Re: [FT] Scale in Full Thrust

In message <002f01c0f191$61fd0e20$d7b4193e@inty>
	  "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
> To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 12:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [FT] Scale in Full Thrust 
[snip]
> > I tend to think of this as 1 mu = 1000km, 1 turn = 1000s, in which
> > case 1 thrust = .2g (so thrust 5 = 1g).
> >
> 
> I always though of 1 thrust being 1G, but 0.2G? Also, a question for
all you
> learned people out there. Is 1G 9.8MPS squared or 8.8MPS squared? I`m
asking
> this due to the fact that in all the HH books, DW gives the figure as
9.8
> (which I thought it was, but I`m in disagreement with someone at
present
> over it<G>).

Well, it comes from playing arround with the standard equations of
motion and the Full Thrust rules - not that due to a simplification used
by FT, there could be an error of x2 in the accelleration value (which
I don't worry about ;-)
As most ships have a maximum thrust of between 4 and 8, which is
equivalent to between .8 and 1.6 G - which seems quite mild :-)

Just checked, g=9.8 m per s squared.
> 
> > It should be noted that under this scale, a Phalon plasma bolt is
almost
> > as big as the Earth :-)
> >
> 
> It could be, but if the plasma bolt`s gasses (plasma being gasses in a
> highly energetic state Y/N?) covered that large a area, the dammage it
would
> cause to a ship is FA.

Yes, I wondered that - of coarse, IIRC the scale was chosen before FB2
came out.
> 
> > For other genres - using range values quoted in the series (where I
> > remember them):
> >
> > B5 - typical engagement ranges in 100's of km, so 1mu = 10km
> > Star Trek - typical engagement ranges (as quoted in script - _not_
> > apparent visual ranges in FX) - 10's of thousands of km, so 1mu =
1000km
> > Andromeda (from the few episodes I watched) - typical engagement
ranges
> > in multiples of light seconds - 1mu = .1 to 1 light seconds, or
30,000
> > to 300,000 km (and missiles move at near lightspeed).
> >
> > In _written_ SF, the ranges can get a lot bigger :-).
> >
> > Charles
> >
> Yes, in writing they do get a lot bigger, and in my mind closer to
reality
> (or what would be reality <G>). The only problem with reality in
visual
> mediums (film, TV, etc) would it would be very boaring (captain, we
just
> destroyed that speck on light). The nearest I`ve seen anybody get to
it
> would be the LOGH anime (at least in the fact where it would be quiet
and
> peiceful abord your ship, while multi-megatonne warhead going off
around
> you).
> 
> BIF
> 
> "Yorkshire born, yorkshire bred,
> strong in arms, thick in head"
> 
>
Depends - we can sense things quite well over long distances, but AFAIK
there are may be limits on how well 'beams' (whatever they happen to be)
can be focused over long distances.
Also lightspeed delays on aiming will become significant over long
ranges.
Depends how much 'reality' you want, I guess :-)

Charles

--