ....And still fall short.

Go into Kerbal Space Program, and make a ship that has the same mass as a Cobra Mk. VIII. Then, build some rockets to move around. Then, let me know how massive that rocket was, and how long it lasted. I'm actually kinda curious.

Kerbal Space Program is not a great example for this because it is based on modern-world science and technology, not what might be available in a thousand years. There is technically no reason why you couldn't build a Cobra to perform exactly as described in Newtonian physics--it doesn't defy anything--it is just exceptionally hard with current technical limitations. Supercruise is harder, but actually does conform to at least some of the hypotheticals involving the Alcubiere Warp Drive system or one like it. Witch-space is way way harder and requires some serious theoretical physics that I'm at least 5 years away from being able to try and discuss, yet.

But picture that we haven't even been in space for a hundred years, and yet look how far we've come--imagine the kinds of advances in technology we might see within the next thousand! Nor does it take exotic physics to explain *ALL* of it, though it does require a few assumptions. KSP doesn't work as a great model because it is built around chemical rockets and ion thrusters, and requires mods for anything beyond that, though WITH said mods, you can make some crazy sci-fi ships behave in real-world physics. The best current-day model to base a technological discussion on should be the VASIMR, a plasma thruster that can alternate between high-thrust/low ISP (a measure of fuel economy) or low-thrust/high ISP. Besides the reaction mass needed to generate the thrust, the engine only uses electricity--the reaction mass is heated and ionized, turning it into a plasma that is then shot out using electromagnetic fields, not unlike an ion thruster in KSP but of a greater magnitude. I think a prototype was slated for installation on the International Space Station as a station-keeping system, but I don't know if they actually got it up there yet or not.

If we assume that, as technology progresses, we will have greater and greater mastery of electromagnetic fields--which is a safe assumption--then there's no technological reason why a VASIMR-style engine a thousand years from now couldn't produce the impressive high-thrust output that we see within a reasonable amount of space. The biggest limiter in this case would not be hydrogen availability, necessarily, but in the strength of the fields you could generate. That requires energy, a whole lot of it. And, honestly, that is the biggest thing holding us back today when it comes to modern ion drives--generating a chemical reaction is easy, but generating a lot of electricity while SIMULTANEOUSLY keeping its thrust-to-mass ratio low is a major hurdle. If you had a full-sized commercial nuclear reactor's worth of power at your disposal, crammed into the size and weight of, say, a school bus, you'd be astounded what you could do with it. But...we don't, hence why it is so hard to simulate a Cobra in KSP without mods.

Another assumption you have to make is that we will have made progress in manipulating mass. I'll point to Mass Effect on this one because they get it closer than most--the higher the mass you are trying to move, the exponentially greater thrust you must produce. But if you can 'lower' the mass without lowering the thrust, zooom! In Mass Effect, you have fields that can manipulate the apparent mass of an object, making it 'heavier' or 'lighter' at the expense of energy alone. If you adjusted the apparent mass of your starship, you could get much greater performance out of the same amount of thrust, the same way a Ford F-350 doesn't have a great zero-to-sixty speed on its own, but if you took its engine and put it in a Geo Metro and adjusted the gearing, it'd scream. You could also do the opposite--since a plasma thruster is really using magnetic fields to push against the plasma fuel's 'resting inertia,' if you can make that fuel **heavier** temporarily during that process, then you get much greater push-back because with higher mass comes higher inertia. We don't have any evidence in the art direction that Elite has anything like mass-lowering fields or, according to a newsletter, 'hand-wavy artificial gravity,' but depending on what comes from the next wave of Higgs Boson research, or quantum gravity research, we might find ways of adjusting mass on an atomic or molecular scale by that time. Enough to make ships simultaneously more fuel efficient and produce higher thrust.

 

[Guy DudeBroMan]

I'll tell ya, as a physicist-in-training myself, the propulsion and navigation systems bump me far less than, specifically, the stations. Why is the inner bay pressurized?!? I get why there is only 1 entry and exit in a pressurized landing bay--less points of failure for atmosphere to escape out of--but why in Finagle's name would you pressurize the inner space at all?! It would surely be safer and less technologically taxing to use a bay configuration that remains in hard-vacuum, where soft-sealed docking collars connect to the hull to help in robotic transfer of cargo from the ship to the station, only bringing the ship itself into an atmosphere when you, say, drop it down into the 'hanger' for maintenance or repair. Lighting a plasma engine inside a pressurized environment can't be great--even if it's hydrogen we're talking about, and it diffuses quickly enough to not be overly harmful, that makes the inner atmosphere of the station CONSTANTLY over-saturated with hydrogen, which may or may not still be a highly combustible gas in a thousand years. It would tax an air filtration system to remove that much hydrogen on a continuous basis, particularly in the central axis where the bouyancy of the air rotating along with the rest of the station would make the lighter gasses like hydrogen collect.

 

[Hydrino]

<snip>
If we assume that, as technology progresses, we will have greater and greater mastery of electromagnetic fields--which is a safe assumption--then there's no technological reason why a VASIMR-style engine a thousand years from now couldn't produce the impressive high-thrust output that we see within a reasonable amount of space. <snip>

Another assumption you have to make is that we will have made progress in manipulating mass. I'll point to Mass Effect on this one because they get it closer than most--the higher the mass you are trying to move, the exponentially greater thrust you must produce. But if you can 'lower' the mass without lowering the thrust, zooom! <snip>

These are interesting comments.

I think when we understand electrons as actual physical things rather than Copenhagen Interpretation silliness of intelligent maths, we will make some advances.

I posted this in Astronomy (link to full text here), which might interest you...
g=Tc^2, meaning to get gravity effects we should not need mass but can manipulate magneto-electric fields. It's a bit above my weight-class, but found some interesting blurbs on it.

 

[Sysmon]

I like the OP's idea. Been trying to think of how to justify speed limits and ftl in a science fiction setting for a while and had similar ideas about finding a way to treat space as something to push against like air or water. Good job.

Yes, and it will also explain why we can use the same fuel for thrusting about in normal space and for the space-warping SuperCruise and hole-punching Hyper Drive modes, if they are all different aspects of the same manipulation of the skein of space (to paraphase the late Banks).

Great idea! Kudos to OP.

S

 

[Calaban]

My interpretation of the non FSD thrusters (and a bit on FSD as well).

Read up on the recently true world Quantum Vacuum Thruster. It WORKS eek, but is currently very weak: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_plasma_thruster

This is a thruster that uses no propellant, only electricity. The reaction mass emitted is the Quantum vacuum virtual particles that exist for brief plank scale times in pairs, that then annihilate and revert back to zero.

Only the microwave field of the drive accelerates these "virtual particles" out the engine nozzle during the time that they exist. En mass, with these virtual particles literally filling every possible square planck distance within the engine chamber, that can add up to a lot.

Thus engine power is directly proportional to electrical power, giving us the various engine strength to engine size ratios we see in-game. (the fuel consumed can be explained as the electrical plant fuel)

Now we come to relative motion, and relative velocities. This one gets bizzare, but is similar in how a Frameshift Drive works.. or more accurately; how it works less well near planets. Relativity requires a frame of reference, and a viewer to turn wave potentials into point properties of actuality. A scientist with a photon detector is one kind of observer, but the Higgs field interactions around concentrations of matter is another. Think of the gravity of a world tugging on the moon constantly as an Observer constantly studying the moon. Thus the moon stays in orbit.

Similarly, the mass of a world, and even a station interracting with your ship in this same way Observes the heck out of it, limiting the amount of quantum "cheating" that can be possible when near them. In this way the Q-thruster has artificial limits placed on how much it can manipulate the virtual particles in any real sense. This explains the max speed of ships when near an objective. Since they are being "watched", certain external restrictions are placed upon the function of the Q-thruster, such as what point the acceleration simply ceases.

Nav Beacons and locations are special quantum Observers in their area, in effect acting like a large mass, when in fact there is none. [this is similar to FSD interdiction devices as well]

Frame shift drives achieve FTL speeds, btw: because they do not try to cheat under an Observers view, but rather cheat by shifting the frame of reference of where the ship is interacting from!! (rather genius, that)