Hyperdrive vs Warp (not what you think)

[Batman]

<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?

Absolutely.

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?

Nope, as that problem is not inherent to the Warp drive (and seems to be mainly restricted to early Galaxies anyway). That could be worked around by using another power source. I'm talking about the myriad of other Warp-related problems-miniature universes forming, subspace this-and-that, the Warp drive failing in the proximity of -virtually anything, at least occasionally...

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.

*scratches head* If they HAVE advantages then they ARE better. If they have minuscule potential advantages that are hopelessly overshadowed by
extreme drawbacks, they don't really have advantages to begin with.

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...

That 'fly in space' behavior is actually much easier explained by technobabble means than by reaction drives, you know.
And of course there are advantages another drive form COULD have. That does not mean it WILL. Repulsorlift already has limits on its utility (needs proximity to large mass). For all we know, Wars already tried all that funky reactionless stuff and it simply wasn't worth the effort.

[nightmare]

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...

Vong ships use dovin basals, Imperial interdictor cruisers can use their gravity well projectors to propel the ship - much faster than the standard engines, but then you have to remember that the gravity well projctors are much more powerful than the ion engines. There's not many advantages I can think of. It should be just as easy to detect gravitic anomalities of a reactionless, gravity based engine, than one that leaves an ion trail. In the first case you need something that can spot gravitational disturbances (which propagate at lightspeed), in the second you need something that can analyze particle leftovers. If there's any advantages with auch a reactionless drive, I have yet to see them.

Banks and turns are likely the result of using gyroscopes and "etheric rudders", thrust redirection.

[Ender]

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...

Impulse engines are reaction engines. Bounty is confusing small thrusters (cold gas, M2P2, etc) with the main engines. Mass lightening improves the acceleration they get for the resultant thrust, but the mechanism by which Impulse engines operate is well known. I'm not sure where the statement that they are initiated fusion engines comes from, but I know of several episodes that refer to their plasma and drive exhaust.

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?

Yes, but by the same probability the converse is true.

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

Thrust vectoring and different engine firing for large ships, small jets on fighters and such.

Or why, with over 50,000 years to muck about, Reactionless

That pesky law of conservation of momentum

/Impulse/

Inferior performance to that observed from their Ion engines. Ion engine merely means that ions are involved some way, not that it operates the same way as NASA's Deep Space 1.

mass lightening style drives never caught on?

That pesky law of conservation of energy.

[Ender]

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.

You are wrong. It ejects nothing (AFAWK), yet gets a net change in momentum. Thus a reactionless drive.

[Ender]

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.

Too bad it doesn't even disturb the grass in TPM then.

[Ender]

<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?

No, we can't. the peak power of some ships is higher then that of some ships in Trek, but this does not mean this is the case for all ships, or that the hyperdrive requires that much power. In fact, estimates for an Imperator put the hyperdrive as requiring only 0.01% o its peak power. Translate that to a fighter and it requires less power then the peak power of several ST ships.

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...

Since a warp core only provides the powr, and warp doesn't inherently require AM annihilation to work, a small hypermatter reactor or very large fusion, fission, or even chemical reactor could work.

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.

You'd have to show those advantages overcome the tradeoffs compared to SW engines.

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...

In terms of efficiency and duration, not much.

[Ender]

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...

Vong ships use dovin basals,

And are less manuverable and slower. Point masses do not make 90 degree turns.

Imperial interdictor cruisers can use their gravity well projectors to propel the ship - much faster than the standard engines, but then you have to remember that the gravity well projctors are much more powerful than the ion engines.

They can move it in the reverse faster then the engines can turn it. but that's because unlike the IH, engine placement will not allow them to reverse thrust from the main engines. Look at it - they would be applying the engines plume directly to the hull. And to go in reverse like that requires a mass to push against - in the case in question, a ramming ship. And the power of the gravity well generato vice main engines is an iffy position to take.

There's not many advantages I can think of. It should be just as easy to detect gravitic anomalities of a reactionless, gravity based engine, than one that leaves an ion trail.

Easier actually; and the gravity drive has a lot of disadvantages the reaction drive lacks.

In the first case you need something that can spot gravitational disturbances (which propagate at lightspeed),

I use a telescope and lok for gravitational lensing. woohoo, I can fin you with technology Da Vinchi worked on.

in the second you need something that can analyze particle leftovers.

A thermal imager, but the ability there depends ont he power o the drive and surroundings - a clever enemy can negate it. Spectroanalysis is not required beyond redshift vice blue shift for telling your heading.

If there's any advantages with auch a reactionless drive, I have yet to see them.

Banks and turns are likely the result of using gyroscopes and "etheric rudders", thrust redirection.

There's a great site out there by a guy who corresponded with Dr Saxton and a bunch of aerospace engineers and came up with a way to explain almost all the movements we see yet be logical and consistent with known physics.

[HSRTG]

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?

Possibly, I haven't looked at all the posts. However, there is a serious drawback to warp as illustrated in Season 7 of TNG, specifcally the episode "Force of Nature". Warp drive literally breaks up the "fabric of space" and creates "subspace fissures", thus the Federation High Command ordered speeds no greater then warp 5 (save during emergencies). Given the amount of shipping that goes in and out of major planets in Star Wars, this could wind up being a serious problem very quickly. The tear was pretty far (no, I don't have calcs or screenshots, such would be welcome) from the homeworld of the Hekaran and yet was still going to, IIRC, disrupt the planet's orbit and cause significant environmental changes. If such a tear were to open in the orbit of a planet, as it might over one such as Coruscant which has literally LINES of shipping going in and out, it could do some real damage.

Summary: If they aren't careful with warp drive, they'll lose a few planets before banning it almost entirely. It might have some use as an emergency drive, for when the beacons just aren't enough, but other then that the side effects just plain suck.

Answer.com on the episode in question

Note: Wikipedia has essentially the same article on warp drive and the episode. I'm not sure who ripped off who.

[Bounty]

Warp drive literally breaks up the "fabric of space" and creates "subspace fissures", thus the Federation High Command ordered speeds no greater then warp 5 (save during emergencies).

IIRC the actual tear had to be made artificially to rpove there even was a problem, since the damage to subspace accumulates slowly; and the issue was apparently fixed in later years, as the WF5 resriction is never mentioned again.

[Bounty]

Bounty is confusing small thrusters (cold gas, M2P2, etc) with the main engines. Mass lightening improves the acceleration they get for the resultant thrust, but the mechanism by which Impulse engines operate is well known. I'm not sure where the statement that they are initiated fusion engines comes from, but I know of several episodes that refer to their plasma and drive exhaust.

I think it was discussion on TrekBBS's tech section. The TNG TM describes the impulse engines as a conventional thrust system augmented by a warp field, yet it also mentiones a vectored exhaust as part of the system, so it apperas you're right and I was wrong.

[nightmare]

There's not many advantages I can think of. It should be just as easy to detect gravitic anomalities of a reactionless, gravity based engine, than one that leaves an ion trail.

Easier actually; and the gravity drive has a lot of disadvantages the reaction drive lacks.

I agree, but I didn't want to exaggerate.

[HSRTG]

IIRC the actual tear had to be made artificially to rpove there even was a problem, since the damage to subspace accumulates slowly

Yeah, but it does accumulate. The Federation does not have the traffic level the GE does, and as such the damage wouldn't accumulate as quickly. The GE would have problems much faster then the Federation. Though the tear was made artificially, that was only because the damage had not reached critical levels. From dialogue during the show, IIRC the tear would've happened naturally given more time.

and the issue was apparently fixed in later years

Where did you get this from? If it was fixed, it must've been fixed in VOY, a series I never intend on seeing. Could you give an episode name so I could try to confirm?

the WF5 resriction is never mentioned again.

No, but it's obeyed. The only times we ever saw faster then WF5 was during emergencies, now given we only ever saw emergencies, but the point stands nonetheless.

[Bounty]

No, but it's obeyed. The only times we ever saw faster then WF5 was during emergencies, now given we only ever saw emergencies, but the point stands nonetheless.

Please. Both the Voyager and Equinox were flying on a cruise speed of WF8 at least, and DS9 ships were going at high warp factors even in non-emergencies.

I don't know if it was ever explictly stated that the new warp engines were more eco-friendly, but it was the ofiicial behind-the-scenes explanation for the Intrepid's sully nacelle design.

[Wyrm]

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

No, we can't. the peak power of some ships is higher then that of some ships in Trek, but this does not mean this is the case for all ships, or that the hyperdrive requires that much power. In fact, estimates for an Imperator put the hyperdrive as requiring only 0.01% o its peak power. Translate that to a fighter and it requires less power then the peak power of several ST ships.

It sort of reminds me of a 3-2-1 Contact experiment pitting a small family car against a big school bus. The school bus may be slower, and consumes more energy per kilometer (very much bigger than the family car), but it transports enough people that the energy per person per kilometer traveled is less. So the critera we're looking for is energy per unit mass per light year traveled.

A fighter is not going to have the same cargo capacity as even a small ST ship, let alone the largest (presumably the "several ST ships" you reference above). That fighter would have to make many, many trips to transport the same amount of cargo as a Galaxy class ship, so it's J/kg*ly can still be greater than the Galaxy class.

A fairer comparison would be a transport with a similiar cargo capacity as a Galaxy class, and compare how much energy it expends to transport the same cargo, say, 200 ly.

[HSRTG]

Please. Both the Voyager and Equinox were flying on a cruise speed of WF8 at least, and DS9 ships were going at high warp factors even in non-emergencies.

I don't know if it was ever explictly stated that the new warp engines were more eco-friendly, but it was the ofiicial behind-the-scenes explanation for the Intrepid's sully nacelle design.

Conceeded. But would the Empire figure it out in time?

[Ryushikaze]

Conceeded. But would the Empire figure it out in time?

Huh? Where did that come from?

Why would the empire even care abut warp speeds?

[Crossroads Inc.]

He's talking about that stupid instance where the "Overuse" of Warpspeed is supposed to cause Supspace ratures and Watch-a-ma-call-its. Basicallys hes wondering if the Empeir would be able to figure this out on there own.

Seeing as how the "Earp speed = Subspace Danger" was mentioned only once and not again, It would seem the Trek Engineers easily solved it, I doubt the Imperials would have a problem if they decided to start using Warp for small scall transports.

[Cykeisme]

There's a great site out there by a guy who corresponded with Dr Saxton and a bunch of aerospace engineers and came up with a way to explain almost all the movements we see yet be logical and consistent with known physics.

Anyone got the link?