wesmarshall Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 When ships come out of hyperspace, they suddenly stop like 200 miles outside of the planet's atmosphere. Where does the inertia go? How come they wouldn't just immediately crash into the planet and kill everyone on board and almost definately kill everything on the surface? What's keeping everyone from flying against the walls and dying? I don't see any seatbelts in my ship. answer pl0x kthnks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavensDaemon Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 When ships come out of hyperspace, they suddenly stop like 200 miles outside of the planet's atmosphere. Where does the inertia go? How come they wouldn't just immediately crash into the planet and kill everyone on board and almost definately kill everything on the surface? What's keeping everyone from flying against the walls and dying? I don't see any seatbelts in my ship. answer pl0x kthnks Inertia Dampeners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanubis Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Reverse thrusters and inertia dampeners. Also, a wizard did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LilPika Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Star Wars and space combat has never REALLY made sense if you think about it. In reality the TIE would actually be a much more agile craft than the X-Wing due to the fact it's a ball. You could put rotational and positional thrusters all over that thing... but the X-Wing is supposedly better? Reasons for this is simple, in Star Wars space combat works like a standard, modern day air to air dogfight, we have areodynamic A-Wings, long nosed, broad winged X-Wings, Slow and heavy Y-Wings that supposedly handle like a fat bantha... and all this is in space? Where weight and speed mean nothing at all? It's not an inertia based Zero-G style (Think BSG. Ship flying one way, pointing another.) There is just so much "Wrong" with space combat in Star Wars, I think the inertia of a ship in warp is a minor thing, considering ships in modern day naval engagments need to worry about turning too fast. Imagine something the size of an SSD turning? It would _NEED_ to bend or it would littrarally snap. I still love the space combat mind, don't get me wrong on that Edited January 9, 2012 by LilPika Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfninjajedi Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Think this will answer it. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Inertial_compensator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrong_turn Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) First, you stop much much further away than 200 miles. If you were that close to the planet it would be the only thing in the window. These planets are big. To your point though, Star Wars has never been very scientifically accurate. Over the years there have been attempts to explain things but the reality is that physics wasn't much of a factor when the idea for that universe was conceived. Best just to enjoy it for what it is. Edited January 9, 2012 by wrong_turn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlazingShadow Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 In Star Wars, everyone can hear you scream... in space... Which makes the physics wronnnnnng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LexxYovel Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Yeah, trying to explain space physics in Star Wars is a hopeless effort. I'd much rather subscribe to the theory that their universe has different laws of physics. Forget coming out of hyperspace. It would be impossible for a spacecraft to turn and accelerate the way it does in Star Wars. Even if you subscribe the possibility of a insanely powerful fuel source, you'd need hundreds of micro-thrusters on the ship to make it turn like that. It also always amused me in Star Wars space combat games (like X-wing Alliance or SWG's Jump to Lightspeed), that when your ship got disabled by an enemy, it would instantly stop in place. Logically, the ship should actually continue on the same exact path as before it got disabled, without accelerating or decelerating. Though I suppose you could always make up some crazy answer... like the ship performed a last second emergency stop to prevent further damage to the ship. Edited January 9, 2012 by LexxYovel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krenum Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 You can distort space that causes the ship to appear to be moving forward at a faster than light velocity to out side observers while the crew on the ship are not really moving at all. There would be no inertia to displace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeromentor Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I thought everyone knew. Just like in Eve, Space is really made of jelly and is just very transparent. Yep, you see right through it. That's why the force works in space. Moves the jelly around. Or... Something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenGlenn Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Star Wars and space combat has never REALLY made sense if you think about it. Yes it has. In reality the TIE would actually be a much more agile craft than the X-Wing due to the fact it's a ball. You could put rotational and positional thrusters all over that thing... but the X-Wing is supposedly better? TIE fighters have twin ion engines(TIE) right next to each other in the back of the ship. They don't provide as much thrust as the X-Wing engines and are so close together that they do not provide especially great agility. X-Wings have 4 engines with greater thrust that are spaced out in order to give better turning. Even still, a TIE fighter IS more agile than an X-Wing, especially if the TIE is an interceptor. X-Wings are generally better due to shields and torpedoes, not speed or agility. Reasons for this is simple, in Star Wars space combat works like a standard, modern day air to air dogfight, we have areodynamic A-Wings, long nosed, broad winged X-Wings, Slow and heavy Y-Wings that supposedly handle like a fat bantha... and all this is in space? Where weight and speed mean nothing at all? It's not an inertia based Zero-G style (Think BSG. Ship flying one way, pointing another.) The various shapes of the ships are for when they are within an atmosphere. TIE fighters are designed moreso for space than the Rebel ships are. In an atmosphere, the solar wing panels of the TIE kill their mobility options while the rebel ships fly reasonably well. In space, the engines, shields, etc are what determines their speed and the like. A-Wings are built with powerful engines, with most of the ship's power directly into thrust. X-Wings have additional firepower and are meant for more dogfighting scraps, not speed. Y-Wings are designed to bomb things after the other ships have cleared out enemy forces. They are stocked more fully with bombs and missles rather than engines. On top of that they have an ION cannon, blasters, and heavy duty shielding. Each ship serves a specific purpose and were designed with that in mind. There is just so much "Wrong" with space combat in Star Wars, I think the inertia of a ship in warp is a minor thing, considering ships in modern day naval engagments need to worry about turning too fast. Imagine something the size of an SSD turning? It would _NEED_ to bend or it would littrarally snap. I still love the space combat mind, don't get me wrong on that Inertia on the ships has already been answered by someone else, but I'll go ahead and say it as well. Ships in Star Wars are built with Intertial Dampeners on board. They reduce inertia to reasonable levels. It is even explained that they can nullify inertia 100% and it is the reason why Porkins hit the Death Star while calling out that he could hold it. He literally couldn't feel how much trouble he was in. As for turning, SSDs turn excruciatingly slow. But even if they didn't, they have intertial dampeners as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sotaudi Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 You can distort space that causes the ship to appear to be moving forward at a faster than light velocity to out side observers while the crew on the ship are not really moving at all. There would be no inertia to displace. This. The theory of faster-than-light travel in Sci-fi is generally built around the idea that you are traveling at sub-light speeds through warped space. In other words, you are not traveling faster than light so much as you are traveling at normal speeds but shortening the "distance" between point A and point B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monimoni Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 For starters... A galaxy is hundreds of thousands of light years accross. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. And travelling anything even close to the speed of light is wishful thinking. So the whole idea of "Star Wars" is impossible. It would take them thousands of lifetimes to travel to the closest star. But hey, the game is a lot of fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeromentor Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 For starters... A galaxy is hundreds of thousands of light years accross. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. And travelling anything even close to the speed of light is wishful thinking. So the whole idea of "Star Wars" is impossible. It would take them thousands of lifetimes to travel to the closest star. But hey, the game is a lot of fun! Instead, they travel through time itself, which takes time to go through the time sink, but then appear in the spot they meant to go to. Never really moving faster than the speed of light, but instead firing into a portal that makes it look like they are really going that fast. Plus, no FACTS have ever shown that light speed is max speed, only that our math stops at that point. I love science. No facts, only theories with lots of people backing one part or another (like the Big Bang Theory. Worst theory ever). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krenum Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Subsequently, traveling faster than light would not cause star streaks or a tunnel type visual often presented in games / movies. In fact traveling faster than light and looking forward the stars would look the same and not appear to be whizzing by. If you looked out the back of the ship though all the stars would be red shifted and look like they're all have moved to the center of your view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putok Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Isn't hyperspace actually an alternate dimension? I don't think it's even like "Warp Drive" in Star Trek, I'm pretty sure it's basically hopping into a parallel universe where the laws of physics do not apply. Regardless, I'm pretty sure they have inertial dampeners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krenum Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) For starters... A galaxy is hundreds of thousands of light years accross. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. And travelling anything even close to the speed of light is wishful thinking. So the whole idea of "Star Wars" is impossible. It would take them thousands of lifetimes to travel to the closest star. But hey, the game is a lot of fun! Well... if we could move a vessel or probe at man highest achieved velocity non stop (which wouldn't be hard due to lack of friction in space) We could reach our closest star after the sun (Alpha Centauri) in about 50 - 70 years. Edited January 9, 2012 by Krenum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunsoar Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 For starters... A galaxy is hundreds of thousands of light years accross. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. And travelling anything even close to the speed of light is wishful thinking. So the whole idea of "Star Wars" is impossible. It would take them thousands of lifetimes to travel to the closest star. But hey, the game is a lot of fun! Those folks over at CERN may have found something faster than light. Never followed up on the article but you can google it youself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjskull Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Lmao. It's the "stopping" that bothers you? Jumping to a fraction of lightspeed instantaneously from a stand still would make you no more than a stain on your space chair. Not to mention the physics problems inherent with relativistic speeds. It's called a suspension of disbelief. (And inertial dampeners, as stated, lol.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGSThomas Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 There is no inertia. They are warping space to "fold" infront of them rather then travelling fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oflow Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 There is no inertia. They are warping space to "fold" infront of them rather then travelling fast. this. Also to the guy talking about transparent jelly thats what all the astrophysicists are saying dark matter is thats. ;p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wesmarshall Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 I was doing some research on this, the amount of energy needed to stop even a tiny ship (something with a mass as low as 45 kilotons) coming out of hyperspace with an inertial dampener would be over the mass of two hundred (Sol-type) suns. Are these people just flying around destroying the universe all willy-nilly? I think not. Preposterous! Harumph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts