Codification of Power Levels from ROTS ICS

[Hardy]

Hardy, those masses seem awfully light

I agree. The Jedi Starfighter, for example, shouldn't be lighter than a midsize Sedan.
It has mostly to do with me underestimating the surface area of these craft, I'm guessing.

given the amount of fuel though fighters have to carry to reach high percentages of light speed. I would expect them to at least as much as modern fighter craft.

Considering that the exhaust velocity is ~c, I think the payload to propellant ratio would be closer to or less than 1.

Also since the ARC-170 is hyperspace capable it should at least be on par with the Porax-38 Starfighter, they are also similar in size.

Yeah. I went back and re-measured the SA for the ARC-170. It turns out that the engine intakes are about 6 m², themselves. A better estimate for the SA is about 18 m². Simply multiply the estimates for the ARC-170 by three and you should get results more in line with the P38.

The Jedi Starfighter's surface area still seems about right. Perhaps the drag coefficient should be increased.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The ion engines are quite obviously not being really burned in the atmosphere; even if the engine cones are glowing the exhaust streams we're talking about would have OBVIOUS AND DRAMATIC atmospheric effects, ESPECIALLY in the troposphere.

[Connor MacLeod]

So Venators can only run their powerplant at full output for a thousand seconds, or about fifteen minutes? Cool.

No, the majority of the fuel mass is stored as imaginary mass, so it does not effect the real mass quantity of the ship (40,000,000 kg, which does seem a bit low, where was this stat, Ryan?). SW ships phase shift the complex mass fuel into real mass right before annhiliating it, so they do not have to pay the inertial cost of carrying it a lot of the time, or at least not in a real mass manner.

Erm, where are you getting this? The fuel in the ship is many orders of magnitude denser than the ship itself (according to the acclamator entry of the AOTC: ICS. There are multiple references in the ROTS and AOTC ICS's to ultra-dense or super-dense fuel silos, in fact.) as well as Curtis' "Power technologies" page. Moreover, the actual power generation calcs neccessitate the fuel supply contributing many times the ship's entire mass. You can't just get energy from thin air, thus the stellar scale power outputs of a SW ship neccessitate massive quantities of fuel.

"Hypermatter" is simply the way they annihilate the matter in order to obtain the energy from the ultra-dense fuel supply, its not the fuel supply itself. (Given how in the "Endor holocuast" Curtis speculates that the mass of the DS in hyperspace would be convereted into electromagnetic radiation that would sterilize the planet, it seems that masses in hyperspace gradually move towards c, whereupon they become pure energy.)

[Connor MacLeod]

The hyperdense fuel silos may contain hypermatter, might not. It could be a hyperdense propellant for the engines. Hypermatter is tachyonic.

Most of the "mass" for the ion engines is relatavistic mass. The ion engines accelerate the given mass EXTREMELY close to c. The fuel silos in turn carry actual mass in a highly dense form within the ship. Actual mass may make up a very small portion of the exhaust.

[Illuminatus Primus]

"Hypermatter" is simply the way they annihilate the matter in order to obtain the energy from the ultra-dense fuel supply, its not the fuel supply itself. (Given how in the "Endor holocuast" Curtis speculates that the mass of the DS in hyperspace would be convereted into electromagnetic radiation that would sterilize the planet, it seems that masses in hyperspace gradually move towards c, whereupon they become pure energy.)

Try rereading you AOTC ICS on the hyperdrive section and the section on the hyperdrive booster ring in ROTS ICS. Hypermatter is tachyons. Hence Mike's entire essay to that effect on Nathan's website. Hypermatter gradually moves toward infinite speed as it loses energy. Hypermatter has complex mass, so there's nothing stopping it from having a real component which many times denser than the bulk of the ship.

[Spartan]

Conner Wrote:

"Hypermatter" is simply the way they annihilate the matter in order to obtain the energy from the ultra-dense fuel supply, its not the fuel supply itself. (Given how in the "Endor holocuast" Curtis speculates that the mass of the DS in hyperspace would be convereted into electromagnetic radiation that would sterilize the planet, it seems that masses in hyperspace gradually move towards c, whereupon they become pure energy.)

Interesting, I wonder if the matter is just accelerated thru hyperspatial fields. Since, protons decay to energy over sufficiently long periods of time, the protons could artificially age until they become unstable and decay to pions and gamma rays. Kinda makes since as stasis fields are required to slow down the temporal effects of hyperspace travel.

Or, not...

[Connor MacLeod]

Try rereading you AOTC ICS on the hyperdrive section and the section on the hyperdrive booster ring in ROTS ICS. Hypermatter is tachyons. Hence Mike's entire essay to that effect on Nathan's website. Hypermatter gradually moves toward infinite speed as it loses energy. Hypermatter has complex mass, so there's nothing stopping it from having a real component which many times denser than the bulk of the ship.

Yes, I am aware of the Hypermatter explanations. The point I am making however is is that the fuel supply of the ship constitutes a vast majority of its mass. The ship is still expected to carry mass. (It would be the same if the ship operates on matter/antimatter reactions as well.. it would still have to carry the fuel, and that fuel would comprise a substantial portion of the ship's overall mass.)

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yes, I am aware of the Hypermatter explanations. The point I am making however is is that the fuel supply of the ship constitutes a vast majority of its mass. The ship is still expected to carry mass. (It would be the same if the ship operates on matter/antimatter reactions as well.. it would still have to carry the fuel, and that fuel would comprise a substantial portion of the ship's overall mass.)

Its my impression that the ship actually doesn't pay a lot of the inertial penalty because much of the mass-energy is maintained as imaginary. By your explanation, its no different than M/AM at all, just straight real mass into E=MC^2. But the fact that the Death Star (either one) did not screw up the orbits of planets it went by noticably tells me the energy it throws around it does not have to carry readily in terms of inertia and gravitation.

[Connor MacLeod]

Its my impression that the ship actually doesn't pay a lot of the inertial penalty because much of the mass-energy is maintained as imaginary. By your explanation, its no different than M/AM at all, just straight real mass into E=MC^2.

According to the SWTC Power technologies page

The performance of 3000G accelerations and the bombardment of habitable planets to slag implies that the mass of fuel may exceed the warship's dry mass by a considerable amount. Fuels are carried in immensely dense forms within silos or tanks of relatively small volume distributed throughout the ship, but connected intimately with the reactor."

Again, referring to the "Endor Holocaust" situation, Curtis mentions in the FAQ
that if the DS "dumps its mass-energy into the moon's atmosphere" the moon would be bathed in hard radiation "the equivalent of much of the station's mass"

But the fact that the Death Star (either one) did not screw up the orbits of planets it went by noticably tells me the energy it throws around it does not have to carry readily in terms of inertia and gravitation.

We know SW gravitic technology can neutralize the effects of exceedingly strong gravitational fields or effects (the ISD near the black hole in the marvel comics, the Falcon within 1000 km of a Neutron Star in "Rebel Dawn", or the massive accelerations experienced prior to a lightspeed jump) I would presume the Death Star uses the technology to nullify such effects (I imagine that it would be required to do so anyhow, since that much mass-energy is going to create the effects at some point in the process regardless, wouldn't you think?)

[FTeik]

We can use the quote about "4-6 Recusants defeating a Venator or a Victory" and the "thousand Recusants to defeat a Mandator MarkII" to determine the output of those ships.

We also don't know the output of a typical Providence-Class-vessel, since the stats from the ROTS:ICS are about the "InvisibleHand", which has been modified towards a carrier-role.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I imagine the "standard" Providence-class destroyer is something more like the Lucrehulk-class core ship in power output.

[Hardy]

The ion engines are quite obviously not being really burned in the atmosphere; even if the engine cones are glowing the exhaust streams we're talking about would have OBVIOUS AND DRAMATIC atmospheric effects, ESPECIALLY in the troposphere.

Nonetheless, power must be expended to keep the vehicles at said airspeeds. I think the appropriate equation is P=¼v³APCd. It checks out algebraically and is somewhat consistent with exmples of some WWII aircraft.

Take the Jedi Interceptor, for example (with seemingly more accurate figures):

Area: ~6 m
Drag Coefficient: ~2 (closer to that of an artificial satellite)
Maximum Airspeed: 4167 m/s

With that as the maximum airspeed it must have its engine power at 266 GW. That implies a 2.4 tonne starfighter.

Or could the maximum airspeed simply be a theoretical upper limit based on what would happen if the engines were at full thrust in an atmosphere? Perhaps starships/fighters could use their engines as weapons of mass destruction.

[McC]

With that as the maximum airspeed it must have its engine power at 266 GW. That implies a 2.4 tonne starfighter.

Eh, not quite. Maximum airspeed is typically achieved using repulsorlifts only, not the main ion drives that are used in space. So the repulsorlift system alone 'exerts' 266 GW at full airspeed.

[Hardy]

With that as the maximum airspeed it must have its engine power at 266 GW. That implies a 2.4 tonne starfighter.

Eh, not quite. Maximum airspeed is typically achieved using repulsorlifts only, not the main ion drives that are used in space. So the repulsorlift system alone 'exerts' 266 GW at full airspeed.

Repulsorlifts can cause lateral motion as well? Hmm, I was under the impression that they were only responsible for attitude and altitude changes and that they only applied downward force. I guess I learned something new.

Did I say "exert" in reference to power? Sorry, if so.

EDIT: Considering the amount of thrust generated by the Jedi Interceptor's repulsors (128 MN), I'd say that the same repulsors can keep a 12800 tonne object statically hovering.

[McC]

Nah, I used the term exerts, my point being to illustrate that this is the necessary power that the system provides, not necessarily what the system requires as input (which might be higher, due to inefficiency).

Also, how can you determine the thrust of the repulsors? We know the max. airspeed and the spatial acceleration capability, but know nothing about the thrust of the repulsors...we can know the Power, due to your equation, but I'm not sure how you're arriving at your mass calculation.

[Hardy]

I understand what you mean now.

Also, how can you determine the thrust of the repulsors? We know the max. airspeed and the spatial acceleration capability, but know nothing about the thrust of the repulsors...we can know the Power, due to your equation, but I'm not sure how you're arriving at your mass calculation.

Ah. The thrust is equal to the drag being exerted on the vehicle by the atmosphere which is computable. I'm sure equation for power is ½Fv, so I simply multiply the drag by the maximum airspeed(and divide by two) to arrive at power. To convert from power to thrust, I simply multiply by two and divde by the airspeed.

It's a bit of a haphazard way, but I find it works for some known aircraft.

The mass calculation is based on the thrust divided the maximum acceleration. But since we're dealing with the repulsors and not the ion engines, I don't think that the mass calculations based on drag incurred via airspeed is valid anymore.

[McC]

Ah. The thrust is equal to the drag being exerted on the vehicle by the atmosphere which is computable. I'm sure equation for power is ½Fv, so I simply multiply the drag by the maximum airspeed(and divide by two) to arrive at power. To convert from power to thrust, I simply multiply by two and divde by the airspeed.

It's a bit of a haphazard way, but I find it works for some known aircraft.

Ahh, ok.

The mass calculation is based on the thrust divided the maximum acceleration. But since we're dealing with the repulsors and not the ion engines, I don't think that the mass calculations based on drag incurred via airspeed is valid anymore.

Yeah, but we don't know maximum acceleration for the atmosphere, only for space. Note that the figure specifically states "maximum acceleration (in space)" Max acceleration in the atmosphere, even with the ion engines, will be different because of air resistance.

[Hardy]

Yeah, but we don't know maximum acceleration for the atmosphere, only for space. Note that the figure specifically states "maximum acceleration (in space)" Max acceleration in the atmosphere, even with the ion engines, will be different because of air resistance.

The difference in accleration won't be too drastic as it's only a 100kPa difference in pressure on multi-megaPascal engines.

Equation for thrust in an atmoshphere which I'm far too lazy to write out:
+http://www.braeunig.us/space/pics/eq2-0.gif

EDIT: Disregard that. I don't know whether or not I should be ignoring drag.

[McC]

The difference in accleration won't be too drastic as it's only a 100kPa difference in pressure on multi-megaPascal engines.

Equation for thrust in an atmoshphere which I'm far too lazy to write out:
+http://www.braeunig.us/space/pics/eq2-0.gif

EDIT: Disregard that. I don't know whether or not I should be ignoring drag.

Drag or no, the figure still isn't useful since it doesn't describe the system in question. Though it's neat to see what kind of power the repulsorlifts are exerting

[Ender]

Nootice though that the Venators and Imperators have direct connections from their reactors to their Ion engines. However, many other ships and most starfighters it seems, just use the power from the reactor to ionize (ionization chambers etc.) propellent for their ion engines.

It may be prohibitive for large SW warships to have enough propellant to be driven through engines; Ender and NecronLord hypothesized that large ships convert raw energy from the reactor directly into particles which are acclerating at nigh-light speed from the engine.

Yes, but later rejected when I started really looking into producing matter. Quite simply, storing metallic hydrogen at densities that make the core of a brown dwarf look like a vacuum makes more sense then creating mass on the fly. Also, one of the leading ideas behind the "make matter as you go" is the long deployment times, which can be explained with large ammounts of idling or if its the EFPH of the reactors.

This theory hypothesizes that large hypermatter reserves and reactors are prohibitive aboard very small ships, and propellant also serves the purpose of carrying away the enormous waste heat that is a problem endemic to starfighters. On the other hand, it also suggests that the enormous masses of propellant necessary for large ships of much greater endurance than snubfighters is prohibitive versus simply much larger hypermatter stores and reactors.

Upon further investigation, this appears to not be the case.

I suppose the hypermatter could just be contained within the reactor vessel itself.

A tempting thought, especially since the Death Star lacks visible fuel tanks. In this way, SW warships would be analogous to nuclear-powered submarines.

While I support that idea, if memory serves ROTS ICS has both propellent and reactor tanks labled seperately. Since the Acclamator in AOTC ICS indicates that their real mass for the rx and the engines is the same, it seems hypermatter is kept in tanks.

What I meant was if the hypermatter in the tanks is tachyonic , and circulating within the reactor, shouldn't it go racing out into space the moment the tank ruptures. Not pooliing around Obi-wan and Anakin's feet.

The "fuel" is probably some minor fusion reactor reactant (note that according to AOTC ICS, hypermatter reactors are "fusion-confined" which probably means that their support mechanisms are powered by fusion) or minor ion propellant (think manouvering thrusters) and the containment vessel for the hypermatter reactor is faltering, so invisible tachyons are slipping out and passing through the spilt fusion reactor reactant or whatnot.

That scene and the one in survivors quest are tricky, that's all I'm gonna say.

[Illuminatus Primus]

All that matters is they are fuel, and some hydrogen slurry or whatever they use for the fusion-confinement qualifies well and burns violently in air to boot.

Was I right about the fuel being m-loaded from imaginary to real right before annhiliation to avoid inertial penalties or no?

[Ender]

Hardy, those masses seem awfully light

I agree. The Jedi Starfighter, for example, shouldn't be lighter than a midsize Sedan.
It has mostly to do with me underestimating the surface area of these craft, I'm guessing.

Doubtful, remember, the engineers are going to cut mass where ever they can to make a starfighter as light as possible. Realistically the delta V requirements make starfighters idiotic, scrimping on dry mass helps bring them closer to reality.

given the amount of fuel though fighters have to carry to reach high percentages of light speed. I would expect them to at least as much as modern fighter craft.

Considering that the exhaust velocity is ~c, I think the payload to propellant ratio would be closer to or less than 1. [/quote]
Based off calculating the Falcon's trip to Bespin, It's MR is 7 and some change. (7.4-7.5). Interestingly, this completely rules out anything with a known power density as the primary power source. Fission and Fusion cap out at 2-3 for varying efficiencies, and AM has a max of 4.

Your work is extremely impressive by the way.

*makes mental note for future*

[Hardy]

Doubtful, remember, the engineers are going to cut mass where ever they can to make a starfighter as light as possible. Realistically the delta V requirements make starfighters idiotic, scrimping on dry mass helps bring them closer to reality.

True. There are exceptions, though, like the P-38. Its mass should be about 56 tonnes assuming that the term "maximum acceleration" implies that all of the fuel annihilated goes to the engines. That's an upper limit, though.

But I do get your point.

Based off calculating the Falcon's trip to Bespin, It's MR is 7 and some change. (7.4-7.5). Interestingly, this completely rules out anything with a known power density as the primary power source. Fission and Fusion cap out at 2-3 for varying efficiencies, and AM has a max of 4.

Would you mind posting or PM-ing the figures you used to come to that conclusion and a little elaboration? I'm about as interested as I am confused.

Your work is extremely impressive by the way.

*makes mental note for future*

Thank you. :)