Hyperdive vs. conduits-- i.e. is hyperdrive really "faster?"

[Vympel]

Of course, there's already some people peddling a line of bullshit that "hyerspace lanes" are "go faster tubes" based on the TCW film, saying that since the Republic was "cut off" from the majority of its army since the Separatists have seized control of they lanes, therefore that must mean they can't travel very fast (or at all) without them

[Serafina]

Well, hyperdrive lines ARE faster. But its more like a highway versus a bad road.
At least there is evidence that is is like that (CloneWars, various games).

This also explains the "cut off" situation - if you need twice as long to reach your destination, your enemy has an HUGE advantage. Its even worse if you want to gather forces for an assault, ship supplies etc.
No fancy "no hyperdrive without lanes" required.

[Vympel]

I believe another explanation (perhaps together with a reasonable reduction in speed) may be found if one looks at the situation in Rookies - i.e. the Rishi outpost which, if the all-clear signal stops, results in a Republic fleet snapping into realspace right in front of a Separatist fleet at the drop of a hat - if the Separatists are able to place the regions of space where the clone army is under surveillance so that any ships transiting the general area will be subject to immediate attack, the need to bypass this by avoiding at least some, or all, of the surveillance posts (be they ships or space stations or whatever) becomes important -if you can delay how long you are detected for for any period of time, you stand a much better chance of getting to where you're going before you can be attacked with overwhelming force.

It's the idiocy of "LOL, hyperspace travel is impossible/ takes years outside of the lanes" that's inane.

[Darth Wong]

Well, hyperdrive lines ARE faster. But its more like a highway versus a bad road.

AFAIK there is no evidence that the space in the lanes is intrinsically faster. It's probably more like a well-lit road at night versus a poorly lit one. You go faster because you can see that the way ahead is clear for a long distance, not because the space is physically easier to move through for some reason.

[Serafina]

AFAIK there is no evidence that the space in the lanes is intrinsically faster. It's probably more like a well-lit road at night versus a poorly lit one. You go faster because you can see that the way ahead is clear for a long distance, not because the space is physically easier to move through for some reason.

Well, i just wanted to describe the level of difference (i.e: they are not x10 times faster or something), but your description is way more accurate - uncluding the most likely reason they ARE faster.

[bz249]

Well, hyperdrive lines ARE faster. But its more like a highway versus a bad road.

AFAIK there is no evidence that the space in the lanes is intrinsically faster. It's probably more like a well-lit road at night versus a poorly lit one. You go faster because you can see that the way ahead is clear for a long distance, not because the space is physically easier to move through for some reason.

Well we have no evidence whether there are some physical processes which makes them faster or not (AFAIK aircrafts travelling to the east try to catch the 'jet stream' because the strong winds make them faster and reduces fuel consumption... aircraft going to west try to avoid it of course)... so there may be some physical processes which makes hyperlanes somewhat faster. However since we really do not know hyperspace physics all of such arguments are moot. What we know that hyperlanes are the preferred choice (unless someone has a really good reason to avoid them), but hyperdrive works on every possible alternative route.

[The Spartan]

Well, hyperdrive lines ARE faster. But its more like a highway versus a bad road.

AFAIK there is no evidence that the space in the lanes is intrinsically faster. It's probably more like a well-lit road at night versus a poorly lit one. You go faster because you can see that the way ahead is clear for a long distance, not because the space is physically easier to move through for some reason.

Well we have no evidence whether there are some physical processes which makes them faster or not (AFAIK aircrafts travelling to the east try to catch the 'jet stream' because the strong winds make them faster and reduces fuel consumption... aircraft going to west try to avoid it of course)... so there may be some physical processes which makes hyperlanes somewhat faster. However since we really do not know hyperspace physics all of such arguments are moot. What we know that hyperlanes are the preferred choice (unless someone has a really good reason to avoid them), but hyperdrive works on every possible alternative route.

Heard of gravity? My hypothesis is that hyperlanes are longish, charted courses that are free of any obstacles or significant gravity interference that might pull a craft out of hyperspace. That doesn't mean that a craft is traveling slower at a given point outside the lanes, only that it has to make more course corrections to avoid running into things, etc. and thus takes longer to otherwise reach a destination.

[bz249]

Heard of gravity? My hypothesis is that hyperlanes are longish, charted courses that are free of any obstacles or significant gravity interference that might pull a craft out of hyperspace. That doesn't mean that a craft is traveling slower at a given point outside the lanes, only that it has to make more course corrections to avoid running into things, etc. and thus takes longer to otherwise reach a destination.

Maybe... or maybe not. As you pointed out is a hypothesis and any hypothesis which gives out the following results:
- hyperlanes are more economical and faster, so the commerce prefers them
- this margin is miniminal from military perspective

might work. That's why I really don't know wheter it worth trying to find a theory describing hyperlanes.

[Samurai Rafiki]

I was under the impression that warp either takes ST ships to some quasi-space where they can pass through physical obstructions or is slow enough that they can drop out of warp, make minor corrections to avoid whatever they're about to slam into, and continue on. Hyperspace, on the other hand, I think is much more physical, such that hyperspace lanes are just long stretches of space without any obstructions. Didn't Darth Wong even use the peculiar tactic of hyperspeed ramming in his fan fic? It's a devastating kamikaze move when intentional, but a rather rude shock if you're taking your space-winnebago out for a family camping trip on Naboo.

Forgive my ignorance because I'm new, but what's the status on the debate over the presence or efficacy of FTL sensors in SW? The speeds are so fantastically high that I can't see how they'd even be practical enough to be developed unless the sensor range was similarly fantastically high. That's why I figured they developed interdictor fields; since finding and pursuing a ship in hyperspace is impractical enough to be impossible or at least futile, the better idea is simply to sit on one of the clear routes from one place to another and drag passersby out of hyperspeed. That's why there was no pursuit of the Falcon after she jumped, and also why they were unable to figure out that Alderaan was gone until dropping out of hyperspace into its debris field. The absence of these sensors would also make hyperspace lanes all the more necessary, if not vital, since you wouldn't have any warning if you were about to hit something and turn into the very thin lining of a very deep crater on some stray asteroid.

I have another question; what about maneuverability within hyperspace? The films never make any suggestion that a ship has to take off at a certain trajectory in order to get where they're going. ST ships obviously warp forwards and it was made clear that severe changes in trajectory would rip a ship to pieces at warp speed. No such indication is made, however, in SW. Solo simply points the Falcon away from the ISD to get to Alderaan in ANH, and the Queen's ship in TPM just takes off from the palace and rises through the blockade without any indication of orienting itself towards Coruscant. I haven't read many of the novels, but I'm fairly certain in Hard Merchandise (forgive me, I like Fett ) that a ship trying to evade Slave I jumps into hyperspace and ends up behind Boba's ship. All of it points to the thought that, though blind, hyperspeed is much more flexible than warp.

As for the OP, yes detailed navigational information would be necessary before the Empire could start its campaign to subjugate the Feds, but they occupy such a dismally miniscule portion of their miniscule galaxy that navigating the routes by simply looking in a direction and jumping as far as you can see its clear, dropping out and looking again would not be too onerous even if they were unable to acquire maps of their own. What's more, probes could do it faster and easier. As for the Feddies selling the information, why would the dirty commies need money, and why would they get that money by selling their conquerors the maps they need to more easily affect the subjugation?

[Questor]

Forgive my ignorance because I'm new, but what's the status on the debate over the presence or efficacy of FTL sensors in SW?

FTL Sensors in SW got pretty well covered here.

There are a number of incidents in SW history that seem to require them, the first that come to mind are the two cases of the Millennium Falcon being tracked (or expected to be tracked). In the first case, which you mentioned, with the first Death Star, the Falcon was tracked to Yavin IV, even the use of a beacon implies that they have some way of tracking through FTL. In the second case, when the Falcon grappled the Star Destroyer in ESB, the crew of the SD expected to be able to track the Falcon, even if she went into hyperspace.

There are also many mentions in the EU, but I don't have my books available at the moment, so someone else will have to dredge those up for you

[Darth Lucifer]

I was under the impression that warp either takes ST ships to some quasi-space where they can pass through physical obstructions or is slow enough that they can drop out of warp, make minor corrections to avoid whatever they're about to slam into, and continue on.

In "Year of Hell," the danger of sub-micron sized particles of interstellar dust pose a threat to Voyager after the navigational deflector was damaged, thus demonstrating that the ship was still in real space.

In "Fury" Voyager did indeed manually drop out of warp long enough to make needed course corrections and then go back to warp when navigating some anomaly of the week. This was mentioned by Janeway and Paris:

JANEWAY: Excuse me, Doctor. Tom, what's the first thing they teach you about maneuvering at warp?

PARIS: Faster than light, no left or right. When possible, maintain a linear trajectory. Course corrections could fracture the hull.

[Samurai Rafiki]

In the first case, which you mentioned, with the first Death Star, the Falcon was tracked to Yavin IV, even the use of a beacon implies that they have some way of tracking through FTL.

That doesn't really point to the presence of sensors for tracking individual ships, does it? If they could just find the Falcon in hyperspace and follow it to where it was headed, they wouldn't have needed the beacon. It's entirely plausible that the beacon was necessary to give the Falcon's location through the trip, or that the beacon simply started flashing on the opposite end of the journey.

The second case is compelling though. My only thought is that they would have been aware of the actual jump and didn't see it, or would have been able to match the calculations performed by the computer. They were perplexed because they didn't see the Falcon make a jump, they just lost it completely. I have a sickly feeling that Occam is unsatisfied with my explanation though, and I'll most certainly be going back to review the movie, and I invite further evidence from the EU.

The link provided deals mostly with an ISD's ability to detect a warp or warp strafing ST ship, not with an ISD's ability to detect a ship moving in hyperspace. Warp Strafing I can see has been thoroughly dealt with not only as unfounded but also futile. And even if it did work, the weapon yields are so low that an ISD captain would simply giggle before crushing them like bugs. And even if one were to acknowledge that warp strafing could actually eventually harm an ISD, there's the issue of them actually catching an ISD before it simply leaves. And even if you grant that, Sun Tzu has your answer. What do you do when the enemy is intelligent and powerful? "I would say first seize something that he loves, for then he will listen to you." Ignore the strafing enemy, target civillian centers on the nearest convenient planet. All in all, the ability to detect the ships in warp I think is rather moot.

In "Year of Hell," the danger of sub-micron sized particles of interstellar dust pose a threat to Voyager after the navigational deflector was damaged, thus demonstrating that the ship was still in real space.

In "Fury" Voyager did indeed manually drop out of warp long enough to make needed course corrections and then go back to warp when navigating some anomaly of the week.

I see, so that points to them navigating around something if they're approaching it at warp speed, which they can do much more effectively at warp speeds. I still don't think, for the purposes of the hyperspace lanes discussion, that hyperspace allows a ship to move through things, which is why uncluttered hyperspace lanes are needed to move quickly from the vicinity of point A to the vicinity of point B without becoming an unpleasant cosmic smear.

[Questor]

In the first case, which you mentioned, with the first Death Star, the Falcon was tracked to Yavin IV, even the use of a beacon implies that they have some way of tracking through FTL.

That doesn't really point to the presence of sensors for tracking individual ships, does it? If they could just find the Falcon in hyperspace and follow it to where it was headed, they wouldn't have needed the beacon. It's entirely plausible that the beacon was necessary to give the Falcon's location through the trip, or that the beacon simply started flashing on the opposite end of the journey.

They would still need to have a way to communicate with the beacon FTL. Another explanation for the need for the beacon could be ship ID. Say the Falcon jumps somewhere with a lot of traffic, and then jumps out. Without the beacon, how do you know which ship is which?

I've always thought there were far to many holes in the beacon plan for it to be believable as the only string in the bow. It has advantages, but also to many ways it could be fooled. For example, had the group's arrival been a planned infiltration, as the Imperials had to assume, the Falcon should have been abandoned in space, preferably above the Galactic Plane and the beacon left with her. Another problem is that the Falcon could drop its passengers off on one planet, and continue to another. While the Empire could destroy the planet the Falcon is on, how could they know that it is the right planet?

I think there is to much risk of failure in the beacon plan alone, there had to be some kind of sensor system to avoid the limitations inherent in the beacon only plan.

[Darth Wong]

Forgive my ignorance because I'm new, but what's the status on the debate over the presence or efficacy of FTL sensors in SW?

It should have been over the moment Han Solo walked into the game room on the Millennium Falcon in ANH and announced that he had lost his Imperial pursuers. First, it means that the ISDs tracked him into hyperspace and followed him. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it means he had some way of detecting the ISDs behind him.

In order to track an object which is following you, you need some way of getting information to propagate from the trailing ship to you, fast enough to catch you. Such detection is impossible if you cannot meet this condition. And Han Solo was able to detect whether he had lost his pursuing ISDs while still in hyperspace.

SW sensors have FTL capabilities, period. The people who claim otherwise are either clinging to EU bullshit or they're Trektards.

[Questor]

Forgive my ignorance because I'm new, but what's the status on the debate over the presence or efficacy of FTL sensors in SW?

It should have been over the moment Han Solo walked into the game room on the Millennium Falcon in ANH and announced that he had lost his Imperial pursuers. First, it means that the ISDs tracked him into hyperspace and followed him. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it means he had some way of detecting the ISDs behind him.

Thank you! That's the scene I've been racking my brain trying to remember. I knew there was something in ANH that put paid to the entire question, but couldn't for the life of me think of anything other than the escape from the Death Star.

[Samurai Rafiki]

Ah, I feel much better. Also, this helps to bolster the idea that hyperspace lanes are a matter of convenience rather than necessity, and helps answer another niggling question I was starting to have; one of traffic. Though assuredly not common, if you can run into things at hyperspeed, it would be very bad to have any type of collision along these heavily traveled hyperspace lanes. It would be like traveling on a 12 lane highway in light traffic with no dividers blind. Sure, an accident isn't likely, but the miniscule likelihood is too high for such high consequences. The necessity is satisfied, the canon is unquestionable, I was wrong. Thank you for indulging my tangent long enough to educate me.

Returning to the OP though, the idea that conduits are faster than hyperdrive is preposterous.

[Darth Lucifer]

In "Year of Hell," the danger of sub-micron sized particles of interstellar dust pose a threat to Voyager after the navigational deflector was damaged, thus demonstrating that the ship was still in real space.

In "Fury" Voyager did indeed manually drop out of warp long enough to make needed course corrections and then go back to warp when navigating some anomaly of the week. This was mentioned by Janeway and Paris:

JANEWAY: Excuse me, Doctor. Tom, what's the first thing they teach you about maneuvering at warp?

PARIS: Faster than light, no left or right. When possible, maintain a linear trajectory. Course corrections could fracture the hull.
**Note: Italicized text was snipped when I was quoted.

I see, so that points to them navigating around something if they're approaching it at warp speed, which they can do much more effectively at warp speeds.

How do you figure? The example I provided from "Fury" demonstrates the exact opposite of that.

[Stark]

Mike, Han may have known he was being pursued by detecting the pursuers sensor energy passively and detected that he 'lost' it. He seemed too confident for this, however, and I'm not sure what the EU says about passive sensors.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, Han may have known he was being pursued by detecting the pursuers sensor energy passively and detected that he 'lost' it. He seemed too confident for this, however, and I'm not sure what the EU says about passive sensors.

How does this change my point at all? How would passive sensors pick up anything unless there's some kind of energy which is moving from the pursuing ISDs to Han's ship at a rate sufficient to catch Han's ship? This changes nothing: someone's sensors must be sending out pings which outrace Han's ship, hence they obviously have FTL sensors.

[Stark]

Certainly, it doesn't change your point at all for the reasons you state. Someone's energy has to be catching the Falcon. I think I'm getting too used to nitpicking debates.

[Samurai Rafiki]

I see, so that points to them navigating around something if they're approaching it at warp speed, which they can do much more effectively at warp speeds.

How do you figure? The example I provided from "Fury" demonstrates the exact opposite of that.

Sorry about the snipping, I reasoned I could respond to the main thrust of your point without taking up too much vertical space, and I'm still not quite certain about the proper etiquitte.

You're right, that was much too vauge. I meant that they would use the same process from "Fury" but not so precise and computer driven. Basically, since they can't pass through overly massive objects at warp speed, they simply continue on a certain trajectory until they see something in front of them, slow down, move around it, and kick back up again. I was still operating under the mistaken assumption that ships in hyperspace are relatively blind compared to ships at warp, and was noting that seeing things in front of them and avoiding them would be much easier for a ship that travels by warp than one in hyperspace, since (still under my mistaken sensors assumption) you'd have enough time to do something about it after you catch sight of it.

Is that how Star Trek ships move over long distances at warp speed, or is there something I've missed? Surely they could go quite a while without encountering something massive enough to cause a problem, but it would be silly to think that they don't have a protocol in place. I worry though that it might be similarly silly to think that the protocol has been consistent between two separate episodes, much less two series. Do they simply turn gradually enough that the hull can handle the stress, or do they do the "Fury" maneuver? Or is it impossible to determine because no ship has ever gone such a distance without the Captain encountering a bout of ADD and saying "Oooh, I know we're supposed to be somewhere but let's take a detour and look at the pretty subspace/quantum/temporal/random particle anomaly"?

[Darth Lucifer]

Do they simply turn gradually enough that the hull can handle the stress...

I would think that's the case, seeing as how in other episodes maneuvers have been performed at warp. In "Pegasus" you can plainly see the ship on the ENT-D's viewscreen turning; the streaking starfield indicates they are indeed at warp speed, though I don't know off the top of my head how fast they were going at the time.

[Mr Bean]

Thread locked due to necro,
New topic here
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=135337