Questions about Anti-FTL and Link Device Technology

Toshiro

Game Master
Jul 10, 2006
4,513
335
108
32
#1
Okay, I was wondering about the state of Anti-FTL Technology in the setting, since it was in flux before and I don't know if the wiki accurately reflects the modern view or not. I also want to know how they impact Link Device/Link Siphon technology.

The Link Device and Link Siphon technology, which were approved and in use in YE 30 for MFY designs, work by using a wormhole to access the core of a star or quasar. I've been informed that being within the hill sphere of a celestial object hinders FTL; and yet the use of a Link Device or its power-generating sibling, the Link Siphon, essentially require that one end of the wormhole they employ to function be in the Hill Sphere of a star. Wormholes are also, historically, the most vulnerable systems to Anti-FTL efforts.

Do the Link Device and Link Siphon simply not function in this new setting, would they have systems to defeat this limitation in place, or do they just ignore this limitation by merit of linking one end of the wormhole to the exact middle of the celestial body -- where the gravitational forces are all canceled out?

I suspect that the ship can have internal systems to stabilize the wormhole on the ship's end, since gravity manipulation is standard fare technology. I felt I should verify the setting's current stance on this before even considering using the wormhole Link technology anywhere.
 

Edto Xar'Sivaree

Lizard Freak!
Necromancer
Jan 5, 2016
1,343
369
108
23
#2
As far as I am currently aware, ship based FTL systems do not work in a star system. If what you are talking about is like a warpgate that is stationary and you fly through it to wind up in another location, I think that is available.
 

Doshii Jun

Perpetual player
Game Master
Aug 14, 2005
12,501
1,832
143
36
Pasco, Wash. (UTC -8)
#3
@Wes is at a con and not regularly available for a few days.

As it stands, no one is using the Link Siphon tech that I know of. It's possible that we could grandfather it in and make something up to justify it, but that has to be up to Wes, Nash and their advisers.

It's also possible that wormholes are a special case not affected by our FTL rules.

Views and opinions on this are welcome, but let's keep it civil.

The most updated view is below. Hyperspace travel alludes to anti-FTL, but what is below is what guides such fields. I.e. Technological interdiction is no longer permitted.

https://stararmy.com/wiki/doku.php?id=guide:ftl:anti-ftl_field
 
Likes: Ametheliana

Toshiro

Game Master
Jul 10, 2006
4,513
335
108
32
#4
If we have to make up something to grandfather it in, the fact that gravitational forces cancel each other out at the core of a celestial body and create a realm of functionally zero gravity might be a suitable excuse to allow it to work. I'm also considering it as a possibility for mining heavier elements from the cores of old stars created by stellar nucleosynthesis.

Of course, this excuse may or may not be necessary. Depends on aforementioned peoples' input.
 

Fred

Game Master
Oct 25, 2005
10,485
2,277
138
38
Montreal
#5
The current manifesto for Anti-FTL interdiction is that it's not that much of a big thing right now. It's more conditions for FTL travel.

SARP FTL tech is sensitive to gravity shadows emitted by celestial bodies. Most of the time he drive systems can manage to function, even within the vicinity of a star's gravity mass, but when that mass overlaps significantly with that of other bodies, such as planet and even asteroid mass, then it's usually safer to disengage the drive system rather than risk the vessel tearing itself appart through gravity shear. The boundary we usually take for that is a planet's Hill sphere - once you hit that point, you're going to move on from there using your sublight engines.

The whole purpose of interdiction was limiting how conveniently a ship can run away. In this case, closing on a point of interest in space means that you make the commitment to not immediately be able to escape. The farther in you are, the harder it will be to leave.

Another method of hindering the use of FTL drives is graviton beams. If you slap a graviton beam on a ship, you hinder that ship's ability to safely blast off to FTL. It's the mean available for man-made FTL denial.

* * *

I don't have any other specifics to offer beyond that.
 

Zack

Site Supporter
FM of Uso's Organization
Game Master
Jan 21, 2005
7,611
1,867
138
#6
FTL travel is not possible within 'a few hours' travel time of a planet. Why this happens is nebulous at this point. Note this explicitly means that hill-spheres are not the cause of no-FTL areas since that would mean you could warp in only a few seconds from a planet.

Interdiction is no longer in play. Graviton beams also don't shut down FTL anymore. FTL tech does not seem to be affected by gravity control anymore.

Wormholes do not work in SARP and are to be phased out, unless you don't want to then just do whatever you want. This was a policy that was in place at one time and it seems to have been ignored or rescinded at some point since wormholes have been poping up again. There doesn't seem to be any restriction on where wormholes can be used as they seem to work just fine even in anti-FTL zones.
 
Likes: raz

Toshiro

Game Master
Jul 10, 2006
4,513
335
108
32
#8
I would like an official decision on it because I plan to use and further develop the technology. It may have applications for mining or additional combat uses. The technology might be useful as a fundamental concept for multiple ship functions.
 
Last edited:
A

ArsenicJohn

#9
So graviton beams no longer can be used to stop a ship from jumping? What about stopping STL movement?
 

FrostJaeger

On Hiatus
Site Supporter
Setting Submissions Mod
FM of Elysia
Game Master
May 1, 2015
1,965
998
158
the East Coast, USA
goo.gl
#10
So graviton beams no longer can be used to stop a ship from jumping? What about stopping STL movement?
@ArsenicJohn - this article demonstrates that @Zack was apparently misinformed on the topic of graviton beams when he made his earlier post. Regarding STL movement, the wording of this article suggests that graviton beams can indeed be utilized as "tractor beams" - although I don't know what their limitations would be.
 
Last edited:

Zack

Site Supporter
FM of Uso's Organization
Game Master
Jan 21, 2005
7,611
1,867
138
#11
Another day, another post where Frost doesn't know what he is talking about.
 
Likes: Ira

Zack

Site Supporter
FM of Uso's Organization
Game Master
Jan 21, 2005
7,611
1,867
138
#13
Interdiction is no longer permitted in the setting. This page is preserved for reference, and has no impact on the RP.
Literally the first thing on the page.^

Wes himself said there are no longer any methods of stopping a ship from going to FTL (including graviton beams).
 

raz

A Princess of Yamatai
Necromancer
Setting Submissions Mod
FM of the Kudhacari
Game Master
Jul 21, 2005
2,704
1,638
138
30
I was everywhere.
#14
I was under the impression that, due to the wiki line Frost posted, we're just supposed to pretend like FTLi doesn't exist whatsoever and that any impacts from it formerly existing themselves do not exist.

That's just my understanding of the "state of technology" for interdiction.
 

FrostJaeger

On Hiatus
Site Supporter
Setting Submissions Mod
FM of Elysia
Game Master
May 1, 2015
1,965
998
158
the East Coast, USA
goo.gl
#15

Attachments

Zack

Site Supporter
FM of Uso's Organization
Game Master
Jan 21, 2005
7,611
1,867
138
#16
Wes said that about subspace detonators (which were removed, then weren't).

The article is also out of date, since you can't stop a ship with gravaton beams anymore. Same with the Hill-sphere comment since that is also wrong.
 

FrostJaeger

On Hiatus
Site Supporter
Setting Submissions Mod
FM of Elysia
Game Master
May 1, 2015
1,965
998
158
the East Coast, USA
goo.gl
#17
Wes said that about subspace detonators (which were removed, then weren't).

The article is also out of date, since you can't stop a ship with gravaton beams anymore. Same with the Hill-sphere comment since that is also wrong.
Where is/are the post(s) that support your claim, then?
 

Zack

Site Supporter
FM of Uso's Organization
Game Master
Jan 21, 2005
7,611
1,867
138
#18
Go look at the last FTL revision thread, or any RP on the site.

Wes says it takes 'a few hours' to get to a planet once you exit FTL, which means Hill-Spheres don't stop starships (As SARP ships would take only seconds to cross that distance, or days if you use a star's hill sphere)

Similarly, Gravaton beams aren't used in RP to stop FTL anymore since that was the whole point of the interdiction roll back.
 

FrostJaeger

On Hiatus
Site Supporter
Setting Submissions Mod
FM of Elysia
Game Master
May 1, 2015
1,965
998
158
the East Coast, USA
goo.gl
#19
Go look at the last FTL revision thread, or any RP on the site.

Wes says it takes 'a few hours' to get to a planet once you exit FTL, which means Hill-Spheres don't stop starships (As SARP ships would take only seconds to cross that distance, or days if you use a star's hill sphere)
Wes also said in that same exact post that Hill Spheres do stop starships, @Zack.

apuu.sh_yiHXR_ea94f5ab6d.png

Similarly, Gravaton beams aren't used in RP to stop FTL anymore since that was the whole point of the interdiction roll back.
This post says otherwise, @Zack.
 

Zack

Site Supporter
FM of Uso's Organization
Game Master
Jan 21, 2005
7,611
1,867
138
#20
Yeah, I'm basically ignoring the post that says 'interdiction beams are out, but you can use interdiction beams instead'. Don't expect Graviton beams to work in RP after the site had a while thing about making sure they don't work.

Similarly, Wes's post is literally the one that my example is based on. 2 hours 8 minutes at SARP STL speeds requires a hill sphere the size of a small star. Yamatai proper is far too small for that and Yamatai's star is far too large. People keep saying 'hill spheres' but hill spheres don't actually correlate to anything in the RP.