Ah, I reckon that would be like trying to guard Fort Knox from a nearby house rather than the fort itself! It would be the important resource that is guarded, with whatever shielding necessary to protect the operators. The defensive armour/shielding of the gate would reflect its importance. Yes there's a risk of damage if attacked, but that should mean that most wannabe owners won't risk such an attack, instead using non-damaging means like sabotage/infiltration. Or if that's outwith the scope of the game, then we could just assume that attacking the gate complex enough to force a takeover won't damage the mechanism itself, just the defences. I see a key as nothing more than a travel pass - not an automatic "opener" but something that is automatically checked by the gate staff so as to skip a longer interaction. If they regard you as an enemy they'll deny you access and shoot, key or no. To do otherwise would allow a huge security weakness.twitchYarby wrote:Possibly, for such systems, they manage the gate from a nearby space station. Such a circumstance does however present another excellent reason to maintain unmanned JGs. An unmanned JG is no longer strategically a target when trying to take control of it. Rather, the strategic target becomes where the key is. This prevents the gate (extremely valuable and sensitive piece of equipment) from taking damaged during a battle for it's control and being rendered useless to everyone until repaired.
Well, the Alcubierre drive works by shaping spacetime in a certain way. Stabilising a wormhole could only be done by shaping spacetime. That means if you have the technology to do one then you have it to do the other, though the energy budgets may be vastly different. BTW in Alcubierre, you're in free-fall, not motionless. The acceleration will depend on the degree of the shaping.Yes, an Alcubierre drive requires exotic matter to function, but so do most theories for traversable wormholes. Alcubierre drives are not wormhole based, rather they create a localized spacetime distortion that propels the ship FTL by curving spacetime around it (inside the bubble you're motionless). Since all discussion of the science behind these phenomena is purely theoretical, we dont know yet what is possible.
True, but as it's a sci-fi game and not a fantasy one, I'd still advocate aspiring towards scientific rationalism rather than irrational "anything goes". That would mean an appropriate pseudo-science that justifies the game mechanics rather than using something more akin to magic. I reckon a "free energy" approach could lead to an unbalanced game anyway; if you have enough energy to do X (normally costly), then you could use the same energy to do Y, which could include destroying planets, galaxies, or pretty much anything that would make the game a bit pointless. If you can't, then the game is arbitrarily imposing inconsistent rules, at the risk of breaking immersion and challenge.Also, since this is a game, he can define his own mechanics in which either/both are possible regardless of what current science states the energy cost will be.
Ah, no - the "classic" wormhole refers to 4D spacetime without any need for extra dimensions. It entails the topology of spacetime having loops whose spatial path is shorter than any alternatives. Of course if you DID use extra dimensions (e.g. M-Theory) you could have multidimensional wormholes too, but you probably wouldn't need to use them as you have access to multidimensional space with its own benefits anyway. An aside - I'm currently working on a multidimensional idea for hyperspace but not yet finished - keeping it rational AND balanced is a challenge!Wormholes shortcut through spacetime by traveling through other dimensions.The folding space description for wormholes is used only to help visualize that it's a shortcut, not as the basis of how one actually works.
Yes - at vast energy cost. Think of a spacecraft with JD technology, with a spacetime shaping effect of, say 100m diameter. Then place one every 50m (allowing for overlap) for billions of kilometres so as to 'dig' a wormhole. Probably many more for stabilisiation too. How many would you need? That's the sort of energy budget we're talking, or maybe a few orders of magnitude more. And that assumes that spacetime is already so warped that your chosen path will be a short cut and not a long cut! If you can build that many ships with JDs, why would you ever bother with a wormhole? You could probably demand the leaders of the entire megacluster of galaxies prostrates themselves at your feet or you'll use your available energy to annihilate them! If you divert so far from rationalism, creating such wormholes & stargates is just like waving a magic wand. That isn't necessarily a reason not to (hey, it's not our game, we're just punting ideas), but it would be like making a game where there's a staircase to the Moon; it's a fantasy devoid of any attempt at rationalism, which sci-fi usually tries to have. Yes I know there are games out there which use such ideas and are fun, but I always regarded them as closer to fantasy than sci-fi and lack that 'realism' immersion. If there's a more immersive way of doing it, I'd advocate using that.In fact, the theories seem to read that if we could in fact get the math down to prove wormholes exist, then creating them would be theoretically possible, and if we had the math down to stabilize one then we could manufacture them
I'd suggest a better approach is one that doesn't really break current science including energy conservation, but uses the possibilities and vast gaps offered by speculative science, e.g. multidimensional spacetime could have mileage. There are all sorts of weird and wonderful hypotheses and research directions out there that could form a nucleus of an idea. As for lore, we would just base that around whatever mechanism is decided on. While lore is immersive, it would be based around the gameplay mechanism which itself would be based around the underlying idea, sci-fi or otherwise.
In any case, whatever JG idea is used would still mean using a region of space as an entry/exit point, likely enclosed by housing for whatever technology is used. A JG could be a large sphere with an entry and exit tunnel. Awaiting ships are guided through the entry tunnel to the interior of the sphere, where they form the package. Possibly an inner sphere forms the mechanism of the package itself, so is what does the travelling with the ships enclosed. This would work for a linear start/end topology, or even mith multiple branches and routes just like a railway network. When a package arrives, the ships are guided through the exit tunnel to the outside. All much like departure/arrivals at an airport or a ro-ro ferry. Thank you for travelling InterGate, have a nice day!
I don't know if LT has any hacking, but that idea (plus infiltration) could be useful for this and other areas. For example, your equipment could include a robotic infiltration team which includes hacking technology. If you can suppress a station or ship's defences, you can attach a probe which allows the infiltration team to enter. They try to take over the target, success depending on whatever game factors. That way you could potentially take over a station, JG or ship. Of course you'd have to have already battered down their defences to a level where you can attach the probe. That would get around the lack of boarding, as it's all done in an abstract way while you remain in your cockpit. You end up with a signal saying success or fail, and possibly a new vessel you can control. For a JG, that should likely be the only way you can gain access if you're refused. Plus, you still need to have access to the other end, assuming linear. You're not cracking a lock and sneaking in, you're invading the station and taking control of the systems.An interesting point i hadn't considered is that having the gates and controls separated, even accounting for a secure (possibly wormhole driven comm system) you could theoretically hack the gate controls and activate it yourself.
It doesn't have to be - they could just attach to an open framework. The shape of structure is irrelevant as long as it does what it's meant to i.e. transport ships. However, enclosed and concave is probably more LT-engine friendly. An enclosed structure would presumably still be a vacuum - what would be the point of pressurising such a vast volume? I'm assuming that attaching a ship would still mean docking i.e. the crew could still reach the hab area with shops and services, albeit simulated in the game by menus.I was meaning large hollow sections where the ships would berth, thus in vacuum. I'm assuming all the berthed ships would have to be inside the ship in some kind of large hollow "parking garage" areas when the ship jumps.No, they'd add mass compared to not having those sections at all. An empty section has more mass than a vacuum.
Just as it costs more per kg to ferry a car than transport a container, the ferries would adjust their prices to sustain demand and make a profit. If they can't, they just don't do that route. Energy use is proportional to mass, so any dead space would laregly be irrelevant as long as they can fit a full load on board that reaches the mass limit. A tonne of lead and a tonne of feathers would cost the same to transport in terms of energy. The only issue is that if ferry runs with a bulky load far below its mass limit, e.g it's full of feathers and only at 1% of mass limit, the charges should reflect that. That way if you have a bulky load that takes up the whole ferry, whether internal volume or external attachment points, you should probably pay the same as a full load of smaller ships. Or pro rata. Of course if you had such a load, you'd use a commercial freighter rather than a ferry as the pricing structure would be more suitable.The biggest difference i see is that container ships are designed to carry those tons in discrete units of identical dimensions whereas a ferry would need to carry a [profitable] number of ships of varying size and shape. This reduces usable space by introducing dead space around each ship. Energy price fluctuation is always relevant when discussing how profitable a vehicle is.
Including JDs mounted on ferries. Thus they will always have the advantage of greater efficiency and economy of scale.The key is designing a ferry that IS cheap enough to operate that profit can be found in the days of jump-capable ships. I did postulate: "Perhaps they filled the void when the technology was first invented and required truly massive engines, but as technology advanced, the JD would also become smaller, cheaper, faster, more efficient
The relativistic velocity relationship refers to a vacuum; the Lorentz curve refers to the inherent nature of spacetime, not drag.I do have to admit that getting away from drag does tend to remove the alot of the curve. This would indeed make sub-light drive fuel costs more proportional
Exactly. That's why even using a wormhole would probbaly only be feasible with FTL traversal through it, unless its route happens to be very short - very unlikely. Fortunately the JG technology would almost certainly include the means of FTL traversal as it's the same tech that is used for stabilisation. That's why I refer to sending a package or bubble - a small managed region of flat spacetime that does the traversing. Alcubierre for wormholes, more or less.but there's that little issue with increasing speed ... This basically states that, while mass causes a proportional energy increase, as speed increases, the energy required to increase speed further increases on a curve. Since travel through a wormhole is considered sub-light, the same principal applies as we theorize that spacetime follows the same rules inside the wormhole.
No, as we're referring to a non-flat region of 4D spacetime. The geometry gets complicated. It would map to a 3D spheroidal region away from the mouth, though.Also consider that we are referring to circles and spheres.
Hence the need to have a localised region of flat spacetime for the ships to reside - the package. The shape outwith that isn't important as long as it's stable and the package can traverse.Either object experiences an exponential increase in surface area, and thus would require an exponential increase in energy usage to generate.
LOL! I don't recommend Stargate as a basis for scientific calculation! The energy use could be approximated to the same as Alcubierre for traversal of the shortcut distance, though you'd also need to add the energy cost of continuous stabilisation. That's another region to use a package - full stabilisation is only necessary in the vicinity of the package, but ideally there's very little stabilisation required elsewhere including the mouths as there's no destabilising metric i.e. introduced matter. It's the idea that collapse only happens because of adding something, so it's only where that exists locally that stabilistion is required. The package would have a far destabilising effect too, but countering it would be minimal. I'd estimate Alcubierre requirements * 10, off the top of my head. If so, you're breaking even if the shortcut is 1/10 of the normal route, for all the ships in the package.The only factor I can't seem to Wiki is energy cost versus distance, but Stargate (the only show to explain their wormhole theories adequately enough to somewhat understand it) does seem to postulate that increased distance causes a non-proportional energy increase.
Which is why it very likely isn't possible at all in our own universe even if suitable exotic matter exists. FTL always requires taking major liberties of likelihood. However, that's still a better option than using the idea of magic!This is where we experience exponential increases in energy are required: the FTL more than the sub-light drive.
If we're not, it's unlikely we'll manage interstellar. Thankfully it is the overall trend since the last ice age (and quite possibly long before), albeit with major ups and downs. Arguably if the Romans hadn't triggered the Dark Ages we'd be reaching the nearest stars by now. Rationalism always seem to resurface and advance. However, that's just my opinion!I'm not certain about the wealthier of more cooperative
Like the present and future game, literature and music industry? I fail to see how physical interstellar trade could happen if there's no FTL, whereas information could be a very marketable commodity even over decades. Physical trade would be important locally, but not over vast distances. With FTL, though, that would change.physical trade would be the driving force of economy.
If we never have FTL, it will be long enough and the likelihood is that the genetic exchange would be so small that divergence would be the dominant trend. Plus, that only refers to two groups - there would likely be a diaspora spreading out from the centre. How would one edge exchange genes with an opposite edge? As colonies mature it would be an irrelevant trickle at most.I dont think the isolation will be complete/long enough for that to occur
I don't see that it would necessarily be intricate - just very energy hungry. In any case, why would robots be incapable of intricacy?Yes, everything gets cheaper as production is streamlined. As for AI carrying out the construction, that is possible to a point, but with something as intricate as a JG, some of the work would require humans to perform.
That's part of the reason, but they are much more expensive to run anyway. I agree there's no ecomomy of scale, but the overhead of handling it far outweighs the raw cost of the fuel, unlike hydrocarbons at present. Of course hydrocarbons have their own problems and will likely be largely replaced some time in the future. I suspect we'll get so good at central generation and storage (various technologies) that most future vehicles will be based around rechargeable energy storage devices, with the exception of upper atmosphere and spaceflight which need reaction mass.The reason you don't see many civilian ships with reactors is the need for specialized crew to run and maintain them coupled with the issues associated with getting permission from regulating authorities
Well, you can understand Japan being a bit more sensitive than most, and recent events only feed into that. While most western countries have a good safety record, others don't so there's always a concern about the inherent risks. Also if you make rules you have to apply them evenly or face a diplomatic backlash. There is a certain irony that a technology that removes the need for refuelling actually prevents the possibility of refuelling! The limits of currently known reserves of uranium likely mean it won't be a technology that vastly expands, especially having to compete with public central generation if carbon-based is scaled back before new technologies can come on line. Where's my tokamak?!?The reason the USS Kitty Hawk stayed commissioned for so long was that Japan wouldn't allow us to operate nuclear carriers in their waters, and the US Navy has accumulated over 5,400 "reactor years" of accident-free experience and NEVER had a nuclear related accident