Attempt to explain propulsion as it exists in Elite

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

It's actually far, far too early to say that this actually works and isn't an experimental anomaly. The original Chinese team reported several orders of magnitude more 'thrust' output than the NASA team that conduced the most recent test, which measured a thrust output that was less than a gram. That calls into doubt the varacity of the Chinese study but it also invites the possibility that the readings NASA did achieve were due to some other issue, and they are very careful to state that in their original paper (I saw somewhere that even the shifting of the tide could account for such a low fluctuation). IF this actually does work, then it'll be revolutionary, but even if it does, the ground-state of the QVP is so low that it isn't likely become a very reliable source of large-scale propulsion. A bit like solar sails--yes, technically they work, but with such low thrust produced, they aren't incredibly useful on human scales. Space/time warping (aka warp drives) would still be a much more effective method, and there are a couple of experiments that are ongoing that are attempting to perform space/time warping right now.

Edited to add--we also have to consider that these ships operate in-atmosphere using the same Newtonian drives, which causes two very important issues with a QVP-based system--one is that you're blasting the area behind your ship with microwaves (more likely an even higher-energy EM emission, actually, considering the amount of thrust we'd have to generate, probably more like gamma-ray level energy output) AND it'd cause a hideous amount of waste-heat while it cooks the atmosphere around it. A VASIMR-based plasma drive would cause a ton of waste heat, too, but as it is ejecting plasma--which is matter--the plasma will diffuse quickly when it interacts with the ambient atmosphere, just like the jet wash of a modern airplane. Which is also why plasma-based weapons are dumb--plasma becomes incoherent when it is finally released from confinement, like a drop of food coloring in a bowl of water. The added bonus is that it might actually generate a little extra push in atmo- versus in vacuum, as it is pushing against ambient air like a swimmer pushes against ambient water. A QVP system, though, would emit photons instead of protons, and those photons can carry for a very long time through an atmosphere, being absorbed and re-emitted as they go, all the while heating up the air and water and trees and babies that might be behind the ship. This ain't low-power GPS signals we're talking about, this is a highly concentrated stream of photons stronger than you get in your microwave oven.
 
Last edited:
It's actually far, far too early to say that this actually works and isn't an experimental anomaly. The original Chinese team reported several orders of magnitude more 'thrust' output than the NASA team that conduced the most recent test, which measured a thrust output that was less than a gram. That calls into doubt the varacity of the Chinese study but it also invites the possibility that the readings NASA did achieve were due to some other issue, and they are very careful to state that in their original paper (I saw somewhere that even the shifting of the tide could account for such a low fluctuation). IF this actually does work, then it'll be revolutionary, but even if it does, the ground-state of the QVP is so low that it isn't likely become a very reliable source of large-scale propulsion. A bit like solar sails--yes, technically they work, but with such low thrust produced, they aren't incredibly useful on human scales. Space/time warping (aka warp drives) would still be a much more effective method, and there are a couple of experiments that are ongoing that are attempting to perform space/time warping right now.

<snip>

I agree with the above. Plus QVF (if it even exists) should be measured in a vacuum. None of Nasa's experiments were done in vacuum. Could have been ionized particles in the air...

I also am not a fan of mystical quantum mechanics- it fails after hydrogen and predicted lasers are impossible. Particles and energy are real, not intelligent math equations. An example of a physical explanation of QM is Pilot Wave Theory.
 
The fact that such safeguards might be in place is a separate issue to whether they should be circumventable.

So, they care so much about people's safety, they would implement rigorous safeguards to maximum speed, which are somehow uncircumventable even though every part of the ship can be tweaked and upgraded, otherwise.

Then equip the ships with powerful weapons with no safeguards whatsoever, specifically so people can murder each other on a whim.

Then change that top speed on different ships for no discernible reason, other than apparently to give people with more money an advantage, so they can more easily murder the poor people.

This is also a universe where the punishment for loitering over a landing pad for a couple minutes is ACTUALLY DYING. As in the death penalty. As in they KILL YOU.

FOR LOITERING.

I mean, we're making all this stuff up anyway, and there's definitely a few awesome theories in here. The idea is suspension of disbelief, for the sake of our own immersion! That's why I say 'i'm not buying it,' as in, in my mind it only makes the whole thing even more unbelievable.

So, sorry for the harsh tone, not intending to be insulting, just funny! I'm just trying to highlight the humor in how ridiculously unforgiving Elite is. I really don't think this is a universe where the safety of pilots is really of anyone's concern, whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
So, they care so much about people's safety, they would implement rigorous safeguards to maximum speed, which are somehow uncircumventable even though every part of the ship can be tweaked and upgraded, otherwise.

Then equip the ships with powerful weapons with no safeguards whatsoever, specifically so people can murder each other on a whim.

Then change that top speed on different ships for no discernible reason, other than apparently to give people with more money an advantage, so they can more easily murder the poor people.

This is also a universe where the punishment for loitering over a landing pad for a couple minutes is ACTUALLY DYING. As in the death penalty. As in they KILL YOU.

FOR LOITERING.

I mean, we're making all this stuff up anyway, and there's definitely a few awesome theories in here. The idea is suspension of disbelief, for the sake of our own immersion! That's why I say 'i'm not buying it,' as in, in my mind it only makes the whole thing even more unbelievable.

So, sorry for the harsh tone, not intending to be insulting, just funny! I'm just trying to highlight the humor in how ridiculously unforgiving Elite is. I really don't think this is a universe where the safety of pilots is really of anyone's concern, whatsoever.

No no no, you're right about the law enforcement, and that is totally stupid every time I see it! Especially blasting a ship INSIDE the station, without regard to what the debris is going to do when it collides with the rotating barrel OR, in my case, who else may be in the way of those rutting lasers when they start shooting! Even the soldiers in Skyrim give you a warning and a chance to pay your fines before they start swinging!

HOWEVER, you're looking at it from the aspect of 'personal' safety, when I never said 'personal' safety. I'm more inclined to think they are interested in the 'public' safety than they are in the 'personal' safety. In a universe where the population of earth (still measured in billions) is now a FRACTION of the total population of humanity, maybe they got to a point where they said, "yeah, you know, one person's life isn't that important anymore. Not every child is precious." I don't know, I can't account for society or humanity--I never can! I'm a physicist, not a psychologist. If viewed from that standpoint, though, a ship colliding with a station at 400 kilometers per hour is carrying WAY LESS kinetic energy than one hitting a station at a kilometer per second. Shields shrug off a fifty-ton Cobra ramming it at 400 kph, but can it shrug off an exponentially higher impact? Hole in station kills how many people? And we've seen in the real world how devastating an object the size of a Cobra could be if it enters an atmosphere wrong (I think the Russian meteor was roughly that size). And since Cobras are made to survive entry, they'd quite possibly hit the GROUND instead of causing an air-burst. City blocks worth of people, gone.

What I CAN tell you is that, in a world where space travel is common place enough that the general public are behind the sticks of ships like this and are forced to interact with one another--without much in the way of traffic control, on top of it--that there is only so much information the AVERAGE human is capable of handling at any one time. You see it TODAY--how often do people say that speed kills? Lower the speed limit! Drive slower! Because the faster you are going, the less precise your ability to judge things like distance, rate-of-closure, and the vector path of another driver becomes. The faster you are going, the more space it takes you to stop or turn. The faster you have to process all that information. NASA has a STAFF of people helping control a single spacecraft in relatively un-occupied space because fractions-of-a-second count. Now you have a hundred ships an hour coming and going from Chango Dock, and the extent of space-traffic-control is 'you can dock' or 'you can't dock.' No marshal points to wait your turn, no lanes of traffic entering or exiting the mail slot, no flaggers telling ships when they are clear to lift off of their pads. The power to make decisions has to rest somewhere, so if you can't standardize the rules across a thousand star systems, then you need to empower your pilots instead.

You mentioned KSP. I play KSP too, so consider for a moment how hard it is to organize a SINGLE rendezvous between two ships. Start two ships on the same side of the planet, in line-of-sight with each other but two or three thousand kilometers away from each other. Even if they are on exactly the same inclination, it takes some work and patience and at least 1 full transfer-orbit to get them within 20 kilometers of each other, doesn't it? It's even harder if they are on different inclinations or vastly different orbital altitudes! Try sending them to Duna and doing it there, instead of Kerbin! Now you have even more work because it's almost impossible to get two ships launched at two different times to hit the same orbit right from the start without LOTS of pre-calculations beforehand. Imagine how much easier it'd be if you could just get in the neighborhood and just drive *straight* at the other ship, and let your onboard computer handle the rest! It calculates your relative motion to what you're locked onto versus your *actual* motion relative to the planet, and when you get close, it optimizes your HUD (something KSP does too, point of fact) so that the only information you need is what you are interested in--what is that other ship doing, and what am I doing relative to it? Computer already knows exactly what your thrusters can do, so it gives you a 'speed limit,' the *relative* velocity that you can be moving but still have enough thrust in your maneuvering thrusters to alter your course in a reasonable amount of time. Apply more power to your engines? Oh, look, your speed goes up because now your thrusters are able to produce HIGHER thrust and, thus, counteract your inertia more effectively. Alright, now you're getting close, let's dock. I'm going to have to fire my engines for...five minutes to slow myself down to the same relative speed as my target? Nope! Don't worry about it, your thrusters are powerful enough to slow you down within a few seconds because your computer imposed that 'arbitrary' speed limit based on what your engines could produce!

Let's do some numbers. I don't have any hard numbers here, so we can make some up. We can factor the mass of the ship out by talking about 'Delta-V per second' instead of 'thrust.' So if my main engine has a Delta-V per second rate of 10 meters per second per second, that means that my velocity increases by 10 meters per second for every second they are lit. My 'belly' thrusters, combined, produce 2 meters per second per second because they're smaller and weaker than the main, because, well, this isn't a Babylon 5 Starfury we're talking about. So for every second they are burning, my velocity will increase 'upward' by 2 meters per second every second. If I am moving in a straight line, forward, at a rate of 2 meters per second, then decide I want to be moving 2 meters per second in a different direction, 90 degrees perpendicular to what I am doing right now, then I pitch up 90 degrees and start turning, right? In Elite, with assist on? So what happens? Main engine pushes at 10 mps/s in the new direction while the belly thrusters push against my previous momentum at a rate of 2mps/s. It only takes me 1 second to settle onto the new heading because it is well within the limit of my main engine and well within a reasonable speed for my belly thrusters to kill my previous momentum. But what if I am traveling at 10 mps? I'll be moving at a fourty-five-degree angle compared to what I was originally doing after just one second, because the main engine is pretty powerful, but the belly thrusters take 5 full seconds to kill my previous momentum to the point where I'm traveling in a straight line again. 20mps? The same turn takes 10 seconds. 100mps? Now even my main thruster is having trouble making a change in my direction at any reasonable rate, and the curve of my path through space becomes more shallow the faster I am going. What I'm suggesting is that the computers onboard are trying to make it easier for you to go *precisely* where you want to go because driving a car is more intuitive to human instinct than flying in a frictionless vacuum. They slow the pitch-rate down so that the thrusters can better cope with the change in vector AND as feedback to the pilot that they are not in the optimum relative velocity for their maneuvering thrusters to do what they want them to do. There also might be some attempts at synchronicity, too, since the same ship flies in both vacuum and atmosphere, and they want the pilot to not feel like he's in a completely different vessel if he makes the transition from one to another--the same ship handles in relatively similar ways, for simple ease of navigation.

You could say, even, that FRONTIER are designing the computers along the same lines as the potential future-society--the reason Dangerous isn't full Newtonian is because Frontier believes it is not as fun or as easy to fly, and thus, would not appeal to as wide an audience as they want. After spending as much time in I-War 2 as I did, I don't think they're wrong, either. So just as FRONTIER are designing for a wider audience and making it more 'intuitive' even if it could be considerably more COMPLEX and FLEXIBLE for players--like me, by the way--who would like more Newtonian physics rather than less, they are catering to a lower barrier of entry. And given the number of STUPID, MORONIC warning-signs I see on things in the real world, this doesn't seem like an unrealistic path for future-humanity to go down. Sadly.

This doesn't explain why your pitch rate is SUPER SLOW when you are at relative-zero velocity or when you turn off your flight assist, but those are purely gameplay decisions. Which is an important thing that we must always keep in mind--this is a game, not a thesis on what space travel SHOULD or WOULD really be like. There are just some things you have to ignore or make up on your own

Now ask me how the shields work. Because I don't have the foggiest idea what kind of real-world science I could apply to explaining those! :)
 
Last edited:
I agree with the above. Plus QVF (if it even exists) should be measured in a vacuum. None of Nasa's experiments were done in vacuum. Could have been ionized particles in the air...

I also am not a fan of mystical quantum mechanics- it fails after hydrogen and predicted lasers are impossible. Particles and energy are real, not intelligent math equations. An example of a physical explanation of QM is Pilot Wave Theory.

Yeah, that's sort of what I'm thinking it was, too, in both the NASA and Chinese experiments. I haven't read the entire paper yet, just a couple parts. I don't know if they're done with the idea yet--probably not, given how fantastic it would be to be free of the reaction-mass requirement even if it is only relegated to deep space slow-boat-to-China roles. I also haven't read the other articles you posted yet, but they're on my list for between-homework reading, so thank you!
 
Dear tresch,

nice of you to try find an explaination for the propulsion system in ED. But in my opinion it's like trying to explain/argue that the TV show you're watching was filmed in Great Britain using cameras from Australia - instead of just turning the TV back over that obviously resides bottom side up at this very moment.

The fact that your thread title reads "Attempt to explain propulsion as it exists in Elite" makes it pretty clear: there's just alot of ill-logic at hand, if you need to "attempt" to explain something. Either it makes sense or it doesn't - starting a crusade in search of an explaination of the unknown... that's not how I'd like to see FAoff at work in the future.

FAon speed limits are explained quick and simple: the thrusters just limit your maximum momentums because they'd be unable to handle higher speeds in a way that you'd consider "flight assisted".

FAoff limits aren't and shouldn't be explained the way they currently work, because cameras from Australia just don't cause flipped movies. If the light bulb is dead: you need to change it, not explain why the air around it might suddenly became incapable of conducting light particles... duh :eek:


If FAoff gives unwanted advantages, the solution is not to reduce it to absurdity, but to extend its logics to a point where the advantages are in balance with the disadvantages. Like I said in the poll: why not remove every limit and make you prone to being sent off course by every single particle you hit while FAoff? Increase the difference between FAoff and FAon, not minimize it - because if you begin to minimize to even out tactical advantages, you'll end up with two similar modes of which either one becomes obsolte. Maximum thrust with FAoff could still be limited, because your thrusters just can't deliver more punch = simple explaination. You might become even faster by being shot from behind. But there just can't be an explaination for slowing down by turning backwards with FAoff, because it's simply wrong. Automatic systems should never slow you down if they are disabled ;)


To be plain: I seized using FAoff entirely since the change. It became useless. If anyone disagrees and points out that "you still can point your nose in a different direction than your momentum" I'd like to counter this right now: Yeah, just like you can when using strafe, up/down and forward/back thrusters with FAon. Actually it's even the same speed now - so if you wanna fly backwards you can just as well pull the nose up, apply thrusters down to slide your belly forward and as you come around to stall 90°, just apply backwards thrusters until your nose points in the opposite direction of your movement. I don't need FAoff for that and in fact FAoff has LESS capability, because I can't use the %-throttle.


I just hope they take the poll result into account and just reverse the Beta2 changes to FAoff. It's stupid and useless. No amount of fanboyism or freshly imagined propulsion religion can change that :p

(sorry if this comes across bold, I considered it funny)
 
Last edited:
Dear Vertex!

As far as the explanation part goes, I think you misunderstand my intentions. It's more of a fun mental exercise than anything (why I put it in the roleplaying forum), and also simply about 'suspension of disbelief. Since we're in a mystical fantasy world, playing on a computer, you can't perfectly suspend disbelief ever, so the goal is to just get closer to it. I guess in short, it's just for fun, but it also serves a purpose to help the players feel like there's a meaning to something, so every time their speed bleeds off it doesn't feel like fingers on a chalkboard (at least, to people like me)

I do agree with you entirely on FAoff being basically useless now, and that being disappointing. I still use it most of the time, because for normal maneuvering it 'feels' smoother to me, more gentle and flowing, rather than all these very jerky sort of movements. It's graceful.

I suppose I hope that someday they do some things to make it more useful again and the skill I've developed won't be for not.
 
We're in the roleplay section? Ooops... sorry, that fact somehow slipped my attention :eek:

Well..... in that case: Unicorns!

No, really, they're everywhere. They poke holes in your hull when you're not watching - that's why the ship needs to be slow in reverse, because behind you you can't not don't watch them unicorns. So speeding backwards would run them over and they would most certainly poke holes in your hull with their pointy unicorn horns.


Ps: Okay, back to your ocean theory. Anyone thinking "Narwhale!" right now!?
 
Last edited:
I kind of like the "public safety" explanation the best:

Flying into a planet or station at any significant velocity would be extremely damaging and destructive. You could essentially turn any ship into a "missle" capable of killing billions. Close proximity navigation around other ships/stations would also be much safer at lower speeds, sort of like "no wake" zones for boat traffic.

Knowing this, perhaps the construction of flight computers are heavily regulated. Sort of how in Formula 1 the ECU is manufactured to the FIA spec in order to prevent teams from developing traction control. They could be made extremely difficult to reverse-engineer and tamper-proof.

So in the same way the flight computer manages your speed in SC, it may also limit your top speed in normal cruise. Bascially if you have SC and Hyperspace there's no reason you need to exceed ~500m/s in normal cruise.

The only place where this doesn't work is the fact that different ships have different top speeds. If it was truly enforced by the flight computer it would be the same arbitrary speed for all ships. It would sort of make sense if top speed decreased with mass of the ship (as a safety feature), but that wouldn't explain the low top speed of the Sidewinder.
 
The only place where this doesn't work is the fact that different ships have different top speeds. If it was truly enforced by the flight computer it would be the same arbitrary speed for all ships. It would sort of make sense if top speed decreased with mass of the ship (as a safety feature), but that wouldn't explain the low top speed of the Sidewinder.

I'm of a mind that the 'manufacturers' would market their ships similar to how auto makers do, and would want certain flight 'characteristics' in their products and tune their computers accordingly, the same way that FD are tuning these ships according to how they want them to fit in the universe. Just because your ship has more or less mass doesn't necessarily mean that it automatically 'turns' slower or faster, as acceleration equals force divided by mass. If you have more mass, you *can* add more 'force'--more powerful thrusters--to counterbalance it. Of course, one of the major problems in engineering is that you can only balance those variables so much--you can only make a ship so small and make its thrusters so powerful without making them heavier, and while you can make ships bigger and make thrusters more powerful, you run into ANOTHER problem of fuel and energy consumption increasing exponentially as you do. Engineering is all a balancing act.

So while there's no *technical* reason you couldn't increase the 'top speed' of the Sidewinder (since there should be no practical 'speed limit' preventing you), your maneuvering thrusters have a physical limit on how much they can do, so increasing your flight computer's 'top speed' decreases its responsiveness since the maneuvering thrusters can ONLY produce so much thrust to counteract inertia. It's not much different than my last car--my turning radius in a parking lot was *terrible,* but it's because the manufacturer designed the steering to be responsive and nimble at-speed instead, which required a mechanical trade-off elsewhere. So, FdL wants the Sidewinder to be 'nimble' and 'maneuverable,' so they adjust their thruster output mechanically as best they can, and then tune their flight computer's 'top speed' to preserve a highly-responsive profile. If you make their 'top speed' too high, given their maneuvering thrusters' output has a practical limit, then it'd start 'handling' more like a Cobra--fast high-end, but it takes longer to change course.

The FD thread that popped up just after Beta 2 launched explaining why they removed the ability to boost-then-coast by turning FA off pretty well sums up their official stance: FA 'off' **never** actually turns FA completely off, it just makes it FA-Lite. I don't like it, I don't agree with it, I'd love a more robust Newtonian-only model, but it is the way it is, just like so many things in the real world.
 
Last edited:
The FD thread that popped up just after Beta 2 launched explaining why they removed the ability to boost-then-coast by turning FA off pretty well sums up their official stance: FA 'off' **never** actually turns FA completely off, it just makes it FA-Lite. I don't like it, I don't agree with it, I'd love a more robust Newtonian-only model, but it is the way it is, just like so many things in the real world.

Agree with you. FAoff-lite, so boost speed bleeds away, doesn't sit well with me. Newtonian flight vs. Dogfight has been done to death but there's a reason for that, which is the wish to be able to experience zero gravity. While I'm happy with Elite 1984 type flight model (FAon), flight assist off really ought to be just that imho. Bleed away just doesn't work for me. There, I said it twice.

Unfortunately even the relative speed to thrusters idea doesn't realy work to explain a top speed, the propellant only has to eject from the engine to exert force and contunie acceleration (only needs to travel faster than the craft if there's atmosphere). Current speed in vacuum, outside a gravity well doesn't affect thrust, Special Relativity does, eventually, at high speeds.

I don't know why FD changed FAoff like they did, it's a decision which doesn't make any sense to me
1. It used to give people the choice of that flight type, obviously there's a reason why debate raged
2. FAoff may be maneuverable, but it's difficult to control, so there's a trade off there and
3. FAon (max speed) is already quite a long way from real flight, It makes me wonder, why go to all the trouble of making realistic stars, if nearly all the realism is beaten out of your promary interaction with the environment whether you like it or not.
.
 
Unfortunately even the relative speed to thrusters idea doesn't realy work to explain a top speed, the propellant only has to eject from the engine to exert force and contunie acceleration (only needs to travel faster than the craft if there's atmosphere). Current speed in vacuum, outside a gravity well doesn't affect thrust, Special Relativity does, eventually, at high speeds.

I'm not really sure what you mean. In space, your 'speed' is entirely relative to whatever else is around you. To us here on Earth, we're standing still, but the Earth is orbiting the Sun, and the Sun, in turn, is orbiting the galactic center, and the galaxy, itself, is also moving at who-even-knows what velocity in who-even-knows what direction. So when you talk about navigation in space, it's best to make your reference point fluid, to adjust it to whatever the object of greatest interest is. When you are trying to dock, you are obviously most interested in the space station you are docking with, so you lock the station down as your 'zero' point of reference, even though the station is orbiting a planet orbiting a sun orbiting a galaxy--you don't care about all the rest of that, just what you are doing compared to the station.

What I've been trying to say is that each of your engines is only capable of producing so much thrust at any one time, because they are physical machines that have physical limits. YES, you could *accelerate* for more-or-less as long as you had fuel, because velocity equals acceleration multiplied by time. BUT, the faster you are moving in any direction, the longer it is going to take your engines to change your direction of travel, because TIME was the factor you were changing, not your rate of acceleration, so by imposing a 'soft limit' to the speed you are traveling relative to whatever your reference point is, you guarantee that the pilot will have a predictable flight reaction when he changes direction--you will ALWAYS take x amount of time to make a complete 90-degree turn, eliminating some of the mathematic load on the pilot in-flight. If you are the manufacturer of a ship that you advertise as 'nimble,' then you don't want your customer to take five full seconds to make a 90-degree turn, because five full seconds to make a 90 degree turn doesn't scream 'nimble' to me. So you use a set of interstellar speed standards (ED seems to have settled on >400 kilometers per hour as being their standard) and you tune your physical hardware accordingly. But if your small spacecraft, say, doesn't have QUITE enough energy coming from its powerplant to generate the magnetic fields necessary to give you a 2-second 90-degree turn at 400kph, then you adjust as close as you can to that red line while keeping the handling as 'nimble' as you can make it to satisfy your client base.

Look at it another way--a 2-D graph. You are traveling 'due north' at 100 kilometers per hour relative to the station, to get yourself in-line with the docking port and clear of the station walls. Now you want to be traveling 100 kph due east, because that's where the dock is. But, how do you get there? If I were flying fully-Newtonian, I'd yaw around to *135* degrees, instead of 90, and fire my main engine at what is actually a 45-degree angle between the direction I WAS going and the direction I WANT to go. This'll ensure the most efficient turn--a turn that 'cuts the corner' as close to a 45-degree angle on a graph as you can get. But it also means that I can't see where I am 'going' because I'm neither pointed in the direction I'm traveling NOR am I pointed in the direction I WANT to be going.

Another option is to turn FA on, which is designed to make sure your ship is traveling in the direction you are pointed in the most intuitive manner it can. You yaw over 90 degrees, and FA automatically fires your main engine to bring your east/west velocity up to 100 while your starboard-side lateral thrusters fire to kill your north/south velocity. HERE is the problem: your mains are much larger than your laterals, which strongly implies they are more powerful. Indeed, if this is an SSTO-capable craft, they'd have to be to reach escape velocity. So while your lateral thrusters might be strong, size, in this case, matters--compare it to the difference between a garden hose and a fire hose. Even if the pressure of the water is the same or even greater, the garden hose can only allow so much mass through at a time, and in the case of a plasma thruster, force is equal to mass MULTIPLIED by acceleration. But special relativity tells us there is only so much you can do to increase the acceleration of your reaction mass before the energy cost becomes prohibitive. So--bigger thruster equals more powerful, all else being equal. NOW, you as an astronautical engineer, need to make a choice. Your 'optimal' turn is one that, when graphed, looks like someone just rounded the corner with a circle. But your engine ouput is vastly different--your main can change your east-west velocity pretty quickly, but it will take more time for your laterals to kill your north/south velocity, turning your 'rounded corner' into more of an upside-down boob: a sharp slope that gradually shallows out at the 'top'. Not great for a pilot because it isn't nearly as intuitive as a symetrical curve. The higher the speed, the greater that inbalance becomes because...yeah, your thrusters are STILL only producing the same amount of thrust, making it take even longer to bleed off the higher speed (the graph would look more or less the same, just magnified over longer time scales). So, at this point, you have a couple things you can do to smooth out that curve and make it more symetrical--you can reduce your relative speed AND reduce your rate-of-yaw so that, 1, you can get a little use out of your forward-facing retro-thrusters IN ADDITION TO your starboard-facing lateral ones, AND your rate-of-yaw more closely matches your rate-of-lateral-thrust, making the turn much more intuitive and 'predictable.' Which....yup, if you look at FD, that's EXACTLY what their flight model does.

My degree in physics is still a few years away, so while I know what I'm *trying* to say, I'm having a hard time explaining it.

Now, what I have zero idea about is the change to FA that disabled the max-boost cruise. I haven't hooked up with another player to make the observation, but I'm guessing that the retro-thrusters fire to slow you back down after an FA-OFF boost, which makes even less sense than the speed limit imposed by an FA-Lite mode. I'm not going to even try and RP-justify that decision. I'm just going to write it out of my fan-fic :)
 
Last edited:
I have the degree in physics... and indeed the doctorate that followed and can say that the propulsion system in elite doesn't really make since.

BUT

we can think of it in terms of what has already been said.


HYPERSPACE
The hyperspace jumping, could be attributed to forming a Einstein-Rosen bridge, or a wormhole. Science fiction often has to lean on some form of FTL device, and this is as good a method as any.

The model for it ingame works too. The way I figure it is when you bend space-time before forming the bridge, the exact location that you bridge too will contain some randomness, that aside it should also drop you at a location near to a large object, such as a star or gas giant. Remember, you choose you entry point as your ship, by curving space-time around your ship, the mathematics of the Einstein-Rosen bridge requires you also to generate a negative energy density in order to open the bridge and keep the bridge way open. These things your ship controls locally.

The exit point however is not completely assured, but my guess would be assuming the above can be done, it would be possible to choose the outcome by tuning exactly how much you bend space time and the gravitational potential you open the bridge at.


Alright, so the above is very hand wavy and not massively convincing, but its what i go with, its actually what i went with in a story i wrote a long time ago during my PhD.

FRAMESHIFT
On local travel, the frameshift drive to get FTL travel, can operate on a similar if not identical principle, only not completely going through with the jumps. It has been proposed as a theoretical method to travel FTL by cheating physics a little by warping space-time directly in-front and behind a ship. You are artificially pushed forward by sweeping the artificially generated gravitational hole ahead of the ship. Bending and surfing space time you could say.

LOCAL
Now, this is where it gets a little funky. The game mechanics certainly contain some kind of relative frame of reference thing, which depending on the object you are approaching, kicks in at different distances. You might notice that stations orbit planets as you approach them, and when you get to that nearer than 1Mkm mark, it no longer drifts. So my proposed thing is simply this.

It is game mechanics to make the system playable, In FE and FFE combat and manoeuvres in space where crazy. And although combat was fun, it was weird. Scooping cargo was next to impossible, lining up and positioning yourself next to any asteroid was also next to impossible. After playing Kerbal... i know why ;)

So I go with this, the frame shift device drops you out, with as close to matched momentum as the object you are referenced to. The vessel then only allows relative velocity based upon its maneuvering capabilities. That is a set threshold to how much acceleration can the thrusters provide over a set period of time, allowing a full reversal of relative velocity given X amount of time. Again this is quite shaky, as it does suggest that somehow this is agreed upon by all people and ship manufacturers to only 'allow' safe use.

After all, we all know that if we open up the thrusters, we should just fly off eventually at an ever increasing speed.

The above though is also something that I perhaps is indicated by the fuel consumption of the ship, which is essentially the same at all times, in all modes. (Its some value in frame shift, and some other value in regular flight)

So what is actually being operated and using the fuel during regular flight is the generator, a minimal amount is actually going on thrusters....


Just a few ideas, sorry for the long post.
 
I have the degree in physics... and indeed the doctorate that followed and can say that the propulsion system in elite doesn't really make since.

I defer to the sensei! (everything you said was what I was *trying* to say, but don't have the expertise to really articulate, so thank you for the insight!) Just out of my own personal curiosity, what was the topic of your thesis?
 
Last edited:
It was a thesis in experimental particle physics, sounds cool, it was a thesis about novel single photon counters for the T2K long baseline neutrino oscillation experiment.

I basically did lots of measurements of absolute quantum efficiency of the devices that went into a couple of the detectors of the experiment.

Sooooo I got to do (as part of the research training) a crap load of quantum, GR and SR, which for the most part I have forgotten the details of. I am currently a researcher for a dark matter experiment.

Thanks for the shout there, I actually didnt really read the thread so when i posted I thought most of this would have already been said and that i just sounded like a self worshiping *bleep*

On reading the above, the comments regarding local travel is very close, and while it doesn't make sense to limit the velocity i think if it did need to be 'explained away' It would be for human safety and control :D
 
Sooooo I got to do (as part of the research training) a crap load of quantum, GR and SR, which for the most part I have forgotten the details of. I am currently a researcher for a dark matter experiment.

Ah, dark matter! Fantastic puzzle! And so full of potential, too. Keep up the excellent work, doctor!
 

Javert

Volunteer Moderator
I haven't spotted this thread before.

I spent a few hours thinking about the same issue when I couldn't sleep one night.

I like the OPs explanation for this as it goes a long way towards explaining the behaviour BUT...

I came to the same conclusion as Eros above when I tried to think this through completely. Unfortunately you still have to suspend disbelief on the issue of why the ships top speed is somehow locked to a maximum speed relative to an arbitrary frame of reference e.g. the nearest space station to where you are currently located.

I can't think of a pure physics or pseudo physics explanation similar to the OP which can explain this behaviour and is believable, especially since some of the frame of reference objects are clearly made by people and not large planets or anything.

In the end you have to accept the OP theory (or something similar) and then suspend disbelief on this aspect, or you have to come up with an explanation as to why the ships would be artificially limited in respect to a local frame of reference. As Eros pointed out, this then means you have to explain why every ship would obey the same rules.

The best I could come up with was that every ship has a kind of device fitted which generates an artificial friction effect using the same type of technology as the frameshift drive, relative to a local frame of reference. This has been agreed by a galactic treaty like the Geneva conventions that currently govern warfare today. The idea here is to make sure that ships in any local area are operating based on something close to the same zero speed, and possibly to impose some kind of "chivalric" code onto operations and combat. The device is a standard device fitted to all ships of all makes and is identical for everybody. Your thrusters have to fight against the effect that this device generates.

You could take it a step further and say that part of the reason for this is that ships that are charging or activating their frameshift drive generate "disturbances or shock wave in space", and that other craft in the same area are likely to cause a massive explosion which destroys the entire area if they approach in normal space, but with very large relative velocity whilst this is happening. You could put some further cool sounding explanation around this.

Because of the severe danger to the ship itself, and other ships in the area, if you remove this device from your ship or tamper with it, your ship explodes/stops/whatever. Further, if you try to operate without this device, you will be immediately zapped by nuclear weapons if you try to approach any inhabited area.

I can think of four holes so far in my explanation:
1) Explorers who spend all their time in uninhabited space - this wouldn't really explain why to limit their performance in this way.
2) The idea around the disturbances in space could be used as suicide weapon or WMD of some kind and I'm not sure why someone wouldn't do this (yet). (Maybe this explains why sometimes your ship blows up for no apparent reason :) )
3) First encounters with alien species - would an alien spacefaring civilization have developed the same or similar rules? Actually this could be pretty cool if Alien ships had a weird flight dynamics because they had a totally different take on this.
4) How would you stop people tampering with the device in a minor way - for example just decreasing the friction level a tiny bit to give them a very small advantage but not one that would be obvious.

I hadn't thought it through any further than that. I admit it stretches credibility that all civilizations would agree to this, but to me this is the only route you can go down if you want to completely explain the current flight model.
 
I came to the same conclusion as Eros above when I tried to think this through completely. Unfortunately you still have to suspend disbelief on the issue of why the ships top speed is somehow locked to a maximum speed relative to an arbitrary frame of reference e.g. the nearest space station to where you are currently located.

Actually, this was most of the reason for my original post. The idea being that frame of reference is not linked to a particular object in space, it's 'chosen' by the pilot. There is nothing inherently special about choosing a station, or outpost, or the sun.. you just need something that your sensors can get a lock on as a reference point, and then the frame shift drive can align itself with that object and drop into its reference frame.

From this point on, your drives are locked to that reference frame, and you paddle around in the sub-space around you in order to move about. You can't paddle infinitely fast, but the paddling you can do is extremely efficient. If you want to change reference again, that requires a charge up and a 'jump.'

As crazy as all that pseudo science magic is, I still find it somehow more plausible than everyone in the galaxy agreeing to some speed limit. Especially a galaxy that is filled with murderers, pirates, and every single ship is packed to the gills with an insane level of deadly firepower. As a pirate, the very first thing I would do is modify my ship so I no longer have those restrictions. If, somehow, the controlling forces were so amazingly powerful that they could create technology that is totally unable to be tampered with, then I imagine they could also make ships that, oh... DIDN'T HAVE GUNS, and wouldn't allow themselves to be rammed into other ships. In essence enforcing peace and safety across the galaxy!
 
Back
Top Bottom