Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

Courvosier II broadside tubes

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Courvosier II broadside tubes
Post by Bill Woods   » Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:14 pm

Bill Woods
Captain of the List

Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:39 am

Jonathan_S wrote:Though all the 4(+) stage designs seem to run into the light-speed issue.

Normally your descriptions of the missile acceleration, terminal velocity, and powered range seem to ignore relativistic effect (which does keep the math tractable). But if you apply the same calculations that say from rest 540 seconds at 46,000 gees gives you the canonical 0.812c at 65,726,640 km and add a 4th drive the 720 seconds at that accel would give you 1.083 c -- Oops.


Switching to relativistic equations now, in additional to being more of a pain to calculate, would conflict with existing statements about MDM performance.

(My guess was that you'd just declare a fiat 0.9c or so "top speed" with the missile either being incapable of accelerating past that, or automatically destroyed in the attempt, which still allows the final stage(s) to be used for lateral deflections of the missile's course without letting impeller driven objects exceed the local speed of light)
The problem with that is, 0.9c with respect to what? If a ship going 0.3c one way (relative to some bystander) fires a Mk23 at a ship going 0.3c the other way, at what point does the missile hit 0.9c?
----
Imagined conversation:
Admiral [noting yet another Manty tech surprise]:
XO, what's the budget for the ONI?
Vice Admiral: I don't recall exactly, sir. Several billion quatloos.
Admiral: ... What do you suppose they did with all that money?
Top
Re: Courvosier II broadside tubes
Post by Jonathan_S   » Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:15 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6233
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Bill Woods wrote:
Jonathan_S wrote:(My guess was that you'd just declare a fiat 0.9c or so "top speed" with the missile either being incapable of accelerating past that, or automatically destroyed in the attempt, which still allows the final stage(s) to be used for lateral deflections of the missile's course without letting impeller driven objects exceed the local speed of light)
The problem with that is, 0.9c with respect to what? If a ship going 0.3c one way (relative to some bystander) fires a Mk23 at a ship going 0.3c the other way, at what point does the missile hit 0.9c?
Probably 0.9c relative to the local star. That's what I assume applies to the well established in-universe 0.8c speed limit on rad shielding for warships.

(Though then there's the 0.6c rad shielding speed limit for a warship in hyper. No local star for that to be relative to, yet it still exists in the books)
Top
Re: Courvosier II broadside tubes
Post by Joat42   » Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:24 pm

Joat42
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1640
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:01 am
Location: Sweden

Bill Woods wrote:
Jonathan_S wrote:Though all the 4(+) stage designs seem to run into the light-speed issue.

Normally your descriptions of the missile acceleration, terminal velocity, and powered range seem to ignore relativistic effect (which does keep the math tractable). But if you apply the same calculations that say from rest 540 seconds at 46,000 gees gives you the canonical 0.812c at 65,726,640 km and add a 4th drive the 720 seconds at that accel would give you 1.083 c -- Oops.


Switching to relativistic equations now, in additional to being more of a pain to calculate, would conflict with existing statements about MDM performance.

(My guess was that you'd just declare a fiat 0.9c or so "top speed" with the missile either being incapable of accelerating past that, or automatically destroyed in the attempt, which still allows the final stage(s) to be used for lateral deflections of the missile's course without letting impeller driven objects exceed the local speed of light)
The problem with that is, 0.9c with respect to what? If a ship going 0.3c one way (relative to some bystander) fires a Mk23 at a ship going 0.3c the other way, at what point does the missile hit 0.9c?

It must first de-accelerate to a stand still before gaining ground on the target, given the acceleration profile set on the missile it is quite easy to calculate the extra time it takes to do that (somewhat accurately if you ignore all the niggly wiggly stuff that starts to happen at relativistic speeds).

---
Jack of all trades and destructive tinkerer.


Anyone who have simple solutions for complex problems is a fool.
Top
Re: Courvosier II broadside tubes
Post by Bill Woods   » Mon Aug 27, 2018 5:34 pm

Bill Woods
Captain of the List

Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:39 am

Jonathan_S wrote:Though all the 4(+) stage designs seem to run into the light-speed issue.

Normally your descriptions of the missile acceleration, terminal velocity, and powered range seem to ignore relativistic effect (which does keep the math tractable). But if you apply the same calculations that say from rest 540 seconds at 46,000 gees gives you the canonical 0.812c at 65,726,640 km and add a 4th drive the 720 seconds at that accel would give you 1.083 c -- Oops.


Switching to relativistic equations now, in additional to being more of a pain to calculate, would conflict with existing statements about MDM performance.

(My guess was that you'd just declare a fiat 0.9c or so "top speed" with the missile either being incapable of accelerating past that, or automatically destroyed in the attempt, which still allows the final stage(s) to be used for lateral deflections of the missile's course without letting impeller driven objects exceed the local speed of light)
Bill Woods wrote:The problem with that is, 0.9c with respect to what? If a ship going 0.3c one way (relative to some bystander) fires a Mk23 at a ship going 0.3c the other way, at what point does the missile hit 0.9c?
Joat42 wrote:It must first de-accelerate to a stand still before gaining ground on the target, given the acceleration profile set on the missile it is quite easy to calculate the extra time it takes to do that (somewhat accurately if you ignore all the niggly wiggly stuff that starts to happen at relativistic speeds).
I was thinking of two ships heading towards each other, so deceleration isn't an issue.

According to Newton, the launching ship sees the missile accelerate from zero to 0.81c.
But the 'stationary' observer sees the missile go from 0.30c to ... 1.1c,
while the target ship sees the missile go from 0.60c to 1.41c.
Obviously, there's a problem: does or doesn't the missile exceed 0.9c (or worse, 1.0c)?

According to Einstein, the launching ship sees the missile go from zero to 0.67c.
The 'stationary' observer sees the missile go from 0.30c to 0.81c,
while the target ship sees the missile go from 0.55c to 0.89c.
----
Imagined conversation:
Admiral [noting yet another Manty tech surprise]:
XO, what's the budget for the ONI?
Vice Admiral: I don't recall exactly, sir. Several billion quatloos.
Admiral: ... What do you suppose they did with all that money?
Top

Return to Honorverse