Forums of the Megaverse®

The average speed for military spacecraft is 5 ly per hour. Three galaxies has pricing for speeds up to 7 ly/hr does anybody have any speeds higher and what stories did you use to get to those speeds?

Exotic/Dark Matter propulsion, micro-fold 'skipper' drives, Ludicrous Speed Engines("My god! They've gone PLAID on us!")....

gadrin wrote:

taalismn wrote:Exotic/Dark Matter propulsion, micro-fold 'skipper' drives, Ludicrous Speed Engines("My god! They've gone PLAID on us!")....

I still think the "We've been jammed" is the best. lots of good lines in that show.

Princess Leia FTL Turbo: "It's like someone got out and gave us a push!"

Rasberry! (something something about only Lone Star would do that dont quite recall)

No sir! I did not see you playing with your dolls sir!

A bit more seriously:
I would use a system like the FTL engine has a "warp" rating (as well
as power need, but that is another chapter in "building your craft"),
which is then divided by the vessel weight (loaded, max weight in
tonns), and the end result gives your FTL rating.

But - appearently - Palladium canon uses the idea of the FTL drive
being a black box, the more powerfull, the more expensive.
However, a 5 ly/h rated drive costs the same regardless if it
is fitted on a small ship (like a runner) or a cruiser/dreadnought.

So, while such a drive takes up like 80% of the costs of
a fighter, but a mere 3-4% of a cruiser.

Therefore the bigger is your ship, the faster she goes FTL in canon.

Adios
KLM

KLM wrote:But - appearently - Palladium canon uses the idea of the FTL drive being a black box, the more powerfull, the more expensive. However, a 5 ly/h rated drive costs the same regardless if it is fitted on a small ship (like a runner) or a cruiser/dreadnought.
So, while such a drive takes up like 80% of the costs of a fighter, but a mere 3-4% of a cruiser.
Therefore the bigger is your ship, the faster she goes FTL in canon.

actually, the biggest issue with a reactionless drive would be power use. the more power you can divert to the drive, they more thrust you can generate, thus the 'faster' you can go.

the ship's mass would be a factor, but the drive itself might be fairly low mass. the big mass expenditure would be the powerplant needed to generate the power required, and the structural reinforcement required to mount the drive so it doesn't rip out of the hull when turned on.


but i agree that the costs are a bit messed up.

glitterboy2098 wrote:

KLM wrote:But - appearently - Palladium canon uses the idea of the FTL drive being a black box, the more powerfull, the more expensive. However, a 5 ly/h rated drive costs the same regardless if it is fitted on a small ship (like a runner) or a cruiser/dreadnought.
So, while such a drive takes up like 80% of the costs of a fighter, but a mere 3-4% of a cruiser.
Therefore the bigger is your ship, the faster she goes FTL in canon.

actually, the biggest issue with a reactionless drive would be power use. the more power you can divert to the drive, they more thrust you can generate, thus the 'faster' you can go.

the ship's mass would be a factor, but the drive itself might be fairly low mass. the big mass expenditure would be the powerplant needed to generate the power required, and the structural reinforcement required to mount the drive so it doesn't rip out of the hull when turned on.


but i agree that the costs are a bit messed up.

We are kinda talking about the same thing.

Like if the FTL drive is the "paralell" of an electric engine,
it takes a bigger, and more "hungry".

So, to reach the same speed, a scooter's engine is much smaller
and probably much cheaper, than that of a truck.

Of course, there is the issue of structure, batteries (or generator)
and even work hours...

Which do not change the basic fact: most propulsion modest
are cheaper for small vehicles, than large ones.

Adios
KLM

Well... That is probably because bikes are - usually - air-cooled,
while cars are mostly liquid-cooled.

Plus your average family car hauls more weight (including its own)
for less fuel and requires much less maintenance.

Adios
KLM

On the issue of engine vs ship size, I think the closest there has been to such a system for Palladium might be MIO. Each engine type takes up X # of units etc, and the bigger the ship the more space can be given over to fuel reserves etc.

Dont have it with me atm but I THINK there's some sort of ultimate price difference between say a 2/LY engine for a fighter sized ship vs 2/LY for a say.. battleship or something.

Could be wrong though.

Kesslan wrote:On the issue of engine vs ship size, I think the closest there has been to such a system for Palladium might be MIO. Each engine type takes up X # of units etc, and the bigger the ship the more space can be given over to fuel reserves etc.

Dont have it with me atm but I THINK there's some sort of ultimate price difference between say a 2/LY engine for a fighter sized ship vs 2/LY for a say.. battleship or something.

Could be wrong though.

MiO did not have FTL system as I recall.

Aliens Unlimited maybe?

Adios
KLM

Ehh.. I'll have to double check then. But I thought at least MIO could actually hit FTL. Though the engines are definately 'primitive' compared to most space settings.

Though I could have been thinking of AU's drives as well. The setup for AU is a touch similar. Even if it isnt using FTL grades it may still serve as a potential example. Just replace the wierd speed raitings with FTL speeds or something.

Not directly no. But I thought at least on the bigger ships it was actually possible to get a speed raiting high enough as to be considered a low level FTL drive.

Been ages since I made space craft based off that system though.

We are kinda talking about the same thing.

Like if the FTL drive is the "paralell" of an electric engine,
it takes a bigger, and more "hungry".

if we keep to the paralell, keep in mind that for electric engines, output and power requirements rise faster than the engines physical size. an engine that puts out twice the horsepower is generally going ot be less than twice the size, and will usually need 2-3 times more power to run.

Kesslan wrote:Not directly no. But I thought at least on the bigger ships it was actually possible to get a speed raiting high enough as to be considered a low level FTL drive.

Been ages since I made space craft based off that system though.

not sure how you can claim that, since the canon ship construction maxes out at mach 5.... hardly 'near FTL'. (and technically not even enough to stay in orbit)

i think you are thinking of AU. AU actually ignored STL, and you bought drives based on FTL speeds. STL movement was 1 MACH of accell per melee, until you activated your FTL mode.

glitterboy2098 wrote:

Kesslan wrote:Not directly no. But I thought at least on the bigger ships it was actually possible to get a speed raiting high enough as to be considered a low level FTL drive.

Been ages since I made space craft based off that system though.

not sure how you can claim that, since the canon ship construction maxes out at mach 5.... hardly 'near FTL'. (and technically not even enough to stay in orbit)

i think you are thinking of AU. AU actually ignored STL, and you bought drives based on FTL speeds. STL movement was 1 MACH of accell per melee, until you activated your FTL mode.

Ah well probably it then. That or maybe I'm thinking of Manhunter. There's some similarities between it and MIO cept the latter is FLT capable I belive.

@Darkmax. I think you misunderstood what I ment. Technically speaking, as I understand it at least. The ship may not start off at FTL speed but could theoretically 'work up to' such a speed if I understand the whole concept properly in the first place.

The main difference being one is pretty much "BANG!" FTL. The other is a much longer build up of sustained thrust and equally requiring a long time of deceleration at the far end. That's certainly how it's worked in some Sci-Fi books. Ships could hit low end FTL speeds (1-3 ly) but needed several days of sustained thrust to get up to top speed and to slow down again when nearing the end of the trip.

I think part of the confusion on my part also just comes from the fact that some of the MIO drive types as a whole put out some stupidly high numbers and I no longer recall what the cap is on various engine types. It's honestly been ages since I properly went through that book and I've yet to ever actually use the setting (I've stolen odd bits of tech out of it and once had a PC in a game I GMed that crashed to earth but thats about it)

Darkmax wrote:Manhunters had FTL drives.

Aye. That may be where the actual confusion comes from. The actual drive types available were effectively identical if I recall. Or maybe it is AU. I know the 3 books share some similarities in any case. I've often borrowed heavily from all 3 books to make more primitive ships for PW etc.

AU is the least advanced in terms of FTL speed, Manhunter's
FTl drives can reach 32 ly/day (a bit more than 1,3 ly/h),
so they are comparable.

Adios
KLM

Darkmax wrote:

Kesslan wrote:@Darkmax. I think you misunderstood what I ment. Technically speaking, as I understand it at least. The ship may not start off at FTL speed but could theoretically 'work up to' such a speed if I understand the whole concept properly in the first place.

The main difference being one is pretty much "BANG!" FTL. The other is a much longer build up of sustained thrust and equally requiring a long time of deceleration at the far end. That's certainly how it's worked in some Sci-Fi books. Ships could hit low end FTL speeds (1-3 ly) but needed several days of sustained thrust to get up to top speed and to slow down again when nearing the end of the trip.

All of their drives can achieve near light speed slowly, but without a FTL "bubble", they will not be able to go beyond it. I understood you perfectly there. Because real world science places light speed as the absolute. Going faster means disintegrating into your most basic components... atoms.

actually, because of Reletivity, as you approach the speed of light, your mass increases. as your mass increases, your power requirements to accellerate further increases. the faster you go, the 'heavier' you get and the harder it is to go faster.
the speed of light is an asymptote, the point where one cannot reach. you can only come infinitely close. lightspeed itself increases your mass and the amount of energy needed infinitely.

FTL drives 'sidestep' this limit by altering space, entering a new universe, or translating to a higher # of dimensions, all of which bring into play different sets of limits and allow travel faster than light within that narrow method.

for example, 'hyperspace' involves translating to a higher # of dimensions beyond our basic 3. when at 4D or higher space, our 3 dimensional universe is condensed and crumpled, and a ship can move from one point to another at STL speeds in hyperspace, and traverse vast quantities of our 3D universe quickly. they don't exceed the speed of light in their frame of referance, but appear to travel FTL if observed by someone in the 3D universe.

or 'warp drive', the Alcubierre metric, which expands space behind a ship, contracts it infront, and moves a peice of space itself between destinations at FTL speeds. any ship inside this 'bubble' of moving space is at rest, uneffected by reletivity.


Project Rho has some very good sections on STL vs. FTL travel and the physics involved in each.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel also does a decent job of imparting the issues.

Darkmax wrote:hmm... but ain't it true that as one approaches light speed, the atomic adhesiveness of one's makeup unravels? That's what I remember. That as one approaches the speed of light one literally fall apart.

i've never heard such a thing. since we've never gotten mass up to that velocity, how would we know?

Ultimately it's -all- theory untill such a time as we actually manage to develop a real FTL drive.

Given the lack of serious efforts to get into space and beyond by the human race as a whole I figgure that's a long long way off.

I mean we still havent launched the supposed planned maned mission to Mars yet. Nor are we really anywhere near such a stage.