Revised (Fan-Fic) Space Speeds & Fuel Mass for VFs

[ShadowLogan]

2 - maybe a reverse thrust value is needed then?

I think that would add needless duplication. I know what you are saying, but I think it would appear more confusing to have pools for dedicated acceleration and deceleration, this allows one to do more accel or decel as necessary.

Why not just add it to the stat block and save people from having to do the math themselves?

It can be done. I'll try to remember to do that when I update next (I'm thinking later this week for the VFs).

I understand the need for "realism" but really if you want to use it practically you need a touch of simplicity.

Believe it or not I have added a certain degree of simplicity by not accounting for the fuel carried for the two modes, or drag forces (gravity, air resistance). I do get what you are saying. But different people could want different levels of "realism".
GM#1 may be fine using it for revised top speeds and nothing else

GM#2 may not want to use it at all

GM#3 may want them to simply track their major changes in Delta-V

GM#4 may want them to track any change in D-V (pitch, roll, yaw movement in addition to forward motion).

GM#5 may take the stats and adapt them for a different setup (like Dream Pod 9 you mentioned).

4 - From a practical standpoint you want it so it is also simple to use, yes? having to calculate things like adjusted mass etc, in my opinion, adds a level of complexity that will serve only to slow game play down.

Really depends on how it is implemented on the game table for tracking purposes. Players could be doing the math in between their turns, could setup a Spreadsheet to do the work on a laptop/desktop computer, Graphic's Calculator program. Not sure about phone/tablet apps (never use them), etc.

I wouldn't worry about the mass changes, I'd simply track the Delta-V and burn-time (which would be no different than tracking ammo expenditure) and not worry about actual mass expenditure the majority of the time (if I need to figure out what's left it wouldn't be to hard with proportions for the Burn-time and fuel mass). Allow some wiggle room with the Delta-V if they have been expending ordnance (with Empty value the limiting factor to how much can be given).

Really, patrolling from the moon in an alpha (which is what we see in TSC) was a huge faux pas by HG and should never have been portrayed as such without a base ship of some kind (a Horizont even) to get them at least part way there.

I don't know if they need a base ship, but they certainly should have had been done with Beta fighters hooked up. That scene causes more trouble with the supposed limitations of the Alpha (range, transatmospheric) than HG might realize. I also purposely avoided basing any information on that scene due to past disagreements on interpretation.

Just so I am clear, if you expend, say 45% of your Delta V to accelerate to the moon, and then the same to slow down, with a 10% reserve for simply stuff, then basically 45% of your listed Delta-V is what you use to determine how "fast" a trip to the moon takes then..right?

For these purposes: Basically yes.

re: your example.
The 31 would be in hours. And six days is not bad for a round trip, that is about what Apollo took (not counting orbiting the Moon and Earth).

[jaymz]

2 - there wouldn't be duplication as you would use one fuel supply for both. Not knowing what your reverse thrust is is the only missing thing. I'll try to explain.

Why not set up the fuel in a burn point like system as I explained above?

EI - Accelerating at burns x points per second of burn. Decelerating burns y points per second of burn. One fuel supply, no duplication and woudl be relatively simple for anyone to use.

I am just trying to look at in a way that would allow the most people to be able to and to want to use it and perhaps ask the questions others would have

[green.nova343]

Just so I am clear, if you expend, say 45% of your Delta V to accelerate to the moon, and then the same to slow down, with a 10% reserve for simply stuff, then basically 45% of your listed Delta-V is what you use to determine how "fast" a trip to the moon takes then..right?

So, for example, using your system specifically, an Alpha-H flying from the Moon to Earth using this method would end up traveling at about 3.54 kps (12,733kph/7956mph) relative speed over the entire trip, and would therefore take ~31...umm...hmm...right, I am missing something here. It would take 31 somethings...I think, but I am not sure what those are. If they are hours, which is would have to be I think, that is lengthy but doable. If they are days...not so much really...and this is inferring a one way trip and modest reserves too. If we instead say a round trip at say 20% of Delta-V (accel, decel, patrol, accel, decel again) we get an even larger period. 1.57kps (5659kph/3537mph), taking ~67.5 hours one way, or a bit more than 135 hours for the two way trip, plus the time patrolling. So call is about six days. Hmm...not so good I think...

Gonna have to try this with the Beta and the full Legios to see if this is practical at all really.

Definitely hours.

Which is somewhat doable...but unless you're using autopilot for most of the trip, & can manage to sleep in the cockpit for part of it, is going to be very stressful. At least the Apollo astronauts could take shifts, & it took them 4 days to reach the Moon. Not to mention that it doesn't look like CVR-3 suits are fitted with drinking/food tubes in them, so you're going to get mighty hungry.

[ShadowLogan]

2 - there wouldn't be duplication as you would use one fuel supply for both. Not knowing what your reverse thrust is is the only missing thing. I'll try to explain.

Reverse Thrust could be done with the main engines in 4 basic ways:
1. cut thrust and rotate entire craft 180deg to your travel direction and apply thrust
2. if the main engines can change orientation (as we know most VFs can), then that would work the same as #1. Both the Beta (carrying Alpha) and the VF-1 are shown to do this.
3. some other method to redirect thrust
4. Some combination of the above

Alternatively there might be other engines for that specific use (Logan in "Volunteers", IIRC the VF-1s are shown in the wedding in TMS & recycled in Sent. OVA) or other uses.

Why not set up the fuel in a burn point like system as I explained above?

Fuel (or payload) expenditure is not a steady x-mass used = y-velocity change would be the main reason. It is simpler to track the actual delta-V capacity and/or the burn-time as they are used than the change in fuel mass. And the majority of the time that will be more than sufficient. For the times it isn't, well then we fall back on using some math and the proper formulas (acceleration to get time used, and rate of fuel use to get change in mass).

The majority of the stat block can be pretty much ignored during play for the most part (Acceleration would be the exception). It's useful in that the information is sufficient to double check the math (not a bad thing) and to tailor the needed values to a specific profile (ex. VF-1 carrying 12 MRMs would not be fully loaded hardpoints, allowing one to recalculate for a more accurate rep.) as I went min/max because there are so many combinations possible.

[Seto Kaiba]

Reverse Thrust could be done with the main engines in 4 basic ways:

The "dedicated braking engine" is present on several of the craft in your analysis (including the original VF-1 Valkyrie). They're misidentified on the uRRG's engine breakdown (naturally), so you have have missed them. The VF-1 had a pair of high-thrust verniers for braking on the outside of its intakes, for instance.

3. some other method to redirect thrust

In addition to the known high-thrust braking verniers on the VF-1, there is also known to be a "reverse" mode clearly visible on the main engine throttle lever.

[jaymz]

2 - there wouldn't be duplication as you would use one fuel supply for both. Not knowing what your reverse thrust is is the only missing thing. I'll try to explain.

Reverse Thrust could be done with the main engines in 4 basic ways:
1. cut thrust and rotate entire craft 180deg to your travel direction and apply thrust
2. if the main engines can change orientation (as we know most VFs can), then that would work the same as #1. Both the Beta (carrying Alpha) and the VF-1 are shown to do this.
3. some other method to redirect thrust
4. Some combination of the above

Alternatively there might be other engines for that specific use (Logan in "Volunteers", IIRC the VF-1s are shown in the wedding in TMS & recycled in Sent. OVA) or other uses.

Those other engines/verniers are what i was referring too. Somehow I doubt they havethe same thrust capability of the main engines which is why I asked if there could be a "reverse thrust" value.

Why not set up the fuel in a burn point like system as I explained above?

Fuel (or payload) expenditure is not a steady x-mass used = y-velocity change would be the main reason. It is simpler to track the actual delta-V capacity and/or the burn-time as they are used than the change in fuel mass. And the majority of the time that will be more than sufficient. For the times it isn't, well then we fall back on using some math and the proper formulas (acceleration to get time used, and rate of fuel use to get change in mass).

The majority of the stat block can be pretty much ignored during play for the most part (Acceleration would be the exception). It's useful in that the information is sufficient to double check the math (not a bad thing) and to tailor the needed values to a specific profile (ex. VF-1 carrying 12 MRMs would not be fully loaded hardpoints, allowing one to recalculate for a more accurate rep.) as I went min/max because there are so many combinations possible.

I still think there has to be a way to make it simpler. If this is a simple as you want to get then no further discussion is necessary. I'll continue following though.

[ShadowLogan]

The "dedicated braking engine" is present on several of the craft in your analysis (including the original VF-1 Valkyrie). They're misidentified on the uRRG's engine breakdown (naturally), so you have have missed them. The VF-1 had a pair of high-thrust verniers for braking on the outside of its intakes, for instance.

To clarify what was used from the uRRG I only used what I considered the main engine configuration of the VF in question based on their numbers. I did not look at axillary types (like braking, RCS, or secondary) in the original form of this project.

Those other engines/verniers are what i was referring too. Somehow I doubt they have the same thrust capability of the main engines which is why I asked if there could be a "reverse thrust" value.

They may not need the same raw thrust, they could still do the job over a longer period of time with less force or vise versa. Basically if the main engines used a certain amount of Delta-V, the braking engines need the same amount, baring outside forces, to cancel them out the time frame doesn't matter to the engines (environmental obstacles are another matter).

With the revised setup I have added two new sections: Secondary/Axillary and Strap-on. The Strap-on handles the GBP-1S/FAST system. The Secondary/Auxillary would be like the VF-1's braking Thrusters and the backpack array, they are lumped together (could be separated). RCS control is probably best treated as an extension of the low-thrust mode (ex the VF-1's 3rd SLMH fusion reactor is supposed to power the verniers).

I still think there has to be a way to make it simpler. If this is a simple as you want to get then no further discussion is necessary. I'll continue following though.

I don't see one off hand, that doesn't mean there isn't one out there. As I said the vast majority of the time simply tracking the Delta-V and/or burn-time is sufficient, that shouldn't be any harder than tracking ammo consumption. For those few times it isn't, it would not be hard to figure out the result presuming you are comfortable with a few basic equations.

[jaymz]

For those few times it isn't, it would not be hard to figure out the result presuming you are comfortable with a few basic equations.

Myself? I have no issue with it. If I was able to calculate 3 vectored movement in Jovian Chronicles on the fly playing a tactical table top game I can handle some equations but as I said previously, it is necessarily me I am asking these questions for

Anyway keep it up, if nothing else, I'll get a different look at how to do something like this.

[ShadowLogan]

I have updated the first two initial posts to reflect changes implemented.

100kg for life support is probably just about right.
8.1kg EBA (ASC TASC, slight heavier suit exits and CVR-3 is lighter)
5kg per Day Food/Water/Air (10kg total as the mecha only carries air for 2days, assuming water/food are provided)
For a 180lb individual (that works out to about 100kg give or take a bit).

[Seto Kaiba]

As a point of interest, here's a pared-down selection of the accurate/correct data for the VF-1 Valkyrie series in terms of its operational profile in space:

VF-1A-4 Valkyrie (w/o FAST Pack)
Mass (Empty): 13,250kg
Fuel Volume: 1,410 liters
Fuel Density: 0.085g/cc
Fuel Mass: 119.85kg
Thrust (kN): 112.78kN x2 (225.55kN x2 in overboost)
Burn Limit: 393.86 seconds (at max thrust)
Burn Rate: 304.3g/sec (at max thrust)

The FAST Pack seen in the series, aka the "Super Pack" or Ver.2.0 FAST Pack for the VF-1 Valkyrie, adds a further 5,020L (426.7kg) of fuel in its conformal tanks, bringing the total up to 6,430L (546.55kg), extending the main engine operational limit from 394 seconds (6:34) to 1,796 seconds (29:56). The backpack engine is a trio of liquid fuel rocket systems, that are each rated for 83.55kN (250.66kN total). The NP-BP-01A OMS/RCS rocket package that makes up the dorsal element for the FAST pack is a pair of 1,176.8kN (2,353.6kN total) hybrid rocket with an endurance of 150 seconds of maximum thrust (each). There is also mention made of additional disposable tanks for space operation that can be installed inside of the intakes and BLCS slits on the forward fuselage. Later variants (incl. late-block types) use more powerful engines (initially rated at 129.45kN/ea, later upgraded to 147kN/ea) with expanded fuel tanks for 1,690L (143.65kg) of fuel, and expanded conformal tanks holding up to 5,650L (480.25kg).

(A few fun side notes... the largest external tank ever fitted to a VF-1 held a whopping 5,355,000L of reactant, and was from a NR-707 transport shuttle. The two highest rated engines known to have been fitted to a VF-1 in later service life were rated for 367.7kN/ea and 630kN/ea, which used less than half the propellant due to considerable advances in their reaction efficiency.)


Data for the Legioss/Alpha and TLEAD/Beta is in the works.

Adapting this information for Robotech, per the available information, leave the fuel volume constant and adjust the fuel mass accordingly (liquid metallic hydrogen's estimated density is 0.85188g/cc, or 10.0221176471 times the mass of a VF-1's OSM slush hydrogen fuel). That's an unboosted fuel mass of 1,201.15kg, or 5,477.59kg with conformal tanks. An approximation of consumption rate is harder to come by, since conventional fusion is substantially less fuel-efficient than OSM thermonuclear reaction overtechnology, so the net burn time at maximum thrust should be less than 394 seconds in space operations... a consumption rate of over 3.05kg/sec.

EDIT: Transposition error... unboosted fuel mass for the RT equivalent is 1,201.15kg, I accidentally wrote 1,210.15kg initially.

[ShadowLogan]

Been meaning to get back to this. Seto, based on the numbers in your last post.

The VF-1 (Baseline) has an Specific Impulse (Isp) of ~75,584 seconds (rounded to nearest whole integer), and it gives the VF-1 a Delta-V of ~6.67kps in an Empty state (no payload, value rounded to nearest hundredth). Payload will reduce this value.

Factor in the top airspeed of ~1kps, WOULD LIMIT the VF-1s ability to get into orbit based on a variety of factors (launch latitude, orbital inclination, and desired orbit). Which is what the animation shows us.

EDIT: the above values are for Max Thrust w/o use of Overboost (w/Overboost it basically doubles the Delta-V and Isp if everything else remains constant: dry mass, available fuel mass, and burn-time. IF ANY are altered in anyway IT WILL EFFECT both values).

[Seto Kaiba]

Been meaning to get back to this. Seto, based on the numbers in your last post.

Unfortunately, your conclusion is explicitly incorrect for both Robotech and Macross... so there's either something wrong with your math, or the assumptions upon which you based it. My guess would be your assumptions about the actual altitude at which a VF-1's engine needs to switch over from air-breathing mode to space operating mode are throwing your conclusion off.

I'll consult Master File to see if it can offer some guidance on the VF-1's atmospheric service limitation.

[ShadowLogan]

Unfortunately, your conclusion is explicitly incorrect for both Robotech and Macross... so there's either something wrong with your math, or the assumptions upon which you based it. My guess would be your assumptions about the actual altitude at which a VF-1's engine needs to switch over from air-breathing mode to space operating mode are throwing your conclusion off.

In order for the VF-1 to actually enter orbit (at Earth), it must achieve a minimum velocity (~7.8kps at Earth). Less than that and it is sub-orbital, after a certain point above that and it would achieve escape velocity (~11.1kps at Earth). That is cold hard reality. Launch location and desired orbital parameters, along with atmospheric drag and reductions to gravity, will require the launching vehicle's Delta-V budget to exceed the minimum requirement by varying margins as they act as modifiers (generally negative).

The 6.67kps IS based on the numbers you provided purely plugged into known actual equations, plus the ~1.3kps from the listed top atmospheric speed (RPG) add up to ~7.97kps. Barely enough to achieve actual orbit under the most favorable of conditions (launching close to the equator, low inclination orbit, and low orbital altitude). That would be consistent with Ep3's depiction (assuming Macross Island is close to the equator, and they went for low inclination orbit, and low orbital altitude) and the later Ep30 (which has NMC/SDF-1 at a higher latitude to the equator, in SDF:M that is Alaska IINM) when it required a booster (which would also be consistent with FTS mini-series/graphic novel when the VF-1 had to chase down the ARMD in Polar Orbit while launching from Macross Island).

The Listed top speed of the VF-1 in Robotech at 30,000meters is Mach 3.87 OR 4,740.9kph (or ~1.3kps) by the RPG (on the table I have for Mach at Altitude, it would actually be slower). There is no other listed atmospheric speed for a higher altitude. At 112,000meters the speed of sound is 1108.8kph (so if it is traveling at Mach 3.87 that high, that would be 3.87x and converting to kps is 1.19), above that Speed of Sound is undefined on the table I have, and one still is not in orbit (minimum orbital altitude is IINM ~160km, or 160,000meters). 1.19kps starting PLUS it's delta-V capacity (which based on the NUMBERS YOU PROVIDED) is ~6.67kps, for a total of 7.86kps. Ignoring losses due to gravity pulling the VF-1 down, (ignoring drag at this point due to altitude), that is barely enough to enter orbit. And I haven't even considered requirements due to launch location and orbital parameters (inclination, altitude).

So no, my conclusions are not wrong. Nor is the Math, or the equations that went into them. If there is something wrong it is not on my end.

[Seto Kaiba]

Ah, I do see what's wrong... it's in your assumptions. Your math would be perfectly sound if the VF-1 were consuming propellant at a consistent rate, or operating in its pure rocket-mode from surface to orbit. Or in actuality, if Mach 3.87 were even the fighter's actual top speed...

I have, as of yet, been unable to locate the VF-1's atmospheric service limitation... except for the vague hints that it is in excess of 60km. Up to the atmospheric service limitation, the VF-1 can operate its two reaction engines in air-breathing mode and drastically reduce its propellant consumption by flash-heating intake air into plasma. The other significant problem is that the usual assumption is that the VF-1 has a static top speed in the upper atmosphere... which is why most Macross stats generally remind the reader that that 1) it's at altitudes of 30km OR MORE and 2) it's that speed OR FASTER. (To date, the fastest speed I've seen listed for an unmodified VF-1 in the upper reaches of the atmosphere was Mach 7.2 or thereabouts.)

[ShadowLogan]

Ah, I do see what's wrong... it's in your assumptions. Your math would be perfectly sound if the VF-1 were consuming propellant at a consistent rate, or operating in its pure rocket-mode from surface to orbit. Or in actuality, if Mach 3.87 were even the fighter's actual top speed...

No it is sound. The Delta-V equation does not consider the rate at which the propellant is consumed, only that it is. The engine modes of the VF-1 act like the stages in a multi-stage rocket (though unlike an actual multi-stage system, the spent stages aren't ejected). Nor is it concerned when the change over happens. The only way for the VF-1 to even come close to achieving orbital velocity is to spend all of its propellant (there doesn't appear to be any margin to play with based on the information you have provided).

Mach 3.87 is the highest speed listed, with a 30km altitude. RT.com seems to put that at the service ceiling (no higher altidues listed), your Macross Mecha Manual has it at 30km+ indicating the altitude may go higher, but the speed (relative to sound) remains constant. So it really doesn't matter at that point if the engines change over at 30km or 112km. The craft is traveling at about the same velocity (~1kps) regardless of altitude. In order for it to achieve (actual) orbit the VF-1 still must meet the minimum velocity requirements for such. Getting into orbit, is not just about altitude, one also needs the necessary speed/velocity* for that altitude.

I would also remind you that 6.67kps Delta-V for the VF-1 does not include any payload (pilot, external weapons) that will reduce it.

*http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktrflght.html
"The exact speed needed to orbit the earth depends on the altitude,", is pulled from the above link. This is coming from a NASA website, among other places I've seen it.

[Seto Kaiba]

No it is sound. The Delta-V equation does not consider the rate at which the propellant is consumed, only that it is.

But your math only works if your assumptions are correct, and there's all manner of evidence (not least of which being the show itself) to indicate that they aren't.

The only way for the VF-1 to even come close to achieving orbital velocity is to spend all of its propellant (there doesn't appear to be any margin to play with based on the information you have provided).

But, again, if we're talking Robotech we have explicit proof from the show and the official spec to indicate your conclusion is wrong or there's something faulty with your assumptions.

Mach 3.87 is the highest speed listed, with a 30km altitude. RT.com seems to put that at the service ceiling (no higher altidues listed), your Macross Mecha Manual has it at 30km+ indicating the altitude may go higher, but the speed (relative to sound) remains constant.

Do I even need to say that the Robotech.com specs were shoddily written by people who made many transposition and math errors? (People who, I'll remind the mods, were NOT and ARE not employed by Harmony Gold.) As far as M3 goes, I don't think we've ever really felt the need to state the blindingly obvious...

So it really doesn't matter at that point if the engines change over at 30km or 112km.

Considering that, above a certain altitude, the acceleration force is no longer being countered by the friction of the atmosphere... it really DOES matter.

[ShadowLogan]

But your math only works if your assumptions are correct, and there's all manner of evidence (not least of which being the show itself) to indicate that they aren't.

The Delta-V calculated is vased on the Mass numbers you provided for the VF-1. Even the Isp is based purely on the numbers you provided (for my own project, yes there are assumptions going in, but those values are identified). Both equations are easily found on the 'net so you can check the math if you want. The assement is also based on known real requirements.

But, again, if we're talking Robotech we have explicit proof from the show and the official spec to indicate your conclusion is wrong or there's something faulty with your assumptions.

Ep3 is not discounted. Launching close to the equator in an easternly direction gives the VF-1 a free boost, the higher (latitude) it is from the equator the less of a boost it gets (how much depends on the latitude and if they are in Easternly direction) . Factor in altitude requirement (altidue of 100miles per dialogue for the SDF-1 in that ep). And the VF-1 could potentially do it, but it will come close to completly exhausting its known Delta-V budget doing it.

Ep30 is not discounted. This location is clearly a high latitude location (in the OSM it is Alaska, RT it is less clear). From a Delta-V perspective that is a much more demanding launch, requiring the VF-1 to supplement its capacity to meet the orbital mission profile. This episode shows that the VF-1 has limitation on what it can do from a Delta-V perspective.

The Infopedia file says "Though the VF-1 is capable of reaching lower Earth orbit, it is unable to attain escape velocity on its own." This pretty much tells us the VF-1s delta-V capacity does not exceed 11.1kps (which would give it escape velocity). It also tells us the VF-1's Delta-V budget is only capable of reaching LEO, which does allow the upper value to be lowered from 11.1kps closer to the ~7.8kps previously mentioned (how much depends on how high into LEO it's reach extends solo). Also If the VF-1 MUST use atmospheric engines in its launch profile, the delta-V budget can be lowered again.

Considering that, above a certain altitude, the acceleration force is no longer being countered by the friction of the atmosphere... it really DOES matter.

True, but all that thrust/acceleration is changing the velocity of the aerospace craft. The mass of said platform is also changing, meaning the thrust can be the same, but the acceleration is not since it is working on an object that is losing mass. Basically Delta-V equation is a much simpler way to calculate the velocity/speed under those conditions after X amount of time.

And I will remind you that I am ignoring atmospheric drag, launch location, launch trajectory, desired orbital profile, and even reductions due to gravity (pulling the object down) in the basic assessment here. I've even ignored the impact of payload. Even with all of these factors being ignored, the VF-1 barely can reach orbit.

While in the short term in LEO we can ignore atmospheric drag, in the long term one can not. The Vostok manned capsule's BACK-UP De-obrbit "engine" was atmospheric drag (talking days of exposure here).

[Seto Kaiba]

Ep3 is not discounted. Launching close to the equator in an easternly direction gives the VF-1 a free boost, the higher (latitude) it is from the equator the less of a boost it gets (how much depends on the latitude and if they are in Easternly direction) .

Yes, but you're discounting the other sources... namely, the Infopedia's blanket statement that a VF-1 can reach low Earth orbit unassisted (not qualified with "only at the equator"), or Macross's many sources which also don't ascribe such a limit to it.

[ShadowLogan]

Ep3 is not discounted. Launching close to the equator in an easternly direction gives the VF-1 a free boost, the higher (latitude) it is from the equator the less of a boost it gets (how much depends on the latitude and if they are in Easternly direction) .

Yes, but you're discounting the other sources... namely, the Infopedia's blanket statement that a VF-1 can reach low Earth orbit unassisted (not qualified with "only at the equator"), or Macross's many sources which also don't ascribe such a limit to it.

I'm not discounting the Infopedia's statement. The fact is that one will seldom see existing launch vehicles payload capacity described as such. Usually launchers are listed with a simple figure for a given range, they don't concern themselves with specific orbital parameters but rather a best case scenario. Which is how I read the VF-1 statement, a best case scenario as opposed to a blanket statement.

That is further supported by the "From the Stars" comic mini-series/graphic novel when Roy has to launch from Macross Island into a Polar Orbit (or near enough) to intercept the hijacked ARMD. Polar Orbits don't refer to the altitude (like LEO), but rather the inclination from the equator. And Polar launches can't take advantage of the low latitude/equator speed boost since they are not going in the proper direction.

[Seto Kaiba]

Usually launchers are listed with a simple figure for a given range, they don't concern themselves with specific orbital parameters but rather a best case scenario. Which is how I read the VF-1 statement, a best case scenario as opposed to a blanket statement.

Your reading is, if I may point out, inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the source material and statement that you're interpreting. To be frank, there's more material than I can readily list that supports the idea that the VF-1 was more than capable of launching itself into a low orbit unassisted in Macross sources... and knowing what we know about the so-called Powers That Be at Harmony Gold, there's zero reason to suspect they wouldn't agree with it by inclination or even laziness.

Variable Fighter Master File: VF-1 Valkyrie Vol.1 "Stratosphere Wings" asserts - at great and tedious length with an assortment of helpfully labeled diagrams of flight trajectory and thrust curves - that even the prototype VF-X FP7 "Naked" configuration flew to altitudes exceeding 100km unassisted. It actually outlines one particular test that occurred on Sept. 19, 2008, on which the prototype achieved a stable altitude of 101,200m in a single, unboosted climb... for most of which its speed was well in excess of Mach 3.87. (The relevant diagrams and text may be found on pages 90 thru 93 of the above mentioned text.)

That is further supported by the "From the Stars" comic mini-series/graphic novel when Roy has to launch from Macross Island into a Polar Orbit (or near enough) to intercept the hijacked ARMD. Polar Orbits don't refer to the altitude (like LEO), but rather the inclination from the equator. And Polar launches can't take advantage of the low latitude/equator speed boost since they are not going in the proper direction.

True, but that doesn't prove anything. All Roy's use of a booster sled proves is that he wanted to get up there quickly to stop ARMD-01 from nuking Macross Island and/or Alaska Base off the map. It's never established that he NEEDED to have the booster to get orbital... only that he needed to get orbital ASAP. The difference is merely the time it takes for a nice, leisurely climb vs. a ballistic vertical ascent as a de facto rocket.

Similarly, in the Macross sources Harmony Gold bases most of their stuff on, the booster sled is something built for a speedy launch into orbit or orbital escape when time is of the essence or the Valkyrie needs to maintain a full fuel tank to engage in combat maneuvers as soon as it makes orbit. The sleds became obsolete almost right away, after the VF-4A's introduction, since those fighters had enough brute force engine power to get orbital quickly and without assistance, and later fighters further improved on that capability.

[ShadowLogan]

Your reading is, if I may point out, inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the source material and statement that you're interpreting. To be frank, there's more material than I can readily list that supports the idea that the VF-1 was more than capable of launching itself into a low orbit unassisted in Macross sources... and knowing what we know about the so-called Powers That Be at Harmony Gold, there's zero reason to suspect they wouldn't agree with it by inclination or even laziness.

No my reading is consistent with the spirit of the Infopedia writeup (text is hardly precise in this instance) and RT depictions.

The issue is that the OSM numbers do not add-up to what they state is possible. A "Naked" VF-1 by your statement earlier:
-carries 119.85kg of fuel (Slush Hydrogen correct, RT's SLMH is 1201.15kg)
-has a dry mass of 13,250kg (RT.com uses 13.3, but I'll assume they rounded)
-burn time of 393.86seconds (max thrust)
-TOTAL thrust of 225.56kN at max thrust or ~22,999.90kg

When you put those numbers into the equations for specific impulse (Isp) and Delta-V works out to an Isp of ~75,584seconds and Delta-V of ~6.67kps in an empty state using non-SLMH. SLMH is slightly lower at ~6.42kps, with a drastically lower Isp of ~7,542sec (giving them both the same burn-time, lower the burn time and you lower the values). You can check the math yourself if you want.

No speed faster than Mach 3.87 is listed above 30km, that does not mean the aircraft keeps picking up speed from the air breathing engines (remember there is less air to draw in to use as reaction mass so it may only be able to maintain its speed) since it is not listed it is not assumed to be picking up speed. That places a limit on the speed the air breathing engines can impart (Mach 3.87) and even assuming they could operate up to 112km means they are only doing ~1.3kps.

It actually outlines one particular test that occurred on Sept. 19, 2008, on which the prototype achieved a stable altitude of 101,200m in a single, unboosted climb... for most of which its speed was well in excess of Mach 3.87. (The relevant diagrams and text may be found on pages 90 thru 93 of the above mentioned text.)

Stable Altitude is not the same as stable ORBIT. I am not saying the VF-1 could not reach the specified altitude, I am saying that it will have trouble achieving the necessary VELOCITY to enter ORBIT at a specific ALTITUDE. There is a difference.

That altitude (101km) is also well shy of the 100mile (~160km) orbit described in Ep3 in RT.

True, but that doesn't prove anything. All Roy's use of a booster sled proves is that he wanted to get up there quickly to stop ARMD-01 from nuking Macross Island and/or Alaska Base off the map. It's never established that he NEEDED to have the booster to get orbital... only that he needed to get orbital ASAP. The difference is merely the time it takes for a nice, leisurely climb vs. a ballistic vertical ascent as a de facto rocket.

The use of the Booster system gives several advantages over the plain VF-1, but they all come down to the Delta-V afforded the system. Entry into a (near) Polar Orbit is going to be much more demanding from a Delta-V perspective than if Roy launches into a near equatorial orbit (and indications are this is challenging on its own for the VF-1).

[Seto Kaiba]

-TOTAL thrust of 225.56kN at max thrust or ~22,999.90kg

Remember how I kept telling you there was an error in your assumptions? Well, here it is.

You're only using half of the VF-1's available maximum thrust in your calculations. It's not 225.56kN for the whole aircraft... it's 225.56kN per engine, or 451.11kN in total*.

* For the VF-X, and VF-1A/J models prior to Block 6. The VF-1S is rated for maximum engine output of 245.17kN per engine, or 490.33kN total thanks to its tighter engine tunings. Later blocks of VF-1 went to the more powerful FF-2021 engine, which pushed their total to 517.79kN total.

No speed faster than Mach 3.87 is listed above 30km, that does not mean the aircraft keeps picking up speed from the air breathing engines (remember there is less air to draw in to use as reaction mass so it may only be able to maintain its speed) since it is not listed it is not assumed to be picking up speed.

Yet, here I am, looking at figures that clearly show that the VF-1 can easily exceed Mach 4 at higher altitudes, with the highest listed speed in the upper atmosphere being Mach 7.2.

See? False assumptions led to incorrect conclusions. Remedy that.

[ShadowLogan]

Remember how I kept telling you there was an error in your assumptions? Well, here it is.

You're only using half of the VF-1's available maximum thrust in your calculations. It's not 225.56kN for the whole aircraft... it's 225.56kN per engine, or 451.11kN in

No there is nothing wrong with the assumption. If you notice that was for max thrust listed and NOT w/Overboost.

You previously wrote: "Thrust (kN): 112.78kN x2 (225.55kN x2 in overboost)"

112.78 x2 = 225.56kN at Max Thrust, 451.11kN is for Overboost.

Yet, here I am, looking at figures that clearly show that the VF-1 can easily exceed Mach 4 at higher altitudes, with the highest listed speed in the upper atmosphere being Mach 7.2.

See? False assumptions led to incorrect conclusions. Remedy that.

No false assumption with the information provided: there is nothing in the RT.com infopedia File OR the information in your earlier post to point an actual speed beyond the listed Mach 3.87.

Mach 7.2 at an altitude of 122km is 7983.3kph, that only works out to ~2.2kps. Lower the altitude and you lower the speed.

So while you can now add ~2.2kps airspeed + 6.67kps Delta-V = 8.8kps in an empty state. This is omitting demands that will be placed on the system form launch location (latitude), desired orbital path (inclination, altitude), gravity, and payload (including a pilot).

So yeah, a VF-1 can get into orbit with minimal maneuvering power (less than 1kps, the Apollo CSM once in LEO had 2.8kps available) assuming a favorable trajectory and launch location (I don't doubt that), but it will also be in a stripped down state so its payload/usefulness will be very limited compared to one that uses some method to ferry it aloft. Use of Overboost can help to an extent, but it isn't going to change that much (basically double applicable Delta-V value) and that assumes the burn-time is not altered from its use (which it could depending on the method it uses to increase thrust).

[Jefffar]

So if a VF-1 is launched under ideal circumstances it can reach orbit with no external weapons and just enough fuel to land on an ARMD platform?

That is actually a useful capacity to have to be honest. It allows new VFs to deploy to their orbital bases where they could be equipped with weapons and fuel in a reasonably quick turn around. Those stocks of weapons and fuel would be brought in by a more efficient bulk cargo carrier shuttle.

Useful, doesn't really give the VF any sort of setting breaking or game breaking ability. Explains why they used the launch boosters. I like it.

Of course, it assumes the Mach 7.2 is a speed the VF reached on its own from a ground launch. It could be a re-entry profile for all we know.

[Seto Kaiba]

No there is nothing wrong with the assumption. If you notice that was for max thrust listed and NOT w/Overboost.

Overboost IS maximum thrust from the VF-1's engines. Your argument is fallacious because you're deliberately not accounting for the VF-1's full performance.

No false assumption with the information provided:

We've already proven that you're operating under two false assumptions... how many more will we find if we explore your argument in depth?

there is nothing in the RT.com infopedia File OR the information in your earlier post to point an actual speed beyond the listed Mach 3.87.

Well, naturally there isn't anything in the RT.com Infopedia... because that's so painfully incomplete that it's downright sad.

I didn't list speeds at all in my earlier post, so that's a misleading claim.

Mach 7.2 at an altitude of 122km is 7983.3kph, that only works out to ~2.2kps. Lower the altitude and you lower the speed.

Yes, at 122km... but who was talking about 122km? You're citing nothing but misleading claims and incomplete or outright incorrect information here. Where is the foundation of fact upon which you're making your argument? (For the record, it's more like Mach 7.2 at ~50km, so it's more like 2.43kps+.)

So if a VF-1 is launched under ideal circumstances it can reach orbit with no external weapons and just enough fuel to land on an ARMD platform?

Well, yes... but if you strip out the misleading claims and/or incorrect information I've taken exception to previously, you're able to dispense with the "under ideal circumstances" and "with no external weapons" portions of that statement. A VF-1 can, canonically and per the series footage itself, make orbit under its own power with nothing but its internal fuel stores with enough leftover fuel for carrier recovery. (Remember, Roy even did it with a VF-1D's cockpit block hung from his gun pod mount, and he did it faster than the rest, since he caught up with the forces on the way up after turning around.)

This is something in which the VF-1 is actually considered somewhat deficient in Macross... specifically, that its small size prevented it from carrying enough fuel to quickly reach orbit AND sortie from the surface. The VF-4 and later designs addressed that particular shortcoming to the extent that 4th Generation and later VFs could reach orbit in mere minutes in scramble conditions from the surface.

Of course, it assumes the Mach 7.2 is a speed the VF reached on its own from a ground launch. It could be a re-entry profile for all we know.

Oh, it's not an assumption... it's a fact. Specifically, it's related to the VF-1's ability to also run its engines in ramjet mode. The relevant documentation may be found in Variable Fighter Master File: VF-1 Valkyrie Volume 1, on page 80. It's a speed the VF-1 can achieve in unassisted, level flight.

[Jefffar]

My research gives Variable Fighter Master File: VF-1 Valkyrie Volume 1 a copyright date of 2009. It has been stated in the past that new capabilities have been retroactively applied to the VF-1 as new sources of material are published. Do you have a source that confirms this capability published prior to the creation of Robotech? As we know Robotech can't use subsequent material from Macross.

[Seto Kaiba]

My research gives Variable Fighter Master File: VF-1 Valkyrie Volume 1 a copyright date of 2009. It has been stated in the past that new capabilities have been retroactively applied to the VF-1 as new sources of material are published. Do you have a source that confirms this capability published prior to the creation of Robotech?

Much of what's in Variable Fighter Master File: VF-1 Valkyrie Vol.1 is copied almost whole-cloth from the old Sky Angels VF-1 Valkyrie technical manual... which was published before the release of DYRL?. The depictions of the VF-1 as being able to reach orbit under its own power go back at least that far, never mind it actually being shown in the series.

Most of the new stuff in the books relates to changes in the development backstory (Macross Zero) and a couple of new variants the book mentions (VF-1G, VF-1N). They even kept the chart that showed all of the deployments for VF-1s after production... though now it's simply been retitled to planned deployments, since the SDF-2 was not completed according to its original Macross-class specification (a wrinkle that was not revealed until Flashback 2012).

EDIT: Well, OK... the stuff on threaded fastener design using overtechnology materials wasn't in the original either... but that's so bloody boring even I refused to translate it.

As we know Robotech can't use subsequent material from Macross.

Not directly, anyway... but even the researchers who put together the Infopedia drew on sources beyond those which covered the original Macross series, and the same is true for Palladium. They just don't credit those sources when the material appears. The blatant copy-pasting from Macross sources is how the UUM-7 micro-missile packs for the VF-1s got into the Infopedia and the RPG, or how the Palladium RPG has accidentally used VF-1 cockpit art that never appeared in the series. Both of those things were created specifically for DYRL, but they still made their way (unintentionally, I'm sure) as a result of shameless copy-pasting of detail from post-original series publications.

They're not SUPPOSED to use that material... but they do anyway when they think they can get away with it.

Besides, we all know only too well that Harmony Gold's long been in the habit of deferring to the Japanese creators on the details of what's what. The line about the VF-1 being able to reach orbit was added to the Infopedia specifically because I'd pointed it out as a capability the VF-1 OSM-ly possessed in a discussion on Robotech.com. Half the reason their stats for the later generations have so many errors is they took their researchers at their word when they said the material the group had collected with OSM-derived (much of it wasn't)... a big mistake, as that group apparently couldn't even tell the difference between the numbers 3 and 8*.

* This exact error is, in point of fact, the genesis of the incorrect listing of the Alpha and Beta's guns as being 80mm... they somehow mistook the clear, unambiguous label identifying the TLEAD's three cannons as 30mm Vulcans as reading 80mm, and assumed that the Legioss's gunpod was the same thing... apparently failing to realize that there was absolutely no way either gun could be an 80mm rotary cannon given the size of the aircraft.

There are few bets safer than Harmony Gold instantly deferring to the Japanese creators on details like this... but betting on things like water being wet and the sun rising in the East seem a bit unsporting, yes?

[Jefffar]

I can agree that some of the early stuff published likely could see overlap, especially if there wasn't the strictest care in checking providence and date of sources. However, something published 25 years afterwards is well outside of this window.

So, is the Mach 7.2 listing in the Sky Angels book?

[Seto Kaiba]

I can agree that some of the early stuff published likely could see overlap, especially if there wasn't the strictest care in checking providence and date of sources. However, something published 25 years afterwards is well outside of this window.

Early on, it was easily excusable because licensees apparently did not have what was and was not permissible explained to them in any meaningful way... and some, like Palladium, had to fend for themselves in finding information due to the lack of support from Harmony Gold.

HOWEVER... at almost 30 years past the point of inception we're STILL seeing it happen in Robotech material.

So, is the Mach 7.2 listing in the Sky Angels book?

I believe so, yes. I'll double-check anyway though.

[Jefffar]

I can agree that some of the early stuff published likely could see overlap, especially if there wasn't the strictest care in checking providence and date of sources. However, something published 25 years afterwards is well outside of this window.

Early on, it was easily excusable because licensees apparently did not have what was and was not permissible explained to them in any meaningful way... and some, like Palladium, had to fend for themselves in finding information due to the lack of support from Harmony Gold.

HOWEVER... at almost 30 years past the point of inception we're STILL seeing it happen in Robotech material.

Quite, so how about we avoid contributing to the problem by making the same mistake?

So, is the Mach 7.2 listing in the Sky Angels book?

I believe so, yes. I'll double-check anyway though.

Thank you.

[Seto Kaiba]

Quite, so how about we avoid contributing to the problem by making the same mistake?

At this point, it hardly matters, because this material is largely pre-Robotech and specific to the models of VF that're shown in the original Macross animation (and thus in Robotech)... the same material Harmony Gold draws all the official specs for the VF-1 from. It's one thing if we're talking stuff that flat-out doesn't exist in Robotech, it's quite another if we're talking about an official explanation for a capability that's present in the animation of the series.

Thank you.

You're quite welcome. I always enjoy a chance to revisit old stuff like this.

Sky Angels doesn't cite the exact Mach 7.2 figure in its section on the VF-1's FF-2001 engines, but it DOES cite speeds for mass production models in edge-of-space flight that actually exceed that by a decent margin. Like VFMF, Sky Angels cites Mach 3.87 as the VF-1's top speed in normal turbine operating mode in the 30km altitude.

(It gives the VF-1A-4's unmodified Delta-V as 6.53kps... though the diagram of orbital ascent trajectory asserts it can reach speeds of nearly 8,000m/s under the right conditions near the edge of space.)

[Jefffar]

Quite, so how about we avoid contributing to the problem by making the same mistake?

At this point, it hardly matters, because this material is largely pre-Robotech and specific to the models of VF that're shown in the original Macross animation (and thus in Robotech)... the same material Harmony Gold draws all the official specs for the VF-1 from. It's one thing if we're talking stuff that flat-out doesn't exist in Robotech, it's quite another if we're talking about an official explanation for a capability that's present in the animation of the series.

However it is still material created well after the fact so unless Harmony Gold explicitly includes it, we can't assume it's canon on their behalf.

Thank you.

You're quite welcome. I always enjoy a chance to revisit old stuff like this.

Sky Angels doesn't cite the exact Mach 7.2 figure in its section on the VF-1's FF-2001 engines, but it DOES cite speeds for mass production models in edge-of-space flight that actually exceed that by a decent margin. Like VFMF, Sky Angels cites Mach 3.87 as the VF-1's top speed in normal turbine operating mode in the 30km altitude.

(It gives the VF-1A-4's unmodified Delta-V as 6.53kps... though the diagram of orbital ascent trajectory asserts it can reach speeds of nearly 8,000m/s under the right conditions near the edge of space.)

A specific Delta-V is handy.

Does it describe those conditions in detail?

[Seto Kaiba]

However it is still material created well after the fact so unless Harmony Gold explicitly includes it, we can't assume it's canon on their behalf.

Eh... in this case, it's more like material created before the fact, and by several years at that. Of course, they do still treat OSM sources as being pretty much THE most reliable after the Robotech series itself... so they have that going for 'em too.

A specific Delta-V is handy.

Very much so. Even handier is the one it gives for the QF-3000E... which I had all but forgotten about.

Does it describe those conditions in detail?

In some detail, but it'll take me a little while to translate the entire thing... it's a six-page section in Sky Angels. It looks, from the graphic they have on page 59, more or less identical to what's in VFMF, just with some slightly different (FASTER!) speeds cited. The chart indicates a very gradual ascent into low orbit starting at 20km and around 530m/s to ~750m/s at 30km and 2,100m/s at around 40km. They cut over to ramjet/scramjet mode around that point by opening the sub-intake, and begin a steeper climb that pushes the speed to over 6km/s by the time they reach 70km, and 7km/s by the time they reach 90km. (By this point, they're running both engines absolutely balls out at their maximum ram/scramjet setting, and the whole ascent takes about half an hour.)

EDIT: It appears that, at their peak output, the FF-2001s in scramjet mode are throwing out 907kN/ea.

[Jefffar]

However it is still material created well after the fact so unless Harmony Gold explicitly includes it, we can't assume it's canon on their behalf.

Eh... in this case, it's more like material created before the fact, and by several years at that. Of course, they do still treat OSM sources as being pretty much THE most reliable after the Robotech series itself... so they have that going for 'em too.

The specific reference we were discussing (the Mach 7.2) first appears in 2009, about 25 years after the fact.

[ShadowLogan]

So if a VF-1 is launched under ideal circumstances it can reach orbit with no external weapons and just enough fuel to land on an ARMD platform?

That would be correct, though the VF-1 does have some margin with payload mass (~1.75ton IIRC). Their actual ability to do much of anything else though (like interception, or dog-fighting) would be severely limited until they are recovered and serviced. At which point it might be better to launch them from the surface with a carrier craft (ship, booster unit) to provide maximum force projection since it is unlikely the enemy will oblige in creating engagements in the VF-1's butter zone.

Overboost IS maximum thrust from the VF-1's engines. Your argument is fallacious because you're deliberately not accounting for the VF-1's full performance.

Yes and No. YES it is a maximum thrust in one sense, but it is thrust that is achieved in a special mode AND not regular operation. Within the available equations overboost can work by several means (or combination of them) to achieve greater thrust so it's effect on Delta-V can change based on how it comes off in that sense.

I didn't list speeds at all in my earlier post, so that's a misleading claim.

That is the whole point that you did not list any actual higher speed at a given altitude above 30km, you claimed it goes higher but did not cite anything specific. So that was not misleading on my part. I worked with the specific information actually provided by the sources previously mentioned.

Yes, at 122km... but who was talking about 122km? You're citing nothing but misleading claims and incomplete or outright incorrect information here. Where is the foundation of fact upon which you're making your argument? (For the record, it's more like Mach 7.2 at ~50km, so it's more like 2.43kps+.)

You never listed the altitude the Mach 7.2 was at. I am using the numbers you provide, so if you omitt relevant information you only have yourself to blame here.

[Seto Kaiba]

The specific reference we were discussing (the Mach 7.2) first appears in 2009, about 25 years after the fact.

's more a "certain point of view" thing, IMO...

Is it really new information if all they're doing is citing a specific value inside the range instead of just citing the range itself? To me, that's more corroboration of Sky Angels than a new piece of information. The Mach 7.2 value is a valid one WRT the range provided in the old Sky Angels book.

That would be correct, though the VF-1 does have some margin with payload mass (~1.75ton IIRC). Their actual ability to do much of anything else though (like interception, or dog-fighting) would be severely limited until they are recovered and serviced.

That would be why there are various workarounds like the Spec 1.0 FAST pack* or the booster unit seen in the series... to get the VF-1 into orbit without actually consuming the VF-1's internal fuel supply. Later fighters addressed the problem by either incorporating secondary engine systems (e.g. the VF-4) or improving the power and fuel efficiency of the engines to the point where a surface-to-orbit climb was not unduly fuel-intensive (anything from about the VF-11 on).

Robotech sort of split that one up the middle in From the Stars by having FAST packs built into the prototype booster assembly, so Roy could reach orbit with considerable space combat potential.

Overboost IS maximum thrust from the VF-1's engines. Your argument is fallacious because you're deliberately not accounting for the VF-1's full performance.

Yes and No. YES it is a maximum thrust in one sense, but it is thrust that is achieved in a special mode AND not regular operation.

Except that all available information indicates that it IS regular operation for the parts of the ascent that precede using the engines' ramjet and scramjet configurations... therefore it SHOULD and MUST be counted in order for your estimates to be anything like an accurate reflection of the mecha's capabilities. The information you used from me does not state that its consumption is for regular 100% power, it's for the engines at their maximum output. Of course, that's maximum output in standard operating configuration... rather than the rather limited applications of ramjet or scramjet mode (a feature which seems to have disappeared after the VF-4 and VF-3000).

If you're not going to actually account for the full performance of the fighter in your estimates, then your estimates aren't anything like a true reflection of the mecha's capabilities...

You never listed the altitude the Mach 7.2 was at. I am using the numbers you provide, so if you omitt relevant information you only have yourself to blame here.

Okay, that's on me... I'd assumed that you would actually check the information yourself, or note that in Macross's stats a fighter's speed is pretty much always listed as "that speed or greater" at altitude of 30km+, thanks to the way it becomes easier to notch up the Mach numbers the higher you go.

[Seto Kaiba]

Heh, Jefffar... this had an unintended positive consequence. I can now source something in Macross Chronicle that's had me scratching my head for a while now. The specs that were published for the SF-3A and QF-3000E in Chronicle didn't come from older art books... they came from SKY ANGELS first.

[Jefffar]

There you go

[jaymz]

What I wouldn't give for English version for the Macross Chronicle......

[SailorCallie]

What I wouldn't give for English version for the Macross Chronicle......

You and me, both.

[ShadowLogan]

Okay, that's on me... I'd assumed that you would actually check the information yourself, or note that in Macross's stats a fighter's speed is pretty much always listed as "that speed or greater" at altitude of 30km+, thanks to the way it becomes easier to notch up the Mach numbers the higher you go.

I don't have the book(s) you are referencing for the OSM.

therefore it SHOULD and MUST be counted in order for your estimates to be anything like an accurate reflection of the mecha's capabilities.

That it should be included I do not doubt, but there is limited presented information to work with. While my default has been to use non-overboost, I did mention the results of what overboost would be a few times assuming it does not alter the burn-time (while Burn-Time is listed at Max. Thrust, that could be taken to mean non-overboost). The reason I am avoiding its use as the default stems from the fact that there are several ways overboost can be achieved by the math, so the system can not be properly accounted for at this time, since each way can alter the Delta-V capacity.

That is also why I skipped over some of the other aspects you presented because you omitted key relevant figures (dry mass of the extras for one).

That would be why there are various workarounds like the Spec 1.0 FAST pack* or the booster unit seen in the series... to get the VF-1 into orbit without actually consuming the VF-1's internal fuel supply.

Those work arounds though point to what I am saying though. The VF-1 has limited orbital insertion capability and once in orbit will be very limited in what it can do if it does so in a solo manner. In Robotech the use of the Booster unit is consistently used for high demand launch trajectories, where the only time we see the VF-1 enter orbit solo is likely closer to an ideal trajectory (read low cost) and is recovered in short order (suggesting they could be nearly exhausted).

[Seto Kaiba]

There you go

You have no idea... this explains a fair amount of what's in some of the original series mechanic sheets for Macross Chronicle.

What I wouldn't give for English version for the Macross Chronicle......

It'd save me and sketchley a LOT of trouble...

I don't have the book(s) you are referencing for the OSM.

Yeah, that'd do it...

[glitterboy2098]

myself, i choose to avoid the math heavy 'delta-V' tracking and boil it down to the two things that define delta-V in the first place (both of which are easier to track seperately). first is accelleration. the second is fuel use.

with my easy to use space rules you can track both pretty easily.. accelleration is just the listed mach #'s over a given amount of time, and each melee you just add or subtract the appropriate amount from your velocity. fuel use is an abstracted 'fuel point' system where each ship has a specific amount of fuel points, and you expend them in 1 to 1 for the given accelleration/decelleration. (so if you accellerate by 5 mach, you spend 5 fuel points. less efficent engines get represented by fewer fuel points for use.)
GM's get to decide how fast of accell or how many fuel points there are, though i have plans to eventually give a list of suggested values.

so for example, in my mind, a VF-1 would have 'mach per minute' speeds (or about 3-4 g's of accel at max throttle) and 160 fuel points.. enough for a good space fight (considering you only need to expend fuel points to increase or decrease speed, or perform major course change manuevers) and enough to let it get to earth orbit under its own power, but without much fuel for manuevering afterwards.

a dynamic which, while perhaps not exactly as the show depicts, at least is close enough.

[Seto Kaiba]

myself, i choose to avoid the math heavy 'delta-V' tracking and boil it down to the two things that define delta-V in the first place (both of which are easier to track seperately). first is accelleration. the second is fuel use.

I usually don't even go that far... I've experimented with propellant mechanics a few times, and decided it detracts far too much from the cinematic-ness (yes, I know it's not a word) of the combat. I distill it down to a simple yea or nay list that says what a fighter can and cannot do... and sometimes also a maximum engagement range (which is usually too large for players to even notice) at which point the VF would have to turn back to be able to reach its carrier and land without its fuel running dry.

It's never really been an issue for me, though, since the games I run are Macross and usually set in one of the later parts of either timeline when propellant efficiency and engine power is such that only civilian-market VFs have any cause for concern when it comes to propellant capacity when flying to orbit. The only time I'd really worry is if I were running a game set in the periods where 1st and 2nd Gen VFs were still in heavy use... since those weren't quite as fuel-efficient.

[ShadowLogan]

@glitterboy2098
I agree the way Delta-V can be used can get pretty heavy. That is one reason why I do not advocate a specific approach in how the numbers are used. Personally, I just did the numbers to revise the "top speed in space" and use the baseline movement mechanics with regard to realistic speed requirements. It also helps when transferring fuel between vehicles (previously only NG PC cells easily transferred).