Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

[RedDwarfIV]

Zakharra, in most cases the crew is sitting on a tube that is 80% hydrogen. That hydrogen can explode. If that's likely, the crew does not want to be near the hydrogen. In many cases it may not be possible, or may simply be pointless, to seperate. But having the capability is important. Only something that large could hold the entire crew for a useful amount of time, whilst still having a primary use to ensure it's not dead weight 99.9999% of the time. There are many reasons why you might want to get the crew away while the rest of the vessel does something else. For instance:

- Imminent Engine Section explosion
- Crippling combat damage, but with weapons remaining operational
- Main drive failure on a sub-orbital trajectory
- In one instance in a forum RP, I had a spacecraft seperate its nose and habitation sections to act as a makeshift diplomatic space station, while the engine and utility sections return home to report a first contact
- Rear-guard action

Though none of these are automatically reason to seperate. The situation might call for riding the vessel down in flames. (except sub-orbital. There's no reason to burn up in re-entry.)

As for surrendering, the idea is that the crew gets to survive. The spacecraft itself is more expendable. If the spacecraft still has some fight in it, or if the crew would prefer to be picked up by friendlues than enemies, it can make sense to have the rest of the craft remain a combatant while the crew sits it out.


Just because it's not indicative of surrender by modern standards, doesn't mean it can't be indicative of it in the future. For a start, modern weapons don't have an AI gunner as back up should the crew abandon ship.


Antimatter is too rare to be used as a fuel in my 'verse (they have no... 'Taimat'? equivalent.) The best accelerating drives are ORION, ICF and fusion torches. A corvette might get 40Gs with an ORION drive, but a cruiser might be lucky to get 3Gs. The maneuvers they pull don't put a lot of stress on them. Plus, having them be built in sections allows sections to be removed, added or replaced as neccesary, often to optimise for doing particular missions.

[dragoongfa]

Repeating my question from earlier and adding a couple of others that are telepathy related:

Quick question:

Is the Loroi longevity (400 year natural lifespan) a trait of all Soia-Lyron species/organisms or just something unique to the Loroi?

If it's unique (or even relatively unique) to the Loroi it would be one more tool for Loroi propaganda, being made to the image of the Soia's and all.

EDIT: It would also make sense if the Loroi were still at the 'prototype' stage of development when the Soian empire collapsed; since it's better to have long living test subjects for both the control group and for observation on a natural habitat.

Is the Mannadi telepathic 'shield' of a different kind than the Human one? I.e. Do the Loroi 'feel' the same or a vastly different thing when they touch them?

[Mr.Tucker]

Well, I may be wrong about this, but, from he way it's phrased, it seems the Mannadi don't have a ''shield'', rather they are blurry to telepathy. Harder to read or detect at comparable ranges. Like the Loroi can't make them out. However harder does not mean invisible, rather it means the Loroi need to be closer. Humans, on the other hand, and judging from Loroi reaction, simply do not register. Not even a blip. Kinda like the Tau of Warhammer 40k, they have no presence in the ''warp''. Seems to be quite extraordinary.

Also I think the Mannadi mention serves to highlight just how dependent the Loroi are on their farseers. And judging by how salty they were, and how much they hated the Mannadi for their resistance, I can see them being veeery circumspect about humans.

[Arioch]

All Soia-Liron organisms share similar biochemistry, and so they all share some degree of efficient metabolic processes, rapid maturation, and longevity. Neridi have a similar lifespan to Loroi. Barsam have higher than normal regeneration rates (and thus can heal more quickly), but also have correspondingly shorter lifespans.

Well, I may be wrong about this, but, from he way it's phrased, it seems the Mannadi don't have a ''shield'', rather they are blurry to telepathy. Harder to read or detect at comparable ranges. Like the Loroi can't make them out. However harder does not mean invisible, rather it means the Loroi need to be closer. Humans, on the other hand, and judging from Loroi reaction, simply do not register.

That's essentially correct. Mannadi are difficult, but not impossible, to read or detect.

[Hālian]

Is it possible for a human to either lose their lotai or never possess it in the first place? and if so, how?

[dragoongfa]

Is it possible for a human to either lose their lotai or never possess it in the first place? and if so, how?

That sounds spoilerish

Also thanks for the answers Arioch.

[Mr.Tucker]

Again, I may be wrong about this, but what the Loroi define as ''lotai'' is a conscientious effort by a person to hide their thoughts. From our viewpoint, it's pretty clear that Alex is doing nothing to actively shadow his thoughts. Then again, maybe the Loroi refer to lotai as any form of psychic masking or are not sure if he's doing it actively and just assume he is. Also, I'm not sure that lotai hides one from farseer detection as well as mind-reading. That's something only Arioch can answer. I suspect however that human psychic resistance is down to the physiological characteristics of the brain. No turning it off or on or losing it, it's like a cheetah's speed (a combination of traits). It's probably no coincidence that the apparent ''template'' species for Loroi (and Loroi brains) is also the only known one that's a ''Void in the Force'' .

Also, yeah,.....Spoilerish

[dragoongfa]

I have my own theory of this but it will be posted when the time comes.

[Zakharra]

Zakharra, in most cases the crew is sitting on a tube that is 80% hydrogen. That hydrogen can explode. If that's likely, the crew does not want to be near the hydrogen. In many cases it may not be possible, or may simply be pointless, to seperate. But having the capability is important. Only something that large could hold the entire crew for a useful amount of time, whilst still having a primary use to ensure it's not dead weight 99.9999% of the time. There are many reasons why you might want to get the crew away while the rest of the vessel does something else. For instance:

- Imminent Engine Section explosion
- Crippling combat damage, but with weapons remaining operational
- Main drive failure on a sub-orbital trajectory
- In one instance in a forum RP, I had a spacecraft seperate its nose and habitation sections to act as a makeshift diplomatic space station, while the engine and utility sections return home to report a first contact
- Rear-guard action

Though none of these are automatically reason to seperate. The situation might call for riding the vessel down in flames. (except sub-orbital. There's no reason to burn up in re-entry.)

As for surrendering, the idea is that the crew gets to survive. The spacecraft itself is more expendable. If the spacecraft still has some fight in it, or if the crew would prefer to be picked up by friendlues than enemies, it can make sense to have the rest of the craft remain a combatant while the crew sits it out.


Just because it's not indicative of surrender by modern standards, doesn't mean it can't be indicative of it in the future. For a start, modern weapons don't have an AI gunner as back up should the crew abandon ship.


Antimatter is too rare to be used as a fuel in my 'verse (they have no... 'Taimat'? equivalent.) The best accelerating drives are ORION, ICF and fusion torches. A corvette might get 40Gs with an ORION drive, but a cruiser might be lucky to get 3Gs. The maneuvers they pull don't put a lot of stress on them. Plus, having them be built in sections allows sections to be removed, added or replaced as neccesary, often to optimise for doing particular missions.

all of that is interesting stuff, but in regards to warships, you -don't- want to have large sections of it capable of separating from the rest of it because those separation points are such serious failure points. You -want- the ship, whether a scout, a corvette, a cruiser or battleship, to be able to handle the stress that combat maneuvers put on the hull and hull frame structure. Even if a heavy/battle cruiser or battleship type might not be as maneuverable as a corvette or a scout, they still have to be able to maneuver as fast as they can, while carrying heavier armor and weapons. Those larger ships are putting a LOT of stress on their frames. They all have to have a solid hull and frame/superstructure. Maybe a civilian craft could have the nose/front of the entire ship be detachable like the Galaxy class ships saucer sections were, but having that as a standard part of a military craft is stupidity. If you're worried about getting the crew to safety, use escape pods. That's what they are designed for, like lifeboats. A military ship's purpose is to be able to fight, this means it has to have several overriding functionality

hi hi

Well, you asked the question, and I just happen to have the TNG technical manual on a shelf right next to me.

Without the structural integrity field, the vehicle would be unable to withstand accelerations greater than 7.4 m/sec^2. ...SIF conductivity elements are incorporated into all major structural members. When energized by the SIF, the load-bearing capacity of these conductive structural elements is increased by up to 125,000% ...The latching system has been designed to accept a failure rate of 1.5 latch pairs per ten separations.

Honestly, in terms of terrestrial craft, it really isn't that unreasonable. Fighter Jets support themselves entirely on tiny, narrow "pylons" that extend out from their main hull, and are capable of enduring maneuvers well in excess of what their pilots can endure. As much as I like hard science fiction, the stylized design of the Enterprise is hardly the most unrealistic thing that Star Trek does.

That interesting to know about the GCS (I still think a structural integrity field to be rather foolish, especially if it has to be on all the time), but I am not surprised since Star Trek often violates the laws of physics, engineering and science on a regular basis with the verbal diarrhea that is the technobabble the shows spew out. With military craft, you want it to be able to hold together under incredible stress and in combat. Having a ship that could break apart into two pieces (or just fall apart entirely if the SIF fails) isn't smart military engineering. Then this IS Starfleet we are talking about. One of the least realistic militaries in the sci-fi universes. Which is more of a slap against thew writers of ST and Gene Roddenberry for their explicit lack of knowledge on how a military works and the need to make everything look cool. And to have a technobabble solution for every problem that they often come up with right then and it works nearly perfectly with no testing...

[Sweforce]

Again, I may be wrong about this, but what the Loroi define as ''lotai'' is a conscientious effort by a person to hide their thoughts. From our viewpoint, it's pretty clear that Alex is doing nothing to actively shadow his thoughts. Then again, maybe the Loroi refer to lotai as any form of psychic masking or are not sure if he's doing it actively and just assume he is. Also, I'm not sure that lotai hides one from farseer detection as well as mind-reading. That's something only Arioch can answer. I suspect however that human psychic resistance is down to the physiological characteristics of the brain. No turning it off or on or losing it, it's like a cheetah's speed (a combination of traits). It's probably no coincidence that the apparent ''template'' species for Loroi (and Loroi brains) is also the only known one that's a ''Void in the Force'' .

Also, yeah,.....Spoilerish

I can just see it, after quickly learning and then mastering "Crossfire" Alex mops the floor with his traveling companions. When asked about how he can read them with no sanzai (in crossfire, trying to read you opponent is apparently a big part) he simply answers: -Pokerface, you don't have it! Human lotai" at its best.

[RedDwarfIV]

To be fair, Zakharra, at the Gs the Enterprise pulls in a battle, I imagine any design, no matter how solidly built, would disintegrate without a SIF. Like in the Honor Harrington series - no vessel can survive their 500Gs acceleration without inertial compensators. Those compensators can and do fail. But it's not bad design, it's just a requirement of being able to go those accelerations. On the other hand, if it failed while they weren't moving, at least Honorverse vessels are capable of moving around at slow speeds. Enterprise would just be stuck.

As for docking, well, if you can find a way to prevent an ORION drive breaking up when it's running, you probably aren't going to have much of a problem with docked sections. A pusher plate would have a lot of mass, and it's moving with a lot more force than the rest of the spacecraft is capable of handling. But the design of it means it doesn't break the spacecraft.

Their combat maneuvers consist of 'use RCS to point spacecraft in new direction' and 'fire engine in new direction'. There's no air, so they aren't fighting drag. Even if they had strong RCS to push them around fast, they're putting very little stress on it overall compared to the engine. And in most cases, the engine section takes up 95% of the spacecraft anyway.

[icekatze]

hi hi

So let me get this straight. If someone has got a device that can improve the maneuverability of their craft by 125,000% and its only drawback is that it requires power, it is foolish to use said device? That's like saying that jet fighters are stupid designs because their engines have to be on all the time during combat. Obviously they should have just designed a better way to propel the craft by hand rather than using consumable fuels.

A Terran craft that can sustain 3Gs without needing an inertial dampener is still going to be vastly outmatched by a Loroi or Umiak craft that can sustain 20Gs with the use of an inertial dampener, even if that inertial dampener can potentially fail. Space craft require power, it is just a practical necessity of space travel.

(The Galaxy Class Starship is not a warship. It has defenses, but it is designed as a multipurpose Explorer. It's primary design objective is to "Provide a mobile platform for a wide range of ongoing scientific and cultural research projects." Enforcing policy is a distant third on the list, and still doesn't necessarily mean being a warship. Also, it can still travel at warp speeds without SIF or inertial dampeners, because that is simply folding space around them, so it isn't stuck in place.)

[dragoongfa]

What some people don't get is that the whole argument comes down to true science fiction vs science fantasy.

Star Trek is Science Fantasy where magic has just been replaced by super advanced tech. The problem with this genre is that writers use technobable as a get out of trouble free card. Star Trek has done it too many times and the story has lost any suspense potential, for me at least.

True Science fiction on the other is still 'fiction' but writers take the setting seriously enough to provide a plausible futuristic setting while maintaining suspense through real futuristic hardships.

Science Fantasy is the escapism of sci-fi, there to provide entertainment by using an implausible setting while maintaining some suspense with proper usage of characters. The problem is that the implausible setting is ripe for abuse.

In short don't take Star Trek seriously because frankly the setting itself isn't serious; Star Trek's strength lies with the characters; not the ships, the tactics or the tech.

[icekatze]

hi hi

People will generally be able to accept a lot of really unrealistic things in a setting, but one thing people have very little tolerance for is when the writers start changing the rules within said setting. I can accept that the ships in Outsider have unobtainable thrust and delta v potentials, but if Alex is ever facing certain death and suddenly gets the idea to pull a couple levers and inexplicably double their acceleration and escape, it might be straining on suspension of disbelief.

I would probably rate Outsider as being either 3 or maybe 2.5 on the Mohs Scale of Sci Fi Hardness , depending on how Loroi telepathy actually works.

(In my own opinion, early Trek did a decent job of keeping things unexplained enough that they'd have some narrative leeway, and the tech-nonsense didn't really get out of hand until some time into the Rick Berman/Brannon Braga era. Part of their problem was that they seemed to lose the ability to leave anything to the imagination.)

[Zakharra]

To be fair, Zakharra, at the Gs the Enterprise pulls in a battle, I imagine any design, no matter how solidly built, would disintegrate without a SIF. Like in the Honor Harrington series - no vessel can survive their 500Gs acceleration without inertial compensators. Those compensators can and do fail. But it's not bad design, it's just a requirement of being able to go those accelerations. On the other hand, if it failed while they weren't moving, at least Honorverse vessels are capable of moving around at slow speeds. Enterprise would just be stuck.

As for docking, well, if you can find a way to prevent an ORION drive breaking up when it's running, you probably aren't going to have much of a problem with docked sections. A pusher plate would have a lot of mass, and it's moving with a lot more force than the rest of the spacecraft is capable of handling. But the design of it means it doesn't break the spacecraft.

Their combat maneuvers consist of 'use RCS to point spacecraft in new direction' and 'fire engine in new direction'. There's no air, so they aren't fighting drag. Even if they had strong RCS to push them around fast, they're putting very little stress on it overall compared to the engine. And in most cases, the engine section takes up 95% of the spacecraft anyway.

A SIF is not an inertial compensator. I was under the impression that the SIF's sole purpose is to hold the ship together. Not to counteract the effects on it because of its speed and movements. I was also under the impression that the SIF is needed just to hold the ship together whenever it moves, even at impulse speeds.

The Honorverse ships do use the inertial compensator (IC), but that is just to counteract the effects of their drives. They don't have SIFs, and their SDs are frikking huge compared to a Starfleet vessel. As far as I know most of the other ST vessels don't need a SIF to remain intact. If the GCS and others like it need the field to remain structurally sound, then it sounds like that is a flaw in their design if other ships as large or larger -don't- need a SIF for regular operations.

What some people don't get is that the whole argument comes down to true science fiction vs science fantasy.

Star Trek is Science Fantasy where magic has just been replaced by super advanced tech. The problem with this genre is that writers use technobable as a get out of trouble free card. Star Trek has done it too many times and the story has lost any suspense potential, for me at least.

True Science fiction on the other is still 'fiction' but writers take the setting seriously enough to provide a plausible futuristic setting while maintaining suspense through real futuristic hardships.

Science Fantasy is the escapism of sci-fi, there to provide entertainment by using an implausible setting while maintaining some suspense with proper usage of characters. The problem is that the implausible setting is ripe for abuse.

In short don't take Star Trek seriously because frankly the setting itself isn't serious; Star Trek's strength lies with the characters; not the ships, the tactics or the tech.

Very good point. I have seen how many trekkies do take the ST setting very seriously though. To them ST IS science fact.

[icekatze]

hi hi

I feel kind of silly for arguing this, cause Star Trek has been -especially in its later years- equally silly in terms of its use of science. But when it came to making iconic looking space ships, they did give the designs some thought at one point in time.

In Star Trek, every Starship has some form of SIF, from civilian transport ships and immobile space stations, to high performance warships like the Defiant which needed an extensively modified SIF to keep from tearing itself apart at full power. They work redundantly with the Inertial Dampener, but also protect against weapons and spatial anomalies, which are apparently everywhere in the Trek verse. In the Honorverse, the ships accelerate up to around 800 Gs (So they're in the same ballpark as far as size), but even they had some redundant systems. Without their ID, artificial gravity could reduce felt acceleration by about 50 Gs, but that is still going to be immensely outclassed in combat. Are they flawed designs because they can't operate at full capacity in the event of a system failure?

((Without inertial dampeners, or artificial gravity, Honorverse ships can't accelerate at much more than 9.8 m/s^2, which is not significantly different from the Enterprise's 7.4 m/s^2, both in the case of double system failures.))

Some of the ships in Outsider feature engines-on-pylons construction, and honestly, I'm ok with that. Arioch did his homework, but as much as I enjoy reading the Insider, that sort of thing can safely be left out of the story itself. Doing the work is no substitution for a good story, but it can help on the side.

---

And since this is the Loroi question and answer thread, I'm going to ask a question. What kind of data storage devices to the Loroi use?

[Arioch]

And since this is the Loroi question and answer thread, I'm going to ask a question. What kind of data storage devices to the Loroi use?

We discussed this a bit earlier in the thread.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Dang, so much for changing the topic. I knew there was more to that feeling of deja vu I was getting... Oh well, nevermind.

[Siber]

Hm. All the linked pages of late made me notice something about Tempo. Her lips are much bluer than the other Loroi, especially in comparison to the rest of her face. Is lipstick in the Loroi spy's bag of tricks, or is this just a quirk of character design?

[Razor One]

I'm guessing it stands out more because her skin tone seems to be a bit paler.