Ensign
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9
# 1 Spacial Physics
11-10-2012, 12:41 AM
With no atmosphere to push against and inertial dampers in place, Why do starships bank in turns?
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 434
# 2
11-10-2012, 12:47 AM
Directional thruster vector fire
Click to visit Subspace-Radio
Twitter | Blog | Original Join Date: Dec 2007 | Gaming Setup | Raptr Profile | Gamer DNA
The opinions expressed in my posts are my own views and do not reflect on any other entity(s) or person(s) I may or may not represent at the time.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 750
# 3
11-10-2012, 03:02 AM
By banking, the inertia of the turn is directed more evenly through the structure of the ship, reducing the load placed on the SIF and IDF. If a starship turned without banking, the inertia would be less evenly distributed, with some parts of the ship experiencing more structural stress than others. You're liable to tear a nacelle off by turning too quickly without banking.

Last edited by fulleatherjacket; 11-10-2012 at 03:05 AM.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 183
# 4
11-10-2012, 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fulleatherjacket View Post
By banking, the inertia of the turn is directed more evenly through the structure of the ship, reducing the load placed on the SIF and IDF. If a starship turned without banking, the inertia would be less evenly distributed, with some parts of the ship experiencing more structural stress than others. You're liable to tear a nacelle off by turning too quickly without banking.
Also from a physic point of view I wouldn't like to be a crew of a ship that turn without banking. Imagine turning hard left without banking, that right wall will have a few dent and blood stain from crew smashing into it or you would need crazy powerful inertial dampener to stop that from happening.
Jamal : Tactical space specialist. USS SledgeHammer, USS Bug Warrior and many others
E'Mc2 : Science Reman torp T'Varo, deadly annoyance
Kunmal: Tactical fed Klingon, ground specialist, USS Kanewaga
Ka -tet Tier 5 starbase and shipyard, almost Tier 5 sci. All other fleet property at max lvl
Ensign
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9
# 5 Inertia
11-10-2012, 02:17 PM
Do you suppose there might be orders of magnitude more inertia to be overcome by the inertial dampers in going from say full impulse to warp 4, than in any turn a ship could make? If you answer yes to the previous question, then I suggest that my initial question is still in play. If you say no, then, why?

" If a starship turned without banking, the inertia would be less evenly distributed, with some parts of the ship experiencing more structural stress than others. " In this statement, are you suggesting that some parts of the ship are moving at different speeds than others in a turn? Honestly, not flaming, just curious.

Last edited by wegaden50; 11-10-2012 at 02:22 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,642
# 6
11-10-2012, 02:56 PM
Damping turns is probably a lot harder for the inertial damper tech to deal with than linear acceleration (and warp field dynamics may play a strong part of it).

As for banking, I imagine that it could be an effort to cut down on needed space in the RCS quads. Depending on where the maneuver thrusters are located, it's possible to have them use larger thrusters for two rotation axes and use smaller ones for the third... based on where the quads are located on the Sovereign's saucer section, roll and pitch could be controlled by the same thrusters, and then to augment yaw turns, you use roll and pitch.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,553
# 7
11-10-2012, 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wegaden50 View Post
" If a starship turned without banking, the inertia would be less evenly distributed, with some parts of the ship experiencing more structural stress than others. " In this statement, are you suggesting that some parts of the ship are moving at different speeds than others in a turn? Honestly, not flaming, just curious.
Yes, he is saying exactly that. Think about it like a circle for a second. Now say you had a rod that had one end on the center of the circle, and the other end on the outer edge of the circle. Now move the rod 30 degrees to the right on the center axis. The part of the rod closer to the center don't have as far to move as the part on the outer edge of the circle. So in order for both parts to travel the same distance over the same time period, the outer part needs to move faster than the inner part.

Same thing applies to ships turning. Parts of them are farther from the turn axis than other parts. The parts closest to the turn axis don't have as far to travel when turning as the parts farther from the turning axis. But both of those parts of the ship need to travel that same distance in that same period of time, so naturally, the parts farther from the turn axis will be moving faster.

Confused, or did this clarify it for you?
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Tired of Wasting EC and Time trying to get Superior Romulan Operative BOffs? Here's a cheap and easy way to get them, with an almost 100% chance of success.
Why the Devs can't make PvE content harder.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,200
# 8
11-10-2012, 03:46 PM
Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation which fits the facts, no matter how outlandish, is probably the correct one. I suggest the following explanation.

The ships banked during fight scenes in the series and films because it looked waay cooler than simply rotating the ship around to a new thrust vector only along the Z-axis. Cryptic sensibly elected to include this in the game since the fanbase had already seen and became accustomed to it.

G'wan! Admit it! It does look waay cooler. If it didn't how come you don't go to a full stop to rotate to a new thrust vector? For those who wish to see what space combat in this game would have been like had the Newton's Laws concerning Gravity Inertia and Momentum been implemented correctly, go look up videos of space combat from a game called Star Trek:Armada. Yawn. Boring.
Ensign
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9
# 9
11-10-2012, 05:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderfoot006 View Post
Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation which fits the facts, no matter how outlandish, is probably the correct one. I suggest the following explanation.

The ships banked during fight scenes in the series and films because it looked waay cooler than simply rotating the ship around to a new thrust vector only along the Z-axis. Cryptic sensibly elected to include this in the game since the fanbase had already seen and became accustomed to it.

G'wan! Admit it! It does look waay cooler. If it didn't how come you don't go to a full stop to rotate to a new thrust vector? For those who wish to see what space combat in this game would have been like had the Newton's Laws concerning Gravity Inertia and Momentum been implemented correctly, go look up videos of space combat from a game called Star Trek:Armada. Yawn. Boring.
to heretick, actually yours was the answer I was expecting although the physics of it, I suspect doesnt yet hold up. I do not have anything on hand to counter. I still suspect that physically speaking, banking in a constant speed turn is not neccesary in a vacuum.

To thunderfoot, your answer best satisfies my curiosity.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,200
# 10
11-10-2012, 05:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wegaden50 View Post
...To thunderfoot, your answer best satisfies my curiosity.
Thank you. Much appreciated.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:52 PM.