Hyperdrive vs Warp (not what you think)

[Crossroads Inc.]

Hold off the flames good people and listen to me a moment...

There is something that has been nawing at me for a while concerning Trek and Wars, and it concerns the 'drives' used by the two Verses.

To be more precise, Trek uses Warp and a form of 're-actionless drive' (impulse) while Wars uses Hyperdrive and some form of Ion/Thurster/Direct drive for sublight. The curious thing of it is the reactionless drive part. Nowhere ((As far as I can recall)) have we seen examples of such drives in Wars. All ships seem to sprout big 'Thursters' in the back that resemble ((but obviously aren’t)) big rockets.

Trek meanwhile has ships flying about with virtually no visible means of propulsion other then the Warp egines and impulse drives ((which, don't seem to have any visible method of propulsion))

Now it is a non-issue that Hyperdrive is much, much, insanely much faster then Warp. But, warp seems to be rather 'cheap' IE the power needed to drive a 600+ meter starship like the Ent-D, recalls 'only' a couple of terawatts of power ((don't recal the exact numbers, but its somewhere around there...))

Hyperdrives conversely, require Hypermatter, a substance that, from what we summarize, is very potent tuff, very heavy, very dense, and expensive ((on a large scale))

So... On a small scale, say, perhaps within a solar system for interplanetary drive, would a Warp equipped starship actually be MORE efficient then one using Hyperdrive? Sure, the hyperdrive can go faster, but if you going such a short distance as being in a system, is it even worth it? Likewise, could there perhaps be a perceived advantage utilizing a reactionless drive as opposed to the 'thrusters' of Wars ((again, on a small scale))

I should profess the above musings with the statement that I am poor with actual numbers and prolly if asked, not be able to provide exact calculations or quantifications of some of the theories put forth... None the less I thought it seemed an interesting subject to postulate over.

Yes no?

[Surlethe]

Is hypermatter all that expensive when non-military interstellar trade thrives in the Empire, and people can land at a backwater outer-rim planet to refuel? Also, I'd think mass-lightening would play a major part of a Federation ship's energy cost in going to warp.

[Ender]

What the hell?

1) Where do you get the idea that impulse drives are reactionless from? they are initiated fusion drives last time I checked - definately a reaction drive.

2) Wars has reactionless drives. They are called repulsors

3) terawatts is normal cruising and operating energy. The warp core itself is far more powerful, and provides the energy for going to warp.

4) Hyperdrive is an energy effect (OT ICS), the hypermatter is only consumed in providing the power for the reactor.

5) We don't know the effeciency of each in terms of mass/power, so we cant' answer your overall question. In Trek its dependent on narcel and warp field geometry. In SW, its a bit murkier.

[Winston Blake]

I'm pretty sure impulse requires an ion drive to push the ship around, just not very much thanks to the 'mass-lightening' whatever. So it's not reactionless, it's just less reactionful.

Sail power is very cheap- you don't even need ANY energy supplies to travel from A to B. Like impulse, it's vulnerable to environmental conditions (ie subspace disturbances). Why bother sailing along a river on a fishing trip when it's so much more convenient, versatile and fast to just stick on an outboard motor?

[Crossroads Inc.]

What the hell?

1) Where do you get the idea that impulse drives are reactionless from? they are initiated fusion drives last time I checked - definately a reaction drive.

AH, this I did not know... Trek ships never seemd to have any sort of visable 'thursters' they mentioned them, but you where never given a sense. And seeing how on smaller craft like shutters, there was no cisable system other then the warp necelles, it seemed as though they where using some form of magical reactionless drive.
Correction noted.

2) Wars has reactionless drives. They are called repulsors

I know of repulsor lifts, but I always assumed they where simply used to 'negate the mass' of a ship so it could be moved, I was not aware the fields themselves could move a ship...

3) terawatts is normal cruising and operating energy. The warp core itself is far more powerful, and provides the energy for going to warp.

I would imagine though that even smaller Wars ships produce much more energy though then the terawatts of a warp core. So if your moving in a small system would you be using more nergy for similar results?

4) Hyperdrive is an energy effect (OT ICS), the hypermatter is only consumed in providing the power for the reactor.

I've never really understood this, but I would have to take your word for it, since Hypermatter appears to have many mystical properties.

5) We don't know the effeciency of each in terms of mass/power, so we cant' answer your overall question. In Trek its dependent on narcel and warp field geometry. In SW, its a bit murkier.

Indeed so, one more reason why trying to explain every facet of your tech isn't always needed to tell a good story... Thank you for the list Ender.

[PayBack]

*dons asbestos underwear*

One place I thought it would be useful would be mapping unexplored space.

Sure you can have probes jump into an area to map it but they'd be moving at sublight speeds while scanning etc, and it would take them ages to map a large area, where as warp is FTL yet you still are able to scan and even SEE real space as you move, which you can't while making a hyperspace jump AFAIK.

[Lord Revan]

*dons asbestos underwear*

One place I thought it would be useful would be mapping unexplored space.

Sure you can have probes jump into an area to map it but they'd be moving at sublight speeds while scanning etc, and it would take them ages to map a large area, where as warp is FTL yet you still are able to scan and even SEE real space as you move, which you can't while making a hyperspace jump AFAIK.

first scanning while in hyperspace is possible (it's not as effective as normal space scanning but it's possible).

second you can/will deploy massive number of probe droids (and also there's a 100 ly sphere that's already mapped) where as dedicated explores in ST seem to be deployed (to an area) in much fewer numbers.

[Bounty]

Trek ships never seemd to have any sort of visable 'thursters' they mentioned them, but you where never given a sense.

They are visible on a few of the models. On larger ships they're probably too small to spot, unless you get way upclose.

I believe the idea is that the ships is set in motion using these conventional thrusters (basic action/reaction system), and a low-level warp field (generated by the fusion reactors, which create the red "glow" in the impulse engines as a byproduct) tweak the mass of the ship to accelerate/decelerate.

At least, that's the only way to rationalise why there aren't impulse exhausts on all sides of the ship.

[AK_Jedi]

*dons asbestos underwear*

One place I thought it would be useful would be mapping unexplored space.

Sure you can have probes jump into an area to map it but they'd be moving at sublight speeds while scanning etc, and it would take them ages to map a large area, where as warp is FTL yet you still are able to scan and even SEE real space as you move, which you can't while making a hyperspace jump AFAIK.

first scanning while in hyperspace is possible (it's not as effective as normal space scanning but it's possible).

where do they say that scanning in hyperspace is possible? is it in a book or something?

Trek ships never seemd to have any sort of visable 'thursters' they mentioned them, but you where never given a sense.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is a good example of an impulse engine:

[/img]

[Bounty]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is a good example of an impulse engine:

An impulse engine is not a thruster.

[Ghost Rider]

*dons asbestos underwear*

One place I thought it would be useful would be mapping unexplored space.

Sure you can have probes jump into an area to map it but they'd be moving at sublight speeds while scanning etc, and it would take them ages to map a large area, where as warp is FTL yet you still are able to scan and even SEE real space as you move, which you can't while making a hyperspace jump AFAIK.

first scanning while in hyperspace is possible (it's not as effective as normal space scanning but it's possible).

where do they say that scanning in hyperspace is possible? is it in a book or something?

Han, telling everyone not to worry about outpacing those Star Destroyers would be a good indication of some ability.

It's also noted in the AoTC novel they mention this ability as well, when Anakin and Obi Wan were approaching Coruscant while in Hyperspace.

[Batman]

where do they say that scanning in hyperspace is possible? is it in a book or something?

It's sort of impossible for the hyperdrive safety cutout (the one that drops a ship from hyperspace if it gets too close to a large mass) to work if it couldn't detect mass in hyperspace in the first place. Sounds like scanning to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is a good example of an impulse engine:
SNIP image

Indeed. The impulse exhausts on a lot of Federation ships are actually quite visible. The Connie, Excelsior, Ambassador, Defiant and, of course, Galaxy, which is the one in the picture, come to mind.

[Batman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is a good example of an impulse engine:

An impulse engine is not a thruster.

Yes it is. It may be a technobabble-enhanced one, but it still is. Thruster, wihile it may be commonly (ab)used to indicate maneuvering thrusters like an RCS, basically simply means a reaction engine. Which impulse engines are.

[Bounty]

Yes it is. It may be a technobabble-enhanced one, but it still is.

In the context of Trek, a distinction is usually made between thrusters and impulse engines (which, as you correctly point out, are simply thrusters+technobabble mass-lightening).

[Batman]

Yes it is. It may be a technobabble-enhanced one, but it still is.

In the context of Trek, a distinction is usually made between thrusters and impulse engines (which, as you correctly point out, are simply thrusters+technobabble mass-lightening).

I assumed Crossroads used the term in the general 'rocket engine' sense, rather than the Trek/general SciFi RCS/maneuvering thruster one.
Not that that is particiularly relevant anymore now that we both know what the other is talking about, of course.

[Base Delta Zero]

In the context of Trek, a distinction is usually made between thrusters and impulse engines (which, as you correctly point out, are simply thrusters+technobabble mass-lightening).

It is my understanding that the impulse drive is in fact a newtonian drive, the term 'thruster' is simply short for 'reaction control thruster', i.e. the small gas jets used to turn the ship. Besides, the very defintion of 'impulse' is a newton drive.

http://www.bennetyee.org/http_webster.c ... thod=exact

2) Wars has reactionless drives. They are called repulsors

It was my understanding that a repulsor was just an anti-gravity drive... it simply accelerates the craft away from the nearest gravity well.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Yes it is. It may be a technobabble-enhanced one, but it still is.

In the context of Trek, a distinction is usually made between thrusters and impulse engines (which, as you correctly point out, are simply thrusters+technobabble mass-lightening).

I assumed Crossroads used the term in the general 'rocket engine' sense, rather than the Trek/general SciFi RCS/maneuvering thruster one.
Not that that is particiularly relevant anymore now that we both know what the other is talking about, of course.

Indeed so, the point I was noticing that the all movemnet at Sublight in Wars is evidently done with 'Thurstles' (IE nozzles, cones, bells, vents, etc) While in Trek, all sublight movement is done with (technobably) Impulse engines... Whatever those are...

Of course back to the topic at hand... ((what was that again? Oh yes)) Could it be that on a small scale Warp may be more efficent/use less energy then Hyperspace? And to add to that, is it ever mentioned what form of propulsion the 'thursters' on the majority of Wars ships are? Or why, with over 50,000 years to muck about, Reactionless/Impulse/mass lightening style drives never caught on?

[Batman]

Besides, the very defintion of 'impulse' is a newton drive.

And since when has that ever fazed Trek writers?

2) Wars has reactionless drives. They are called repulsors

It was my understanding that a repulsor was just an anti-gravity drive... it simply accelerates the craft away from the nearest gravity well.

Hence, a reactionless drive. Y'know, accelleration without expending reaction mass.

[Base Delta Zero]

Hence, a reactionless drive. Y'know, accelleration without expending reaction mass.

What I meant, is that it works the opposite of normal gravitic force, pushing on any nearby gravity objects and being pushed away equally. The planet's its pushing on are just massive enough it doesn't really do much, so both objects are being acted upon. Unless I'm wrong about what a reactionless drive is.

[Batman]

Of course back to the topic at hand... ((what was that again? Oh yes)) Could it be that on a small scale Warp may be more efficent/use less energy then Hyperspace?

Almost certainly, given that it can be powered by M/AM reactors which are vastly inferior output-wise to Wars power plants.
The question is would it be worth it, and the answer I'd say is 'No'. Interstellar, hyperdrive is hopelessly faster than Warp, and while the energy consumption is
vastly larger, too, fuel costs aren't apparently much of a concern for even Wars individual operators. Kind of pointless to save 2 Bucks on fuel when it increases travel time by a factor of 2,739 (and makes you vulnerable to every anomaly of the week and its cousin).
In-system, I still doubt it's worth the trouble. Something like Trek Warp drive may be valuable for the decreased travel times. Warp drive as is has just too many potential troubles

And to add to that, is it ever mentioned what form of propulsion the 'thursters' on the majority of Wars ships are?

They're generally called 'ion drives'. For all we know, they might actually be.

Or why, with over 50,000 years to muck about, Reactionless/Impulse/mass lightening style drives never caught on?

How 'bout 'they don't work/work all that well/are unreliable as hell'?
You're assuming that reactionless/mass-lightening drives are inherently superior to simple reaction drives. Which they aren't.

[Batman]

What I meant, is that it works the opposite of normal gravitic force, pushing on any nearby gravity objects and being pushed away equally. The planet's its pushing on are just massive enough it doesn't really do much, so both objects are being acted upon. Unless I'm wrong about what a reactionless drive is.

I do think I know where you're coming from, but unless I'm mistaken 'reaction drive' indicates, basically, a rocket engine. I.e., you accelerate the ship in one direction by throwing lots off stuff really fast in the opposite direction. Which repulsorlifts don't, really.

[Lazarus]

I'm sure I've seen repulsorlifts actually moving stuff beneath a ship as its landing/taking off before. Can't remember where exactly, but wouldn't that change what they theoretically are?
I think I saw it happening in the intro movie to Force Commander, but I'm sure I've seen or heard of it happening elsewhere too.

[Crossroads Inc.]

<Snip>

Almost certainly, given that it can be powered by M/AM reactors which are vastly inferior output-wise to Wars power plants.

Ok, so we can say that Warp does use less energy then Hyperspace, that ok?

In-system, I still doubt it's worth the trouble. Something like Trek Warp drive may be valuable for the decreased travel times. Warp drive as is has just too many potential troubles

Are we talking about the M/AM explodiblity problem here? If so, I would imagine Wars could design a much more efficent/safer WarpCore then those in Trek. Further more it is demonstrated that Warp does not NEED Antimatter energy, and there are many other ways to produce energy in Wars then Hypermatter...

Or why, with over 50,000 years to muck about, Reactionless/Impulse/mass lightening style drives never caught on?

How 'bout 'they don't work/work all that well/are unreliable as hell'?
You're assuming that reactionless/mass-lightening drives are inherently superior to simple reaction drives. Which they aren't.

Now now, I never said outright that Reactionless/mass-lightening drives where better, I mearly said they may have some advantages.. After all theres plenty of evidance showing all ships in Wars to be much more agile and quicker at sublight then Trek ships.

That said, almost all Wars ships still (seem) to 'fly' in space, bank, turn, and go 'woosh' with thursters. I've mearly wondered if there are not advantages that another form of drive can have in certain circumstances...

[Batman]

I'm sure I've seen repulsorlifts actually moving stuff beneath a ship as its landing/taking off before. Can't remember where exactly, but wouldn't that change what they theoretically are?

Not neccessarily. To make them reaction engines would require them to expell reaction mass, not just affect their surroundings in some way. A tractor beam can do that, too. And that's assuming those were repulsorlifts in the first place.

I think I saw it happening in the intro movie to Force Commander, but I'm sure I've seen or heard of it happening elsewhere too.

Computer game. Lowest canonicity (if any) there is. Assuming those were repulsorlifts in the first place.

[Ghost Rider]

<Snip>

Almost certainly, given that it can be powered by M/AM reactors which are vastly inferior output-wise to Wars power plants.

Ok, so we can say that Warp does use less energy then Hyperspace, that ok?

Actually that is unknown. We have yet to hear a comparison of distances and how much energy Hyperdrives use versus Warp.

Just because moving an ISD guzzles energy, does not mean it's using more energy then Warp for the same effort.