Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by 2046 » Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:17 pm

Summary: Saxtonian hypermatter's complex mass manipulation invalidates the use of acceleration to derive reactor power. This constitutes an internal contradiction in the ICS and in the work of those who would use it.

---------------------

I remember ages ago seeing inflationist attempts to claim grand accelerations for Star Wars vessels, but just sort of sloughed it off as the usual ho-hum-they-must-embiggen-all-numbers nonsense.

As I think I mentioned recently, I had not realized until watching the 47 hours of ICS apologetics video series on SciFights.Net just how important those acceleration claims were to them. Literally, Young claims that their acceleration values are the canon basis for the power figures . . . he notes that Saxton was trying to make figures consistent with the BDZ, but the acceleration values are, to their minds, the anchor in the canon. (The firepower figures are a mere 5% of the reactor output, he claims, and further suggests that fans of other universes, especially Trekkies, should be glad they were so conservative with the ICS values. Heh!)

I was trying recently to figure out why I never made the connection between their acceleration claims and the power figures of the sort Young derives, other than complete disinterest.

It only just dawned on me today, as I finally put some pieces back together. You see, Brian claimed recently (in the newly released hours 47-54) that Star Wars had no mass-lightening technology. I daresay that was a boo-boo, because it finally made things click for me.

See, back in the day, the Star Wars inflationist folks were all a-twitter with the Saxtonian hypermatter-annihilation-in-fusion-containment-what-the-hell-is-that-anyway stuff. Of course, just as their neutronium wasn't real neutronium, so too was their hypermatter not real hyperonic hypermatter, but that's neither here nor there at the moment.

As I understood the claims, the idea was that hypermatter was not itself ultra-dense, per se . . . but it could be ultra-dense. It was a super-ballast and fuel composed of tachyonic (i.e. FTL) particles contained somehow or other and, as a result of how relativity calculations hit a proverbial brick wall with superluminal velocities, featured a rest mass that was at least in part determined by imaginary numbers. As a result, the ship's mass/energy was a complex number, not a real one.

So, let's say a ship massed 2000 tonnes and had fuel aboard of 2000i. The complex mass of the ship is thus 2000+2000i. It's helpful to graph this sort of thing, but suffice it to say that we've got equal values so if we put the real mass on the bottom and the imaginary mass on the top, we end up with a line going up at 45 degrees, the phase angle, and this line is of length 2828 and a smidgen, the magnitude.

Now, at this point, we depart from experience and go into mathematical tomfoolery. The big idea of hypermatter was that it somehow allowed this complex mass phase angle to be changed . . . I never caught how, but presumably by altering the speed of the tachyonic particles somehow . . . altering the real and imaginary figures provided it maintained the same magnitude. In other words, if you could somehow fiddle with the graph, awesomeness would ensue.

So, if we presume the normal condition was that the complex mass was 2828 tonnes, the Imperial engineer could rotate a dial and fiddle with the phase angle so that it became zero, leading to a real mass of 2828 tonnes. He could also rotate it back around to 90 degrees, leading to a real mass of zero and an imaginary mass of 2828 tonnes. The ship as a whole now having an imaginary mass like any tachyonic particle, it zips off into the hyperspace aether at superluminal velocity somehow or other.

Star Wars ships, it was argued, carried fuel that outmassed the vessel by many, many times, so the normal phase angle of the ship's complex mass was near 90 degrees anyway, and if they turned the dial to zero the ship's real mass would be just huge-mongous. And, they could also somehow annihilate the hypermatter for power.

This was all a cutesy-clever idea for a sci-fi universe, though of course there was absolutely no precedent for it in Star Wars. It was all based on a chain of reasoning using Expanded Universe stuff like the inflated BDZ and related power requirements, inflated Death Star power requirements presuming a DET beam despite obvious and glaring problems with that idea (not to mention ignoring the Expanded Universe on that point), effectively ignoring the references to fusion powerplants, and so on. In other words, it was bog-standard inflationism where, if you don't actually pay attention to Star Wars, you can really embiggen its numbers.

But this brings us back to our earlier embiggening relating to vessel accelerations.

The claim made by Brian Young is that reactor power in the ICS was derived by taking some inflated claims about acceleration and deriving the required power. I'll go over the acceleration claims themselves later when I have time, but for now just trust me . . . they're bogus. But if you go with them, then yes, in a normal scenario, you could get reactor power.

However, he also claims you can't do that with a universe like Star Trek because of subspace fields and their mass-lightening technology. That is to say, he argues that once you demonstrate the capability to start fiddling with the mass of a ship, you can't determine the power requirements of its acceleration.

Wait, huh?

How is mass-lightening via subspace field any different than mass-lightening via hypermatter manipulation?

I agree that once you start fiddling with the mass you invalidate power requirement calculations because it just isn't clear how much power it takes to magically nullify a vast quantity of your mass . . . but the same is true both ways.

Remember, SciFights.Net uses anything Saxton was involved with the writing of (meaning anything Brian and the other inflationists helped with) along with the canon Star Wars material like the films and TCW. He uses these (and the Clone Wars cartoon shorts) while simultaneously pooh-poohing the EU, which is a whole 'nother contradiction.

I suppose the inflationists could argue that for some reason the ship chooses not to use this wondrous technology at sublight, but that would hardly make sense.

Am I on to something here or have I egregiously misunderstood the gobbledygook?

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:03 am

As seeing that the whole hypermatter concept was going to stick to the EU, two years ago I started typing a file that attempted recyclying it while constraining the power figures to what worked for SW.

I was going to use various EU sources, including old ones. The idea was that hypermatter in itself wasn't bad, but nothing forced us to accept that it provided so much power. If anything, the concept was that of an hybrid system which emphasized fusion, a bit in a way similar to how fusion is used as an intermediary stage to increase the yield of fission bombs which we call thermonuclear devices.

In one of the old EU diagrams for Star Destroyers, there was a a basic one, although interesting in that it showed the hyperdrive to be sitting ontop a Star Destroyer's power core and directly tied to it.
As far as I know, Saxton didn't use that piece of data. As much as it alluded to a main power conduit directly feeding the hyperdrive, we also had in return the possibility that a hyperdrive might allow hypermatter to be introduced into the power core fuel mix.
It needn't push the power figures to unfathomable levels, but it would have made a nice addition and we could have accepted a toned down hypermatter reality within the EU.
Therefore, yes, fusion would have provided enough energy as to constrain hypermatter to bring it to whatever critical mass and pressure needed to obtain even power in return. But at no time it required hypermatter to be tachyonic.



Besides, funnily enough, just before the Disney purge of late, I remember a recent EU source acknowledging mass lightening in SW.



With Saxton's model, it's about unleashing hypermatter away from c, to infinite speed.

Let's quote the basic idea behind hypermatter and the production of power from it.

Hypermatter was tachyonic matter that existed in hyperspace. When constrained by realspace, charged tachyons were annihilated as they accelerated to infinite speed within a reactor. The hyperdrive adjusted the faster-than-light hypermatter particles to allow a ship to jump to light-speed without changing its complex mass and energy. The hypermatter annihilation cores were in turn confined by fusion systems.

Hypermatter stored in fuel reservoirs in realspace would mean it's already constrained in a way or another, but keeping it in a FTL state until "brought down" to use it.

For starters, tachyons are faster than c. The faster, the more energetic, because they sort of become "purer" than light. They really become massless. Infinite speed = true zero mass. So 100% energy.

The thing is, for us, obtaining energy involves breaking matter (bonds) and allow a conversion to occur, and we get plenty of energetic particles that fly very fast.
For tachyons, I think the idea would be to break the bonds that constrain tachyons to lower FTL speeds and allow them to go up the ladder. Like if they were burdened particles, amalgamated into forms (tachyonic matter/structures) that need to pop before going all crazy.

The thing is, the particles never stop being FTL. What does it mean to be constrained to real space?

Tachyonic matter sould already be "stuck" in real space, but being simply faster than its luxon pal.
Unless it's an abstraction of mathematics and you have this very opposition of imaginary vs real. Therefore, you must make the fuel "real" before using it.

I'm lost.

In fact, why the hypermatter would even need to be constrained at all? Constrained to what? And to do what? Complete merry-go-round turns at near infinite speeds for eternity?

The idea is to harness that energy by allowing tachyons to go faster. It's nice and all to get them move faster, but we want our money back, don't we?
How they get accelerated isn't explained, and God knows what form the interaction takes as to allow speedy tachyons to transfer anything to real space.

Wouldn't this interaction only be possible by not only having them reach the c barrier, but perhaps also get on the other side of the fence?
Isn't it the very opposite of what is precisely needed to let our tachyon friends get superfast?
Even if they were headed for c station and stop there, which we know is a very nice place since light does interact with us on a daily basis, it would still be the wrong direction as far as the annihilation idea is concerned.

This also largely ignores the question of how would the container behave, relative to c, if imaginary mass were to suddenly become real mass.

Like, hop, you get 40000 tonnes of fuel into real space (yet are annihilated???).
If you were to switch a flip, wouldn't the universe's laws say hold on bro, I see what you did there, inertia nonwithstanding, you're ought to lose a lot of your current speed, you cheater.

That's the same deal with mass lightening. By the simple virtue of removing effective mass while changing nothing to your overall energy, you'd go faster.

What were we talking about again?
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by 2046 » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:56 am

I was trying to leave out most of the headache-inducing bits . . . thanks for screwing that up. ;-)

Yes, tachyonic matter would supposedly go faster at lower energy states. It's like a mirror image of normal matter on the speed scale, except the surface of the mirror is the lightspeed 'barrier'. Just as we would need infinite energy to reach lightspeed, so too would tachyons need infinite energy to slow down to it.

How you take that and make it into a reactor system is not clear. Basically they presumably fixated on the whole graph of complex mass bit rather than the finer details of how you speed up or slow down or annihilate hypermatter, leaving that somewhere in "A Wizard (Old, from Tatooine) Did It" territory.

Certainly the Heisenberg Compensator is of similar technological handwaving, but still.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:56 am

Yep, a mirror, that's the thing.

Thing is, even if the rule is sort of inverted, in space, accelerating or decelerating requires energy expenditure.
It's counter intuitive to the idea that the faster you want to go to FTL, the more energy you have to spend.
If you apply energy to tachyonic matter, it would slow it down. So what you'd need is to actually do the equivalent of "blowing" that stuff up.

Light clearly is the secret sauce ingredient both realms can interact with.

Or more precisely, if it's mirrored, you'd be imploding tachyonic matter and collecting as much electro-magnetic radiation as possible.
If tachyonic matter behaved like inverted ittyonic matter, it would also naturally lose energy through radiation.

In fact, in a natural state, I guess tachyonic matter would tend to sit near infinite speed already instead of nearing c.

But here's what Saxton suggested on his Power Technologies website:

acceleration of tachyons

If “hypermatter” consists of intrinsically faster-than-light particles (tachyons) in some harnessed (perhaps gyrating) form then they could in principle be used as a power source. The act of accelerating a tachyon from c up to infinite speed (considering the complex, supra-light Lorentz-transformations) unleashes all of the particle's mass-energy. This is analogous to the deceleration of ordinary sub-light particles, which however have a lower energy limit mc². A tachyon accelerated to infinite speed and zero energy becomes less like matter and more effectively an omnipresent wave of zero intensity — intangible to the ordinary world. Such a process would achieve complete mass-energy conversion without needing to react this exotic fuel with any antiparticle. The power output would depend on the rate at which the “reactor” can decelerate available fuel, and not upon any reaction process.
So not only most of the matter in question would be near-c (which strikes me as a rather convenient premise already) but it shall also be found flying around at c?? O_o
Wouldn't being at c precisely be a violation of the definition of tachyonic matter, just as much as ittyonic matter can't be found at c either?
I think so.

Again, I don't get the use of the word annihilation either. In "real" space, annihilation is about turning as much matter as possible into relativistic particles so you're left with little to no slow ass ittyonic matter at all at the end of the process (and you waste a shit ton of it through neutrinos btw).
In Tachyon World, that would be mean turning as much tachyon sludge into stuff that goes slower, not faster, and would probably be the easiest and most violent way to gather high energy tachyonic particles, plus EMR.
I could very well be missing something here but even the word annihilation doesn't sound right. Only acceleration is an appropriate term and that would most logically be a very slow, natural process.

Talking about FTL trips, it's rather interesting. Moving to FTL means first encoding sublight matter into light-based information, and then translating this luminous data into tachyonic matter with whatever complex/imaginary equation they wish to use.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by 2046 » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:55 am

Well, the presumption I've had (which I didn't really touch on in the first post except with the vague note about "effectively ignoring" fusion references) is that the fusion annihilation bit is just an effort to try to absorb all the statements about fusion into the super-duper-hypermatter claim.

It would be like if I was trying to argue Trek used zero-point energy for everything but I had to deal with all the antimatter references, so I simply made up a bit where antimatter is used somehow to get the zero-point energy or catalyze the reaction that gets it or some such other nonsense so I don't seem totally full of it to random passers-by.

As Saxton noted in the bit you quoted, there's no actual need for any of that fusion annihilation stuff in regards to tachyonic matter and power generation.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:40 pm

Yes, I got that. It was rather unelegant and a mediocre copout to manage to keep the fusion part in a design when, initially, it had always been about fusion. Even for the Death Star. If Saxton had really cared about the universe in question and not shoe horn his own views while denying vast swathes of data, he would have had to acknowledge the multiple references about the Death Star's core being fusion and nothing else.
The most stupid thing he did here is that he could have easily claimed that part of the Death Star's weapon system relied on the opening of some unstable hyperspace window to pour hypermatter right into the main gun assembly. After all, the core was directly linked to the weapon.
That would have been fine, there we would have gotten the best of both worlds: a fusion core which, once used in conjunction with the planet screwing gun, also opens a hyperspace rift, and ONLY for that weaponized function. The hypermatter would have simply been described as too unstable to be used in safe conditions under normal operations, so the hypermatter function could only be used to shoot at stuff.

That would have tied nicely with the recent addition in the book Death Star wherein a prototype of a hypermatter core was built and housed inside a Star Destroyer (the Talon I think), but the test went weary and the entire ship blew up in a fraction of a second, entirely vaporizing the super structure. That was, in fact, a nice book, providing a cool perspective from the gunner of the battle station.

Back to our affairs, one would argue there was no need for hypermatter thingies aside from the unique reference in the OT ICS about the Death Star, which was an outlier.
In the sticky ICS-debunking thread, I also posted once a quote about a prototype of battle station that was built in such a way it could use ice asteroids as a power source, while the power plant inside was called a hypermatter core. Nothing was said about tachyonic matter or even hypersace stuff. So it was good old fashioned fusion.
So the inclusion of something more exotic that fusion fuel could have only been done in a most delicate way. Way contrary to the Saxtonian way.

With Saxton, the entire fusion process has been raped repeatedly in a cave by uncle hypermatter, but because of PR, it got an official "cooperative" mention in public.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by Picard » Mon Jun 30, 2014 7:29 am

2046 wrote:I agree that once you start fiddling with the mass you invalidate power requirement calculations because it just isn't clear how much power it takes to magically nullify a vast quantity of your mass . . . but the same is true both ways.
If we go by real-world physics, total amount of energy will stay the same. So if you have energy requirement for acceleration without mass lightening (E0), energy requirement for acceleration with mass lightening (E1) and energy requirement for mass lightening itself (E2), then it goes this way:

E0 = E1 + E2

What does change is the fact that... well, inertia matters. To use an example, if a fighter aircraft has wing loading of 300 kg/m2, thurst to weight ratio of 1,2 and combat weight of 8.000 kg, it will be far more agile and maneuverable than a fighter aircraft with identical thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading but with combat weight of 16.000 kg.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:29 am

Picard wrote:
2046 wrote:I agree that once you start fiddling with the mass you invalidate power requirement calculations because it just isn't clear how much power it takes to magically nullify a vast quantity of your mass . . . but the same is true both ways.
If we go by real-world physics, total amount of energy will stay the same. So if you have energy requirement for acceleration without mass lightening (E0), energy requirement for acceleration with mass lightening (E1) and energy requirement for mass lightening itself (E2), then it goes this way:

E0 = E1 + E2

What does change is the fact that... well, inertia matters. To use an example, if a fighter aircraft has wing loading of 300 kg/m2, thurst to weight ratio of 1,2 and combat weight of 8.000 kg, it will be far more agile and maneuverable than a fighter aircraft with identical thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading but with combat weight of 16.000 kg.
Dude, you've just been saying in a needlessly complicated way that out of two identical birds, the heaviest one will be less agile. :P

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by 2046 » Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:39 am

Picard wrote:
2046 wrote:I agree that once you start fiddling with the mass you invalidate power requirement calculations because it just isn't clear how much power it takes to magically nullify a vast quantity of your mass . . . but the same is true both ways.
If we go by real-world physics, total amount of energy will stay the same. So if you have energy requirement for acceleration without mass lightening (E0), energy requirement for acceleration with mass lightening (E1) and energy requirement for mass lightening itself (E2), then it goes this way:

E0 = E1 + E2
Following that logic, Star Trek and Star Wars vessels require infinite energy to get to lightspeed. Star Trek moreso, perhaps, given that they remain in realspace as opposed to hopping into another dimension.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by 2046 » Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:40 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Dude, you've just been saying in a needlessly complicated way that out of two identical birds, the heaviest one will be less agile. :P
It's the swallow carrying a coconut.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by Picard » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:09 am

2046 wrote:
Picard wrote:
2046 wrote:I agree that once you start fiddling with the mass you invalidate power requirement calculations because it just isn't clear how much power it takes to magically nullify a vast quantity of your mass . . . but the same is true both ways.
If we go by real-world physics, total amount of energy will stay the same. So if you have energy requirement for acceleration without mass lightening (E0), energy requirement for acceleration with mass lightening (E1) and energy requirement for mass lightening itself (E2), then it goes this way:

E0 = E1 + E2
Following that logic, Star Trek and Star Wars vessels require infinite energy to get to lightspeed. Star Trek moreso, perhaps, given that they remain in realspace as opposed to hopping into another dimension.
Not really, since with limited understanding of warp drive we reduced theoretical energy requirement for FTL travel from 1 Jupiter-sized planet per second to 1 Voyager-2 sized spacecraft per second. That is, what, 3,8-quadrillion-fold (in European numerical system, mind you) reduction in power requirements simply due to change in "warp bubble" shape. It is only STL travel that would be unaffected, unless of course one used warp drive for STL travel too.

359
Jedi Knight
Posts: 490
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by 359 » Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:53 pm

This bit states fairly clearly that a warp field is involved with impulse drive.

DS9: "A Time to Stand":

Sisko: Maybe it will. When the generator's destroyed, the net'll come down. All we have to do is to time it so that we're moving fast enough at the moment of detonation to avoid getting caught in the explosion.
Dax: But not so fast that we smash into the net before it's deactivated.
O'Brien: It's tricky.
Sisko: Not if we time it right.
Dax: Let's see. A radial geodesic in a thirty nine Cochrane warp field contracts normal space at a rate of
Bashir: We have to go to full impulse one point three seconds before the bomb detonates.
SISKO: Dax?
Dax: The computer agrees with Julian.

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by Lucky » Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:23 pm

359 wrote:This bit states fairly clearly that a warp field is involved with impulse drive.

DS9: "A Time to Stand":

Sisko: Maybe it will. When the generator's destroyed, the net'll come down. All we have to do is to time it so that we're moving fast enough at the moment of detonation to avoid getting caught in the explosion.
Dax: But not so fast that we smash into the net before it's deactivated.
O'Brien: It's tricky.
Sisko: Not if we time it right.
Dax: Let's see. A radial geodesic in a thirty nine Cochrane warp field contracts normal space at a rate of
Bashir: We have to go to full impulse one point three seconds before the bomb detonates.
SISKO: Dax?
Dax: The computer agrees with Julian.
Isn't it possible that the weapon is what is causing the warp field?

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by 2046 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:45 pm

I presumed the shield, myself.

359
Jedi Knight
Posts: 490
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by 359 » Sun Jul 13, 2014 3:49 pm

Isn't it possible that the weapon is what is causing the warp field?
I don't think so, it was an enriched ultritium device, nothing fancy. Nothing space contracting.

I presumed the shield, myself.
Shields do have a subspace component, but that shouldn't matter for calculating engine accelerations. Further they do have a subspace contraction as seen here with metaphysic shields, but it seems unlikely that such a contraction would have an effect on things inside or outside the shield perimeter. And even if shields contract the space inside them, the engines would still have to be partially subspace in order for that to matter, assuming that the spacial contraction would otherwise affect the ship and the explosion the same.

In the quote they are clearly doing calculations about engine acceleration and are factoring in a subspace distortion, which I posit was being generated from the impulse engines. This is consistent with their ability to exceed the speed of light. Which was stated later in that episode with them being able to make it back to a Federation starbase from deep inside Dominion territory within 17 years on impulse power only, which presumably given the context of the episode is more than 17 light-years away. Or a multitude of other instances throughout Star Trek which reference FTL impulse drive.

Additionally here we have a reference from TNG: "Descent" we have a readout showing a shuttlecraft which possesses impulse engines rated in milicochrines, a measurement of subspace field distortion. Between all of this it is quite evident that impulse drive makes use of a subspace field for enhanced propulsion.

Post Reply