Irrelivent Brain Bender: Mach in space

[Zer0 Kay]

Rifts... heck Palladium Books like using Mach speeds in space.
If Mach is actually a ratio of a crafts speed compared to the speed of sound in the same medium then how fast, exactly, is mach in space?
Sound at sea level (765.6mph) and 20,000 feet is completely different (660mph).
Sound at higher altitudes travels much slower than it does at lower altitudes and in higher density mediums (Water or solid materials).
So can you measure Mach in space?
If so if you travel at any speed in space isn't it Mach ∞?
Isn't a ratio with a 0 as the comparison number an "illegal" math function?
Does anyone really care?
If there measuring the space Mach by a given speed at which atmospheric altitude are they doing this?

[BigLEE]

The aswers to your questions appear to be (in no particular order):

No. Nobody at PB cares.

Yes. Mach measurements in space are silly AND extremly slow for how they are used.

No. You shouldn't really be using Mach in space and if you are it should be a standard number. In which case you might as well make up your own unit 'cause it ain't "Mach" anymore.

Convert the MACH numbers to Gs of acceleration. They are more useful if you actually want to do the math, or and just be used for comparative purposes.

[Qev]

I assume they're using Mach speed values as they are at sea level. It's not proper usage, but I guess it's done for consistency. Mach numbers actually scale with altitude, so Mach 5 in space would be awful slow compared to Mach 5 at sea level.

Really, they should be using ft/s, or miles per hour, or something ( though I prefer metric ), or heck, give vehicles a Spd attribute.

[cornholioprime]

I always assumed that you used the base value for mach (760 mph --- sea level) when you talked about Mach in Space.


Maybe I was wrong...

As did I, and I believe that the Authors make such a specific Notation in one of the Phase World Books...

[Qev]

Of course, using Mach numbers, regardless of how they're defined, is kind of pointless in space. What really matters are your relative speeds, and acceleration, since you don't have drag or friction (well, ideally) in space to limit your top speed. Well... and relativistic effects.

[Qev]

Yeah, it always cracked me up with the mach limits in space. If you can hit mach 5, what's preventing your from continuously accelerating? Nothing other than a lack of detail IMO.

If you wan to be picky, mach speed in space is easily defined. Mach is the speed of sound through a medium, specifically the atmosphere for normal numbers. Funny thing, the speed of sound through a vacuum, as in space, is zero, so Mach 5 in space would still be ZERO!

*puts on a space suit, steps outside the space station, and tosses a baseball!* Wow, world record! I can throw a baseball at MACH INFINITY!!!

Although... sound does exist in space, since it's never a perfect vacuum. It just moves very slowly, and attenuates really fast.

[Gomen_Nagai]

I do what Kitten stomp does.. and AU Galaxy guide has a nice work around for determining just how much thurst you can get from an Enginge which is basicly 20 doublings of speed or 20 melees, which ever comes first.

[Zer0 Kay]

Oh my there's actually posts. Here is another question then if Mach at sea level is 700 some odd miles per hour than how fast is mach with a supercavicating aquafighter?

[BigLEE]

Oh my there's actually posts. Here is another question then if Mach at sea level is 700 some odd miles per hour than how fast is mach with a supercavicating aquafighter?

Sound moves a lot faster underwater. The speed of sound in sea water is around 3425 mph although depth and various other factors will effect that speed.

[Zer0 Kay]

Oh my there's actually posts. Here is another question then if Mach at sea level is 700 some odd miles per hour than how fast is mach with a supercavicating aquafighter?

Sound moves a lot faster underwater. The speed of sound in sea water is around 3425 mph although depth and various other factors will effect that speed.

As should be noted by the title I'm not expecting anyone to actually take me seriously. Thanks though.

So what about mach speed through a solid material?

[BigLEE]

Oh my there's actually posts. Here is another question then if Mach at sea level is 700 some odd miles per hour than how fast is mach with a supercavicating aquafighter?

Sound moves a lot faster underwater. The speed of sound in sea water is around 3425 mph although depth and various other factors will effect that speed.

As should be noted by the title I'm not expecting anyone to actually take me seriously. Thanks though.

So what about mach speed through a solid material?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... dv.html#c1

[Zer0 Kay]

Oh my there's actually posts. Here is another question then if Mach at sea level is 700 some odd miles per hour than how fast is mach with a supercavicating aquafighter?

Sound moves a lot faster underwater. The speed of sound in sea water is around 3425 mph although depth and various other factors will effect that speed.

As should be noted by the title I'm not expecting anyone to actually take me seriously. Thanks though.

So what about mach speed through a solid material?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... dv.html#c1

Alright so a fighter that is able to Earthmeld and still stravel supersonic speeds would have a lower number compared to it's aerial flight?

[Borast]

Actually, the thing that always makes me chuckle at the pure absurdity is that you have to apply CONTINUOUS thust to maintain a continuous speed in space!

I mean, excuse me, since when does a missile have to burn all of it's fuel in one go? After all, WHY does a missile still only have a 1/5/40/1600 mile range in micrograv? Same thing with projectiles and lasers. There is nothing to prevent you from firing to effective ranges of significant distances to several light seconds! (Presuming you have an effective enough sensory array.)

Anyway...bed time, I have to wake in six and a half hours for work.

[Qev]

Alright so a fighter that is able to Earthmeld and still stravel supersonic speeds would have a lower number compared to it's aerial flight?

A lower Mach number, yes. I assume Earthmeld doesn't actually affect its speed, however.

In regards to underwater vehicles, I wonder if they'll ever start making high-speed submarines using that bizarre technology the Soviets came up with for their rocket-torpedoes? It basically blows part of the rocket exhaust forward, creating a sheath of bubbles around the torpedo, reducing friction and allowing it to achieve truly silly velocities underwater.

Personally, for spacecraft I feel they should give performance ratings in g's and rate-of-turn. Actually... that's something that's never mentioned! Are the gravitonic drives 'inertia-less'? I hope so, for the crews' sake!

[TechnoGothic]

The irrelevancy of this thread is relevently irrelevent. For people considered it relevenent enough to irrelevantly state it relevency by posting to it.

Did you just say
"Who cares" ??

if not, then i am....

Mach for space travel ( NASA , does use Mach Speeds for the shuttle ), it rounded to 700 mph for simple math when dealing with space flight...

Its guestimation that rules....

[Mech-Viper Prime]

Rifts... heck Palladium Books like using Mach speeds in space.
If Mach is actually a ratio of a crafts speed compared to the speed of sound in the same medium then how fast, exactly, is mach in space?
Sound at sea level (765.6mph) and 20,000 feet is completely different (660mph).
Sound at higher altitudes travels much slower than it does at lower altitudes and in higher density mediums (Water or solid materials).
So can you measure Mach in space?
If so if you travel at any speed in space isn't it Mach ∞?
Isn't a ratio with a 0 as the comparison number an "illegal" math function?
Does anyone really care?
If there measuring the space Mach by a given speed at which atmospheric altitude are they doing this?

how dare you ask a question like this where is my beating stick..............................here it is but to answer your questions
1. huh?
2. huh?
3. i guess( better then "huh?" right.)
4. sorry bro this way above my pay-grade, so i guess my answer for this one is no
5. huh?

[Zer0 Kay]

The irrelevancy of this thread is relevently irrelevent. For people considered it relevenent enough to irrelevantly state it relevency by posting to it.

wow relivent

[Zer0 Kay]

Alright so a fighter that is able to Earthmeld and still stravel supersonic speeds would have a lower number compared to it's aerial flight?

A lower Mach number, yes. I assume Earthmeld doesn't actually affect its speed, however.

In regards to underwater vehicles, I wonder if they'll ever start making high-speed submarines using that bizarre technology the Soviets came up with for their rocket-torpedoes? It basically blows part of the rocket exhaust forward, creating a sheath of bubbles around the torpedo, reducing friction and allowing it to achieve truly silly velocities underwater.

Personally, for spacecraft I feel they should give performance ratings in g's and rate-of-turn. Actually... that's something that's never mentioned! Are the gravitonic drives 'inertia-less'? I hope so, for the crews' sake!

The US is experimenting with it too. The problem is they don't turn very well. When they try it noses out of the cavication bubble and collapses it. So far it is essentially an underwater rocket. Granted if your on target it'll be to the target before it has a chance to run. Oh and the Russian torpedo is named the Shkval (Squall).

Actually I think Earthmeld does have a set speed but I needed something to continue the sillyness... oh wait a phase field, that doesn't have a set speed.

[Zer0 Kay]

The irrelevancy of this thread is relevently irrelevent. For people considered it relevenent enough to irrelevantly state it relevency by posting to it.

Did you just say
"Who cares" ??

if not, then i am....

Mach for space travel ( NASA , does use Mach Speeds for the shuttle ), it rounded to 700 mph for simple math when dealing with space flight...

Its guestimation that rules....

The thread had "irrelevent" and 'brainbender". So I made a joke. Oh, and yes I don't care. Is that relevent?

Uh... NO

[Zer0 Kay]

Rifts... heck Palladium Books like using Mach speeds in space.
If Mach is actually a ratio of a crafts speed compared to the speed of sound in the same medium then how fast, exactly, is mach in space?
Sound at sea level (765.6mph) and 20,000 feet is completely different (660mph).
Sound at higher altitudes travels much slower than it does at lower altitudes and in higher density mediums (Water or solid materials).
So can you measure Mach in space?
If so if you travel at any speed in space isn't it Mach ∞?
Isn't a ratio with a 0 as the comparison number an "illegal" math function?
Does anyone really care?
If there measuring the space Mach by a given speed at which atmospheric altitude are they doing this?

how dare you ask a question like this where is my beating stick..............................here it is but to answer your questions
1. huh?
2. huh?
3. i guess( better then "huh?" right.)
4. sorry bro this way above my pay-grade, so i guess my answer for this one is no
5. huh?

You do realize that for whatever reason your thwak didn't work but mine does here Just because of you this thread shall here on out be known as the SPAM thread... unofficially of course

[Mech-Viper Prime]

Rifts... heck Palladium Books like using Mach speeds in space.
If Mach is actually a ratio of a crafts speed compared to the speed of sound in the same medium then how fast, exactly, is mach in space?
Sound at sea level (765.6mph) and 20,000 feet is completely different (660mph).
Sound at higher altitudes travels much slower than it does at lower altitudes and in higher density mediums (Water or solid materials).
So can you measure Mach in space?
If so if you travel at any speed in space isn't it Mach ∞?
Isn't a ratio with a 0 as the comparison number an "illegal" math function?
Does anyone really care?
If there measuring the space Mach by a given speed at which atmospheric altitude are they doing this?

how dare you ask a question like this where is my beating stick..............................here it is but to answer your questions
1. huh?
2. huh?
3. i guess( better then "huh?" right.)
4. sorry bro this way above my pay-grade, so i guess my answer for this one is no
5. huh?

You do realize that for whatever reason your thwak didn't work but mine does here Just because of you this thread shall here on out be known as the SPAM thread... unofficially of course

no, just this subject its not my cup of tea but i figure i put my 2 cents in anyway

[glitterboy2098]

more absurdity.

the slowest stable LEO (Low Earth orbit) is a velocity of 7,800 m/s.

doing the math.....thats 26 palladium mach.

so in PB's steady speed space rules, no ship can actually make orbit.
assuming accelleration, your looking at 5.2 hours at palladium mach5 before reaching orbital speed.

can you imagine if we tried to build a spaceshuttle that took 5 hours to lift from the pad to orbit? it would never manage to get off the ground. it would constantly stall out.

[Zer0 Kay]

more absurdity.

the slowest stable LEO (Low Earth orbit) is a velocity of 7,800 m/s.

doing the math.....thats 26 palladium mach.

so in PB's steady speed space rules, no ship can actually make orbit.
assuming accelleration, your looking at 5.2 hours at palladium mach5 before reaching orbital speed.

can you imagine if we tried to build a spaceshuttle that took 5 hours to lift from the pad to orbit? it would never manage to get off the ground. it would constantly stall out.

That is to maintain not to break. Are they the same? At the same time this is a strange concept to me. I figure gravity should get weaker the farther you are from the body. Ok so why does it take more effort to break gravity than it does for me to lift a coke can? Shouldn't the speed required to do so be relative to the mass of the object?

[Thinyser]

Rifts... heck Palladium Books like using Mach speeds in space.
If Mach is actually a ratio of a crafts speed compared to the speed of sound in the same medium then how fast, exactly, is mach in space?
Sound at sea level (765.6mph) and 20,000 feet is completely different (660mph).
Sound at higher altitudes travels much slower than it does at lower altitudes and in higher density mediums (Water or solid materials).
So can you measure Mach in space?
If so if you travel at any speed in space isn't it Mach ∞?
Isn't a ratio with a 0 as the comparison number an "illegal" math function?
Does anyone really care?
If there measuring the space Mach by a given speed at which atmospheric altitude are they doing this?

sound does not travel in space, the particles there are simply too far apart to support a sound wave, hence mach is 0 or non exsistant. 3 mach in space is still 0.

Mach is generaly considered 660 MPH so that is probably what Palladium meant.

[Zer0 Kay]

more absurdity.

the slowest stable LEO (Low Earth orbit) is a velocity of 7,800 m/s.

doing the math.....thats 26 palladium mach.

so in PB's steady speed space rules, no ship can actually make orbit.
assuming accelleration, your looking at 5.2 hours at palladium mach5 before reaching orbital speed.

can you imagine if we tried to build a spaceshuttle that took 5 hours to lift from the pad to orbit? it would never manage to get off the ground. it would constantly stall out.

That is to maintain not to break. Are they the same? At the same time this is a strange concept to me. I figure gravity should get weaker the farther you are from the body. Ok so why does it take more effort to break gravity than it does for me to lift a coke can? Shouldn't the speed required to do so be relative to the mass of the object?

One is Orbital Velocity and the other is Escape Velocity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

From Wiki: On the surface of the Earth the escape velocity is about 11.2 kilometres per second. However, at 9000 km altitude in "space", it is slightly less than 7.1 km/s.

So yes it does diminish with distance from Earth. This does not take atmospheric friction into account though. Also, the order of magnitude for the change in mass required to notice a difference is really large (much larger than a coke can vs. a ship)... Any specialists here?

Wow thanks for the research. Glad to know that glitterboy2098 was slightly incorrect.

Wow so mach 35 is 11.2km/s right? 11.2x60x60*.6214/700 and only reduced to mach 22 at 9000km (mach measured at sea level... of course).

[Zer0 Kay]

Rifts... heck Palladium Books like using Mach speeds in space.
If Mach is actually a ratio of a crafts speed compared to the speed of sound in the same medium then how fast, exactly, is mach in space?
Sound at sea level (765.6mph) and 20,000 feet is completely different (660mph).
Sound at higher altitudes travels much slower than it does at lower altitudes and in higher density mediums (Water or solid materials).
So can you measure Mach in space?
If so if you travel at any speed in space isn't it Mach ∞?
Isn't a ratio with a 0 as the comparison number an "illegal" math function?
Does anyone really care?
If there measuring the space Mach by a given speed at which atmospheric altitude are they doing this?

sound does not travel in space, the particles there are simply too far apart to support a sound wave, hence mach is 0 or non exsistant. 3 mach in space is still 0.

Mach is generaly considered 660 MPH so that is probably what Palladium meant.

[Zer0 Kay]

Yes, Earth's gravity does diminish the farther away you get from it. As the gravitational constant for the Earth is so large, the gravity from the flying object's mass is usually neglected in calculating orbital and escape velocities.

FYI: I am an aerospace engineer... so, yes, Palladium's take on spaceflight annoys the hell out of me.

I was ALMOST a rocket electronics technician with NASA via the USAF but the USAF contracted that AFSC out.

[Borast]

more absurdity.

the slowest stable LEO (Low Earth orbit) is a velocity of 7,800 m/s.

doing the math.....thats 26 palladium mach.

so in PB's steady speed space rules, no ship can actually make orbit.
assuming accelleration, your looking at 5.2 hours at palladium mach5 before reaching orbital speed.

can you imagine if we tried to build a spaceshuttle that took 5 hours to lift from the pad to orbit? it would never manage to get off the ground. it would constantly stall out.

That is to maintain not to break. Are they the same? At the same time this is a strange concept to me. I figure gravity should get weaker the farther you are from the body. Ok so why does it take more effort to break gravity than it does for me to lift a coke can? Shouldn't the speed required to do so be relative to the mass of the object?

Gravity does "fall-off" as you come further from the body "generating" the field. The strength of the force of gravity effecting you is the inversely porportional to it's distance on an obscene scale. I think it's called the inverse square law.

In fact, if memory serves, the computer you're sitting in front of has more of a gravitational attraction on you that does Jupiter, which out-masses it by an obscene factor.

As to why it takes so much energy to reach orbit, it's the energy required to attain and maintain escape velocity. After all, part of it is the mutual attraction between the rocket, and the earth, and the mass of the rocket. Simply LIFTING that much mass out of a gravity well requires alot of energy...as I recall, the increase in energy to lift a mass is not 1:1.

[glitterboy2098]

more absurdity.

the slowest stable LEO (Low Earth orbit) is a velocity of 7,800 m/s.

doing the math.....thats 26 palladium mach.

so in PB's steady speed space rules, no ship can actually make orbit.
assuming accelleration, your looking at 5.2 hours at palladium mach5 before reaching orbital speed.

can you imagine if we tried to build a spaceshuttle that took 5 hours to lift from the pad to orbit? it would never manage to get off the ground. it would constantly stall out.

That is to maintain not to break. Are they the same? At the same time this is a strange concept to me. I figure gravity should get weaker the farther you are from the body. Ok so why does it take more effort to break gravity than it does for me to lift a coke can? Shouldn't the speed required to do so be relative to the mass of the object?

Gravity does "fall-off" as you come further from the body "generating" the field. The strength of the force of gravity effecting you is the inversely porportional to it's distance on an obscene scale. I think it's called the inverse square law.

In fact, if memory serves, the computer you're sitting in front of has more of a gravitational attraction on you that does Jupiter, which out-masses it by an obscene factor.

As to why it takes so much energy to reach orbit, it's the energy required to attain and maintain escape velocity. After all, part of it is the mutual attraction between the rocket, and the earth, and the mass of the rocket. Simply LIFTING that much mass out of a gravity well requires alot of energy...as I recall, the increase in energy to lift a mass is not 1:1.

which is what i was pointing out.

no matter how you blurb it, the palladium space travel system is tragically flawed. steady speed is too low to even breach atmosphere, accelleration is either too low to reach orbit (mph per hour), or too high to survive (mph per second). assuming accelleration over a 15 second period might work, but it makes the math very difficult to handle.

[glitterboy2098]

i prefer to use a G's of accelleration system. i've been working on for phase world, that uses measurements of distance in 10,000 km (1/30th of a light second), and that uses G's of accelleration to determain velocity (measured in multiples of 10k km per melee)

its a little less math heavy than most.

[glitterboy2098]

then they can pull off insane G's of accelleration.

basically, the only speed limt i've put on drives is physics. chemical drives top out at only a small % of light (but fuel issues are more noticable), atomic drives are a bit better (still have fuel issues), fusion and anti-matter can get very high velcties. (all connected to the energy available to accellerate the reaction mass. the top speed is the point where the energy imparted by the drive and the energy needed to accellerate the ship cancel each other out. [i just pulled numbers out my rear though. its scifi, sticking too close to physics'll drive you nuts.])

gravitic drives "speed limit" is the same, but they pretty much top off at 50% or more of light. just watch out for relitivity.


most battles however, see ships coasting, using drives only to manuver. some battles might take place in a chase/pursuit arrangement, where the ships are all on the same course and barely move relitive to each other.


i'm also inproving ranges, lasers generally engage at 1 light second (about 2/3rd the distance to the moon)[although less powerful guns might be less due to beam coheasion), while other energy weapons tend to top out around 1/3rd that. ballistics are point blank in comparison. missiles have drives able to accellerate at set speeds, and have a duration of drive. so they can have huge ranges, especially in bombardment use, where the drive can burn out and the missiles keeps going.


if you read Honor Harrington, you get a good feel for the mechanics.

[The Beast]

They only list the speeds in Mach because it's what most players would be familiar with. If you feel that the speeds are wrong, please submit your fix to the Rifter, or here. Also, according to Robotech and Phase World, the speed increases when in space, due to less gravity pull. I believe the increase is 50% to 75% mormal speed, not entirely sure.[/i]

[Qev]

if you read Honor Harrington, you get a good feel for the mechanics.

Good books, those! I think a ship-of-the-wall from that universe would probably pulp most anything Phase World has to offer.

The easiest semi-realistic space speed model I can think of is to give each ship an acceleration rating of x distance per melee(^2), and also measure velocity in the same units. During combat, allow ships to accelerate once per melee round (at the beginning?).

In the simple case of two ships, A and B, where A is trying to catch B, each ship has a starting velocity, and a certain maximum acceleration, and they start separated by a certain distance. A round would go something like this:

1) Each ship adds its acceleration to its velocity.
2) Subtract to get the relative velocity ( pursuer's velocity - prey's velocity ) then subtract this result from the separation distance between them. Obviously, if the prey is going faster, the separation distance increases.
3) Shoot at each other, and fun stuph like that.

A bit of math in there, but I suppose if you choose the units and values right for this system, it's not too onerous, say keeping everything in multiples of 5 or 10...

[Borast]

In Mattbaby's ill-fated Phase World campaign, we treated it as a "Mark" number instead... a system of relative values like "Impulse Speed" in Star Trek.

Actually, ST "Impulse" was not relative... It was absolute. Half Impulse was 1/2 "c"...

In any case, I prefer a "G" based system for STL speeds.

[Zer0 Kay]

They only list the speeds in Mach because it's what most players would be familiar with. If you feel that the speeds are wrong, please submit your fix to the Rifter, or here. Also, according to Robotech and Phase World, the speed increases when in space, due to less gravity pull. I believe the increase is 50% to 75% mormal speed, not entirely sure.[/i]

Normally double normal speed and usually not because of gravity alone because of lack of drag.

[BigLEE]

In any case, I prefer a "G" based system for STL speeds.

That doesn't quite jive...

"G" is a measure of acceleration, 9.8 meters per second per second

Speed is just meters per second.

So, you need a different unit of measurement for speed/velocity. Mach works well. You could just, for space's sake, fix it at a certain speed, such as the speed of sound at sea level, which would be the highest number for sound within air, isn't it?

Maybe, for STL speeds that are reasonably fast, some sort of standard could be adopted, like "Light Seconds per hour", or "Light Minutes per hour", or some such. Would make it semi-Metric (though base 60...) and easily scalable for slower speeds (light seconds) or faster (light minutes). 60 Light Minutes per hour would be the speed of light, correct? So, 30 light-minutes per hour (LMph?) would be half, 15 LMph would be one-quarter, 6 LMph would be one-tenth, 0.6 would be one one-hundredth, and so on.

Much tidier than dealing with very high Mach numbers.

Why would you need a measure for velocity? In space you are accelerating, drifting, or deccelerating. If you have limited fuel supplies, knowing your coasting speed might be worthwhile, but all the interesting stuff is going to be happening when your applying thrust. Consequently "G" are much more meaningful than any measure of velocity.

[RainOfSteel]

In any case, I prefer a "G" based system for STL speeds.

That doesn't quite jive...

I think Borast means it as a ship's rating of acceleration, as that is what allows a ship to reach any particular velocity.

I use Gs of acceleration available as a performance number for all starship descriptions I write up. (Mach numbers only appear for atmospheric performance.)

[RainOfSteel]

If your drifting, you would need to know velocity.

Oh, absolutely. In space, your velocity will always be some X km/sec. value. (But it will never be a Mach number.)

When the ship or ship's crew wants to change their velocity (or direction), that X km/sec. value is modified by the acceleration capacity available.

[Borast]

In any case, I prefer a "G" based system for STL speeds.

That doesn't quite jive...

I think Borast means it as a ship's rating of acceleration, as that is what allows a ship to reach any particular velocity.

I use Gs of acceleration available as a performance number for all starship descriptions I write up. (Mach numbers only appear for atmospheric performance.)

That is precisely what I mean.

That plus in most games you can expect to not see any form of compensation for accelleration, so you have to keep in mind the point at which people tend to pass out due to accelleration...especially in cases of prolonged accelleration.

[Gomen_Nagai]

Treat Mach as 1 Km/sec. problem solved.

[RainOfSteel]

Treat Mach as 1 Km/sec. problem solved.

If we avoid using Mach numbers in space, the problem is also solved.


Besides, the number 1km/sec. by itself is useless. Vessels in space don't have "max speeds"*, they have acceleration capacities made available by a propulsion system. (Those propulsion systems are limited by reaction mass (RM) or power. I personally prefer propulsion systems that do not rely on RM, as RM calculations are a pain in the neck.)


* In the same sense that a vehicle in an atmosphere does. If RM or power run out on a vessel in space, it has effectively reached its maximum speed.

[RainOfSteel]

PB space games physics are so bad that that even Glen Larson would wince.

Ow! That's a low blow, Geronimo 2.0.

As I have always said, if you ignore all points of discussion related to travel between the stars, the original BG series suddenly becomes far less painful to watch.

I suppose that can be applied here, as well. If we ignore all reference to the use of Mach number in space in PB products, dealing with space vehicles suddenly becomes more believable.

[Gomen_Nagai]

Treat Mach as 1 Km/sec. problem solved.

If we avoid using Mach numbers in space, the problem is also solved.


Besides, the number 1km/sec. by itself is useless. Vessels in space don't have "max speeds"*, they have acceleration capacities made available by a propulsion system. (Those propulsion systems are limited by reaction mass (RM) or power. I personally prefer propulsion systems that do not rely on RM, as RM calculations are a pain in the neck.)


* In the same sense that a vehicle in an atmosphere does. If RM or power run out on a vessel in space, it has effectively reached its maximum speed.

No, you Don't run into RM Crap. you use Slip streamed rules such as the ones presented in AUGG.
or you can Divide Fuel range by " Mach" and get how much burn time you get.

[RainOfSteel]

No, you Don't run into RM Crap. you use Slip streamed rules such as the ones presented in AUGG.
or you can Divide Fuel range by " Mach" and get how much burn time you get.

Yes, you can do that. Naturally, since "Mach" has no meaning of any kind in space, I do not want to.

[Qev]

Mach numbers are silly for space travel, especially Palladium's Mach numbers. What's the fastest speed they list for any spacecraft, Mach 20 or so? That's a 17-hour (straight line) trip from the Earth to the Moon. Not terribly exciting, as sci-fi spacecraft go.

Your ability to accelerate is all that actually matters, outside of an atmosphere.

[Gomen_Nagai]

actually prior to AU GG's rules, I generally only doubled speeds per hour of travel, given how long it takes for Space shuttles to accelerate and decelerate into orbital speed/landing speed. i believe the current rules Double speed every X number of melees per doubling.
1 melee , double, 2 melees , quadruple , etc, until penalties are -20.

[Borast]

One key point in this topic is the real life stats of the space shuttles on launch.

They go from a relative resting velocity of "0" before ignition to almost 200kph in the height of the launch gantry, and crashes through the sound barrier before it hits 300 metres! By the time it reaches a relative position down range of 16kms or so it's moving mach 10 or so.

As SOOoooo many people before me have noted...Palladium has not put up stats on ANY vehicles that could actually make it to orbit from Earth's surface.

[Zer0 Kay]

Why is this irrelivent thread still going?

[Thinyser]

One key point in this topic is the real life stats of the space shuttles on launch.

They go from a relative resting velocity of "0" before ignition to almost 200kph in the height of the launch gantry, and crashes through the sound barrier before it hits 300 metres! By the time it reaches a relative position down range of 16kms or so it's moving mach 10 or so.

0 to 660 miles per hour in 300 meters?!?!?

Call me skeptical, but where did you find this stat?

[RainOfSteel]

As SOOoooo many people before me have noted...Palladium has not put up stats on ANY vehicles that could actually make it to orbit from Earth's surface.

Nowhere (in Rifts-Earth books)?

I'll have to do some digging.