Shutting down the MWJ

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

penny wrote:OOPS!

I should have made it clearer. I am talking about shutting it down, "permanently," whereby it cannot be undone by simply giving orders to reopen it. Like sending the maximum amount of tonnage through to shut it down for the maximum amount of time. Where time is the only entity that can reopen it. I don't mean shutting it down by simply giving orders to Junction Control.

BTW, what is the maximum amount of time it would be shut down if the maximum amount of tonnage is sent through? Sorry, but I do not remember that detail.

If they'd lost control of it and one other terminus, which an enemy might be using to bring more fleet units from, then you could shut down their movements by sending some 250 million tonnes through.

The problem is that this scenario is too unlikely. This requires that some enemy have taken over one of the terminus and the junction itself. That means they've defeated all the defences in the Junction side, or at the very least neutralised them somehow. That traditionally means they've enough firepower on the MBS side, so transiting more from others isn't usually going to be a priority of theirs, nor is shutting it down going to be a priority of the defenders. They may gain 17 hours or however long it takes for the junction to re-establish itself.

The other thing is that those 30 SDs or 40 superfreighters are in a suicide mission.

Oh, one more detail: is the shutdown per terminus or for the whole junction? If it's per terminus, then there's no way the defenders could shut it down in the first place, because the only scenario that would even call for it implies that they've lost control of the Junction and that terminus. That implies they can't send a quarter billion tonnes of ship through.

Either. Which would also apply to any other entity having a tactical or strategic reason to physically shut down their junction as well.

And again, I am not referring to a political decision to shut it down like Lacoon with orders to shoot all ships trying to transit. But a physical shutdown whereby even the "owner" of the junction can't even use it for 17-hrs.

So far the only case to do so would be Thinksmarkedly's case where it has been lost. But if it has been lost, how can a navy shut it down, if said navy has lost it.

kzt wrote:Sure, pretty simple. All you have to do is get rid of the star. How you do it is up to you, you’re the engineer, I’m the big picture guy.

I am not sure that is true. The picture I have always had was that a wormhole has a slight possibility of forming anywhere, but then its location can wander until being anchored by a star. So they are most likely to attach to the most common star type, but could attach to a red giant or something small instead.

If that were correct then destroying the star would just cause the wormhole to wander until it becomes attached to some other star.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Oh, one more detail: is the shutdown per terminus or for the whole junction? If it's per terminus, then there's no way the defenders could shut it down in the first place, because the only scenario that would even call for it implies that they've lost control of the Junction and that terminus. That implies they can't send a quarter billion tonnes of ship through.

From the quotes I gave, it appears that the shutdown is by terminus and not the entire junction.

tlb wrote:I am not sure that is true. The picture I have always had was that a wormhole has a slight possibility of forming anywhere, but then its location can wander until being anchored by a star. So they are most likely to attach to the most common star type, but could attach to a red giant or something small instead.

If that were correct then destroying the star would just cause the wormhole to wander until it becomes attached to some other star.

Whereas I've had the impression this is sampling bias. We've found those wormholes around these stars because that's where they've been looked for. They can attach to red dwarfs (M) or at least to orange dwarfs (K), but those uninhabited systems are usually not scanned from their side, only when another wormhole ends up exiting there.

Scanning and confirming a wormhole is there is probably a years-long affair. From the Manticore Ascendant series, we know Axelrod and later the SKM itself knew there was a wormhole because of decades of data from transiting ships, and even then Axelrod had to send a dedicated survey ship to confirm. I'd even go as far as saying that they don't know at 100%, but just something like 98%. Enough to pay for the invasion, but there's still a possibility it is not a wormhole. This means that doing so at random stars in the Galaxy is uneconomical.

tlb wrote:I am not sure that is true. The picture I have always had was that a wormhole has a slight possibility of forming anywhere, but then its location can wander until being anchored by a star. So they are most likely to attach to the most common star type, but could attach to a red giant or something small instead.

If that were correct then destroying the star would just cause the wormhole to wander until it becomes attached to some other star.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Whereas I've had the impression this is sampling bias. We've found those wormholes around these stars because that's where they've been looked for. They can attach to red dwarfs (M) or at least to orange dwarfs (K), but those uninhabited systems are usually not scanned from their side, only when another wormhole ends up exiting there.

Scanning and confirming a wormhole is there is probably a years-long affair. From the Manticore Ascendant series, we know Axelrod and later the SKM itself knew there was a wormhole because of decades of data from transiting ships, and even then Axelrod had to send a dedicated survey ship to confirm. I'd even go as far as saying that they don't know at 100%, but just something like 98%. Enough to pay for the invasion, but there's still a possibility it is not a wormhole. This means that doing so at random stars in the Galaxy is uneconomical.

I have tracked down the other threads where this was discussed (which include relevant quotes). The first one is more recent, but is in the middle of a different discussion. They discuss the possibility of a wormhole binding to a star with the strength of the bond depending on the stars mass and the possibility of unbinding due to relative motions. Since the relative number of stars decreases with increasing mass, this would result in most wormholes binding to stars of the size most likely to have planets.

"Why are you still alive?"
Improbability of wormholes connecting to habitable planets

tlb wrote:"Why are you still alive?"
Improbability of wormholes connecting to habitable planets

And as the title of that latter (but older) thread indicates, this is statistically improbable. There either is a huge sampling bias, or unexplained physics causing them to be that way. Or both, actually. We do know that they don't know all there is to know about wormholes and much of it is still unknown. That the original theory said that wormholes couldn't exist in binary systems, but the MWHJ exists is an indication. The other is The Twins, which I think we've been told no one in the MAlign knew how to explain.

Or, as the last post on the "Why are you still alive" page you linked above (from me) suggests: wormholes are artificial in nature. Maybe they're from the Alphanes.

For the purposes of storytelling, it makes sense that they are like they are. They permit trade and allow for interesting tactical and strategic considerations, that randomly-placed wormholes wouldn't. In Derek Künsken's "The Quantum Magician" universe, the wormholes (Axis Mundi) are even rarer and are possession of them is the difference between a superpower like the Venusians and a minor nation... until something changes and proves that wormholes are just about everywhere, just extremely difficult to detect (trying not to spoil here; TQM is actually very good hard sci-fi I recommend reading)

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Or, as the last post on the "Why are you still alive" page you linked above (from me) suggests: wormholes are artificial in nature. Maybe they're from the Alphanes.

Saying they are artificial is just a way to say as yet "unexplained physics", while spuriously mixing in Ancient Aliens. A lot is known, so it is possible to say that there is more to find without the need to invoke intelligent design.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Or, as the last post on the "Why are you still alive" page you linked above (from me) suggests: wormholes are artificial in nature. Maybe they're from the Alphanes.

tlb wrote:Saying they are artificial is just a way to say as yet "unexplained physics", while spuriously mixing in Ancient Aliens. A lot is known, so it is possible to say that there is more to find without the need to invoke intelligent design.

Well, "it's never aliens" is a good starting point for unexplained physics phenomena, otherwise everything would be about aliens and we'd never find the natural explanations.

But there are aliens in the Honorverse, 12 or 13 known species, with 11 of them still extant. David has hinted that one of them is trading with humans so must have somewhat similar technological levels. But if there are at least 14 known sentient species, why shouldn't there be others? And why couldn't they have created the wormholes?

There's of course the problem of "what happened to them?" A multi-stellar advanced civilisation doesn't die out. They're not vulnerable to any single Extinction-Level Event, unless you can conjure up one that would sterilise the entire Galaxy. And even then, one would expect them to see it coming and do something about it, like storing themselves for revival later. That's especially true for a civilisation with FTL, because they can outrun anything natural. Something artificial only moves the goalpost, because it would mean there's another civilisation that would need to have disappeared.

To me, ascending is an insufficient explanation. It requires everyone, without exception to do it. In a civilisation with a trillion individuals, you can expect dissenters.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:To me, ascending is an insufficient explanation. It requires everyone, without exception to do it. In a civilisation with a trillion individuals, you can expect dissenters.

If you please, what do you mean by "ascending" and its dissent?

Daryl wrote:To mix up our universes, John Ringo's Troy would do it. A hollowed out iron asteroid with motive power.

Wbich would get turned into plasma within a minute.