Warp Drive vs Hyperdrive: Star Trek and Star Wars comparative speeds (WOIN)

[tomBitonti]

Hi,

Maybe you will want to distinguish discontinuous (point-to-point) technologies, from continuous translation technologies, from technologies which utilize alternate dimensions (which possibly involve a different type of discontinuity)? Then, "speed" works better for continuous drives, while "range" is more suited to point-to-point transportation.

The types have different limitations, according to common fictional uses: StarGate gates are mostly fixed, and one direction at a time, and have an energy cost which seems to grow in steps (intra-galactic vs extra-galactic vs long distance extra-galactic). Alternity seemed to have a fixed transit time, with the distance according to cost.

Then, lay out a table of different travel capabilities, and hand wave away most of the physics. What would be important would be the limitations of the technology, and relative scales. And perhaps a statement of what size social entity (e.g., person, corporation, government, or entire world) would have access to the technology.

An actual consideration of the underlying physics is a sure path to madness: The energies involved are civilization wrecking. Can you picture a universe like Star Trek that has hostile interstellar empires and common enough antimatter and near C capable ships that does not end with mutual annihilation? That's not even getting to Romulan artificial singularities, or transporters. In Star Wars, the Death Star as a planet killer is absurd. A couple of high speed freighters would be sufficient to lay waste to a planets surface. That is considering that engines have enough thrust to boost large vessels such as star destroyers into orbit.

The physics problems don't end with energy. There are problems of acceleration, both starting and stopping and turning, and a problem of precision (at 1000c a one second error puts you about 2 AU off target, or about 186 million miles).

Niven seems to have realized this as he moved further into the Ringworld and Puppeteer novels, where he says that the Ringworld is terribly fragile when ships are throwing around anti-matter bombs. He did dodge a part of the problem by requiring that his interstellar drive not work within a gravity well. One wonders how Cherryh's universe lasts what with the ability to boost large masses to high speeds. (This is threatened on one of the Chanur novels.)

Thx!

TomB

 

[Lwaxy]

Morrus' solution seems very fine to me, it is just what I as GM would need to make a decision.

 

[Umbran]

You're being unduly aggressive today, Umbran. Are you OK?

I have a mild headache. But, in most ways, things are better than they have been... since early-to-mid-March or so.

And I haven't missed the point. I fully understand the point. I felt it was obvious enough it didn't need discussing.

Ah. Gotcha. That hadn't gotten through.

So, going back to the point -- the current suggestion is to just have a sidebar saying "use this scale for these campaigns, and this other scale for these other campaigns". Or "Decide on the laws of physics in your setting. Are they Trekian? Star Warsian? Then any ship has to obey those laws, whichever genre you're modelling it from."

I think that's the best way to handle it, yes. If you have more page space, you can go into what each of them gives you (Star Warsian travel gets you your galaxy... like a well-developed continent of nations. Star Trekian travel gets you a galaxy that is mostly unexplored frontier.

 

[Umbran]

An actual consideration of the underlying physics is a sure path to madness: The energies involved are civilization wrecking. Can you picture a universe like Star Trek that has hostile interstellar empires and common enough antimatter and near C capable ships that does not end with mutual annihilation?

Well, mutually assured destruction seems to have its place in the realm of politics. The Original Series touches on these themes here and there.

That's not even getting to Romulan artificial singularities, or transporters.

Not to mention that the Federation eventually gets into time travel - who cares about busting a planet when you can simply rewrite the history of a society? And do not get me started on the "Star Trek: Into Darkness" abomination that is interstellar transporters....

In Star Wars, the Death Star as a planet killer is absurd. A couple of high speed freighters would be sufficient to lay waste to a planets surface. That is considering that engines have enough thrust to boost large vessels such as star destroyers into orbit.[/quote}

I believe Star Destroyers are built in spacedocks, and they do *not* land gracefully.

Niven seems to have realized this as he moved further into the Ringworld and Puppeteer novels, where he says that the Ringworld is terribly fragile when ships are throwing around anti-matter bombs. He did dodge a part of the problem by requiring that his interstellar drive not work within a gravity well.

More - he dodged it by noting at the start that the people who built the Ringworld (the Pak) didn't have FTL travel - they used Bussard ramjets, which are strictly sub-light vessels.

 

[tomBitonti]

Well, mutually assured destruction seems to have its place in the realm of politics. The Original Series touches on these themes here and there.

I was thinking about folks like Harvey Mudd, who had a warp capable vessel. Of course, comedy episodes, and all, perhaps ought not to be thought about too hard.

The Trek Universe has it's better moments: There is one episode where they create an antimatter bomb which is described as (something like) ripping away much of the atmosphere of a planet. On the other hand, there was the apparent curvature of the Dyson sphere ...

-- In Star Wars, the Death Star as a planet killer is absurd. A couple of high speed freighters would be sufficient to lay waste to a planets surface. That is considering that engines have enough thrust to boost large vessels such as star destroyers into orbit.

I believe Star Destroyers are built in spacedocks, and they do *not* land gracefully.

But they do land (and presumably take off). Wasn't there one which which lands in the big clone attack in the new movies? Whatever ship it was, it was quite large. If you can get it into orbit, you can drop an equivalent sized rock at high speed on a world.

More - he dodged it by noting at the start that the people who built the Ringworld (the Pak) didn't have FTL travel - they used Bussard ramjets, which are strictly sub-light vessels.

Yeah. Off topic: Gonna miss new Niven novels. Not sure how many more he has in him to write. I rather liked the end of Fate of Worlds.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Morrus]

As a total side note, I just found a book which tells the story of the construction of the Death Star. I'm not familiar at all with all the Star Wars novels and the like, but I started reading it and am quite enjoying it. Easy reading!

 

[Umbran]

But they do land (and presumably take off). Wasn't there one which which lands in the big clone attack in the new movies?

I don't think any Star Destroyers land in any of the movies - at least not intact,. In the trailers for the upcoming film, it looks like they have the Millennium Falcon flying through the crashed corpse of one.

Whatever ship it was, it was quite large.

An Imperial-class Star Destroyer is about a mile long. The Super Star Destroyers were 5 or 12 miles long, depending on which source you read.

If you can get it into orbit, you can drop an equivalent sized rock at high speed on a world.

Oh, if there's a source of asteroids in the system further out than your target, you can drop a rock way before you can lift something the size of a Star Destroyre off the surface.

 

[tomBitonti]

Ah, this, which is not quite a Star Destroyer, but big enough anyways:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Acclamator-class_assault_ship

There is a curious table on the page:

Acclamator-class assault ship

Production information
Manufacturer Rothana Heavy Engineering[1]
Class Assault ship[1]

Technical specifications
Length 752 meters[1]
Width 460 meters[1]
Height/depth 200 meters (with landing gear) 183 meters (in flight)[1]

Maximum acceleration 3,500 G[1]
Maximum atmospheric speed 1,200 km/h[2]
Hyperdrive rating Class 0.6[1]
Hyperdrive range 250,000 light years (fully fueled)[1]
Power output Reactor: 2 x 10 23 watts (peak)[1]
Shields: 7 x 10 22 watts (peak)[1]

No idea of where the site gets the numbers, or whether they are "reasonable".

Thx!

TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Power output Reactor: 2 x 10 23 watts (peak)

Bah! How legit can they be? EVERYONE knows that should be Power output Reactor: 2 x 10 19 Banthapower (peak).

 

[Beleriphon]

-- In Star Wars, the Death Star as a planet killer is absurd. A couple of high speed freighters would be sufficient to lay waste to a planets surface. That is considering that engines have enough thrust to boost large vessels such as star destroyers into orbit.

But they do land (and presumably take off). Wasn't there one which which lands in the big clone attack in the new movies? Whatever ship it was, it was quite large. If you can get it into orbit, you can drop an equivalent sized rock at high speed on a world.

The troop carriers in Attack of the Clones? Those are a third the length of a Star Destroyer like the one from A New Hope's openning and something akin of a 1/10 of the overall volume and mass. So they're big sure, but not SD big. Also, you don't RKVs in Star Wars when the movies make it pretty clear that a few Star Destroyers can turn the surface of a planet to slag with the onboard weapons.

As a side note, the EU novels a few RKVs are used by hooking up a few thrust engines to some asteroids and unleashing them on a planet. That said, the Rebels manage to get their hands on a weapon that can fire energy blasts into space, not just low orbit mind you but what looks like hundreds of thousands of kilometres past where our moon would be. So at a certain point, throwing rocks isn't that impressive.