Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Is this the right room for a jump gate?

#17
twitchYarby wrote:Sorry, i got carried away editing/amending my last post, and you posted before i finished lol.
Yes, I did in fact spend 4+ hours working on that post in the middle of the night. I admit, I'm in between lives at the moment.
:lol: Don't forget to sleep!

No prob, I'll take a bit of time to answer the other points a bit later.

To be continued...
Post

Re: Is this the right room for a jump gate?

#18
twitchYarby wrote: I agree with the idea of pairs, though I'm not sure about fixed pairs.
Good point about the traversing wormholes then harnessing the technology as a JG. Initial expansion could then have started with the system at the other end of said wormhole, and progressed at sub-light speed from Sol and this other system out among the stars until JDs were developed. The biggest problem I have with slow-crawler expansion is the resources required to build and supply such super massive ships even putting everyone to sleep for the voyage (at near-light the ship would still have to be massive, just require even more advanced technology be present). Why would a world commit such resources to a project with NO ROI for at least several decades (travel time there assuming a close system + establishing the colony + establishing an industry capable of supporting trade + travel time back)? Building a JG would also have been a massive undertaking requiring many specialized workers to accompany the colony on the voyage.
I'd like to assume there will always be at least one wormhole in each sector, whether it's hidden or in plain sight. Of course, to allow for 'protected' systems, I'd like to see some sort of dyson sphere construction around such a node so that if you discover a golden sector, you can block off access to it. At the same time, if each sector has at least one wormhole (even if people built a JG later on somewhere else), there is still travel to and from the system, and it would jive with the idea that we only copied the technology for ease rather than sending sleeper ships on millennial journeys to the stars.
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post

Re: Is this the right room for a jump gate?

#19
Warning! Another monster tome below...
twitchYarby wrote:Unmanned JGs would increase the bottom line profits by reducing operating costs and are financially the better option. The operators could run things out of nearby ships, or (assuming instantaneous comms) some control station more conveniently located in the system.
Maybe. Remember, though, that a JG will be a very important strategic installation, so I think it's more likely that each will be closely guarded and managed. Imagine that one faction owns a JG and another the rest of the system. If the system faction tries to make a surprise takeover, the JG managers will have to maintain a hold on it long enough for reinforcements to arrive. Similarly they may want to refuse entry to some heavily-armed traffic.
Theoretically, no. In fact, the technology is usable (through different applications of the theory) to both JG and JD systems. The theory here is that you could channel more energy through a JG which would result in a faster rate of travel than what is attainable via the energy production capabilities of a ships reactor. Furthermore, each JG could operate bidirectionally and travelers could traverse to/from multiple other JGs simultaneously because everything in space is always moving so the extreme distances combined with differing departure times would make it nearly impossible (nothing is truely impossible, just close enough) for two ships to collide in transit.
Bear in mind the effect takes energy to produce, and requires hypothetical exotic matter. This might be feasible for a very localised effect e.g. tens of metres around a ship, but actually creating a wormhole would mean producing the effect along billions of km. There wouldn't be enough energy in the Universe to do that.

Also, the feasibility of a wormhole depends on large-scale spacetime already being warped - the wormhole just connects two sides of the warp via a shortcut, much like the opposite sides of a folded piece of paper could be a connected by a hole through them. The usefulness of the hole depends on the paper already being folded. So really it would only be about stabilising an existing wormhole where it exists naturally. The bad news for wormholes in our real, visible universe is that space is very flat i.e. no short cuts are possible. Except perhaps at quantum scales, but subatomic wormholes are not much use for space travel. Of course, the LT universe is not OUR universe...

Hypothetical wormholes are not stable, so any disturbance would cause it to collapse, such as mass entering it. Unless you can so warp spacetime that it doesn't. The Alcubierre effect for wormholes refers to warping spacetime in just such a way that it remains stable if matter enters it, i.e. each side is stabilised. Now you could also use the effect to speed a ship through it, but that also affects the geometry requiring even more stabilisation. That would mean the 'package' and both ends working in synch to balance the geometry, requiring significant energy and very coordinated warping. There would have to be enough paying ships in the bubble to make it economically viable.
An analogy: there is a road from the bottom of a hill, over the top, to the bottom of the other side. A wormhole is like a tunnel through the hill so that its path is shorter than the one over the top. The tunnel entrance is unstable so it will collapse if you enter it, unless you shear up the entrance/exit. If you want to speed through the tunnel, you have to shear up the interior as you travel along. It all takes effort, but you get there more quickly.

Upshot: JGs must be managed natural wormholes in a very alt universe.
Mankind is naturally impatient. Yes, that is the commonly held belief about our origin, but we don't want to wait a minute for a text message, why would we ever launch something knowing we wont know the results for decades at least?
Because if there's no way to get information quickly, we have no option but to be patient. Why else would we send a probe to Pluto that takes 10 years to get there? Plus the earlier Voyagers and Pioneers. It takes as long as it takes, and our patience is much longer than the reliable lifetimes of probes. I suspect that by the time we devise methods to colonise exoplanets, the associated economics will be based on taking a long view, probably involving some sort of long-yield futures markets.
Aren't wormholes (especially stable ones) generally considered always-open?
They're only "open" as managed spacetime, including management of everything passing along them.
I guess you could say that a wormhole cycles open and closed (but then you're tied to a schedule, which i dislike greatly). The real issue here is that once it's open anyone could use it. This pretty much destroys any economic value gained by operating one because the company would have no way to prevent ships from passing through
As everything has to be managed through, it can only happen with the cooperation of the gate managers. To take control of the wormhole you'd have to take control of both gates. Almost certainly it would be limited to one "bubble" (containing a number of ships) at a time as the stabilistaion is so critical.
The real questions here assuming single-route-JGs would be where did each of these colonies choose to link to and how did the two locations coordinate pairing the two JGs? Already having FTL comms during the first expansion would help significantly, but trade would be essential in order for each planet to recoup the cost of launching a colony, and being impatient, we wouldn't want to wait for sub-light trade ships in order to profit.
Again, this is a lore question. I suggest that by the time the first wormholes were discovered, deep-space travel existed (FTL or not). All it takes is to identify the far end, then go there and start managing both ends. In terms of economy, I reckon any sub-FTL economy will be based on information e.g. sending designs to be manufactured at the far end, not physical items. Remember, though, that in the LT universe we just need to come up with feasible gameplay-friendly pseudo-science and associated lore, but the closer we get to real science the better.
By that logic, there should be a cluster of worlds with a robust JG network representing our pre-JD push outward. Assuming another race created them, if we are using those systems now then where are they?
Not necessarily - maybe we only found one. Or none. Perhaps we didn't find any before JD-powered ships came to visit us, and we adopted that technology first.
As for calling them geographic features that determine the spread of population, this only applies if we discovered a network and began using it. If we made the network, then it would be more apt to call then railroads or canals versus rivers.
I'm presuming they're natural and fixed, not formed artificially, for the reasons I give above.
The hull would be massive, but contain large hollow sections reducing overall mass.
No, they'd add mass compared to not having those sections at all. An empty section has more mass than a vacuum.
no matter how efficient the engines the larger they are the more fuel they take. True, you don't have the drag of water to deal with, but you still have to deal with inertia (resistance to acceleration of mass).
The larger they are the more efficient they are, so the less cost per kg of payload. Inertia applies equally to earth ships and space ships; however, with earth ships drag means that fuel must be continually burned just to maintain a constant speed. In space, that's not the case; an engine accelerates you to a desired speed, then you turn the engine off until you need it to decelerate at far end. Assuming you mean sub-relativisitc speeds in normal (euclidean) space. Simple Newtonian physics applies. If you ever want to try it, I heartily recommend the free spaceflight simulator Orbiter.
You left out a key word in that next part. It should read "the cheapest transoceanic way to transport goods is still by bulk carrier or container ship." And you're right that bulk cargo transport will always be the most efficient method.
No it was deliberate. Bulk sea transport is currently the cheapest and most energy efficient of ANY on the planet. If you want to ship containers from Rotterdam to Vladivostok, it's far cheaper to use container ship than to take it overland by a more direct route. Cost includes includes all factors such as salaries of personnel, tolls, taxes, berthing fees, etc, and it's energy (fuel) use that is by far the largest part of the cost. Energy price fluctuation is also irrelevant as the total energy used is less.
There is a reason stations are stationary (mass).
Not because of mass, it's because they exist for a purpose in that location, such as a transport node between planet and deep space. In reality they would orbit, but in LT orbits are not modelled so they really are stationary.
Such ferries only make sense in-game assuming the vast majority of the ships do not have JD capability (they fill the void so can charge what the like), which is inconsistent with a thriving inter-system commerce.
Not necessarily - if it's cheaper to use them, many with JDs will. It will depend on if they go where you want to go, but their whole raison d'etre would be to service a profitable route i.e. they're aming at meeting customer demand. If there's not enough demand, they won't run on that route. Simple market force.
"Spaceships don't have drag" - Technically, no (also, Josh stated there will be a small amount of drag built into the physics engine). Otherwise, assuming an object had infinite fuel, an object could be accelerated past the speed of light simply by accelerating long enough.
OK, in the real universe, there's no drag in space and you can't accelerate beyond light speed (c) no matter how much fuel you have - that's a core part of Special Relativity. The closer you get to c, the more energy it takes to increase velocity so that it would take an infinite amount to reach c. It's described by the Lorentz factor. (Hyperphysics explains it better, but it's down right now :( ) I still don't fully know what'll be the physics of the LT universe, but I do understand drag will be a feature in normal space.
For jumps, the larger the displacement required, the more energy (usually exponentially) is required therefore the more fuel is needed.
I'd say no, not exponentially. It must be linear. Remember, although hyperspace is not normal space, we need a suitable psuedo-physics to model that must be self-consistent. Think of it this way - you have a ship of mass 100 tonnes that wants to jump 1 parsec. It uses, say, 10 tonnes of fuel. 10%. You jump another parsec. Another 10 tonnes. You refuel and jump 2 parsecs. How much fuel? More than 20% = 20 tonnes? Now why would 2 separate jumps use less fuel than 1 equivalent jump of 2 parsecs? What would use up the extra energy? This is assuming you're jumping between equal gravitational potentials so there's no energy difference there. Actually if fuel is used continually throughout the journey, the rate will decrease as the fuel mass decreases.

Similarly it must be linearly proportional to mass. You shackle two ships together and they use their combined engines to make a 1 parse jump. Do you suggest that it somehow takes more than 10%? What aspect of using shackles would use up the extra energy? So you see the energy (=fuel) use must be directly proportional to mass too, otherwise there is no self-consistency. Thus a ferry 1000 times more massive would use 1000 times the fuel for a same-efficiency engine, and I'm already reasoning that larger, pricier engines would be substantially more efficient. Just like bulk freighter engines are more efficient than outboard motors.

Now, we already know that increasing speed is not linear in normal space (SR), so it's reasonable to suggest that the same applies to hyperspace. Hence I'd argue that jumping faster should use proportionally more energy, and I suggest something similar to the Lorentz factor, using some arbitrary balancing limit.
$9b (£5.6b) for the Gerald R. Ford class (includes fuel for 20yrs) and £5.9b ($9.48b) for the Queen Elizabeth (then add cost of fuel for, say 20yrs). The Ford class is 52% larger, but carries 88% more planes and 168% more personnel. It also makes use of state-of-the-art weapons, electronics, and powerplant systems to improve operating efficiency and reduce crew and maintenance requirements. Which would you rather have on your side in a war?[/tangent]
:D It depends what else I get for the rest of the money, e.g. a couple of subs! FWIW they reckon the previous UK government screwed up the carrier procurement and it'll cost far more than it should. The point, though, is that subs use nuclear so they can stay under for ages, to stay hidden. Carriers don't hide like that, so it's not an issue. Why do US carriers use nuclear and not other countries'? Good question, but I reckon it's mainly for defence policy goals e.g. operate far from home without needing to cooperate with other countries for fuel. Most other countries assume they'll get cooperation somewhere near they're used. Significantly, it's not for economy otherwise much bigger ships would use them, yet they don't. The only civilian ships to use nuclear are icebreakers, again for endurance and power.
Post

Re: Is this the right room for a jump gate?

#20
Maybe. Remember, though, that a JG will be a very important strategic installation, so I think it's more likely that each will be closely guarded and managed. Imagine that one faction owns a JG and another the rest of the system. If the system faction tries to make a surprise takeover, the JG managers will have to maintain a hold on it long enough for reinforcements to arrive. Similarly they may want to refuse entry to some heavily-armed traffic.
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. Both economically and strategically and reasonable. The original reason for the separation could have due to the energy requirements of the JG. That is, in generating/collecting the energy and exotic matter needed to operate, it produced so much radiation being near an operational gate long term was hazardous to ones health. Since then, this point may have become moot (especially with the invention of JDs), but now the driving forces of convention, military foresight, and economics keep this from changing.

Bear in mind the effect takes energy to produce, and requires hypothetical exotic matter. This might be feasible for a very localised effect e.g. tens of metres around a ship, but actually creating a wormhole would mean producing the effect along billions of km. There wouldn't be enough energy in the Universe to do that.
...
Upshot: JGs must be managed natural wormholes in a very alt universe.
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. 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.
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.
Wikipedia wrote:A wormhole is, in theory, much like a tunnel with two ends each in separate points in spacetime.
Since this is a game, we can assume that scientists did in fact discover exotic matter and use it for their purposes (Alcubierre drives, stabilizing wormholes for transit, energy source, etc). I disagree that JGs can only be built where a wormhole already exists. 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. If we could manufacture wormholes, then we are left with a scenario resembling Stargate as the wormholes themselves would only exist as long as we could stabilize them. At that point, the distance traversable via these wormholes would most likely be dependent on the amount of energy we could pump into it, and stability would be affected by distance, energy levels, and the curvature of space at the destination.

At this point , there are several ways to approach the history of these devices (please read at least 1 as the technical ideas are presented here):
1)JGs were created first, and were capable of creating a stable wormhole without a twin, but such wormholes are significantly less stable and synchronized pairs became the exclusive method of use after the construction of the first few. Pairing allows for significant increases in range, stability and power efficiency as both gates are sharing the work; ultimately this led to the creation of cheaper gates which are no longer capable of individual operation. This method assumes that we have developed some interstellar instantaneous comm system (possibly piggybacking off wormhole tech) to allow for the gate system to coordinate pairing and wormhole formation. This also implies that while two gates must be paired during the formation and use of a wormhole, any two gates can be paired so long as the operators at each end allow it (assuming all gate traffic is controlled by humans rather than completely automated), and prevents two gates from attempting to connect to a single destination at the same time. Later, JDs were developed as the technology finally became small enough and energy efficient enough to fit onto ships. JDs being smaller, based on the original JG method, and non-stationary, have more limited ranges (one or two systems distance max), but allow travelers freedom of travel. We could assume in this case that more massive ships with larger JDs could go farther, but risk instability the further they push. After the development of JDs humanity began to spread further and faster, colonizing more and more planets. Only those who could afford a gate or had strategic value received one from then on. All others would trade by jumping to the nearest system with a JG.

2)JDs were created first, and massive ships were constructed to carry the first colonies to the stars over time JDs grew smaller and more capable. Later, as we expanded further, we wanted a way to jump further; we were tired of needing to jump system to system to reach our brother worlds. So, scientists sat down and devised JGs which operated in pairs, but were capable of connecting across all inhabited space in a single jump. Only those who could afford a gate or had strategic value received one from then on. All others would trade by jumping to the nearest system with a JG.

3)JGs were created first, but required pairs for energy and stability reasons. However, because we could stabilize natural wormholes, we managed to find our way to a few systems. Slowly, we expanded through space as wormholes were discovered, and built JGs at strategically valuable systems. Eventually, technology advanced to the point where we invented the JD, and expeditions exploded outward reaching farther and farther. Once again, only those who could afford a gate or had strategic value received one from then on. All others would trade by jumping to the nearest system with a JG.

4)JGs were created first, but required pairs for energy and stability reasons. Our first colonies were sent out at sub-light, and upon arrival also built JGs. Slowly, we expanded through space building JGs at each system we colonized. Eventually, technology advanced to the point where we invented the JD, and expeditions exploded outward reaching farther and farther. Only those who could afford a gate or had strategic value received one from then on. All others would trade by jumping to the nearest system with a JG.

5)An alien race gave us both technologies. Expeditions exploded outward reaching farther and farther. Only those who could afford a gate or had strategic value received one from then on. All others would trade by jumping to the nearest system with a JG.

6)An alien race gave us JGs then 1, 3, or 4 occurred.

7)An alien race gave us JDs then 2 occurred.

In order favorite to least: 2 1 3 4 (5 6 7).
The basic premise here is that assuming wormhole tech is used, and based on what we know about it, these scenarios (and even ones i havent thought of) all present a valid order of events for the same basic technological breakthroughs. They completely explain the high level implementation of the technology in layman's terms, and meet an important majority consensus criteria for JG tech, primarily faction control-ability, and pair operation; while also incorporating features i see as fundamentally vital to JG tech in LT: the controls can be separate from the gate itself, and gates can pair on demand to allow significantly freer travel (even within a single factions territory. It is also more economically sensible to build a single gate per system than one for each destination you wish to like to. Each gate would have an instantaneous comms array linking it to the network, and a unique gate ID. Because the pairing is authorized at the control station, each gate would use this network to transmit the gate IDs and transit authorization codes between the control centers before pairing could take place. Each gate would then begin coordinating the wormhole formation by targeting the other gate's coordinates (accessed via the ID) and establishing the wormhole.

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. This would require authorization codes for the destination gate, but may not work if the destination refuses all traffic from your system since the ID couldn't be spoofed. Technically, it would be possible, if you knew the software well enough, to spoof the ID seen by the controllers but upload the correct ID to the gate as the only part of the procedure that wouldn't be automated was authentication.

Beyond JG and JD travel, we also used technology to stabilize and traverse natural wormholes (possibly the precursor tech to JDs). Wormholes only remain stable and open so long as they are being actively stabilized. While a gate/wormhole is open/stable anyone can traverse it, but they only stay open long enough for the authorized ships to pass completely through. Possibly gates have a shield installed which can be erected over the aperture to prevent unauthorized ships from passing through while the others are still in transit.

I'm presuming they're natural and fixed, not formed artificially, for the reasons I give above.
Ah, now it makes sense.

No, they'd add mass compared to not having those sections at all. An empty section has more mass than a vacuum.
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 it was deliberate. Bulk sea transport is currently the cheapest and most energy efficient of ANY on the planet... Energy price fluctuation is also irrelevant as the total energy used is less.
I stand partially corrected. The reason they are cheapest is because they can carry such massive loads which reduce the individual cost per ton of the cargo, so in theory, ferries could probably find some point of profit. 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.

Not necessarily - if it's cheaper to use them, many with JDs will. It will depend on if they go where you want to go, but their whole raison d'etre would be to service a profitable route i.e. they're aming at meeting customer demand. If there's not enough demand, they won't run on that route. Simple market force.
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, and more widely available (each to some limit)." So, perhaps some routes remain profitable and have ferries survived to now simply because they were the first (or second) JD ship type. I say second because of Possible History 2 (first being the colony ships as cargo ships could hitch with the ferries).

OK, in the real universe, there's no drag in space and you can't accelerate beyond light speed (c) no matter how much fuel you have - that's a core part of Special Relativity...
For jumps, the larger the displacement required, the more energy (usually exponentially) is required therefore the more fuel is needed.
I'd say no, not exponentially. It must be linear. Remember, although hyperspace is not normal space, we need a suitable psuedo-physics to model that must be self-consistent. ... What would use up the extra energy? ... So you see the energy (=fuel) use must be directly proportional to mass too, otherwise there is no self-consistency. Thus a ferry 1000 times more massive would use 1000 times the fuel for a same-efficiency engine, and I'm already reasoning that larger, pricier engines would be substantially more efficient. Just like bulk freighter engines are more efficient than outboard motors.
Now, we already know that increasing speed is not linear in normal space (SR), so it's reasonable to suggest that the same applies to hyperspace. Hence I'd argue that jumping faster should use proportionally more energy, and I suggest something similar to the Lorentz factor, using some arbitrary balancing limit.
Assuming a reasonably efficient system design, and assuming you stay within normal operating perameters, you can usually avoid the more ominous parts of the inefficiency curves for most system components. 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, but there's that little issue with increasing speed: E=γmc² where γ=(1 − v²/c²)^−1/2 (the Lorentz factor) (source). 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.
Also consider that we are referring to circles and spheres. For a wormhole 2πr² surface area at minimum; endpoint SAx2 disregarding any interior SA of the wormhole (since there seems to be no theory presenting that). Alcubierre drives use spheres: 4πr² surface area. Either object experiences an exponential increase in surface area, and thus would require an exponential increase in energy usage to generate.
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. They also state that increasing the diameter of the event horizon of the wormhole also causes a non-proportional energy increase (as stated above). The key factor seems to be that it takes increasingly more energy to project the spacetime warp farther.
This is where we experience exponential increases in energy are required: the FTL more than the sub-light drive.

DWMagus wrote:I'd like to assume there will always be at least one wormhole in each sector, whether it's hidden or in plain sight. Of course, to allow for 'protected' systems, I'd like to see some sort of dyson sphere construction around such a node so that if you discover a golden sector, you can block off access to it. At the same time, if each sector has at least one wormhole (even if people built a JG later on somewhere else), there is still travel to and from the system, and it would jive with the idea that we only copied the technology for ease rather than sending sleeper ships on millennial journeys to the stars.
Given the procedural nature of the map wormholes will appear where they will. Adding a requirement to the engine that each system have at least one wormhole limits the freedom of the content generator and opens up a discussion about what else we would like mandated in the engine. Basically it's potentially the start of a slippery slope. If JG and JD technology are implemented in the presented model then this requirement is negated as the player can then be given a JD starting out, or travel via JG/ferry between stars until they buy one (which would be relatively cheap given how common they are). Possibly they could use the wormholes they find, but stabilizing them requires a specific device (energy and exotic matter requirements) when lacking a JD. I imagine the JD (having a similar purpose) would serve to stabilize natural wormholes as easily (maybe more) as the artificial ones it creates. Either way, however (stabilizing natural or creating artificial) you would need a specific device. Why not have the JD serve both purposes and give it starting out or allow it to be acquired early on? This would simplify ship design as you don't need two devices, and reduce code complexity as there only needs to be one basic ship drive for traversing wormholes (you know how much Josh likes simplifying code). The problem with your 'protected' system idea is that wormholes and JG aren't the only forms of intersystem travel. JDs dont require the presence of a wormhole to operate as they create one on the fly (in this model). I assume you were assuming otherwise.

Because if there's no way to get information quickly, we have no option but to be patient... I suspect that by the time we devise methods to colonise exoplanets, the associated economics will be based on taking a long view, probably involving some sort of long-yield futures markets.
By the time there is the technology to build reliable starships, the world would probably be much wealthier and more cooperative, so more likely to invest in such projects. It would probably start at a government-funded level and later move to the commercial sphere, much like we're now seeing with local spaceflight. Without FTL I don't think there will be any travel back - the colony will be there to stay. Any economy with the home planet would likely be based on intellectual property being communicated and designs built locally, not physical items being transported. Interestingly it will likely lead to speciation due to communities being genetically isolated.
I'm not certain about the wealthier of more cooperative, but no matter what, physical trade would be the driving force of economy. As such, there would need to be some intersystem trade, but I am reminded of a quote here that is appropriate "there are always some who think they can make a better life for themselves by going [to a colony or aboard a trade vessel]" (admittedly butchered as I haven't read that book in a while). So, i guess in the end, we will have colonies and trade ships whether sub-light or FTL. As for speciation, I dont think the isolation will be complete/long enough for that to occur, however we could see some interesting traits surface across the different planets. The biggest deciding factor as to how interstellar relations continued would be whether FTL comms existed or not.
Building the first would be a massive undertaking, but subsequent ones would get cheaper as it got more routine. By that time there would be a well established local space economy anyway. As for accompanying workers -they'd likely have sufficient AI to allow robots to carry out such tasks. In real life Project Daedalus is the most detailed starship design commissioned so far, and that envisioned AI robots performing maintenance - and that's just for a one-way probe. There's an awareness that reliability and maintainability would be key factors.
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. We also need to account for the specially trained staffs required to operate a JG while the technology is still new and not fully automated yet. Eventually, as the technology became better understood and more trusted, we could turn over more to the automated systems leaving only activation authorization to the humans. Even then we would need trained personnel monitoring for problems (just alot fewer).

---------------------Misc
I think I've gone through about 8-12 separate articles researching for this conversation so far (not counting my wiki-ing for our tangent).
This post took about 5-6hrs to research/write, but I think it was worth the time.
Thank you JabbleWok for requesting I do some touchup work. Found a big mistake which is now fixed, and it all looks prettier.
:D It depends what else I get for the rest of the money, e.g. a couple of subs! FWIW they reckon the previous UK government screwed up the carrier procurement and it'll cost far more than it should. The point, though, is that subs use nuclear so they can stay under for ages, to stay hidden. Carriers don't hide like that, so it's not an issue. Why do US carriers use nuclear and not other countries'? Good question, but I reckon it's mainly for defence policy goals e.g. operate far from home without needing to cooperate with other countries for fuel. Most other countries assume they'll get cooperation somewhere near they're used. Significantly, it's not for economy otherwise much bigger ships would use them, yet they don't. The only civilian ships to use nuclear are icebreakers, again for endurance and power.
I didn't actually realize any civilian naval vessels possessed nuclear power. Submarines are nuclear for that reason, yes. Also nuclear power was developed specifically for subs initially, but was adapted to carriers quickly (the first nuclear carrier used 8 sub reactors). You seem to be right about reactors being more strategic than economical for carriers however. 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 [in each country you visit] to operate a reactor (usually very difficult to get). 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 in the entire ~60yrs of operating them (see this article). From a strictly reactor to fuel cost it could possibly be cost effective for the supertankers and container ships to operate reactors, but it's the other costs most likely holding them back. Also, as nuclear reactors became more widely used individual cost would decrease as the component manufacturers could reduce prices and still maintain their profits. The biggest setbacks for nuclear ships are regulating authorities and operations/maintenance personnel.
Last edited by twitchYarby on Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:26 am, edited 12 times in total.
Post

Re: Is this the right room for a jump gate?

#21
DWMagus wrote:I'd like to assume there will always be at least one wormhole in each sector, whether it's hidden or in plain sight. Of course, to allow for 'protected' systems, I'd like to see some sort of dyson sphere construction around such a node so that if you discover a golden sector, you can block off access to it. At the same time, if each sector has at least one wormhole (even if people built a JG later on somewhere else), there is still travel to and from the system, and it would jive with the idea that we only copied the technology for ease rather than sending sleeper ships on millennial journeys to the stars
If we're trying to stay close to current known and hypothetical physics, then the wormhole would be unusable for travel unless you gated each end i.e. you manage the spacetime topology so that it's stable for travel. The gate is the "machinery" to stabilise it and enact travel. For the same reason you could shut off a system by controlling one gate and ensuring that the spacetime is not stable there, e.g. just turn it off - no need for a Dyson sphere. Thus travel can only happen when both gates exist and are operational.


@twitchYarby - Wow - another monster! I'll take a bit of time to reply, and probably split it into separate posts. If this gets any worse I'll be in danger of my ISP charging me for using excessive bandwidth!
BTW I think you need to edit the quote formatting a bit below the middle...
Post

Re: Is this the right room for a jump gate?

#22
Quote formatting is a work in progress as I'm trying to find a balance between preserving enough of the previous conversation and limiting how horrifically long my posts become. I apologize in advance for any ISP trouble you run into :D
I may consider separating future epics into multiple posts. I was trying not to double post, bur it would help readability. Probably why LotR is 3 books long. That would also help my post count as I've spent so much time in here that I haven't done much in other threads of interest.

Wow, thanks for recommending a re-examining of my quotes. Somehow i made a big error that i missed in my proofing.
Post

Re: Is this the right room for a jump gate?

#23
I feel the need to revive a portion of our discussion that seems to have died off. When I first posted, there was a discussion about limiting where in a system a JD could be used. There was general agreement that we should limit where JDs can operate, and most of us seem to like the concept that the stars gravity affects jump capability. We've seen suggestions ranging from specific points in space to everywhere outside a certain radius from the star. Single points would be too limiting (yes, i know I initially proposed the idea)(though it would, in the engine, simplify JD implementation i think), and, IMHO, anywhere outside a certain radius seem too free. Consider, the point of being away from the warping effects of the star is to perform a stable jump; if you are jumping to a system from the wrong end of the one you're in, then you just put the star and all it's warping of spacetime (that you were trying to avoid) right into your path. To compensate for this, jump ships should consider their location relative to the target system and ensure the star is not between them and their destination. Implementing this, you could say that jump-capable space is broken into regions from which you are capable of accessing only those near stars which are on that side of the system are accessible.
This method would introduce many of the strategic considerations of the Jump Point system without overly limiting the players freedom of movement. Specifically, some amount of in-system travel is necessary to reach the jump region of a star on the other side of a system, and factions can more easily defend enemy borders from jump-capable enemy vessels if they can only come in from limited regions of space. It also holds to the scientific foundation we seem to have established for JG and JD systems by taking the curvature of space near the star into account when plotting jumps. This last reason is also the reason I feel it important to limit the range of jump drives to nearby systems; as you travel further there is a greater chance of an anomaly destabilizing the jump.The reason JGs are unaffected by the anomaly issue and can establish connections across the whole of the known worlds is the use of pairs, the massive amounts of power they can channel into the connection, and the computer power they can throw behind their wormhole calculations.

My shorted on-topic post in here yet.
Post

Re: Is this the right room for a jump gate?

#24
@twitchYarby

I think one of the biggest reasons why somethings were proposed the way they were (specific jump points or distance from the star) is so that when you play in the RTS mode, you don't feel cheap, or cheated and neither does the AI. When you start dealing with in-system jumps, there's nothing stopping you from warping in a fleet a few AU from a planet (far enough from where you would be detected/seen/pursued) in even a secure system, amassing your entire fleet... And then suddenly you're at the doorstep of a capital planet, bombarding it, then jumping away again.

I like many of the ideas discussed in the thread when it pertains to being a lone wolf, and I'm trying to keep both aspects in mind, but when in-system jumps like that are proposed, it means there's nothing stopping from the AI doing it as well. It removes far too much challenge of trying to actually navigate a fleet into sectors that you shouldn't be able to. It would be too easy to exploit and game the system.
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post

Re: Is this the right room for a jump gate?

#26
I wasn't proposing unlimited jump capability. Rather, I was proposing a modified version of the "jump only works a certain distance from the star" idea. I'm in total agreement with the reasons you stated. What I was proposing was subdividing the jump area into regions where only certain system destinations are available and where those systems can only jump into that region.
@Gazz I've actually enjoyed that thread as well, though I haven't been able to contribute as much there as here.
Post

Re: Is this the right room for a jump gate?

#29
I want to have my cake and eat it, too. =P

Point-to-point jumps, yes, but a travel time is required if you don't want to kill any concept of strategy.
When you have a travel time on jumps you can announce the arrival in the target system and give potential defenders time to react - to the point of them having reinforcements jump in as well if they are paranoid.

For fixed jump gates, travel time can be minimal, even instant, because they are limited by location, meaning that this adds travel time through "real" space as well as allowing to concentrate defenses around such a choke point.
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Is this the right room for a jump gate?

#30
Actually, I've been assuming in-game travel time requirements. The mechanics of the wormhole technology presented here actually imply some travel time through the wormhole would be required as it acts as a tunnel not a space-fold. The travel inside the wormhole would be sub-light, but the distance significantly shorter because you took a detour. In theory, you could say that as soon as you generate the wormhole it appears at the other end, or a distortion effect precedes your exit, but too much warning would allow the enemy to swarm the exit point and attack your ship as soon as it exits. For this reason, I dislike the idea that the wormhole opens at either end unless you are transiting that end. Considering your desire of fixed jump points, it would be safe to assume that these points are already somewhat distorted regions of spacetime, so detecting a distortion would be useless. I personally would say that they know where these JPs are, and watch/guard the important ones, but they don't know if a ship is coming through until it arrives or unless they receive advanced notice from the other system. This way, they guard the JP, but can't set an ambush unless they get warning of a ship in transit. Another interesting possibility would be if some JPs accessed more than one relatively close star system. This would add to strategy as you can retreat through one of these, and your pursuers wont know which system you actually jumped to, and would either have to guess and commit everything, split up, or give up.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron