What is your favorite type of star drive, they come in two varieties there is warp drive and hyperdrive? (Jump drives are hyper drives, stutterwarps are warp drives, space fold drives, and teleport drives are also varieties of hyperdrive. Anything that finds a shortcut through space is a hyperdrive. Anything that allows you to travel faster than the speed of light along space is a warp drive.)
Favorite Star Drive
- Thread starter TKalbfus
- Start date
Tom,
Why the question?? Both have significant benefits?
Warp drive is anywhere, anytime fast wormhole travel (aka star trek), and
Hyperdrive is methodical "plan before you leap" dimensional travel (aka B5, or Star Wars).
Perhaps another question would be what are the pros and cons of each?
Savage
Why the question?? Both have significant benefits?
Warp drive is anywhere, anytime fast wormhole travel (aka star trek), and
Hyperdrive is methodical "plan before you leap" dimensional travel (aka B5, or Star Wars).
Perhaps another question would be what are the pros and cons of each?
Savage
I fand that warp drive has the benefit of not leaving the universe and may in some cases double as a maneuver drive. My particular kind of warp drive relies on Anti-Gravity. Outside of the grid all matter is repelled and light is bent away and red shifted as it approaches. The more matter there is nearby, the more energy its going to take to push it away. Close to a planet, this warp drive is indistinguishable from a maneuver drive, it can accelerate the spaceship from 1-g to 6-g, its antigravity field acts on the entire planet, as it pulls away there is less to push, it can then have a stronger antigravity field perhaps in the 10-g to 60-g range as it gets further away from any significant mass it can accelerate at 100-g to 600-g and then at 1,000-g to 6,000-g as there is less to push outside the ship, it takes less energy to push it and so the antigravity field increases. At a certain point Einstein's General theory of Relativity begins to be noticed. Normally a positive gravity field slows down time in relation to the outside universe, because it is at a lower gravitational potential than the surrounding space. With an antigravity field the opposite occurs, the spaceship is at a higher gravitational potential than the rest of the universe. Anthing pushed beyond the antigravity grid gets pushed away with tremendous force and hurls away at velocities near the speed of light, doing this saps out alot of energy and diminishes the anti-gravity field for a moment (also slowing down the spaceship.) This warp drive also makes a good deflector shield, the field reintensifies afterwards. Since time is accelerated within the starship everything is faster including the speed of light. The rest of the universe appears slower to the ships occupants, but if the accelerate faster they can approach their own local speed of light which is 400 times faster that the speed of light in the outside universe since 400 seconds tick for the ships occupants for every second that elapses in the outside universe. The ship is powered by quantum mechanical effects that are initiated by fusion. The quantum-mechanical effects are nonself sustaining so the fusion energy is never recovered, but it does amplify the fusion energy and pushes the ship close to 400 times the speed of light. As the ship reaches its cruise velocity time slows down for the ships occupants to match the time rate for the rest of the universe, but its now traveling nearly 400 times the speed of light. Objects passing through the warp field slow down 400 times relative to the ship.
Without getting into the Physics, I'll just say I prefer the Jump/Hyperdrive. Or as we like to call it: the 'Get-The-Hell-Outta-Dodge!!' Drive.
Considering the quasi' and sometimes outright illegal activities our gang gets involved in, the idea of being "gone" has a distinct advantage.
Staying in real-space, means that the (likely much faster) war/patrol/law enforcement ship WILL catch you.
A well timed Jump vastly reduces the chance they will know where you're headed. So we prefer it, since it offers a chance of escape.
Of course, tracking devices and great calculations of your heading (and other resources) could mean they have a good idea where your going, but you have a running chance.
In MTU, we use a variation on the Jump Drive. It allows for Jumps of shorter duration, if you sacrifice the fuel, etc for a higher Jump (if your ship is capable).
In other words, a ship capable of Jump-3 does so; with all the costs, fuel usage as normal.
But if they only plot a 2 Parsec Jump, then they shave roughly 1/3 off the usual week of time spent in Jump.
This makes for some interesting economics for merchants. A Jump-2 Far Trader can travel 1 Parsec in half the time of a Jump-1 capable ship (with increased costs, etc)
This also means that that Jump-6 warship coming after you, could (if they guessed the course right) get to your destination quite some time ahead of you.
Overall, we like the added possibilities this creates.
Despasian
Considering the quasi' and sometimes outright illegal activities our gang gets involved in, the idea of being "gone" has a distinct advantage.
Staying in real-space, means that the (likely much faster) war/patrol/law enforcement ship WILL catch you.
A well timed Jump vastly reduces the chance they will know where you're headed. So we prefer it, since it offers a chance of escape.
Of course, tracking devices and great calculations of your heading (and other resources) could mean they have a good idea where your going, but you have a running chance.
In MTU, we use a variation on the Jump Drive. It allows for Jumps of shorter duration, if you sacrifice the fuel, etc for a higher Jump (if your ship is capable).
In other words, a ship capable of Jump-3 does so; with all the costs, fuel usage as normal.
But if they only plot a 2 Parsec Jump, then they shave roughly 1/3 off the usual week of time spent in Jump.
This makes for some interesting economics for merchants. A Jump-2 Far Trader can travel 1 Parsec in half the time of a Jump-1 capable ship (with increased costs, etc)
This also means that that Jump-6 warship coming after you, could (if they guessed the course right) get to your destination quite some time ahead of you.
Overall, we like the added possibilities this creates.
Despasian
Personally, I would prefer the hostess' undergarments to leap one foot to the left, in accord with the theory of indeterminacy.
I prefer Warp Drive, because time is still a constant in Warp Drive. In Hyperdrive, the focus is on distance. And how I perceive that difference is the reason why Jump Drive in my Traveller universe is not a Hyperspace Drive, but Warp Drive.
Also, this poll more than likely came about because of this thread:
The Jump Drive's Real Name
I prefer Warp Drive, because time is still a constant in Warp Drive. In Hyperdrive, the focus is on distance. And how I perceive that difference is the reason why Jump Drive in my Traveller universe is not a Hyperspace Drive, but Warp Drive.
Also, this poll more than likely came about because of this thread:
The Jump Drive's Real Name
This is a double edged sword. Hyperspace drives make it more difficult to have interstellar states. Every planet is effectively on the border. An invading alien fleet can pop up out of nowhere and no one will know where they came from. One can't patrol a border region if one can't monitor hyperspace traffic. Some people insist on making hyperspace coterminus with ordinary space, well it its purist form this can't be. Hyperspace represents a shortcut to a destination, space is assumed to be curved and taking they hyperspace route is assumed to be a straight line between two points in normal space. One shouldn't be prevented from jumping from point A to point B just because their is a big object inbetween along the curve of normal space. The hyperspace ship isn't going in that direction, its going through hyperspace. In hyperspace the obstacle isn't between A and B and therefore doesn't present such an obstacle. Some game systems have tried to fix hyperspace so that everything that gets in the way in normal space also gets in the way in hyperspace, well this isn't real hyperspace then, it is instead a parallel plane similar in priciple to the Ethereal Plane in D&D.
This is another sort of drive system, the Ethereal Drive. Basically the starship and all of its occupants become ghosts, ghosts that move through objects, unless their too massive, and are not limited by the speed of light. Objects have mass shadows, and things like the "interdictor" become possible. For those who haven't played the Star Wars RPG, an interdictor is a star ship that generates an artificial gravity field that causes starships to precipitate back into normal space so it can be boarded or destroyed. If all points in hyperspace are coterminus with real space, then why can't you have space combat between ships in hyperspace? I think the concept of hyperspace in this game have veered too far from its original roots.
A warp drive bends space allowing you to go faster than the speed of light, you can stop at any point along your journey, turn around, or change course whenever you like. The only factors you need to consider are how fast you are going and what your rate of fuel consumption it. Here are some Warp factors that I would suggest.
Warp 1 = 400c (400 times the speed of light)
5 light years in 4 1/2 days
Warp 2 = 500c 5 light years in 3.7 days
Warp 3 = 600c 5 light years in 3 days
Warp 4 = 700c 5 light years in 2.6 days
Warp 5 = 800c 5 light years in 2.28 days
Warp 6 = 900c 5 light years in 2 days
Unlike star treks warp scale, mine are linear Each warp factor requires proportionally more energy and a greater rate of fuel consumption.
Or try this scale, which happens to be what I use in my Star Trek games using Traveller rules:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Jump = Warp = Velocity (multiples of c)
1 4 64
2 5 125
3 5.5 166.375
4 6 216
5 6.5 274.625
6 7 343</pre>[/QUOTE]Unlike the funky equation that Star Trek: The Next Generation uses to determine its warp speeds, I use the classic equation of WF^3 to determine the actual velocity. The equation I displayed in the thread I linked to was an outgrowth of the classic equation in that it used the classic equation, but also utilized known constants in the equation to achieve the end result.
The equation I used, as written, was (WF^3x1.1266359e11)/5.8746015e12, where
WF^3 = Warp Factor to the 3d power
1.1266359e11 = One light-week
5.8746015e12 = One light-year
WF^3 is multiplied by one light-week. The entire result is then divided by one-light year to get the final results.
So, here's those results, based upon the formula:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Warp = Jump (according to the formula)
1 0.019178082
2 0.153424657
3 0.517808217
4 1.227397256
5 2.397260265
6 4.142465738
7 6.578082168
8 9.819178046
9 13.980821870
10 19.178082120</pre>[/QUOTE]Those are the raw numbers, not rounded or truncated. As seen in the results, Warp Factors 4, 5, 6, and 7 all roughly correspond to Jump 1, 2, 4, and 6. However, as you can also see, there is nothing for Jump 3 and Jump 5, so I had to do a bit more work to find the Warp Factors that would roughly correspond to Jump 3 and 5. After some time doing that here's what we've got:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Warp = Jump (according to the formula)
1 0.019178082
2 0.153424657
3 0.517808217
4 1.227397256
5 2.397260265
5.5 3.190753413
6 4.142465738
6.5 5.266780803
7 6.578082168
8 9.819178046
9 13.980821870
10 19.178082120</pre>[/QUOTE]Again, these are raw numbers, not rounded or truncated. Now, I am sure that if I took the time to set up an Excel formula, I could find the exact numbers, but this is a role-playing game, and for sheer simplicity I just completely sliced off the decimals, thus the end result being what you see in the first chart.
I present this merely as an explanation of why in my Traveller universe the Jump Drive is Warp Drive. What you choose to use is of course your choice, because it's YOUR Traveller universe.
Travel wisely.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Jump = Warp = Velocity (multiples of c)
1 4 64
2 5 125
3 5.5 166.375
4 6 216
5 6.5 274.625
6 7 343</pre>[/QUOTE]Unlike the funky equation that Star Trek: The Next Generation uses to determine its warp speeds, I use the classic equation of WF^3 to determine the actual velocity. The equation I displayed in the thread I linked to was an outgrowth of the classic equation in that it used the classic equation, but also utilized known constants in the equation to achieve the end result.
The equation I used, as written, was (WF^3x1.1266359e11)/5.8746015e12, where
WF^3 = Warp Factor to the 3d power
1.1266359e11 = One light-week
5.8746015e12 = One light-year
WF^3 is multiplied by one light-week. The entire result is then divided by one-light year to get the final results.
So, here's those results, based upon the formula:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Warp = Jump (according to the formula)
1 0.019178082
2 0.153424657
3 0.517808217
4 1.227397256
5 2.397260265
6 4.142465738
7 6.578082168
8 9.819178046
9 13.980821870
10 19.178082120</pre>[/QUOTE]Those are the raw numbers, not rounded or truncated. As seen in the results, Warp Factors 4, 5, 6, and 7 all roughly correspond to Jump 1, 2, 4, and 6. However, as you can also see, there is nothing for Jump 3 and Jump 5, so I had to do a bit more work to find the Warp Factors that would roughly correspond to Jump 3 and 5. After some time doing that here's what we've got:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Warp = Jump (according to the formula)
1 0.019178082
2 0.153424657
3 0.517808217
4 1.227397256
5 2.397260265
5.5 3.190753413
6 4.142465738
6.5 5.266780803
7 6.578082168
8 9.819178046
9 13.980821870
10 19.178082120</pre>[/QUOTE]Again, these are raw numbers, not rounded or truncated. Now, I am sure that if I took the time to set up an Excel formula, I could find the exact numbers, but this is a role-playing game, and for sheer simplicity I just completely sliced off the decimals, thus the end result being what you see in the first chart.
I present this merely as an explanation of why in my Traveller universe the Jump Drive is Warp Drive. What you choose to use is of course your choice, because it's YOUR Traveller universe.
Travel wisely.
A Jump drive is not a velocity, but the distance traveled in one jump over 1 week is 1 parsec 3.26 light years. The velocity equivalent of Jump 1 is therefore 1/2 a light year per day assuming the jump takes 6 days. To travel 1/2 a light year in 1 day means your traveling 182 times the speed of light. This comes out to be greater than 64 times the speed of light unless your assuming that it takes 17 days to make a jump.
I'm not a fan of Star Treks Warp system.
First they make it exponential, then they try to solve the problem they created in the first place, of high warp speeds going too fast, by leveling off the exponential function. Wouldn't it be better to just have a linear warp scale?
My warp scale starts at 400 times the speed of light, this is an arbitrary value that I selected becase it delivers slightly more than 1 light year a day or 5 light years in 4 1/2 days (a little better than Jump 1 but falling short of Jump 2. I did this because our nearest star, alpha centauri is 4.4 light years away, in our local neighborhood, this makes something like Jump 1 useless, so I start at a higher velocity.
Jump 2 is 100 times the speed of light more and so forth ontinuing this progession indefinitely beyond warp 6. The tech levels at which the warp numbers are discovered are the same as the corresponding Jump numbers in the official traveller universe, but it continues with warp 7 at TL17 and Warp 8 at TL 19 going on.
There is also a warp 0 at 300 times the speed of light, warp -1 at 200 times the speed of light and warp -2 at 100 times the speed of light. Fractional warps are also possible with warp -2.5 at 50 times the speed of light. Warp 1 was labled such because it was the first warp level developed at the available energy levels lower warps were also possible at that time, but warp 1 was the maximum achievable at the discovery of warp. My warp drives also run on fusion power rather than the dangerous antimatter drives star trek uses. The destruction of star trek ships understate the danger of failed antimatter containment. The original series was more accurate showing just a blinding flash on the view screen and nothing left. The nest generation shows fragments as if the ships were blown up by dynamite. (which the probably were).
A linear warp scale eliminates many of the problems deliberately introduced and the corrected for by Star Trek.
I have a hunch that hyperdrives are more popular in the poll, because they think of Star trek whenever they think of warp drive. They conclude that warp drive probably requires capital ships like the Enterprise and that smaller starships like long range shuttles have inferior warp systems. Scales of economy in star trek seem to indicate that the bigger starships have better warp drives at a given tech level, thats why there are no fighters in star trek as the starship Enterprise will run circles around them.
But guess what, warp drives don't have to be this way. The warp drives in my universe are the same size as jump drives and go in the same places as the jump drive in standard ship designs such as the scout courier. These warp drives also use just as much fuels to go 5 light years as does the jump 1 drive.
It is difficult to use some weapons while in warp. lasers go no further than the edge of the warp envelope then fall behind the ship. A warp missile is possible however and must be fired from behind the enemy vessel that is being pursued. It can follow that vessel's light trail until it reaches the vessel. The vessel being targeted however cannot see the warp missile until it enters its warp field and then explodes. most of the warp drive's shields must be focused in back since they can never tell whats following them. warp drive combat is not straight forward.
But guess what, warp drives don't have to be this way. The warp drives in my universe are the same size as jump drives and go in the same places as the jump drive in standard ship designs such as the scout courier. These warp drives also use just as much fuels to go 5 light years as does the jump 1 drive.
It is difficult to use some weapons while in warp. lasers go no further than the edge of the warp envelope then fall behind the ship. A warp missile is possible however and must be fired from behind the enemy vessel that is being pursued. It can follow that vessel's light trail until it reaches the vessel. The vessel being targeted however cannot see the warp missile until it enters its warp field and then explodes. most of the warp drive's shields must be focused in back since they can never tell whats following them. warp drive combat is not straight forward.
True, jump drive is not based on velocity, and that is not under dispute. Warp drive IS based on velocity, and that is not under dispute either. However, the math I used is based upon a few known constants:
Time (one week)
Distance (one light-year)
Velocity (Speed of Light = 186282.397mps)
The entire set of mathmatics I used in generating the Warp Factor/Jump Factor conversion is based off of those three constants. There is also one variable, the Warp Factors themselves. Though I do agree with your assessment of the powers that be in Star Trek botching the exponential functions, do remember that they botched it in Star Trek: The Next Generation and subsequent series. Classic Star Trek had it right, and the variable (WF^3) was spot on.
There is one derived value in the formula, and that is the number for one light-week. I just took one light-year (the larger number in the formula) and divided it by 52 (the number of weeks in a year). The rest fell into place without trouble.
The three constants and one variable work together here to produce solid results that fit in sync with Classic Star Trek. And yeah, I'm biased, for two reasons. One is that I love the original Star Trek. The other is that I've spent some ten years working on fitting Classic Star Trek as best as possible into the Traveller game mechanics. I'm quite pleased with my results too.
I understand how you feel about Star Trek's warp drive and your decision to base your warp system off of fusion, but there's one big problem with the fusion concept. It was proven by the big brains of the era to be impossible to reach near relativisitic speeds with a fusion drive. Antimatter is the only thing that was able to generate the energies needed to hurl us to the nearest stars at multiples of the speed of light. I agree that Star Trek: The Next Generation botched many many things, which is why nothing past the original series is used to generate this formula, or else the formula will break.
Even with all of this posturing, I do think we have very compatible viewpoints. We just have different ways of coming up with the answers, and that's not a bad thing!
Time (one week)
Distance (one light-year)
Velocity (Speed of Light = 186282.397mps)
The entire set of mathmatics I used in generating the Warp Factor/Jump Factor conversion is based off of those three constants. There is also one variable, the Warp Factors themselves. Though I do agree with your assessment of the powers that be in Star Trek botching the exponential functions, do remember that they botched it in Star Trek: The Next Generation and subsequent series. Classic Star Trek had it right, and the variable (WF^3) was spot on.
There is one derived value in the formula, and that is the number for one light-week. I just took one light-year (the larger number in the formula) and divided it by 52 (the number of weeks in a year). The rest fell into place without trouble.
The three constants and one variable work together here to produce solid results that fit in sync with Classic Star Trek. And yeah, I'm biased, for two reasons. One is that I love the original Star Trek. The other is that I've spent some ten years working on fitting Classic Star Trek as best as possible into the Traveller game mechanics. I'm quite pleased with my results too.
I understand how you feel about Star Trek's warp drive and your decision to base your warp system off of fusion, but there's one big problem with the fusion concept. It was proven by the big brains of the era to be impossible to reach near relativisitic speeds with a fusion drive. Antimatter is the only thing that was able to generate the energies needed to hurl us to the nearest stars at multiples of the speed of light. I agree that Star Trek: The Next Generation botched many many things, which is why nothing past the original series is used to generate this formula, or else the formula will break.
Even with all of this posturing, I do think we have very compatible viewpoints. We just have different ways of coming up with the answers, and that's not a bad thing!
Don't get me wrong, I like watching Star Trek too, its is just that certain basic assumptions I'd do differently if I were to write the show from scratch. For instance, why have a warp scale that covers such a wide range of velocities in only 10 increments? What's wrong with having a warp 100? I've read the Next Generation Technical manual and they said that with the original warp scale, they would be zipping past galaxies if the improves the warp much more from classic Trek. To me, its hard to figure out how fast a starship is going if you say its at warp 6.2, the math is complicated on the trek scale. in my scale warp 6.2 is 620 times the speed of light. Having a heavy cruiser with a whole bunch of extras in "red shirts" is a bit much for the typical Traveller game. The extras usually don't make an apperance unless something unpleasant needs to happen to someone.
Oh I forgot to mention. The warp drive is initiated by the fusion drive, but not powered by it. The basic concept is that the warp drive "splits the vacuum" by separating vitual partical pairs into positive and negative energy particals. The positive energy particles are concentrated in one location and the negative energy particles in another. In an ideal situation no net energy is required to power the warp drive, however their are substantial engineering inefficiencies and some net positive energy is required to keep the warp drive going and to keep the virtual partical pairs separate from each other, this is what the fusion reactor is for.
I figured out warp combat as well: at high warp velocities, the warp field is enourmous, about 1,600,000 km in radius, this can only be achieved when the starship is far away from any substantial masses such as planets or large asteroids. Otherwise a pursuing ship can gain on another ship at warp speed, when it enters the others warp field, the stronger warp field overwhelms the weaker one causing both warp drives to behave like manuever drives in relation to each other within the stronger warp field. Conduct combat normaly as if both ships are in a planet's gravitational well. Once the pursuing starship enters the pursued warp field, that starship becomes visible to the pursued starship. Lasers and missiles can be used with no modifications within the common warp envelope.
I figured out warp combat as well: at high warp velocities, the warp field is enourmous, about 1,600,000 km in radius, this can only be achieved when the starship is far away from any substantial masses such as planets or large asteroids. Otherwise a pursuing ship can gain on another ship at warp speed, when it enters the others warp field, the stronger warp field overwhelms the weaker one causing both warp drives to behave like manuever drives in relation to each other within the stronger warp field. Conduct combat normaly as if both ships are in a planet's gravitational well. Once the pursuing starship enters the pursued warp field, that starship becomes visible to the pursued starship. Lasers and missiles can be used with no modifications within the common warp envelope.
The original Star Trek didn't have an "absolute speed limit of the universe", unlike Star Trek: The Next Generation. In fact, in the Star Trek episode, "By Any Other Name", the Enterprise is traveling at Warp 11. In "That Which Survives", the Enterprise accelerates out of control, ending up at Warp 13.9 before they do finally get the runaway reaction under control. Subspace communications travel at Warp 30.
The mathmatics really are not that tough to do. I routinely do cubes of warp factors in my head. Twenty seconds with a calculator of any kind and I can figure out any warp factor, including fractional ones. To me, the mathmatics are old hat.
I encourage you to disregard what you read in the Star Trek Next Generation Technical Manual. Why? For three very good (to my mind) reasons:
1. The scale in Star Trek: The Next Generation and subsequent programs is actually faster than the scale presented in the original series. For example, Warp 3 in the scale used in the original series is 27xC. Warp 3 in the Next Generation scale is 39xC. So which is faster? The Next Generation's Warp 3.
2. The original series had no need of an "absolute speed limit of the universe", unlike the Next Generation. I don't like the "absolute speed limit of the universe" thing here for one very important reason: the absolute speed limit of the universe has been set at 1xC, and the warping of space to achieve faster than light speeds in fact skirts around the "absolute speed limit of the universe" by actually travelling slower than light within the bubble.
3. The warp scale as shown in the Next Generation Technical Manual is a solution looking for a problem, especially given the fact that the original series' Warp speeds are uniformly slower than The Next Generation until you reach Warp 8 (new scale).
For more detail, look at this page.
Switches gears and focuses now on the fusion system for your drive.
I misunderstood your fusion idea, and can see where it can initiate the reaction. You may have lost me just a bit with the talk of positive and negative particles here, because ion drives actually toss out positive and negative particles (protons or electrons), but not both.
As to space combat, I follow Traveller rules on that one, so there is no combat in Warp, so I've no need to worry about that possibility.
The mathmatics really are not that tough to do. I routinely do cubes of warp factors in my head. Twenty seconds with a calculator of any kind and I can figure out any warp factor, including fractional ones. To me, the mathmatics are old hat.
I encourage you to disregard what you read in the Star Trek Next Generation Technical Manual. Why? For three very good (to my mind) reasons:
1. The scale in Star Trek: The Next Generation and subsequent programs is actually faster than the scale presented in the original series. For example, Warp 3 in the scale used in the original series is 27xC. Warp 3 in the Next Generation scale is 39xC. So which is faster? The Next Generation's Warp 3.
2. The original series had no need of an "absolute speed limit of the universe", unlike the Next Generation. I don't like the "absolute speed limit of the universe" thing here for one very important reason: the absolute speed limit of the universe has been set at 1xC, and the warping of space to achieve faster than light speeds in fact skirts around the "absolute speed limit of the universe" by actually travelling slower than light within the bubble.
3. The warp scale as shown in the Next Generation Technical Manual is a solution looking for a problem, especially given the fact that the original series' Warp speeds are uniformly slower than The Next Generation until you reach Warp 8 (new scale).
For more detail, look at this page.
Switches gears and focuses now on the fusion system for your drive.
I misunderstood your fusion idea, and can see where it can initiate the reaction. You may have lost me just a bit with the talk of positive and negative particles here, because ion drives actually toss out positive and negative particles (protons or electrons), but not both.
As to space combat, I follow Traveller rules on that one, so there is no combat in Warp, so I've no need to worry about that possibility.
I'm talking positive and negative masses and energy values. According to quantum mechanics the vacuum of space is not empty but seeths with virtual partical pairs. The average energy level of empty space is zero, but it achieves this average by having local temporary fluxuations in energy of positive and negative values. For example a proton can spontaneously appear out of nothing, but it is accompanied by another particle, not an antiproton, but a particle whose mass is of the same magnitude as that proton but negative. These two particles exist for the briefest fraction of a moment and then they collide producing not energy, but nothing as the mass of the proton is 1 and the mass of the other particle is -1. 1 - 1 = 0 This happens all the time through out space and normally these energy fluxuations don't matter as they cancel out, however near the edge of a black hole's event horizon a particle and its negative counter part split off and sometimes the black hole swallows the negative counter part while allowing the positive particle to go free. The negative particle reduces the mass of the black hole (making it smaller) and the other part of the virtual particle pair becomes a real proton, this is true not only of protons, but also of electrons and photons, altogether this is called Hawking Radiation.
There may be other ways to split these virtual partical pairs, for example a starship might somehow accumulate negative particles while harnessing the positive energy to push the ship forward. The negative particles keep the net kinetic energy at zero. negative particles can also have antigravity effects. The law of entropy might requires a conventional power source such as a fusion reactor to make this happen.
Remember that Hawking radiation I told you about earlier? Small black holes radiate more of it than large black holes. If black holes become small enough they shrink really fast radiating tremendous amounts of energy and then explode. To keep such a black hole stable you have to force feed it matter at the same rate it radiates Hawking Radiation. What the little black hole does is essentially convert 100% of the matter fed into it into energy, it can deliver the same amount of power as an antimatter reactor except without antimatter. In fact it creates its own antimatter. You feed matter into the black hole. The black hole converts it into energy and some of that energy gets converted into matter and antimatter and if not quickly separated the matter and antimatter combine to form energy.
Drakon
SOC-14 1K
quote
"I understand how you feel about Star Trek's warp drive and your decision to base your warp system off of fusion, but there's one big problem with the fusion concept. It was proven by the big brains of the era to be impossible to reach near relativisitic speeds with a fusion drive. Antimatter is the only thing that was able to generate the energies needed to hurl us to the nearest stars at multiples of the speed of light. I agree that Star Trek: The Next Generation botched many many things, which is why nothing past the original series is used to generate this formula, or else the formula will break."
Its impossible to push an object at near relativisit speeds using some form of reaction drive, based on fusion power. BUT that does not preclude other means of skinning that cat, such as folding/warping space.
Antimatter is real dangerous stuff to play with, and you cannot mine it. We make our own as SLAC, (well anti-electrons) but its a real inefficient system. (Smashing high speed electrons into a metal target, [Tungsten Tantalum] and screening all the other junk, electrons, protons and such out of the resulting shower, using magnets to deflect the crap out of the way. It works, but its very small amounts, produces a lot of radiation and secondary activation.
As for Star Trek TNG warp drive, I don't get why they did not use a law of diminishing return or power law solution. As you go up the warp scale, you require expotentially more power, such that the power difference becomes too expensive for the increase in speed, equipment, fuel, etc.
"I understand how you feel about Star Trek's warp drive and your decision to base your warp system off of fusion, but there's one big problem with the fusion concept. It was proven by the big brains of the era to be impossible to reach near relativisitic speeds with a fusion drive. Antimatter is the only thing that was able to generate the energies needed to hurl us to the nearest stars at multiples of the speed of light. I agree that Star Trek: The Next Generation botched many many things, which is why nothing past the original series is used to generate this formula, or else the formula will break."
Its impossible to push an object at near relativisit speeds using some form of reaction drive, based on fusion power. BUT that does not preclude other means of skinning that cat, such as folding/warping space.
Antimatter is real dangerous stuff to play with, and you cannot mine it. We make our own as SLAC, (well anti-electrons) but its a real inefficient system. (Smashing high speed electrons into a metal target, [Tungsten Tantalum] and screening all the other junk, electrons, protons and such out of the resulting shower, using magnets to deflect the crap out of the way. It works, but its very small amounts, produces a lot of radiation and secondary activation.
As for Star Trek TNG warp drive, I don't get why they did not use a law of diminishing return or power law solution. As you go up the warp scale, you require expotentially more power, such that the power difference becomes too expensive for the increase in speed, equipment, fuel, etc.
