Actually, i don't even know how you would controll the trajectory of a singularity? As in, what is stopping a targeted ship from simply turning away from it? At least missiles can trach a target, and beam weapons are instantaneous.

First, beam weapons aren't instantaneous.

Thats a good question. By the point you've researched black hole guns, though, you've pretty much crossed the line between science fiction and fantasy anyways.

My guess is that it's a combination of a hyperdrive assisted launch and whatever extra dimensional stuff they're messing about with to get stuff like HD spike drivers...

Plus, I imagine the target would be pulled in via the gravitational field, too!

But, even with the lower tech mass drivers, consider the following:
1)The distances are measured in light seconds, but given relativistic speeds, thats not particularily long to toss a tiny piece of metal at relativistic speeds
2)Spacecraft accelerate very slowly, and if they want to avoid relativistic effects, they aren't travelling particularily fast when not using hyperdrive
3)Some of the mass drivers are supposed to be hyperdrive assisted, meaning that they'll be moving significantly faster than light
4)The early mass drivers at least are (according to the tech descriptions) firing like machine guns, meaning that their target is feeling the equivalent of a micrometeorite storm

Turning away from mass driver weaponry is as likely as dodging a laser, in that sense. Not too easy, though I suppose when you're a light second away, there's room to dodge lasers, too.

Turning away from mass driver weaponry is as likely as dodging a laser, in that sense. Not too easy, though I suppose when you're a light second away, there's room to dodge lasers, too.

Mass drivers are about as fast as missiles and beam weapons definately are instantanious... going by what i see in the combat screen. Also the speed of the ships seems also to be faster than some of the slower moving missiles! Crazy eh?

I think that the ship viewer is not representative of the actual combat, and is more of a special effects, make it look pretty kind of thing. I don't really consider it relevant for anything more than a visual treat.

Given the tech descriptions, it appears that the intent was to be somewhat realistic as far as the technological and environmental limitations go. Thanks to that, the lasers aren't instantaneous, the mass drivers may be moving FASTER than the lasers, depending on how the hyperdrive assisted launch works. Missiles have hyperdrive engines (at least, the DA flavour text in the intel screens says they are!), so they're definitly going faster than c.

Actually, they can't go faster than c, nothing really can. What can happen is shortening distances through folding space, whatever that means    Seriously though, GC's propulsion system uses hyperdrive to "fold" space and thus travel "faster" but with below-c speeds. Of course, traveling in-system and fighting battle in "folded" space is kinda strange, but then it's a game. Heh.

I'm aware that faster than c speed is impossible, but where space folding techniques are used, the object doesn't HAVE to go faster than light to cover distance faster than a photon.

If I've read stuff correctly, ships don't actually fight while in hyperdrive, so the only spacefolding going on is for weapons that require it.

I meant intercepting fleets (which leads to battle) while in hyperspace or whatever. Folding space in a manner that allows you to intercept another fleet already with its own "folding" of space can't be an easy thing if you know what I mean   

Depending on the model hyperdrive is based on, it could be entirely impossible to attack a ship in transi

However, for navigational purposes, a ship would have to stop at some point to get it's bearings, since it would be basically flying blind while in transit. That'd be when you shoot them...

To get its bearings?! Humm. Flying blind?! Humm. In order to fold space, don't you think you *must* know what you're doing?  
We can't really discuss how the model works, because basically it doesn't It's designed to be simple, not really solid.
But we digress...

Well there are different travel methods used in top rate sci fi shows. So it is just a matter of seeing which ones work best in the series and go from there.

Personally i prefer the Startrek warp drive system. That system seems to fit best with the way this game works.

The difference being that in ST impulse engines are used for normal space travel (including in-system travel, but GC's star system model doesn't help there). That's my biggest gripe with the propulsion techtree branch, ion and impulse engines are so out of place there...

The difference being that in ST impulse engines are used for normal space travel (including in-system travel, but GC's star system model doesn't help there). That's my biggest gripe with the propulsion techtree branch, ion and impulse engines are so out of place there...

Yea, true, perhaps putting them in the wrong order is just a way of distancing the copyright threat?

Iceman, for the record, I was talking about a system (the Alcubierre drive... it's on wikipedia if you want to know more) that isn't a creation of scifi, but an attempt by a mathematician to run Einstein's equations in reverse. It has some wierd energy requirements, but it's not primarily fantasy like most Sci-fi's methods of interstellar propulsion (including star trek).

Also, if you checked the tech descriptions, you'd realize that the ion engine and impulse drive techs aren't that much out of place. The ion drive is merely a stable way to move a ship through warped space, and is strapped to a hyperdrive... increasing the real space speed that is then multiplied via hyperdrive.

Also, if you checked the tech descriptions, you'd realize that the ion engine and impulse drive techs aren't that much out of place. The ion drive is merely a stable way to move a ship through warped space, and is strapped to a hyperdrive... increasing the real space speed that is then multiplied via hyperdrive.

Of course the ion drive is technology that actually exists! but it is very weak form of propultion. They only use it because it is extremely energy/weight efficient compared to other propultion methods.

that isn't a creation of scifi, but an attempt by a mathematician to run Einstein's equations in reverse. It has some wierd energy requirements, but it's not primarily fantasy like most Sci-fi's methods of interstellar propulsion (including star trek).

If it dousn't exist, then it's pure fantasy despite mathematical 'theories'.

I'm aware of what modern Ion drives are. The issue mentioned in the tech description is stability, so however much weaker it is thatn conventional realspace engines, if it can be used while using a hyperdrive but other engines cannot, it has very practical applications.

There are plenty of ways to justify it not being a step backwards, the biggest one being that the ion drive is an ADDITION to the hyperdrive engine, not a self sufficient engine in and of itself.

In the sense that the Alcubierre drive is theory, yes, its entirely imaginary at this point. However, it's got much more firm roots in science than, say, Star Wars' hyperdrive or Star Trek's warp drive, and doesn't rely on imagined (though technically possible) phenomena like a "slipstream" or "hyperspace". Because it's based on physical laws and constraints (ie, it is not rules out in current theories) and is theoretically possible (the negative energy requirement could possible be met by the "dark energy" that is fueling the universe's expansion), it is infinitly more realistic than some method of faster than light travel that relies on pieces of the universe we either have no knowledge of or don't exist entirely. Calling a theoretical technology and an imaginary technology equally fantasy isn't fair or accurate at all.

Calling a theoretical technology and an imaginary technology equally fantasy isn't fair or accurate at all.

You sound like 'imaginary' or 'fantasy' are in some way derogatory? Truth be known, the imagination is a far more powerful scientific instrument than anything else in existance! I personally give that much higher regard than non proven mathematical theories.

If you want to talk about what is more likely to be possible, then i would still go with the Startrek model.

Also, if you checked the tech descriptions, you'd realize that the ion engine and impulse drive techs aren't that much out of place. The ion drive is merely a stable way to move a ship through warped space, and is strapped to a hyperdrive... increasing the real space speed that is then multiplied via hyperdrive.

Oh but I did, I have the habit of only posting about what I know. The thing is, the propulsion is *still* HD, whatever "normal" propulsion you have underneath the HD field. Why do you have HD, then HD Plus, then ion and impulse? Does it make any sense to you? The descriptions are there for fluff purposes, and not doing a very good job at it in this case (the only real difference being the same old lower size - with extra components? - , higher cost).
So what do you think is the normal propulsion system with the basic HD?
Let me remind you that we're in an age where humans discovered fusion, and the HD is a byproduct of that discovery...

(Alcubierre drive or Warp Drive...)

Actually, the Star Trek model has often been compared to the Alcubierre drive, due to similarity in terms and the general ideas behind them. However, if you check the wikipedia article on the Alcubierre drive, you'll find that the Star Trek scriptwriters haven't gone with that. They leave the technical specifications of the technology intentionally vague, for plot reasons.

Suffice it to say, the Alcubierre drive is a more likely option than a warp drive simply because the former is based on an equation, and all one needs is to find a distribution of mass and energy (exotic or otherwise) that satisfies that, and the latter is... well, what? No mechanism or attempted explanation of the hows and whys is given. The warp drive (in Star Trek terms) is a product of fiction as a mechanism to enable faster than light travel. The Alcubierre drive is a mathematical model/prediction of how to circumvent the limitation of light speed without really going faster than light. While Alcubierre's metric could be eventually proven impossible by advances in quantum mechanics and cosmology, it at least is clearly explained and analysed.

@ Iceman:
Alright, in that sense, I suppose Ion drive is a misleading term. My guess is that it's intended as follows:
*The hyperdrive does its own warping of space, sending the ship in the direction it's pointing at.
*The Ion drive allows the ship to accelerate while in warped space, which would increase the speed by a larger factor than an Ion drive would in real space by itself. In this way, in order to achieve the same speed, less space would be presumably needed.

Of course, by that logic, why wouldn't the ship just accelerate BEFORE using hyperdrive with more powerful engines? Huh. I guess I was wrong!

I still think impulse drive could be easily a step up over hyperdrive, given the description. If the hyperdrive make's x jumps per second (stopping either because the warp field collapses or they need to check their bearings) and the impulse drive simply makes those jumps FASTER, then I can definitely see how it could be a faster method of moving through space.

They leave the technical specifications of the technology intentionally vague, for plot reasons.

Actually i do believe Startrek provide detailed schematics of all their technology to keep all the fans happy. Although i have not personally read any of it.

So long as you don't watch the original series of Startrek, all the startrek warpdrive technology is kept pretty much above board script wise.

Are you sure that such schematics actually explain the physics involved?

Are you sure that such schematics actually explain the physics involved?

i have no idea, but i'm sure they would have had to have done a good job to shut those freaky fans up!

Alright, in that sense, I suppose Ion drive is a misleading term. My guess is that it's intended as follows: *The hyperdrive does its own warping of space, sending the ship in the direction it's pointing at. *The Ion drive allows the ship to accelerate while in warped space, which would increase the speed by a larger factor than an Ion drive would in real space by itself. In this way, in order to achieve the same speed, less space would be presumably needed.

I never thought there would be any doubt about this. The HD drive creates the fold, the engines move the ship through that fold. I don't see why acceleration in folded space would be higher than in normal space though, since the ship actually moves in normal space, after it is folded.
In practical terms it's doesn't really matter what the engines are called, I just can't see why they're not all either HD I, II, III etc (asa in, who cares what normal propulsion is being used, leave that for the fluff), or chemical, ion, impulse, etc (HD is implicitly assumed, since that's the fulcral point in the storyline). It's a matter of consistency, that's all.

I still think impulse drive could be easily a step up over hyperdrive, given the description. If the hyperdrive make's x jumps per second (stopping either because the warp field collapses or they need to check their bearings) and the impulse drive simply makes those jumps FASTER, then I can definitely see how it could be a faster method of moving through space.

Hmm, I'm not really sure what the implications of a warp field collapsing on you would be... can't be a good thing, right?   
I also don't see this method of propulsion as being composed of (multiple) jumps. You have a point of origin, a destination, you move from one to the other through normal space (which kinda precludes the use of the word jump IMO) through a fold, however long that may take. You have 2 different sets of drives, one to fold space and another to actually move the ship. You can increase speed by improving either, but they remain separate drive systems. That's how the propulsion system is designed as far as I understand it.

Depends on the setup... keep in mind that I'm arguing based on the assumption of an Alcubierre warp drive, which may or may not be remotely like what Stardock ultimately decided to based hyperdrive on.

Actually, after giving it some thought, I've concluded at an Ion Drive would be useless for travelling through warped space (again, assuming an Alcubierre style warp bubble). A warp drive doesn't merely fold space, that folding (one way at the front and the opposite in the back, hence the need for exotic matter) actually moves the ship, without actually moving it! It gets around the light speed limitation by essentially moving spacetime itself, not accelerating the ship. The ship inside the bubble would feel no acceleration and would experience no wierd relativistic effects from said acceleration. You would actually need no kind of engine other than the warp drive to move somewhere.

Why Ion drive would then be useless is that such a system (if I understand it correctly) doesn't really care if the acceleration is before or after the use of the warp drive... so why not use more powerful engines to accerate before the jump rather than some weak little Ion drive?

A possible counterpoint to this, though, is that even really powerful fuel based systems are going to run out of fuel eventually. Most rockets burn if up pretty quick, and coast a lot of the way to their destination. An Ion drive would last as long as it's components and energy source, and with a cold fusion reactor attached to it, who knows how powerful they could get?

Also, as for a warp field collapsing... again, totally speculative, but chances are that a warp field could dissapate fairly quickly after being formed, if not immediately. I don't think there would be any adverse effects... the ship would be encased inside the bubble in unwarped space, so no tidal forces or additional gravity would be acting on it.

I read a paper on the feasibility of the Alcubierre drive, and one of the problems with it is that there is no way to tell what's ahead of you, and barring some REALLY sophisticated and powerful sensor equipment, you wouldn't be able to accurately plan out such a journey ahead of time (especially over, say, parsecs of space and several weeks of transit). The solution? Multiple, smaller jumps, checking your heading each time, which you might end up doing anyways if the warp bubble collapses fast enough, anyways.

I read a paper on the feasibility of the Alcubierre drive, and one of the problems with it is that there is no way to tell what's ahead of you, and barring some REALLY sophisticated and powerful sensor equipment, you wouldn't be able to accurately plan out such a journey ahead of time (especially over, say, parsecs of space and several weeks of transit). The solution? Multiple, smaller jumps, checking your heading each time, which you might end up doing anyways if the warp bubble collapses fast enough, anyways.

This post reminds me of a question... does anyone know if gravity is instantaneous or not? in the sense that it takes 9 minutes for light to reach earth from the sun, so if the sun suddenly vanished, we would not know it for 9 minutes! so i wonder what lenght of time would pass befor we felt the gravitational effects of the sun vanishing?

if the gravitational effects are instantaneous then would it not be possible to navigate in faster than light speeds using gravitational maps of the galaxy?

This post reminds me of a question... does anyone know if gravity is instantaneous or not? in the sense that it takes 9 minutes for light to reach earth from the sun, so if the sun suddenly vanished, we would not know it for 9 minutes! so i wonder what lenght of time would pass befor we felt the gravitational effects of the sun vanishing?

That is quite possibly one of the best questions I've read on any forum in along time. I hope somebody comes up with the answer....

Gravity is also limited by the speed of light. Assuming crazy, rule bending stuff like warp drives and black holes aren't in the equation, no information (that includes forces) is ever detected faster than light from the source can reach it.

I've thought about gravity based sensor systems myself... but not only are the mathematics absurdly difficult, it'd require some very, very sensitive instruments... instruments so sensitive they may not even be physically possible! The effect of gravity simply diminishes far too quickly to be able to measure it as far out as you're talking about.