40,000 Tons = 27.7 Kg.....

[Darth Wong]

Chee approved it but that doesn't mean it makes sense, and EU material which makes no sense has always been ignored (remember the 5 mile SSD or the idiotic claim that the construction of the Executor nearly bankrupted the Empire?)

Yes, that was more or less my point. Unfortunately, it seems as if more and more SW authors are rewriting and changing what has already been established in order to make things fit their own assumptions on what things should be like. We've seen it with Traviss and now we've seen it with Sarli and the continuity editors are going along with it. I don't understand what they're for anyway as I thought that the whole point with having a continuity was to try and protect that continuity instead of changing it on the whim of an author.

Unfortunately, there are two philosophical ways to approach the idea of "protecting" continuity:

1) Treat it as a scientist would, which is to say that you want the continuity to be as self-consistent as possible so you must occasionally admit mistakes and correct them in order to make the continuity more logical and improve its quality.

2) Never admit a mistake.

Unfortunately, the nature of humans (especially those with fundamentally unscientific mentalities or emotional insecurity issues) is #2, and LFL seems to be heading in this direction. I'm surprised that Sarli didn't "retcon" the whole Executor-length issue by saying that the Executor had a space-warping device which could change its length. Or perhaps it's a Transformer.

[Mange]

Yes, by "protecting the continuity" I was meaning to say to keep it consistent (with for example necessary retcons).

[Ender]

1) Some kind of fuel source which is not visible or apparent in the vessel's inertia (Saxton's idea). Best stated as a simple premise, without acting like a Trek writer and trying to make up technobabble explanations of exactly how it works.

2) Fuel which makes much more than 9E16 J/kg when annihilated.

Both Saxton and Sarli went for option #1, but Sarli ignored the fact that Saxton had already done this and made up his own version of #1 but with totally unnecessary technobabble added. This has long been a problem with Trek and people who have watched too much Trek; they think that a sci-fi idea is improved by trying to explain exactly how it works. In reality the opposite is true; trying to explain how it works only creates more questions than it answers.

I obviousy cannot make any statements about Dr Saxton's ideas when writing, or what he has told you, but my own investigations indicate that the idea that fuel is seperate from the ships inertia do not bear out. It limits the ships to a scant few hours of peak operation, (between 2-4 depending on the ship) but treating it all as real mass does work. Aws most of the time the ships will not be operating at peak power (I seriously question the need for even a star dreadnought to be operating greater then a couple of terawatts when idling), this is not an issue. Most of the time the ship will be in orbit over a peaceful planet making a port call, coasting through deep space, or doing in system manuvering (which would inherently need to be small unless you seek to devestate the systems infastructure).

The issue with fuel reserves, that Sarli is not compounding, is fitting them into the ship without them achieving the requisite density to initiate fusion.

[Darth Wong]

I obviousy cannot make any statements about Dr Saxton's ideas when writing, or what he has told you, but my own investigations indicate that the idea that fuel is seperate from the ships inertia do not bear out. It limits the ships to a scant few hours of peak operation, (between 2-4 depending on the ship) but treating it all as real mass does work.

Not for the Death Star it doesn't. Same goes for longstanding literature claims about the vast energy requirement for a single hyperjump, or the energy requirement for a BDZ.

Aws most of the time the ships will not be operating at peak power (I seriously question the need for even a star dreadnought to be operating greater then a couple of terawatts when idling), this is not an issue.

It's an issue if the ships plan to do the things they've been doing.

Most of the time the ship will be in orbit over a peaceful planet making a port call, coasting through deep space, or doing in system manuvering (which would inherently need to be small unless you seek to devestate the systems infastructure).

The fact that power usage is low during downtime doesn't change the requirements for certain major operations like hyperjumps or other energy-intensive procedures.

The issue with fuel reserves, that Sarli is not compounding, is fitting them into the ship without them achieving the requisite density to initiate fusion.

Cramming more fuel into the ship only makes it more difficult to accelerate at the vast rates we have observed for these vessels, thus increasing their fuel requirement. And it doesn't come anywhere close to explaining how the Death Star can do anything.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm surprised that Sarli didn't "retcon" the whole Executor-length issue by saying that the Executor had a space-warping device which could change its length. Or perhaps it's a Transformer.

A great point. Sarli and his goons probably aren't bright enough to realize arbitrarily changing mass is no fundamentally different than a size-warping vessel.

I obviousy cannot make any statements about Dr Saxton's ideas when writing, or what he has told you, but my own investigations indicate that the idea that fuel is seperate from the ships inertia do not bear out. It limits the ships to a scant few hours of peak operation, (between 2-4 depending on the ship) but treating it all as real mass does work.

Not for the Death Star it doesn't. Same goes for longstanding literature claims about the vast energy requirement for a single hyperjump, or the energy requirement for a BDZ.

Heavy starships in SW with the full-power running time of a few hours I doubt can be reconciled with even only the filmic canon's depiction of space combat. I mean you'd expect tactics resembling more like fighter aircraft will low combat-capable flight time duration due to fuel costs. You'd expect a lot more on-the-fly refueling and drop-tanks; things of that sort.

Maybe increasing the density of the fuel would help? I think we're already getting past where 99.9% of the ship's mass is fuel if "several orders of magnitude" bares out. Does it hit a wall with E=MC^2 energy density? Is this point insurmountable?

It's an issue if the ships plan to do the things they've been doing.

ROTS in particular is problematic. You have a fleet of several thousand Star Destroyers and some more support vessels race from the a siege or battle on the Outer Rim directly to Coruscant inside hours with little-to-no apparent loss of combat function.

[Ender]

Will you show me yours if I show you mine?

Code: Select all

Peak Power (watts) =          2.5*10^25
Exhaust Velocity (%c) =       99%
Exhaust Velocity (m/s) =      2.97*10^7
Ejecta rest mass (kg) =       4.56*10^7
Relativistic force (kgm/s) =  9.6*10^16
Acceleration (Gs) =           3000
Acceleration (m/s^2) =        29400
Ship Total Mass (kg) =        3.27*10^12
Cruising Speed (%c) =         80%
Cruising Speed (m/s) =        2.4*10^8
Delta V (m/s) =               4.8*10^8
Mass Ratio =                  5.03
NonEjecta Mass (kg) =         2.73*10^12
Length (m) =                  1600
Width (m) =                   1000
Draft (m) =                   400
Volume (m^3) =                1.92*10^8
Density (kg/m^3) =            787.4
Dry Mass (kg) =               1.51*10^11
Reactant Mass (kg) =          2.57*10^12
Reactant Mass Energy (j) =    2.32*10^29
Peak Power (s) =              9.27*10^3

Effective Full Power Hours (EFPH) = 2.57


Formulas and Assumptions
KEr=MrC^2-MoC^2
Lorentz factor = 1/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))
Ejecta rest mass (kg) = Mo
F=Mr*v
F=Ms*a
Ms = (Mr*v)/a
Vd/Ve=ln(MR)
Non-Ejecta Mass = Total Mass - (Total mass/(MR+1))
Volume of a pyramid = (W*D)*L*0.3
Assumed steel construction, 10% structure
Reactant Mass = NonEjecta Mass - Dry Mass

Now there are a few problems with canon and this - I went with a mass ratio of 5 because that is, as near as I can tell, what Dr. Saxton uses. It should be closer to 2.24 based off the statements on the Mandel drawings, but those are of dubious standing. Also, the rescue scene in Shield of Lies implies the strucutral density to be about 388 kg/m^3. True the heavy armor needs to be factored in, but we don't know the density there - my personal suspicion is that it is very much akin to standard steel with the exotic portions being contained in a hyperdiamond lattice that substitutes for the usual carbon molecules that break up the crystaline strucutre on the iron. From what I've been able to find, in theory it should behave like the descriptions we have in the canon.

I also used my personal value of 2.5*10^25 watts based off what I measured, using the more common 1*10^25 still gets you an EFPH of 2.35 hours. You can also vary the exhaust velocity to increase the time - 1*10^25 and a 90% velocity get you 3.49 hours.

I think the key difference between our math is going to end up being the exhaust velocity - Dr. Saxton uses C for back of the envelope calcs, and that's fine, except if you try and get specific it breaks down in terms of the mass and because ion engines are inherently not photon engines, and thuse C can only be an approximation.

[Ender]

I obviousy cannot make any statements about Dr Saxton's ideas when writing, or what he has told you, but my own investigations indicate that the idea that fuel is seperate from the ships inertia do not bear out. It limits the ships to a scant few hours of peak operation, (between 2-4 depending on the ship) but treating it all as real mass does work.

Not for the Death Star it doesn't. Same goes for longstanding literature claims about the vast energy requirement for a single hyperjump, or the energy requirement for a BDZ.

Heavy starships in SW with the full-power running time of a few hours I doubt can be reconciled with even only the filmic canon's depiction of space combat. I mean you'd expect tactics resembling more like fighter aircraft will low combat-capable flight time duration due to fuel costs. You'd expect a lot more on-the-fly refueling and drop-tanks; things of that sort.

I have yet to see a problem with it in the films, Endor lasted maybe an hour at best and Coruscant is stated in the novel to have only been a few hours.

As for operations, consider their movement - running the engines will be the largest consumption of power and fuel, and so we see them mainly drift around. Grievous and Akbar had to directly order the main guns brought to full power in the middle of combat, clearly it is not standard operating porcedure. Heavy fire is sporadic in comparison to the lighter guns, and it provides yet another excellent reason why missiles and torpedos are still used to augment a ships capabilities.

Maybe increasing the density of the fuel would help? I think we're already getting past where 99.9% of the ship's mass is fuel if "several orders of magnitude" bares out. Does it hit a wall with E=MC^2 energy density? Is this point insurmountable?

Primary issue with the fuel is cramming it in there - too dense and it starts fusing, which will destroy the ship. Increasing density hurts that far more. Breaking the E=mc^2 law helps for reactants, but not for ejecta - you are still limited to a few hours peak operation.

I'd remind everyone that the AOTCICS explicetly states peak operations are only hours on end - not days.

ROTS in particular is problematic. You have a fleet of several thousand Star Destroyers and some more support vessels race from the a siege or battle on the Outer Rim directly to Coruscant inside hours with little-to-no apparent loss of combat function.

How is that an issue? The OT:ICS stated hyperdrives were an energy effect rather then force, so it wouldnt' require continual thrusting. And Shield of Lies makes it clear that once you are in hyperspace you stay there. The ships would only need to expend the energy to leap to hyperspace, once there they could lower reactor power to idle conditions.


I'll get to measuring the Death Star later, I need to take care of TFN and move the TV first.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Primary issue with the fuel is cramming it in there - too dense and it starts fusing, which will destroy the ship. Increasing density hurts that far more. Breaking the E=mc^2 law helps for reactants, but not for ejecta - you are still limited to a few hours peak operation.

Why would tachyons fuse? They could be highly non-interactive for all we know (in fact, most theories involving tachyons suggest they ought to be very non-interactive, like neutrinos, to not cause massive physics problems). They operate by circulating "up" to higher speeds, going to lower and lower energy states (as tachyons approach infinite speed they give-up their mass-energy content). Like my example in the Death Star thread about neutronium-density fuel - its not antimatter or any conventional material. As long as the density remains above the threshold for the Schwartzchild solution, I don't see the problem.

[Ender]

Primary issue with the fuel is cramming it in there - too dense and it starts fusing, which will destroy the ship. Increasing density hurts that far more. Breaking the E=mc^2 law helps for reactants, but not for ejecta - you are still limited to a few hours peak operation.

Why would tachyons fuse? They could be highly non-interactive for all we know (in fact, most theories involving tachyons suggest they ought to be very non-interactive, like neutrinos, to not cause massive physics problems). They operate by circulating "up" to higher speeds, going to lower and lower energy states (as tachyons approach infinite speed they give-up their mass-energy content). Like my example in the Death Star thread about neutronium-density fuel - its not antimatter or any conventional material. As long as the density remains above the threshold for the Schwartzchild solution, I don't see the problem.

Hypermatter is tachyonic fuel. What hypermatter reacts with and the ejecta is made of is not. That is still a concern even if tachyonic matter is noninteractive.

Also, while I'll post the breakdown later, I get about 80 hours of peak operation for the death star, or 3 shots. That's with the peak power being 1*10^33 watts. Up the peak power and the number of shots increases, with the EFPH reamaining largely the same. As the high recoil from the shots necessitates a higher mass, which inturn necessisitates a high power, increasing the power and decreasing shot time is the best solution.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Tachyonic annhiliation according to Dr. Saxton is not a situation where it "reacts" with another annhiliant like M/AM, but it simply liberates its mass-energy as it speeds up. Some exotic material can obv interact with hypermatter, but why must it be dense? Only the mass-energy for powering the ship has to be.

[Ender]

Tachyonic annhiliation according to Dr. Saxton is not a situation where it "reacts" with another annhiliant like M/AM, but it simply liberates its mass-energy as it speeds up. Some exotic material can obv interact with hypermatter, but why must it be dense? Only the mass-energy for powering the ship has to be.

It needs something to collide with to accelerate it to release its mass energy, my understanding was that that would result in the annihilation of the object it collided with.

As for why fuel sources must be dense, consider the mass we are talking about here - the reactants themselves are almost 1/6th the total mass of the ship, and the ejecta mass 5 times the mass of the reactants and structure combined. And these must fit into fuel silos that snuggly fit into the ships hull. While not neutronium levels, the fuel is still in excess of the density of the core of jupiter or a brown dwarf.

[Darth Wong]

Tachyonic annhiliation according to Dr. Saxton is not a situation where it "reacts" with another annhiliant like M/AM, but it simply liberates its mass-energy as it speeds up. Some exotic material can obv interact with hypermatter, but why must it be dense? Only the mass-energy for powering the ship has to be.

It needs something to collide with to accelerate it to release its mass energy, my understanding was that that would result in the annihilation of the object it collided with.

That something might not necessarily be an object. It could be a field effect of some sort, presumably created by the reactor.

[Surlethe]

That something might not necessarily be an object. It could be a field effect of some sort, presumably created by the reactor.

I had always assumed they were accelerating the tachyons with electromagnetic fields of some sort, like we use in particle accelerators. I wonder what form the energy the hypermatter gives off will take as it accelerates; would it just be radiation?

[Ender]

Tachyonic annhiliation according to Dr. Saxton is not a situation where it "reacts" with another annhiliant like M/AM, but it simply liberates its mass-energy as it speeds up. Some exotic material can obv interact with hypermatter, but why must it be dense? Only the mass-energy for powering the ship has to be.

It needs something to collide with to accelerate it to release its mass energy, my understanding was that that would result in the annihilation of the object it collided with.

That something might not necessarily be an object. It could be a field effect of some sort, presumably created by the reactor.

My understanding, based largely on the writings in A Brief History of Time was that tachyonic matter behaved in a manner identical to antimatter based on the fact that the spin of its quarks were reversed due to the time effects of FTL travel. As such, it would have taken matter for the interaction. But I freely admit my ignorance about superluminal physics. Perhaps Surlthe's new thread would be a better place to take this discussion?

[Darth Wong]

Since tachyons are purely hypothetical phenomenon, and no actual evidence exists for tachyons whatsoever, it seems rather premature for anyone, even the illustrious Stephen Hawking, to state any definitive claims about the nature of tachyonic matter.

In any case, you don't necessarily need a M/AM reaction to convert mass to energy so I don't see what difference it makes.

[Ender]

That something might not necessarily be an object. It could be a field effect of some sort, presumably created by the reactor.

I had always assumed they were accelerating the tachyons with electromagnetic fields of some sort, like we use in particle accelerators. I wonder what form the energy the hypermatter gives off will take as it accelerates; would it just be radiation?

If you want to get into terms of the mechanics behind it, I rather suspect that they use a type of particle accelerator and use carry regular matter. As the stream enters the reactor it passes through a field effect similar to that from the Gree Hypergates converting the matter stream from baryonic matter (which is safe and easy to transport) to tachyonic matter (which would need a complex mechanism similar to a penning trap to hold at a minimum, and possibly something more exotic). This would also explain why we only see one kind of fuel silo - they only carry one kind of fuel and alter one as needed. By balancing fuel between ejecta and high power operations they could drastically increase the operating time of either.

Fanon, but it neatly ties together existing canon, physics, observations, and allows plenty of wiggle room for other things.

[Ender]

In any case, you don't necessarily need a M/AM reaction to convert mass to energy so I don't see what difference it makes.

I know of hawking radiation, M/AM annihilation, tachyonic acceleration, and that if superstring is true and you had some kind of magic uber-nano-pico-femo-tech you could do it mechanically by twisting the strings. What other ways are there to convert mass to energy?

Also, do you have any comments about my above posted calcs? I'd be interested in a form of bastardized peer review.

[Kuroneko]

Will you show me yours if I show you mine?

That's rather forward of you. I didn't check every single line, but other than an incorrect unit of force, the calculations are look fine until this point:

Delta V (m/s) = 4.8*10^8
Mass Ratio = 5.03

Sanity check: ΔV is greater than the speed of light.

Formulas and Assumptions
Vd/Ve=ln(MR)

Suppose that a fraction R is the fraction of rocket mass remaining, and that the exhaust has velocity is u in units of c = 1. Then the speed of the rocket if v = [1 - R^{2u}]/[1 + R^{2u}]. Here, you have R = 0.199, giving v = 0.924. I'm rather certain that we had a thread on this some time ago that included a derivation of this formula.

Non-Ejecta Mass = Total Mass - (Total mass/(MR+1))

How are you differentiating between "non-ejecta" and "dry"? Are you perhaps trying to distinguish exhaust mass with its mass before burning? It's not necessary--just have two categories: fuel and non-fuel. In terms of fuel efficiency as a fraction ε of fuel rest mass that is converted to energy, u = [2ε-ε²]^{1/2}. It is completely determined by the exhaust velocity; the actual exhaust mass will be fuel mass minus its kinetic energy.

Volume of a pyramid = (W*D)*L*0.3

Well, to an order of magnitude, yes.

... - my personal suspicion is that it is very much akin to standard steel with the exotic portions being contained in a hyperdiamond lattice that substitutes for the usual carbon molecules that break up the crystaline strucutre on the iron. From what I've been able to find, in theory it should behave like the descriptions we have in the canon.

Whatever concoction one may dream up with standard materials, it definitely will not compare to the canonical energy absorption abilities. Perhaps SW armor simply has a very large number of `micro-shields' woven into its structure; when it is stated that TIEs have no shields, under this interpretation only the standard macroscopic structure. Despite the copious amounts of hand-waving in this explanation, I think overall it does better than most, especially compared to `neutronium'.

--

I had always assumed they were accelerating the tachyons with electromagnetic fields of some sort, like we use in particle accelerators. I wonder what form the energy the hypermatter gives off will take as it accelerates; would it just be radiation?

If the tachyons are affected by electromagnetism, they must be charged or otherwise have substructure that is charged. In that case, Cherenkov radiation will produce almost arbitrarily high amounts of energy from any fixed amount of charged tachyons. The problem would be getting it to stop before the generator destroys the generator and everything in its vicinity, e.g., a few galaxies. This makes tachyonic generators a bit ludicrous unless tachyons obey completely unknown laws of physics, in which case there's no basis for analysis.

[Ender]

Will you show me yours if I show you mine?

That's rather forward of you. I didn't check every single line, but other than an incorrect unit of force,

Which point was that at? I know at one point I dropped a "*" between kg and m/s simply to make the end numbers line up right.

the calculations are look fine until this point:

Delta V (m/s) = 4.8*10^8
Mass Ratio = 5.03

Sanity check: ΔV is greater than the speed of light.

Which is not a problem. If I go to 50% the speed of light and back down ten times, I will never exceed the speed of light, but my total delta V will still be 3*10^9 m/s.

Formulas and Assumptions
Vd/Ve=ln(MR)

Suppose that a fraction R is the fraction of rocket mass remaining, and that the exhaust has velocity is u in units of c = 1. Then the speed of the rocket if v = [1 - R^{2u}]/[1 + R^{2u}]. Here, you have R = 0.199, giving v = 0.924. I'm rather certain that we had a thread on this some time ago that included a derivation of this formula.

Honestly, I'm not following what you are saying here. However, I do remember the thread in question, and I later found out that the answer given there (that I would need a seperate equation to compensate for relativity) was incorrect.

Non-Ejecta Mass = Total Mass - (Total mass/(MR+1))

How are you differentiating between "non-ejecta" and "dry"?

Dry is the structural mass - hull, bulkheads, machinery, etc. Non-ejecta is that plus the reactor fuel.

Are you perhaps trying to distinguish exhaust mass with its mass before burning? It's not necessary--just have two categories: fuel and non-fuel.

No, I'm trying to differentiate between the two kinds of fuel - that for the reactor and that for the engine.

In terms of fuel efficiency as a fraction ε of fuel rest mass that is converted to energy, u = [2ε-ε²]^{1/2}. It is completely determined by the exhaust velocity; the actual exhaust mass will be fuel mass minus its kinetic energy.

Again, not quite following what you are saying here, but if I understand you right I'm really confused - the ejecta is totally seperate from the reactants, so why would I be trying to convert the ejecta into energy? If the engine provided both thrust and power like some real life engine designs do that would make sense (and it would make a lot of sense for starfighters, but alas that idea is contradicted by canon), but the reactor and engines are totally seperate in SW designs.

Volume of a pyramid = (W*D)*L*0.3

Well, to an order of magnitude, yes.

If I wanted to be truly pendantic I'd use lightweave to get an internal volume or dunk a dyecast in a graduated cylinder. I'm aware that the formula is not wholly accurate for the scenario, but it is the closest we have until I'm able to get my hands on some models and dunk them in a graduated cylinder.

... - my personal suspicion is that it is very much akin to standard steel with the exotic portions being contained in a hyperdiamond lattice that substitutes for the usual carbon molecules that break up the crystaline strucutre on the iron. From what I've been able to find, in theory it should behave like the descriptions we have in the canon.

Whatever concoction one may dream up with standard materials, it definitely will not compare to the canonical energy absorption abilities. Perhaps SW armor simply has a very large number of `micro-shields' woven into its structure; when it is stated that TIEs have no shields, under this interpretation only the standard macroscopic structure. Despite the copious amounts of hand-waving in this explanation, I think overall it does better than most, especially compared to `neutronium'.

Canonically the materials themselves are never cited to have extraordinary energy absorption properties - closest I know of is that MJ and low GJ range blasts to little against heavy armor on ground craft and MJ level shots from blasters can't punch through TIE viewports, though heavier ones can. Those aren't necessarily grossly out of line provided you have sufficient armor mass and the thermal conductivity is high enough. The real bizarre part of SW materials is their stress handling abilities, which some of the accounts I've read suggest hyperdiamonds could handle, as they are theoretically able to take hundreds of times the stress even theroetical high end nanotubes and buckballs could. It won't totally match the insane lenghts their materials are supposed to go, but its the closest to anything I've read.

And as it would be spherical, one could englobe a stable strangelet from the heart of a neutron star in the hyperdiamond to meet the neutronium conditions there as well. This would mesh with the unoffical offical line that the armor isn't neutronium, but that it has a lattice of neutronium running through it by setting tiny balls of it next to each other.

[Ender]

Tore this argument apart and posted it in the wiki, will post at TFN later as well.

[Illuminatus Primus]

My understanding, based largely on the writings in A Brief History of Time was that tachyonic matter behaved in a manner identical to antimatter based on the fact that the spin of its quarks were reversed due to the time effects of FTL travel. As such, it would have taken matter for the interaction. But I freely admit my ignorance about superluminal physics. Perhaps Surlthe's new thread would be a better place to take this discussion?

Re-read the power generation section on the SWTC. As tachyons speed up, they drop to lower energy states, and (presumably) give off energy in the form of photons or something. Its like electrons descending from an elevated energy state and giving off photons (which is responsible for photosynthesis). As long as the tachyons are accelerated they will have to liberate their mass-energy. And they'll probably have a tendency to do so constantly anyway since thermodynamics demands that all matter seeks a lower energy state. The reactor probably never turns "off". But like Kurenko said, tachyonic physics are a big ? so I think Dr. Saxton chose it on purpose because its less likely to be internally contradicting. Not to mention since its already invoked in the FTL system it could make for a power-generation mechanism.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That something might not necessarily be an object. It could be a field effect of some sort, presumably created by the reactor.

I had always assumed they were accelerating the tachyons with electromagnetic fields of some sort, like we use in particle accelerators. I wonder what form the energy the hypermatter gives off will take as it accelerates; would it just be radiation?

If you want to get into terms of the mechanics behind it, I rather suspect that they use a type of particle accelerator and use carry regular matter. As the stream enters the reactor it passes through a field effect similar to that from the Gree Hypergates converting the matter stream from baryonic matter (which is safe and easy to transport) to tachyonic matter (which would need a complex mechanism similar to a penning trap to hold at a minimum, and possibly something more exotic). This would also explain why we only see one kind of fuel silo - they only carry one kind of fuel and alter one as needed. By balancing fuel between ejecta and high power operations they could drastically increase the operating time of either.

Fanon, but it neatly ties together existing canon, physics, observations, and allows plenty of wiggle room for other things.

This doesn't seem reconcilable with the description of a hypermatter ballast where the hyperdrive simply "shifts" the ship from baryonic reference states to tachyonic ones (where by definition it becomes FTL). The complex mass-energy of the ship is supposed to remain similar. That's what Mike always references to mean the math is consistent even if its obv handwavium.

[Kuroneko]

Which point was that at? I know at one point I dropped a "*" between kg and m/s simply to make the end numbers line up right.

The seconds should be squared.

If I go to 50% the speed of light and back down ten times, I will never exceed the speed of light, but my total delta V will still be 3*10^9 m/s.

This makes sense in Newtonian mechanics, if a bit unusual, but in relativity, you need to be looking at change in momentum instead. If you say Δv = 1.90c, for example, it makes quite a lot of difference whether it was an accelerated to 0.950c and back to zero or two such operations to 0.475c. Burning fuel changes the rocket's momentum in more or less orthodox manner, with only a slight difference if the exhaust is relativistic, but the way this change of momentum corresponds to a change of velocity is highly nonlinear if the current velocity is a sizable fraction of c.

Honestly, I'm not following what you are saying here. However, I do remember the thread in question, and I later found out that the answer given there (that I would need a seperate equation to compensate for relativity) was incorrect.

But you do. With apologies to ClaysGhost, I did make a mistake in having one too many factors of γ at that time, but that only changes the interpretation of u. Otherwise, the calculation works out to the same result. If your exhaust velocity is u, then for a mass change Δm, the corresponding momentum change is Δp = uΔm. The rest of the derivation is the same. The local acceleration α = [dp/dτ]/m = u dm/m transforms with a factor of Γ³ = [1-v²]^{-3/2} as before; the dτ/dt = Γ takes away one factor of Γ, giving dv/(1-v²) = u[dm/m], or atanh(v) = -u log R. This is equivalent to v = [1-R^{2u}]/[1+R^{2u}].

Again, not quite following what you are saying here, but if I understand you right I'm really confused - the ejecta is totally seperate from the reactants, so why would I be trying to convert the ejecta into energy?

Because that's how rockets work. Let's say you observe some amount exhaust of mass M and velocity u. In the process of expelling it, the rocket mass is decreased by both the rest mass M and the mass-equivalent of the kinetic energy of the exhaust. Normally, this energy is taken from chemical potential energy, which is so small as to allow one to ignore its mass-equivalent with impunity. It is no longer ignorable if the exhaust is relativistic. Try looking at it backwards. In burning some amount of fuel Δm and using it for exhaust with some fraction ε going into kinetic energy (K = εΔm), the rest mass of the exhaust will be ΔM = (1-ε)Δm. The kinetic energy is Κ = (γ-1)[(1-ε)Δm] = εΔm, solving which gives γ = 1/[1-ε] and u = [γ²-1]^{1/2}/γ = [2ε-ε²]^{1/2}. Note that then Δp = γuΔM = uΔm, as above.

If the engine provided both thrust and power like some real life engine designs do that would make sense (and it would make a lot of sense for starfighters, but alas that idea is contradicted by canon), but the reactor and engines are totally seperate in SW designs.

It doesn't matter. The reactors take energy from somewhere, and thus the mass of some material is decreased. If the reactor works by converting mass to energy, then there you go. If it works by fusion, then the mass of fusion products is less than the reactants, in according to E = mc². If it works by combustion, then this mass decrease corresponds to the change in chemical potential energy. The exact mechanics of the reactor are irrelevant. No matter where the energy comes from, it is taken out of the mass of the ship in some fashion.

[Illuminatus Primus]

So does hypermatter work by simply E=mc² if it is sufficiently dense (obviously something above black hole density), or must the inertia not effect the ship somehow?

[Mange]

Sarli has posted a lengthy response:
+http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Ven ... _Destroyer

Apparently, Dr. Saxton is the problem...