StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2006-05-20 09:33pm**

Finding the mass of an Acclamator

(According to Mr. Wong's "Star Wars v. Star Trek in 5 Minutes", The SW2ICS gives the maximum acceleration of an Acclamator at 3500 Gs. This is probably similar to the maximum acceleration of a Star Destroyer.

Mr. Saxton's "Star Wars Technical Comentaries", with reference to Star Destroyers, demonstrates that this is by no means due to a limit in the capability of the artificial gravity to maintain structural integrity:

In one fatal chase in the vicinity of a black hole [Starfire Rising, Marvel SW #54], a star destroyer indirectly proved an upper limit on its tolerance of sublight acceleration. The destroyer was fine, and its crew apparently comfortable, until the differential of gravitational forces across the ship's length exceeded some millions of G, when the ship disintegrated suddenly. This signifies the failure of the inertial compensators and tensor fields that normally counteract external forces (or effects of applying engine thrust). Field failure at this point implies that the engines were designed for a maximum thrust considerably less than a million G: possibly in the range of thousands of G. (It is worth noting that the destroyer's crew remained locally comfortable right until the inertial compensators failed across the miles' length of the ship.)

Also in Mr. Wong's "SW v ST in 5 minutes", the maximum reactor power of an Acclamator is given as (or derived to be) 2(10)^24 W.

We can assume that an Acclamator does not lose a significant percent of its mass in the course of her acceleration, because if she did, it would be logical to give a maximum acceleration at full fuel levels and one at low fuel levels.

This is the sticky part.
I think that I can say that power from the frame of reference of the accelerating power generator is P=.5m(dv)^2/dt, because if we go with throwing balls out the back of the ship, and take our reference point on the object moving, your change in velocity will always be the ratio of the ball's mass to yours, multiplied by the half the square of the speed you threw the ball at. If I'm wrong, please point it out--and if I'm right, please tell me, because this is becoming very mind-melting.

Anyway, if that's accurate, and we take the maximum acceleration of the Acclamator, call it 35000m/s in 1 s, and input them into the equation, we end up with 1.6(10)^15 kg for the Acclamator's mass.

The Acclamator is about 3(10)7 cubic meters in volume. This would make for a density of 5(10)^7kg/m3, thousands of times the density of lead. While this seems rather crazy, so do a lot of things in Star Wars.

Help?

EDIT: fixed the mps/Gs error and the things that make use of that number

Posted: **2006-05-20 09:37pm**

Um-the Accie's accelleration is 3,500 Gs.

Posted: **2006-05-20 09:40pm**

Well, I can see how that would be a problem. Fixing now.

Posted: **2006-05-20 09:44pm**

Batman wrote:Um-the Accie's accelleration is 3,500 Gs.

I know this is a stupid question... but I have seen accelleration given in G's What Does "G" stand for?

Posted: **2006-05-20 09:47pm**

A G is the acceleration due to gravity at sea level on Earth, or 9.81m/s^2 down, and is often approximated as 10m/s^2.

Posted: **2006-05-20 11:06pm**

Feil wrote:A G is the acceleration due to gravity at sea level on Earth, or 9.81m/s^2 down, and is often approximated as 10m/s^2.

Or to make it easier to catch, a G is one gravity. The acceleration you, yourself take every day of your life on Earth. Fighter pilots subject themselves to multiple G's in manuvers. When a pilot say's he/she's pulled 5 G's, they've accelerated five times that of one G. If the pilot weights 150lbs under one G, then under five G's, he/she weighs 750lbs.

Posted: **2006-05-21 02:48am**

Thanks Knife, and Feil. I have seen that several times and was wondering if it was the same as the g's a pilot pulls. And it obviously is. Thanks again for clairification.

Posted: **2006-05-21 03:00am**

Knife wrote:
Feil wrote:A G is the acceleration due to gravity at sea level on Earth, or 9.81m/s^2 down, and is often approximated as 10m/s^2.
Or to make it easier to catch, a G is one gravity. The acceleration you, yourself take every day of your life on Earth. Fighter pilots subject themselves to multiple G's in manuvers. When a pilot say's he/she's pulled 5 G's, they've accelerated five times that of one G. If the pilot weights 150lbs under one G, then under five G's, he/she weighs 750lbs.

I've always found that one of the most disturbing numbers in all of Star Wars. Those are truely insane levels of acceleration, and yet they're all walking around facing forwards without so much as an acceleration chair in sight! Has anyone ever put a theory out for how 'inertial dampening' works, and works to such an incredible degree? You should expect the entire crew to get turned into jello the second they put the pedal down. Rebel pilots don't even have air masks or a pressurized helmet or anything. Is this ever mentioned at all or is this one of those circumstances where a small lunchbox-sized set of components scattered around a ship can counteract 3,000+ G's of force completely without slowing the ship at all, or messing with the 1G straight down artifical gravity? ;p

Posted: **2006-05-21 03:25am**

Covenant wrote:
Knife wrote:
Feil wrote:A G is the acceleration due to gravity at sea level on Earth, or 9.81m/s^2 down, and is often approximated as 10m/s^2.
Or to make it easier to catch, a G is one gravity. The acceleration you, yourself take every day of your life on Earth. Fighter pilots subject themselves to multiple G's in manuvers. When a pilot say's he/she's pulled 5 G's, they've accelerated five times that of one G. If the pilot weights 150lbs under one G, then under five G's, he/she weighs 750lbs.
I've always found that one of the most disturbing numbers in all of Star Wars. Those are truely insane levels of acceleration, and yet they're all walking around facing forwards without so much as an acceleration chair in sight! Has anyone ever put a theory out for how 'inertial dampening' works, and works to such an incredible degree? You should expect the entire crew to get turned into jello the second they put the pedal down. Rebel pilots don't even have air masks or a pressurized helmet or anything. Is this ever mentioned at all or is this one of those circumstances where a small lunchbox-sized set of components scattered around a ship can counteract 3,000+ G's of force completely without slowing the ship at all, or messing with the 1G straight down artifical gravity? ;p

Not much different than inertial dampning that you find in most sci-fi. And if you recall during Empire Strikes Back when the Star Destroyer made that sharp turn the birdge crew got thrown about so its not perfect, but still better the Star Trek inertial dampeners. For the specifics you might have to look in the Star Wars tech books.

Posted: **2006-05-21 03:30am**

Ok here you go Covenant

Even the most (seemingly) ponderous STAR WARS starships are able to engage in straight-line accelerations of hundress or thousands of G (Earth gravities). To sustain the crew and contents against the violence of such manoeuvres (the inertial forces would easily pulverise a human) starships employ devices called "inertial dampers" or "inertial compensators." These are gravitic devices which act invisibly on every particle in the ship's habitable volume. They apply force equal and opposite to the effect of inertia due to the ship's acceleration at any given moment.

The force must be applied to each elementary particle separately. Otherwise the force differential across tissues, cells or molecules would stress, compress and destroy the crew at that level. For instance, if the compensatory forces were applied at a macroscopic level then the crew would be squashed; if they were applied at a cellular level then the crew would turn into putrified meat. Therefore the inertial compensator must apply its forces at a level where there is no permanent structure: at the atomic level or lower. Furthermore the forces exerted by the compensators must permeate and act equally throughout the entire interior of the ship. It may in fact be an ambient effect resembling gravity, or perhaps a disconnection of local spacetime from the universe at large.

The force compensation adjusts in realtime to match the changing accelerations of the ship, but the regulatory mechanism is not yet known. The effect might be controlled by accleration data from the ship's propulsion systems (but this would not help protect the ship from external forces). Alternatively, the compensation might be controlled by a network of independent inertial sensors. For all we know, the intertial compensator mechanisms may have inherent negative-feedback to stiffle inertial forces almost instantly

From
link

Posted: **2006-05-21 04:03am**

To add to what Dragon stated, it's worth noting that a ship's artificial gravity doesn't seem to have any effect on things not within the intended range of effect--for instance, the asteroids in the Hoth chase are not attracted towards the top of the Star Destroyers--which would indicate that somehow the artificial gravity can specify a start point and stop point, and maintain a constant level throughout--for there are large, cavernous spaces where gravity remains constant, despite a very visible lack of multiple generators (tractor beam controls, anyone?). This means that the same tech that makes Star Wars' artificial gravity work would be ideal for preventing crews from being turned into puddles, and starships from being ripped to pieces by gravity differentials while over black holes.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Acclamator mass estimate attempt

Acclamator mass estimate attempt