message 0160

• Speculations on spaceship (esp. Rider) drive and fuel

>From: Onno Meyer <Onno.Meyer@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de>
>Subject: cherryhlist
>Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 16:29:45 +0200 (MET DST)

> >I always assumed that carriers have rocket-engines and jump-engines,
> >while the riders have only rocket-engines.
> 
> Whatever they're using, it's certainly not rocket engines.   You need
> huge amounts of reaction mass to maneuver at high g's with rocket
> engines.  This would either make the riders the size of a Saturn V
> or it would make them sitting ducks, in terms of the accelerations
> carriers (and therefore any weapon intended for attacking carriers)
> can tolerate.  Therefore, since they need a "magic" drive as badly 
> as the carriers, it could well be a minor version of that used by 
> the carriers. 
> 
I agree that the riders do need the inertialess(?)/reactionless(?)
engine badly, but you don't always get what you need.

_HB_ p.52
The carrier dropped into a star-system and launched the riders- trusting
that realspace ships, launched like missiles, with more firepower
than ability to maneuver at v, could do their job...

_HB_ p.325
Pulse of the main engines. ... Second pulse, high-g RO, intermittent
accel and ...

The second quote comes from the only description of an ridership flight
I've ever read (are there others???). The rider is boosted up to .3 c
by it's carrier, released, drifts for a while, followed by a rapid
sequence of engine bursts up to 10.5 g and missile salvos. After the
mission completed signal from the carrier the rider docks again.

This first operational ridership shows nothing of the maneuver abilities
and endurance the riders in _DS_ demonstrate.

Perhaps the riders of the 2350s were improved over the riders of the
2320s.

> I also recall several instances of riders being described as guarding
> the outskirts of a system, which again implies accelerations unachievable
> with rocket drives unless you have access to significant amounts of reaction
> mass.  Otherwise it would have taken them months to get there.

If you're talking about _DS_, the riders went out there with carrier support.
Not all the carriers, but always one or two.
> 
> >- In _Hellburner_, the craft lost an significant part of it's mass
> >  in an instant because it fired and moved. The powerplant would 
> >  consume it's fuel in a more steady manner.
> 
> I haven't read "Hellburner", but does "craft" refer to a rider ship here,
> or to another vessel?  The non-military ships in "Heavy Time" all use 
> conventional rocket engines (and note that they also get a large part
> of their acceleration from the stations' beams).

I was describing the first rider prototype (that is, the third, but the
first one that was declared ready for operations).

> >- Why introduce another "magic" technology without compelling reason?
> 
> I did not introduce any, I used the one already in place.  The compelling
> reason, unfortunately, *is* there, given the performance of the ships
> that Cherryh describes.

Are you sure? Someone found a quote in _Legacy_ that might indicate
instant acceleration with the jump-engine the same way it can brake.
Civilian insystem-ships are described as very slow, and I can't recall
any story where a rider goes to c-fractional speed with his own engines.

Of course you may be right, it would be an easy explanation of the ship
movements, but I'm not sure it's the only explanation.
> 
> >A carrier may "shed its riders, which will travel at that speed". 
> >I read from this that a ridership is not capable oF the major
> >speed/vector changes done with the FTL-engines.
> >Of course, this interpretation is not supported by the remainder of
> >the text (the notes about rider movement).
> 
> Exactly.  In such a case I would prefer to dismiss that single line of the
> text (which I suppose is taken from the game supplement), especially since
> it would severely limit the utility of riders in combat (see above comments).
> 
> 	Markus
 Onno