Looking for info on Hypermatter and related Tech

[Omega-185]

I am looking for information of hypermatter and related technology. More specifically:

1. What is hypermatter and what are its properties?

2. Are there hypermatter reactors smaller than in the DS?

3. What are the power outputs of such reactors?

4. How does the reaction work?

5. Where is hypermatter mentioned and is there any mention on movies or novelization level of canon?

6. Any other information.

[Spartan]

1. What is hypermatter and what are its properties?

Hypermatter serves as fuel for the reactors annihilation processes and serves as ballast for the hyperdrive. A vessels hypermatter is tachyonic matter with an imaginary mass which manipulated and contained locally within the vessel. It circulates at greater than c velocities within the hyperdrive core/reactor core, similar to the fuel rods
of a nuclear reactor. Hypermatter does not take up much volume or even mass under normal circumstances, as it almost massless while in storage, and only becomes massive within the reactor, which subsequently converts that mass into energy. Hypermatter is most likely refined from exotic stellar sources. At the very least the raw energy must be acquired from such sources. Star Wars hypermatter is produced at huge fueling stations where the requisite amount of energy is poured into the process in the first place. How the hypermatter is itself created is unknown. Any vessel that does not appear to carry the mass of its fuel when considering its power, most likely
uses hypermatter. Tachyons circulate through the ships normally but do not contribute to the inertia of the starship. Therefore they're only changed back into normal matter for annihilation for energy at the last minute, therefore the ship does not need to worry about accelerating against the inertia of its energy source in addition to the rest of its mass. The idea of hypermatter is a complex-mass "ballast" that circulates around the ship in hyperspace. It's not an infinite source; each ship carries a finite amount. But it's where the ship gets all of its energy from without being enormous. It doesn't really explain exactly how it's converted into energy; for all we know, it's already used in an annihilation process.

Starship possess complex mass. In other words, a the ship's mass is not described with a real number X. Instead, it is described with a number X + Yi. Where X is the vessels true mass and Yi represents its hypermatter fuel supply. A ship with a mass in tons of 5E7+(1.0E9)(i); has a "real" mass would be 50 million tons. The magnitude
of its complex mass would be 1 billion tons. The phase angle would be roughly 87.1 degrees; so the inertial mass that must be propelled is only 50 million tons. By manipulation the vessels complex mass to a phase angle of 90 degrees; the magnitude of its complex mass remains unchanged, but its real mass becomes zero. Conversely, by altering the complex mass to a phase angle of 0 degrees: its real mass suddenly skyrockets to nearly 1.001 billion tons. Hypermatter is a complex-mass "ballast" that circulates around the ship in hyperspace. It's not an infinite source; each ship carries a finite amount. However this reservoir allows a starship to possess tremendous power generation capabilities without maintaining an enormous amount of mass.

2. Are there hypermatter reactors smaller than in the DS?

Yes, most starships civilian and military employ hypermatter reactor. Most starships implies that nearly all hyperspace capable vessels, use hypermatter reactors. The primary power supply of any large starship is its hypermatter reactor. Relatively small fusion reactors are employed to create and maintain the conditions under which hypermatter annihilation can occur. In other words, the smaller fusion reactors power the larger exotic reactor. Most fighter craft and small starships employ simple deuterium fusion reaction for power and mobility in real space. Hypermatter annihilation reactors are employed only by the most powerful of starships, Star Corvettes all the way up to the Deathstar.

AOTC: ICS - page 3:

Power Sources:

Most starships use fusion systems that confine more-powerful hypermatter annihilation cores. The interiors of the mightiest war vessels are dominated by huge reactors cores and ultra-dense fuel silos, which enable them to perform massive planetary bombardments and sustain hours of thousand-G accelerations before refueling."

3. What are the power outputs of such reactors?

Hypermatter reactors appear to be scalable from fighter size up to the Deathstar. With power outputs ranging from 1.0E15 - 1.0E34 W. The larger reactors output more power than stars.

SWTC: Power

It's noteworthy that the maximum power output of a star destroyer is of a stellar magnitude. The power requirements of a ship's life-support etc are utterly insignificant compared to the power demonstrated by the weapons and propulsion systems. There are serious thermodynamic implications to using such power. If stellar-scale power were consumed and dissipated inside the ship then the waste heat would make the ship glow like a stellar object, and soon evaporate. Since an intact star destroyer does not tend to vaporise, we can infer that its most powerful components must be of a nature that dumps energy externally. Thrusters and weapons fit that description. Ion drives eject streams of charged particles at near light speeds; they inevitably carry their heat away with them. Ion cannons are somewhat similar to ion drives, but they eject plasma for destructive effect. Turbolasers and laser cannons fire concentrated beams of massless energy, which inherently carries power outwards. The beams may be non-thermal anyway. If only a tiny fraction of the reactor's maximum output were to leak into the ship's interior then the sudden, catastrophic heating could damage the reactor enough to cut the power, or (at worst) turn the entire vessel to vapour.

The largest warships and battle stations are considerably more powerful than steadily burning, main-sequence stars. This may seem surprising, but a star is actually an extremely slow producer of energy: the nuclear reaction rates at the core are just sufficient to provide pressure support against gravity. A normal star is in almost an equilibrium state, burning its fuel slowly and lasting for millions or billions of years. An artificial nuclear (or antimatter or hypermatter) reactor is designed to sustain higher reaction rates per particle, and consumes fuel rapidly for its size. For its mass, even a primitive nuclear explosive releases its energy much faster than the power generation in the core of a star. Although starships and battle stations can attain stellar power levels, their small size limits the fuel they can carry, and thus the lifetime of a ship is far less than astronomical in duration. The sun's immense mass enables it to last ten billion years or more. A star battlecruiser operating continuously at the same power may exhaust its more limited fuel within hours. Peak performance involving thousand-G accelerations and heavy fighting may last a few hours, while relatively sedate coasting (continuous accelerations of a few G) between the active episodes means that a few years elapse between refuelling stops (depending on the ship's ratio of fuel to structural mass).

4. How does the reaction work?

Hypermatter reactors are annhilation reactors, which convert mass directly into energy be some yet undescribed process.

SWTC: Power

The mighty warships of the Galactic Empire/Republic and its enemies (typically star destroyers or greater in scale) generate and deliver power at stellar rates. Reactor and power distribution systems are the most fundamental components of these vessels. The primary weapons, engines and other systems are designed to draw and expend the maximum output of the available reactor. Support and containment of the power systems is one of the most fundamental requirements guiding the ship's design.

The reactor is usually a spherical device. Such a shape provides a minimum surface area for its interior volume, and may be an easy way to bear the structural and force-field burden of containment. The deepest interior of the reactor is a realm of exotic physics, where phenomenal energy densities are maintained. Outer layers or subsidiary systems may involve nuclear fusion reactions but the scale of power generation requires that the core process is direct and total annihilation of mass. Possible fuels might include:

* hypermatter, consisting of intrinsically faster-than-light subatomic particles, which must release all of their mass-energy as they accelerate towards infinite speed;
* antimatter, which annihilates in contact with an equivalent amount of ordinary matter (leaks can be dangerous);
* matter, if a sufficiently exotic [presently unknown] physical mechanism could be found to catalyse direct annihilation.

μ-blackhole catalysed annihilation

Consider a hypothetical reactor containing a lattice of mini-black holes held in a constant heat-bath. In normal operation they radiate away mass-energy [by “ Hawking radiation”], which can be replenished by a continuous fuel mass injection. Such a system could in principle provide total mass annihilation without the potential hazzards of antimatter.

In a mishap, disruption of the reactor vessel starves the holes of fuel. At worst, they subsequently decay and vanish in a flash of radiation. Although this is destructive to the surrounding ship and immediate environs, this explosion is merely equivalent to the holes' present mass-energy, which is much less than the ship's fuel reserves. The reservoir fuels are dispersed in the fireball along with the ship's ordinary structure and contents.

It is not yet known whether such technologies are possible [in STAR WARS], nor whether they form part of hypermatter reactors. Nonetheless the idea is an encouraging analogy or thought-experiment, illustrating how destructive chain reactions could limit their final yields to a minority of the fuel present.

5. Where is hypermatter mentioned and is there any mention on movies or novelization level of canon?

Hypermatter was an invention of the expanded universe, and first made its apperance in the original SW: Incredible Crossections. None of the 'G' canon sources mention it.

6. Any other information.

Energy Density -

The characteristics of hypermatter, other than huge energy density and tachyonic nature have not been stated. The exact energy density of hypermatter, for all we know it exceeds that of neutronium. Hypermatter is tachyonic, which is characterized as being 'faster than light', and having a complex mass. This makes measuring it's rest mass all but impossible. However, we can determine an effective lower limit for its density. The energy content of a single Deathstar superlaser shot is 1.0E38 J, the mass equivalent of which is nearly 1.0E19 kg of matter. Confined within the Deathstar's 16 km^3 hypermatter reactor equates to a material density of roughly 1E17-18 J/m^3.

Power Generation -

As to ISD's mounting Solar Ionization reactors. Well the operating principles of the SIR have never been describe in official sources, but the SW2ICS tell us that hypermatter reactor cores are confined with in a larger reactor. A SIR must be a specific type hypermatter reactor. It might be the case that a SIR adds on to the basic hypermatter annihilation process, allowing the designers to call it a Solar Ionization Reactor. Ionization could be the mechanism by which the reactor extracts usable energy. Ionization refers to the act of stripping the electrons off the nuclei, and this requires energy rather than generating energy. The energy generated by the annihilation process it then used to ionize stellar gases into plasma. This plasma could then used to carry energy out of the reactor and into energy conversion facilities where it can be used to power the ship. Induction power generators then use the plasma to create electrical currents that are then fed to transformers and power stabilizing systems before the electrical power is distributed throughout the vessel.

For more information go here:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/power.html

[apocolypse]

My knowledge isn't as extensive as many others here, but I'll give you what I do know.

1.) Hypermatter is matter with a complex resting mass. It is annihilated to produce energy.

2.) Yes, hypermatter reactors can be found on all kinds of regular vessels, and the reactors are much smaller than that of the DS.

3.) It varies depending on the size of the reactor. IIRC the output of an ISDs reactor is estimated to be something like e24 to e25 joules.

4.) Through matter annihilation I believe.

5.) One of the first mentions I can recall is in the AotC:ICS and then again in the RotS:ICS. However, theories about such a fuel source go back quite a ways to account for the energy intensive nature of Wars technologies. The ICS and other EU sources are C-level canon.


Saxton's page on power generation should be of quite a bit of help too. It can be found here.

http://www.theforce.net/SWTC/power.html


Edit: looks like I was a bit late. Great post.

[Enola Straight]

Hypermatter is tachyonic, which is characterized as being 'faster than light', and having a complex mass. [/url]

Question: how do you store in one spot something that is going faster than the speed of light?



The empire has Probots capable of spying in on an area by orbiting a star or planet in hyperspace. It may be possible to reduce an orbit A.U.s big to a size in the molecular to the subatomic. Perhaps reducing the orbital radius to zero could convert the orbit into a hyper-relativistic spin.

[Spartan]

Enola Straight wrote:

Question: how do you store in one spot something that is going faster than the speed of light?

SWTC: Hyperspace wrote:

Relative to the realspace galaxy, all objects in hyperspace move faster than lightspeed. It is not possible for a ship in hyperspace to stay at rest relative to a planet or other feature. For some devices it may be possible to travel along a curved path so that it returns to the same point. This is the case for the cyclic hyperspace orbits of Imperial Intelligence Hyperspace Orbiting Scanners.

According to the ROTS:ICS entry for the Actis fighter, the hyperdrive ring for the fighter contains its hypermatter "ballast". The tachyonic matter is in constant motion cycling along a confined orbit within the ring structure.

Similarly the TPM: ICS states that hypermatter is circulates through out the Queen's starship through 'hyper-conduits' that intimatly connect the the hyperdrive motivator to the more distant portions of the ship.

So, yes through some mechanism, most likely gravitational field effects, they are able to force tachynic matter to follow a close path. Which makes a great deal of sense as the 'complex nature of the hypermatter' is what effects the transition to hyperspace. As stated in Rebel Dawn a poorly-maintained hyperdrive can cause different sections of the ship making the jump at different times in relation to other parts, which can be catastrophic.

[Shadowtraveler]

Hypermatter is tachyonic, which is characterized as being 'faster than light', and having a complex mass. [/url]

Question: how do you store in one spot something that is going faster than the speed of light?

I'd imagine you send it into a loop. In fact, the hyperspace ring that a Jedi Starfighter uses has its hypermatter constantly looping within the ring.

[Knife]

Hypermatter is tachyonic, which is characterized as being 'faster than light', and having a complex mass. [/url]

Question: how do you store in one spot something that is going faster than the speed of light?


.

The ICS refers to 'ultra dense fuel silos' and specifically 'annihilation ractqant condensed in silos is denser than ship's bulk by many orders of magnitude'.

I was never clear if the 'fuel' was the ultra dense material orders of magnitude denser than the ship or if the 'silos' where the material is kept, are the heavies.

[FTeik]

CS also states somewhere, that capital ships have to use their repulsors to not sink into the ground because of their weight caused by hull and fuel.

[Knife]

CS also states somewhere, that capital ships have to use their repulsors to not sink into the ground because of their weight caused by hull and fuel.

Which makes perfect sense, and might be a rough way to determine which smaller craft actually use hypermatter annilation for STL travel and those who just use it for FTL travel.

Take an X wing. It has hyperspace capability and yet on Dagobah(sp?) it was inert and the 'off switch was pressed' about as much as one can tell when it sunk/rose from the bog. When Yoda settled it on the bank, it didn't sink becasue of either it's weight nor fuel/fuel tanks orders of magnitude more than the weight of the ship itself.

You could probably explain it away again with repulsors, since AotC's ICS says they don't really have to be powered, yet there has to be a limit on that. A no limit fallacy. If you can't turn a repulsor off, will an X wing that has exhausted it's hypermatter fuel float off the deck no matter what you do?

[Spartan]

Knife wrote:

Which makes perfect sense, and might be a rough way to determine which smaller craft actually use hypermatter annilation for STL travel and those who just use it for FTL travel.

That's a good question, we do know for certain that the Porax-38 Starfighter uses an annihilation reactor, assumedly a hypermatter reactor, rather than a fusion reactor like the Anethersprite does. The Actis and V-wing are likely similarly equiped. The ARC-170 Starfighter and X-wing undoubtedly mount hypermatter reactors as well; as both have longer range than the Porax-38, and the ARC-170 has shields capable of dissipating nearly 12 MT of energy. Looking at the hyperdrive rings they appear to be powered soley by a fusion reactor.

Take an X wing. It has hyperspace capability and yet on Dagobah(sp?) it was inert and the 'off switch was pressed' about as much as one can tell when it sunk/rose from the bog. When Yoda settled it on the bank, it didn't sink becasue of either it's weight nor fuel/fuel tanks orders of magnitude more than the weight of the ship itself.

I don't think the hypermater used by the hyperdrive effects the vessels mass all that much, due to manipulating the phase angle of the complex mass. As far as the fuel stores, they realy should mass all that much. According to Dr. Saxton the most energy intensive systems of a SW ships is not the hyperdrive, but rather the ion engines. The Porax-38 consumes only 6.2 kg of matter in its hypermatter reactor per second. Since it not likely to be capable of firing its ion engines at full power for more that a few hours at most (perhaps 3 hour), the fuel reserves might only mass 67 metric tons. Right only! It could be substantially less, as modern fighters cannot maintain military power for such a long period of time.

You could probably explain it away again with repulsors, since AotC's ICS says they don't really have to be powered, yet there has to be a limit on that. A no limit fallacy. If you can't turn a repulsor off, will an X wing that has exhausted it's hypermatter fuel float off the deck no matter what you do?

Well the mass might not be all that absurd maybe 20-30 tons of fuel at most. As far as repulsors go I'd assume they can be turn off. There is nothing that indicates the subnuclear knots actually remain constantly active. Since they are used in tractor beams as well as other devices, it can be assumed that it, and most gravitic devices for that matter, require more than just the knots to generate any sort of "force field" effect. Repulsorlifts simply allow un-powered antigravity floatation, so the system isn't performing work under most circumstances. Ie. the X-wing with fuel load masses 50 tons, install repulsor coils to reduce the apparent weight to 10 tons in a standard 1 gee field.

[Knife]

That's a good question, we do know for certain that the Porax-38 Starfighter uses an annihilation reactor, assumedly a hypermatter reactor, rather than a fusion reactor like the Anethersprite does. The Actis and V-wing are likely similarly equiped. The ARC-170 Starfighter and X-wing undoubtedly mount hypermatter reactors as well; as both have longer range than the Porax-38, and the ARC-170 has shields capable of dissipating nearly 12 MT of energy. Looking at the hyperdrive rings they appear to be powered soley by a fusion reactor.

Well, with the PT micro fighters, it's easy since they need to have a hyperspace ring to jump. Other ships and especially in the OT are a bit different. Does an X wing use Hyperspace annilation for STL travel and FTL? Or is the fusion/ion engines enough for STL manuvering and acceleration?

Since the PT micro fighters perform as well as other, larger fighters and only have fusion/ion power sources and engines, it wouldn't really make sense to add a hypermatter reactor for STL purposes on a realitivaly simular sized ship.[/quote]

I don't think the hypermater used by the hyperdrive effects the vessels mass all that much, due to manipulating the phase angle of the complex mass. As far as the fuel stores, they realy should mass all that much. According to Dr. Saxton the most energy intensive systems of a SW ships is not the hyperdrive, but rather the ion engines. The Porax-38 consumes only 6.2 kg of matter in its hypermatter reactor per second. Since it not likely to be capable of firing its ion engines at full power for more that a few hours at most (perhaps 3 hour), the fuel reserves might only mass 67 metric tons. Right only! It could be substantially less, as modern fighters cannot maintain military power for such a long period of time.

The only problem with that are the quotes about the fuel/silo's that mass orders of magnitude more than the rest of the ship. I admit, I don't know to what specifically Dr. Saxton refers to; either the fuel itself or the 'containment' silos.

So for shits and giggles lets assume it's the silo's, on a small fighter with your ~67 metric tons of reserve fuel; would require a silo that weighted an order of magnitude higher if not more. 670 meteric tons (lower limit) of silo to hold that fuel, and that's just the fuel. We're let to believe that 'order of magnitude' in relation to the whole ship minus fuel/silo.

Well the mass might not be all that absurd maybe 20-30 tons of fuel at most. As far as repulsors go I'd assume they can be turn off. There is nothing that indicates the subnuclear knots actually remain constantly active. Since they are used in tractor beams as well as other devices, it can be assumed that it, and most gravitic devices for that matter, require more than just the knots to generate any sort of "force field" effect. Repulsorlifts simply allow un-powered antigravity floatation, so the system isn't performing work under most circumstances. Ie. the X-wing with fuel load masses 50 tons, install repulsor coils to reduce the apparent weight to 10 tons in a standard 1 gee field.

Which jives to what I was saying. If your 50 ton fighter is a bit low on the fuel (or maybe needs gas tank maintence and they remove it) it's now orders of magnitude lighter in the 1G. It'll float away with the repulsors at 'idle'.

[Spartan]

Knife wrote:

The only problem with that are the quotes about the fuel/silo's that mass orders of magnitude more than the rest of the ship. I admit, I don't know to what specifically Dr. Saxton refers to; either the fuel itself or the 'containment' silos.

My point was that in the case of fighter sacle vessels the fuel store can still be orders of magnitude more dense that the ship without weighing 100+ tons. The fuel is, what there is of it is just really dense. Density is dependent on volume afterall. Compress 20-30 tones of fuel in to the car sized fueld tanks ofthe Anethersprite and there you go. Saxton has this to say about starfighter fuels.

SWTC: Power - Starfighter & small ships:

It is possible that some of the smallest starship designs don't use the high-yield mass-annihilation technologies employed in warships' reactors. Many starfighters are described as having fusion power, which implies that their reactors fuse nuclei of a light element (optimally hydrogen) into heavier elements (most likely and directly helium, but possibly any nucleus up to the mass of iron). Thermal and radiant energy is derived from the small mass deficit between the products and the reactants.

The fuels of some starfighters are intriguingly described as liquid metallic substances. Sometimes they are said to be highly radioactive isotopes. If these materials are fusion reactants then they must almost certainly be hydrogen or helium in liquid-metallic form, which would require storage at stupendously high pressures and low temperatures. Alternatively, the “fuel” liquids may merely be the propellant mass that is ionised and electromagnetically accelerated out of the ion drive to provide thrust. As such they would not be the source of power within the reactor, but rather a consumable material for the thrusters. A heavy metal like mercury might be suitable for this purpose.

For fighter that rely on fusion engines only the fuel can't be as dense as degenerate matter of neutronium, because you can't fuse ionized iron plasma. Which brings up an excellent point, hypermatter reactor fuel can burn iron, as an annhilant. Makes perfect sense with Saxtons blackhole catalyzed reactor theory.

So for shits and giggles lets assume it's the silo's, on a small fighter with your ~67 metric tons of reserve fuel; would require a silo that weighted an order of magnitude higher if not more. 670 meteric tons (lower limit) of silo to hold that fuel, and that's just the fuel. We're let to believe that 'order of magnitude' in relation to the whole ship minus fuel/silo.

Actually the X-wing carries 67 metric tons of fuel, and masses 6.7 tons empty, there your order of magnitude more dense fuel, right there.
Fighters don't need to carry fuel in proportions similar to warships. They don't have to they are over powered as is, ther engines are 5 orders of magnitude more powerful that their energy weapons for instance.

[Surlethe]

The only problem with that are the quotes about the fuel/silo's that mass orders of magnitude more than the rest of the ship. I admit, I don't know to what specifically Dr. Saxton refers to; either the fuel itself or the 'containment' silos.

If he's talking about hypermatter fuel, then he could be referring to the modulus of the mass to find the density, rather than the real mass. If the silo of mass 300 kg is storing some 5e10 kg of hypermatter in a space of 10 m^3, then its real density is only 30 kg/m^3, but its actual density is 5e9 kg/m^3.

[Knife]

My point was that in the case of fighter sacle vessels the fuel store can still be orders of magnitude more dense that the ship without weighing 100+ tons. The fuel is, what there is of it is just really dense. Density is dependent on volume afterall. Compress 20-30 tones of fuel in to the car sized fueld tanks ofthe Anethersprite and there you go. Saxton has this to say about starfighter fuels.

The whole reason I brought it up, besides the fact that the thread is predicated around the issue, is that a ~6 ton craft resting on a tricycle style landing pads is a bit different than 67 tons or 670 tons. Repulsors don't solve all the problems here.

A huge craft, say a Venstar, with a hypermatter reactor has power to spare to keep repulsors going 24/7 to help support it's weight or mass on any given planet if it lands. While a small craft, say an X wing wouldn't.

It would be interesting if one of the math majors around here did a scale down from the Venstars hypermatter anniliation/ton figure in the RotS ICS down to an X wing.


Anyway; like I said, since the micro fighters of the PT are not hypermatter reactor powered and still operate in such a way as to be reasonalbly compared to others who either do use hypermatter or use it to some degree, the though of all fighters using hypermatter for STL seems silly and wastefull.


(edit: because I can't read and think 'submit' is the same as 'preview'.)

[Noble Ire]

A huge craft, say a Venstar, with a hypermatter reactor has power to spare to keep repulsors going 24/7 to help support it's weight or mass on any given planet if it lands. While a small craft, say an X wing wouldn't.

While not directly related, this does raise a question that's been bothering me for awhile; in one of the more recent Tales comics, the one in which a Rebel and an Imperial soldier are stranded on Endor, they come across a crashed and evidently heavily damaged Star Destroyer, resting in a glade (the lack of an impact crater suggests its landing was controlled, so it is possible that its repulsors were still online after the landing). However, IIRC, the story takes place several months after the battle. Could the repulsors still have been running at that point? And if they weren't, how far would an object like an ISD sink into soil?

[Knife]

While not directly related, this does raise a question that's been bothering me for awhile; in one of the more recent Tales comics, the one in which a Rebel and an Imperial soldier are stranded on Endor, they come across a crashed and evidently heavily damaged Star Destroyer, resting in a glade (the lack of an impact crater suggests its landing was controlled, so it is possible that its repulsors were still online after the landing). However, IIRC, the story takes place several months after the battle. Could the repulsors still have been running at that point? And if they weren't, how far would an object like an ISD sink into soil?

Admitadly, it's a hang up for me. AotC ICS has repulsor lifts as 'unpowered antigravity floatation'. However, we have other sources with pilots throttleing up their repulsors. We can assume that when they design ships with repulsors; they have a repulsor at 'idle' able to make a ship neutral boyancy at 1G, while adding power will give other results.

[Noble Ire]

While not directly related, this does raise a question that's been bothering me for awhile; in one of the more recent Tales comics, the one in which a Rebel and an Imperial soldier are stranded on Endor, they come across a crashed and evidently heavily damaged Star Destroyer, resting in a glade (the lack of an impact crater suggests its landing was controlled, so it is possible that its repulsors were still online after the landing). However, IIRC, the story takes place several months after the battle. Could the repulsors still have been running at that point? And if they weren't, how far would an object like an ISD sink into soil?

Admitadly, it's a hang up for me. AotC ICS has repulsor lifts as 'unpowered antigravity floatation'. However, we have other sources with pilots throttleing up their repulsors. We can assume that when they design ships with repulsors; they have a repulsor at 'idle' able to make a ship neutral boyancy at 1G, while adding power will give other results.

That is possible, especially considering the fact that repulsor construction involves tapping into a natural gravity source (ie, a black hole) as some part of the construction process, as per the AOTC ICS.

[Knife]

The only problem with that are the quotes about the fuel/silo's that mass orders of magnitude more than the rest of the ship. I admit, I don't know to what specifically Dr. Saxton refers to; either the fuel itself or the 'containment' silos.

If he's talking about hypermatter fuel, then he could be referring to the modulus of the mass to find the density, rather than the real mass. If the silo of mass 300 kg is storing some 5e10 kg of hypermatter in a space of 10 m^3, then its real density is only 30 kg/m^3, but its actual density is 5e9 kg/m^3.

I didn't mean to skip your post, it's just that I have no idea what you just said. What is the 'modulus fo the mass to find density'? With your numbers, are you suggesting that the number they are using for 'volume' is more akin to potential power output?

[Spartan]

Knife wrote:

The whole reason I brought it up, besides the fact that the thread is predicated around the issue, is that a ~6 ton craft resting on a tricycle style landing pads is a bit different than 67 tons or 670 tons. Repulsors don't solve all the problems here.

Perhaps there is no problem, I don't recall any sources stating that fighters have huge fuel stores. They don't normally operate their engine at peak power, which would limit fuel consumption. Additionally the magnetically torqued engine thrust is highly efficent, which further reduce the amount of fuel needed. So, if the fighter has limited endurance, they don't need to store much fuel. 67 Tons isn't really that heavy, a fully loaded F-14 masses around 34 metric tons, and its supported upon tricycle landing gear.

A huge craft, say a Venstar, with a hypermatter reactor has power to spare to keep repulsors going 24/7 to help support it's weight or mass on any given planet if it lands. While a small craft, say an X wing wouldn't.

A fighter also has power to spare. If Luke could use a portable fusion reactor to rechare R2 in TESB, I see no reason why a small auxillary reactor couldn't power the repulsors indefinitly, or the craft could just rely on power cells, that are charged when the main reactor is active.

It would be interesting if one of the math majors around here did a scale down from the Venstars hypermatter anniliation/ton figure in the RotS ICS down to an X wing.

Its already been done the Porax-38 depicted in ROTS:ICS is a hyperdrive equiped space superiority fighter, very similar to an X-wing. Its hypermatter reactor annhilates 6.2 kg of matter a second at peak power.

Anyway; like I said, since the micro fighters of the PT are not hypermatter reactor powered and still operate in such a way as to be reasonalbly compared to others who either do use hypermatter or use it to some degree, the though of all fighters using hypermatter for STL seems silly and wastefull.

I agree.

[Knife]

Knife wrote:

Anyway; like I said, since the micro fighters of the PT are not hypermatter reactor powered and still operate in such a way as to be reasonalbly compared to others who either do use hypermatter or use it to some degree, the though of all fighters using hypermatter for STL seems silly and wastefull.

I agree.

Skipped the others, even though you have good points, to focus on this;

Between this and the P38, we now have a problem. Minus FTL, what advantages would a hypermatter anniliation reactor in a fighter give? Say an ARC 170 has a full hypermatter reactor, it's STL engines run off of it and all. Yet from all that I've seen, performance wise, it's not all that different from say a V wing or Actis.

[Illuminatus Primus]

A huge craft, say a Venstar, with a hypermatter reactor has power to spare to keep repulsors going 24/7 to help support it's weight or mass on any given planet if it lands. While a small craft, say an X wing wouldn't.

Repulsors do not require constant power while idling. Only moving against gravity requires power.

[Surlethe]

If he's talking about hypermatter fuel, then he could be referring to the modulus of the mass to find the density, rather than the real mass. If the silo of mass 300 kg is storing some 5e10 kg of hypermatter in a space of 10 m^3, then its real density is only 30 kg/m^3, but its actual density is 5e9 kg/m^3.

I didn't mean to skip your post, it's just that I have no idea what you just said. What is the 'modulus fo the mass to find density'? With your numbers, are you suggesting that the number they are using for 'volume' is more akin to potential power output?

Sorry; I should've been more clear. Hypermatter has both real and non-real mass, so we plot the mass of a ship which contains hypermatter on the complex plane, in the form (x + yi), as Spartan pointed out in his first post. The distance of the point (x, yi) from the origin is its modulus, which I think we could interpret as "actual mass". I'm saying that, perhaps, the density of the fuel silos is calculated using the "actual mass" of the contents, so each silo is orders of magnitude denser than the median density of the ship. Oh, and I pulled the numbers out of my ass.

[Spartan]

Knife wrote:

Between this and the P38, we now have a problem. Minus FTL, what advantages would a hypermatter anniliation reactor in a fighter give? Say an ARC 170 has a full hypermatter reactor, it's STL engines run off of it and all. Yet from all that I've seen, performance wise, it's not all that different from say a V wing or Actis.

I might just be that simple, hypermatter is necessary to use hyperdrive. The hyperspace rings and sleds most likely have hypermatter reactors as well. Theres no reason to use such an exotic fuel source and intricate/expensive technology if it is no better that a fusion reactor in performance. Fighters are military hardware after all, so the emphasis would be on ease of maintenance and fault tolerance. For example the empire chose to mostly use non-hyperspace capable TIE, because there cheap to produce and easy to maintain. Its all about trade offs really.

FTL capability is really the only advantage that a hypermatter reactor has to confer.

[phongn]

Hypermatter fuel has the bonus that you aren't paying an enormous mass penaltry to haul all that fuel around and may well be much more efficient than the SW "fusion" reactors.