[AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse

gS49 wrote:

> 60c isn't "nearly instantaneous"? It's also a question of distance. If
> you're within a lightyear of the source--in the same star-system for
> example--60c is functionally instantaneous--faster than a human can react to
> the data.

Divide 365 by 60. A one light year delay would be cut to 6 days. Even I
can figure out stuff in that length of time.

A one light minute delay would be cut to one second, closer to "faster
than a human can react to the data".
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but Offbreed <offbreed_106 RemoveThis @hotmail.com>
wrote on Sun, 08 Oct 2006 09:52:02 -0700 in alt.books.david-weber :
>gS49 wrote:
>
>> 60c isn't "nearly instantaneous"? It's also a question of distance. If
>> you're within a lightyear of the source--in the same star-system for
>> example--60c is functionally instantaneous--faster than a human can react to
>> the data.
>
>Divide 365 by 60. A one light year delay would be cut to 6 days. Even I
>can figure out stuff in that length of time.

>A one light minute delay would be cut to one second, closer to "faster
>than a human can react to the data".

OTOH, there are tremendous advantages for astronomers with that kind of
lead time. FTL sensor reports solar/stellar event with in 2% of the time
till the light arrives. You could turn on the recorders for a nova or
other unpredictable event, and have them up and running in the time between
the event and the wave front arrival.

Hmmm, not sure I'd want to be the crew manning the Astrographic Survey
Ship "Hotfoot", but ... it's a thought.
--
pyotr filipivich
Typos, Grammos and da kind are the result Emmanations of Penumbra
Fortesque Consulting: Teaching Pigs to Sing since 1986.
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 09:52:02 -0700, Offbreed
<offbreed_106 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>gS49 wrote:
>
>> 60c isn't "nearly instantaneous"? It's also a question of distance. If
>> you're within a lightyear of the source--in the same star-system for
>> example--60c is functionally instantaneous--faster than a human can react to
>> the data.
>
>Divide 365 by 60. A one light year delay would be cut to 6 days. Even I
>can figure out stuff in that length of time.
>
>A one light minute delay would be cut to one second, closer to "faster
>than a human can react to the data".

i don't think there has even been a hint that this ftl commo is
practical as a means of comms between systems. there would seem to be
enough gravitational "noise" out there to drown out modulated signals.
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but forkliftramp.com
<Brian_knowspam.McDonald DeleteThis @shaw.ca> wrote on Mon, 09 Oct 2006 01:57:08 GMT in
alt.books.david-weber :
>On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 09:52:02 -0700, Offbreed
><offbreed_106 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>gS49 wrote:
>>
>>> 60c isn't "nearly instantaneous"? It's also a question of distance. If
>>> you're within a lightyear of the source--in the same star-system for
>>> example--60c is functionally instantaneous--faster than a human can react to
>>> the data.
>>
>>Divide 365 by 60. A one light year delay would be cut to 6 days. Even I
>>can figure out stuff in that length of time.
>>
>>A one light minute delay would be cut to one second, closer to "faster
>>than a human can react to the data".
>
>i don't think there has even been a hint that this ftl commo is
>practical as a means of comms between systems. there would seem to be
>enough gravitational "noise" out there to drown out modulated signals.

But what is the range? I'm sure the usual distance cubed ratio would
apply, and much as a drum or gong to be heard a hundred yards away would be
played much differently than one intended to be heard a few feet away, so
the transmitter from "way out there" would have a slower "baud" due to the
need to really "bang the gong" to be heard over the distance, while one a
few thousand kilometers away would be able to send and receive a much more
detailed series of "notes".

In other words, the power requirements to make a grav pulse readable
six light hours away (the distance of Pluto from the sun), would be less
than those to reach across the ten to twenty light minutes between Earth
and Mars. Less stress on the systems, a faster cycle time, "more
bandwidth". Set relays up at 10 light minute distances, and you have "near
instantaneous" communication throughout the solar system.

Next thing you will know, Ensigns will be complaining because it is
taking "forever" to contact someone on the far side of the solar system,
while old space dogs will blather on about "When I joined the Navy, we
didn't have these new fangled FTL buoys, had to use lasers to communicate!
Took hours just to get an answering machine."
"Yeah Chief, and you guys programmed laser heads by hand, using nothing
more than a wrench and chronograph!"


--
pyotr filipivich
Typos, Grammos and da kind are the result Emmanations of Penumbra
Fortesque Consulting: Teaching Pigs to Sing since 1986.
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 15:49:40 GMT, "gS49" <gersmith00.RemoveThis@verizon.net>
wrote:

>60c isn't "nearly instantaneous"? It's also a question of distance. If
>you're within a lightyear of the source--in the same star-system for
>example--60c is functionally instantaneous--faster than a human can react to
>the data. If you're a few dozen lightyears away, there's a noticable but
>deal-with-able lag, as will lightspeed communication with our Moon. At
>several hundred lightyears, if the gravity waves are detecable at all, the
>delay becomes significant.

????

Star systems are normally light hours across. 60c means light-hours
become minutes. Thus it takes several minutes for a FTL signal to
cross a star system. Instant??
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 01:57:08 GMT, forkliftramp.com
<Brian_knowspam.McDonald.TakeThisOut@shaw.ca> wrote:

>i don't think there has even been a hint that this ftl commo is
>practical as a means of comms between systems. there would seem to be
>enough gravitational "noise" out there to drown out modulated signals.

Someday someone is probably going to figure out how to make some sort
of gravity laser. Probably a nasty weapon (it very well might go
through even a wedge) and also FTL comms across interstellar ranges.
It probably won't see a lot of use, though, as it is still much slower
than messages carried by starship.
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

In article <goaji2lq2ijq95iv2rt6q3t3ajo4s1ri10.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
forkliftramp.com <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.DeleteThis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 09:52:02 -0700, Offbreed
> <offbreed_106.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >gS49 wrote:
> >
> >> 60c isn't "nearly instantaneous"? It's also a question of distance. If
> >> you're within a lightyear of the source--in the same star-system for
> >> example--60c is functionally instantaneous--faster than a human can react
> >> to
> >> the data.
> >
> >Divide 365 by 60. A one light year delay would be cut to 6 days. Even I
> >can figure out stuff in that length of time.
> >
> >A one light minute delay would be cut to one second, closer to "faster
> >than a human can react to the data".
>
> i don't think there has even been a hint that this ftl commo is
> practical as a means of comms between systems. there would seem to be
> enough gravitational "noise" out there to drown out modulated signals.

I think that even if they ran a line of communications buoys between
important systems, they'd still be slower than sending a courier ship
through hyperspace.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:23:25 -0500, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel DeleteThis @hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 01:57:08 GMT, forkliftramp.com
> <Brian_knowspam.McDonald DeleteThis @shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> i don't think there has even been a hint that this ftl commo is
>> practical as a means of comms between systems. there would seem to be
>> enough gravitational "noise" out there to drown out modulated signals.
>
> Someday someone is probably going to figure out how to make some sort
> of gravity laser. Probably a nasty weapon (it very well might go
> through even a wedge) and also FTL comms across interstellar ranges.
> It probably won't see a lot of use, though, as it is still much slower
> than messages carried by starship.

"Grav lance"

I don't think DW is going to do such a thing in the Honorverse.

Andrew L.
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

In article <op.tg6lixok9oglv5 RemoveThis @roderick.workgroup>,
"Andrew L." <boskone2k2 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:23:25 -0500, Loren Pechtel
> <lorenpechtel RemoveThis @hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 01:57:08 GMT, forkliftramp.com
> > <Brian_knowspam.McDonald RemoveThis @shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> i don't think there has even been a hint that this ftl commo is
> >> practical as a means of comms between systems. there would seem to be
> >> enough gravitational "noise" out there to drown out modulated signals.
> >
> > Someday someone is probably going to figure out how to make some sort
> > of gravity laser. Probably a nasty weapon (it very well might go
> > through even a wedge) and also FTL comms across interstellar ranges.
> > It probably won't see a lot of use, though, as it is still much slower
> > than messages carried by starship.
>
> "Grav lance"
>
> I don't think DW is going to do such a thing in the Honorverse.

Except that he already has. It is a very short range weapon though. It
can cut through a side wall, opening a ship up to all sorts of other
nasty weapons.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:57:38 -0500, Don Sample <dsample.TakeThisOut@synapse.net> wrote:

> In article <op.tg6lixok9oglv5.TakeThisOut@roderick.workgroup>,
> "Andrew L." <boskone2k2.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"Grav lance"
>>
>> I don't think DW is going to do such a thing in the Honorverse.
>
> Except that he already has. It is a very short range weapon though. It
> can cut through a side wall, opening a ship up to all sorts of other
> nasty weapons.
>


Like the grav lance I mentioned in the first line of my post?

My point was that I think DW has taken gravitic weapons technology as far
as he cares to.

Andrew L.
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but Don Sample <dsample.RemoveThis@synapse.net>
wrote on Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:44:12 -0400 in alt.books.david-weber :
>In article <goaji2lq2ijq95iv2rt6q3t3ajo4s1ri10.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
> forkliftramp.com <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.RemoveThis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 09:52:02 -0700, Offbreed
>> <offbreed_106.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >gS49 wrote:
>> >
>> >> 60c isn't "nearly instantaneous"? It's also a question of distance. If
>> >> you're within a lightyear of the source--in the same star-system for
>> >> example--60c is functionally instantaneous--faster than a human can react
>> >> to
>> >> the data.
>> >
>> >Divide 365 by 60. A one light year delay would be cut to 6 days. Even I
>> >can figure out stuff in that length of time.
>> >
>> >A one light minute delay would be cut to one second, closer to "faster
>> >than a human can react to the data".
>>
>> i don't think there has even been a hint that this ftl commo is
>> practical as a means of comms between systems. there would seem to be
>> enough gravitational "noise" out there to drown out modulated signals.
>
>I think that even if they ran a line of communications buoys between
>important systems, they'd still be slower than sending a courier ship
>through hyperspace.

Not a realistic option.

I would suspect that the range on these things is "limited" and
stringing a line of "buoys" from here to there, in normal space, would
prove to be a right royal payne. For starters, things drift. The galaxy
is in orbit,a string of communication boys is also going to be "in orbit".
Secondly, is the issue of their 'limited' range. What flashed into my
mind was an image of a communication network based upon the little Family
Sized radios you buy in pairs at GI Joe's or Sears, which work fine up to
two miles, in a flat area, assuming no other interference, and your
batteries are good. Assuming the best buoys have a range of 12 light hours,
that's how many buoys to cover the distance from Sol to Proxima, which is
"only" four light years away? And that doesn't cover the need for spares or
redundancy.

In sum, the FTL com buoy chain idea sounds pretty much like using FSR
radios on a network of buoys across the Atlantic ocean.

--
pyotr filipivich
Typos, Grammos and da kind are the result Emmanations of Penumbra
Fortesque Consulting: Teaching Pigs to Sing since 1986.
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:58:44 GMT, pyotr filipivich
<phamp.DeleteThis@mindspring.com> wrote:

> I would suspect that the range on these things is "limited" and
>stringing a line of "buoys" from here to there, in normal space, would
>prove to be a right royal payne. For starters, things drift. The galaxy
>is in orbit,a string of communication boys is also going to be "in orbit".

Drift isn't a big deal. Out in deep space things move slowly. Let
them drift--they'll have died of old age or obsolescence before they
drift too far away from their position.

> Secondly, is the issue of their 'limited' range. What flashed into my
>mind was an image of a communication network based upon the little Family
>Sized radios you buy in pairs at GI Joe's or Sears, which work fine up to
>two miles, in a flat area, assuming no other interference, and your
>batteries are good. Assuming the best buoys have a range of 12 light hours,
>that's how many buoys to cover the distance from Sol to Proxima, which is
>"only" four light years away? And that doesn't cover the need for spares or
>redundancy.
>
> In sum, the FTL com buoy chain idea sounds pretty much like using FSR
>radios on a network of buoys across the Atlantic ocean.

Worse--12 light hours * 2 (12 hours/day) * 365 * 4.3 = 3139 bouys in
the line. You wouldn't need that many radios to cross the atlantic.
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

In article <cs8oi2duttqdtkt8shkm23fm9r0gbcs3ph.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
pyotr filipivich <phamp.DeleteThis@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but Don Sample <dsample.DeleteThis@synapse.net>
> wrote on Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:44:12 -0400 in alt.books.david-weber :
> >In article <goaji2lq2ijq95iv2rt6q3t3ajo4s1ri10.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
> > forkliftramp.com <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.DeleteThis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 09:52:02 -0700, Offbreed
> >> <offbreed_106.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >gS49 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 60c isn't "nearly instantaneous"? It's also a question of distance.
> >> >> If
> >> >> you're within a lightyear of the source--in the same star-system for
> >> >> example--60c is functionally instantaneous--faster than a human can
> >> >> react
> >> >> to
> >> >> the data.
> >> >
> >> >Divide 365 by 60. A one light year delay would be cut to 6 days. Even I
> >> >can figure out stuff in that length of time.
> >> >
> >> >A one light minute delay would be cut to one second, closer to "faster
> >> >than a human can react to the data".
> >>
> >> i don't think there has even been a hint that this ftl commo is
> >> practical as a means of comms between systems. there would seem to be
> >> enough gravitational "noise" out there to drown out modulated signals.
> >
> >I think that even if they ran a line of communications buoys between
> >important systems, they'd still be slower than sending a courier ship
> >through hyperspace.
>
> Not a realistic option.
>
> I would suspect that the range on these things is "limited" and
> stringing a line of "buoys" from here to there, in normal space, would
> prove to be a right royal payne. For starters, things drift. The galaxy
> is in orbit,a string of communication boys is also going to be "in orbit".
> Secondly, is the issue of their 'limited' range. What flashed into my
> mind was an image of a communication network based upon the little Family
> Sized radios you buy in pairs at GI Joe's or Sears, which work fine up to
> two miles, in a flat area, assuming no other interference, and your
> batteries are good. Assuming the best buoys have a range of 12 light hours,
> that's how many buoys to cover the distance from Sol to Proxima, which is
> "only" four light years away? And that doesn't cover the need for spares or
> redundancy.
>
> In sum, the FTL com buoy chain idea sounds pretty much like using FSR
> radios on a network of buoys across the Atlantic ocean.

Even if you did string them from Sol to Proxima, it would take 24 days
to send a message. A courier boat could do it a lot faster. Courier
ships can move at about 3,000 c in the Theta band, about 50 times faster
than your FTL coms, and get there in half a day. Even a civilian ship
travelling in the Delta band can travel at over over 1,000 c.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse