sorry for the X-wing spamming, but

[tsmspace]

Ok, so I think that basically between this video and this picture, you SHOULD be able to imagine what I mean when I suggest that: 

 

The ORIGINAL x-wing, from the original films, could actually land the way it does in the movies, using only the engines it has in the movies. 

 

basically, it would thrust down and back on the top, and up and forward on the bottom, just like you might apply pressure to hold a board level from one end, with your top fingers pulling back and your bottom fingers pushing in. (just slightly). 

 

 

 

 

 

[dalekphalm]

X-Wings have repulsorlift drives that allow them to hover. Repulsorlift drives work by “pressing against” the gravity of an object. They only work in the presence of a strong gravity well though. Weaker repulsorlift drives (such as those found in some speeders) can only lift them off a few meters from the ground. Stronger ones can bring a vehicle into upper orbit. 

 

We can assume the main drives on an X-Wing also has gimbaling, and that there are RCS thrusters all over the main hull - but neither of those things are seen in-movie and are thus conjecture only. 

[tsmspace]

Well,,  having tiny thrusters all over is pretty heavy,, and as with other vehicles some needs can be overcome by infrastructure. So, tiny rcs thrusters dont really help at combat speeds, and fighters dont fly unless its battle,, maybe they DONT have all those thrusters. They never need to dock like that, a pilot is good enough to blast to a stop in the right place, or the ship tractors do the work. In battle, the only ship left is the one with the most optimizations,, . Maybe those main engines are all thats even possible. 

[dalekphalm]

9 minutes ago, tsmspace said:

Well,,  having tiny thrusters all over is pretty heavy,, and as with other vehicles some needs can be overcome by infrastructure. So, tiny rcs thrusters dont really help at combat speeds, and fighters dont fly unless its battle,, maybe they DONT have all those thrusters. They never need to dock like that, a pilot is good enough to blast to a stop in the right place, or the ship tractors do the work. In battle, the only ship left is the one with the most optimizations,, . Maybe those main engines are all thats even possible. 

Star Wars ships are confirmed to have attitude thrusters, of which, RCS thrusters are one type of thruster to achieve that.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Attitude_thruster

 

In Legends, X-Wings (and other starfighters) had something called an Etheric rudder, which allowed the fighter to maneuver in combat situations without using the attitude thrusters. How the Etheric Rudder worked was never explained, and it never gained wide spread favour with Legends authors:

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Etheric_rudder

 

However, it's quite possible that Thrust Vectoring (thrusters that have gimbals on them to reorient and redirect thrust to various degrees) is somehow involved in the X-Wing design - if so, there's some visual evidence for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring

 

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/134513/how-do-the-star-fighters-in-star-wars-fly-with-no-side-thrusters

See the top answer. The thrusters look like they might have 3D Thrust vectors at the ends, and the incredible cross section reference manual indicates they could do this.

 

With that in mind, Thrust Vectoring would not be sufficient for all maneuvering (nor landing) all on it's own.

 

X-Wings (and most ships in Star Wars) have Repulsorlifts for landing. That's a fact.

[tsmspace]

do you have any pictures of these attitude thrusters?? 

 

and for what it's worth, I place about as much value for the "future of star wars lore" in current "canon" as I do in a meal at McDonalds. 

 

All of that can and will change for sure. Star Wars is a really big story, and it's not because of the etheric rudder. (which some novelist probably came up with , and lucasfilms allowed by popular demand). 

 

Things like star wars just aren't set in stone. That's why it's ok for me to speculate on other possible physics. and between reaction wheels and the potential that thrust vectoring offers with improved materials, I think I'm safe imagining alternatives to "present canon". I mean NO ONE is including reaction wheels in their figuring, and THOSE can improve a lot with modern materials. (how many rpm's?? what, like a million years ago!!! how about 1000 times that!)

[tsmspace]

also, thrust vectoring is what lands modern day vtol fighter jets. It works differently than the thrust vectoring of missiles or rockets, but not THAT differently. It wouldn't be a far cry that between a badass reaction wheel system, and enough vectoring to match my drawing, for a ship to vtol with only the four engines pictured on an x-wing. It's not about present canon. It's about potential, and what it could mean for action sequences. 

 

eventually, people are going to want to experiment with different ideas, but still leave it called star wars, ,,, this is my submission. 

[GoldenLag]

10 hours ago, tsmspace said:

do you have any pictures of these attitude thrusters?? 

keep in mind that they may not use the cold gas trusters that we are familiar with in our world. (or hypergolics)

 

and RCS trusters can be tiny. Cold gas trusters are literally a ball valve to let gas through. 

 

 

9 hours ago, tsmspace said:

It wouldn't be a far cry that between a badass reaction wheel system

reaction wheels get saturated and are not useful for moving heavy crafts around. (edit: and need RCS or other trusters to desaturate them)

 

9 hours ago, tsmspace said:

It works differently than the thrust vectoring of missiles or rockets, but not THAT differently.

missiles may use a RCS like system to push the rocket around with more torque that can be applied using normal trust vectoring. 

 

the Falcon 9 uses a combo of reaction control for in orbit manuever and fins for stability and control. and then trust vectoring for final approach. 

 

trust vectoring however do not allow for on the spot rotation. 

[dalekphalm]

13 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

keep in mind that they may not use the cold gas trusters that we are familiar with in our world. (or hypergolics)

 

and RCS trusters can be tiny. Cold gas trusters are literally a ball valve to let gas through. 

 

 

reaction wheels get saturated and are not useful for moving heavy crafts around. 

 

missiles may use a RCS like system to push the rocket around with more torque that can be applied using normal trust vectoring. 

 

the Falcon 9 uses a combo of reaction control for in orbit manuever and fins for stability and control. and then trust vectoring for final approach. 

 

trust vectoring however do not allow for on the spot rotation. 

It also doesn't allow for rapid deceleration. Thrust vectoring is no doubt an important component in any combat spacecraft, but there needs to be some other form of propulsion elsewhere to allow for extreme tight maneuvers and for rapid deceleration.

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

It also doesn't allow for rapid deceleration. Thrust vectoring is no doubt an important component in any combat spacecraft, but there needs to be some other form of propulsion elsewhere to allow for extreme tight maneuvers and for rapid deceleration.

and the way that combat works in space in star wars isnt fantastic for real physics. but it can work with some good and creative application of trusters. 

 

deceleration is a nightmare without literally flipping the craft around and using the main engine to slow down. 

 

Kerbal Space Program teaches this very nicely. 

[dalekphalm]

Just now, GoldenLag said:

and the way that combat works in space in star wars isnt fantastic for real physics. but it can work with some good and creative application of trusters. 

 

deceleration is a nightmare without literally flipping the craft around and using the main engine to slow down. 

 

Kerbal Space Program teaches this very nicely. 

Yep - Star Wars basically takes physics and throws them out the window, and basically says "yeah we have magic technology that makes this work".

 

Eg: CR90 Blockade Runner would never be able to stop in Star Wars, given the size of the Engines on the back, the apparent lack of engines on the front, and the fact that it never does a flip-and-burn deceleration.

[GoldenLag]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

Yep - Star Wars basically takes physics and throws them out the window, and basically says "yeah we have magic technology that makes this work".

they make it as if their craft can push against space the same way wings push against air. 

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Eg: CR90 Blockade Runner would never be able to stop in Star Wars, given the size of the Engines on the back, the apparent lack of engines on the front, and the fact that it never does a flip-and-burn deceleration.

i believe it was star citizen or Eve Online who implemented proper physics for combat, people were confused with the controls a bit. their crafts werent flying like planes anymore. now they were proper spacecrafts. 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

they make it as if their craft can push against space the same way wings push against air. 

Yep - and that's one reason why Star Wars is Space Opera Fantasy, not Science Fiction. And that's totally okay.

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

i believe it was star citizen or Eve Online who implemented proper physics for combat, people were confused with the controls a bit. their crafts werent flying like planes anymore. now they were proper spacecrafts. 

Both games use Newtonian physics flight models - though both also to varying degrees allow the "flight computer" to "compensate" and allow a more arcade-like flight model, so it's not totally unlike what people are used to.

[GoldenLag]

8 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Both games use Newtonian physics flight models - though both also to varying degrees allow the "flight computer" to "compensate" and allow a more arcade-like flight model, so it's not totally unlike what people are used to.

And lets be honest, fully newtonian flight models is not a lot of fun in space battles

 

KSP 2 is comming out with multiplayer. So doing some battles in that with kinetic projectiles will be interesting. And hella difficult. 

 

11 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Yep - and that's one reason why Star Wars is Space Opera Fantasy, not Science Fiction. And that's totally okay.

I think most people dont like to deal with orbital mechanics and newtian physics in those games. 

 

Its also more balanced as a "speed limit" can be inposed on certain crafts

[dalekphalm]

8 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

And lets be honest, fully newtonian flight models is not a lot of fun in space battles

 

KSP 2 is comming out with multiplayer. So doing some battles in that with kinetic projectiles will be interesting. And hella difficult. 

Yeah that's why I prefer hybrid systems like what FreeSpace did (it was more like atmospheric flight with slight Newtonian physics - and you could hold a key that would allow your ship to maintain velocity while pivoting in place to fire backwards, etc).

8 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

I think most people dont like to deal with orbital mechanics and newtian physics in those games. 

Even in the more realistic games (outside of KSP), if they do Newtonian in general, they usually skip orbital mechanics completely.

8 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Its also more balanced as a "speed limit" can be inposed on certain crafts

Yeah - since in reality, the speed limit is simply how long you can accelerate for.

[GoldenLag]

9 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Even in the more realistic games (outside of KSP), if they do Newtonian in general, they usually skip orbital mechanics completely.

Accelerating sideways to get to orbital velocity isnt exactly as slick as just point your craft upwards. Especially when you are flying a futuristic craft.

[dalekphalm]

43 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Accelerating sideways to get to orbital velocity isnt exactly as slick as just point your craft upwards. Especially when you are flying a futuristic craft.

And to be fair, if your thruster is powerful enough, you can say "fuck it" to optimal orbital trajectories and just brute force "going up".

[GoldenLag]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

And to be fair, if your thruster is powerful enough, you can say "fuck it" to optimal orbital trajectories and just brute force "going up".

that is true, but also have fun dealing with reaction masses. you can only have so much Specific impulse. 

[dalekphalm]

35 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

that is true, but also have fun dealing with reaction masses. you can only have so much Specific impulse. 

True - though I'm thinking of fictional propulsion systems that have specific impulses and hypothetical velocities far exceeding anything we currently know as possible.

[GoldenLag]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

True - though I'm thinking of fictional propulsion systems that have specific impulses and hypothetical velocities far exceeding anything we currently know as possible.

well......... we allready have the perfect rocket engine. its called a light bulb/laser. maximum specific impulse, laughable thrust. 

 

but there are certainly engine proposals that can give the required thrust and specific impulse to make something like the millenium falcon workable. 

[Derkoli]

On 9/30/2019 at 5:08 AM, tsmspace said:

Ok, so I think that basically between this video and this picture, you SHOULD be able to imagine what I mean when I suggest that: 

 

The ORIGINAL x-wing, from the original films, could actually land the way it does in the movies, using only the engines it has in the movies. 

 

basically, it would thrust down and back on the top, and up and forward on the bottom, just like you might apply pressure to hold a board level from one end, with your top fingers pulling back and your bottom fingers pushing in. (just slightly). 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, that plane is using reverse thrust, and this method of push-back has been out of protocol for years, I'm not too sure how this would all work.

[tsmspace]

14 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

and the way that combat works in space in star wars isnt fantastic for real physics. but it can work with some good and creative application of trusters. 

 

deceleration is a nightmare without literally flipping the craft around and using the main engine to slow down. 

 

Kerbal Space Program teaches this very nicely. 

 

which is exactly what my star wars would have people doing,, flipping around and decelerating with the main engine. 

 

In fact that's exactly what I'm trying to say. I REALLY WANT STAR WARS BATTLES TO HAVE THAT SORT OF ACTION 

 

I mean people sit around and feel so satisfied watching lightsaber fights because fun,, but *I'M* crazy because it has to be two things: Star Wars x-wings, and realistic thrust physics?? 

 

Ok lets argue that x-wings are futuristic so have so much power,,, who cares,, if the main engine is that much bigger, it's way more powerful than any thruster that you can't even see it's so tiny. If you were in a rush and when compared, you would use the big one. 

[tsmspace]

12 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

well......... we allready have the perfect rocket engine. its called a light bulb/laser. maximum specific impulse, laughable thrust. 

 

but there are certainly engine proposals that can give the required thrust and specific impulse to make something like the millenium falcon workable. 

 

 

I was actually thinking that the Millennium Falcon looks like a candidate for "harrier"-like exhaust vectoring,,, where Most of the ship is just engine (it's a tug), and the reason the exhaust is square like that is because that's not really the engine, just a big exhaust port, and there are ports all over the craft which can access the main engines thrust. 

[tsmspace]

14 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

And lets be honest, fully newtonian flight models is not a lot of fun in space battles

 

KSP 2 is comming out with multiplayer. So doing some battles in that with kinetic projectiles will be interesting. And hella difficult. 

 

I think most people dont like to deal with orbital mechanics and newtian physics in those games. 

 

Its also more balanced as a "speed limit" can be inposed on certain crafts

I don't think it's not fun for people, I think it's really hard to show without literally having a powerpoint presentation breaking it down for the audience. It's not that you won't think it's interesting, it's that a film-maker gets to the point of trying to film it and they're like "fuck it, just have them chase like planes"

[tsmspace]

15 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

keep in mind that they may not use the cold gas trusters that we are familiar with in our world. (or hypergolics)

 

and RCS trusters can be tiny. Cold gas trusters are literally a ball valve to let gas through. 

 

 

reaction wheels get saturated and are not useful for moving heavy crafts around. (edit: and need RCS or other trusters to desaturate them)

 

missiles may use a RCS like system to push the rocket around with more torque that can be applied using normal trust vectoring. 

 

the Falcon 9 uses a combo of reaction control for in orbit manuever and fins for stability and control. and then trust vectoring for final approach. 

 

trust vectoring however do not allow for on the spot rotation. 

 

 

--- I DID say "badass" reaction wheels,,, meaning lots of advancements. One thing is,, if you have two reaction wheels for each direction, then one can speed up to slow the other one down. It's not perfect, but it could keep down the energy still more than one wheel. 

 

--you could use the main engines to reduce reaction wheel saturation, just a touch of vectoring during any normal engine burn,, and it could all be done automatically, or handled by R2. 

 

--no, you can't "on the spot rotate" with only a few degrees of thrust vectoring, but you dont' need it in combat, and it's not a town-car. Thinking out loud, fighters don't fly like racing vehicles, OR like everyday drivers. They have a very limited set of moves that keep the pilots alive and destroy the targets, and the vehicles would be optimized for success during these critical moments above all else. 

 

--for lower energy motion like landings, actually, it's imaginable to have plates that allow for on the spot rotation, though,, actually. If the craft can hold position in a level hover, it can probably rotate also. (like my drawing shows)

[tsmspace]

14 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Yeah that's why I prefer hybrid systems like what FreeSpace did (it was more like atmospheric flight with slight Newtonian physics - and you could hold a key that would allow your ship to maintain velocity while pivoting in place to fire backwards, etc).

Even in the more realistic games (outside of KSP), if they do Newtonian in general, they usually skip orbital mechanics completely.

Yeah - since in reality, the speed limit is simply how long you can accelerate for.

actually I couldn't care less about orbital mechanics, although they do get to be interesting in longer discussions, and for battles that use bullets,,,, but I want the trajectories as they would appear very close to Star Destroyers, or showing Star Destroyers actually pointed backwards, or etc. 

 

 

actually, the Star Destroyer above the city in the new movie COULD make sense, depending on the size of the planet,,, that could seriously just be where geo-synchronous orbit IS for that ship.