Ramming attacks

[Jacob/Lee]

Aurora engines do not produce exhaust/thrust, so this is a nonstarter.  Engines produce a field around the ship and all movement is inertialess.

The cause of [the boarders] casualties will vary but could include missing the target and ending up within the exhaust plume

?
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1680.0.html

[sloanjh]

Aurora engines do not produce exhaust/thrust, so this is a nonstarter.  Engines produce a field around the ship and all movement is inertialess.

The cause of [the boarders] casualties will vary but could include missing the target and ending up within the exhaust plume

?
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1680.0.html

I suspect Steve forgot his own physics when he was writing that small piece of techno-babble, or that the imagery was just too good to pass up   It is certainly the case that StarFire engines produce a field around the ship and all movement is inertialess (go read the Weber/White SF novels), and that Aurora engines are inertialess.  I've always assumed essentially the same mechanics (and I think I remember old posts that are lost in the sands of board crashes that support this), albeit with the power of engines vs. volume of ship controlling speed.  I know my reaction was identical to Charlie's - I just didn't bother to post it.

John

[ollobrains]

its a lot of power still

[Thiosk]

haha i wasn't the only one to notice that exchange.  Didn't want to go through and cross reference, however  Just shows I probably spend too much of my time perusing various documents on this forum.

As near as I can tell, canon is not rigorous until steve sets canon, so the human player/writer has their own leeway to call it whatever they want.  For instance, I play with jumpgates as the assumption that they are a stabilized, enlarged wormhole and not a mechanical construct.  You can play it however you want, however.

[Charlie Beeler]

?
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1680.0.html

I suspect Steve forgot his own physics when he was writing that small piece of techno-babble, or that the imagery was just too good to pass up   It is certainly the case that StarFire engines produce a field around the ship and all movement is inertialess (go read the Weber/White SF novels), and that Aurora engines are inertialess.  I've always assumed essentially the same mechanics (and I think I remember old posts that are lost in the sands of board crashes that support this), albeit with the power of engines vs. volume of ship controlling speed.  I know my reaction was identical to Charlie's - I just didn't bother to post it.

John

If I Recall Correctly (hey I'm just another fallible human afterall), the idea that the engines produce a field goes all the way back to the Diary discussion mailing list and may never have been on the board.  And yes I'm fully aware that Steve had that bit in the techo-babble for ship to ship boarding, but it's the only instance that I'm aware of and shows up nowhere else. 

If Steve ever adds deltaV/vectored thrust movement the the concept of a drive bloom that could be used as a point blank attack because a viable option in my opinion. 

[sloanjh]

If I Recall Correctly (hey I'm just another fallible human afterall), the idea that the engines produce a field goes all the way back to the Diary discussion mailing list and may never have been on the board.  And yes I'm fully aware that Steve had that bit in the techo-babble for ship to ship boarding, but it's the only instance that I'm aware of and shows up nowhere else. 

The yahoo board is still out there - last month I started up with StarFire again, was trying to figure out whether I wanted to use SA 6.9 or 7.0, and found the old posts while googling....

John