Starship Corporation

As these are very minor bugs (and very easy to fix) I thought one thread for all description errors should be fine.

The one I found:
Cargo bay currently says it can hold 2 000 tons of cargo when in fact it can hold 20 kt = 20 000 tons

Yantai Erismax Class. Deck "C1" is being referred to as "T1".

Technology screen.

- Crew column text is not vertically centered. It varies between top and bottom alignment.
- SYMM. THRUSTER. The word "Maneuverability" exceeds width of column.
- SYMM. THRUSTER. "...enhance the ships..." should read "...enhance the ship's..."
- ENGINE ROOM. Description text exceeds size of cell.
- COMPUTER CORE. "...and the crew is on his own." should read "...and the crew is on its own."
- EMERGENCY BRIDGE. "...the main Bridge so that..." should read "...the main Bridge, so that..."
- ARMOR. The description includes an out of place explanation about currency abbreviations.
- LANDING GEAR. "...on Deck A1." should read "...on Deck B1."
- All sections: Broadly missing service intervals in general.
- HANGAR BAY. "The Cargo Bay Doors..." should read "The Hangar Bay doors..."
- "CYO Quarters" should read "CYO QUARTERS"
- "Captains Quarters" should read "CAPTAIN'S QUARTERS".
- Captains Quarters. "Service" is "0 sec" should be "-".
- SICKBAY. "At the sickbay wounded..." should read "At the sickbay, wounded..."
- WATER TREATMENT. "...purifies it for the use..." should read "...purifies it for use..."
- CANNON "...of fire of 100 and..." possible double space between "100" and "and".
- MISSILE BAY "Every Missile Bay need..." should read "Every Missile Bay needs..."
- MISSILE CONTROL "Every Missile Bay need..." should read "Every Missile Bay needs..."

Design screen. Error messages and completed objectives drop down display.

There is a general lack of capitalisation of many of the sentences present. E.g. "not enough air" vs "Galley missing".

Power grids are in units of 'TW' (Tera Watts?) but so are Cooling grids. Cooling grids should be in another unit. (LN2? Liquid Nitrogen)

From Wikipedia:
Liquid Nitrogen is used:
as a coolant
for CCD cameras in astronomy
for a high-temperature superconductor to a temperature sufficient to achieve superconductivity
for vacuum pump traps and in controlled-evaporation processes in chemistry.
to increase the sensitivity of infrared homing seeker heads of missiles such as the Strela 3
to temporarily shrink mechanical components during machine assembly and allow improved interference fits
for computers and extreme overclocking[4]
for simulation of space background in vacuum chamber during spacecraft thermal testing [5]
as an energy storage medium.

Here's a link on "Cryo Power" technology, explaining that Liquid Nitrogen can be used as a means of storing energy:
http://www.treehugger.com/wind-technolo ... orage.html

It's actually not as wrong as it may sound initially.

Let's do some simple physics: (As for notation: [X] means unit of varable X)

Heat != Temperature. Instead the Heat Q of an object depends on its mass (m), its specific heat capacity (c) and its temperature (T). We therefore get:

[Q] = [m*T*c] = [Mass]*[Temperature]*[Energy]/([Mass]*[Temperature]) = [Energy] = J

Therefore heat has the unit of an energy. If you now want to know how much heat a system can absorb per time t you simply can define some kind of heat absorbation rate h, which is given by h = Q/t. As for the unit (who would have thought this?):

[h] = [Energy]/[Time]

Now we can look at the unit the power grid gives us (Assuming that TW indeed is for Terawatt):

TW = [Power] = [Energy]/[Time]

Therefore our heat absorbation rate also is a work and has the unit Watt (or TW if the scale is big enough)

The Yantai Erismax says "Not available in this version", but it is.

An interesting explanation that validates the use of Watts. Although, that's looking at it from the perspective of what it provides. As to say:

Coolant provides cooling in Watts.
Electricity provides energy in Watts.
Fuel provides thrust in Newtons.
Air provides respiration in... breaths?.

The other perspective is to look at the provider, that enables the output:

Cooling is provided by coolant in... LN2?.
Energy is provided by electricity in Amperes.
Thrust is provided by fuel in Gallons/Litres.
Respiration is provided by air in Litres.

So, looking at those above, which seem more appropriate to use?

OK, let's go through this step by step:


That's right


The thrust isn't directly affected by the amount of fuel on board. It mainly depends on the engine. (Of course if the thrust-fuel-ratio of your engine is nonlinear and you have to travel a certain distance before refueling the fuel left affects the thrust you can give without running out of fuel. But this only works if you know the function of the engines and heavily depends on your planned traveltime/-distance) Much more interesting is the amount of chemical energy you have aboard. As you have to accelerate the ship (breaking without friction is just accelerating backwards and needs the same amount of energy) you have a difference in kinetic energy which you have to provide by using the fuel and therefore releasing the chemical energy you need. This also works with binding energy and nuclear reactions. Therefore my joice for measuring the fuel would be Joule. As the chemical energy likely is distributed homogenous throughout the fuel, litres would also be a fitting unit.

But: As soon as you add a fuelgrid which provides a room with a certain amount of fuel (aka energy) per time, we once again are with Watts or litres per second. Bear in mind, that the amount of Watts you then get from one fuel tank depends on the travel time (With 10 Ml fuel and 100 days travel time you of course only can provide 100 kl fuel per day whereas with 10 days traveltime you can provide 1 Ml per day).


Basically. Much more intuitive is litres as one breath "destroys" a (nearly) constant volume of oxygen. Thats without a grid floating the whole ship constantly with oxygen. I also don't think an air-grid makes any sense. In which units you would measure the effectivity of such a grid I can't tell right now. I'll think about it.


LN2 in what? atoms? litres? apples? Whatever: It doesn't matter. You have to hold the circuit under a certain pressure to provide the necessary flow. At the cooling hatches the absorbed heat is radiated into space and we get ready for another round. This requires a fixed omount of N2 and has nothing to do with the amount of heat coming from the rooms. It doens't get vented into space or something...


What about the voltage? What about the really relevant thing, energy per time?


*see above*


I guess this was a rhetorical question. Nevertheless, both contain humbug. My answers are highlighted.

They weren't separate lists as an either or choice in a block of 4. It's a case of which respective form of each makes more sense to you. I'm pointing out that people measure things by the defacto unit that they encounter, rather than measuring by only the providers or only the outputs that providers give.

You chose:
Coolant: Watts
Electricity: Watts
Fuel: Joules or Litres
Air: Litres

Watts = The output. The work done.
Litres = The provider.

Voltage is a derivative measurement of current and resistance. It only represents a mathematical equation and not a physical substance. Current actually represents the electrons - which are the provider.

Litres is the defacto unit for a volume of liquid. In this case - coolant. If you have a gauge showing coolant, it would be in terms of how much coolant is contained in the system - which is the provider and would be in litres. You wouldn't, for example, have a fuel tank leak in a car and say that millions of joules leaked out onto the road. You would say that litres or gallons of fuel leaked out. Equally, loss of coolant would be measured in litres. And so the amount contained within the system must be monitored in litres.