[karajorma]

I guess you never heard of secured chanells and encryption

And who said the comm systems conenct automaticly to a friendly craft? It probably would require the pilot/commander confirmation.  It might have a designated reciver craft. Or it could be automatic - there are a dozen ways you can build secure data transfer systems (a friendly craft could act as a relay, without actually storing any information that passes trough or being able to listen to the conversation in question)

It's quite possible at that point in the mission for the only ships present to be you, the Iceni and the Shivans. And I don't remember including a messages saying "Would you like to forward Victor 3's message to Command"

As for it being automatic that's kinda my point. It's a huge security mistake to allow anyone with a proper radio to automatically uplink to any other ship and send messages. Doing that would just be asking for trouble.

Well, it's all conjectures on both sides, isn't it? We don't really know how big a limitation or infrastructure a subspace comm would need. Subspace comms would still need relays for system-to-system calls.

That's my entire point Trashman. It is conjecture. Which makes you saying "No it has to be radio waves" a rather impossible position to defend. Earth may still be using radio waves. Or they have gone over to FTL comms. I can argue both sides fairly easily so the subject must remain open with neither side conclusively proved.

Even if I assume you are correct about gravity affecting subspace jumps that still doesn't mean subspace comms are affected. Jumps involve a transfer of mass. Comms involve a transfer of information. Even if you are correct it could be that the gravitational field has an effect on the mass of the object being transferred. Since information has no mass it wouldn't be affected in the same way.

Who ever said it has anything to do with mass - rather with the opening of the vortex itself. In that case it doesn't matter what mass you trying to send trough - since strong gravity field prevent the vortex from being opened wether you sending a dreard or a needle trough.

Who says it doesn't. Again you're trying to say you have the answer when there isn't enough data to decide in either direction.

Besides I still feel your point about gravitation fields bass-ackwards. The only comment in the techroom about gravitational fields implies that they make it easier to open a jump point not harder.

[TrashMan]

Besides I still feel your point about gravitation fields bass-ackwards. The only comment in the techroom about gravitational fields implies that they make it easier to open a jump point not harder.

Nope.

It's quite possible at that point in the mission for the only ships present to be you, the Iceni and the Shivans. And I don't remember  including a messages saying "Would you like to forward Victor 3's message to Command"

As for it being automatic that's kinda my point. It's a huge security mistake to allow anyone with a proper radio to automatically uplink to any other ship and send messages. Doing that would just be asking for trouble.

IIRC, if hte transport blows the mission is over anyway.

And no, it wouldn't be asking for trouble. Like I said, a secure system can be easily designed. I can think of a few ways right now.

[karajorma]

Besides I still feel your point about gravitation fields bass-ackwards. The only comment in the techroom about gravitational fields implies that they make it easier to open a jump point not harder.

Nope.

What do you mean "Nope" and then no rebuttal? What kind of an argument is that?

IIRC, if hte transport blows the mission is over anyway.

Check again.

[TrashMan]

Besides I still feel your point about gravitation fields bass-ackwards. The only comment in the techroom about gravitational fields implies that they make it easier to open a jump point not harder.

Nope.

What do you mean "Nope" and then no rebuttal? What kind of an argument is that?

Nope as in - no, it doesn't imply that at all. You only want it to imply that. There's nothing really more to say.

IIRC, if hte transport blows the mission is over anyway.

Check again.

[/quote]

Without the transport you can't evacuate the Iceni crew and the ETAK specs, and the Iceni is set to self-distruct.

What has this got to do with relay comms anyway?

[karajorma]

Besides I still feel your point about gravitation fields bass-ackwards. The only comment in the techroom about gravitational fields implies that they make it easier to open a jump point not harder.

Nope.

What do you mean "Nope" and then no rebuttal? What kind of an argument is that?

Nope as in - no, it doesn't imply that at all. You only want it to imply that. There's nothing really more to say.

First, an intrasystem jump can occur between two points in a star system. Most small, space-faring vessels are equipped with motivators capable of these short jumps. The presence of an intense gravitational field is required, prohibiting travel beyond the boundaries of a star system.

Says absolutely nothing about gravity interfering with jumps and preventing them. It says the exact opposite in fact.

Without the transport you can't evacuate the Iceni crew and the ETAK specs, and the Iceni is set to self-distruct.

Check it again. The mission does not automatically end. The message is still sent.

[Admiral_Stones]

I shall combat the FTL theory by saying that every moron knowing even a fart about physics will know there is *nothing* faster then light/radio waves/. Nothing.

[karajorma]

1) This is a fictional universe. It abides by it's own laws which might not be the same as in our universe.
2) We've already seen them use jump drives to travel faster than light. If that's possible it's not a huge stretch to FTL comms too.

[BloodEagle]

I shall combat the FTL theory by saying that every moron knowing even a fart about physics will know there is *nothing* faster then light/radio waves/. Nothing.

There is actually a sound theory as to how FTL travel is possible.

[TrashMan]

First, an intrasystem jump can occur between two points in a star system. Most small, space-faring vessels are equipped with motivators capable of these short jumps. The presence of an intense gravitational field is required, prohibiting travel beyond the boundaries of a star system.

Says absolutely nothing about gravity interfering with jumps and preventing them. It says the exact opposite in fact.

Again no. It doesn't say anything, you just want to interpret it that way.

A small example: Water is required for a human to live on the surface of a planet.
no water = dead human
But what about too much water? what would happen to a human submerged in water? OK, it's crappy example but it just goes to illustrate that having Y REQUIRED for X, doesn't mean that having more of Y is good for X.

Too strong a gravity field might interfere with subspace jumps. Or not.  So it can go either way. That's all I'm saying.

[WMCoolmon]

FS2 Radar can fuzzily pick up the Sathanas fleet in orbit around Capella several AU away!

A) As Trashman already pointed out, you can also see the Sathanas vessels. Are we assuming that light no longer functions the same way that it does in our universe, too?
B) Whatever the Sathanas vessels were doing involved enough energy to be able to cause a sun to go supernova. We have the technology to send/receive radio waves to/from a spacecraft built in the 70s from 83.5 AU away.

Oh and since you quoted the Setekh's description it's only fair I quote the Charybdis.

Ships of the GTA Charybdis class have been packed with the latest tachyon-enabled AWACS equipment from GTVI labs. Each GTVA battle group has a squadron of Charybdis-class ships assigned to it. These ships double the range of the group's standard detection arrays.

Wanna explain to me what the **** tachyon-enabled AWACS equipment is?

Well, on first glance, it doesn't sound like it has to do anything with radio or radar. And since the tech screen refers to 'radar' and 'tachyon-enabled AWACS equipment' separately, it could just as easily imply that they're different entities. So I don't see how that either helps or harms your argument that it's unreasonable to assume that the GTVA still has EM-sensing equipment.

unless you're going to claim that radio based radar signals can be detected over a 4LY distance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar

[karajorma]

A) As Trashman already pointed out, you can also see the Sathanas vessels. Are we assuming that light no longer functions the same way that it does in our universe, too?

Hmmm. I must have missed Trashman's response what with the double post and all. Fine I'll agree with Trashman about the distance.  My bad.

Well, on first glance, it doesn't sound like it has to do anything with radio or radar. And since the tech screen refers to 'radar' and 'tachyon-enabled AWACS equipment' separately, it could just as easily imply that they're different entities. So I don't see how that either helps or harms your argument that it's unreasonable to assume that the GTVA still has EM-sensing equipment.

I've said that it's not 100% certain whether GTVA radar is radio or possibly Tachyon based. The tech room comment mentions tachyon-enabled AWACS equipment. And you're asserting with 100% certainty that this can not possibly mean the radar.

Are you kidding me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar

Are you seriously telling me that GTVA AWACS based radar has the power of a pulsar? I know you can detect radio signals from light years away. I'm saying you probably can't detect radio signals from a GTVA radar light years away and that even if you can you probably can't tell them apart from background noise.

[WMCoolmon]

Well, on first glance, it doesn't sound like it has to do anything with radio or radar. And since the tech screen refers to 'radar' and 'tachyon-enabled AWACS equipment' separately, it could just as easily imply that they're different entities. So I don't see how that either helps or harms your argument that it's unreasonable to assume that the GTVA still has EM-sensing equipment.

I've said that it's not 100% certain whether GTVA radar is radio or possibly Tachyon based. The tech room comment mentions tachyon-enabled AWACS equipment. And you're asserting with 100% certainty that this can not possibly mean the radar.

Are you kidding me?

I think mostly you're kidding yourself. I asserted no such thing. The only way I could see you misreading that is if you assumed that I wasn't using the technical definition of 'radio' and 'radar' in my first sentence, but was instead using the undefined definition that you're trying to insist exists in the Freespace 2 universe. If that's the case, I'd just consider it one more reason why insisting that a word doesn't mean what it's defined to mean is problematic.

But even then, there's no direct link between the tachyon-detector and what is referred to as 'radar'. I could read that sentence as saying that it's upgraded tachyon equipment, or I could read it as saying that the "tachyon" element is something new and the Charybdis was using something different before, or even that the tachyon stuff is not part of the normal sensor package but is intended for extremely unique circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar

Are you seriously telling me that GTVA AWACS based radar has the power of a pulsar? I know you can detect radio signals from light years away. I'm saying you probably can't detect radio signals from a GTVA radar light years away and that even if you can you probably can't tell them apart from background noise.

My mistake, I misread the part of your post that I quoted (twice, no less) and thought that you were claiming that you couldn't detect radio waves from that distance.

Regardless, no one's insisting that the GTVA is going to ping earth away with their radar. However if the GTVA does have radar, it stands to reason that they could construct a large-scale radio transmitter. I'm sure it's possible to calculate what scale would be needed to transmit successfully to earth, but those calculations are beyond me for now. So at that point I would say that it depends - although the GTVA clearly has access to large-scale power devices, such as fusion generators and antimatter warheads (not to mention the resources required to produce substantial enough amounts of antimatter to use it as a viable weapon).

[WMCoolmon]

Also, the telegraph is a pretty poor example because it's still common knowledge of how to build one. In fact, it's probably much easier to build one than it was when they were popular, because of the improvement of technology and understanding of electronics, and because of Radio Shack.

I can't think up any good example (which isn't surprising because by definition what I'm trying to come up with should be forgotten ) except possibly for knowledge of how to build drums that can communicate miles across terrain. That seems like too big of a difference because the GTVA still uses equipment based on electromagnetic principles (it's vulnerable to EMP weapons).

[karajorma]

I think mostly you're kidding yourself. I asserted no such thing. The only way I could see you misreading that is if you assumed that I wasn't using the technical definition of 'radio' and 'radar' in my first sentence, but was instead using the undefined definition that you're trying to insist exists in the Freespace 2 universe. If that's the case, I'd just consider it one more reason why insisting that a word doesn't mean what it's defined to mean is problematic.

You what? Are you now claiming that the radar system can be tachyon based then? I asked you if you were saying with 100% certainty that the radar system on the AWACS uses radio waves. You're now telling me you aren't asserting that?

In that case what the **** are you asserting? 


I think if you actually stop and read what I wrote you'll see that you are claiming exactly what I said you're claiming. That the radar system in FS2 uses radio waves and not something else.

But if I'm wrong and you're claiming something else, explain it now before this nonsense goes any further.

My mistake, I misread the part of your post that I quoted (twice, no less) and thought that you were claiming that you couldn't detect radio waves from that distance.

Regardless, no one's insisting that the GTVA is going to ping earth away with their radar. However if the GTVA does have radar, it stands to reason that they could construct a large-scale radio transmitter. I'm sure it's possible to calculate what scale would be needed to transmit successfully to earth, but those calculations are beyond me for now. So at that point I would say that it depends - although the GTVA clearly has access to large-scale power devices, such as fusion generators and antimatter warheads (not to mention the resources required to produce substantial enough amounts of antimatter to use it as a viable weapon).

I never said they didn't. Just that it wasn't a safe assumption to say they still use radio waves for anything. It might be like the telegraph. We could still build one if we wanted to but it's currently an obsolete technology. If something prevented us from using radio waves then it might come into use again.

If you read back through the thread you'll notice I haven't once said that they couldn't build a radio telescope capable of reaching Earth. In fact I even said that the GTVA might have built one but simply pointed it in the wrong direction.

You seem to be assuming I'm arguing one point to the exclusion of all others. Just because I'm saying that the GTVA might not have been able to do something doesn't mean I'm saying that the GTVA are not able to do it. I'm not saying that the GTVA don't use radio based radar. I'm simply saying that they might not.

Also, the telegraph is a pretty poor example because it's still common knowledge of how to build one. In fact, it's probably much easier to build one than it was when they were popular, because of the improvement of technology and understanding of electronics, and because of Radio Shack.

Is this in response to me?

Cause I mentioned the telegraph in response to Trashman's claim that it would be impractical to switch over from radio to FTL comms because of cost. Similar arguments could have been made about radio itself since the first attempts to do it were financial failures.

I did not mention the telegraph as an example of a technology we couldn't duplicate now and if you think that I did I suggest you read any further posts I make several times before replying to them and/or ask for a simplified explanation as you're obviously having some kind of problem understanding me and are steaming off at a tangent and getting all bothered replying to things I didn't actually say. 

Too strong a gravity field might interfere with subspace jumps. Or not.  So it can go either way. That's all I'm saying.

You said earlier that it DID interfere and thus would make subspace comms on a planetary surface difficult. If you've now changed to a more reasonable position of saying it may or may not do that then I'll agree with you.

[WMCoolmon]

You what? Are you now claiming that the radar system can be tachyon based then? I asked you if you were saying with 100% certainty that the radar system on the AWACS uses radio waves. You're now telling me you aren't asserting that?

In that case what the **** are you asserting? 

Quit tossing around bull**** phrases like "100% certainty". There is a middle ground between your claim that we don't have a clue and an assertion that it's absolute fact.

Second of all, I've looked over your posts where you replied to me. And I don't see that you ever asked or even implied anything about "100% certainty".

I think if you actually stop and read what I wrote you'll see that you are claiming exactly what I said you're claiming. That the radar system in FS2 uses radio waves and not something else.

But if I'm wrong and you're claiming something else, explain it now before this nonsense goes any further.

Yes, you're right, that's what I'm claiming.

EDIT: Actually, let me quantify that a bit more. I think that the radar in Freespace 2 does use radio waves or at the very least is deliberately sensitive to that portion of the EM spectrum. I do think that it's strongly implied that by Freespace 2 ships do have additional equipment that can detect ships in subspace, so I don't think that the only sensor equipment on FS2 craft is only radar; I just think that it's at least one of the sensor methods available to ships.

I never said they didn't. Just that it wasn't a safe assumption to say they still use radio waves for anything. It might be like the telegraph. We could still build one if we wanted to but it's currently an obsolete technology. If something prevented us from using radio waves then it might come into use again.

If you read back through the thread you'll notice I haven't once said that they couldn't build a radio telescope capable of reaching Earth. In fact I even said that the GTVA might have built one but simply pointed it in the wrong direction.

You seem to be assuming I'm arguing one point to the exclusion of all others. Just because I'm saying that the GTVA might not have been able to do something doesn't mean I'm saying that the GTVA are not able to do it. I'm not saying that the GTVA don't use radio based radar. I'm simply saying that they might not.

No, you're assuming that I'm assuming that you're arguing one point to the exclusion of others. I'm assuming that you just can't grasp what I'm saying, because you're so wrapped up in explaining to us how wrong we all might be, no matter what point we choose. And I'm assuming you're doing that because you think we don't already know that we could be wrong, and we're simply making the best guess (ie expressing an opinion) based on the information in the game.

Now if your opinion is that you're incapable of coming up a conclusion that seems more likely than any one of the others, fine. But if that's the case, then quit acting like we're the ones with faulty logic just because we don't spend all of our posts going "I dunno! It could be one way, but it could also be another way."

Also, the telegraph is a pretty poor example because it's still common knowledge of how to build one. In fact, it's probably much easier to build one than it was when they were popular, because of the improvement of technology and understanding of electronics, and because of Radio Shack.

Is this in response to me?

Cause I mentioned the telegraph in response to Trashman's claim that it would be impractical to switch over from radio to FTL comms because of cost. Similar arguments could have been made about radio itself since the first attempts to do it were financial failures.

I did not mention the telegraph as an example of a technology we couldn't duplicate now and if you think that I did I suggest you read any further posts I make several times before replying to them and/or ask for a simplified explanation as you're obviously having some kind of problem understanding me and are steaming off at a tangent and getting all bothered replying to things I didn't actually say.

You drew a parallel between radio and the telegraph with that example, and your initial point was that you objected to the assumption that the GTVA was using radio waves for anything. The quote in question mentions: "The future of communication is obviously the electric telegraph and I have no doubt that you will find it still in use 300 years from now. " You were using that as a supporting piece of evidence in the same post that you were replying to me. I can understand if you didn't expect someone to connect those two pieces of data because you didn't explicitly refer to those lines of the quote, but I don't think that's so absurd that I'm "steaming off on a tangent".

It's very frustrating to try and argue with someone who has to categorize your responses as either being absolutely one way, absolutely another way, or absolutely indecisive and in the middle. Or even discuss something, for that matter. I'm used to all kinds of absurd ideas being tossed out in discussions like this, and it keeps it a lot more fresh than someone being completely anal about people drawing assumptions that they think are unwarranted and trying to stamp them out with the utmost self-righteousness. It's just not fun.

EDIT 2: And it may seem really weird to add this in, but no hard feelings. I just had a discussion with somebody who said they thought I was a little over-the-top, so, just thought I'd toss that out there in case I'm being more blunt than you might expect. This is well within the range of frustrating opinion differences that I'm accustomed to.

[TrashMan]

I'm curious of subspace communications would have any practical advantage over radio ones (on a planet).

Mobile phones are already capable of transmitting huge amounts of data accurately and all over the planet, and are small and portable. The infrastructure is already there and it isn't that expensive anyway - in fact, in the future it can only get cheaper.

I find it hard to believe that any technology that messes with the fabric of the universe and multiple dimensions will be simple, cheap and require little energy - and thus be as compact and efficient as a mobile phone today.
Thus it is my belief that for MOBILE, PERSONAL USE radio-based communication devices are more probable than subspace-based ones. F'course, you would fine ample subspace commuinication devices, either on the planet or in the orbit (satelites - if the gravity interferes  with subspace)

[karajorma]

I'm curious of subspace communications would have any practical advantage over radio ones (on a planet).

Firstly Sol is not a planet. It's likely that there are people all over the system. Especially if Mars or the moon have been colonised. So there's an advantage right there.

Secondly subspace comms appear to be point to point with no need for a relay (except possibly for intersystem comms where we don't know for certain what they do). So that means you don't need to maintain the massive infrastructure that mobile phones require. You wouldn't need communication satellites or trans-atlantic phone cables. Again that's a massive advantage cause those things do cost.

The infrastructure is already there and it isn't that expensive anyway - in fact, in the future it can only get cheaper.

Check how much a communications satellite costs.

I find it hard to believe that any technology that messes with the fabric of the universe and multiple dimensions will be simple, cheap and require little energy - and thus be as compact and efficient as a mobile phone today.
Thus it is my belief that for MOBILE, PERSONAL USE radio-based communication devices are more probable than subspace-based ones. F'course, you would fine ample subspace commuinication devices, either on the planet or in the orbit (satelites - if the gravity interferes  with subspace)

The FS2 universe has ships with laser weapons more powerful than a nuclear weapon. I don't consider a cheap FTL communication device to be impossible. Such items are a mainstay of sci-fi after all.

[karajorma]

EDIT 2: And it may seem really weird to add this in, but no hard feelings. I just had a discussion with somebody who said they thought I was a little over-the-top, so, just thought I'd toss that out there in case I'm being more blunt than you might expect. This is well within the range of frustrating opinion differences that I'm accustomed to.

To be honest it's gotten to the stage where I don't think there is any point in continuing the argument with you. If you believe that the phrase "packed with the latest tachyon-enabled AWACS equipment from GTVI labs" can not reasonably be used to say that the GTVA might be using Tachyon based detection equipment instead of radio based radar it's obviously a waste of my time which I could spend more productively elsewhere.

As far as I'm concerned this whole thread has been the last in a long series of threads proving that for whatever reason you and me can not have a sensible discussion. I've got little interest in continuing the cycle of stupidity so I'm bowing out. 

[TrashMan]

I'm curious of subspace communications would have any practical advantage over radio ones (on a planet).

Firstly Sol is not a planet. It's likely that there are people all over the system. Especially if Mars or the moon have been colonised. So there's an advantage right there.

I wasn't asking about a system, I was asking about a PLANET!

Check how much a communications satellite costs.

A lot. But ther'es allready more than enough of them in orbit. And in 200 years or so when having space fighters and freighters, the cost of a satelite would be minimal.
And everything we know indicates that subspace tech ain't cheap.

I find it hard to believe that any technology that messes with the fabric of the universe and multiple dimensions will be simple, cheap and require little energy - and thus be as compact and efficient as a mobile phone today.
Thus it is my belief that for MOBILE, PERSONAL USE radio-based communication devices are more probable than subspace-based ones. F'course, you would fine ample subspace commuinication devices, either on the planet or in the orbit (satelites - if the gravity interferes  with subspace)

The FS2 universe has ships with laser weapons more powerful than a nuclear weapon. I don't consider a cheap FTL communication device to be impossible. Such items are a mainstay of sci-fi after all.

[/quote]

TI's stil hard to belive. Occams Razor anyone?

[BlackDove]

Religion anyone?