[Wing Commander] Help checking Math and Basic Physics

[Bob McDob]

http://www.crius.net/zone/showthread.ph ... genumber=1

my argument is solely based on the presented circumstance.


here they are : in non-vacant point per point manner



- can not exceed 1 kps in atmospheric conditions (reference book, yes i read it myself)

- carrier has atmosphere inside (reference book, game intros, etc)

- you can reach top speed in about 2 seconds (700'000 metres per second^2 accelleration relative to the arrow) (reference wc3)
1'400'000 metres per second in 2 seconds
700'000 metres per second^2

- maneuvering thrusters, not scoops, are used to maneuver. (reference privateer)

- scoops are used to gather hydrogen particles to maintain fuel supply (reference book)

- ships do not run out of fuel, but use internal fuel (reference any game)

- ships take off with fuel in the tanks (reference book)

- ships need to be loaded into the launch tubes (reference wcprop)

- artificial gravity is pointed into the floor (reference book, game intros)

- carrier mass is (concordia) 73'000 metric tonnes. (reference CIC)

- earths mass is 5.972e24 kg (5.972e21 tonnes) (reference http://www.seds.org/nineplanets/nineplanets/earth.html)

- earths gravity 9.8 m/s^2 (i hope i dont need to prove this to you)

- carrier gravity inside (9.8 m/s^2) (assimed from people walking about normally inside)

- carrier gravity well : (i hope you understand the formula)
(target / source) * source value = target value.
(73'000 metric tonnes / 5.972e21 tonnes) * 9.8 = ANS
7.3e4 / 5.972e21 = 5.06054e-8 m/s^2
thats 0.0000000506054 m/s^2 gravity well for the carrier

that is also 700'000/0.0000000506054 times weaker than the fighter engines.
that is 13832515900000 times WEAKER. meaning the fighter can effortlessly escape the ships gravity well.

- there is no collision issue with using scoops, of any sort. just see how perfectly fine fighters do on the victory. (reference wc3)

- fighters can hover in gravith of 9.8 m/s^2 (reference wc3 takeoff videos http://www.wcnews.com/news/showupdate.php?id=3190)

- fighters dont spew out flames taking off on low power (reference wc3 takeoff videos http://www.wcnews.com/news/showupdate.php?id=3190)

- launch tubes are not specified to have atmosphere inside them or no atmosphere, unknown (never mentioned)

- if a lunch tube has atmosphere, you are limited to 1 kps max. (resultant of 1kps cap with atmosphere, see above)

- if a launch tube has no atmosphere, you are unlimited for takeoff (resultant of no friction)

- if a launch tube has no atmosphere, there is noone there except the fighter ready for takeoff (people need air to breathe)

- if a launch bay is used, full afterburn is limited because of possible damages (people are there)

- if a launch bay is used, the speed cap is 1 kps (atmospheric cap, see above)

- carrier length (lets look at the shortest we have here, victory) 720 metres (reference CIC)

- time taken to reach 1 kps. (max you can do in atmosphere)
700'000 metres per second^2 accelleration
700 Kmetres per second^2 accelleration
1/700 seconds.
0.001428 seconds

- distance taken to reach 1 kps at full burn
accelleration function is 700x (KM, m would be 700'000x)
integral (the velocity) is 350x^2
integral2 (the position) is 116.666x^3

plug in the time into the position formula
116.666(0.001428 seconds)^3 = ANS
ANS = 3.397280525 e-7KM
= .00000033972 metres. not even a metre.

this is how far it would take to get up to max speed in a launch tube, for a fighter by itself, no catapult, with full burn, if the tube had an atmosphere.

- max speed reached in a tube, saying it was as long as the victory, with no atmosphere, no catapult.
take the position function and solve it for 720 metres.
integral2 (the position) is 116'666.666x^3
116'666.666x^3 = 720m
x^3 = .0061714286
x = .1834 u

plug into the velocity formula
350'000x^2
350'000(.1834^2) = ANS
11'772 m/s
11.772 kps

much slower than max speed.

- speed at the end of a catapult launch is max mil. 520kps for arrow.
so lets see what the lag time is in catching up to max mil. this would be the difference in time between a catapult launch and full burn launch.
time to max speed is about 2 seconds for arrow (known)
time to max military is .742 seconds
speed when leaving a ship with catapult launch is 520.
speed when leaving a ship with full burn from vacuum is 11

catapult in vacuum vs launch tube no catapult in vacuum :
speed needed to catch up is 509 kps.
thats time to max mil - time starting at
700x = 509 = .727 seconds
just under a quarter second advantage.

catapult in vacuum vs launchbay with atmosphere :
speed needed to catch up is 519 kps.
700x = 519 = .741 seconds.
a quarter second advantage.


- lock times are a few seconds. except FF missiles. (reference any game, cic, whatever)

- fighters are stored in their arking locations (reference cutscenes of the games)



now lets look at the evidence :

*if the launch tubes were in atmosphere, both normal and catapult launches would be capped to 1 kps. so they tie.

*if the launch tubes were vacuum, the catapult has almsot a quarter second advantage relative to getting fighters up to speed.

*if launching off the deck, the catapult were in vacuum, there would be a quarter second advantage in getting fighters up to speed.

*catapults must be loaded. taking time.

*launch tubes without catapults take time to load, but not as much since there is no latching to do.

*bay doesnt need to be loaded

* fighters dont need a catapult machine to get them off the deck since they can hover

* the accelleration due to the gravity well of the ship is 13832515900000 times weaker than the power of the fighter to escape it, meaning the fighter does not need the help getting away.

* lets say the prep time for a fighter is 5 minutes.
* lets say the launch tube loading time is 10 seconds

(this would be radically fast anyways to move a giant machine into a tube and position it. i'm underestimating by leaps and bounds to keep you happy here)
remember the fighters are stored parked. they would have to be moved from there (not exactly on the spot) to the tubes, and attached to the catapult.

* lets say the latching time is 2 seconds (to connect the fighter to the catapult)

continued from previous --- (see 2 posts down from this to see beginnind of this post, split into 2 cause of length limit)

*compare :
--------------------------------------------
from scratch - 5:12 to prep a catapult
- 5:10 to prep for tube launch w/o catapult
- 5:00 to prep a bay launch

from standby - 12 to prep catapult
- 10 to prep for tube launch w/o catapult
- 0 to prep bay launch

from ready - 0 to prep catapult
- 0 to prep for tube launch no catapult.
- 0 to prep bay launch

lets say takeoff time to get out in a bay (including maneuvering, etc) takes as long as the wc3 takeoff vids. (3 seconds, you can time it yourself)

total times are : (as functions) X = amount of time in seconds), and Fn = amount of fighters launched

CATAPULT
for scratch = ((x-300)/12)
for standby = (x/12)
for ready = (x/12)+1

TUBE no cat
for scratch =((x-300)/10)
for standby = (x/10)
for ready = (x/10)+1

BAY
for scratch = ((x-300)/3)
for standby = (x/3)
for ready = (x/3)

now lets see how many you have launched instantly, in 0 seconds. calues under 0 are treated as 0.

CATAPULT
for scratch = ((x-300)/12) @ 0 = 0
for standby = (x/12) @ 0 = 0
for ready = (x/12)+1 @ 0 = 1

TUBE no cat
for scratch =((x-300)/10) @ 0 = 0
for standby = (x/10) @ 0 = 0
for ready = (x/10)+1 @ 0 = 1

BAY
for scratch = ((x-300)/3) @ 0 = 0
for standby = (x/3) @ 0 = 0
for ready = (x/3) @ 0 = 0

The tube and catapult methods have a 1 fighter advantage here. now lets look at 3 seconds later.

CATAPULT
for scratch = ((x-300)/12) @ 0 = 0
for standby = (x/12) @ 0 = 0
for ready = (x/12)+1 @ 0 = 1

TUBE no cat
for scratch =((x-300)/10) @ 0 = 0
for standby = (x/10) @ 0 = 0
for ready = (x/10)+1 @ 0 = 1

BAY
for scratch = ((x-300)/3) @ 0 = 0
for standby = (x/3) @ 0 = 1
for ready = (x/3) @ 0 = 1

now the bay has the advantage. and if you look at the formulas, the bay will continue to have the advantage from here on out.

this means the tube and catapult systems would be better off for the first 3 seconds. in which time the launched fighters would accomplish (on average) nothing.

now lets say tehy were launching for 10 minutes. lets see what this looks like. who has more fighters out.

CATAPULT
for scratch = ((x-300)/12) @ 600 = 25
for standby = (x/12) @ 600 = 50
for ready = (x/12)+1 @ 600 = 51

TUBE no cat
for scratch =((x-300)/10) @ 600 = 30
for standby = (x/10) @ 600 = 60
for ready = (x/10)+1 @ 600 = 61

BAY
for scratch = ((x-300)/3) @ 600 = 100
for standby = (x/3) @ 600 = 200
for ready = (x/3) @ 600 = 200

now you can see that for extended periods of time, the bay launch system would have a tremendous numerical advantage.
--------------------------------------------

* so the final statement comes down to this.

catapult launch :
- 3/4 second speed advantage for fighters that took off vs bay
- 1 fighter extra launched for the first 3 seconds
- about 50 fighters launched in the long run (10 mins)
>> all are small values

tube launch :
- little speed difference vs bay, 3/4 seconds behind in speed vs catapult.
- 1 fighter extra launched for the first 3 seconds
- about 60 fighters launched in the long run
>> all are small values, but 10 extra fighters in the long run vs catapult.

bay launch :
- no speed advantage, 3/4 seconds benind catapult launch in speed.
- behind by 1 fighter for 3 seconds at launch time.
- about 200 fighters launched in the long run, 4x as much as the catapult.

so the choice comes down to,

would you rather use a catapult and have a miniscule sped advantage for not even a second, and have fighters out 3 seconds ahead of normal launch, and then wait for more.

or would you rather take that 3/4 seconds to catch up in speed, be behind by 1 fighter for 3 seconds, and then have reenforcements come in at 4x the rate you'd have otherwise.

its a simple choice. the advantages of a catpult are small.
if you're not in a hurry, you'd launch more with less effort with a bay.
if you are in a hurry, you'd still be better off with a bay, since when enemys are attacking, you want the most fighters out there to stop them, as quickly as possible, not a few that were out 3 seconds sooner and then feel isolated with no backup.

having more velocity on takeoff wont do much since you will be up to full speed before anyone can lock you.

if someone fires an FF missile at you (doesnt need a lock), and he did it so quickly that you were just exiting the ship, that means that they are ready for you and will use your excess speed to get behind you quicker.

the bay has the tactical advantage. better in the long run, and better in the short run.

the numbers dont lie.


note : i dont remember exactly if it was full military speed or full burn speed that a catapult launched you at. if it was full burn, increase the time to speed advantage for the catapult by just over a factor of 2, bringing it to about 1.5 seconds.
+ this makes no numerical advantage for the catpults, still they launch less.
+ its still a small time. if a world can happen in 1.5 seconds, then why bother even launching more fighters, its all over when it starts.
+ if you needed that 1.5 seconds, it sure would be nice to have that extra 8 seconds per launch (difference between bay and catapult readying time) using a bay system.

note #2 : launch tubes and catapults have no parallelism advantage. even if there is more then one launch tube launching at once, there can be more than one fighter taking off of a bay at once. or multiple bays.




i will though grant one complete advantage to the catapult system. WC just 'SAYS' its quicker. so under that statement it must be quicker. even if the numbers dont add up. -BECAUSE IT JUST IS-. thats the only serious argument that can be placed for catapult launching. you cant prove a tactical advantage otherwise.

the game may 'just use catapults faster'. but with the evidence it and the book present it in reality would be slower.

--------


and in reference ot the 1st post. there was no reason why fighters _couldnt_ be launched. not unless the exits to the bay and launch tubes were destroyed or damaged so bad they were physically impassable.

-scheherazade

Just from this, can anyone find any flaws?