We can ascend up quickly in a turbolift, at least 5 or 6 G's for someone in good shape, but negative Gz we are only good for 2 or 3.

Can you expand on what you're taught about -Gz tolerance and exposure in the flight surgeon course?

My understanding is that -Gz isn't studied or bothered with to the extent that +Gz is because -Gz is rarely a part of flying or ACM. I'm curious about long term/repetitive exposure to -Gz. I'm familiar with G-induced vestibular disfunction (and I've experienced a mild case of it), but I'm wondering if you're aware of any long term effects (damage caused by repetitive breaking of capillaries in the brain for example). I haven't been able to find much to read online about it. Would you feel cause for concern if someone was exposed to -5 to -9G with some regularity (for no more than a few seconds for each exposure)?

I've also heard of a theory (and some very anecdotal stories) regarding -Gz tolerance which holds that an individual has a finite/fixed amount of -Gz exposure they can endure (over a lifetime), and after that, they just can't take anymore. I can't think of any reason why this would be the case, but I'd appreciate your comments.

Think of it this way. Blood pooling in the feet takes longer to make you pass out than blood pooling in the brain.

That's not at all the same as being on earth. The gravity of earth makes all of your movements relative to earth, not other objects in space.

Direction of motion IS relative. If you're flying in a spaceship and you suddenly change direction with that spaceship, your body is still traveling in the original direction, except the spaceship won't let it. The inertia of your body carries you in a different direction relative to the spaceship. You get pressed into the ship in the direction you were headed and the blood does the same (depending, of course, on your speed relative to the spaceship), pooling in parts of your body closest to the outside of the turn.

"The gravity of earth makes all of your movements relative to earth, not other objects in space." No it doesn't, I don't know why you think that.

Of course you have momentum, you always do, even if you think you're stationary (which is a meaningless term, you'll always be in motion relative to something), and it's just the same. Turning around and thrusting in the opposite direction is just the same as thrusting in the direction you were already going, in terms of forces on your body. It's the change that matters (specifically the rate of change), and since your thrust is just as powerful regardless of your orientation then it doesn't matter which way you were going, you'll experience the same thing.

What you need to get your head around is that moving and being stationary are in effect the same thing, they just depend what frame of reference you're looking at it from (or, to put it more Star Warsy, your point of view). Anything you can safely do stationary (such as spin around) you can do while 'in motion'.

So, back to the K-Turn...

Any reason why it couldn't be a split-s instead of an Immelmann? I suppose it doesn't really matter since the orientation would end up being the same in space, i.e. 180 degree change of facing.

And to jump on the band wagon, I think the Falcon's maneuver in ESB is what a Koiogran would look like.

If you want science in your science fiction, you can find it. Just not so much in Star Wars

So, back to the K-Turn...

Any reason why it couldn't be a split-s instead of an Immelmann? I suppose it doesn't really matter since the orientation would end up being the same in space, i.e. 180 degree change of facing.

And to jump on the band wagon, I think the Falcon's maneuver in ESB is what a Koiogran would look like.

If you want science in your science fiction, you can find it. Just not so much in Star Wars

I'm just arguing for the sake of being right cos I'm an arse that way, I agree it's nowt to do with Star Wars. I reckon it's prolly the way the Falcon does it, but I had assumed the name was a reference to somebody/something in the EU, and that it was described in a book or something.

Think of it this way. Blood pooling in the feet takes longer to make you pass out than blood pooling in the brain.

I'm asking more about the long-term health effects of exposure to negative G.

Negative Gz, or blood pooling in the brain, doesn't typically cause a loss of consciousness. It can cause small capillaries in the eyes and head to break/rupture, headaches, changes in heart rate/arrhythmias, and positional vertigo by pulling calcium deposits off the small hairs within the semicircular canals of the ear (used for balance and orientation). But it doesn't typically result in the grey-out, black-out or G-LOC that positive Gz does.

The reason that -Gz tolerance is considered lower than +Gz tolerance isn't because you'll black-out or G-LOC faster with -Gz (you probably won't black out at all). It's because the negative effects of the force (listed above) will manifest at lower levels of G than will the negative symptoms of positive G. You also can't do much to increase your tolerance to -Gz the way you can with +Gz.

Anyways, apologies to everyone for being wildly off topic; I just wanted to know if the dude who took the flight surgeon course could tell me if someone regularly pushing to -9 would be doing long-term damage to themselves.

I'll say it again... I love that we're taking about advanced physics in ask X-wing forum. This is truly a one of a kind community. =)

Think of it this way. Blood pooling in the feet takes longer to make you pass out than blood pooling in the brain.

I'm asking more about the long-term health effects of exposure to negative G.

Negative Gz, or blood pooling in the brain, doesn't typically cause a loss of consciousness. It can cause small capillaries in the eyes and head to break/rupture, headaches, changes in heart rate/arrhythmias, and positional vertigo by pulling calcium deposits off the small hairs within the semicircular canals of the ear (used for balance and orientation). But it doesn't typically result in the grey-out, black-out or G-LOC that positive Gz does.

The reason that -Gz tolerance is considered lower than +Gz tolerance isn't because you'll black-out or G-LOC faster with -Gz (you probably won't black out at all). It's because the negative effects of the force (listed above) will manifest at lower levels of G than will the negative symptoms of positive G. You also can't do much to increase your tolerance to -Gz the way you can with +Gz.

Anyways, apologies to everyone for being wildly off topic; I just wanted to know if the dude who took the flight surgeon course could tell me if someone regularly pushing to -9 would be doing long-term damage to themselves.

I'm pretty sure that's now how a "real" starfighter would execute the maneuver. So what I'd like to know is what would it look like in 3D space, not how it works in game.

Would the Koiogran turn closely resemble the WWI Immelmann? I don't think so since this requires a near stall with a 180 degree yaw turn. And obviously stalling in space is not possible. So I guess the K-turn is a modern Immelmann aka Roll-off-the-top. Thoughts?

For your first point I have an answer for that it will be written under the third quote.

2nd point: with much more advanced forms of propulsion than what we us now we could imitate a stall. Currently we cant do that however. Now as far as the koiogran goes it sounds like it can be evasive manuver that has a pilot do a full 180 direction change. A Split S or Immelmann turn fit the bill.

Starfighters maneuver as if there were an atmosphere because Star Wars's fleet battles are based off WW2 naval combat. The Trench Run is analogous to Dambusters, for example. If Star Wars combat worked like actual space combat might then fighters wouldn't have top speeds.

Battlefront 2 calls the Koiogran an Immelmann and it's pretty much a vertical U turn in space. I don't think you're far from the mark.

The top speed your talking about is listed for flights in atmo. As far as max accleartion goes its talking purely about the turbos max effect of energy projected and not the overall accleartion through space. I wouldn't say it is 100% based on WW2 naval combat because it inspired elements we have now (Super Bug aka the Stsar Wars fighter) in our craft and still has capabilities we dont have yet.

Hmm, actually with space physics (which sometimes apply to Star Wars and sometimes not), it could be they are just turning off their thrusters, rotating, and turning them on again. That at least matches the movement.

But it doesn't really match the cinematography and feel. Or the intended dial of the Defender.

Your not far from the truth. They have a propulsion system set up to let of micro burst on ever axsis that allows the fighter to fly like they are in atmo. BUT they in the past were shown to turn those systems off so they could do manuvers you would expect with ships in space now. The option to fly and have choice how the craft interacts with the surrounding area opens up alot of tactical deseptive options that can put your enemy into your sights.

That's not at all the same as being on earth. The gravity of earth makes all of your movements relative to earth, not other objects in space.

Direction of motion IS relative. If you're flying in a spaceship and you suddenly change direction with that spaceship, your body is still traveling in the original direction, except the spaceship won't let it. The inertia of your body carries you in a different direction relative to the spaceship. You get pressed into the ship in the direction you were headed and the blood does the same (depending, of course, on your speed relative to the spaceship), pooling in parts of your body closest to the outside of the turn.

"The gravity of earth makes all of your movements relative to earth, not other objects in space." No it doesn't, I don't know why you think that.

Of course you have momentum, you always do, even if you think you're stationary (which is a meaningless term, you'll always be in motion relative to something), and it's just the same. Turning around and thrusting in the opposite direction is just the same as thrusting in the direction you were already going, in terms of forces on your body. It's the change that matters (specifically the rate of change), and since your thrust is just as powerful regardless of your orientation then it doesn't matter which way you were going, you'll experience the same thing.

What you need to get your head around is that moving and being stationary are in effect the same thing, they just depend what frame of reference you're looking at it from (or, to put it more Star Warsy, your point of view). Anything you can safely do stationary (such as spin around) you can do while 'in motion'.

When you are driving in your car, does the speedometer say you're going 60 mph, or thousands and thousands of mph? You are ACTUALLY traveling thousands and thousands of mph, but it's not measurable. Your speed relative to the earth is.

Similarly, when you hit something in your car at 60 mph, it delivers the force of a car traveling 60 mph relative to earth's speed, not with the kind of force that would split your car, you, and whatever you hit at the atomic level.

If you think you can be in a zero-g environment and pull whatever maneuver without exerting any additional forces on your body, then what would happen if your ship crashed into something else? Would you stay perfectly still in your seat, or would your face slam into the windshield?

Executing a very sharp turn is much like that, except you are choosing to alter the direction and velocity of the ship's flight. Your body will change direction too once the seatbelt catches you or you slam against the side of the cockpit.

If the top speeds on Wookiepedia are in Atmo I'm pretty sure X-wings could ignite atmospheres(depending on how energy shields and air resistance work in combination...) and create hurricanes... I don't quite buy that.

That's not at all the same as being on earth. The gravity of earth makes all of your movements relative to earth, not other objects in space.

Direction of motion IS relative. If you're flying in a spaceship and you suddenly change direction with that spaceship, your body is still traveling in the original direction, except the spaceship won't let it. The inertia of your body carries you in a different direction relative to the spaceship. You get pressed into the ship in the direction you were headed and the blood does the same (depending, of course, on your speed relative to the spaceship), pooling in parts of your body closest to the outside of the turn.

"The gravity of earth makes all of your movements relative to earth, not other objects in space." No it doesn't, I don't know why you think that.

Of course you have momentum, you always do, even if you think you're stationary (which is a meaningless term, you'll always be in motion relative to something), and it's just the same. Turning around and thrusting in the opposite direction is just the same as thrusting in the direction you were already going, in terms of forces on your body. It's the change that matters (specifically the rate of change), and since your thrust is just as powerful regardless of your orientation then it doesn't matter which way you were going, you'll experience the same thing.

What you need to get your head around is that moving and being stationary are in effect the same thing, they just depend what frame of reference you're looking at it from (or, to put it more Star Warsy, your point of view). Anything you can safely do stationary (such as spin around) you can do while 'in motion'.

When you are driving in your car, does the speedometer say you're going 60 mph, or thousands and thousands of mph? You are ACTUALLY traveling thousands and thousands of mph, but it's not measurable. Your speed relative to the earth is.

Similarly, when you hit something in your car at 60 mph, it delivers the force of a car traveling 60 mph relative to earth's speed, not with the kind of force that would split your car, you, and whatever you hit at the atomic level.

If you think you can be in a zero-g environment and pull whatever maneuver without exerting any additional forces on your body, then what would happen if your ship crashed into something else? Would you stay perfectly still in your seat, or would your face slam into the windshield?

Executing a very sharp turn is much like that, except you are choosing to alter the direction and velocity of the ship's flight. Your body will change direction too once the seatbelt catches you or you slam against the side of the cockpit.

I've waited so long for you to say that Aminar. I'll savor it while it lasts

I've waited so long for you to say that Aminar. I'll savor it while it lasts

I don't disagree with everything...

Just with me!

When you are driving in your car, does the speedometer say you're going 60 mph, or thousands and thousands of mph? You are ACTUALLY traveling thousands and thousands of mph, but it's not measurable. Your speed relative to the earth is.

Similarly, when you hit something in your car at 60 mph, it delivers the force of a car traveling 60 mph relative to earth's speed, not with the kind of force that would split your car, you, and whatever you hit at the atomic level.

If you think you can be in a zero-g environment and pull whatever maneuver without exerting any additional forces on your body, then what would happen if your ship crashed into something else? Would you stay perfectly still in your seat, or would your face slam into the windshield?

Executing a very sharp turn is much like that, except you are choosing to alter the direction and velocity of the ship's flight. Your body will change direction too once the seatbelt catches you or you slam against the side of the cockpit.

Your speedometer measures speed relative to the road. When you crash your car the speed that matters is that of you relative to the object you hit, speed relative to the road is irrelevant. Third parties will have different views of it depending on their movement relative to you, but that doesn't affect the force of the impact.

Similarly when your spaceship collides with another all that matters is the relative speed of you to the object you hit.

When you turn around all that happens is acceleration in one direction, just like if you hadn't turned around and had instead hit the breaks (assuming they're as powerful as your forward thrusters).

There is a thing called G measles which happens in fighter pilots from high G maneuvers rupturing capillaries. Honestly, I am an army flight surgeon, and we are taking care of rotor wing pilots, so I don't have a lot of High G experience to draw upon.

You are talking about two different things. If you TURN in space you absolutely will experience g-forces. If you SPIN around in space you won't. Turn meaning your velocity vector (direction and speed) has changed. Spin meaning only your attitude or facing has changed, not your velocity.

Some EU describes etheric rudders which make the ships perform as in atmo. They can also be turned off. So you could totally flip off the rudder, flip end over end, then thrust in the opposite direction of your velocity, which would approximate the movement of the k-turn.

But since you have a magic space rudder, you could also perform atmo maneuvers. However, spin required vectored thrust (or the rudder) and SW ships seem to only have thrusters in one direction, which is why they rely on rudders. I guess you could start turning with the rudder then flip it off to spin.

The rudder is also what kills forward momentum when you turn, otherwise you end up drifting "sideways" in your new orientation. Magic rudder would actuality be really useful since you could change your vector without having to kill all of your momentum, wasting Delta-V.

Also, this is not particularly advanced physics. This is Dynamics 301

You are talking about two different things. If you TURN in space you absolutely will experience g-forces. If you SPIN around in space you won't. Turn meaning your velocity vector (direction and speed) has changed. Spin meaning only your attitude or facing has changed, not your velocity.

Some EU describes etheric rudders which make the ships perform as in atmo. They can also be turned off. So you could totally flip off the rudder, flip end over end, then thrust in the opposite direction of your velocity, which would approximate the movement of the k-turn.

But since you have a magic space rudder, you could also perform atmo maneuvers. However, spin required vectored thrust (or the rudder) and SW ships seem to only have thrusters in one direction, which is why they rely on rudders. I guess you could start turning with the rudder then flip it off to spin.

The rudder is also what kills forward momentum when you turn, otherwise you end up drifting "sideways" in your new orientation. Magic rudder would actuality be really useful since you could change your vector without having to kill all of your momentum, wasting Delta-V.

Also, this is not particularly advanced physics. This is Dynamics 301

The subject was the 180 degree spin in Battlestar Galactica dog fights. I know I'm be of a bit of a willy dragging this argument out, but it sure would feel nice if someone would stick up for me. I agree that this is the simplest of astrophysics.

The subject was the 180 degree spin in Battlestar Galactica dog fights. I know I'm be of a bit of a willy dragging this argument out, but it sure would feel nice if someone would stick up for me.

Well, I agree with lunaticpathos, you are both correct and just talking past each other. So, yes, you are right in what you are saying. No one else seems to be understanding it for some reason, but I got that all you were talking about was a change of facing and that x thrust applied in the direction you are facing doesn't care what thrust had been applied previously.

If you go to 0:58 on this video, that's how I imagine a K-turn to look like.

Turn the ship arooooound, take it back to Bespin!

Turn it upside dooooown, Leia knows where Luke is!

And how does the ability to spin in space relate to the K-turn? The ships don't stop moving during a K-turn, They spin while moving(in the manuever this started from) and that does create g-forces. There is no relevence to the spinning in place you're discussin because there is still motion involved creating some extreme g-forces(that again, the pilot will not get any significant percentage of because space magic tech.)

And how does the ability to spin in space relate to the K-turn?

Someone made an implication that that doing that resulted in greater g-forces than simply applying the same thrust in the original direction.

Mazz0 pointed out that simply spinning around without a change in vector does not produce significant g-forces because there is no acceleration involved

You guys kept insisting he was wrong and then going off on some tangents that had nothing to do with what he was saying.

Oh, and all this started because someone said that because inertia cannot be dampened in the real universe that the fictitious inertial dampeners that we know Star Wars ships have therefore cannot be dampening inertia and so therefore a k-turn must be something else.

Doing that, unless the pilot is exactly at the pivot point, does create some insane g-forces. And the pilot will rarely be at the pivot point, especially their feet... The contradiction lies in the idea that a person can be that pivot point. In reality, if you spin around fast enough you will explode(sort of.) We are after all, discussing a manuever that when done in a real jet, would KO or kill a person, as explained by the poster explaining why the manuever doesn't work (but forgetting the dampeners.). Gravity doesn't change that.

But inertial dampeners.

Not that insane. Carnival and amusement park rides spin you around faster than the viper in that video clip. The insane g forces come from the intense acceleration onto a new vector. You know, when the inertial dampeners fail.