Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests

"Marine Carrier"

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: "Marine Carrier"
Post by Armed Neo-Bob   » Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:58 pm

Armed Neo-Bob
Captain of the List

Posts: 532
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:11 pm

Belial666 wrote:Again with the life support...



An average adult needs 2 pounds of food, 4 pounds of oxygen and 4 pounds of water per day. Two tons of non-recycleable life support per person is more than enough for a year. So a hundred thousand tons of non-recyclable life support is enough for fifty thousand people for a year.
Now, for the living space. A Sovereign-class cruise ship has extravagant living space for 3.500 people and crew in under 80 kilotons, including engine space. So 50.000 people and crew, living in extravagant shipboard space, need some 1,15 megatons.




So 1,3 megatons is all you need for exceptional living conditions and supplies for 50.000 people for 1 year. Since the largest Honorverse ships can be as much as 10 megatons, with up to 60% devoted to the primary role, you could easily have 200.000 marines on a single ship.


You are anticipating a bit. Ships aren't quite that big yet.

The largest ships built so far are the Havenite SDPs, which approach 9 Million; the largest RMN ship is the
"Invictus-class pod superdreadnought, Mass: 8,768,500 tons" per HoS.

The Atlas ships that spawned this not only have military style missile defenses, they also use the higher (faster) hyper bands, avoiding a lot of the pirates. And, their EW signature sure looks like a BC, so ordinary pond scum will likely avoid going anywhere near them.

The only transports I remember details on were the Havenite Longstops, which carried 50,000 as normal load. No reason to think those were atypical for the Honorverse Navies.

Rob

Rob
Top
Re: "Marine Carrier"
Post by Weird Harold   » Fri Dec 12, 2014 8:00 pm

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

Vince wrote:For an example of the best maintained inertial compensator in the entire RMN suddenly failing, see What Price Dreams in the Worlds of Honor anthology.


Nitpick: I don't think you can use an acknowledged assassination as an example of reliability. :roll:
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: "Marine Carrier"
Post by SWM   » Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:37 pm

SWM
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5928
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: U.S. east coast

Weird Harold wrote:
Vince wrote:For an example of the best maintained inertial compensator in the entire RMN suddenly failing, see What Price Dreams in the Worlds of Honor anthology.


Nitpick: I don't think you can use an acknowledged assassination as an example of reliability. :roll:

No, but we can use the text that said that this was the only known compensator failure for hundreds of years as an example of reliability.
--------------------------------------------
Librarian: The Original Search Engine
Top
Re: "Marine Carrier"
Post by Weird Harold   » Fri Dec 12, 2014 11:52 pm

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

SWM wrote:No, but we can use the text that said that this was the only known compensator failure for hundreds of years as an example of reliability.


Yep, that we can do. Essentially we can assume compensator reliability is 100% barring enemy action.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: "Marine Carrier"
Post by crewdude48   » Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:04 am

crewdude48
Commodore

Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:08 am

Vince wrote:For an example of the best maintained inertial compensator in the entire RMN suddenly failing, see What Price Dreams in the Worlds of Honor anthology.


Weird Harold wrote:Nitpick: I don't think you can use an acknowledged assassination as an example of reliability. :roll:

SWM wrote:No, but we can use the text that said that this was the only known compensator failure for hundreds of years as an example of reliability.


On the other hand, that same story did mention explicitly that there were several ships that just disappeared. I would suspect that a compensator failure would be more likely when it is damping 5000gs rather than 300.

On the gripping hand, even that happening would have to be vanishingly rare, or else someone would have noticed it in a convoy or something.
________________
I'm the Dude...you know, that or His Dudeness, or Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
Top
Re: "Marine Carrier"
Post by fallsfromtrees   » Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:25 pm

fallsfromtrees
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:51 am
Location: Mesa, Arizona

JeffEngel wrote:snip
Ah - not sure that it's relevant at this point, but this thread's already wandered far, far from topic anyway - but a 130 MPH crash into a stationary object is pretty much the same as a 65 MPH head-on crash with another vehicle heading in precisely the opposite direction at 65 MPH.
snip

Actually No. The momentum involved is the same, but the energy involved is not. Kinetic Energy is 1/2mv^2. So the energy involved for the 130 mph crash into a stationary object is 2 times the energy involved in two cars crashing head first into each other, and given the amount of energy involved at 65 mph, that is significant.
========================

The only problem with quotes on the internet is that you can't authenticate them -- Abraham Lincoln
Top
Re: "Marine Carrier"
Post by kzt   » Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:25 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11360
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Isn't it 4 times?
Top
Re: "Marine Carrier"
Post by SWM   » Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:02 pm

SWM
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5928
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: U.S. east coast

kzt wrote:Isn't it 4 times?

No, only 2 times, because two vehicles have twice the mass of one vehicle.
--------------------------------------------
Librarian: The Original Search Engine
Top
Re: "Marine Carrier"
Post by Relax   » Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:38 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3230
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Elementary math time:

1 - -1 = what again?

dV
65 - -65 = 130

130-0 = 130

Kinetic Energy = 1/2m(dV^2)

That v in kinetic energy equation is not derived from a static equation. That is the simplified version with the calculus removed.

http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~alaporta/PHYS171_f12/lectures/kinetic_energy.pdf

EDIT:

Graph it: Draw a positive squared function above the positive x axis and then draw the identical negative function mirrored on the positive x axis. What is the area between the two curves?

Draw a positive squared function 2x greater than the single squared function on the positive x axis. What is the area under the curve?

The areas are identical.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: "Marine Carrier"
Post by SWM   » Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:14 pm

SWM
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5928
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: U.S. east coast

Relax wrote:Elementary math time:

1 - -1 = what again?

dV
65 - -65 = 130

130-0 = 130

Kinetic Energy = 1/2m(dV^2)

That v in kinetic energy equation is not derived from a static equation. That is the simplified version with the calculus removed.

http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~alaporta/PHYS171_f12/lectures/kinetic_energy.pdf

EDIT:

Graph it: Draw a positive squared function above the positive x axis and then draw the identical negative function mirrored on the positive x axis. What is the area between the two curves?

Draw a positive squared function 2x greater than the single squared function on the positive x axis. What is the area under the curve?

The areas are identical.

No, I'm afraid that you are wrong. There is a difference between these two situations:
one vehicle (1kg) traveling at 20 m/s, colliding with a stationary vehicle (1 kg), and traveling at zero afterwards. Total kinetic energy before: 400 joules. Total kinetic energy afterward: 0 joules. Difference in kinetic energy (i.e. the energy consumed in damaging the vehicle and contents): 400 joules.

2 vehicles (1 kg each) traveling toward each other, each at 10 m/s, colliding with each other, and traveling at zero afterward. Total kinetic energy before: 200 joules. Total kinetic energy afterward: 0 joules. Difference in kinetic energy: 200 joules.

You are assuming that the second situation can be viewed from the frame of reference of the second vehicle. So let's take a closer look at that. Vehicle 1 is traveling toward vehicle 2 at 20 m/s. It collides. Afterward, vehicles 1 and two are crumpled together, and traveling at 10 m/s!. The frame of reference is not glued to vehicle 2. In that frame of reference, the merged vehicles are moving after the collision! Total kinetic energy before: 400 joules. Total kinetic energy after: 200 joules. Difference in kinetic energy: 200 joules. The same result as we got in the other frame of reference.

No matter what frame of reference you use, the two situations are not the same. A collision involving two vehicles at equal speeds head on gives half as much damaging energy as a collision involving one vehicle traveling twice as fast.
--------------------------------------------
Librarian: The Original Search Engine
Top

Return to Honorverse