RE: FT: Carriers

The carrier would be pointing backwards and downwards, effectively
decelerating the fighters relative to the carrier.  This would have two
effects - it puts them in a lower orbit and slows them down.  

Counter-intuitively lower orbits are higher speed. IIRC LEO (Low Earth
Orbit ~200 miles up) is a circle of radius ~4000 miles and satellites at
that orbit transit in 90 minutes.  This equals a speed of ~16,800 miles
per hour.  Consequently geo-synchronous (one orbit per 24 hours) is
roughly 36,000 miles out giving a speed of ~9,500 miles per hour.

If the object is slower than orbital speed, it falls out of orbit.  So
by decreasing speed you drop, by dropping you increase the required
orbital speed and if you don't thrust forward you drop.

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Bilderback [mailto:bbilderback@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 3:47 PM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: FT: Carriers
> 
> 
> Roger Burton West wrote:
> 
> 
> >If they're going to be re-entering, and your ship's in 
> orbit, you want
> >to fire them downwards and backwards more than anything else.
> 
> Which should be downwards and backwards?  Do you mean the 
> fighters?  If so, 
> why?	Reentry heat?  What about shielded underfuselages?
> 
> With the
> >sort of thrust FT drives can put out, though, you could 
> hover above most
> >planets (in the style of the _Aliens_ ship) and genuinely 
> drop off small
> >craft...
> 
> This is the image I had:  Large ships orbiting on station, 
> noses pointed 
> "Down", allowing their fighters/small craft to do a "Controlled fall" 
> towards the surface.	In the Renegade Legion universe, this 
> is how Grav 
> tanks do hot drops during invasions.
> 
> 2B^2
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>