Even if you hate the Docking Computer...
- Thread starter IndigoWyrd
- Start date
given the relative mass diffrance bitween station and ship, and the perceivable thickness of the station walls, it would be like.
[video=youtube;stsb9f3UuGE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stsb9f3UuGE[/video]
Last edited:
Sure, stations are big and ships (even the biggest ones) are just a fraction of the stations' size.
However. Speeds we are talking about are significantly higher than what the video shows. Nearly 5 times higher if we assume docking speed of 100m/s. Now, take a laden Conda (850000 kg, give or take) - its mass is 28.33 times higher than the mass of this truck. That Conda will hit the station with the energy of roughly 275350000 joules. That's not insignificant and definitely capable of dealing a lot of damage inside the station. I think even crashing a Sidewinder inside would cause loss of life and require lengthy repairs.
Ah, that's not considering things like potential explosives (ammo) on board of the ship. Also, whatever remains of the ship's power plant, will be radioactive (despite the power plants being nuclear fusion - based). Even in case of something as small as Eagle or Sidewinder, you get effectively a dirty bomb inside the station. Remember to add to it that any fire inside the station consumes oxygen.
Feel free to correct my maths, I'm not a physicist. But in general it seems that your truck analogy doesn't fit here. If Elite was to be kept super realistic, no station would allow any of our ships to dock without an automated and guided process. Most likely they would blow out of the black any ship getting too close without initiating automated docking. Now, I'm not suggesting Elite should be realistic, after all we are supposed to fly these ships, not have them fly us. But some dose of respect for realism certainly wouldn't hurt.
However. Speeds we are talking about are significantly higher than what the video shows. Nearly 5 times higher if we assume docking speed of 100m/s. Now, take a laden Conda (850000 kg, give or take) - its mass is 28.33 times higher than the mass of this truck. That Conda will hit the station with the energy of roughly 275350000 joules. That's not insignificant and definitely capable of dealing a lot of damage inside the station. I think even crashing a Sidewinder inside would cause loss of life and require lengthy repairs.
Ah, that's not considering things like potential explosives (ammo) on board of the ship. Also, whatever remains of the ship's power plant, will be radioactive (despite the power plants being nuclear fusion - based). Even in case of something as small as Eagle or Sidewinder, you get effectively a dirty bomb inside the station. Remember to add to it that any fire inside the station consumes oxygen.
Feel free to correct my maths, I'm not a physicist. But in general it seems that your truck analogy doesn't fit here. If Elite was to be kept super realistic, no station would allow any of our ships to dock without an automated and guided process. Most likely they would blow out of the black any ship getting too close without initiating automated docking. Now, I'm not suggesting Elite should be realistic, after all we are supposed to fly these ships, not have them fly us. But some dose of respect for realism certainly wouldn't hurt.
Last edited:
To note (and sorry if this has been mentioned), there's plenty of time to plot your return course while the pad is turning around for your ship to launch. I know there is, because that's when I always plot.
No module space required [big grin]
No module space required [big grin]
Stations that refuse manual docking offer a space tug (for a fee) to tow your ship in if you lack the necessary docking software!
A very large fee! Well, that's not what I had in mind, just a refusal to let them dock.
You need to read back a post or two, this is in reposes to my suggestion that there should be some stations that refuse to allow manual docking and some that refuse to allow manual docking.
I'm confused. What's OP doing that's allegedly so clever/an exploit?
In a way you are right about the truck analogy, it would be for worse for the ship, but the truck is an every day object that people see and can easly imagine at 50mph.
Your math's is wrong if your using classic KE = 1/2m * v2 = J, where m is mass kg and v is speed in meters per sec, and the number would be much higher amount of Jules, however that also doesn't take into account how quickly something stops, thus the distance that energy is dissipated in, it only tells us its potential in the frame before it stopping, or in the instant after should it come to an immediate in ostensibly near zero distance stop, should it miss the letterbox at speed.
And what your failing to grasp is even the biggest spaceships given their size and mass even with the weight cargo are little more than tin cans, where much of the force would be absorbed within its self as it would crumple up and literally disintegrate, much like the old footage of an F4 phantom being fired into a ~650t concrete reactor roof sample at 500mph.
F4 phantom at ~480mph (~214m/s) vs. 10ft (3.048m) thick rector wall/roof outer test sample (free standing):
[video=youtube;RV_baW5OERY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV_baW5OERY[/video]
As for fire, one would assume that no one would be in the hangar without any backup breathing supply should any force-field like "door" fail, or need to be shutdown to vent oxygen to starve a fire in the landing bay, one would also assume the only people "air-side" are the ones designated to be there and trained in all manner of situations, a little more like the flight deck of an aircraft carrier than a bus or train station, the other more startling thing would be, why would you bother maintaining a breathable oxygen environment to such huge open area that serves little purpose, promotes fire, or could be lost if a force-field like "door" failed, when you could just use nitrogen and CO2 and other scrubbed gases from the living areas and mitigate waste and fire risk while still maintaining a more comfortable 1ATA/ATM, so your body hugging elasticated "onesie" undergarment isn't so tight fitting as it would be at 0ATA/ATM should the force-field like "door" fail, while your rebreathing apparatus would suply meny hours of breathing at both 1ATA/ATM or 0ATA/ATM.
The only real problem at the moment with how things work, is the lack of requesting to launch much as you have to request to land, and a more ordered system that tells you when to hold short of the door and when to carry on and your order through the door vs. other ships, as a docking computer to land you without the same system governing your exit is at best farce, likewise ANY automated system should have a very quick way to turn it OFF and should NOT be doing ANY maneuvers a human can't do, as that leads to unrecoverable situations.
Now lets take something from the real world, there are many commercial aircraft that at many major airports could land them selves in zero visibility, however most country's forbid that, because there is no way really for the pilots to see until its to late if there is a problem, which is why there is a decision height, if the pilot see's the runway, he takes manual control and lands, if he can't see the runway he executes a missed approach and go-around in much the same way as he would if he was to see an aircraft etc on his runway even though the tower has said its clear, or other problems.
That video not showing that concrete reactor wall after the impact and you didn't mention the radiation problem. Yeah, I do get the tincan reference, though I do believe station crew would rather avoid collisions.
Probably many procedures inside the station would be automated and there wouldn't be any people there who are not really necessary. Though there are buildings near every landing pad and I guess these are not empty.
Anyhow, I do agree that a take-off computer is missing. As for quick way of turning it off, there should be a simple button binding isstead of having to throttle up (or worse: having to go to the modules panel).
Probably many procedures inside the station would be automated and there wouldn't be any people there who are not really necessary. Though there are buildings near every landing pad and I guess these are not empty.
Anyhow, I do agree that a take-off computer is missing. As for quick way of turning it off, there should be a simple button binding isstead of having to throttle up (or worse: having to go to the modules panel).
I was thinking about that this evening. As I was leaving the launch pad, the controller said the corridor was clear. As I get up to speed and start heading for the exit, a T9 comes pushing through, and I managed to ding it on the way out. Of course I was the one fined, so I had to return later and take care of that. There needs to be, if not a docking computer option for exit, then at least a better ATC, or some kind of radar that lets me see outside of the station. Little brown boxes as they come in do me no good if I'm coming up on the exit and have to swerve away inside the station.
There is no decision height for an auto land. Any autoland capable aircraft can land if there is an ILS. The reason restrictions are put in place is purely due to lighting and ILS protection, as the categories rise, so does the level of lighting (Centreline roll out, approach lighting etc) Same deal with the ILS protection, CAT II/III A/B/C will have restrictions, ground vehicles etc must stay a certain distance away to avoid disrupting the signal. It has nothing to do with being able to see an aircraft on the runway.
penetration depth of the fuselage = 20mm
penetration depth of the engines = 60mm
the full scale Sandia National Laboratories test is often sighted in many report/papers on structural engineering and by national atomic energy agencies and company's the world over and has been in many documentary programs over the years which include post crash footage long before the events of Sep 2001, and conversely by 9/11 theorists of opposing views and various narratives since.
as for radiation, that depends on lots of things, but IRL reactors that are "portable" much like containers for transport of spent fuel-rods, have to be able to withstand a reasonable impact situation, like high-speed trains hitting them on level crossing, or hitting derailed wagons, or highly energetic explosions on-board ship, likewise it also depends if the power plant is really nothing more than an RTG (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator) which while they still contain much radiation can be made extremely impact resistant and could use some of the cushioning effect of the rest of the ship to minimise ultimate impact force, along with deformation of their own container, given they are not supporting an active reaction.
Last edited:
That's great for a Sidewinder but if you do that with a t9 you'll overshoot half the landingpads. You can only come in at speed if you know you'll be landing at the back of the station.
I use it in my Trade Cutter but hit throttle to zero always after entering the slot. There's still plenty of time making route back, etc. It is not really worth of time saving. There's no hurry in CG when you bring 720t / round
Keyword is optional. I fly an Orca, I can carry 32 economy, 4 luxury, 32 tons of cargo, have my advanced scanner, DSS, fuel scoop, shields, the whole works, and I have an extra module free. For that, I have the DC to land my girl on any planetary base, or station with a large docking pad. I make money hand over fist. Now, I'd like it if they would make the DC a slot option (something tied into the computer), which may be something they could consider (along with the DSS and ADS), but as it stands, my configuration is efficient, and works nicely. So for me, it's not a waste at all, but a benefit.
Believe it or not, I can make myself a pair of perfectly good shoes. And I still buy my shoes whenever I need a new pair. It's the matter of convenience. Similar with the docking computer. In a trading ship such as Conda or T9, having DC means a difference of 4T of cargo. Which is nothing. It's 8T with Cutter and Corvette and it's still nothing. When you doing an hour or two of 1 jump route, back and forth, the moment when you can just relax is very nice.
In any case, what is a waste to you, may not be to somebody else. And absolutely nobody is forcing you to use DC on your ships.